1. IGNITION INTERLOCKS How To Use Them Effectively to Reduce Drunk Driving Richard Roth, PhD 2013 Lifesavers Conference April 14-16, 2013 Research Supported By NM TSB, NHTSA, PIRE, RWJ, and MADD

2. One Slide Summary! FORCE ALL drunk drivers to install IID’s (specific deterrence) Compliance Based Removal Advertise your IID Program (general deterrence) Research your success. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference2

3. License Revocation vs Interlock Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference3 Revoked Interlocked

4. Second and Third Offenders Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference4

5. First Offenders Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference5

6. Drunk Driver Plows into Mexican Bike Race One Dead, 10 Injured, June 1, 2008 6Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference This Is What We Want To Prevent

7. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference7 This is What I Want to Save

8. My Goal is to Reduce Drunk Driving by research to identify… and advocacy to implement… the most effective, cost-effective and fair initiatives. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference8

9. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference9 Recidivism: Interlock vs. Hard Revocation

10. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference10 44% Lower 54% Lower 62% Lower

11. 11Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference 4.

12. 12Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference 5.

13. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference13 6.NM Alcohol-Involved Fatalities Decreased 38%

14. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference14 Interlocks Up Fatalities Down

15. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference15 http://www.rothinterlock.org/2012surveyofcurrentlyinstalledinterlocksintheus.pdf

16. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference16

17. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference17

18. Federal Laws vs. Research 1. No interlock without prior period of hard license revocation for subsequent offenders. 2. Interlocked offenders may only drive to work, school, or treatment. 1A. Interlocks are more effective than hard revocation. 1B. Most revoked offenders drive while revoked, DWR. 1C. Offenders learn that they can get by with DWR. 2A. Ignored and Ineffectual 2B. Reduces sober-driving training. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference18 Before 2012

19. 2012 Highway Bill Removes Restrictions and Offers Grants 1.The Hard-revocation-period-before-interlock for subsequent offenders has been removed. 2.Federal restrictions on where and when an interlocked offender may drive have been removed. 3.Federal grants will be given to states that enforce an all-offender interlock law. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference19

20. 20 An Ignition Interlock is an Electronic Probation Officer Dedicated Probation Officer in Front Seat On duty 24 hours per day Tests and Records daily BAC’s Allows only Alcohol-Free Persons to Drive Reports All Violations to the Court/MVD Costs Offender only $2.30 per day (1 less drink per day) Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference Punishes Probation Violations Immediately

21. Why Interlock Drunk Drivers? 1.Interlocks are the most effective DWI sanction. 99.993% of Interlocked Days are No-DWI days*. 2.They are the most cost-effective sanction. The cost is $2.50/day paid by the offender. 3.They are perceived as fair by 85% of offenders 4.70% less recidivism than license revocation 5.They are paid for by offenders 6.They supply 24/7 supervised probation Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference21 * While 48,274 NM offenders were interlocked for 23,204,035 days, they had 1538 DWI arrests. That’s 1 arrest per 15,000 days

22. What Works? 1.All DWI offenders must be included 2.Must be mandatory not just voluntary 3.Avoid hoops: (pre-requisites to interlock) 4.Close loopholes 5.Compliance-Based-Removal 6.Triage to stiffer (and more costly) penalties 7.Indigent support 8.Promotion of General Deterrence Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference22

23. First Offenders are Biggest Problem Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference23

24. 24 BAC Distributions by Arrest Number Are Similar Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

25. Main Key to an Effective Program The key to an effective interlock program is simply getting interlocks installed in the vehicles of arrested drunk drivers. Nothing else…( reporting, inspecting, sanctioning, monitoring)… is as important. These extra program components definitely add effectiveness, but they should be added only to the extent that funds are available. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference25

