Ignition Interlock Use: Status, Issues, and Opportunities

1. Status and Vision of Ignition Interlock Use Robyn Robertson, M.C.A. Traffic Injury Research Foundation Alcohol Ignition Interlocks to Reduce Impaired Driving Recidivism Washington, DC August 22nd, 2007 A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

2. Goals • Background regarding the use of technologies to monitor impaired driving offenders. • Status of interlock usage today. • Priority issues in the delivery and implementation of ignition interlocks. • Opportunities and future needs. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

3. Background • Technologies to enhance the monitoring of DWI offenders have evolved. • Technologies can be an effective tool when combined with a comprehensive system of supervision. • Many jurisdictions have facilitated and encouraged the use of technologies. • Yet ways in which technologies have been implemented and applied vary widely – underused potential to reduce recidivism. • Despite advanced technology, enabling legislation and compelling research, devices are used irregularly – why? A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

4. Introduction • Implementation and delivery of interlock technology has received far less attention. • Practitioners are a linchpin in the delivery of interlocks to offenders – yet they have had limited opportunities to provide input. • This has hindered the use and expansion of interlocks -- 10% of eligible offenders have an interlock installed. • Attention must now be focused on improving implementation and delivery. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

5. Priority issues • Complexity of the system • Education • Eligibility • Monitoring for compliance • Inter-agency coordination and cooperation • Resources A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

6. Priority issues • Complexity of the system: • System consists of many interdependent agencies – each with its own goals and responsibilities. • Procedures and processes are governed by legislation and regulation. • Practitioners are obliged to fulfill statutory requirements imposed by the system – i.e., the use of interlocks must fit within the existing and accepted practices that govern the justice system. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

7. Priority issues • Education: • Practitioners require diverse information about interlocks to fulfill their respective roles and obligations. • Research results and technological advances are substantial and impressive but not well-translated in the criminal justice literature. • Comprehensive educational opportunities are inconsistent and/or non-existent for professionals. • Myths and legends surrounding interlocks have never been adequately addressed outside of the research community. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

8. Priority issues • Eligibility: • Interlocks are a priority need for high risk offenders -- repeat, high-BAC, and non-compliant. • These offenders are least likely to install an interlock. • These offenders are frequently excluded from the use of interlocks for persistent non-compliance. • The greatest benefits will accrue by ensuring these offenders are subject to an interlock device. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

9. Priority issues • Monitoring for compliance: • Research shows more than 40% of convicted offenders fail to complete the terms and conditions of sentencing. • Interlocks are only effective if installed – many offenders avoid installation. • A lack of monitoring means sanctions are not imposed for non-compliance; compliance is not reinforced – i.e., minimizes the benefits of interlocks. • Detracts from public support for interlocks and their faith in the justice system to protect the public. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

10. Priority issues • Inter-agency coordination and cooperation: • Many agencies are involved in the delivery of interlocks. • Treatment plays a critical role but is rarely considered part of the system. • Agencies frequently act as silos, not partners – delivery is fragmented. • Communication, sharing and exchange of information is inconsistent/non-existent. • Leads to a lack of leadership, responsibility and accountability. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

11. Priority issues • Resources: • The use of interlocks has benefits but also costs – the allocation of resources has largely been an afterthought. • Costs for education of professionals. • Costs for the development of supporting policies, practices, and procedures. • Costs for staffing/support for delivery. • Costs of devices and monitoring – for paying and indigent offenders. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

12. Opportunities • Impaired driving remains a priority concern at all levels. • Policymakers, practitioners and the public are engaged in the issue of interlocks. • Gaps in delivery have been identified. • The importance of a coordinated systems approach has been recognized. • Agencies can benefit from the strategic use of resources and lower recidivism rates. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

13. Future needs • Ongoing dialogue among agencies to address identified gaps in delivery. • Streamlined and comprehensive legislation to close gaps in system and facilitate the delivery of interlocks to offenders posing the greatest risk. • Development of implementation guidelines that accommodate demands of the justice system. • Consistent and uniform educational opportunities for all practitioners. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

14. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

15. Conclusions • Ignition interlocks have considerable potential to reduce drunk driving recidivism and protect the public from high-risk offenders. • Interlocks represent an opportunity to reduce the burden imposed on the justice system by drunk driving offenders. • Coordinated approach involving policy-makers, criminal justice practitioners, treatment professionals and government agencies is critical to success. A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY

16. Staying informed www.tirf.ca A DRIVING FORCE FOR SAFETY