1. Tiffini Diage University of Wisconsin, Madison

2. Objective  Ignition Interlock Device (IID) sentencing, impact on Wisconsin motor vehicle crashes? IID locks out vehicle ignition ○ Breath sample >0.02% BAC ○ Rolling re-test required

3. WI Alcohol Related MVC’s, 2007  17,847 people involved  Injuries - 4,190 Hospitalizations - 991 ED visits - 3199  Deaths - 331  50% were sober victims *CODES Data provided by Wayne Bigelow; Center for Health Systems Research and Analysis, University of Wisconsin – Madison

4. Proposed Wisconsin OWI Law  Mandatory IID Sentencing Requirements All repeat offenders (2 nd offense or more) All 1 st time offenders with BAC > 0.15  Offender pays $1,200 / device / year

5. Methods  Literature review – current evidence  Experience from other states  Impact analysis using Wisconsin data

6. Databases Reviewed, 2007 2007 DUI Convictions 1 st offense 2007 DUI Convictions 2 nd or repeat offense WI DOT FARS = Fatal Accident Reporting System WI DOT = Wisconsin Department of Transportation DUI Related Crashes Drivers w/ Prior DUI FARS

7. Results  Literature evidence IID’s lower recidivism while device is installed (Risk Ratio 0.05 – 0.33) Long-term effectiveness, uncertain  Experience from other states New Mexico ○ 85% reduction in recidivism ○ 25% reduction in alcohol related crashes California ○ Increase in non-alcohol related crashes with IID users compared on non-IID users

8. Wisconsin Data, 2007  FARS – 142 fatal crashes 30 with prior DUI’s (21%) 27 were 1 st offense, 3 were 2 nd offense  CODES – 4,190 injuries No information on priors or BAC  WI DOT - 40,260 DUI convictions 23,689 1 st offenders (58%) 16,571 2 nd – 13 th repeat offense (42%)

9. Findings  Impact of IID law on WI public health? Interaction with few fatal cases from 2007 Large potential impact on repeat offenders  Low “in use” recidivism Decrease drunk driving exposure Reduction in risk of alcohol related crashes  Forward evaluation: IID data fields in CODES and FARS

10. Discussion/Considerations  Political motivation vs. evidence based intervention  Ideology of policy based intervention? Punitive measure vs. prevention/treatment Could IID compliment treatment approach?  Proper evaluation is required for public health assessment Effectiveness, unintended consequences Data communication – i.e. sentencing, manufacturer, law enforcement

11. IID Data Motor Vehicle Crash Data

12. Acknowledgements  Timothy E. Corden, MD  Steven Hargarten, MD  Injury Research Center staff  Sergeant William Brown, Milwaukee Co. Sheriffs OWI Task Force Leader  WI Department of Transportation staff  Wayne Bigelow; Center for Health Systems Research and Analysis, University of Wisconsin – Madison