Alcohol-impaired driving kills more than 10,000 people in the United States each year (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2010), making driving while intoxicated (DWI)1 one of our Nation’s most important highway safety issues. Increasingly, States are using ignition inter-locks as a key part of their overall strategy to reduce the incidence of DWI and to save lives.
For the purposes of this report, the abbreviation “DWI” (driving while impaired) is interchange-able with the term “DUI” (driving under the influence). States vary in the use of these terms.
Some have used both terms to designate different levels of drinking and driving. NHTSA defines impaired driving as operating a motor vehicle while affected by alcohol at or above a blood alco-hol concentration (BAC) of .08 grams per deciliter and/or other drugs, including prescriptions, over-the-counter medicines or illicit substances. “Impaired driving” includes, but is not limited to, impairment as defined by individual States’ statutes.
Interlocks have been in use to prevent alcohol-impaired driving for more than two decades. These devices have become increasingly sophisticated in this period; numerous studies have shown that interlock programs reduce recidivism during the time the devices are installed. Today, almost all U.S. States have ignition interlock laws (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009).
Moreover, many States are requiring the use of an interlock as a condition for the restoration of driving privileges, including for first-time DWI offenders.
As the use of these devices increases, so too does the need to share information and promising practices related to how best to use interlocks. To assist in this information sharing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) contracted Acclaro Research Solutions, Inc.
to prepare this program guide of case studies. The guide profiles the work of six States and their use of ignition interlocks as part of an overall strategy to combat alcohol-impaired driving.
The purpose of this report is to provide information on the different types of ignition interlock programs that have been successfully implemented. This report was not intended to evaluate the impact of the use of ignition interlock devices.
This guide is the result of a multi-phased effort involving a scan of relevant literature, informal discussions with interlock experts and program administrators, a case study selection process, and site visits to each selected program. The six States profiled in this document are Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, New York, and Oklahoma. Each State demonstrates unique approaches and innovations in the use of interlocks.
Findings are organized around five main topical areas: legislation, funding, program administra-tion, program issues, and evaluation. Broad findings are summarized here. The guide contains detailed information on how these issues are handled by selected programs, including sample forms and program materials, which appear in Appendix B.
Interlock Legislation
States featured in this guide have found that one of the most effective ways to create new leg-islation and to enact legislative changes is to ensure that all affected parties are involved in the process as early as possible. This includes public safety officials, judicial staff, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, treatment providers, law enforcement officials, driver licensing authorities, vendors, advocacy groups and even potential opponents. Workgroups and confer-ences are a frequent way States engage in this early consensus building, starting with legislation
1 Different jurisdictions refer to alcohol-impaired-driving offenses using varying terminology, including driving while intoxicated and driving while impaired.
and continuing through the development of regulations and the implementation phase. This collaboration often continues once the program is established, with positive carryovers into the final programs.
Another critical area for legislative success is ensuring that violations, terms, and standards are clearly defined. If legislative terms are not easily operationalized, it can create negative conse-quences for the program later on. For example, one State featured in this guide has struggled to effectively implement legislation that requires interlocks for every vehicle offenders have “access to.” Likewise, program standards for what does and does not constitute a violation, infraction, or fail should be well defined to promote more efficient programs.
Inclusiveness is the strategy States most often use to address organized opposition to interlocks.
If all parties are included in initial and subsequent discussions, it helps to overcome possible objections to the expansion of interlock programs (or at least prepares planners to address later objections). Additionally, many States are finding that the creation of a fund for indigents is a crucial element in addressing the objection that expanded interlock programs place too great of a financial burden on offenders.
Funding Interlock Programs
The administrative costs associated with interlock programs pose a consistent challenge for the States featured in this guide. Most programs do not receive dedicated funding streams to offset personnel or other costs associated with the program (e.g., call centers or databases). Instead, these costs are either absorbed by general program budgets or partially offset through the collec-tion of fees. Many States are automating their systems (when funding to create such systems is available) to reduce administrative costs, especially as interlock programs expand.
In most States profiled in this guide, interlocks are paid for by offenders, and each vendor within the State sets its own pricing. Pricing tends to be competitive, and States expect that price com-petition will keep costs to program participants low. The exception among States profiled is Florida, where only two vendors operate, and each has a designated geographic area that it serves. In Florida, device costs are set by the State.
The use of indigent funds is becoming more common now and often required for program implementation. Many States have created these funds to address a common criticism associated with the expansion of interlock programs that the devices are not affordable (although critics of these programs note that interlocks are typically less costly than daily alcohol consumption).
