Richard Roth, PhD Research Supported By

IGNITION INTERLOCKS How To Use Them Effectively to Reduce Drunk Driving
Richard Roth, PhD Research Supported By NM TSB, NHTSA, PIRE, RWJ, and MADD 2013 Lifesavers Conference April 14-16, 2013

2013 Lifesavers Conference
One Slide Summary! FORCE ALL drunk drivers to install IID’s (specific deterrence) Compliance Based Removal Advertise your IID Program (general deterrence) Research your success. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

License Revocation vs Interlock
Revoked Interlocked Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Second and Third Offenders
Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

First Offenders Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Drunk Driver Plows into Mexican Bike Race
This Is What We Want To Prevent This is an example of the problem. Drunk Driver Plows into Mexican Bike Race One Dead, 10 Injured , June 1, 2008 Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

This is What I Want to Save

My Goal is to Reduce Drunk Driving
by research to identify… and advocacy to implement… the most effective, cost-effective and fair initiatives. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Recidivism: Interlock vs. Hard Revocation

44% Lower 54% Lower 62% Lower Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

4. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

6.NM Alcohol-Involved Fatalities Decreased 38%

Interlocks Up Fatalities Down Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Federal Laws vs. Research
Before 2012 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 Ineffectual 2B. Reduces sober-driving training. 1. No interlock without prior period of hard license revocation for subsequent offenders. 2. Interlocked offenders may only drive to work, school, or treatment. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

2012 Highway Bill Removes Restrictions and Offers Grants
The Hard-revocation-period-before-interlock for subsequent offenders has been removed. Federal restrictions on where and when an interlocked offender may drive have been removed. Federal grants will be given to states that enforce an all-offender interlock law. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

An Ignition Interlock is an Electronic 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) My operational definition of an ignition interlock. Punishes Probation Violations Immediately Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Why Interlock Drunk Drivers?
Interlocks are the most effective DWI sanction % of Interlocked Days are No-DWI days*. They are the most cost-effective sanction The cost is $2.50/day paid by the offender. They are perceived as fair by 85% of offenders 70% less recidivism than license revocation They are paid for by offenders They supply 24/7 supervised probation * While 48,274 NM offenders were interlocked for 23,204,035 days, they had 1538 DWI arrests. That’s 1 arrest per 15,000 days Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

What Works? All DWI offenders must be included Must be mandatory not just voluntary Avoid hoops: (pre-requisites to interlock) Close loopholes Compliance-Based-Removal Triage to stiffer (and more costly) penalties Indigent support Promotion of General Deterrence Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

First Offenders are Biggest Problem

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. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Model Ignition Interlock Program by Dick Roth October 10, page 1 of 2 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. 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) An ignition interlock license available to all persons revoked for DWI with no other restrictions. Allow MVD to set fee to cover cost. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Model Ignition Interlock Program by Dick Roth October 10, page 2/2 An Indigent Fund with objective standards such as eligibility for income support or food stamps. 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) Vehicle forfeiture for driving a non-interlocked vehicle while revoked for DWI. 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) . Criminal sanction for circumvention of IID. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Evidence of Effectiveness
Recidivism After a DWI Arrest Recidivism After a DWI Conviction Overall Statewide Recidivism vs. Time Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Crashes Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Injuries Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Fatalities Correlation between Interlocks Installed and Measures of Drunk Driving New NHTSA Comparison Criteria: Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities per 100 MVM Opinions of Interlocked Offenders Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

III.3 Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

I.2. Increase the Incentives
Administrative 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 time ~15% Judicial Incentives >70% Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

I.3. Eliminate Hoops No 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 I am not suggesting that these sanctions be eliminated but only that their satisfaction not be a requirement for getting an interlock. The only requirement should be having a DWI arrest or an alcohol problem Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

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 Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

I.5. Triage Up in Sanctions
Extension of Interlock Period Photo Interlock Home Photo Breathalyzer Continuous BAC monitoring Treatment House Arrest Jail Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

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. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Sample of 15,109 Interlocked In New Mexico
VIII.3. Sample of 15,109 Interlocked In New Mexico Arrested In Interlocked Vehicle N=~ % Arrested In Vehicle With a Different License Plate N=~ % Not Arrested While Interlocked N=14, % Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Thank You! Richard Roth, PhD Executive Director Impact DWI Impact DWI Websites . Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

