Alcohol Interlocks and Continuous Alcohol Monitoring
2
Alcohol Interlocks> An alcohol interlock is a breath-testing device attached to a car’s starter.
> It prevents the car from being started when a pre-set level of alcohol is detected in the breath sample presumably provided by the driver of the vehicle.
3
Effectiveness
> 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, etc.) with an average reduction of 64% (Willis et al. 2005).
4
Prevalence
> Alcohol interlock programs have been implemented throughout the world: » More than 40 states in the United States;» Nine provinces and one territory in Canada;» Europe (Sweden, Finland, France, etc.); and» Australia.
> In the U.S. there are approx. 180,000 interlocks installed. » Approx. 13% of those arrested for drunk driving are installing interlocks.
5
Continuous Alcohol Monitoring
> Monitors the drinking behaviour of offenders.
> The device tests invisible perspiration (vaporous sweat) excreted through the skin for alcohol consumption.
> The technology has evolved into a non-invasive bracelet that monitors alcohol consumption 24/7 from any location.
6
Effectiveness
> Research studies over the past 10 years have demonstrated that transdermal alcohol readings are correlated to BACs. » However, there is a recognized and measurable delay.
> Several recent studies involving probation officers and offenders conclude that the SCRAM device is valid and reliable and is a “fast-acting deterrent” (Bock 2003; McKelvie 2005).
7
Prevalence
> More than 40 states use SCRAM. > The device is typically used in the following types of programs:» Pre-trial programs;» Probation supervision programs;» Specialty court programs;» Treatment programs; and » Re-entry, parole, or prison de-population programs.
8
Implementation Issues > Leadership (political and agency)
» Make impaired driving a priority» Designate individuals to oversee process and
establish clear channels of communication among agencies
> Legislation» Consultations with practitioners during drafting» Compatible with existing impaired driving legislation
> Policy» Accounts for operational-level details» Clearly stated – outlines roles and responsibilities
and creates accountability> Insufficient staff and resources
» Adequate time, staff, and funding to make program implementation and delivery efficient and effective
9
Implementation Issues> Training and education
» Law enforcement need training on how the device works and what to look for at a roadside stop
» Judges should be provided with up-to-date research and be made aware of the benefits of the device
> Participation rates» Lack of authority to make offenders comply» Offer incentives for participating
> Obstacles to eligibility» Lengthy hard suspensions; excessive fines and fees; additional requirements (e.g., completion of treatment/education classes); other charges
» Goal should be to get offenders on the interlock as soon as possible, not deter them from installing the device
10
Implementation Issues
> Cost and indigency» Offenders should not be disqualified on the basis of economic status
» All jurisdictions should have some form of indigent funding available for those offenders who can demonstrate financial need
> Reciprocity » Arrangements made between jurisdictions to prevent offenders from driving unlicensed if they relocate
11
Implementation Issues> Service providers
» Interlock devices meet specifications and are certified in independent labs
» Quality control for providers – inspection of service centers and background checks of all installers
» Arrangements for rural offenders> Data management
» Establish a good reporting system» Consistency in reporting (e.g., violations)
> Graduated responses» Agencies should identify a clear set of graduated responses and reinforcements
» Offenders who consistently demonstrate non-compliance should be kept in the program, not removed
12
Conclusions> In order to overcome many of these challenges
there needs to be:» Strong political and agency leadership;» Cooperation/communication among all stakeholders;» Clear legislation (drafted with practitioner input) with necessary supporting policies;
» Adequate time to implement programs;» Allocation of necessary staff and resources;» Training and education for all facets of the system;
» Flexibility to ensure that all impaired driving offenders are eligible for these technologies and that they are not disqualified due to indigency or non-compliance; and
» Streamlined reporting and monitoring.