IGNITION INTERLOCKS: INCREASING PARTICIPATION & …nadcpconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/C-5.pdf · ignition interlock devices reported to be installed in vehicles over a

IGNITION

INTERLOCKS:

INCREASING

PARTICIPATION &

PROGRAM

EFFECTIVENESS

Tara Casanova Powell

TIRF USA

OVERVIEW

> National annual ignition interlock survey.

> Evaluation of Ignition Interlock Programs:

Interlock Use Analysis from 28 States, 2006-

2011.

> Minnesota interlock evaluation.

> Michigan ignition interlock/sobriety court

evaluation.

> NHTSA technical assistance.

2

INTERLOCK LAWS

> In January 2017, 28 states and 4 California

counties require all alcohol-impaired driving

offenders to install an interlock.

> 11 states require interlocks for offenders with a

high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) (usually

0.15% or higher) and for repeat offenders.

3

INTERLOCK LAWS

> 6 states require devices only for repeat

offenders.

> 1 state (NV) require devices for high-BAC

offenders.

> 4 states do not have mandatory interlock

requirements.

4

WY

WV

WI

WA

VT

VA

UT

TX

TN

SD

SC

RI

PA

OR

OK

OH

NY

NV

NM

NJNE

ND

NC

MT

MS

MO

MN

MI

ME

MD

MA

LA

KYKS

INIL

ID

IA

HI

GA

FL

DE

DC

CT

CO

CA

AZAR

AL

AK

NH

LAWS MANDATING IGNITION INTERLOCK

February 2017

Judicial discretion only

Repeat offenders

High-BAC first & repeat

All offenders

High-BAC offenders

NATIONAL INTERLOCK SURVEY 2015

6

NATIONAL INTERLOCK SURVEY 2015

> All 50 states and 11 manufacturers were

contacted in September 2015 to request arrest

and conviction data and relevant interlock data.

> Counts of total installed ignition interlocks during

a period of 1 year (12 months) in 2014, and total

installed ignition interlocks in 2015 (January 1st to

August 31st, 2015) were requested.

7

NATIONAL INTERLOCK SURVEY 2015:

DEFINITIONS

> Total installed number (TIN): the number of

ignition interlock devices reported to be installed

in vehicles over a period of time.

> Active installed number (AIN): the number of

ignition interlock devices reported to be installed

in a vehicle on the date designated by this

request (i.e., a snapshot in time).

8


DATA REQUEST

> States were also requested to provide, if

possible, data according to offense categories.

> Offense categories were defined as:

> 1st offender "basic" DWI;

> 1st offender high-BAC DWI;

> refused test DWI and;

> repeat DWI (2nd and subsequent DWI).

9


STATE ARREST DATA

> DWI arrest data were requested to estimate the

number of potentially eligible offenders in each

state.

> 15 states were able to provide total DWI arrest

data for the reporting period from January 1st,

2014 to December 31st, 2014.

> 10 of these states were able to provide further

breakdowns of arrest data by offense categories.

10


STATE ARREST DATA

> 10 states were able to provide total DWI arrest

data for the reporting period from Jan. 1st to

August 31st, 2015.

> 7 of these states were able to provide further

breakdowns of arrest data by offense categories.

11


STATE CONVICTION DATA

> DWI conviction data were requested to further

identify the potential number of eligible offenders

in each state.

> 16 states were able to provide total DWI

conviction data for January 1st to December 31st,

2014.

> 9 of these states further reported breakdowns of

conviction data by offense categories.

12


STATE CONVICTION DATA

> 11 states were able to provide total DWI

conviction data for January 1st to August 31st,

2015.

> 7 of these states were able to further breakdown

conviction data by offense categories. Illinois was

able to report all repeat offender DWI convictions

(all 2nd and subsequent offenders).

13


STATE INTERLOCK DATA

> 26 states reported interlock data.

> State TIN for states that reported interlock data

January 1st to December 31st, 2014 was 141,787.

> State TIN for states that reported interlock data

January 1st to August 31st, 2015 was 110,487.

> State AIN for states that reported interlock data

December 31st, 2014 was 77,909.

> State AIN for states that reported interlock data

August 31st, 2015 was 88,194.

14


MANUFACTURER TIN DATA

> 8 manufacturers reported interlock data.

> TIN for manufacturers that reported interlock

data January 1st to December 31st, 2014 was

256,150.

> TIN for manufacturers who reported interlock

data January 1st to August 31st, 2015 was

191,479.

