IGNITION INTERLOCKS How To Use Them Effectively to Reduce Drunk Driving Richard Roth, PhD Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute October 23-4, 2012 Research

IGNITION INTERLOCKS How To Use Them Effectively to Reduce Drunk Driving

Richard Roth, PhD

Region 5 Ignition Interlock InstituteOctober 23-4, 2012

Research Supported ByNM TSB, NHTSA, PIRE, RWJ, and MADD

Drunk Driver Plows into Mexican Bike RaceOne Dead, 10 Injured , June 1, 2008

2Roth 10/23/2012 Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute

This Is What We Want To Prevent

My Goal isto Reduce Drunk Drivingby research to identify…

and advocacy to implement… the most effective,

cost-effectiveand fair

initiatives.Roth 10/23/2012 Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute 3

Roth 10/23/2012 Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute 4

Give yourselves a round of Applause!


Alcohol-Impaired-Driving Fatalities1400 in Region 5 in 2010~14% of 10,288 in U.S.

…Normalized to Miles Driven


Better

Worse

2010 FARS Data; Plot by Roth





2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201010,000

10,500

11,000

11,500

12,000

12,500

13,000

13,500

14,000

U.S. Alcohol-Involved-Driving Fatalities

Data from FARS; Plot by Roth 10/21/12

Interlocks UpFatalities Down

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 Ineffectual2B. Reduces sober-driving training.


Before 2012

2012 Highway Bill Removes Restrictions and Offers Grants

1. 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.



1. General DeterrenceChanging Societal Attitudes

• Anti-DWI Advertising• Prevention Programs• The General Deterrent Effects

of DWI Sanctions



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.• Publicize records of judges who have the least

recidivism of the offenders they adjudicate



3. Specific DeterrenceReduce Recidivism

• Ignition Interlock Sanctions• License Revocation• Community Service & Victim Impact Panels• Alcohol Screening and Assessment• Supervised Probation, SCRAM, 24/7• Treatment• DWI Courts• Jail


19

An Ignition Interlock is anElectronic 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 10/23/2012 Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute

Punishes Probation Violations Immediately

Why Interlock Drunk Drivers?

1. Interlocks are the most effective DWI sanction2. They are the most cost-effective sanction3. They are perceived as fair 4. Better than Hard License Revocation5. They are paid for by offenders6. They supply supervised probation.


21

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.


What Works?

1. All DWI offenders must be included2. Must be mandatory not just voluntary3. Avoid hoops: (pre-requisites to interlock)4. Close loopholes5. Compliance-Based-Removal6. Triage to stiffer (and more costly) penalties7. Indigent support8. Promotion of General DeterrenceRoth 10/23/2012 Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute 22

First Offenders are Biggest Problem


24

BAC Distributions by Arrest Number Are Similar


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.



Recidivism: Interlock vs. Hard Revocation

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).


Basic Administrative Program1. 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


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.

Enhanced Administrative Program 1. Compliance Based Removal; eg 6 months and 5000

miles of no recorded BAC’s > 0.04%2. Requirement for unlimited license Reinstatement3. Vehicle Forfeiture for driving while revoked without

an interlock.4. No Hoops (pre-interlock requirements)


Problems1. 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

Basic Judicial Program • Judicial option to mandate an Interlock

sanction as a condition of probation.


Problems1. Many judges will not mandate an interlock2. Many offenders will plea away interlock sanction3. 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

Enhanced Judicial Program 1. Mandatory Judicial Interlock sanction as a condition of

probation 2. Installation report to court within 2 weeks3. One year for 1st, 2 yrs for 2nd, 3 yrs for 3rd, Lifetime for 4th. 4. Compliance Based Removal: with carrots and sticks5. 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


Problems1. Such a program does not yet fully exist.2. Requires some administrative components3. Frequent monitoring reduces cost-effectiveness4. Possibility of pleas from DWI to careless or reckless

Add On’s1. Focus probation resources on those who do not install IID’s2. Criminal sanction for attempts to circumvent interlock3. IID probation review every six months4. Triage of sanctions for those who are not compliant. 5. No pleas from DWI to careless or reckless driving6. Interlock as a condition of bond


Suggested Triage for Non-Compliance

1. Photo Interlock2. Require morning and evening breath tests3. Screening and Treatment if indicated4. Continuous Alcohol Monitoring (eg SCRAM or TAD)5. DWI Court

Best Practice Recommendation1. Combine previous four programs in PARALLEL2. Include “ADD ON’s” and Triage as funds permit3. 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.


