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
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
2
License Revocation vs Interlock
Revoked
Interlocked
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
3
Second and Third Offenders
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
4
First Offenders
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
5
This Is What We Want To Prevent
Drunk Driver Plows into Mexican Bike Race
One Dead, 10 Injured , June 1, 2008
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
6
This is What I Want to Save
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
7
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
8
Recidivism: Interlock vs. Hard Revocation
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
9
44%
Lower
54%
Lower
62%
Lower
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
10
4.
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
11
5.
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
12
6.NM Alcohol-Involved Fatalities Decreased 38%
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
13
Interlocks Up
Fatalities Down
U.S. Alcohol-Involved-Driving Fatalities
14,000
13,500
13,000
12,500
12,000
11,500
11,000
10,500
10,000
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Data from FARS; Plot by Roth
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
14
http://www.rothinterlock.org/2012surveyofcurrentlyinstalledinterlocksintheus.pdf
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
15
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
16
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
17
Federal Laws
vs.
Research
Before 2012
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
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.
2013 Lifesavers Conference
18
2012 Highway Bill Removes
Restrictions and Offers Grants
1. The 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.
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
19
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)
Punishes Probation Violations Immediately
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
20
Why Interlock Drunk Drivers?
1. Interlocks are the most effective DWI sanction.
99.993% of Interlocked Days are No-DWI days*.
2. They are the most cost-effective sanction.
The cost is $2.50/day paid by the offender.
3. They are perceived as fair by 85% of offenders
4. 70% less recidivism than license revocation
5. They are paid for by offenders
6. 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
21
What Works?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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
22
First Offenders are Biggest Problem
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
23
BAC Distributions by Arrest Number Are Similar
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
24
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
25
Model Ignition Interlock Program
by 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.
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
26
Model Ignition Interlock Program
by 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.
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
27
Evidence of Effectiveness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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
8. New NHTSA Comparison Criteria: Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Fatalities per 100 MVM
9. Opinions of Interlocked Offenders
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
28
III.3
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
29
I.2. Increase the Incentives
•
•
•
•
Administrative Incentives
~15%
Right to Drive Legally
Required for an Unrestricted License
Avoid Recording of First Conviction
Shred Plate..Right to Re-register Vehicle
Judicial Incentives
•
•
•
•
Condition of Bond on arrest
Condition of Probation on conviction
Avoid Electronic Sobriety Monitoring
Reduce or Avoid Jail time
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
>70%
30
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
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
31
I.4. Close Loopholes
•
•
•
•
•
•
Roth 4/14/13
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
2013 Lifesavers Conference
32
I.5. Triage Up in Sanctions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Roth 4/14/13
Extension of Interlock Period
Photo Interlock
Home Photo Breathalyzer
Continuous BAC monitoring
Treatment
House Arrest
Jail
2013 Lifesavers Conference
33
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
34
VIII.3.
Sample of 15,109 Interlocked In New Mexico
Arrested In
Interlocked
Vehicle
N=~92 0.6%
Not Arrested While
Interlocked
Arrested In
Vehicle With
a Different
License Plate
N=~287 1.9%
N=14,730 97.5%
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
35
Thank You!
Richard Roth, PhD
Executive Director Impact DWI
RichardRoth2300@msn.com
www.RothInterlock.org
Impact DWI Websites
www.ImpactDWI.org
.www.PEDAforTeens.org
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
36
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.
