SOCIAL ISSUES : Designated Driving Programs May Neglect Costs of Alcohol

Designated driver programs--touted in public service announcements proclaiming “the designated driver is the life of the party” and endorsed by President Clinton--have won the support of millions of Americans.

But few researchers have studied these programs to determine how--or even if--they work. And as a result, a backlash is developing. From critics who contend the programs actually encourage drinking to others who say they ignore the true ills that alcohol wreaks on American society, an increasing willingness is emerging to question conventional wisdom.

“I think it’s a big mistake to treat these programs as a panacea,” said Jim Mosher, a senior research fellow at California’s Marin Institute. “A designated driver program does not conflict with the marketing message of the alcohol industry--drink, drink frequently and have fun.”

Many in the alcohol industry--which supports the concept of choosing a driver who doesn’t drink when a group of people go out--say they believe critics of the idea are latter-day Carrie Nations. “They are neo-Prohibitionists,” charged Raymond McGrath, president of the Beer Institute.

There’s no doubt that alcohol-related traffic fatalities have declined significantly over the last several years. In 1980, 28,000 Americans died in alcohol-related car accidents. By 1993, the number had slipped to 17,461.

It is almost impossible to prove the effectiveness of the programs, since researchers can’t measure traffic fatalities that did not happen. Social scientists point out that many factors could account for the decline in the alcohol-related auto accidents. Since the early 1980s, when the drinking age in some places was raised to 21 from 18, police began stricter enforcement of drunk-driving laws and per capita alcohol consumption in the nation dropped.

“I think [the programs] are moderately effective,” said Wayne Harding, director of the Massachusetts-based Social Science Research and Evaluation Inc. “It reminds us we all have to be careful when drinking.”

Harding’s 1987 analysis of the designated driver concept found low participation rates among bar patrons. In a study of 40 public drinking establishments, more than half reported five or fewer uses of designated drivers by patrons in any given week.

George Hacker, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest, says he’s more concerned that the recent emphasis on preventing drunk driving results in people ignoring the other social costs that alcohol presents. From deaths caused by heart disease and cirrhosis of the liver, increases in spousal abuse and sexually transmitted diseases, Hacker contends that designated driver programs are too simple an answer for a complex problem.

Critics also contend that heavy media promotion of the designated driver idea implicitly encourages alcohol consumption in those under the age of 21. But backers point to public service announcements that emphasize the legal drinking age.

“We are simply acknowledging young people drink and are seeking to prevent slaughter on the nation’s highways,” said Jay Winston, associate dean of Harvard’s School of Public Health. “The opposition to designated driver programs is the same criticism put forward by people opposed to needle exchanges or condom distribution.”

Hacker and Mosher say they don’t disagree with the concept of designated driver programs. They say that combining them with such steps as raising excise taxes on alcohol and increasing advertising geared to encourage moderate drinking would benefit society without sending a mixed message.

A 1994 Gallup poll found that 64% of Americans had used designated driver programs when drinking. However, a more complex picture about drunk driving and designated-driver usage among college students was found in a recent Harvard survey.

When queried about their activities, more than 30% of students said they had driven with or served as a designated driver within the previous 30 days.

But 26.5% of the students said they had driven after drinking alcohol within the previous month.