Collect data for research on effectiveness.1. DWI arrests and convictions2. license revocations and interlock licenses.3. Interlocks installed and removed 4. A-I crashes, injuries, fatalities.

34

Evidence of Effectiveness1. Recidivism After a DWI Arrest2. Recidivism After a DWI Conviction3. Overall Statewide Recidivism vs. Time4. Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Crashes5. Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Injuries6. Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Fatalities7. Correlation between Interlocks Installed and

Measures of Drunk Driving8. New NHTSA Comparison Criteria: Alcohol-Impaired

Driving Fatalities per 100 MVM9. Opinions of Interlocked Offenders


Model Ignition Interlock Programby Dick Roth October 10, 2012 page 1 of 2

1. Mandatory Interlocks as a condition of probation for all convicted offenders. 1 yr. for 1st, 2 yrs. for second, 3 yrs. for 3rd, 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.


Model Ignition Interlock Programby 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. 36Roth 10/23/2012 Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute


Recidivism of Interlocked 4+ Offenders

T3 Time After Interlock Installation

76543210

Fra

ctio

n R

e-A

rres

ted

For

DW

I

.5

.4

.3

.2

.1

0.0

Duration

>800 days

401-800 days

300-400 days

<300 days

Recidivism of Interlocked 2nd Offenders

T3 Time after interlock installation

76543210

Fra

ctio

n R

e-ar

rest

ed F

or D

WI

.3

.2

.1

0.0

Duration

>400 days

300-400 days

<300 days

Recidivism of Interlocked First Offenders

T3 Time after interlock installation

76543210

Fra

ctio

n R

e-ar

rest

ed F

or D

WI

.3

.2

.1

0.0

Duration

>400 days

300-400 days

<300 days

Recidivism of Interlocked 3rd Offenders

T3 Time After Interlock Installation

76543210

Fra

ctio

n R

e-ar

rest

ed F

or D

WI

.4

.3

.2

.1

0.0

Duration

>800 days

401-800 days

300-400 days

<300 days

VIII. 2. Recidivism vs Duration of Interlock….PRELIMINARY DATA

1 year is Best

A year or more is best

More than2 years is best

More than2 years is best

From T4 101126.sav, T5 101128.spo

Three year effectiveness of interlocks for first offenders by BAC


http://www.rothinterlock.org/threeyeareffectivenessofinterlocks_forfirstoffendersby_bac.pdf

First Offenders are much more dangerous than the general population



III.3


Evidence of Specific Deterrence


4.


5.


6.NM Alcohol-Involved Fatalities Decreased 38%

45

8.

38 % Reduction



2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Interlocks Installed And Three Measures of Drunk Driving Z-scores Show a Correlation of -0.95

InterlocksA-I CrashesA-I InjuriesA-I Fatalities

Roth 5/12/2010

7.


http://www.rothinterlock.org/2012surveyofcurrentlyinstalledinterlocksintheus.pdf

48

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 timeRoth 10/23/2012 Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute

Administrative Incentives

Judicial Incentives

>70%

~15%

49

I.3. Eliminate HoopsNo 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


50

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


51

I.5. Triage Up in Sanctions• Extension of Interlock Period• Photo Interlock• Home Photo Breathalyzer• Continuous BAC monitoring• Treatment• House Arrest• Jail


III.1. The New Mexico Laws• 1999 Optional Judicial Mandate for 2nd and 3rd DWI• 2002 Mandatory Judicial Sanction for 1st 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 1st; 2 yrs for

2nd; 3 yrs for 3rd; 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


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.53Roth 10/23/2012 Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute

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 Tax7. Refusals and Drugs Warrants for BAC SB387 2011



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.


VIII.6. Who Dies in Alcohol-Impaired Crashes?

57

VI. Myths About First Offenders

1. First Offenders Drove Drunk Once2. Are Not Alcohol Abusers or Alcoholics3. Are a Negligible Part of the DWI Problem4. Are Less Likely to be Re-Arrested5. Are Not Responsible for Most DWI Fatalities6. √ Interlocks are not cost-effective for them7. √ Interlocks are a not a fair sanction for them8. √ Interlocks are not effective for them9. √ Interlocks are too lenient. Revoke them10. Sanctions are more important than prevention


58

They have driven an average of 500 times after drinking before their first arrest.