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
37
VIII. 2. Recidivism vs Duration of Interlock….PRELIMINARY DATA
Recidivism of Interlocked First Offenders
Recidivism of Interlocked 3rd Offenders
.3
Fraction Re-arrested For DWI
.4
.2
.1
.3
.2
Duration
Duration
>400 days
1 year is Best
<300 days
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0
7
401-800 days
More than
2 years is best
300-400 days
0.0
0
>800 days
.1
0
T3 Time after interlock installation
1
2
3
4
5
6
300-400 days
<300 days
7
T3 Time After Interlock Installation
Recidivism of Interlocked 4+ Offenders
Recidivism of Interlocked 2nd Offenders
.5
Fraction Re-Arrested For DWI
.3
.2
.1
.4
.3
>400 days
<300 days
Roth 4/14/13
2
3
4
5
T3 Time after interlock installation
6
401-800 days
.1
More than
2 years is best
300-400 days
0.0
1
>800 days
Duration
A year or
more is best
0
Duration
.2
0.0
7
2013 Lifesavers Conference
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
300-400 days
<300 days
7
T3 Time After Interlock Installation
From T4 101126.sav, T5 101128.spo
38
Evidence of Specific Deterrence
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
39
VIII.6. Who Dies in Alcohol-Impaired Crashes?
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
40
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
41
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 Tax
7. Refusals and Drugs Warrants for BAC SB387 2011
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
42
8.
38 % Reduction
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
43
7.
Interlocks Installed And Three Measures of Drunk Driving
Z-scores Show a Correlation of -0.95
1.5
1.0
0.5
Interlocks
0.0
A-I Crashes
A-I Injuries
-0.5
A-I Fatalities
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
2002
Roth 4/14/13
2003
2004
2005
2006
2013 Lifesavers Conference
2007
2008
Roth 5/12/2010
44
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
45
Basic Administrative Program
1. 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.
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
46
Enhanced Administrative Program
1. Compliance Based Removal; eg 6 months and 5000
miles of no recorded BAC’s > 0.04%
2. Required for reinstatement of unlimited license
3. Vehicle Forfeiture for driving while revoked without
an interlock.
4. No Hoops (pre-interlock requirements)
Problems
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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
47
Basic Judicial Program
• Option for Judge to mandate an Interlock
sanction as a condition of probation.
Problems
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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
48
Enhanced Judicial Program
1. Mandatory Judicial Interlock sanction as a condition of
probation
2. Require report to court of installation within 2 weeks
3. One year for 1st, 2 yrs for 2nd, 3 yrs for 3rd, Lifetime for 4th.
4. Compliance Based Removal: with carrots and sticks
5. 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
Problems
1. Such a program does not yet fully exist.
2. Requires some administrative components
3. Often monitoring reduces cost-effectiveness
4. Possibility of pleas 2013
from
DWI to careless or reckless
Roth 4/14/13
Lifesavers Conference
49
Add On’s
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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
50
Best Practice Recommendation
1. Combine previous four program in PARALLEL
2. Include “ADD ON’s” and Triage as funds permit
3. 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.
2.
3.
4.
Roth 4/14/13
DWI arrests and convictions
license revocations and interlock licenses.
Interlocks installed and removed
A-I crashes, injuries, fatalities.
2013 Lifesavers Conference
51
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
52
VI. Myths About First Offenders
1. First Offenders Drove Drunk Once
2. Are Not Alcohol Abusers or Alcoholics
3. Are a Negligible Part of the DWI Problem
4. Are Less Likely to be Re-Arrested
5. Are Not Responsible for Most DWI Fatalities
6. √ Interlocks are not cost-effective for them
7. √ Interlocks are a not a fair sanction for them
8. √ Interlocks are not effective for them
9. √ Interlocks are too lenient. Revoke them
10. Sanctions are more important than prevention
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
53
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
54
VI.3
Percent First Offenders vs Lookback Time in NM
2006-8 Data from CTS; Plot by Dick Roth 3/18/09
100%
95%
90%
81% of Convictions are "First in 5 years"
85%
80%
75%
70%
74% of
Arrests are
"First in 5 years"
65%
60%
55%
50%
0
Roth 4/14/13
5
10
15
Lookback Time (Years)
2013 Lifesavers Conference
20
25
55
VI. 4. First Offenders are Just as Dangerous
as Subsequent Offenders
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
56
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 %
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.pdf pp 4-5
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
57
VI.10 The importance of Prevention and General Deterrents
DWI First Offenders in NM
% of First Offenders
Each Year a Greater Fraction of DWI Offenders are First
Offenders. This indicates that our sanctions have been
more successful than our prevention efforts .
