Road safety

Cover of Options for Rehabilitation in Interlock Programs
Options for Rehabilitation in Interlock Programs
  • Publication no: AP-R484-15
  • ISBN: 978-1-925294-18-7
  • Published: 31 March 2015

This report examines the effectiveness of national and international programs that treat and rehabilitate drivers with alcohol dependence and the criteria used to approve the removal of interlocks.

The project recommends a stepped care model which requires all participants to attend education and screening and then requires participants who fail to change their behaviour to attend increasingly intensive rehabilitation programs. Failure to complete an interlock program could result in participants having their licence revoked.

This project was designed to inform action 36(d) of the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020: Investigate the option of requiring demonstrated rehabilitation from alcohol dependence before removal of interlock conditions.

  • Summary
  • Background, Aims, Scope and Limitations
  • Findings from Analysis of the National and International Matrices
  • Critical Literature Review of Available Programs and Strengths and Weaknesses Analyses Leading to a Recommended Model
  • Constraints and Limitations
  • Recommended Model
  • Expert Consultation
  • Recommendations
  • List of Abbreviations
  • Glossary
  • Contents
  • 1. Introduction
    • 1.1. Background and aims
    • 1.2. Current report
  • 2. Matrix Outlining Existing Policies in National and International Jurisdictions
    • 2.1. Matrix outlining Australian jurisdiction interlock and treatment program
    • 2.2. Matrix outlining International jurisdiction interlock and treatment programs
    • 2.3. Supplementary matrices outlining treatment/education types by jurisdiction
    • 2.4. Conclusions from the matrices
      • 2.4.1. Australia
      • 2.4.2. International practice
      • 2.4.3. Evaluation and utilisation figures
  • 3. Literature Review
    • 3.1. Method
      • 3.1.1. Out of scope
      • 3.1.2. Literature search
    • 3.2. Overview of target population for interlocks
    • 3.3. Overview of criteria for evidence of effectiveness
    • 3.4. Focus area one: Effectiveness of alcohol treatments and rehabilitation
      • 3.4.1. Alcohol rehabilitation
      • 3.4.2. Drink driving specific alcohol treatment and rehabilitation
      • 3.4.3. Interlock programs including alcohol treatment/education/rehabilitation
    • 3.5. Focus area two: Determining that a problem alcohol user has been rehabilitated
      • 3.5.1. Measuring alcohol rehabilitation
      • 3.5.2. Measuring separation of drinking and driving
    • 3.6. Summary
      • 3.6.1. Limitations
  • 4. Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis
    • 4.1. Out of scope
    • 4.2. Summary of analysis
    • 4.3. Alcohol focused treatment/rehabilitation
      • 4.3.1. Brief interventions
      • 4.3.2. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)
      • 4.3.3. Motivational techniques
      • 4.3.4. 12-step programs
      • 4.3.5. Computer based and young adult targeted interventions
    • 4.4. Separation of drinking from driving
      • 4.4.1. Education only programs
      • 4.4.2. Combined education/treatment group program
      • 4.4.3. Dedicated drink driving courts
      • 4.4.4. Intensive drink driving offender monitoring
      • 4.4.5. Victim Impact Panels
      • 4.4.6. Problem alcohol use assessment and screening
    • 4.5. Summary
  • 5. Identification of Options for Consideration by Licensing Authorities
    • 5.1. Proposing options/model
    • 5.2. Expert opinion on key issues for implementation of interlock programs
    • 5.3. Results from expert consultation process
    • 5.4. Conclusion from the expert consultation process
  • 6. Discussion and Recommendations
    • 6.1. Matrix Outlining Existing Policies in National and International Jurisdictions
    • 6.2. Literature Review
    • 6.3. Strengths and Weakness Analysis
    • 6.4. Identification of Options for Consideration by Licensing Authorities
    • 6.5. Expert Consultation on Key Issues of Interlock Implementation
    • 6.6. Constraints and Limitations
    • 6.7. Considerations for Policy Makers
    • 6.8. Concluding Recommendations
  • References
  • Appendix A Matrix Details for Australian Jurisdictions
  • A.1 Australian Capital Territory
  • A.1.1 Summary
  • A.1.2 Interlock
  • A.1.3 Assessment, Education and Treatment
  • A.2 New South Wales
  • A.2.1 Summary
  • A.2.2 Interlocks
  • A.2.3 Assessment, Education and Treatment
  • A.3 Northern Territory
  • A.3.1 Summary
  • A.3.2 Interlocks
  • A.3.3 Assessment, Education and Treatment
  • A.4 Queensland
  • A.4.1 Summary
  • A.4.2 Interlocks
  • A.4.3 Assessment, Education and Treatment
  • A.5 South Australia
  • A.5.1 Summary
  • A.5.2 Interlocks
  • A.5.3 Assessment, Education and Treatment
  • A.6 Tasmania
  • A.6.1 Summary
  • A.6.2 Interlocks
  • A.6.3 Assessment, Education and Treatment
  • A.7 Victoria
  • A.7.1 Summary
  • A.7.2 Interlocks
  • A.7.3 Assessment, Education and Treatment
  • A.8 Western Australia
  • A.8.1 Summary
  • A.8.2 Interlock
  • A.8.3 Assessment, Education and Treatment
  • Appendix B Matrix Details for International Jurisdictions
  • B.1 Canada
  • B.1.1 Summary
  • B.1.2 Overview
  • B.2 Ontario
  • B.2.1 Summary
  • B.2.2 Interlock
  • B.2.3 Assessment, Education and Treatment
  • B.3 Great Britain
  • B.3.1 Summary
  • B.3.2 Interlocks
  • B.3.3 Assessment, Education and Treatment
  • B.4 New Zealand
  • B.4.1 Summary
  • B.4.2 Interlocks
  • B.4.3 Treatment
  • B.5 Sweden
  • B.5.1 Summary
  • B.5.2 Interlocks
  • B.5.3 Assessment, Education and Treatment
  • B.6 United States of America
  • B.6.1 Summary
  • B.6.2 Overview
  • B.7 Florida
  • B.7.1 Summary
  • B.7.2 Interlock
  • B.7.3 Assessment, Education and Treatment
  • Appendix C USA Ignition Interlock Laws Summary
  • Appendix D Canada Education/Treatment Program Overview
  • D.1 Description of remedial programs across Canada
  • D.1.1 British Columbia
  • D.1.2 Manitoba
  • D.1.3 New Brunswick
  • D.1.4 Newfoundland and Labrador
  • D.1.5 Nova Scotia
  • D.1.6 Ontario
  • D.1.7 Prince Edward Island
  • D.1.8 Quebec
  • D.1.9 Saskatchewan
  • Appendix E Mesa Grande Outcome (Miller et al. 2003)
  • Appendix F Second Round Delphi Questionnaire
  • Appendix G Third Round Delphi Questionnaire
  • Appendix H Results from Expert Consultation