Citation

Voas RB, Tippetts AS, Grosz M. Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 2013; 37(7): 1243-1251.

Affiliation

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, Maryland.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/acer.12078

PMID

23442206

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interlocks reduce driving-under-the-influence (DUI) recidivism by 64%, but offenders resist installing them, preferring to risk driving while their driver's licenses are revoked. One method of motivating offenders to install an interlock is require it for reinstatement of their driver's license. This report updates an earlier evaluation of the administrative reinstatement interlock program (ARIP) procedure implemented in Florida in 2002. METHODS: Driver records and interlock program records covering 120,000 DUI offenders were followed over 10 years. The flow through the sanction system-conviction, reinstatement, interlock program, and postinterlock period-is described. Logistical regression was used to identify the characteristics of offenders who installed interlocks, and survival analysis was used to evaluate the recidivism of offenders in the various stages in the ARIP. RESULTS: At any given time, approximately one-third of the convicted offenders were serving their license-revocation periods. Half of the offenders who completed their revocation periods remain unqualified for reinstatement because they do not fulfill other requirements. ARIP offenders who do qualify for reinstatement and install interlocks have lower recidivism rates while the devices are on their vehicles. CONCLUSIONS: After 10 years, Florida's ARIP is a mature system that succeeds in forcing all offenders in the program who qualify for reinstatement to install an interlock for at least 6 months. However, half of all offenders who complete their mandatory revocation period are either unable to or choose not to qualify for reinstatement.

Language: en