Screening programs collect a limited amount of information of dubious veracity.7,10 This study suggests that classifications based on program compliance and counselor recommendations, however, are useful in defining offender subgroups. Our findings demonstrate that the four screening classifications defined unique subsets of the DWI offender population. Screening groups differed not only in demographic characteristics, but had different treatment experiences and long-term rates of current SUD. The group that was determined to be at lowest risk, the ‘not referred to treatment’ group remained low risk over the next 15 years and had the lowest rate of current SUDs. While members of this group met diagnostic criteria for a SUD at screening and were less likely to report a current SUD diagnosis at follow-up, they were not less likely to report DOL at 15-year follow-up. The groups were similar with respect to DOL. This raises the question of whether interventions for impaired driving should be distinct from interventions directed solely at treating substance use problems.
