Roth and Marques2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg.1 Regaining Control of Revoked DWI Offenders Interlocks As...
-
Upload
georgina-curtis -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Roth and Marques2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg.1 Regaining Control of Revoked DWI Offenders Interlocks As...
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 1
Regaining Control of Revoked DWI Offenders
Interlocks As an Alternative To Hard License Revocation
Substance Abuse Policy Research Program
Annual Grantee MeetingNovember 29-30, 2006
Paul Marques, PhD and Richard Roth, PhD
Pacific Institute For Research and Evaluation
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 2
An Ignition Interlock is an Electronic Monitor with Rejection Authority
• 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 (or
DMV in Administrative Programs)• Costs Offender only $2.30 per day.
(1 less drink per day)
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 3
Simple Combining of StudiesRecidivism While Interlocks Installed
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
1 OH 2 OR 3 NC 4 AB 5 WV 6 MD 7 AB 8 QC 9 IL 10 NM
During Interlock
Contrast groups for each study set to 100%
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 4
Simple Combining of StudiesRecidivism Same People After Interlocks Removed (Striped Bars)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
1 OH 2 OR 3 NC 4 AB 5 WV 6 MD 7 AB 8 QC 9 IL 10 NM
During Interlock After Interlock
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 5
Mathematical Combining of Interlock StudiesRelative Risk of Recidivism(with Interlocks Installed) = .36
A Meta-Analysis of Interlock Studies
Alcohol ignition interlock programmes for reducing drink driving recidivism. Source: Willis, Lybrand, & Bellamy, 2005
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 6
Post interlock results
A Meta-Analysis of Interlock Studies
Alcohol ignition interlock programmes for reducing drink driving recidivism. Source: Willis, Lybrand, & Bellamy, 2005
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 7
BUT – While Interlocks are Very Effective Few studies are at a Jurisdictional Level
• AND few programs achieve high installation rates –average is under 10%.
• Florida (and Quebec) have innovative administrative programs that each achieved 26% installation rates.
• In Hancock County Indiana a Judge who required interlocks of all offenders achieved 62% installation – the highest until Santa Fe County (Dick will
explain)• THE NATIONAL SAFETY CHALLENGE is to
Increase Penetration
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 8
Growth in Interlocks USA – trend is only linear from 1986-2006
• First program 1986 in California
• National penetration less than 10%
• 1.4 million DUI arrests per yr (FBI)
• MADD intends big push to increase to 500,000 in 5 years (by 2011).
• NOTE: Sweden will require on all cars by 2012
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
1986 1998 2002 2006
1998 Freund estimate2002 Rauch estimate2006 Roth estimate
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 9
MADD’s projection
• Unless we can inflect the growth curve it will be another 60-80 years before we approach interlocks for all DUI.
• MADD wants to do a national program of ramping up the installation rate to 500-700,000 in 5 yrs. 0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
1986 2002 2011
Th
e M
AD
D g
oal
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 10
New York Times Editorial November 25, 2006
Sensing You're Too Drunk to Drive
.. “The initial (MADD) goal, which is backed by associations of State highway officials and car manufacturers, is to have all states do what New Mexico has already done: require that all convicted drunken drivers, even first-time offenders, have devices installed in their cars that measure alcohol in the breath and immobilized the car if levels exceed set limits.”
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 11
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
85% of over 4000 offenders surveyed.
• ..But they only work if… • you get them installed.
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 12
The Problems
1. 35% of DWI offenders were revoked but not convicted.2. 25% of DWI offenders were 1st non-aggravated.3. Subsequent offenders had mandatory hard revocation.4. Judges were reluctant to mandate interlocks for those
whose licenses were revoked.5. 75% of revoked offenders continue to drive.6. Few revoked offenders ever get re-licensed.
In 2003, New Mexico had a law mandating interlocks for all High BAC and Subsequent DWI offenders,
but few interlocks were being installed.
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 13
NM Ignition Interlock License Act Purpose
1. To increase the utilization of interlocks by those arrested for drunk driving,
2. To eliminate the reluctance of judges to mandate interlocks for those who cannot get a license to drive,
3. To reduce drunk driving, and
4. To reduce the number of revoked offenders who never reinstate licenses.
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 14
In New Mexicoan Ignition Interlock License…
• is available to anyone revoked for DWI,
• requires an approved interlock and insurance, and
• allows driving anywhere, anytime in an insured, interlocked vehicle.
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 15
So our first research question is..Has the
Ignition Interlock License Act Increased the Utilization
of Interlocks by DWI Offenders?
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 16
2732 / year
Cumulative Interlock Installations in NMwith least squares fits to data
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Jan-02 Jul-02 Feb-03 Aug-03 Mar-04
Law Changes
1077 / year
137 / year
2732 / year
Optional for 2nd and 3rd conviction
Mandatory for aggravated and subsequent convictions
Interlock Licensing Act An alternative to revocation
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 17
Currently-Installed Interlocks per Million Residents by State2006 Data from 8 of 9 US Interlock Distributors; Plot by Dick Roth June 15, 2006
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500N
ew M
exic
o
Iow
a
Was
hin
gto
n
Mar
ylan
d
No
rth
Car
olin
a
Ari
zon
a
Co
lora
do
Okl
aho
ma
Vir
gin
ia
Uta
h
Ark
ansa
s
Mic
hig
an
Wes
t V
irg
inia
Tex
as
Ore
go
n
Mis
sou
ri
Idah
o
Flo
rid
a
So
uth
Dak
ota
Del
awar
e
Illin
ois
Oh
io
Pen
nsy
lvan
ia
Geo
rgia
Lo
uis
ian
a
How does New Mexico compare with other states in interlock utilization?