15


MANUFACTURER AIN DATA

> AIN for manufacturers who reported interlock

data December 31st, 2014 was 309,919.

> AIN for manufacturers who reported interlock

data for August 31st, 2015 was 328,743.

16

MANUFACTURER TIN 2014

17

MANUFACTURER TIN 2015

18

MANUFACTURER AIN DEC 31, 2014

19

MANUFACTURER AIN AUG 31, 2015

20


OFFENDER ELIGIBILITY

> Percentage of offenders who installed among

those who were eligible or required.

> Dependent upon legislation, eligible offenders

may include:

> those arrested for a DWI (ALR requirement) or;

> offenders convicted of a DWI (which is dependent

upon offense categories that require an interlock).

> This assumes that offenders are not deemed

ineligible for other driving violations unrelated to

DWI. 21

22


DISCUSSION

> Barriers that can impede states ability to provide

data:

> data capture processes vary by agency &

jurisdictions;

> states lack centralized or standardized data

collection;

> linkages between court data and DMV data are

limited;

> several states do not have the resources.

23


DISCUSSION

> Few states could provide data other than TIN &

AIN.

> Several states could provide data within the

project timeframe (6 months).

> Few states could provide a breakdown by

offense category.

> Accurate records and timely reporting are

essential to successful interlock programs

(Casanova Powell et al. 2015).

24


DISCUSSION

> Implementing automated record systems and

central repositories has been shown to improve

the availability of data in states such as Florida

and Colorado, however even these states have

room for improvement.

> If more states were able to provide these data,

more informative statistics could be calculated

and used to evaluate progress of state interlock

programs.

25

EVALUATION OF STATE INTERLOCK

PROGRAMS

26


PROGRAMS

> GHSA/NHTSA/CDC funded, conducted by PRG.

> 3 categories of 8 keys to increase participation:

> Program design:

– requirements & penalties.

> Program management:

– monitoring, uniformity, coordination & education.

> Program support:

– resources & data.

27


PROGRAMS: CORRELATIONS OF KEY

RATINGS WITH IN-USE RATES

28


PROGRAMS: USE CHANGE RESULTS

> Required for 1st offenders: use increased in all 3

states (FL, KS, NY).

> Required for repeat or high-BAC offenders: use

increased in 3 of 4 states (MI, WV, WI,

decreased in VA).

> Required for hardship license: use increased in 2

of 3 states (IL, LA, IA-no change).

29


PROGRAMS: USE CHANGE RESULTS

> Interlock to reduce/eliminate license suspension

period: use increased in all 6 states (AR, CO, IA,

OR, WA, WV) .

> Management and other changes: use increased

in 7 states (CA, CO, FL, MO, NM, OK, WA).

30


PROGRAMS: SUCCESSES

> Legislative changes to laws and penalties:

> as state interlock programs evolve, states are

learning what works and what does not;

> many states have improved interlock

laws/programs and are working to close program

gaps.

31


PROGRAMS: SUCCESSES

> Monitoring offenders

> Data: states with a central repository allow for

easily accessible data to efficiently monitor

offenders and impose sanctions for violations in a

timely manner.

> Uniformity and coordination:

> Stakeholder involvement: inter-agency task forces

which include representatives from the judicial,

administrative and law enforcement agencies.

32


PROGRAMS: SUCCESSES

> Education

> Educating law enforcement, judges, prosecutors,

probation officers, treatment providers, and driver

licensing agency staff can improve stakeholder

interest and facilitate more effective and efficient

program implementation.

> Data/resources

> Without the ability to access reliable, shared data,

program managers are unable to efficiently

execute and evaluate their program, or monitor

offenders. 33

DWI COURT INTERLOCK STUDIES

> Georgia:

> Repeat offenders graduating from DWI court were

65% less likely to be re-arrested.

> Between 47-112 repeat arrests were prevented.

> Michigan (analysis of 3 counties over 2 years):

> DWI court participants were 19x less likely to be

arrested for a DWI.

> Minnesota (evaluation of 9 DWI courts):

> Recidivism reduced 69% for high-risk participants.

34

MICHIGAN DWI COURT PROGRAM

> Interlocks are required for participants in the

Michigan DWI Court Program.

> An interlock must be installed after 45-day hard

suspension.

> Michigan DWI Court Program is geared toward

repeat offenders.

> An ignition interlock is required on all vehicles the

DWI court participant owns/drives.

