Alberta Ignition Interlock Program (IIP)

Background

Program Goals:

To prevent participants from driving while intoxicated throughout the period the device is installed; to reduce subsequent impaired driving after the device is removed; to protect other road users from previously convicted impaired drivers; improve motivation of offenders to separate their behaviour of drinking from driving

Intent:

Unintentional injuries

Risk Factors Addressed:

Driving while under the influence of alcohol

Place of occurrence:

Community

Age/Age Range:

Adult driving population

Other Population Characteristics:

Hardcore alcohol and substance abuse

Resources

Year Developed:

1990

Collaborative Organization(s):

RCMP; Alberta Driver Control Board (DCB); Solicitor General’s Department; Alcohol Countermeasure Systems; the Alberta Research Council; the impaired driver education programs of the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (AADAC); People Against Impaired Driving (PAID); Guardian Interlock Services

Funding Resource(s):

Currently Alberta IIP is managed by the Transportation Safety Board (formerly the DCB)

Costs:

Installation costs to driver: $133.75; monthly maintenance fee of $101.65
Offender also pays for additional services such as participation in educational programs 

Implementation

Context/Setting:

Community

Strategies Used:

Education; Engineering; Economics; Enactment

Activities Used:

Educational support programs; case management support (family and job counselling, addiction treatment); Installation of interlock device; Legislation (July 1999 Criminal Code of Canada amendment to allow provinces to reduce the mandatory period of driving prohibition for a first drunk driving offence if the offender participates in an alcohol ignition interlock program

Program Evaluation:

Random sample of license-suspended Alberta impaired drivers from computer files from 1990-1994 looked at for repeat drunk driving; new driving violations; injury collisions; survival rates for licensed reinstated drivers at 15 and 24 months. In 1999, driver records, questionnaires, and data from the interlock were analyzed for the 35,132 drivers convicted of DUI offences measured during and after the interlock period.

Source of Best Practice:

Road-related Neurotrauma and Road Safety: Opportunities and Challenges for Prevention Science.
Richard Volpe, John Lewko, & the LSAP Research Group, 2006 

Original Source:

Ontario Road Safety Annual Report, 2001

Supplementary Material:

http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/
INFTRA_Content/docType532/
Production/iiprogram.htm 

Local Example(s):

N/A

Contact Information: 

Mitch Fuhr
Director, Driver Fitness & Monitoring Branch
Alberta Transportation (Ministry)
4999- 98 Avenue
Twin Atria Bldg, 1st floor
Edmonton, Alberta  %6B 2X2
Tel: 780-422-7982

Outcomes

Long-term outcomes/Effectiveness:

When used in conjunction with other multidisciplinary interventions, the interlock was found to successfully block drinking and driving during high-risk periods and data suggests that services interventions affected DUI behaviour itself

Short-term outcomes:

In the Pilot Phase`(1990-1994) for the Alberta program, even when controlling for the effects of other risk factors, participation in an ignition interlock program reduced the likelihood of recidivism from impaired driving, high-risk driving, and injury collisions. When compared with a group who received only license suspensions, ignition interlock program participants were twice as likely to successfully avoid repeat drunk driving.

Cost-Effectiveness:

Since the costs are relatively small and are incurred by the offender, the program is cost-effective; however drunk driving offenders are usually burdened with extensive fines, are expected to undertake any treatment costs which can be expensive, and are likely to have ongoing financial difficulties.

Other Benefits:

Offenders take responsibility for their actions and future behaviour; police are better able to monitor offenders when they are out in the community; participants have access to social programs used in conjunction with the program

Other

Date of Review:

Reviewed 2005

Classification:

Best Practice