Roth and Marques2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg.1 Regaining Control of Revoked DWI Offenders Interlocks As...

Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 1

Regaining Control of Revoked DWI Offenders

Interlocks As an Alternative To Hard License Revocation

Substance Abuse Policy Research Program

Annual Grantee MeetingNovember 29-30, 2006

Paul Marques, PhD and Richard Roth, PhD

Pacific Institute For Research and Evaluation


An Ignition Interlock is an Electronic Monitor with Rejection Authority

• 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 (or

DMV in Administrative Programs)• Costs Offender only $2.30 per day.

(1 less drink per day)


Simple Combining of StudiesRecidivism While Interlocks Installed

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

1 OH 2 OR 3 NC 4 AB 5 WV 6 MD 7 AB 8 QC 9 IL 10 NM

During Interlock

Contrast groups for each study set to 100%


Simple Combining of StudiesRecidivism Same People After Interlocks Removed (Striped Bars)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

1 OH 2 OR 3 NC 4 AB 5 WV 6 MD 7 AB 8 QC 9 IL 10 NM

During Interlock After Interlock


Mathematical Combining of Interlock StudiesRelative Risk of Recidivism(with Interlocks Installed) = .36

A Meta-Analysis of Interlock Studies

Alcohol ignition interlock programmes for reducing drink driving recidivism. Source: Willis, Lybrand, & Bellamy, 2005


Post interlock results

A Meta-Analysis of Interlock Studies

Alcohol ignition interlock programmes for reducing drink driving recidivism. Source: Willis, Lybrand, & Bellamy, 2005


BUT – While Interlocks are Very Effective Few studies are at a Jurisdictional Level

• AND few programs achieve high installation rates –average is under 10%.

• Florida (and Quebec) have innovative administrative programs that each achieved 26% installation rates.

• In Hancock County Indiana a Judge who required interlocks of all offenders achieved 62% installation – the highest until Santa Fe County (Dick will

explain)• THE NATIONAL SAFETY CHALLENGE is to

Increase Penetration


Growth in Interlocks USA – trend is only linear from 1986-2006

• First program 1986 in California

• National penetration less than 10%

• 1.4 million DUI arrests per yr (FBI)

• MADD intends big push to increase to 500,000 in 5 years (by 2011).

• NOTE: Sweden will require on all cars by 2012

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

1986 1998 2002 2006

1998 Freund estimate2002 Rauch estimate2006 Roth estimate


MADD’s projection

• Unless we can inflect the growth curve it will be another 60-80 years before we approach interlocks for all DUI.

• MADD wants to do a national program of ramping up the installation rate to 500-700,000 in 5 yrs. 0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

1986 2002 2011

Th

e M

AD

D g

oal


New York Times Editorial November 25, 2006

Sensing You're Too Drunk to Drive

.. “The initial (MADD) goal, which is backed by associations of State highway officials and car manufacturers, is to have all states do what New Mexico has already done: require that all convicted drunken drivers, even first-time offenders, have devices installed in their cars that measure alcohol in the breath and immobilized the car if levels exceed set limits.”


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

85% of over 4000 offenders surveyed.

• ..But they only work if… • you get them installed.


The Problems

1. 35% of DWI offenders were revoked but not convicted.2. 25% of DWI offenders were 1st non-aggravated.3. Subsequent offenders had mandatory hard revocation.4. Judges were reluctant to mandate interlocks for those

whose licenses were revoked.5. 75% of revoked offenders continue to drive.6. Few revoked offenders ever get re-licensed.

In 2003, New Mexico had a law mandating interlocks for all High BAC and Subsequent DWI offenders,

but few interlocks were being installed.


NM Ignition Interlock License Act Purpose

1. To increase the utilization of interlocks by those arrested for drunk driving,

2. To eliminate the reluctance of judges to mandate interlocks for those who cannot get a license to drive,

3. To reduce drunk driving, and

4. To reduce the number of revoked offenders who never reinstate licenses.


In New Mexicoan Ignition Interlock License…

• is available to anyone revoked for DWI,

• requires an approved interlock and insurance, and

• allows driving anywhere, anytime in an insured, interlocked vehicle.


So our first research question is..Has the

Ignition Interlock License Act Increased the Utilization

of Interlocks by DWI Offenders?


2732 / year

Cumulative Interlock Installations in NMwith least squares fits to data

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Jan-02 Jul-02 Feb-03 Aug-03 Mar-04

Law Changes

1077 / year

137 / year

2732 / year

Optional for 2nd and 3rd conviction

Mandatory for aggravated and subsequent convictions

Interlock Licensing Act An alternative to revocation


Currently-Installed Interlocks per Million Residents by State2006 Data from 8 of 9 US Interlock Distributors; Plot by Dick Roth June 15, 2006

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500N

ew M

exic

o

Iow

a

Was

hin

gto

n

Mar

ylan

d

No

rth

Car

olin

a

Ari

zon

a

Co

lora

do

Okl

aho

ma

Vir

gin

ia

Uta

h

Ark

ansa

s

Mic

hig

an

Wes

t V

irg

inia

Tex

as

Ore

go

n

Mis

sou

ri

Idah

o

Flo

rid

a

So

uth

Dak

ota

Del

awar

e

Illin

ois

Oh

io

Pen

nsy

lvan

ia

Geo

rgia

Lo

uis

ian

a

How does New Mexico compare with other states in interlock utilization?