35

MICHIGAN DWI COURT PROGRAM: LIMITED

DRIVING PRIVILEGE

> Allowed to drive to/from the person’s residence;

> the person’s work location;

> during the course of the person’s employment or

occupation as long as a commercial driver’s

license is not required;

> alcohol, drug or mental health education and

treatment as ordered by the court;

> AA/NA/MA or other court ordered programs.

36

MICHIGAN DWI COURT PROGRAM: LIMITED

DRIVING PRIVILEGE

> Allowed to drive to/from Court hearings and

probation appointments;

> drug and alcohol testing;

> court ordered community service;

> an educational institution where enrolled;

> interlock service provider as required;

> medical treatment for a serious condition or

medical emergency, for themselves or a member

of their household or immediate family.37

MICHIGAN DWI COURT PROGRAM:

COMPLIANCE

38

MICHIGAN DWI COURT PROGRAM:

INTERLOCK STUDY

39

MICHIGAN DWI COURT PROGRAM: RESULTS

> Participants showed lower DWI and recidivism

rates after 1,2,3 and 4 years.

> Participants were more likely to improve their

levels of education between the entry and exit of

program.

> Participants were less likely to test positive on

UA (tested more frequently).

> Participants incurred less jail time.

40

MICHIGAN DWI COURT PROGRAM: RESULTS

> Fewer warrants issued for participants.

> Participants received higher numbers of

incentives and rewards from the courts.

> Participants attended more group meetings.

> Participants enjoyed a higher number of overall

days of sobriety.

> Participants had higher graduation rates (those

who were not under interlock supervision were

3.2 times more likely to be terminated from DWI

court.

41

MINNESOTA STATE INTERLOCK PROGRAM

EVALUATION: IMPAIRED DRIVING ISSUE

> 2014-111 people killed in alcohol-related crashes.

> 31% of all traffic fatalities in Minnesota.

> 2015-137 people killed in alcohol-related crashes.

> 2,203 were injured.

> >$285 million in cost.

> Interlock law, July 1, 2011, Statute 171.306 -

Ignition Interlock Device Program.

42

CURRENT LAW (MN)

> Voluntary:

> 1st and 2nd in lieu of hard revocation.

> Required:

> DWI offenders with 0.16+ alcohol concentration.

> Any vehicle or lose driving privileges:

– 1 year for 1st offense;

– 2 years for 2nd offense.

> Repeat offenders with 3+ DWIs in a 10-year period

are required to use interlocks.

43

INTERLOCK PROGRAM (MN)

> Participants regain full or limited driving

privileges immediately.

> Interlocks are used to monitor chronic DWI

offenders (3 or more DWIs in a 10-year period) to

verify chemical use.

> Recent provision requires anyone cited for a

criminal vehicle operation (CVO) “bodily harm” to

“great bodily harm” to install.

44

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES (MN)

> All-offender eligibility;

> removal of hard suspension periods;

> performance-based exit;

> treatment, alcohol education or both.

> Since July 1, 2011, 23,115 drivers have

participated statewide.

45

PARTICIPATION RESULTS (MN)

> Since July 1, 2011, 23,115 drivers have

participated statewide.

> Mix of voluntary and required participants.

> 1 in 5 eligible drivers (19.8%).

> 60% of DWI offenses first offenders, 9% of these

choose to participate.

> 62% participants were arrested for aggravated

offenses (BAC of 0.16+ or refusals.

> 40.1% of those required participated.

46


> Varied with age, sex and urban/rural county.

> Highest participation rates:

> men;

> urban counties;

> drivers over 45 years of age;

> 45–64 age group (25.2%).

47


> Lowest participation rates:

> women;

> rural counties;

> drivers below 34 years of age (especially those

below 24 years of age, 3.7%).

> As age increases; the opportunity to meet the

criteria for mandatory program participation also

increases.

48

COMPLETION RESULTS (MN)

> Just over 48% of participants have completed the

program.

> More than 78% completed the program on time.

> The average time for successful completion is

412 days.

> Approximately one in 100 is terminated for non-

compliance.

> Revoked drivers (voluntary participation) 83.7%.

49

COMPLETION RESULTS (MN)

> Canceled drivers (required participation) 27.7%

completed.

> The more severe the DWI violations at the time

of arrest, the less likely drivers will complete the

program.

> Offenders with BAC at or over 0.16 are 40% less

likely to complete the program.

> Offenders who refused tests are 50.8% less

likely to complete the program.

50

RECIDIVISM RESULTS (MN)

> Program participants were less likely to

recidivate (8%) than non-participants (20%).

> Only 4.5% participants recidivated during study

period.