Fund eligibility is determined in many ways by profiled States, from a completely automated system in Illinois to an extensive judicial review process in New York. Likewise, the distribution of these funds happens in many diverse ways. The funds have been utilized at a higher rate than planners originally intended in several States profiled in this guide (partly due to the discretion-ary nature of fund eligibility in most States).
Interlock Program Administration
The States profiled in this document have found that the successful administration of an inter-lock program requires the cooperation of numerous agencies. Some States, such as Illinois, devote substantial staff resources to education and outreach on interlocks. They strongly believe that such efforts are critical to ensuring program success. Other States engage in these activities to a lesser degree, while noting that the efforts are nevertheless critical.
Courts and probation officers play a large role in judicial and hybrid interlock programs, such as those in New York and New Mexico. These programs have found that the close involvement of
a probation officer in supervising program participants can minimize common problems (e.g., officers can ensure that participants better understand what is required of them and immediately address violations). Such programs often struggle, however, with how best to devote program resources to focus the probation officer’s time on the offenders most likely to need attention.
Programs that are run largely by a department of motor vehicles or a motor vehicle authority often have a larger emphasis on automating procedures. In such States (e.g., Florida, Colorado, or Illinois), data systems may generate letters and notices to program participants automati-cally, alerting them of requirements or requesting a response to a reported fail that could be a program violation. Some of these States profiled here are investing heavily in their data systems in the hopes of seeing increased data quality and enhanced productivity, even in the face of program expansions.
The law enforcement community is involved in interlock programs, although it tends to focus on the initial identification of DWI offenses, and the enforcement of interlock programs once created (e.g., identifying drivers who are driving without an interlock or identifying instances of tampering). However, not all law enforcement officers are familiar with interlocks.
Treatment providers play a large role in Florida’s interlock program, and are increasing their role in the programs of other States, such as Colorado. In Florida, program participants undergo treatment on a progressive scale, such that as offenses increase, so too do treatment requirements.
Counselors meet with program participants experiencing interlock violations and lockouts to address underlying issues related to alcohol use, and to develop approaches to incorporate feedback from the devices to change behavior. Likewise, Colorado recently created guidance for counselors on how to use data gathered from interlocks as a part of behavioral motivation therapy.
All States communicate with numerous other agencies about their interlock programs. The nature of the communications depends partly on the structure of the program, with some agen-cies engaged in more frequent communication than others. Almost all programs find that they need to create structures to communicate between State driver’s licensing authorities and the judicial system, even if one system tends to handle day-to-day administration of the program.
In contrast, some States engage in interstate communication more than others. Oklahoma has created a list of several critical interstate communication issues, and is beginning the process of addressing these issues by creating agreements with border States on issues related to installa-tion standards, etc. However, it is quick to note that interstate issues remain largely unaddressed.
Other States profiled here such as New Mexico and New York also report issues related to inter-state communications, and report that this is a growing concern as interlock programs expand and as each State develops its own program standards.
Interlock Vendor, Data and Device Issues
One of the issues States face is working with the vendors who distribute interlocks within their borders to ensure that program standards are met. Several States have made substantial progress in this area. For example, Oklahoma has worked extensively with its vendors to ensure that all devices sold within the State are calibrated and perform to the same standards. Likewise, Illinois has worked with vendors to collect raw data in a standardized fashion so that the State can deter-mine what does and does not constitute a violation.
Another area where the States profiled here are constantly working for improvement relates to data monitoring and evaluation. Each State has its own system to collect data from vendors and to review data for violations. Florida has created a system using only two vendors to streamline
information collection. Colorado has created an online data system into which vendors enter information in the hopes of improving data timeliness and data quality.
Circumvention is another critical issue that States are addressing. For example, Oklahoma has created tampering seals that it places on devices, and also does not allow customers to observe installations in the hopes of reducing tampering. Other States in this guide are training officers on what tampering looks like and are collecting information in the hopes of having a highly vis-ible court case related to tampering to serve as a further deterrent.
Evaluation of Interlock Programs
The profiled States agree that evaluation is a critical component of interlock programs, and that data from evaluations will be important for legislators and program advocates to consider as interlock programs continue to expand. Up until this point, many programs have had little for-mal evaluation (two exceptions are Florida and New Mexico). However, many States will be able to conduct more detailed evaluations in the future through forward-thinking designs of their data collection systems. For example, Florida can use its interlock database to quickly generate reports on recidivism.