2nd QuestionHow many interlock licenses

have been granted and is the rate changing?


Interlock Licenses Issued by MVD 10,807 Issued by 11/8/2006; Rate in 2006 = 4999/yr

Data from MVD; Plot by Dr. Roth

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Jun

-03

Se

p-0

3

De

c-03

Ma

r-04

Jun

-04

Se

p-0

4

De

c-04

Ma

r-05

Jun

-05

Se

p-0

5

De

c-05

Ma

r-06

Jun

-06

Se

p-0

6

De

c-06

Ignition


Is there a Reduction in Recidivism?

• Court Mandated Offenders --ie those who install within 90 days after conviction

• Other Revoked Offenders --“Voluntary” installations

• SF County Overall before and after mandatory interlocks and Licensing Act

• New Mexico Overall before and after


Interlock Clients in New Mexico by Year and Reason For Installation

759 10261304

1117

1682

2162

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2003 2004 2005

Year of Interlock Installation

Voluntary: Installedbefore conviction ormore than 90 days afterconviction

Mandated (Installedwithin 90 days after aConviction)

Court Mandated vs Voluntary Installations


Recidivism of Mandated Interlocked Offenders vs Comparison Group by Conviction Number

6.4%

8.1% 8.3%

2.6%3.2% 3.6%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

C# = 1 C# = 2 C# = 3

DWI Convictions Prior to Installation

Rea

rres

ted

wit

hin

1 y

ear

Comparison Groups Interlocked Groups

Effectiveness with Court Mandated Offenders


Recidivism of Non-mandated Interlocked offenders vs Comparison Group by Arrest Number

9.1%

12.0%

1.5% 1.6%

3.6%

6.8%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

A# = 1 A# = 2 A# = 3+

DWI Arrests prior to Installation

% R

e-a

rre

ste

d w

ith

in 1

ye

ar

Comparison Groups Interlocked Groups

Effectiveness with Volunteers ie. Not court-mandated


Recidivism of 58779 NM DWI Offenders

Before and After First Mandatory Interlock Law

Time after Conviction (years)

2.01.51.0.50.0

On

e M

inu

s C

um

Su

rviv

al

.16

.14

.12

.10

.08

.06

.04

.02

0.00

Year of Conv

2001-2

2003-5

8.0% Before

6.7% After

A 16% Reduction

Statewide recidivism decreased.


Recidivism of 4855 SF County DWI Offenders

Before and After First Mandatory Interlock Law

Time after Conviction (years)

2.01.51.0.50.0

Fra

ctio

n R

ea

rre

ste

d f

or

DW

I

.16

.14

.12

.10

.08

.06

.04

.02

0.00

Year of Conv

2001-2

2003-5

8.7% Before

6.2% After

A 29% ReductionBefore

After


NM Alcohol-Involved Crash Rate

2.82.92.9

2.6

2.1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cra

sh

es

pe

r 1

00

0 D

riv

ers

28% drop in 3 years


NM Alcohol-Involved Fatal CrashesAn 11% Drop in 2 Years

176

184

198

0

50

100

150

200

250

2002 2003 2004

NM Alcohol-Involved Fatalities

194219

0

50

100

150

200

250

2004 2005

An 11% Decrease in 1 year

Fewer Alcohol Involved Fatal Crashes and Fatalities


Self Selection In Choosing Interlocks Among DWI Offenders Revoked 10 yrs For 3 Convictions in 10 years.

Comparison Group Matched on Age, Priors, Time between Priors, and Sex.

Those who do not install interlocks

Are much more likely to be arrested than those who do install.


Group: 3 or More Convictions in 10 years

HR = 0.67

P = 0.13

Using

MCPHRA

with

Covariates:

Age

Conv Date

Time B. Conv

Gender

Priors

Recidivism During Installation Period

Time During Installation (Years)

2.01.51.0.50.0

Fra

ctio

n R

e-a

rre

ste

d f

or

DW

I.12

.10

.08

.06

.04

.02

0.00

Group

IG

CC


Survey of Interlocked Offenders

Helped Reduce My Drinking

Helped Reduce My Drinking

SAAUDSD

Pe

rce

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Benefits Outweigh Costs

Benefits Outweigh Costs

SAAUDSD

Pe

rce

nt

40

30

20

10

0

All Arrested for DWI Should Have Interlocks

All Arrested for DWI Should Have Interlocks

SAAUDSD

Pe

rce

nt

40

30

20

10

0

Effectively Reduce Drunk Driving

Effectively Reduce Drunk Driving

SAAUDSD

Pe

rce

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

77% 81%

69% 63%

N = 796

Date post:	24-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	georgina-curtis
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Roth and Marques2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg.1 Regaining Control of Revoked DWI Offenders Interlocks As...

Documents