26. Model Ignition Interlock Program by Dick Roth October 10, 2012 page 1 of 2 1.Mandatory Interlocks as a condition of probation for all convicted offenders. 1 yr. for 1 st, 2 yrs. for second, 3 yrs. for 3 rd, and 5 yrs. for 4 or more. 2.Electronic Sobriety Monitoring for convicted offenders who claim “no vehicle” or “not driving. Daily requirement of morning and evening alcohol-free breath tests as a condition of probation.(or $1000/yr. for supervised probation) 3.An ignition interlock license available to all persons revoked for DWI with no other restrictions. Allow MVD to set fee to cover cost. 26Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

27. Model Ignition Interlock Program by Dick Roth October 10, 2012 page 2/2 4.An Indigent Fund with objective standards such as eligibility for income support or food stamps. 5.Vehicle immobilization or interlock between arrest and adjudication. Offender’s choice……. By voiding Vehicle Registration until interlock is installed or offender is adjudicated not guilty..(Alternative: Interlock as a condition of bond) 6.Vehicle forfeiture for driving a non-interlocked vehicle while revoked for DWI. 7.Compliance Based Removal: No end to revocation period before satisfaction of at least one year of alcohol-free driving with an IID. (e.g.. ≥ 5000 miles and ≥ 1 year with no recorded BAC>0.05 by any driver). 8.Criminal sanction for circumvention of IID. 27Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

28. 28 Evidence of Effectiveness 1.Recidivism After a DWI Arrest 2.Recidivism After a DWI Conviction 3.Overall Statewide Recidivism vs. Time 4.Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Crashes 5.Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Injuries 6.Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Fatalities 7.Correlation between Interlocks Installed and Measures of Drunk Driving 8.New NHTSA Comparison Criteria: Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities per 100 MVM 9.Opinions of Interlocked Offenders Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

29. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference29 III.3

30. 30 I.2. Increase the Incentives Right to Drive Legally Required for an Unrestricted License Avoid Recording of First Conviction Shred Plate..Right to Re-register Vehicle Condition of Bond on arrest Condition of Probation on conviction Avoid Electronic Sobriety Monitoring Reduce or Avoid Jail time Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference Administrative Incentives Judicial Incentives >70% ~15%

31. 31 I.3. Eliminate Hoops No Pre-requisites for Interlock Period of Hard Revocation (Re-define) Fines and Fees Paid Outstanding legal obligations Alcohol Screening and Assessment Medical Evaluation DWI School Victim Impact Panel Community Service Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

32. 32 I.4. Close Loopholes Not convicted Waiting out Revocation Period “No Car” or “Not Driving” Excuse Driving While Revoked Driving a non-interlocked vehicle Few Warrants for Non-compliance Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

33. 33 I.5. Triage Up in Sanctions Extension of Interlock Period Photo Interlock Home Photo Breathalyzer Continuous BAC monitoring Treatment House Arrest Jail Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

34. III.6. What We Have Learned Given a choice, most offenders choose revocation over interlock …and they keep driving after drinking. First offenders must be included because they are 60% to 80% of all DWI offenders, and almost as likely to be re-arrested as subsequent offenders. There must be an Interlock License available ASAP. Revoked offenders are 3-4 times more likely to be re-arrested for DWI than interlocked offenders. Hard revocation periods just teach offenders that they can drive without being arrested. Judicial Mandates get more interlocks installed than Administrative requirements. 34Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

35. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference35 Not Arrested While Interlocked N=14,730 97.5% Arrested In Interlocked Vehicle N=~92 0.6% Arrested In Vehicle With a Different License Plate N=~287 1.9% Sample of 15,109 Interlocked In New MexicoVIII.3.

36. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference36 Richard Roth, PhD Executive Director Impact DWI RichardRoth2300@msn.com www.RothInterlock.org Impact DWI Websites www.ImpactDWI.org.www.PEDAforTeens.org Thank You!