VI.1First Offenders Are Not First Offenders

R. Roth. Anonymous surveys of convicted DWI offenders at Victim Impact Panels in Santa Fe, NM


They are multiple offenders who were finally caught.

59

0 5 10 15 20 2550%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Percent First Offenders vs Lookback Time in NM2006-8 Data from CTS; Plot by Dick Roth 3/18/09

Lookback Time (Years)

81% of Convictions are "First in 5 years"

74% of Arrests are "First in 5 years"

VI.3


60

VI. 4. First Offenders are Just as Dangerous as Subsequent Offenders


What Fraction of Impaired Drivers in Fatal Crashes are First Offenders?


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.pdf pp 4-5

VI.5

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.pdf

62

50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

% o

f Fir

st O

ffen

ders

Year of Arrest

DWI First Offenders in NMEach Year a Greater Fraction of DWI Offenders are First Offenders. This indicates that our sanctions have been

more successful than our prevention efforts .

1st in 10 Years

1st since 1984


VI.10 The importance of Prevention and General Deterrents

63

VII. Truths About Young Offenders (Those Under 30)

1. Have the highest DWI arrest rates2. Have the highest re-arrest rates3. Have the highest DWI crash rates


64

0500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

NM DWI Citations by Age Group

2007

2002


DWI Citations Fall Off Dramatically With Age

Underage drinkers do not have the highest arrest rate, but

VII.1.

65

16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-750.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Recidivism of First Offenders in NMFor 147,808 Offenders Arrested Between 1991 and 2003

Age Group

% R

e-ar

rest

ed w

ith

in 5

yea

rs


Those who have their first DWI before 21 have the highest 5 year re-arrest rate.VII.2


Severe Alcohol-Involved Crash RateCrashes per 1000 Drivers in NM in 2004

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

15-20 21-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+

Age Range

VII.3.

67

VIII. Miscellaneous Findings1. Females are an increasing fraction of DWI2. 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 Crashes7. BAC Limits by CountryRoth 10/23/2012 Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute

68

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Fraction of DWI Offenders That Are Female vs Year of Arrest


VIII.1. Female DWI’s in NM


1. Recidivism After a DWI Arrest in NM

77% lower

78% lower

84% lower

76% lower

70

1 2 3 4+0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

7.8%

9.4% 9.2%8.7%

1.9%

2.8%

1.7%

3.0%

Recidivism of NM Drivers After a DWI CONVICTION Between January 2003 and August 2007

Plot by Dick Roth 11/20/08

Not InterlockedInterlocked

Conviction Number

% R

e-a

rre

ste

d w

ith

in 1

ye

ar

76% Lower

70% Lower

82 % Lower

66% Lower


2. Recidivism After a DWI Conviction


3. Overall DWI Recidivism

72

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.


9.

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 10/23/2012 Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute 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?



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


Interlocked Offenders Have Less RecidivismFor up to 8 Years After Arrest

77

I. Developing an Interlock Program

1. Identify Goals2. Use Carrots and Sticks3. Eliminate Hoops4. Close Loopholes5. Triage Sanctions6. Research


78

I.6. ResearchMeasures 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


79

GoalAn 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 10/23/2012 Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute

Objectives in Performance Terms

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content

Most Countries Have per se BAC Limits Below 0.08%

Any Alcohol or 0.02% Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Slovakia United Arab Emirates

Brazil Bangladesh Czech Republic Hungary China Estonia Poland Sweden 0.03% India Serbia Japan Uruguay

0.04% Lithuania Canada: 0.05% Argentina Australia Austria Belarus Belgium Bulgaria Canada: Costa Rica Croatia Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Iceland

Ireland Israel Italy Latvia Luxembourg Macedonia Netherlands Peru Portugal Slovenia South Africa Spain Switzerland Thailand Taiwan Turkey

0.08% Canada- Malaysia Malta Mexico New Zealand Puerto Rico Singapore United Kingdom United States

Roth 10/23/2012 80Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute

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.


82

VIII.4.


Ratio for New Mexico8169 / 9829 = 0.83


Richard Roth, PhDExecutive Director Impact [email protected]

Impact DWI Websiteswww.ImpactDWI.org

.www.PEDAforTeens.org

Thank You!

Documents

IGNITION INTERLOCKS How To Use Them Effectively to Reduce Drunk Driving Richard Roth, PhD Region 5 Ignition Interlock Institute October 23-4, 2012 Research