Evaluation of the Colorado Administrative Program

1. Evaluation of the Colorado Administrative Program • David S. Timken, Ph.D. Center for Impaired Driving Research and Evaluation Boulder, CO • C. Stephen Hooper, J.D. Motor Vehicle Division CO Department of Revenue Lakewood, CO

2. Interlock 1995 • Pilot Program • University of Colorado Study • Sunset Review based on results of Study • Voluntary Interlock Probationary License for Individuals under Alcohol Related Revocation

3. 1995 Requirements • Up to 2-year waiting period before eligibility. • Doubled time under restraint. • No outstanding judgments or warrants at the time of application. • Required hearing for approval and annual renewal. • Hearing Officer discretion to approve or disapprove. • License restricted to times and locations. • Only one driver per vehicle. • Sanction limited to license cancellation and device removal.

4. Study Found • Device effective. • Colorado’s system discouraged participation. • System needs both a mandatory component and an incentive for early involvement.

5. Interlock 2001 • All repeat offenders must get interlock sooner or later. • Maximum 1-year wait for early voluntary participation. • No automatic time-doubling. • OJWs only need to be cleared before license can issue. • No hearings required. • License only restricted to interlock. • Anyone can drive interlock vehicle.

6. Sanctions to Fit Behavior • Continued attempted drinking and driving as demonstrated by reports results in extension of the interlock requirement. • Circumvention or driving a non-equipped vehicle causes revocation followed by another mandatory interlock. • Hearings are only to determine whether the sanctioned events occurred and to assess aggravation and mitigation for extensions.

7. Interlock 2007 • Interlock restriction to be noted on face of driver history as soon as offender has sufficient violations to trigger the ultimate obligation. • All Persistent Drunk Drivers must have the interlock for a minimum of 2 years. • BAC of 0.17 requires interlock for two years on first offense.

8. Proposed Study of Colorado’s Current Interlock System

9. Joint Venture • Department of Biometrics, University of Colorado, Health Sciences Center (UCHSC); and • The Center for Impaired Driving Research and Evaluation

10. Foundation • The 2001 Interlock Study: Marine, et al

11. Source of Data • MVD, CO. Department of Revenue • Interlock Providers • Div. of Probation Services, State Court Administrators Office • Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division, CO Dept of Human Services

12. Two Populations of Offenders • Voluntary Users • Mandated Users

13. Potential Research Questions • N of each • Demographics – Range • Age • Gender • Ethnicity • Income

14. Questions, Cont. • Demographics, Cont. • Income • Marital Status • Education Level • Other

15. Questions, Cont. • Number of DWI offenses – range • Length of stay on Interlocks – range • Number of noncompliant citations – range • Time on Interlock before citation

16. Questions, Cont. • Pattern of noncompliance • More violations at first • More violations after time • Taper later

17. Questions, Cont. • DWI Recidivism • On Interlock • Off Interlock

18. Questions, Cont. • Time before DWI – range • On Interlock • Off Interlock

19. Questions, Cont. • Time Period between installation of Interlock and completion of treatment • Impact of ED and/or TX on compliance

20. Questions, Cont. • Impact of ED and/or TX on DWI Recidivism • Impact of different levels of ED and/or TX on DWI recidivism

21. Questions, Cont • Did successful completion of ED or TX have different impact on noncompliance • Did successful completion of ED or TX have different impact on Recidivism

22. Questions, Cont. • Recidivism comparison between • Offenders with Interlocks • Offenders without Interlocks

23. Process Evaluation • Survey populations/stakeholders: What do you think about the Interlocks? • MVD Personnel • Law Enforcement • Interlock Providers • DWI offenders • DWI TX Providers