37. 37 Interlocks are Effective, Cost-Effective and Fair Interlocks reduce DWI re-arrests by 40-90% They reduce the economic impact of drunk driving by $3 to $7 for every $1 of cost. Interlocks are perceived as a fair sanction by 81% of over 15,000 offenders surveyed...But they only work if… you get them installed. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

38. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference38 VIII. 2. Recidivism vs Duration of Interlock….PRELIMINARY DATA 1 year is Best A year or more is best More than 2 years is best More than 2 years is best From T4 101126.sav, T5 101128.spo

39. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference39 Evidence of Specific Deterrence

40. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference40 VIII.6. Who Dies in Alcohol-Impaired Crashes?

41. III.1. The New Mexico Laws 1999 Optional Judicial Mandate for 2 nd and 3 rd DWI 2002 Mandatory Judicial Sanction for 1 st Aggravated and All Subsequent Offenders 2002 Indigent Fund 2003 Ignition Interlock License available for all revoked offenders with no waiting period. (Admin. Prog. For All) 2005 Mandatory Judicial Sanction: 1 yr for 1 st ; 2 yrs for 2 nd ; 3 yrs for 3 rd ; and lifetime with 5 yr review for 4+ 2005 ALR and JLR periods increased 2009 No Unrestricted License without Interlock Period 2010 Objective Standard for Indigency 41Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

42. V. Loopholes that Remain in NM 1.“No Car” or “Not Driving” excuse SB306 2011 2.No interlock between arrest and adjudication (Learning, DWI, Absconding) SB308 2011 3.Ineffective Penalty for DWR..SB307 2011 4.Possibility of waiting out revocation period without installing an interlock 5.No Objective Standard for Indigency 6.Insufficient Funding: Increase Alcohol Excise Tax 7.Refusals and Drugs Warrants for BAC SB387 2011 42Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

43. 43 8. 38 % Reduction Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

44. 44Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference 7.

45. Administrative and/or Judicial In administrative programs, MVD’s revoke licenses of arrested and/or convicted DWI offenders but allow them to drive legally while revoked if they install interlocks. In judicial programs, judges mandate that convicted offenders install interlocks as a condition of probation. Some states have both in series (e.g. Florida) or parallel (e.g. New Mexico). Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference45

46. Basic Administrative Program 1.An Interlock Licensing Law that makes an interlock license available to anyone revoked for DWI who installs an interlock 2.Permits driving anywhere anytime in a vehicle with a functioning interlock 3.License Fee offsets MVD costs Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference46 Problems 1.Only 10-20% will install. The worst offenders will not. 2.Most offenders will choose revocation over interlock. 3.HOOPS: Pre-Interlock requirements will further reduce compliance. 4.There will be little overall reduction in drunk driving.

47. Enhanced Administrative Program 1.Compliance Based Removal; eg 6 months and 5000 miles of no recorded BAC’s > 0.04% 2.Required for reinstatement of unlimited license 3.Vehicle Forfeiture for driving while revoked without an interlock. 4.No Hoops (pre-interlock requirements) Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference47 Problems 1.It still is a voluntary program. 2.Most offenders will choose to drive without a license. 3.There is a low probability of apprehension for DWR. 4.The worst offenders will not be interlocked. 5.Result: many unlicensed and uninsured bad drivers

48. Basic Judicial Program Option for Judge to mandate an Interlock sanction as a condition of probation. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference48 Problems 1.Many judges will not mandate an interlock 2.Many offenders will plea away interlock sanction 3.Many offenders will just not comply. 4.Offenders will claim “not driving” or “no car”. 5.Those who need it most will not be interlocked. 6.Result: many unlicensed and uninsured bad drivers

49. Enhanced Judicial Program 1.Mandatory Judicial Interlock sanction as a condition of probation 2.Require report to court of installation within 2 weeks 3.One year for 1 st, 2 yrs for 2 nd, 3 yrs for 3 rd, Lifetime for 4 th. 4.Compliance Based Removal: with carrots and sticks 5.Home Photo Breathalyzer for those who claim “no car” or “not driving” (Alcohol-free breath twice per day) 6.Offender financed indigent fund with objective standards Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference49 Problems 1.Such a program does not yet fully exist. 2.Requires some administrative components 3.Often monitoring reduces cost-effectiveness 4.Possibility of pleas from DWI to careless or reckless

