EU ALCOLOCK PROGRAMS FOR DUIOFFENDERS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
1 / 11
Title:
EU ALCOLOCK PROGRAMS FOR DUIOFFENDERS
Description:
Most important factors determining the effectiveness of ... Car ownership: ... install an alcolock did not comply, stating they didn't own a car (DeYoung, 2002) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation
Number of Views:16
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Title: EU ALCOLOCK PROGRAMS FOR DUIOFFENDERS
1
EU ALCOLOCK PROGRAMS FOR DUI-OFFENDERS
- Factors influencing implementation, participation
and compliance - Results of a literature review
- Funded by the European Commission
René Mathijssen SWOV, The Netherlands www.swov.nl
2
Most important factors determining the
effectiveness of alcolock programs
- Implementation a governments decision to
introduce alcolock programs. - Participation participation rate by
drink-driving offenders. - Compliance compliance of alcolock program
participants with the conditions of the program
(during and after alcolock installation).
3
Factors influencing implementation of alcolock
programs for DUI-offenders
- Proven effectiveness
- Uncertain effectiveness delayed alcolock
implementation in Australia (Schonfeld Sheehan,
2004) - Legal barriers
- In most EU-countries, implementation requires
amendment of road traffic laws (Bax et al., 2001) - Knowledge gap researchers-policy makers
- Lack of easy-to-understand research findings
(Steward, 2205) - Practical issues
- Maintenance, monitoring and enforcement issues
delayed implementation in Australia (Schonfeld
Sheehan, 2004). - Cost factors
- Were an issue with the government of Australia
(Schonfeld Sheehan, 2004).
4
Factors influencing participation (a)
- Conditions for program entrance/continuation
- In Sweden, even alcohol-dependent drivers are
eligible for program participation, showing a
very low re-arrest rate while on the program
(Bjerre, 2005). - On the other hand, participants have to
demonstrate a sober lifestyle after being one
year in the program. If they cannot, they are
removed from the program. - Result approx. half of the already low number
of participants had to leave the program after
one year, immediately showing strongly increased
recidivism rates (Bjerre, 2005). This might have
been prevented, if continued drinking problems
would have been a reason for extended program
participation beyond the standard period, instead
of removal from the program.
5
Factors influencing participation (b)
- Inconvenience and cost of alcolock programs
- In Sweden, the inconvenience of 3-monthly medical
checks may have played a deterring role (Bjerre
Bergman, 2004), especially for non-alcohol-depende
nt offenders. - In California (DeYoung, 2002), Australia
(Schonfeld Sheehan, 2004) and Sweden (Bjerre,
2003) alike, the cost of alcolock programs were
reported as a barrier for participation. Some
jurisdictions tried to solve this problem by - making the cost income-dependent
- allowing payments by installments
- funding indigent offenders
- making participation free of cost
6
Factors influencing participation (c)
- Mandatory vs. voluntary programs
- (Hypothesis, not tested) mandatory programs have
higher participation rates than voluntary ones
(Beirness, 2000). - In Canada and the USA, the typical participation
rate of voluntary programs was approx. 10
(Beirness Robertson, 2002), and in Sweden 11
(Bjerre, 2003). - In a voluntary program in Illinois, however, the
participation rate was 30 (Frank et al., 2000),
suggesting that other factors than voluntariness
may also play an important role. - A 62 participation rate was reported for
programs where the only alternatives were
incarceration or electronically monitored house
arrest (Voas et al., 2002). But this kind of
administration of justice will probably not be
feasible in EU countries.
7
Factors influencing participation (d)
- Judicial vs. administrative programs
- Experiences from California (De Young, 2002)
suggest that judicial programs generate lower
participation rates than administrative ones, due
to - reluctance of courts to order alcolock
installation - violation of court orders
- Willingness of general practitioners to report
alcohol-dependent patients - In Sweden, general practitioners reported only
one in 1,000 alcohol-dependent patients to the
licensing authority (Bjerre et al., 2004).
8
Factors influencing participation (e)
- Car ownership
- In California, many drivers who were
court-ordered to install an alcolock did not
comply, stating they didnt own a car (DeYoung,
2002) - Technical factors
- Favorable factors
- Possibility to engage and disengage the alcolock
at will - Low false alarm rate
- Ergonomic design
- Unfavorable factor
- Engine immobilization (unacceptable)
- (Self-reporting by males 17-25 in Australia
Young et al., 2003)
9
Factors influencing participation (f)
- Preceding period of hard suspension
- (Hypothesis) participation rates may increase if
program participation is not preceded by a
lengthy period of hard suspension.
10
Factors influencing compliance
- Quality of the monitoring system
- De Young (2002) blamed part of the low compliance
rate in California to shortcomings of the
monitoring system these shortcomings were due to
the fact that the system was time-consuming. - Integration of rehabilitation/counseling into
alcolock programs - In Alberta, participants of such programs had
lower re-offence rates, even after the alcolock
was removed (Marques et al., 2000). The effect
was limited to first offenders and to the first
year after alcolock removal. - Recently, a new and better structured program was
set up in Texas the first results were promising
(Marques et al., 2004).
11
Recommendations for EU implementation of alcolock
programs
- Implementation under administrative law
administration by the licensing authority. - Mandatory participation successful completion as
a condition for full license reinstatement. - Program differentiation (aimed at raising
participation) - A relatively simple and inexpensive program for
first offenders with a relatively low BAC at the
time of arrest (supposedly having a moderate
recidivism risk). - A more elaborate and expensive program including
regular medical tests for high-BAC offenders and
recidivists (supposedly having a high recidivism
risk). - Flexible duration of programs, based on
monitoring results from data logger and/or from
medical checks. - No exclusion from the program based upon
monitoring results only in case of repeat
drink-driving.
