Varieties of Interlock Program Features: Results from an ICADTS and IIS survey 2007

1. Varieties of Interlock Program Features: Results from an ICADTS and IIS survey 2007 27 August 2007 8th Ignition Interlock Symposium Seattle, WA Paul Marques Robert Voas Scott McKnight

2. IIS at Beaver Creek Meeting 2006 • Bob Voas surveyed the audience about interlock program features and problems last year. • The ICADTS Ignition Interlock Working Group also wanted insight into Program Features. • PIRE turned these questions into a distribution survey. • Many of you replied. • NHTSA also began an effort to identify model programs. • We believe some have very good features, none perfect, very little evaluation research available to distinguish. • Due to high level of convergence, we used survey results to report to NHTSA. • This report is about what we learned from you. • Our “recommendations” that follow are our best guesses.

3. Sample • We used Dick Roth’s data (gleaned from manufacturers to set the initial states sample). • Scott targeted key informants (people who know) through a telephone query process. • We received separate written responses from 29 people – mostly US, but also Canada, Sweden, Norway, Australia. • Among US States, 24 people replied representing 13 of the 15 states having more than 2000 interlocks in service, and another 7 of the other 35 states with smaller programs.

4. States with more than 2000 devices in June 2006 In 13 of 15 states at least one person replied

5. Question Topical Issues • Offender monitoring (4 Qs) • Offender requirements (8 Qs) • Violations and penalties (11 Qs) • Monitoring providers (5 Qs) • Provider/vendor requirements (5 Qs) • Device operational features (7 Qs) • Costs (2 Qs) • Associated services (6 Qs) • Open-ended: Benefits, Problems, Other issues

6. Response to Elevated BAC • Wide disparity in gov’t response to positive BAC tests. • Perhaps an underlying philosophical difference in approach to interlock. • Is elevated BAC test considered a violation or not? • Is the purpose to separate drinking and driving - OR - is the interlock for extended monitoring that can lead to sanctions for positive BAC? • Recommendation: The meaning of positive BAC tests should vary with time on the program. We suggest initial tolerance while offender is learning, followed by stricter requirement before reinstatement of no more positive BAC tests. Otherwise extend.

7. Data from our ’94-’99 Alberta Study Shows rate of elevated BAC tests by program duration LEARNING TO COMPLY?

8. Interlock Extensions • Several states are now using an adjustable requirements. Violations for BAC or procedural faults result in longer interlock period • CO: 1 yr extension for 3 positive tests, • WV: demerits awarded for positives can lead to extensions, • MI: 3 positive BACs adds 3 months, • VA: requires 6 months of no elevated BACs, if not, clock resets. • Judges always have some discretion to extend and this happens in TX and probably all judicial programs. • Recommendation: Same as before – people need to first learn about why BAC is still high the morning after a binge, then once they learn they should be expected to adjust behavior. If they don’t they should be extended.

9. Mandatory for Reinstatement • Many states claim to have mandatory programs (and by legislation they often do) • But only a few counties (much less states) can demonstrate 50% or more of offenders in the programs • In MD, FL, AZ, TX offender is supposed to have interlock before relicensing, and some (FL) have long suspension • Does this increase unlicensed driving? • Recommendation: If interlock is mandatory we need increased enforcement –to assure that the mandatory requirement does not force people out of the license control system. Also, rapid interlock (brief suspension) may help prevent discovery of the ease of unlicensed driving.

10. Intrastate Communication 1 • Many states have poor communication internally between departments (DMV and Judicial). • In judicial programs (the court orders and probation monitors), but often the state manages the interlock program operation and there are many reports of very poor communication between them. • States need resources to educate judges and to monitor providers. Some have commented that judges need significant education about interlocks. • Provider/Court relationships very variable. Responsible authority needs to view providers as partners. Providers need to be worthy of it. • Factoid: WA state DOL receives tampering notices but not BAC reports (those go to the courts).

11. Intrastate Communication 2 • VA government (VASAP) has Case Manager/Monitors who review reports and work with the courts to flag offenders. This seems a good hybrid. • NM Bernalillo has 7 active POs dedicated to interlock. Works very well (we are told). • In CA, the court and state programs (for early reinstatement) are completely separate – Judges decide who gets interlock (poor/missing linkage). • Recommendation: State needs formal protocols to assure higher levels of communication between the administrative and judicial elements. State needs to require (and be ready to sanction) providers to assure adequate reports of minimally acceptable information and work with Providers as partners. States needs staff to monitor offender performance.

12. Circumvention • DEFINITION: starting the vehicle without first passing a BAC test (various ways to do this) • Anti-circumvention protocols (e.g., hum tone, suck/blow) • Offenders learn if there is very little monitoring – they face little risk by circumvention. • Very uneven concern about this issue at DMV or courts. • State certification guidelines (from Fed) require some form of circumvention detection and control. • Not all administrative/court entities monitor compliance or even insist that the protections are active. • Recommendation. Device protocols must always be active. Need inspection program to sanction bad providers. Should heed advice of responsible providers.

13. Monthly Reports to the Authority - 1 • Content: No standard format now, one should be developed • Some useful elements could include… • Test summary (All BAC tests, All start tests) • Fail tests time, date, BAC levels, ten tests before and after each • Circumventions, tampers, power loss, low battery • Lockouts, retest refusals, other procedural violations • Vehicle use indication (odometer, starts, durations) • Frequency: one but no more than two month service intervals – reports should be online within 24 hours of service, one state complained of a 2 month delay in reports.

14. Monthly Reports to the Authority - 2 • Method: Both paper and online used • Authorization: Perhaps signoff by the authority who receives a report to emulate a chain of custody process to guarantee monitoring • Alerts?: One PO proposed a real time alert system (via mobile phone technology – this gets to what is the purpose of the interlock, a preventive or a snitch – people will differ on this) • Recommendation: Must have a standard format, must have reports, must use reports, failure to provide a report should result in sanctioning a provider. The signoff protocol will protect the provider.

15. Counseling Linkage • No US programs have an interlock-linked counseling program. • Even Sweden’s medical program has no counseling; they are just doing monitoring. • But it is easy to argue that there has never been a better opportunity to make it work better: • Because of the interlock record data • And if there was medical monitoring • And if the interlock period was adjustable due to it • Recommendation: Yes, it would add costs, but this is something that alcohol costs should pay for (reflex groan here from anti-tax people)

16. Retest Failures • Consequences for failure to retest varies. • CO: program activates a siren if there is retest failure. • PA: no externally audible tone/signal allowed (against vehicle code). • MD: regards it as reportable violation but no vehicle action. • CA: Lockout after 48 hr delay. • Recommendation: This is really more a device issue more than a program issue. The certification standards for the devices should deal with this. Programs then enforce.

17. Minimal Vehicle Use Requirement • Few states are checking to assure regular use of the interlock car • Without some check, a driver may wait out the interlock or use a different car • Many survey respondents thought this was a worthwhile feature to have • It is easy to log and report number and time of vehicle use from interlock record • Recommendation: Either log odometer reading during each service call or include as part of the monthly report a log of running time and starts.