50. Add On’s 1.Focus probation resources on those who do not install IID’s 2.Criminal sanction for attempts to circumvent interlock 3.IID probation review every six months 4.Triage of sanctions for those who are not compliant. 5.No pleas from DWI to careless or reckless driving 6.Interlock as a condition of bond Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference50 Suggested Triage for Non-Compliance 1.Photo Interlock 2.Require morning and evening breath tests 3.Screening and Treatment if indicated 4.Continuous Alcohol Monitoring (eg SCRAM or TAC) 5.DWI Court

51. Best Practice Recommendation 1.Combine previous four program in PARALLEL 2.Include “ADD ON’s” and Triage as funds permit 3.Focus probation and MVD resources on those who do not install. 4.Let the interlock sanction tests that are above set-point. 5.Collect monthly reports, but only monitor circumvention. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference51 Collect data for research on effectiveness. 1.DWI arrests and convictions 2.license revocations and interlock licenses. 3.Interlocks installed and removed 4.A-I crashes, injuries, fatalities.

52. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference52

53. 53 VI. Myths About First Offenders 1.First Offenders Drove Drunk Once 2.Are Not Alcohol Abusers or Alcoholics 3.Are a Negligible Part of the DWI Problem 4.Are Less Likely to be Re-Arrested 5.Are Not Responsible for Most DWI Fatalities 6.√ Interlocks are not cost-effective for them 7.√ Interlocks are a not a fair sanction for them 8.√ Interlocks are not effective for them 9.√ Interlocks are too lenient. Revoke them 10.Sanctions are more important than prevention Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

54. 54 They have driven an average of 500 times after drinking before their first arrest. VI.1 First Offenders Are Not First Offenders R. Roth. Anonymous surveys of convicted DWI offenders at Victim Impact Panels in Santa Fe, NM Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference They are multiple offenders who were finally caught.

55. 55Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

56. 56 VI. 4. First Offenders are Just as Dangerous as Subsequent Offenders Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

57. What Fraction of Impaired Drivers in Fatal Crashes are First Offenders? Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference57 NHTSA Definitions; Impaired Driver: BAC >= 0.08 First Offender: No BAC Conviction in Previous 3 Years. 92 % http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.pdfhttp://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.pdf pp 4-5 VI.5

58. 58Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference VI.10 The importance of Prevention and General Deterrents

59. 59 VII. Truths About Young Offenders (Those Under 30) 1.Have the highest DWI arrest rates 2.Have the highest re-arrest rates 3.Have the highest DWI crash rates Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

60. 60Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference DWI Citations Fall Off Dramatically With Age Underage drinkers do not have the highest arrest rate, but VII.1.

61. 61Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference Those who have their first DWI before 21 have the highest 5 year re-arrest rate. VII.2

62. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference62 VII.3.

63. 63 VIII. Miscellaneous Findings 1.Females are an increasing fraction of DWI 2.Longer interlock periods are more effective for subsequent offenders. 3.How do interlocked offenders get re-arrested for DWI? 4.Variations in Installation Rate by County. 5.Crime and Punishment 6.Who Dies in Alcohol-Impaired Crashes 7.BAC Limits by Country Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

64. 64Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference VIII.1. Female DWI’s in NM

65. 65Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference 1. Recidivism After a DWI Arrest in NM 77% lower 78% lower 84% lower 76% lower

66. Three year effectiveness of interlocks for first offenders by BAC Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference66 http://www.rothinterlock.org/threeyeareffectivenessofinterlocks_forfirstoffendersby_bac.pdf

67. 67Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference 2. Recidivism After a DWI Conviction

68. First Offenders are much more dangerous than the general population Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference68

69. 69Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference 3. Overall DWI Recidivism

70. 70 Survey of 1513 Interlocked Offenders % who responded agree or strongly agree with each of these statements 88% Helpful in avoiding another DWI 83% Helpful at reducing their drinking 89% Effective at reducing their drunk driving 72% All convicted DWI’s should have interlocks 63% All arrested DWI’s should have interlocks. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference 9.

