William J. Rauch

Risk of Alcohol-Impaired Driving Recidivism Among First Offenders and Multiple Offenders

OBJECTIVES We sought to determine the statewide impact of having prior alcohol-impaired driving violations of any type on the rate of first occurrence or recidivism among drivers with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more prior violations in Maryland. METHODS We analyzed more than 100 million driver records from 1973 to 2004 and classified all Maryland drivers into 4 groups: those with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more prior violations. The violation rates for approximately 21 million drivers in these 4 groups were compared for the study period 1999 to 2004. RESULTS On average, there were 3.4, 24.3, 35.9, and 50.8 violations per 1000 drivers a year among those with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more priors, respectively. The relative risks for men compared with women among these groups of drivers were 3.8, 1.2, 1.0, and 1.0, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The recidivism rate among first offenders more closely resembles that of second offenders than of nonoffenders. Men and women are at equal risk of recidivating once they have had a first violation documented. Any alcohol-impaired driving violation, not just convictions, is a marker for future recidivism.

The effects of closer monitoring on driver compliance with interlock restrictions

This randomized controlled trial of 2168 DWI multiple offenders assigned to a state-wide ignition interlock program in Maryland compared non-compliance with interlock requirements among drivers who were closely monitored (by Westat staff) and drivers who received standard monitoring (by the Motor Vehicle Administration). Compliance comparisons relied on datalogger data from MVAs interlock providers plus driver records that contained demographic information, prior alcohol-related traffic violations, their dispositions, and interlock duration. Measures for quantifying non-compliance included rates per 1000 engine starts for initial breath test failures at varying BAC levels and time periods, retest failures, retest refusals, interlock disconnects, startup violations, and summation measures. Regression analysis estimated the effects of closer monitoring on non-compliance, using linear mixed models that included random driver effects and fixed effects for study-group assignment, prior alcohol-related traffic violations, and months of continuous datalogger data with a quadratic function that assessed changes and rates of change in interlock non-compliance over time. All the separate non-compliance rates and summary measures derived from them were lower for closer monitored than control drivers for continuous data series of at least 6, 12, or 24 months. The differences for initial test failures and the two summary measures were statistically significant. Most measures of non-compliance decreased significantly as continuous time on the interlock increased. Parallel trends in each study group indicated that drivers learned to improve their compliance over time. Thus, this study convincingly demonstrates that closer monitoring substantially enhanced compliance with requirements of the ignition interlock and that regardless of group assignment, compliance increased over time.

Latency Periods Between Alcohol-Related Traffic Violations: Implications for Recidivism

Objective: Before October 1, 2002, Marylands regulations for relicensing drivers with 2 recorded alcohol-related traffic violations distinguished between offenders with 5 or more years between their first and second violations and those with less than 5 years. Our research examined whether this policy was supported by differential probabilities of recidivism and violation-free survival. Methods: We compared recidivism rates and survival probabilities among the 2 latency subgroups and 2 control groups (first offenders and drivers with no previous alcohol-related traffic violation). Data were extracted from Marylands driver record database and segregated files and analyzed by age quintiles using Cox proportional hazards models containing identifiers for risk factors, including prior violations. All drivers (N = 64,536) were matched on age quintile, gender, and month of offenders’ index violations. Effects of violation histories on survival and recidivism probabilities were measured by contrasts of regression coefficients. Results: Among second offenders, the shorter latency subgroup consistently had higher recidivism and lower violation-free survival than the longer latency subgroup, whose rates fell between those of first offenders and the shorter latency subgroup. Although highly significant, the subgroup differences were small and paled by comparison to differences between first and zero offenders in probability of a subsequent violation. Conclusions: An earlier study that showed similar overall recidivism for these latency subgroups helped encourage Maryland to change its regulations governing license reinstatement. New regulations issued October 1, 2002, focused on 2 alcohol violations “during any period of time” where investigation indicated alcoholism or unaddressed alcohol problems. To obtain relicensure, these offenders could be required to enter or complete a lengthy certified alcohol treatment program. Our current results are consistent with these requirements. License reinstatement should be primarily guided by the extent of alcohol impairment, especially because both latency subgroups showed higher risks of recidivism than first offenders, who themselves had comparatively high risk.