68%
66%
64%
62%
60%
58%
56%
54%
52%
50%
1st in 10 Years
1st since 1984
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year of Arrest
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
58
VII. Truths About Young Offenders
(Those Under 30)
1. Have the highest DWI arrest rates
2. Have the highest re-arrest rates
3. Have the highest DWI crash rates
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
59
VII.1.
NM DWI Citations by Age Group
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Roth 4/14/13
DWI Citations Fall Off
Dramatically With Age
Underage drinkers do not have
the highest arrest rate, but
2007
2002
2013 Lifesavers Conference
60
VII.2 Those who have their first DWI before 21 have the highest 5 year re-arrest rate.
Recidivism of First Offenders in NM
For 147,808 Offenders Arrested Between 1991 and 2003
% Re-arrested within 5 years
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75
Age Group
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
61
VII.3.
Severe Alcohol-Involved Crash Rate
Crashes per 1000 Drivers in NM in 2004
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
15-20
21-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65+
Age Range
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
62
VIII. Miscellaneous Findings
1. Females are an increasing fraction of DWI
2. 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 Crashes
7. BAC Limits by Country
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
63
VIII.1. Female DWI’s in NM
Fraction of DWI Offenders That Are
Female vs Year of Arrest
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1980
Roth 4/14/13
1985
1990
1995
2013 Lifesavers Conference
2000
2005
2010
64
1. Recidivism After a DWI Arrest in NM
77%
lower
Roth 4/14/13
78%
lower
84%
lower
2013 Lifesavers Conference
76%
lower
65
Three year effectiveness of interlocks
for first offenders by BAC
http://www.rothinterlock.org/threeyeareffectivenessofinterlocks_forfirstoffendersby_bac.pdf
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
66
2. Recidivism After a DWI Conviction
Recidivism of NM Drivers After a DWI CONVICTION
Between January 2003 and August 2007
Plot by Dick Roth 11/20/08
% Re-arrested within 1 year
10%
9.4%
9.2%
8.7%
9%
8%
7.8%
7%
6%
5%
76%
Lower
4%
70%
Lower
82 %
Lower
66%
Lower
1.7%
1.9%
2%
Interlocked
3.0%
2.8%
3%
Not Interlocked
1%
0%
1
Roth 4/14/13
2
3
Conviction Number
2013 Lifesavers Conference
4+
67
First Offenders are much more dangerous than the general population
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
68
3. Overall DWI Recidivism
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
69
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
70
Evidence of Effectiveness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
√ 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
8. √ New NHTSA Comparison Criteria: AlcoholImpaired Driving Fatalities per 100 MVM
9. √ Opinions of Interlocked Offenders
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
71
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
72
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
73
Where Should We Focus our Sanctions?
In the past we have focused
on Subsequent Offenders.
Now we are Focusing
on First 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.
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
Data from NM CTS, Plots by Roth 3/1/11
74
Interlocked Offenders Have Less Recidivism
For up to 8 Years After Arrest
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
75
I. Developing an Interlock Program
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Roth 4/14/13
Identify Goals
Use Carrots and Sticks
Eliminate Hoops
Close Loopholes
Triage Sanctions
Research
2013 Lifesavers Conference
76
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
77
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
78
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
Roth 4/14/13
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%
CanadaMalaysia
Malta
Mexico
New Zealand
Puerto Rico
Singapore
United Kingdom
United States
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content
2013 Lifesavers Conference
79
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
80
VIII.4.
Ratio for New Mexico
8169 / 9829 = 0.83
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
81
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
82
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
83
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
84
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
85
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
86
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
87
Worse
Better
Roth 4/14/13
2013 Lifesavers Conference
2010 FARS Data;
Plot by Roth
88