Summary of ASAP Results for Application to State and Local Programs. Volume I, ASAP Findings

Hawkins, Thomas E.; Scrimgeour, Gary J.; Krenek, Richard F.; Dreyer, Charles B. · 1976 · ROSA P / United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This 1976 report, prepared by the Southwest Research Institute for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), evaluates the first 3.5 years of the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP). Launched in 1970, ASAP represented a shift from technological fixes to a "systems approach" involving complex social engineering to address drinking-driving, which accounted for half of highway fatalities. The study analyzes ASAP’s successes, failures, and the new knowledge generated regarding highway safety, criminal justice, and public health integration. The research relied on independent reviews of narrative and statistical reports, alongside interviews with operational, management, and research personnel from 1970 to 1975. The report assesses ASAP against three criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, and fairness. It finds that while ASAP significantly improved efficiency—raising arrest rates and developing new processing models—it did not achieve immediate, dramatic reductions in alcohol-related highway deaths. The authors conclude that accident reduction is a distant goal because arrest rates remain low relative to the number of drinking drivers, and most offenders do not crash in any given period. Consequently, the study argues that controlling drinking-driving requires a permanent social commitment rather than short-term efforts. ASAP successfully demonstrated the feasibility of coordinating highway safety, criminal justice, and health care systems, though it did not identify optimal arrest rates or guarantee recidivism prevention. Key findings regarding program management indicate that ASAP staff lack line authority over countermeasure agencies, functioning instead through coordination, education, motivation, and information management. The report identifies distinct management phases: planning (requiring at least six months), implementation (often piecemeal and prone to collapse if countermeasures are not synchronized), operations (requiring constant monitoring due to system vulnerability), and continuation. Successful management required locating the ASAP unit within a governmental body with broad oversight, such as a city management office, rather than a single agency like police or health, to ensure neutrality and access to budget authorities. Project directors needed eclectic expertise in community management, alcoholism, and criminal justice, with success often tied to local familiarity and personal flexibility. The significance of the report lies in its redefinition of alcohol countermeasures as community action programs rather than mere highway safety initiatives. It establishes that while ASAP failed to produce uniform, immediate reductions in fatal crashes, it provided substantial achievements in system integration and operational knowledge. The findings imply that future programs must prioritize long-term institutional cooperation and fairness over quick statistical impacts. The report serves as a guide for state and local programs, emphasizing that effective alcohol safety requires sustained coordination among autonomous agencies and that the systems approach, while complex, is practical and beneficial for improving existing public safety and health infrastructure.

Key finding

The Alcohol Safety Action Program demonstrated that a coordinated systems approach for controlling drinking drivers is feasible and improves efficiency and fairness, but it did not produce immediate, uniform reductions in alcohol-related highway deaths or identify optimal countermeasures.

Methodology

review

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• dui enforcement

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: countermeasure evaluation