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. The key to an effective program is simply getting interlocks installed in the vehicles of arrested drunk drivers. Nothing else,( reporting, inspecting, sanctioning, monitoring) is as important. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

VIII. 2. Recidivism vs Duration of Interlock….PRELIMINARY DATA 1 year is Best More than 2 years is best A year or more is best More than 2 years is best Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference From T sav, T spo

Evidence of Specific Deterrence

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

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 Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

V. Loopholes that Remain in NM
“No Car” or “Not Driving” excuse SB No interlock between arrest and adjudication (Learning, DWI, Absconding) SB Ineffective Penalty for DWR ..SB Possibility of waiting out revocation period without installing an interlock No Objective Standard for Indigency Insufficient Funding: Increase Alcohol Excise Tax Refusals and Drugs Warrants for BAC SB Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

8. 38 % Reduction Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

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). Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Basic Administrative Program
An Interlock Licensing Law that makes an interlock license available to anyone revoked for DWI who installs an interlock Permits driving anywhere anytime in a vehicle with a functioning interlock License Fee offsets MVD costs Problems Only 10-20% will install. The worst offenders will not. Most offenders will choose revocation over interlock. HOOPS: Pre-Interlock requirements will further reduce compliance. There will be little overall reduction in drunk driving. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Enhanced Administrative Program
Compliance Based Removal; eg 6 months and 5000 miles of no recorded BAC’s > 0.04% Required for reinstatement of unlimited license Vehicle Forfeiture for driving while revoked without an interlock. No Hoops (pre-interlock requirements) Problems It still is a voluntary program. Most offenders will choose to drive without a license. There is a low probability of apprehension for DWR. The worst offenders will not be interlocked. Result: many unlicensed and uninsured bad drivers Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Basic Judicial Program
Option for Judge to mandate an Interlock sanction as a condition of probation. Problems Many judges will not mandate an interlock Many offenders will plea away interlock sanction Many offenders will just not comply. Offenders will claim “not driving” or “no car”. Those who need it most will not be interlocked. Result: many unlicensed and uninsured bad drivers Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Enhanced Judicial Program
Mandatory Judicial Interlock sanction as a condition of probation Require report to court of installation within 2 weeks One year for 1st, 2 yrs for 2nd, 3 yrs for 3rd, Lifetime for 4th. Compliance Based Removal: with carrots and sticks Home Photo Breathalyzer for those who claim “no car” or “not driving” (Alcohol-free breath twice per day) Offender financed indigent fund with objective standards Problems Such a program does not yet fully exist. Requires some administrative components Often monitoring reduces cost-effectiveness Possibility of pleas from DWI to careless or reckless Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Add On’s Focus probation resources on those who do not install IID’s Criminal sanction for attempts to circumvent interlock IID probation review every six months Triage of sanctions for those who are not compliant. No pleas from DWI to careless or reckless driving Interlock as a condition of bond Suggested Triage for Non-Compliance Photo Interlock Require morning and evening breath tests Screening and Treatment if indicated Continuous Alcohol Monitoring (eg SCRAM or TAC) DWI Court Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Best Practice Recommendation
Combine previous four program in PARALLEL Include “ADD ON’s” and Triage as funds permit Focus probation and MVD resources on those who do not install. Let the interlock sanction tests that are above set-point. Collect monthly reports, but only monitor circumvention. Collect data for research on effectiveness. DWI arrests and convictions license revocations and interlock licenses. Interlocks installed and removed A-I crashes, injuries, fatalities. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

VI. Myths About First Offenders
First Offenders Drove Drunk Once Are Not Alcohol Abusers or Alcoholics Are a Negligible Part of the DWI Problem Are Less Likely to be Re-Arrested Are Not Responsible for Most DWI Fatalities √ Interlocks are not cost-effective for them √ Interlocks are a not a fair sanction for them √ Interlocks are not effective for them √ Interlocks are too lenient. Revoke them Sanctions are more important than prevention Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

First Offenders Are Not First Offenders
VI.1 First Offenders Are Not First Offenders They are multiple offenders who were finally caught. They have driven an average of 500 times after drinking before their first arrest. R. Roth. Anonymous surveys of convicted DWI offenders at Victim Impact Panels in Santa Fe, NM Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

