OBJECTIVE: In New Mexico, between July 1999 and December 2002, the installation of an ignition interlock was an optional judicial sanction for second and third driving-while-impaired (DWI) offenders. This is a study of the recidivism of 437 offenders who were convicted and installed interlocks for an average of 322 days during that period. METHODS: The comparison group was a stratified random sample (N = 12,554) of the 20,949 offenders who were convicted during the same period but did not install interlocks. DWI arrest and conviction data for all study participants were received from the Motor Vehicle Department's Citation Tracking System. RESULTS: Only 11 (2.5%) of the interlock offender group were rearrested for DWI while interlocks were installed, whereas 1,017 (8.1%) of the comparison group were rearrested during an equivalent 322-day period. Survival graphs and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to compare the interlock and noninterlock groups during installation, after installation, and for the entire period up to December 2004. Results indicate a reduction in recidivism of 65% during installation. After removal, there was no significant difference in recidivism rates in a 3-year follow-up period. Following all offenders for 4 years, including both the period while the interlock was installed and the period after its removal, indicates that the difference in recidivism achieved during installation, though not increased, is maintained, so at the end of 4 years, interlock users still have lower total recidivism than nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of interlock effectiveness reported here is similar to those in other published studies with comparable samples.
OBJECTIVE: In New Mexico, between July 1999 and December 2002, the installation of an ignition interlock was an optional judicial sanction for second and third driving-while-impaired (DWI) offenders. This is a study of the recidivism of 437 offenders who were convicted and installed interlocks for an average of 322 days during that period. METHODS: The comparison group was a stratified random sample (N = 12,554) of the 20,949 offenders who were convicted during the same period but did not install interlocks. DWI arrest and conviction data for all study participants were received from the Motor Vehicle Department's Citation Tracking System. RESULTS: Only 11 (2.5%) of the interlock offender group were rearrested for DWI while interlocks were installed, whereas 1,017 (8.1%) of the comparison group were rearrested during an equivalent 322-day period. Survival graphs and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to compare the interlock and noninterlock groups during installation, after installation, and for the entire period up to December 2004. Results indicate a reduction in recidivism of 65% during installation. After removal, there was no significant difference in recidivism rates in a 3-year follow-up period. Following all offenders for 4 years, including both the period while the interlock was installed and the period after its removal, indicates that the difference in recidivism achieved during installation, though not increased, is maintained, so at the end of 4 years, interlock users still have lower total recidivism than nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of interlock effectiveness reported here is similar to those in other published studies with comparable samples.