This report was commissioned by the Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals (MATCP) in cooperation with the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO). Its purpose is to provide the state legislature, the Secretary of State, and the Michigan Supreme Court documentation related to the operation of Michigan’s DWI/Sobriety Court Ignition Interlock Program. This section represents a summary overview of the findings from the 2015 report. The primary goal of the 2015 evaluation is to determine whether ignition interlock devices are an effective means to control drunk driving recidivism among chronic DWI offenders when incorporated into a DWI/Sobriety Court program. The present analysis is focused on several research objectives set forth in the original enabling legislation. They include the following: a) The percentage of program participants ordered to place interlock devices on their vehicles who complied with the order; b) The percentage of program participants who removed court-ordered interlocks from their vehicle without court approval; c) The percentage of program participants who consumed alcohol or controlled substances; d) The percentage of program participants found to have tampered with court-ordered interlocks; e) The percentage of program participants convicted of a new offense under section 625(1) or (3) of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL, 257.625 (i.e. convicted of a new driving under the influence offense). The present analysis compares subjects enrolled in the Ignition Interlock Program (the experimental group, total n=656) to a DWI/Sobriety Court comparison sample drawn prior to the creation of the pilot program, and thus not under interlock restriction (Non-interlock comparison group, total n=508), and to a sample of standard probationers drawn from across the state of Michigan (Standard probationer comparison group, total n=585). The data were obtained through the Michigan Drug Court Case Management Information System (DCCMIS) and the Michigan Judicial Data Warehouse (JDW). This research is based on data drawn from five purposefully selected partner courts that are representative of the state of Michigan in the context of: 1) region; 2) level of urbanization; and, 3) population. They include the: * 8th District Court (Kalamazoo; Kalamazoo County); * 51st District Court (Waterford; Oakland County); * 61st District Court (Grand Rapids; Kent County); * 86th District Court (Traverse City; Grand Traverse County); and * 96th District Court (Marquette; Marquette County). (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting