Alcohol Interlocks and Continuous Alcohol Monitoring

2

Alcohol Interlocks> An alcohol interlock is a breath-testing device attached to a car’s starter.

> It prevents the car from being started when a pre-set level of alcohol is detected in the breath sample presumably provided by the driver of the vehicle.

3

Effectiveness

> Research shows that alcohol interlocks reduce recidivism among both first-time and repeat offenders (including hardcore offenders).

> More than 10 evaluations of interlock applications have demonstrated reductions in recidivism ranging from 35-90% (Voas and Marques 2003; Venzina 2002, etc.) with an average reduction of 64% (Willis et al. 2005).

4

Prevalence

> Alcohol interlock programs have been implemented throughout the world: » More than 40 states in the United States;» Nine provinces and one territory in Canada;» Europe (Sweden, Finland, France, etc.); and» Australia.

> In the U.S. there are approx. 180,000 interlocks installed. » Approx. 13% of those arrested for drunk driving are installing interlocks.

5

Continuous Alcohol Monitoring

> Monitors the drinking behaviour of offenders.

> The device tests invisible perspiration (vaporous sweat) excreted through the skin for alcohol consumption.

> The technology has evolved into a non-invasive bracelet that monitors alcohol consumption 24/7 from any location.

6

Effectiveness

> Research studies over the past 10 years have demonstrated that transdermal alcohol readings are correlated to BACs. » However, there is a recognized and measurable delay.

> Several recent studies involving probation officers and offenders conclude that the SCRAM device is valid and reliable and is a “fast-acting deterrent” (Bock 2003; McKelvie 2005).

7

Prevalence

> More than 40 states use SCRAM. > The device is typically used in the following types of programs:» Pre-trial programs;» Probation supervision programs;» Specialty court programs;» Treatment programs; and » Re-entry, parole, or prison de-population programs.

8

Implementation Issues > Leadership (political and agency)

» Make impaired driving a priority» Designate individuals to oversee process and

establish clear channels of communication among agencies

> Legislation» Consultations with practitioners during drafting» Compatible with existing impaired driving legislation

> Policy» Accounts for operational-level details» Clearly stated – outlines roles and responsibilities

and creates accountability> Insufficient staff and resources

» Adequate time, staff, and funding to make program implementation and delivery efficient and effective

9

Implementation Issues> Training and education

» Law enforcement need training on how the device works and what to look for at a roadside stop

» Judges should be provided with up-to-date research and be made aware of the benefits of the device

> Participation rates» Lack of authority to make offenders comply» Offer incentives for participating

> Obstacles to eligibility» Lengthy hard suspensions; excessive fines and fees; additional requirements (e.g., completion of treatment/education classes); other charges

» Goal should be to get offenders on the interlock as soon as possible, not deter them from installing the device

10

Implementation Issues

> Cost and indigency» Offenders should not be disqualified on the basis of economic status

» All jurisdictions should have some form of indigent funding available for those offenders who can demonstrate financial need

> Reciprocity » Arrangements made between jurisdictions to prevent offenders from driving unlicensed if they relocate

11

Implementation Issues> Service providers

» Interlock devices meet specifications and are certified in independent labs

» Quality control for providers – inspection of service centers and background checks of all installers

» Arrangements for rural offenders> Data management

» Establish a good reporting system» Consistency in reporting (e.g., violations)

> Graduated responses» Agencies should identify a clear set of graduated responses and reinforcements

» Offenders who consistently demonstrate non-compliance should be kept in the program, not removed

12

Conclusions> In order to overcome many of these challenges

there needs to be:» Strong political and agency leadership;» Cooperation/communication among all stakeholders;» Clear legislation (drafted with practitioner input) with necessary supporting policies;

» Adequate time to implement programs;» Allocation of necessary staff and resources;» Training and education for all facets of the system;

» Flexibility to ensure that all impaired driving offenders are eligible for these technologies and that they are not disqualified due to indigency or non-compliance; and

» Streamlined reporting and monitoring.