logo.gif (13378 bytes) spacer.gif (91 bytes)

 

 

Executive Summary

  1. Introduction
  2. Results of Workshop Discussions and Public Consultation
    1. Education and Prevention
    2. Impaired Driving Sanctions and Countermeasures
    3. Law Enforcement
    4. Alcohol and Other Drug Intervention Programs
      1. Defining "Treatment"
      2. Effectiveness of Mandatory Treatment
      3. The Potential Role of the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba (AFM) in Mandatory Treatment
      4. The Benefits of Mandatory Treatment Versus Potential Disruption to the AFM Program
      5. Whether a User Pay Approach Should be Used for Mandatory Treatment
      6. Measures for Rehabilitating Hardcore Repeat Impaired Drivers
      7. Other Rehabilitation and Treatment Measures

Home

 

II) Results of Workshop Discussions and Public Consultation

4) Alcohol and Other Drug Intervention Programs

a) What are your thoughts about whether "treatment" should include all of the elements of educational workshops, high-risk counselling and rehabilitation of chemically dependent persons or just focus on rehabilitation of chemically dependent persons?

  • Participants thought that the concept of "treatment " should not be limited to the rehabilitation of chemically dependent persons. Impaired driving and addictions are not synonymous and there are different interventions that different people need. For example, some offenders are just high-risk takers (driving, seatbelts and smoking) who don't take responsibility for their behaviour.
  • The concept of "treatment" has a lot of medical baggage and it may be better to refer to a concept of "interventions" that may not involve residential rehabilitation.

 

b) What are your thoughts about the merits of forced participation in an alcohol/drug assessment and intervention program for impaired drivers who are unwilling to participate in the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba (AFM) program?

  • Most participants thought that forced participation in intervention programs was a bad idea and would not be effective.
  • The reasons for opposition to mandatory participation were that only 30% of AFM clients actually need chemical dependency interventions, there is no reason to change the voluntary approach, there is no motivation in forced treatment when clients have no interest, forced clients will not show up for appointments (counsellors will be sitting idle), and the AFM would need more resources but who would pay for it?

 

c) What are your thoughts about the potential role for the AFM in delivering a mandatory alcohol/drug assessment and intervention program?

  • Workshop participants noted that most provinces do not have a program like the AFM. It is an effective system that helps motivate people to make changes. However, they thought that forcing offenders into the program would not work; "You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink".
  • Workshop participants were also concerned about how the costs of mandatory participation would be covered and who would be responsible for service delivery when dealing with First Nation's clients and communities.
  • One public consultation respondent thought that the AFM process did not adequately check if clients were staying sober and was concerned about using it for a mandatory intervention program.
  • Other public consultation respondents thought the AFM could handle a mandatory intervention program and that reluctant mandatory clients who were disruptive should be sent to jail.

 

d) What are your thoughts about the value of forced participation versus the potential of disruption to the AFM program by reluctant participants?

  • The consensus of the Workshop discussion groups was that mandatory programs and assessment do not work. Mandatory participation would have a negative impact and is potentially destructive. Voluntary participation is the most successful approach.
  • Public consultation respondents recognized that forced participation could result in disruptive clients but they thought that should not be a problem because the AFM already has to deal with some disruptive clients, and the disruptions would lessen if difficult clients were forced to pay the AFM program fee over and over again.

 

e) What are your thoughts about providing a mandatory alcohol/drug assessment and intervention program on a user pay basis?

  • The consensus of the Workshop discussion groups was that mandatory programs should not be implemented.
  • Most public consultation respondents favoured having a user pay requirement for mandatory intervention programs and thought that might act as a deterrent to repeat offending. However, one respondent thought that the ability of an offender to pay should be considered before he or she was required to pay for the intervention program.

 

f) What, if any, measures can be taken to address the problem of rehabilitating hardcore repeat impaired drivers?

  • An effective rehabilitation strategy could include a restricted licence and an ignition interlock monitoring device (operated on a user pay basis).
  • Have them attend the "AA" program or other support groups.
  • Consider removing the licence and vehicle from the offender and ending their right to drive.
  • Consider requiring them to attend a mandatory victim impact panel (used in US) or counselling sessions with the victim or the victim's family.

 

g) Are there any other changes or new measures in the rehabilitation and treatment field that should be considered by the Government of Manitoba?

  • Consider having "Drug Courts" for cases involving substance abuse (same judge each time and monitored curfews). It is costly, but has been effective in Toronto, BC and the US.
  • Consider having victim impact panels as a mandatory part of sentencing (used in the US and Ontario).
  • Consider spending more time on the assessment of the offender in order to determine the most appropriate intervention.
  • It may be better to deal with hardcore repeat offenders separately from first offenders and they should not be in the same group.

 

Top of page

Disclaimer and Copyright