W.J. Rauch1, P.L. Zador1, E.M. Ahlin1, H.M. Baum1, D. Duncan1,
K.H. Beck2, R. Raleigh3, J. Joyce3 and N. Gretsinger3
1 Center for Studies on Alcohol, Westat, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
2 Department of Public and Community Health, University of Maryland,
College Park, Maryland, USA.
3 Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, Glen Burnie, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
Alcohol-impaired driving continues to be a major public health problem in the United States.
During 2000, alcohol was involved in 40% of all traffic fatalities (1). One promising
countermeasure to alcohol-impaired driving is the ignition interlock license restriction program.
Ignition interlock devices are designed to prevent an alcohol-impaired driver from starting and
operating a motor vehicle. License restriction means that drivers are approved for license
reinstatement on the condition that they agree to a license restriction prohibiting them from
operating a vehicle without an ignition interlock device. The conditional interlock license
restriction is prominently displayed on the driver's license of each program participant. Ignition
interlock license restrictions have shown potential for reducing recidivism among drivers with
multiple alcohol-related traffic offenses (2). Later analyses of this same cohort examined
recidivism rates 3 and 4 years after study entry (3, 4). In the current paper, new recidivism rates
for the one year interlock license restriction program and second (i.e., first year post-interlock)
through fifth year (i.e., fourth year post-interlock) of follow-up are presented using newly
developed electronic data abstraction methods. There was no statistically significant difference in
the recidivism rates for the interlock license restriction (4.0%) and control groups (4.8%) in the
fifth year after study entry.
Introduction
A statewide-randomized trial of ignition interlock license restrictions was performed in Maryland
and the results of that program evaluation were reported in the American Journal of Public Health
(2). Participants were 1,387 drivers with multiple alcohol-related traffic offenses whose driver's
licenses were either suspended or revoked for multiple alcohol offenses and who were eligible for
license reinstatement after undergoing a variety of treatment programs. Drivers were randomly
assigned to participate in an ignition interlock license restriction program or the usual postlicensure
treatment program (control group) lasting 12 months (2-4). Figure 1 shows the
geographic distribution of participants by zip code. Participants in the interlock program had a
restriction on their drivers' licenses indicating they could drive only a vehicle equipped with an
ignition interlock. Drivers who owned a car had to have the device installed within 45 days; those
who did not own a car had to sign a waiver that they would not drive a car unless it was equipped
with an interlock. The interlock license restriction and customary treatment programs were
administered by the MVA rather than the courts. This approach ensured greater consistency of
case management and handling of license restrictions and allowed the MVA to monitor and
enforce compliance with the license restrictions.
[Back to top]
Figure 1: Sample Distribution by Zip Code 
The initial results in this cohort (2) were reproduced using a more standardized data abstraction
method (3, 4). Although the recidivism rates for both the interlock and control groups were higher
than those in the initial report, the analysis confirmed the earlier results. The current study differs
from the previous analyses by using a standardized electronic data abstraction method, counting
alcohol-related "violations" rather than "arrests," and including all alcohol-related recidivism
events by a repeat offender (i.e., not just the first event) in the analysis. All data reported in this
paper uses the revised methodology.
The purpose of the current study was to determine the effectiveness of the ignition interlock
license restriction program in reducing alcohol-related traffic recidivism 5 years after program
implementation (i.e., in the fourth year after the ignition interlock license restriction program
ended). In particular, we were interested in determining whether the convergence in alcoholrelated
traffic recidivism between the interlock and control groups, observed during the second,
third and fourth years, would be maintained during the fifth year. We were also interested in
determining whether the recidivism rates of interlock and control group participants would
increase significantly beyond the levels observed during the first 4 years.
[Back to top]
Methods
Data for this study were provided electronically by the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration
(MVA) after personal identifying information had been deleted from drivers' records. Data from
this file were matched to our earlier data file, an Access database into which data had been
manually abstracted and double key-entered. We then compared the recidivism rates calculated
using the electronic and manual abstraction methods. The differences were minor and did not
change any of the conclusions previously reported. An additional manual comparison of
violation codes revealed no systematic biases. We also used alcohol-related "violations" rather
than "arrests," and included all alcohol-related recidivism events by a repeat offender (i.e., not
just the first event) in the analysis. Given the randomized nature of the design, all participants
assigned to the interlock condition were included in the analysis whether or not they had the
device installed, as appropriate under the intention-to-treat design.
