Skip to main content
Intoxicated Driver Program Best Practices Guide

Section 4: Assessments

The client assessment is a key component of Intoxicated Driver Program (IDP), but the process is neither therapeutic nor punitive.

While there is limited data on the specific efficacy of IDP assessments, broader research supports the effectiveness of Screening, Brief Interventions, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for individuals with alcohol and drug use issues. In Wisconsin, the IDP assessment often serves as an early intervention opportunity; a critical entry point into treatment for individuals with substance use disorders, as well as a tool for education and risk reduction for those who do not meet diagnostic criteria.

Assessors should engage in continuing education to maintain their knowledge of IDP assessment processes, including the Wisconsin Assessment of the Impaired Driver (WAID).

Parts

The IDP assessment is a structured process. Agencies should allocate adequate time for:

  • Conducting a client interview.
  • Completing and scoring the WAID accurately.
  • Developing an individualized driver safety plan (DSP) collaboratively with the client.

Assessors should plan to spend at least one hour completing the IDP assessment. Additional time may be required when collateral resources are used or when clients have complex histories. At no point during the IDP assessment should a clinical assessment take place.

Practices

While administrative codes specify allowable DSP services, they do not prescribe specific methods for how assessors should engage with clients during the assessment process. Assessors should incorporate evidence-based techniques such as:

  • Motivational interviewing: a collaborative counseling approach that helps clients explore and resolve ambivalence, strengthening their own motivation and commitment to change.
  • Trauma-informed care: a service framework that recognizes the impact of past trauma, prioritizing safety, trust, and empowerment in all interactions.

These approaches help foster trust, reduce resistance, and improve the accuracy of self-reported information.

Therapeutic interventions like cognitive-behavioral intervention may also be used.

Collateral information is not needed to conduct the WAID or IDP assessment. There is no statewide consensus on when and how collateral information should be used.

Collateral information includes information from:

  • Family, friends, employers, probation officers, prior providers, etc.
  • Client records and court access systems (example: Wisconsin CCAP).
  • Additional screening tools or substance use testing approved by Tribal nation or county IDP coordinators.

Some assessors use collateral information routinely, while others rely on it selectively based on the client’s presentation. Consider the following before using collateral information:

  • Can collateral information taint the assessor’s opinion/interaction with the IDP client?
  • Are there potential risks for the client or the person providing the collateral information when the collateral information is provided by a family member or partner (example: abuse/domestic violence)?
  • Are there risks to the client when the collateral information is provided by an employer/co-worker (example: loss of employment)?
  • Is there an inequitable burden for clients who are required to engage people with collateral information to participate in the assessment?
  • Is the collateral information from a reliable source? Will the source be knowledgeable and/or completely honest in their report of the client’s use?

Collateral information should only be consulted with the client’s informed consent in alignment with applicable confidentiality laws (42 CFR Part 2, HIPPA, etc., as applicable). This process should also follow agency policies that govern client rights and how to address uncooperative or unavailable collateral information sources.

WAID

The WAID remains the primary tool for all IDP assessments in Wisconsin. Only trained IDP staff may administer the WAID. Tribal nations and county IDP coordinators may approve use of additional screening tools when appropriate, as determined by the Tribal nation or county board with IDP responsibilities.

When using the WAID:

  • Approach clients with empathy, neutrality, and respect.
  • Ask open-ended questions during the interview.
  • Use therapeutic rapport to promote honest disclosure.

Assessors must use the WAID to fidelity. This means:

  • Selecting applicable criterion and certainty levels using professional judgment.
  • Using the WAID scoring rubric to determine the final WAID finding. In other words, the rubric is the final score, not professional judgment.
  • Avoiding diagnostic labels; the WAID produces a screening-level assessment, not a formal diagnosis.

When scoring the WAID:

  • Count selected criteria at each certainty level.
  • Use the rubric to identify which finding matches the selected criteria. The WAID determines an assessment finding, not a diagnostic finding.
  • Record one WAID finding on the DSP, even if multiple substances are discussed.

Assessors shall familiarize themselves with the WAID Handbook to ensure accurate and consistent administration of the criterion. Criterion should not be selected if sufficient evidence is not present. Assessors are to error on least restrictive when selecting criterion.

Challenges

Many IDP clients are “involuntary” participants, focused primarily on license reinstatement. Common behavioral responses to this when using the WAID are resistance, hesitation, or anger. Assessors are encouraged to seek support from supervisors or colleagues when needed. If situations persist, consider transitioning the client to another assessor within the assessment agency or to a neighboring agency as determined by policies and procedures.

The WAID was validated using lifetime substance use histories. This allows for identification of use patterns, recognition of historical attempts at abstinence or treatment, and contextual understanding of consequences over time. Lifetime use data can also overrepresent temporary phases (example: college binge drinking). Therefore, assessors shall use discretion to determine whether past use reflects enduring patterns relevant to the selection of WAID criterion.

Clients often report use of multiple substances. The WAID was validated using polysubstance use histories, and assessors should consider consequences across all substances when selecting criterion and avoid over-selection by carefully evaluating the impact of each substance. Remember, the WAID is alcohol-centric in language but valid for all substance types. The WAID was developed using the term “substance use” which is used to refer to alcohol and all other drugs. Assessors must report only one WAID finding per client. While multiple substances may be listed (primary, secondary), the scoring process produces a single, aggregate finding.

Go back - Section 3: Assessor Roles and Responsibilities
Next - Section 5: Driver Safety Plans

Glossary