Alcohol Interlock Curriculum:

ImplementationSummary

Implementation This section contains the following information:

• Goals of the program• Common types of programs• Program funding• Key components of legislation• Drafting legislation• Eligibility requirements• Ensuring installation• Reporting• Workload activities • Streamlining offender monitoring• Treatment interventions• Exiting the program• Rural jurisdictions• Conclusions

Goals of the program Incapacitation – to prevent the offender from starting or

driving their vehicle once they have been drinking.

Deterrence – general and specific deterrence through the imposition of sanctions on convicted offenders.

Punishment – the device reminds the offender that their behaviour is unacceptable and forces them to recognize the consequences of their actions.

Rehabilitation – the device can facilitate behaviour change in conjunction with an appropriate treatment intervention.

Other benefits – offender maintains family ties, employment, access to community services and support.

Common types of programs There are two different types of

implementation strategies that are used to apply alcohol interlocks to impaired drivers in North America:• court-based applications• licence-based applications

Court-based applications The alcohol interlock device is applied by

the courts either pre-trial or post-conviction.

Advantages include:• The court has the legal authority to ensure compliance with the

alcohol interlock order.• Courts are in a better position to monitor offenders as this

function is a regular activity for courts and the infrastructure is frequently already in place.

• Courts can require offenders to install the device pre-trial as opposed to waiting for adjudication. This can minimize opportunities for unlicenced driving pre-adjudication.

• Courts are better positioned to require offenders to participate in treatment in conjunction with the alcohol interlock supervision period.

Licence-based applications The department of motor vehicles (DMV) or

its equivalent applies the alcohol interlock as a condition of licencing for suspended drivers or as a condition for reinstatement.

Advantages include:• These applications are often more uniformly applied to

offenders throughout a state. • A smaller number of agencies/departments may be

involved in these applications so communication and paperwork can be streamlined.

Program funding Alcohol interlock programs are funded using

an offender-pay scheme. More jurisdictions are examining a variety of

strategies to accommodate indigent offenders. The devices average approximately US $70.00

for installation and an additional US $70.00 monthly for monitoring.

The cost of the alcohol interlock device is $3-$4 per day or about the cost of a drink.

Costs may be higher in rural jurisdictions. Generally, as the number of offenders in the program increases, the price decreases.

Key components of legislationVehicle ownership is not requiredDriving a non-interlocked vehicleTampering or circumventing the deviceProviding a breath sampleRequesting a breath sampleProviding a non-interlocked vehicle to a

restricted driver

Drafting legislation Important considerations:

• Enforcement is a critical element to ensure the effectiveness of any laws. Police must be able to enforce the law to create a deterrent effect.

• Alcohol interlock legislation should be drafted with consideration of existing drunk driving legislation to avoid creating loopholes.

• In combination with good legislation, jurisdictions also require supporting policy that enables agencies to effectively apply and enforce these laws.

Drafting legislationThere appears to be a growing trend

towards alcohol interlock legislation to target both first and repeat offenders.

While research supports the use of alcohol interlocks with first offenders (EMT Group 1990; Morse and Elliot 1992; etc.), such an approach does carry with it substantial resource, staffing and infrastructure implications that must be addressed.

Eligibility requirements In most jurisdictions, which offenders are

eligible to install an alcohol interlock is determined by statute in conjunction with the program authority.

In excess of forty U.S. states mandate an alcohol interlock for repeat drunk drivers.

In addition, many jurisdictions also require high-BAC offenders to install an alcohol interlock and/or test refusers.

Eligibility requirements General requirements that offenders

must meet before an alcohol interlock is installed:• Payment of outstanding fines and fees;• Completion of the “hard” licence suspension period

with no additional driving offences;• Completion of any rehabilitation program; and• Permission from the vehicle owner for installation.

Research suggests that offenders should have an alcohol interlock installed as soon as possible to reduce opportunities for unlicenced driving.

Ineligible offenders Offenders who use drugs, and those who kill or

seriously injure others as a result of a drunk driving crash are generally deemed to be ineligible to install an alcohol interlock.

It is important to note that those offenders who are consistently non-compliant should not be removed from the program.• These offenders pose the greatest risk to the public and

should be required to remain on the device until they can demonstrate control of their drinking.

Ensuring installation It is essential that program authorities are able

to confirm that offenders have the alcohol interlock device installed on a vehicle.

Research shows that 20-25% of offenders will fail to install the alcohol interlock (EMT Group 1990; DeYoung 2002).

To reduce the likelihood that offenders fail to install the device, courts and licencing agencies can rely upon two important strategies:• Require offenders to produce the certificate of installation.• Good communication across agencies to confirm that alcohol

interlocks are installed, and that police are able to identify interlock-restricted drivers.

Reporting The alcohol interlock records information that enables

the program authority to monitor offender behaviour and track the use of the vehicle.