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 18
2nd QuestionHow many interlock licenses
have been granted and is the rate changing?
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 19
Interlock Licenses Issued by MVD 10,807 Issued by 11/8/2006; Rate in 2006 = 4999/yr
Data from MVD; Plot by Dr. Roth
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Jun
-03
Se
p-0
3
De
c-03
Ma
r-04
Jun
-04
Se
p-0
4
De
c-04
Ma
r-05
Jun
-05
Se
p-0
5
De
c-05
Ma
r-06
Jun
-06
Se
p-0
6
De
c-06
Ignition
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 20
Is there a Reduction in Recidivism?
• Court Mandated Offenders --ie those who install within 90 days after conviction
• Other Revoked Offenders --“Voluntary” installations
• SF County Overall before and after mandatory interlocks and Licensing Act
• New Mexico Overall before and after
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 21
Interlock Clients in New Mexico by Year and Reason For Installation
759 10261304
1117
1682
2162
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2003 2004 2005
Year of Interlock Installation
Voluntary: Installedbefore conviction ormore than 90 days afterconviction
Mandated (Installedwithin 90 days after aConviction)
Court Mandated vs Voluntary Installations
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 22
Recidivism of Mandated Interlocked Offenders vs Comparison Group by Conviction Number
6.4%
8.1% 8.3%
2.6%3.2% 3.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
C# = 1 C# = 2 C# = 3
DWI Convictions Prior to Installation
Rea
rres
ted
wit
hin
1 y
ear
Comparison Groups Interlocked Groups
Effectiveness with Court Mandated Offenders
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 23
Recidivism of Non-mandated Interlocked offenders vs Comparison Group by Arrest Number
9.1%
12.0%
1.5% 1.6%
3.6%
6.8%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
A# = 1 A# = 2 A# = 3+
DWI Arrests prior to Installation
% R
e-a
rre
ste
d w
ith
in 1
ye
ar
Comparison Groups Interlocked Groups
Effectiveness with Volunteers ie. Not court-mandated
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 24
Recidivism of 58779 NM DWI Offenders
Before and After First Mandatory Interlock Law
Time after Conviction (years)
2.01.51.0.50.0
On
e M
inu
s C
um
Su
rviv
al
.16
.14
.12
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02
0.00
Year of Conv
2001-2
2003-5
8.0% Before
6.7% After
A 16% Reduction
Statewide recidivism decreased.
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 25
Recidivism of 4855 SF County DWI Offenders
Before and After First Mandatory Interlock Law
Time after Conviction (years)
2.01.51.0.50.0
Fra
ctio
n R
ea
rre
ste
d f
or
DW
I
.16
.14
.12
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02
0.00
Year of Conv
2001-2
2003-5
8.7% Before
6.2% After
A 29% ReductionBefore
After
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 26
NM Alcohol-Involved Crash Rate
2.82.92.9
2.6
2.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Cra
sh
es
pe
r 1
00
0 D
riv
ers
28% drop in 3 years
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 27
NM Alcohol-Involved Fatal CrashesAn 11% Drop in 2 Years
176
184
198
0
50
100
150
200
250
2002 2003 2004
NM Alcohol-Involved Fatalities
194219
0
50
100
150
200
250
2004 2005
An 11% Decrease in 1 year
Fewer Alcohol Involved Fatal Crashes and Fatalities
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 28
Self Selection In Choosing Interlocks Among DWI Offenders Revoked 10 yrs For 3 Convictions in 10 years.
Comparison Group Matched on Age, Priors, Time between Priors, and Sex.
Those who do not install interlocks
Are much more likely to be arrested than those who do install.
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 29
Group: 3 or More Convictions in 10 years
HR = 0.67
P = 0.13
Using
MCPHRA
with
Covariates:
Age
Conv Date
Time B. Conv
Gender
Priors
Recidivism During Installation Period
Time During Installation (Years)
2.01.51.0.50.0
Fra
ctio
n R
e-a
rre
ste
d f
or
DW
I.12
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02
0.00
Group
IG
CC
Roth and Marques 2006 RWJ SAPRP Annual Mtg. 30
Survey of Interlocked Offenders
Helped Reduce My Drinking
Helped Reduce My Drinking
SAAUDSD
Pe
rce
nt
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Benefits Outweigh Costs
Benefits Outweigh Costs
SAAUDSD
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
All Arrested for DWI Should Have Interlocks
All Arrested for DWI Should Have Interlocks
SAAUDSD
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Effectively Reduce Drunk Driving
Effectively Reduce Drunk Driving
SAAUDSD
Pe
rce
nt
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
77% 81%
69% 63%
N = 796