Program Profile: Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device Program (Illinois)

The program requires installation of ignition interlock devices in motor vehicles to test the breath–alcohol level of drivers convicted of alcohol-related traffic violations. The device prohibits alcohol-impaired drivers from starting and operating the vehicle. The program is rated Promising. Treatment group individuals who had the device installed had statistically significantly lower rates of rearrest for alcohol-related violations, compared with the control group, at the 3-year follow-up.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Population

The Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device Program (BAIID) requires installation of ignition interlock devices in motor vehicles to test the breath–alcohol level of drivers convicted of alcohol-related traffic violations, to prohibit these individuals from starting and operating the vehicle. The program was piloted in 1994, and made permanent in 1998, with the goal of reducing the high rates of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol in Illinois. The program initially targeted persons with multiple DUI violations who were granted limited driving privileges (e.g., for employment, educational, or medical purposes) through a Monitoring Device Driving Permit during the suspension or revocation of their license. The state passed a law, which became effective in 2009, that expanded the use of BAIID to first-time DUI law violators. The goal of the BAIID program is to monitor people convicted of DUI to assist in their rehabilitation, while guaranteeing public safety.

Program Components

The BAIID office coordinates the program and is notified by the administrative hearings office when an individual has been granted an MDDP with a BAIID. Participants are required to pay for all costs associated with this program (a fund for indigent individuals is also available). Once violators have fulfilled the conditions of the MDDP and paid their fees, they are mailed a map that lists all of the BAIID installation sites within Illinois. Participants have 14 days to have the device installed. Then when the device has been installed, vendors notify the office. Participants can legally drive only those vehicles that have a BAIID installed.

The interlock connects the vehicle’s ignition system to a breath analyzer. Before the persons can start the car, the individual must breathe into the device, which is calibrated to “lock” the ignition if the breath alcohol level exceeds a preprogrammed level (0.05). The devices also are programmed for “rolling retests” at intervals while the car is in operation. If the driver fails one of these tests, the device triggers the horn and flashing lights, which will continue to attract notice until the car is turned off.

Vendors provide periodic updates to the BAIID office regarding the performance of individuals using the BAIID. These updates are scrutinized to detect evidence of attempts to tamper with the device or of violators’ attempts to start the vehicle with alcohol in their system. If evidence is found, a letter of inquiry is sent to the violator requesting specifics about the incident. BAIIDs are removed 1 year after installation.

Program Theory

To the extent that a theory grounds the use of interlock devices, routine activity theory may apply (see Rauch et al. 2011). This theory predicts that crime will increase when criminally motivated persons find suitable targets that lack capable guardians. The interlock device in this perspective acts as a way to remove a suitable target (a drivable car) from a motivated person. It also acts as a “guardian” to prevent the crime of operating a vehicle while under the influence.

Some researchers also refer to learning theory to explain the presence or absence of changed behavior after the device is removed from the vehicle (see Rauch et al. 2011). The theory suggests that persons have to “unlearn” the drinking behavior and then have to be repeatedly “rewarded” by successful driving episodes (that is, not being caught while driving intoxicated). If the device is installed for too short of a period, the individuals do not have sufficient time to unlearn their previous behaviors. If the device is installed for a longer time, the driver is conditioned to learn about the negative effect (that drinking is “punished” by the inability to start the car).

Study

Raub, Lucke, and Wark (2001) used a quasi-experimental design to assess the effectiveness of the Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device Program (BAIID) on reducing rearrest for alcohol-related driving violations. Participants in the study were people who all multiple driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offenses and had been granted limited driving relief through a restricted driving permit before potential reinstatement of full driving privileges. Allocation to the condition was not random. The control group (n = 1,384) consisted of all persons who applied for and received a restricted driving permit following an earlier offense during the period of July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1994. The treatment group (n = 1,560) comprised all those who applied for and received a restricted driving permit following an earlier offense during the period of July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1997, and were therefore required as part of a change in state law to install the BAIID in their vehicles.

The treatment group was 92.4 percent male, with an average age of 38.7 years. The control group was 91.1 percent male, with an average age of 37.5 years. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups on any of the variables that could be studied (age, sex, and county of residence), but there were no data available on other factors that have been associated with DUI recidivism in the research literature (e.g., number of prior DUI violations). No statistical controls were used to match the two groups.

Researchers analyzed time to first DUI rearrest for four time periods: 1 year and less, 1 to 2 years, 2 to 3 years, and 3 to 4 years. The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on rates of rearrest within 3 years of an individual’s hearing. The Illinois Secretary of State made available driver record summaries (called “abstracts”) for all drivers in the treatment and control groups. The study employed t–tests and survival analysis to examine group differences. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Beck, Kenneth H., William J. Rauch, Elizabeth A. Baker, and Allan F. Williams. 1999. “Effects of Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on Drivers With Multiple Alcohol Offenses: A Randomized Trial in Maryland.” American Journal of Public Health 89:1696–1700.

Elder, Randy W., Robert B. Voas, Doug Beirness, Ruth A. Shults, David A. Sleet, James L. Nichols, and Richard Compton (Task Force on Community Preventive Services). 2011. “Effectiveness of Ignition Interlocks for Preventing Alcohol-Impaired Driving and Alcohol-Related Crashes: A Community Guide Systematic Review.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 40(3):362–76.

Magnusson, Patrick, Lisa Jakobsson, Sven Hultman. 2011. “Alcohol Interlock Systems in Sweden: 10 Years of Systematic Work.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 40(3):378–79.

Rauch, William J., Eileen M. Ahlin, Paul L. Zador, Jan M. Howard, and G. Doug Duncan. 2011. “Effects of Administrative Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on Drivers With Multiple Alcohol Offenses.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 7(2):127–48.

Task Force on Community Preventive Services. 2011. Recommendations on the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlocks for Preventing Alcohol-Impaired Driving and Alcohol-Related Crashes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 40(3):377.

Zador, Paul L., Eileen M. Ahlin, William J. Rauch, Jan M. Howard, and G. Doug Duncan. 2011. “The Effects of Closer Monitoring on Driver Compliance With Interlock Restrictions.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 43(6):1960–67.