Devices capture date and time-stamped information including:• all breath tests (including tests to start the vehicle as well as

running retests) and the BAC level of each breath test;• failure to submit breath tests when required to do so;• each time the vehicle is turned on and off;• all attempts to tamper with, circumvent, or remove the device;• failure to turn off the vehicle following a failed breath test;• the mileage driven;• the time period during which the car was driven;• lockouts to the vehicle;• early recalls; and, • use of the emergency override option (if activated).

Reporting Important pieces of information that should be

reported to the monitoring agency, in addition to client and vehicle information, mileage, and date of servicing, include:• alcohol positive breath tests (above the pre-set limit);• failure to provide tests as required;• tampering and circumvention attempts; • vehicle lockouts and/or early recalls; and• use of the emergency override feature.

Any activities that are designated a violation within a jurisdiction should be reported by the service provider.

Workload activitiesMonthly reports

• In most jurisdictions, offenders are to appear at the service center every 30 days to have the data downloaded from the device and reviewed.

• Service providers report only critical events or program violations (e.g., high-BAC tests, missed retests) as required by the program authority, so the information from the data recorder is filtered before the agency receives it.

Workload activities Violations

• Jurisdictions define violations in different ways, but generally multiple failed tests relating to starting the vehicle may occur before a violation is registered.

• Other actions that are often deemed violations include trying to start the vehicle without a breath sample or failing to provide a retest when required.

• Research shows that the level of offender compliance with the device increases over time. Violations are more common immediately following installation and then gradually decline as the offender becomes familiar with the device (Vanlaar and Robertson 2008).

Streamlining offender monitoring Monitoring offenders on alcohol interlock devices is

the linchpin to effectiveness and pivotal to deterring future offending.

Monitoring is often the weakest element of alcohol interlock programs and the gap that offenders are most likely to ‘slip through.’

Often monitoring is inconsistent or non-existent for a variety of reasons:• poor communication between agencies; • variations and confusion in reporting paperwork and practices; • a lack of training among practitioners regarding the

interpretation of reports; • inadequate knowledge about what actions can or should be

taken in response to events; and,• insufficient staff and resources to review reports and follow-up

with offenders.

Streamlining offender monitoringPractical things that can be done to

streamline offender monitoring include:• designating responsibility for monitoring;• establishing a good reporting system;• understanding the reports;• taking action in response to violations and

compliance;• allocating staff; and,• facilitating monitoring.

Treatment interventions Alcohol interlocks, in combination with an

appropriate treatment program may facilitate behaviour change among offenders.

Treatment for alcohol abuse can be a lengthy process filled with setbacks and relapses (Beirness et al. 1998).

The alcohol interlock provides a safety net to ensure that relapses do not place the public at risk.

Treatment has the ability to do what the device cannot -- i.e., address the underlying drinking issue that leads to offending.

Treatment interventions Not all offenders will require or benefit from a

treatment intervention. Screening can help determine which offenders

can benefit from a treatment intervention. To date, alcohol education or treatment is

often required to be completed prior to the installation of the alcohol interlock. • This means that offenders have no support to help

control their drinking which may place the public at risk.• Also, the treatment provider cannot use the information

from the device to assist in the treatment process. Treatment should be provided in combination

with alcohol interlock supervision.

Exiting the program The program authority determines on what

basis offenders are removed from the alcohol interlock program.

Each jurisdiction requires alcohol interlock offenders to be supervised for varying periods of time – this can range from 3 months to several years and in rare instances, life.

Programs are moving towards a policy in which the device is removed based upon the performance of the offender.

Fewer violations results in a shorter period of supervision while more violations results in an extended period of supervision.

Exiting the program Research is needed to determine the optimal

amount of time that an offender should be supervised by an alcohol interlock.

Currently, research suggests a good estimate of time is a minimum of 6 months (Crime and Justice Institute 2004).

It is paramount that persistent non-compliant offenders remain on the alcohol interlock to ensure that they are unable to drive impaired.

Rural jurisdictions The delivery of services in an alcohol

interlock program is often dependent upon the availability of resources (e.g., agency infrastructure, financial support, human resources, available service providers).

Program authorities in rural jurisdictions are faced with challenges that those in urban settings are less likely to encounter. • Lower availability.• Lack of monitoring and reporting services. • Lack of education about alcohol interlocks• Less available time in court to handle violations.

Conclusions There are many different ways to implement alcohol

interlocks and there is no ‘one-size fits all’ model.

Key decisions that must be made include: who is eligible and ineligible for the program, who will take responsibility for certain parts of the program, and how workload will be defined and managed.

Without proper monitoring offenders are able to slip through the cracks and agencies will not reap the full benefits of supervision using this device.

Good communication is essential among all participants in the process including licencing officials, judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, probation officers, treatment professionals, and service providers.

Conclusions The overall goal should center on getting offenders

to consistently install these devices and retaining offenders in the driver licencing system so that they can be tracked and eventually re-licenced.

To be effective, an alcohol interlock program must be based on good policies and sound practices.

Practitioners should be consulted and engaged in the policy development process.

Offenders should be encouraged and supported to succeed.