Implementation

Conclusion

There are many different ways to implement alcohol interlocks and there is no ‘one-size fits all’ model. Practitioners need to identify their needs and priorities and then determine what the potential implications of those priorities are. Key decisions that must be made are who is eligible and ineligible for the program, who will take responsibility for certain aspects (e.g., monitoring, sanctioning) as well as how workload (e.g., violations such as high-BAC tests) will be defined and managed. Practitioners must therefore have a good sense of available resources and capabilities when determining how, to whom, when and how long these devices will be applied. Legislators also play an important role in implementing needed legislation and allocating resources to facilitate delivery of these devices.

 

The monitoring component of any interlock program is the key to success. Without proper monitoring offenders are able to slip through the cracks and will not reap the full benefits of the supervision using this device. It is vital that good communication channels are in operation between all actors in the process including licensing officials, judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, probation officers and even treatment professionals as appropriate. All of these players must work together in order to determine how best to facilitate the supervision of impaired driving offenders. Failure to do so is likely to result in unsuccessful completion of supervision and an increase in the unlicenced driver population.

The overall goal should center on getting offenders to consistently install these devices and retain the offenders in the driver licensing system so that they can eventually be re-licenced as opposed to having offenders discover that they are able to drive without a licence and manage with little or no inconvenience. It cannot be stressed enough that it is imperative to keep offenders that are considered by courts, probation officers, or licensing officials to be higher risk offenders (based upon accepted protocols or measures) in the alcohol interlock programs so as to protect the public. These drivers present the greatest danger and are also likely to have the highest rate of non-compliance. While practitioners may become frustrated with their actions, this particular population should remain in the program no matter how many violations are recorded.

In order for an alcohol interlock program to be successful, it must be based on good policies and sound practices. Practitioners should be consulted and engaged in the policy development process so that their input and concerns can be addressed from the outset. Ultimately, decision makers and policy developers need to design the system for use of alcohol interlocks in a way that is more effective than strictly punitive. From the outset, offenders should be encouraged and supported to succeed. Setting offenders up to fail will not benefit anyone in the long run, particularly when the objective is to return them to the roads as safe and sober drivers. Violations are to be expected but there should be a system of graduated reinforcements and punishments put in place to deal with these issues as they arise. Through effective monitoring, sound policy, and encouragement practitioners will have the tools necessary to run a successful alcohol interlock program.