This paper explores how social science research has informed recent immigration policy development in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Examples of research use, drawn from in-depth interviews with policy advisors and social science researchers working in the immigration area, are discussed using the stages model of policy development. Intersections between the stages and multiple-streams models of policy development, and Weiss's typologies of research use, are used to examine research use at various stages in the policy development process. The findings suggest that at any point in time there may be any number of policy development stages in action, with research exerting different types of influence, and being used in different ways, within each of these. A two-way conversation between researchers and policy-makers, building mutual understanding and enabling reciprocated influence over research and policy decisions, is shown as critical in bridging the research to policy gap.

This paper evaluates three approaches to compulsory breath testing (CBT) where all drivers stopped are tested: (1) intensive, moderate-profile CBT (plus zero alcohol tolerance for drivers under age 20, which was implemented simultaneously, remains in effect, and unavoidably is commingled with CBT in the effectiveness estimates); (2) CBT plus an enhanced media campaign; and (3) shifting to aggressively visible booze buses, which also streamlined drunk-driver processing, plus enhanced community campaigns against drunk-driving. Approaches 1 and 2 were implemented throughout New Zealand (NZ) in 1993 and 1995. Booze buses and community programs were added for about one-third of the country in late 1996. ARIMA time series models estimated the impact on serious and fatal injury crashes between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m., a proxy for alcohol-related crashes. A benefit-cost analysis assessed return on investment. Cost savings were analyzed from four perspectives: societal, governmental, drunk-drivers', and people other than drunk-drivers (external cost). CBT plus zero tolerance reduced expected night-time crashes by 22.1% and enhanced media by 13.9%. Booze buses yielded a further 27.4% reduction where implemented. The program and associated crash reduction persisted until at least 2001 (the most recent data available). Estimated societal benefit-cost ratios were 14 for CBT, 19 for CBT plus enhanced media, and 26 for the comprehensive package. Government saved more than it spent on the program, especially with booze buses. Aggressive CBT plus zero alcohol tolerance for youth, media blitzes, and booze buses proved dramatically effective. Together, these four interventions halved late night serious and fatal injury crashes. Sustained effort seems to be critical. Better outcomes may be achieved with staged, increasingly visible and inescapable checkpoints than with an "ideal" initial program. It appears CBT is best implemented in conjunction with broader community-centered efforts to reduce drunk-driving.

This paper presents policy-oriented measures of alcohol-related crash incidence and costs in New Zealand (N.Z.). Costs of crashes, where alcohol probably was a contributing factor were computed from official crash costs and police-reported crash/injury counts adjusted for under-reporting of crashes and of alcohol involvement. Alcohol-related crashes cost an estimated $1.2 billion in N.Z. in 1996. They equate to an estimated $0.75 per drink consumed, $17.80 per km driven above the legal limit of 0.08. and $1,100 per heavy drinker. People other than the drinkers, who caused the crashes, paid half the costs. An estimated one in 90 drunk-driving trips resulted in a crash (and often a drunk driving conviction) while one in 375 crash-free drunk driving trips also resulted in a drunk-driving conviction. Ten measures of alcohol-related crash incidence and costs are recommended for international use. They include number of alcohol-related deaths and injuries; innocent victims and children harmed in crashes caused by drinkers; annual costs and costs paid by people other than the drinker who caused the crash; crash costs per drink consumed, per heavy drinker, per kilometer driven drunk versus sober; probabilities of crash and of drunk-driving conviction.