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

VI.5 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 % pp 4-5 Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

VI.10 The importance of Prevention and General Deterrents Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

VII. Truths About Young Offenders (Those Under 30)
Have the highest DWI arrest rates Have the highest re-arrest rates Have the highest DWI crash rates Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

VII.1. DWI Citations Fall Off Dramatically With Age Underage drinkers do not have the highest arrest rate, but Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

VII.2 Those who have their first DWI before 21 have the highest 5 year re-arrest rate. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

VII.3. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

VIII. Miscellaneous Findings
Females are an increasing fraction of DWI Longer interlock periods are more effective for subsequent offenders. How do interlocked offenders get re-arrested for DWI? Variations in Installation Rate by County. Crime and Punishment Who Dies in Alcohol-Impaired Crashes BAC Limits by Country Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

VIII.1. Female DWI’s in NM Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

1. Recidivism After a DWI Arrest in NM
77% lower 78% lower 84% lower 76% lower Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Three year effectiveness of interlocks for first offenders by BAC

2. Recidivism After a DWI Conviction

First Offenders are much more dangerous than the general population

3. Overall DWI Recidivism

9. 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. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Evidence of Effectiveness
√ Recidivism After a DWI Arrest √ Recidivism After a DWI Conviction √ Overall Statewide Recidivism vs. Time √ Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Crashes √ Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Injuries √ Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Fatalities √ Correlation between Interlocks Installed and Measures of Drunk Driving √ New NHTSA Comparison Criteria: Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities per 100 MVM √ Opinions of Interlocked Offenders Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

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 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

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? Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Where Should We Focus our Sanctions? In the past we have focused on Subsequent Offenders. Now we are Focusing on First Offenders Many more First Offenders are re-arrested than Subsequent Offenders because there are more First Offenders. Subsequent Offenders have a slightly higher re-arrest rate. Data from NM CTS, Plots by Roth 3/1/11 Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Interlocked Offenders Have Less Recidivism
For up to 8 Years After Arrest Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

I. Developing an Interlock Program
Identify Goals Use Carrots and Sticks Eliminate Hoops Close Loopholes Triage Sanctions Research Goal to reduce drunk driving crashes, injuries, and fatalities. Carrots: permission to drive legally, stay out of jail, shortened duration for good behavior. Sticks: May not drive legally, go to jail, longer duration for recordings of BAC’s above set point, a requirement for unrestricted reinstatement. Hoops: hard revocation period, payment of fines and fees, community service, DWI school etc. Loopholes: “not driving” or “no car”, “opt out provision” eg IL, OK to wait out revocation period, does not apply unless convicted. Triage Sanctions: shorter or longer than standard period based on compliance, letter or hearing, treatment, continuous BAC monitoring, house arrest, jail Research: Collect data to identify installation rates and reduction in measures of drunk driving. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

I.6. Research Measures 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 Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Goal An Effective, Cost-Effective, and Fair Ignition Interlock Program That Reduces Drunk Driving Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities. Objectives in Performance Terms Get interlocks installed ASAP after DWI. Get all offenders to install. Keep interlocks installed until there is evidence of changed behavior. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Most Countries Have per se BAC Limits Below 0.08%
Source: Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

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. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

VIII.4. Ratio for New Mexico 8169 / 9829 = 0.83 Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

1. General Deterrence Changing Societal Attitudes
Anti-DWI Advertising Prevention Programs Publicized DWI Checkpoints The General Deterrent Effects of DWI Sanctions Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

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. For judges, publicize the recidivism rate of the offenders they adjudicate. Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

3. Specific Deterrence of Sanctions To Reduce Recidivism
Ignition Interlock Sanctions License Revocation Community Service & Victim Impact Panels Alcohol Screening and Assessment Supervised Probation, SCRAM, 24/7 Treatment DWI Courts Jail Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference

Worse Better Roth 4/14/13 2013 Lifesavers Conference 2010 FARS Data; Plot by Roth

Richard Roth, PhD Research Supported By

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Richard Roth, PhD Research Supported By"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Richard Roth, PhD Research Supported By

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Richard Roth, PhD Research Supported By"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback