Program Goals/Target Population
Hamilton County, Ohio, introduced this ignition interlock program to deter repeated drunk driving arrests in persons convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). Participants were selected if they had received a conviction for DUI and were a) a person convicted for the first time with a blood–alcohol content (BAC) of 0.20 or higher at arrest, b) someone convicted of DUI two or more times within the last 10 years, or c) a person who refused a BAC test at the time of arrest.
Breath analyzer ignition interlock devices have become popular across the Nation as a way to combat alcohol-related vehicular accidents. As of April 2009, 47 States and the District of Columbia had introduced the use of interlock programs (Rauch, et al. 2011).
Program Components
Judges offered individuals who fit the target profile the opportunity to participate in the interlock program, which restored limited driving privileges contingent on the use of an interlock-equipped vehicle. They had the chance to refuse participation; these person served their original court-ordered license suspension and probation period.
The interlock connects the vehicle’s ignition system to a breath analyzer. Before the person 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 (often 0.025). 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.
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 increases when motivated person 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 persons (the alcohol-impaired driver). 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 people must “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 too briefly, they do not have a sufficient period to unlearn their previous behaviors. If the device is installed for longer, the driver is conditioned to learn about the negative effect (that drinking is “punished” by the inability to start the car).
