Alcohol InterlockCurriculum:Research Summary

Research> This section contains the following information:

» Reductions in recidivism and crashes» Using the device in sentencing » Compliance with installation orders» Compliance with device post-installation» Predicting future offenses» Offenders’ opinions about interlocks» Impact on family» Interlocks and treatment» Removing the device» Costs and benefits » Strengths and limitations of the research» Future research needs» Conclusions

Recidivism> Research shows that alcohol interlocks reduce

recidivism among both first-time and repeat offenders (including hardcore offenders).

> More than 10 evaluations of interlock applications have demonstrated reductions in recidivism ranging from 35-90% (Voas and Marques 2003; Venzina 2002) with an average reduction of 64% (Willis et al. 2005).

> During the period of interlock installation (while the device is installed in the vehicle), interlock users have lower total recidivism rates than non-users.

Recidivism> A systematic review of 15 scientific studies

found that while interlocks were installed, the re-arrest rate of offenders decreased by a median of 67% (Elder et al. 2011).

> A Swedish study (Bjerre and Torsson 2008) revealed that the frequency of annual DWI offenses decreased approx. 60% among offenders who completed a two-year interlock program. » Similar reductions were found two to four years

after the removal of the interlock device.

Reductions in crashes> No conclusive research is available that

establishes a correlation between the use of interlocks and the prevention of alcohol-related crashes.

> Alcohol-related crashes are an infrequent occurrence and the low rate of interlock installation (approx. 20%) makes it difficult to create a pool of data to analyze (Fielder et al. 2012).

> Preliminary research by Marques et al. (2010) found that as interlock installation rates increased in New Mexico, the frequency of alcohol-related crashes decreased.

Using the device in sentencing> The rate of imposition of alcohol interlocks has

been historically low and inconsistent.

> Education for judges and greater supervision of offenders is needed to improve alcohol interlock installation compliance.

> If judges are aware of the benefits of the interlock device and the advancements in interlock technology, they are more inclined to enforce interlock orders.

Using the device in sentencing> Impediments to the imposition of the alcohol

interlock as a sanction include:» Appearance of harshness for first-time offenders and

leniency for repeat offenders (Vanlaar 2005).» Concern about cost to offenders (Robertson et al.

2006; Kanable 2010).» Concerns regarding the technological effectiveness

of the device, complications surrounding its use, and the effort required to monitor offender compliance.

» Lack of knowledge about whether and to what extent the alcohol interlock is effective.

» Lack of current/comprehensive information and educational materials has resulted in decision-making based on outdated information (Beirness 2001).

Compliance with installation> Many studies estimate that between 25-75% of

suspended or revoked drivers continue to drive (Waller 1985; Hagen et al. 1980; etc.).

> Recent research suggests that judges do not consistently impose interlock sentences and that offender non-compliance is common (DeYoung 2002).

> Repeat offenders are less likely to install an interlock (Voas and Tippetts 1997).

> Less than 20% of those offenders eligible to install the device over remaining fully suspended do (Voas et al. 1999).

> Compliance can be increased through the use of close supervision and monitoring of offenders (Zador et al. 2011).

Compliance with installationWhy are offenders non-compliant?> The device is accompanied by inconvenience and

feelings of embarrassment.> A long delay between a license

suspension/revocation and eligibility for an interlock teaches them that they do not need a license to drive.

> They do not want to pay the costs associated with the device.

Compliance incentives> Reduced fines;> Waiving/reducing insurance surcharges; > Reductions in the length of hard suspension; and, > Less attractive alternatives (e.g., house arrest).

Compliance with device post-installation> Once the interlock is installed, offenders often

try to circumvent the device in the first few weeks.» The tampering rates decrease over time as

offenders recognize the futility in attempting to circumvent the sophisticated technology (Vanlaar et al. 2010).

> Some offenders may drive a non-interlocked vehicle, however strong reductions in recidivism shown in research suggest this is infrequent behavior.

Compliance with device post-installation> Zador et al. (2011) found that non-compliance

could be reduced through:» Close supervision;» Installation of a data logger;» Provision of thorough interlock training at the

time of device installation; and, » Provision of information to offenders regarding

the consequences of circumvention, refusals, and failed breath tests.

Predicting future offenses> Research suggests that a high rate of

breath tests in excess of .02, particularly in the early morning hours are a good predictor of DWI recidivism (Beirness and Marques 2004).

> Several variables, but primarily more prior DWIs and more interlock warnings/failures logged during the first 5 months of interlock usage predict more than 60% of repeat DWI violations, with a false positive rate of less than 10% (Marques et al. 2001).

Offenders’ opinions> Most surveyed offenders are supportive of the

device and report that it is effective in preventing them from driving impaired (Beirness et al. 2007).

> Two types of concerns are usually raised by offenders regarding the alcohol interlock:» The social aspects such as embarrassment, stigma,

and frustration or inconvenience (Beirness 2001).» Technical challenges such as long warm-up times,

invalid samples, and the frequency of re-tests.

> Offenders in New Mexico stated that having a driver’s license was worth both the cost and inconvenience associated with the interlock (Marques et al. 2010).

