Citation

Beirness DJ, Marques PM, Voas RB, Tippetts AS. Proc. Int. Counc. Alcohol Drugs Traffic Safety Conf. 2000; 2000: -p..

Copyright

(Copyright © 2000, The author(s) and the Council, Publisher International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that participation in an interlock program significantly reduces the likelihood of the offender committing a subsequent DWI offense at least so long as the device is installed in the vehicle. Despite the growing number of jurisdictions that allow interlock programs and the demonstrated success of these programs, the proportion of DWI offenders who actually have the device installed is minimal. In an effort to increase the proportion of offenders using interlocks, some jurisdictions require offenders to install an interlock as a condition of license reinstatement whereas others offer offenders a reduction in the period of hard suspension if they voluntarily install an interlock. It is not known whether the voluntary or mandatory approach results in more interlock participants or which approach is more successful in reducing recidivism. These issues can be addressed using data from the interlock program in Alberta Canada, which allows both mandatory and voluntary participation. This paper examines the recidivism experience of approximately 4,000 interlock participants according to whether they were ordered to have an interlock installed or voluntarily had an interlock installed as a means to reduce the length of license suspension.