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 % (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.