1. Tara Casanova Powell TIRF USA
Minnesota Interlock Evaluation 5th Annual Association of Ignition Interlock Program Administrators Conference Omni Hotel, Richmond, VA May 22-24, 2017
Tara Casanova Powell
TIRF USA

2. Project goals
The goal of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of the interlock program in Minnesota.
Provide a comprehensive report to the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) based on the results of the evaluation.

3. Minnesota State Interlock program Evaluation: Impaired Driving issue
In 2014, 111 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes.
This accounted for 31% of all traffic fatalities in MN.
In 2015, 137 people killed in alcohol-related crashes.
2,203 were injured.
>$285 million in cost.

4. background
The state’s first ignition interlock pilot program was established in Anoka County in 2002.
In 2007, the Minnesota Legislature authorized the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to conduct a two-year pilot in one rural and one metropolitan county.
In 2009, pilot expanded statewide.
A Driver’s License Administrative Sanctions (DLAS) work group formed to review impaired driving administrative sanctions.

5. current law As of July 1, 2011, Statute 171.306: Voluntary: Required:
1st and 2nd offenders may voluntarily participate in lieu of hard revocation.
Required:
DWI offenders with alcohol concentration.
Any vehicle or lose driving privileges:
1 year for 1st offense;
2 years for 2nd offense.
Repeat offenders: 3+ DWIs in 10 years

6. Interlock program
Minnesota’s interlock program is administratively run by the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), & Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) Divisions of DPS.
DVS manages enrollment, oversees device use and implements sanctions for participant violations. DVS also manages the interlock website, which facilitates enrollment, education and partnerships.
OTS provides financial support, communication, education and outreach.

7. Interlock program
Participants regain full or limited driving privileges immediately.
Interlocks monitor chronic DWI offenders (3 or more DWIs in a 10-year period) to verify chemical use.
Provision requires anyone cited for a criminal vehicle operation (CVO) “bodily harm” to “great bodily harm” to install.
No dedicated indigency program, participants may qualify for reduced fees.

8. Interlock program Revoked Status:
During the last 90 days on the ignition interlock device program, a person whose driver’s license is revoked must not have any failed breath tests recorded on the device.
A failed breath test may extend the end of the program by 90 days from the date of the failed recorded breath test.

9. Interlock program Canceled Status
A person whose driving privilege is canceled and denied must not have any failed breath tests recorded on the device during the length of the program.
A failed breath test will require the participant to reenroll in the program and start their revocation time over.

10. Interlock program Canceled Status
A person whose driving privilege is canceled must demonstrate abstinence by regular and consistent use of the ignition interlock device.
30 successful initial breath tests per month1
This does not include rolling retests.
Failure to provide 30 initial breath tests per month will result in an extension of the program.

11. Evidence-based Practices
All-offender eligibility;
removal of hard suspension periods;
performance-based exit;
treatment, alcohol education or both;
device certification best practices.

12. Evaluation methodology
The evaluation was structured based on 26 research questions.
Research questions were revised based on availability of data.
Participation evaluation
Outcome evaluation

13. Participation Evaluation
The participation evaluation identified participation rates, participant characteristics and number of participant DWI incidents.
Analysis for this evaluation used demographic data of program participants and non- participating DWI offenders to compare offender profiles for each cohort.

14. outcome Evaluation
The outcome evaluation looked at the performance of the participants during and after completion of the interlock program.
Performance indicators included program completion rate, recidivism (during and after completion) and device failed attempts, and others.

15. Data sources: Driver and Motor Vehicle Records
Data included all drivers with DWI convictions since the start of the two-county pilot program in July 1, 2007.
Driver basic demographic information, vehicle ownership, driving convictions and related interlock-program events were included.
The entire driving and vehicle history of 20,346 unique program participants and 200,000 DWI- convicted non-participant drivers were compiled, from the date of driver’s license issue.

16. Data sources: Ignition interlock data
Device data was requested from all current vendors for all participants they have served from the beginning of the pilot program to March 31st,
Vendor data included driver information and records of device events ranging from installation, breath tests (both success and fails), device initiated messages, circumvention attempts, service and removal.
Participant Survey Questionnaires.

17. participation results
Since July 1, 2011, 23,115 out of 130,455 eligible drivers participated statewide.
Mix of voluntary and required participants.
1 in 5 eligible drivers participate (19.8%).
60% of DWI offenses 1st offenders eligible drivers (within a 10 year lookback period), 9% of these choose to participate.
40.1% of those required participated.

18. participation results: Demographics
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%).

19. participation results: Demographics
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.

20. completion results 48.2% of participants completed the program.
Of those who completed the program, more than 78% completed the program on time.
Approximately one in 100 is terminated for non- compliance.
For those revoked drivers (voluntary participation), 83.7% completed.
For those canceled drivers, (required participation) 27.7% completed.

21. completion results
The average time for successful completion is 412 days.
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.

22. recidivism results
Program participants were 39% less likely to recidivate (8%) than non-participants (20%).
4.5% participants recidivated during study period.
1st offense participants were 13.1% less likely to recidivate.
High BAC participants (>0.16) were 58.7% more likely to recidivate after completion.

23. recidivism results
Male drivers are 20.1% less likely than female drivers to be re-arrested after completion.
A year increase in age is associated with about 0.9% decrease in the relative risk of recidivating.
Those arrested for drugged driving were 161.6% (about 2.6 times) more likely to be arrested again for a DWI violation after completion.
Those who refused BAC test at time of arrest are % (about 2.2 times) more likely to be arrested again after completion.

24. other outcome results
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.

25. other outcome results
A failed drug test at the time of arrest resulted in a 127% elevated recidivism 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.

26. other outcome results
The Minnesota interlock program has prevented at least 12,302 instances of drunk drivers (i.e., BAC and above) from starting their vehicles.
Program participants experienced fewer arrests for DWI and moving violations while in the program compared to the comparison group.
Interlock program participation reduces the long- term risk of recidivism by 39% overall. Those for whom this was a first DWI violation see a further 12% reduction in risk of recidivating.

27. other outcome results
The annual Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts Report shows that while total crashes and deaths have stayed at the same level from to 2015, there is a significant reduction in DWI- related deaths since the program was started, indicating a positive contribution to public safety.
Those participants who completed the program have much lower risk of recidivating compared to their non-participating peers, both while they are active in the program and for the long term after they complete it.

28. Questions?
Phone:

29. acknowledgements

30. Stay informed! Connect with us!
tirf.us
Facebook.com/tirfusainc
TIRF USA
Linkedin.com/company/traffic-injury-research-foundation-tirf