Stakeholders’ opinions> As part of an evaluation of New Mexico’s interlock

program (Marques et al. 2010) interviewed stakeholders to learn about their perceptions. They noted the following:» Work best as a sanction for compliant offenders.» Allows offenders to continue a relatively normal life

while separating drinking from driving. » Interlocks do not have the ability to promote and

maintain abstinence. » Treatment and supervision are important. » Without timely reporting and graduated sanctions,

accountability for non-compliance is limited.

> These concerns can be addressed through education and training as well as device features (e.g., early recall).

Impact on family> Family members are generally supportive of the

interlock as it provides reassurance that their loved one is not driving while impaired (Beirness et al. 2007).

> Many families report a positive change in drinking behavior as a result of the interlock’s installation.

> Interlocks benefit families because offenders who install the device are not faced with the same transportation, financial, and familial consequences as their non-interlock counterparts.

> Common complaints are cost of device and inconvenience (Marques et al. 2010).

Interlocks and treatment> Alcohol interlocks serve as a nexus between

criminal justice sanctions and substance abuse treatment by restricting an offender’s driving privileges while giving them the opportunity to learn how alcohol consumption affects behavior (Beirness 2001).

> Interlocks were never intended to act as treatment for alcohol abuse.

> The device should be incorporated into a comprehensive rehabilitation program to reduce the likelihood of recidivism once it has been removed (Beirness et al. 2003).

Interlocks and treatment> An example of a program that incorporates

treatment is the Interlock Enhancement Counseling program in Colorado. » All participants must install the interlock and

attend cognitive behavioral treatment and motivational interviewing (Timkin and Flavia 2011).

> Nova Scotia’s interlock program also includes a rehabilitative component. During their time in the program, offenders must participate in on-going rehabilitation counseling sessions.

Removing the device> Numerous studies demonstrate that alcohol

interlocks have a beneficial impact on recidivism as long as the device is installed in the vehicle (Beirness 2001; Marques et al. 2001; DeYoung 2002; Raub et al. 2003).

> As a consequence of increased recidivism following the removal of the device, several studies have reported that employing interlocks may be necessary as a long-term or permanent condition of driving for repeat offenders (DeYoung 2002; Raub et al. 2003).

Removing the device> More recent studies have begun to note

declines in recidivism that are maintained following the removal of the interlock (Bjerre and Torsson 2008; Marques et al. 2010)

> Rauch et al. (2011) found that offenders who participated in a two-year administrative program had a 26% reduction in recidivism during the intervention and a 26% reduction in recidivism during a two-year post-intervention period.

Costs vs. benefits> The findings of an overview of cost-benefit

analyses demonstrate that new vehicle safety features, including the alcohol interlock, are some of the most cost-effective measures and contribute to the largest reductions in fatalities (ERSO 2006).

> Installing the alcohol interlock in the vehicles of all impaired drivers would have an estimated benefit-cost ratio of 8.75 (Elvik 1999).

> Mass production of the interlock would also drastically reduce the cost of the device.

Strengths of existing research> Highly comparable findings from several

studies and a convergence of evidence demonstrated by a majority of these studies.

> Sufficient overall sample sizes to allow for broad application of findings.

> Wide range of offender status and populations examined as comparison groups.

> Reliably measured findings (through comparison groups).

Strengths of existing research> Alcohol interlock research covers a broad

spectrum of studies conducted worldwide (Europe, United States, and Canada).

> Available body of research focuses not only on private vehicles but on commercial and public vehicles as well.

> Evaluations of court-based and administrative programs.

> Research is summarized in a meta-analysis.

Limitations of existing researchControl groups> Inability and lack of resources to select a

comparison group equivalent to the interlock (experimental) group.

Selection bias> DWI offenders assigned to an interlock

program often present the highest risk of re-conviction which may lead to findings that are much different from conclusions drawn from a group of volunteers.

> Impact of judicial discretion (Coben and Larkin 1999); judges do not impose sanctions randomly.

Future research needs> Effectiveness of interlocks in reducing

alcohol-related crashes;> Optimal structure for interlock programs;

> Monitoring function for interlock programs;

> Process evaluations of interlock programs;

> Outcome evaluations of interlock programs; and,

> Interaction between interlocks and treatment.

Conclusions> Alcohol interlocks help reduce recidivism for both

first-time and repeat (hardcore) offenders.

> Once the device is removed, recidivism rates may return to pre-interlock levels, specifically for hardcore offenders.

> Historically, the interlock has been inconsistently imposed as a sentence and participation rates have been low.

> More education is needed for judges in order to combat the misconceptions that act as sentencing barriers.

Conclusions> Offender compliance with installation orders can be

an issue but it may be overcome by offering incentives such as reduced fines and sentences, and waiving/reducing insurance surcharges, as well as good follow-up.

> Tampering and circumvention attempts decrease over time as offenders realize that they cannot bypass the technology.

> Offenders and their families generally have a positive response to the device. Stakeholders are also supportive of its use and view it as an effective tool.

Conclusions> The interlock is not a substitute for treatment and it

should be incorporated into a comprehensive rehabilitation program to reduce the likelihood of recidivism after the device is removed.

> Existing research has numerous strengths; limitations center around issues associated with comparison groups and selection bias.

> Future research should look at the effectiveness of interlocks in reducing alcohol-related crashes, optimal structure for interlock programs, the monitoring function of the interlock, process and outcome evaluations, and the interaction between the interlock and treatment.

13.05.09