Alcohol Interlock Curriculum: 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 installation Why 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 research Control 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