Background. In jurisdictions around the world there is an increasing demand for the use of
\nalcohol ignition interlocks to reduce impaired driving. It is crucial that program administrators
\nand practitioners understand behavioural patterns of offenders on an interlock to inform
\ndecision-making. This insight can guide administrators with regard to program development,
\nimplementation, and the use of program features. Previous research has focused on the
\nbehaviour of offenders on an interlock, specifically with respect to compliance with device
\nrequirements and program rules. In particular, offenders tend to blow fails or violate the
\nconditions of the interlock program at a relatively high rate at the beginning of their participation
\nand this behaviour quickly diminishes after offenders have been on the device for some time
\n(the \u201clearning effect\u201d). Learning theory and general deterrence theory can be used as theoretical
\nframeworks to test hypotheses regarding this learning effect.
\nAims. The purpose of this current study is to further investigate behavioural patterns of
\noffenders using interlock data organized by jurisdiction and gender for each violation type (e.g.,
\nrestart violation, running retest violation). As such, the current study aims to extend and bolster
\nprevious findings as well as uncover new patterns using data collected from three jurisdictions in
\nthe United States: Florida, Texas and California.
\nMethods. Using interlock data provided by LifeSafer (an interlock provider), which were drawn
\nfrom the period between 1999 and 2012, events such as breath samples when trying to start the
\ncar, breath samples after having started the car (also known as a running retest) and attempts
\nto skip the running retest were analyzed in order to uncover relevant behavioural patterns.
\nResults. The results from this current study corroborate the findings from previous research,
\ni.e., many offenders on an interlock are not compliant at the beginning of their program
\nparticipation, but the majority of them soon learn to become more compliant. It was found that
\nthose learning patterns were most pronounced in two states with stronger and more consistent
\nmonitoring practices (Texas and Florida) whereas these patterns were less pronounced in the
\nstate with less consistent monitoring practices (California). In terms of gender, no substantial
\ndifferences between males and females were found. With respect to length of participation, it
\nbecame clear that participants who are only in the program for a maximum of one year become
\ncompliant much faster than participants who are in the program for at least one year.
\nDiscussion and conclusions. These findings speak to the need for consistent monitoring of
\noffenders as well as coupling interlock programs with other interventions like treatment for
\nhigher-risk offenders. The findings further suggest that using not only negative reinforcements
\nfor bad behaviour but also using positive reinforcements for good behaviour may be beneficial.<\/p>\n
<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Ward Vanlaar, Anna McKiernan, Robyn Robertson<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"default","_kad_post_title":"default","_kad_post_layout":"default","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"default","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"default","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[128,346],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18735","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-2014-cmrsc-ccmsr-xxiv-vancouver","category-research-and-evaluation"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18735","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18735"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18735\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19773,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18735\/revisions\/19773"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}