Thirty-one drivers died and 43 moved out of state during the study period. There were no
statistically significant differences between the interlock and control groups in the proportions of
drivers who died (Chi-Square = 0.90, d.f. = 4, p = 0.92) or moved out of state (Chi-Square =
7.37, d.f. = 4, p = 0.12). The analysis did not control for drivers who died or moved out of state
during the study period, which may result in a slight overestimation of survival rates.
[Back to top]
Results
During the first year of the study, 26 of 693 offenders in the interlock license restriction program
(3.8%) and 62 of 692 offenders in the control group (9.0%) committed an alcohol-related traffic
violation. This difference was statistically significant, with a relative risk of 0.40 (95% CI 0.25,
0.63). Being in the interlock program reduced a driver's risk of committing an alcohol-related
traffic violation by about 60 percent. During the second year, when the ignition interlock license
restrictions were removed, the alcohol-related traffic recidivism rates for anyone recidivating in
year 2 in the two groups converged and were not statistically significantly different. During the
second year, the ignition interlock group had a slightly lower recidivism rate than the control group
(6.9% vs. 8.1%), although the recidivism rates of the two groups were not statistically significantly
different. During year 3, the rates were higher for the interlock group (7.8%) than for the control
group (6.5%) but the difference was not statistically significant. In year 4, the rates were also
higher for the interlock group (8.8%) than for the control group (7.1%) but the difference was not
statistically significant. Thus, the reduction in alcohol-related traffic recidivism for the interlock
group was limited to the first year of the program, when the interlock license restriction program
was in effect, and there was no evidence that the first-year benefits extended into subsequent years.
Being in the interlock license restriction program significantly reduced a driver's risk of
committing an alcohol-related traffic violation by about 60 percent during the first year when the
program was in effect (Chi-Square = 15.78, d.f. = 1, p < 0.0001). Contrary to first year findings,
second, third, fourth, and fifth year recidivism rates of drivers in the interlock program and
standard treatment (control) group converged and were not statistically significantly different
(Table 1).
Table 1: Recidivism Rates in the Interlock (n = 693) and Control Groups (n = 692)
by Year of Follow-Up, Using Electronic Abstraction and Replacement 
During year 5, 4.0% of the 693 drivers in the interlock group (n = 28) and 4.8% of the 692
drivers in the control group (n = 33) recidivated (Table 2). This difference was not statistically
significant (Chi-Square = 0.44, d.f. = 1, p = 0.51). After 4 years of increasing recidivism rates in
the interlock group, the rates for year 5 are much lower for both the interlock and control groups.
[Back to top]
Table 2: Recidivism Among Drivers in the Interlock and Control Groups
at the Fifth-Year Follow-up Group Drivers (N) Drivers with Violation in Year 5 
Figure 2 displays cumulative survival curves for the 5-year study period for all drivers who
committed an alcohol-related traffic violation, including drivers with a prior alcohol-related traffic
offense during years 1, 2, 3, and/or 4. It should be noted that at the time of randomization there
were no statistically significant differences in the number of previous alcohol-related traffic
violations between the interlock group (mean = 3.66, SD = 1.45) and the control group (mean =
3.65, SD = 1.28). Five year survival effect of the interlock license restriction program was also
analyzed using an Anderson-Gill Multiplicative Hazards Model, stratified on year. The interlock
license restriction program was found to reduce the hazard ratio by about 12 percent. However,
this reduction was not statistically significant (Chi-Square = 2.24, d.f. = 1, p = 0.135).
In addition to overall recidivism rates, we also examined first-time recidivism (i.e., drivers who
did not recidivate in years 1, 2, 3 and 4) among drivers in the interlock and control groups during
year 5. Four percent of drivers in the interlock group (n = 21) and 4.5% of drivers in the control
group (n = 23) recidivated for the first time since study enrollment during year 5 (Table 3). There
were no statistically significant differences between interlock and control group drivers who
recidivated for the first time during year five (Chi-Square = 0.15, d.f. = 1, p= 0.70). The positive
effects of the interlock program do not extend over the 5-year period of study. At the end of 5
years, the overall effects of the interlock license restriction program are not statistically
significant (Chi-Square = 0.63, d.f. = 1, p = 0.43).
