Robert B Voas1, A Scott Tippetts1, Gwen Bergen2, Milton Grosz3, Paul Marques1. 1. Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, Maryland. 2. Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Tallahassee, Florida.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vehicle alcohol ignition interlocks reduce alcohol-impaired driving recidivism while installed, but recidivism reduction does not continue after removal. It has been suggested that integrating alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment with interlock programs might extend the effectiveness of interlocks in reducing recidivism beyond their removal. This study evaluated the first implementation of a Florida policy mandating AUD treatment for driving under the influence (DUI) offenders on interlocks. Treatment was required when the offender accumulated 3 violations (defined as 2 "lockouts" within 4 hours; a lockout occurs when the device prevents a drinking driver from starting the vehicle). METHODS: Cox regression was used to compare alcohol-impaired driving recidivism during the 48 months following the interlock removal between 2 groups: (i) 640 multiple DUI offenders who received AUD treatment while interlocks were installed; and (ii) 806 matched offenders not mandated to treatment while interlocks were installed. RESULTS: The ignition interlock plus treatment group experienced 32% lower recidivism, 95% confidence interval [9, 49], following the removal of the interlock during the 12 to 48 months in which they were compared with the nontreatment group. We estimated that this decline in recidivism would have prevented 41 rearrests, 13 crashes, and almost 9 injuries in crashes involving the 640 treated offenders over the period following interlock removal. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides strong support for the inclusion of AUD treatment for offenders in interlock programs based on the number of times they are "locked out." The offenders required to attend treatment demonstrated a one-third lower DUI recidivism following their time on the interlock compared to similar untreated offenders.
BACKGROUND: Vehicle alcohol ignition interlocks reduce alcohol-impaired driving recidivism while installed, but recidivism reduction does not continue after removal. It has been suggested that integrating alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment with interlock programs might extend the effectiveness of interlocks in reducing recidivism beyond their removal. This study evaluated the first implementation of a Florida policy mandating AUD treatment for driving under the influence (DUI) offenders on interlocks. Treatment was required when the offender accumulated 3 violations (defined as 2 "lockouts" within 4 hours; a lockout occurs when the device prevents a drinking driver from starting the vehicle). METHODS:Cox regression was used to compare alcohol-impaired driving recidivism during the 48 months following the interlock removal between 2 groups: (i) 640 multiple DUI offenders who received AUD treatment while interlocks were installed; and (ii) 806 matched offenders not mandated to treatment while interlocks were installed. RESULTS: The ignition interlock plus treatment group experienced 32% lower recidivism, 95% confidence interval [9, 49], following the removal of the interlock during the 12 to 48 months in which they were compared with the nontreatment group. We estimated that this decline in recidivism would have prevented 41 rearrests, 13 crashes, and almost 9 injuries in crashes involving the 640 treated offenders over the period following interlock removal. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides strong support for the inclusion of AUD treatment for offenders in interlock programs based on the number of times they are "locked out." The offenders required to attend treatment demonstrated a one-third lower DUI recidivism following their time on the interlock compared to similar untreated offenders.
Authors: Randy W Elder; Robert Voas; Doug Beirness; Ruth A Shults; David A Sleet; James L Nichols; Richard Compton Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Paul Marques; Scott Tippetts; John Allen; Martin Javors; Christer Alling; Michel Yegles; Fritz Pragst; Friedrich Wurst Journal: Addiction Date: 2009-11-16 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: James C Fell; Douglas J Beirness; Robert B Voas; Gordon S Smith; Brian Jonah; Jane Carlisle Maxwell; Jana Price; James Hedlund Journal: Traffic Inj Prev Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 1.491
Authors: Michael Scherer; Eduardo Romano; Sagan King; Paul Marques; Ann Romosz; Eileen Taylor; Thomas H Nochajski; Robert Voas; Amy Manning; Scott Tippetts Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2022-07 Impact factor: 3.346
Authors: Jefferson M Jones; Ruth A Shults; Byron Robinson; Kenneth K Komatsu; Erin K Sauber-Schatz Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Thomas H Nochajski; Amy R Manning; Robert Voas; Eileen P Taylor; Michael Scherer; Eduardo Romano Journal: Traffic Inj Prev Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 1.491
Authors: Robert B Voas; Anthony Scott Tippetts; Eduardo Romano; Thomas H Nochajski; Amy R Manning; Eileen Taylor; Michael Scherer Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Amy R Manning; Eduardo Romano; Josal Diebold; Thomas H Nochajski; Eileen Taylor; Robert B Voas; Michael Scherer Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 3.928