Premium
Administrative Reinstatement Interlock Programs: F lorida, A 10‐Year Study
Author(s) -
Voas Robert B.,
Tippetts Anthony S.,
Grosz Milton
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
alcoholism: clinical and experimental research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.267
H-Index - 153
eISSN - 1530-0277
pISSN - 0145-6008
DOI - 10.1111/acer.12078
Subject(s) - interlock , revocation , recidivism , license , computer security , engineering , psychology , computer science , criminology , operating system , electrical engineering , overhead (engineering)
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 F lorida 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, F lorida'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.