Figure 2: Survival Until Recidivism, Years 1-5 
[Back to top]
Table 3: First-Time Recidivism Among Drivers in the Interlock and Control Groups
During the Fifth-Year of Follow-up Group Drivers (N) Drivers Without Violation in Years 1-4 (N) Discussion
The positive effects of the ignition interlock license restriction program were limited to the first
year, when the program was in effect. There is no evidence that the benefits of this program
extended into years 2, 3, 4, and 5 (i.e., 4 years post-interlock), when the rate of alcohol-related
traffic violations is essentially the same in both the interlock and control groups. The interlock
license restriction program clearly reduced recidivism among this cohort of persistent drinking
drivers during the one-year program. It is also equally clear that a one-year interlock license
restriction program is not sufficient to alter drinking driving behavior once the program has
ended. For persistent drinking drivers, interlock license restriction programs need to be
maintained for longer than 12 months. Research suggests that having a high number of failed
breath tests as recorded by the interlock datalogger is a predictor of recidivism in the first year
after the interlock is removed from the vehicle (5, 6). Individuals who have a high number of
failed breath tests during an interlock program may need to remain in an interlock license
restriction program until they learn to separate drinking from driving.
The lower recidivism rates in both the interlock (4.0%) and control (4.8%) groups during year 5
may be explained by the fact that violations (not arrests) were used for this analysis. It can take
more than a year before a defendant even appears in court, and there is an additional lag time
before the final judicial outcomes appear on the driver record. Further research is needed to
investigate why recidivism rates declined in year 5.
Ignition interlock license restrictions, like license revocation, are not a foolproof system for
preventing alcohol-impaired driving. They do not prevent a driver from operating a vehicle that
is not equipped with an ignition interlock, just as a license revocation cannot prevent a driver
from driving with a revoked license. However, like license revocation, an interlock license
restriction program may lead restricted drivers in unequipped vehicles to drive fewer miles and
to drive more conservatively as a result of the interlock license restriction.
This study provides evidence regarding the long-term convergence of alcohol-related traffic recidivism in the two
groups of interest. It is encouraging that the risk of an alcohol-related traffic violation was substantially lower
(60%) for multiple offenders assigned to the interlock license restriction program during the 12 months the program
was in effect. Once the interlock license restriction was removed, recidivism rates converged. This suggests that for
certain chronic alcohol-related traffic offenders, interlock license restrictions may have to be maintained longer
than 12 months-and perhaps indefinitely.
[Back to top]
Acknowledgement
This study was funded in part by Grant R01 AA11897 from the National Institute on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism.
References
1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic safety facts 2000: Alcohol. National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington (DC) 2001, DOT HS 809 323.
2. Beck KH, Rauch WJ, Baker EA, Williams AF. Effects of ignition interlock license restrictions on
drivers with multiple alcohol offenses: A randomized trial in Maryland. Am J Pub Health 1999;
89(11): 1696-700.
3. Rauch WJ, Zador PL, Beck KH, Ahlin EM. Effects of ignition interlock license restrictions on drivers
with multiple alcohol offenses: Third year follow-up of a randomized trial in Maryland. Presented at
Alcohol Policy XII, National Crime Prevention Council, Washington (DC), 2000.
4. Rauch WJ, Zador PL, Ahlin EM, Beck KH, et al. Effects of ignition interlock license restrictions on
drivers with multiple alcohol offenses: Fourth year follow-up of a randomized trial in Maryland.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2001; 25(5):100A.
5. Marques, PR, Tippetts, AS, Voas, RB, Beirness, DJ. Predicting repeat DUI offenses with the alcohol
interlock recorder. Accid Anal Prev 2001; 33(5):609-19.
6. Marques, PR, Voas, RB, Tippetts, AS, Beirness, DJ. Behavioral Monitoring of DUI offenders with
the alcohol interlock recorder. Addiction 1999; 94(12):1861-70.
[Back to top]
|