> First offense participants were 11% less likely to

recidivate.

> High BAC participants (over 0.16) were 8% more

likely to recidivate.

> Participants who refused were 29% more likely to

recidivate. 51

OTHER OUTCOME RESULTS (MN)

> Within the participant group, there are predictive

factors for success over the long term.

> Those who avoid failures during the program

(failed start-up and rolling-retests) are more likely

to avoid recidivating after the program.

> The record of breath tests logged into an ignition

interlock was effective in predicting future DWI

recidivism risk.

52

OTHER OUTCOME RESULTS (MN)

> A failed drug test at the time of arrest resulted in

a 127% elevated risk.

> Retention of participants within the interlock

program allowed for increased participation

rates.

> Interlock extensions in lieu of interlock removal

was identified as a viable alternative with regard

to public safety.

53

TIRF ALCOHOL INTERLOCK TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE

> TIRF has a cooperative agreement with NHTSA

to provide training and technical assistance.

> Goals:

> consistently identify eligible offenders and track

program participation;

> clarify agency roles and responsibilities;

> streamline and strength procedures/practices;

> create accountability; and,

> manage and efficiently use resources.54


ASSISTANCE

> Work completed (2008 - 2017) in IL, NY, SC, VT,

NC, VA, WV, MD, DE, KY, ID, CA, CT, OK, MN,

OR, WY, MO, NM, TS, HI, CO, ND, LA, region 3,

region 7.

> Work ongoing in NV, AK, regional meetings:

> Region 4 (Alabama, Georgia, Florida).

55


ASSISTANCE: COMMON STRENGTHS

> Prohibit semiconductor sensors; some also mail

in devices.

> Utilize certification and approval process for

devices and vendors (IL, VA, SC).

> Emphasis on education for lead practitioners and

for public (IL, NY, WV).

> Note interlock restriction on driver license.

> Service in rural areas (SC, WV, VA).

56


ASSISTANCE: COMMON STRENGTHS

> Standardized reporting which may/not be

automated (IL, NY, SC).

> Indigent funding available and rely on multiple

criteria for determination (NY, SC, VA).

> Inclusion of screening/assessment and treatment

for long-term risk reduction (SC, VA, WC, NC).

> Use of graduated sanctions for offender

accountability (SC, MN, VA, WV, NY).

> Efforts to improve communication among

agencies, including vendors (SC, VA, WV).57


ASSISTANCE: COMMON CHALLENGES

> Lack program funding.

> Low participation rates:

> long hard suspension period;

> ability of offenders to opt out of program;

> poor communication and tracking of offenders;

> many requirements for program eligibility.

58



> Paper-based reporting systems:

> increases workload;

> impedes tracking/monitoring of offenders;

> poor agency communication.

> Lack of technical knowledge:

> program authority unfamiliar with devices;

> inconsistent testing of devices;

> unable to keep pace with technological advances.

59



> Removal of non-compliant offenders:

> contained in legislation or program rules;

> lack of graduated sanctions;

> offenders at greatest risk for recidivism are not on

interlock.

> Agency authority lacks flexibility:

> legislation too proscriptive/difficult to change;

> program challenges cannot be addressed;

> affects staff morale and support for program.60



> Roles and workflow are unclear:

> agencies lack overall understanding of program;

> no clear program authority;

> responsibilities are not clearly assigned;

> lack of accountability ;

> decision-making is agency-specific.

61



> Limited vendor oversight:

> no resources or staff to manage;

> do not have a plan to provide oversight in relation

to many different facets of program.

> Limited training/education in related agencies:

> agencies not engaged;

> do not understand their role in interlock delivery.

> Lack jurisdictional reciprocity.

62


ASSISTANCE: CONCLUSIONS

> Alcohol interlocks are a cost-effective strategy to

reduce impaired driving.

> Legislation an important first step.

> More research to improve programs is needed.

> Implementation requires careful planning and

coordination.

> Justice agencies play a critical role in programs.

> Many jurisdictions are taking steps to strengthen

practices and procedures. 63

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

64

QUESTIONS?

65

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 203.809.8709

STAY INFORMED! CONNECT WITH US!

tirf.us

[email protected]

66

Facebook.com/tirfusainc

TIRF USA Inc @TIRFUSAINC

Linkedin.com/company/traffic-injury-research-foundation-tirf

Documents

IGNITION INTERLOCKS: INCREASING PARTICIPATION & …nadcpconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/C-5.pdf · ignition interlock devices reported to be installed in vehicles over a