1 / 12

AIM OF THE RESEARCH

0. The Impact of Alcohol Ignition Interlocks on a Group of Recidivist Offenders: A Case-study Approach James Freeman Mary Sheehan Cynthia Schonfeld CARRS-Q CRICOS No. 00213J. 0. AIM OF THE RESEARCH.

prema
Download Presentation

AIM OF THE RESEARCH

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 0 The Impact of Alcohol Ignition Interlocks on a Group of Recidivist Offenders: A Case-study ApproachJames Freeman Mary Sheehan Cynthia Schonfeld CARRS-QCRICOS No. 00213J

  2. 0 AIM OF THE RESEARCH • Aim: to examine the effect of alcohol ignition interlocks on key program outcomes from a users’ perspective • Rationale: • Early evaluations have demonstrated interlocks reduce recidivism whilst installed • Questions remain as to why some re-offend • Further research is required to examine the impact of interlocks on key program outcomes

  3. 0 QUEENSLAND STUDY • Group One • Group Two Licence Disqualification and fine 11 week Under the Limit Program Install interlock N = 150 each group Sanctions Under the Limit Sanctions Under the Limit Interlock

  4. 0 Sanctions Under the Limit Interlocks • 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th • Participants: • N = 12 male participants M offence = 3 (M BAC = .155mg%) • Materials: AUDIT (Saunders et al., 1993) Readiness to Change Drinking (Heather & Rollnick, 1992) Readiness to Change Drink Driving (Heather & Rollnick, 1992) Self-efficacy to Change Drinking and Drink Driving(Wells-Parker et al., 1997) Interlock Questionnaire Downloaded interlock data Procedure: • Interviews were conducted at participants Community Corrections Office

  5. 0 RESULTS Downloaded Interlock Recordings: • Participants used their vehicle 80% of the days • 4.85 trips per day • 3 times more often during the week than week-end • 12 times more often during the day than at night • High number of incorrect breath samples in the first month

  6. 0 • Downloaded Interlock Recordings: • Each participant recorded a breath test violation • 53 “start-up” failures over the four month data collection period • 11 re-test failures • 3 participants accounted for 36 “start-up” failures and 8 “rolling re-test failures” • The highest frequency of violations were in the middle of the day

  7. 0 Self-report Data • Motivated to change drink driving behaviour • Reported high self-efficacy levels to control drinking and • drink driving • Unmotivated to change drinking behaviour • Most consumed harmful levels of alcohol

  8. 0 EMERGING THEMES 1. Incorrect Breath Samples • - “I couldn’t get the thing to work. I’d suck then blow, suck then blow and I couldn’t get it to work. • “It’s been terrible. As a result I had heaps of violations” • Participants experienced some level of initial difficulty providing adequate breath samples • Considerable reduction was evident over time

  9. 0 EMERGING THEMES 2. Unwillingness to Reduce Alcohol Consumption Levels - “I don’t drink less, why should I? It’s not my drinking that is the problem. That’s fine” (participant 3: 4th interview). - “I don’t care, my drinking is fine. It’s the interlock that is the problem” (participant 6, 3rd interview) • Heavy alcohol consumption levels + unwillingness to reducelevels increase the likelihood of breath violations • Some drinking behaviours appear entrenched and resistant to change • Program facilitators and probation officers need to be aware of resistance to change

  10. 0 EMERGING THEMES 3. False Positives - “Yes, I had some breaches when I wasn’t drinking. Not immediately before anyway. The night before…..but not before I got in the car” (participant 6: 5th interview). - “It’s locked me out when I wasn’t drinking. Perhaps my cigarette set it off…..but I wasn’t drinking before I got in my car” (participant 4: 4th interview). - “I brushed my teeth in the morning and I couldn’t start it” (participant 1: 4th interview). - “I had KFC and it locked me out” (participant 6: 4th interview). • Low levels of awareness regarding safe drinking levels • Unwillingness to recognise an error in judgement

  11. 0 EMERGING THEMES 4. Reduction in Breath Test Violations - “Despite the difficulties using the darn thing, I got better at avoiding drinking before I drive….well I guess I had to, what’s the alternative?” (participant 7: 5th interview) - “I just realised that I can’t drink much during the week…..when I need to drive. I’ve cut back and it seems to be working. I know when I can and can’t have a beer” (participant 1: 5th interview). - “Now I only really get on the booze on the weekends, when I know I don’t need to drive the car, or if a mate can pick me up” (participant 2: 5th interview). • Reductions may result from: (a) decline in drinking levels for half the sample (b) changes in driving patterns

  12. 0 CONCLUSIONS • Some participants were not motivated to change drinking behaviours • The unwillingness of some participants to acknowledge inappropriate drinking behaviours • Some repeat offenders’ drinking behaviours are resistant to some countermeasures

More Related