71. 71 Evidence of Effectiveness 1.√ Recidivism After a DWI Arrest 2.√ Recidivism After a DWI Conviction 3.√ Overall Statewide Recidivism vs. Time 4.√ Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Crashes 5.√ Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Injuries 6.√ Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Fatalities 7.√ Correlation between Interlocks Installed and Measures of Drunk Driving 8.√ New NHTSA Comparison Criteria: Alcohol- Impaired Driving Fatalities per 100 MVM 9.√ Opinions of Interlocked Offenders Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

72. Evidence of Cost-Effectiveness Cost of interlocks is less than one third of the savings in the economic impact of the drunk driving crashes prevented. Benefit/Cost ~3. National Research that takes into account benefits other than DWI crashes shows an even greater Benefit to Cost Ratio. In a survey of 1513 Interlocked offenders, 70% agree or strongly agree that The benefits of interlocks outweigh the costs. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference72

73. Evidence of Fairness Anonymous Survey of 1513 Interlocked Offenders: 80% responded agree or strongly agree to: “Interlocks are a fair sanction for convicted DWI.” ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Anonymous Survey of 15,641 Convicted Offenders while waiting for Victim Impact Panels to start: 81% responded Yes to the question: “Do you think that interlocks are a fair sanction for DWI? Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference73

74. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference74 Where Should We Focus our Sanctions? In the past we have focused on Subsequent Offenders. Subsequent Offenders have a slightly higher re-arrest rate. Many more First Offenders are re-arrested than Subsequent Offenders because there are more First Offenders. Now we are Focusing on First Offenders Data from NM CTS, Plots by Roth 3/1/11

75. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference75 Interlocked Offenders Have Less Recidivism For up to 8 Years After Arrest

76. 76 I. Developing an Interlock Program 1.Identify Goals 2.Use Carrots and Sticks 3.Eliminate Hoops 4.Close Loopholes 5.Triage Sanctions 6.Research Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

77. 77 I.6. Research Measures of Effectiveness Interlocks per Arrested Offender Recidivism of Interlocked vs. Not Interlocked Reduction in Overall Recidivism Reduction in DWI Crashes Reduction in DWI Injuries Reduction in DWI Fatalities Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference

78. 78 Goal An Effective, Cost-Effective, and Fair Ignition Interlock Program That Reduces Drunk Driving Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities. Get interlocks installed ASAP after DWI. Get all offenders to install. Keep interlocks installed until there is evidence of changed behavior. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference Objectives in Performance Terms

79. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content Most Countries Have per se BAC Limits Below 0.08% Roth 4/14/13792013 Lifesavers Conference

80. After Thoughts Reaction Time Interlock for Drugged Drivers Diversion Program for first DWI, eg Oregon + Plate Removal on Arrest (leave at jail to be recovered with 1. contract of interlock installation, 2. successful administrative appeal or 3. Judicial dismissal.) Federal Grants for “Enforcing all-offender Interlock Law.” Define Enforcing as >50% inst. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference80

81. 81 VIII.4. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference Ratio for New Mexico 8169 / 9829 = 0.83

82. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference82

83. 1. General Deterrence Changing Societal Attitudes Anti-DWI Advertising Prevention Programs Publicized DWI Checkpoints The General Deterrent Effects of DWI Sanctions Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference83

84. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference84

85. 2. Convict More Of Those Arrested Training of police in collecting and presenting evidence of DWI Video cameras on police cars. Eliminate shortages of prosecutors. For judges, publicize the recidivism rate of the offenders they adjudicate. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference85

86. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference86

87. 3. Specific Deterrence of Sanctions To Reduce Recidivism Ignition Interlock Sanctions License Revocation Community Service & Victim Impact Panels Alcohol Screening and Assessment Supervised Probation, SCRAM, 24/7 Treatment DWI Courts Jail Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference87

88. Roth 4/14/132013 Lifesavers Conference88 Better Worse 2010 FARS Data; Plot by Roth