Citation

Marques PR, Tippetts AS, Voas RB, Danseco ER, Beirness DJ. 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

During the 12 months after the interlock has been removed first-time offenders exposed to the intervention had approximately half the number of repeat DUI offenses than those not exposed to the intervention. In the intervention site 1.2% (vs. 2.4% in the non-intervention site) of the first offenders had repeat DUI offenses. This finding is based on an initial 1373 first offenders but with such low reoffense rates it is not yet a statistically significant difference. Preliminary data from 505 multiple offenders has shown no evidence of an intervention effect with this group. In both intervention conditions, multiple offenders had approximately 3% reoffenses within the first 12 months after the interlock was removed. The research model presumes that the services intervention will affect road safety by improving the motivation of these offenders to separate their drinking and driving. The lower rate of failed BACs and the fewer repeat offenses among first offenders within the intervention site could not, with the measures available, be directly attributed to processes (dose measures) associated with the intervention itself. Those who had more visits during comparable intervals of time or provided higher general compliance with the expectations of the motivational intervention did not show fewer failed BACs than those who were less compliant or had fewer repeat offenses. Within the intervention site, the best predictors of not recording failure BACs were lower self-reported drinking, less required time on the interlock (e.g., the best of the offenders), those who volunteered for the interlock and those who are married.