Earlier, I posted about the Breath Alcohol Interlock Ignition Devices (BAIID) being a cottage industry after all there are only a handful of state-approved providers for Illinois. Now it looks like the recession may harm these small businesses' ability to make a buck.
We have now had the BAIID device in Illinois required for all first-time DUI offenders, who wish to drive, since January. After speaking to local court personnel and attorneys, it appears that a very small number of first-time DUI offenders are opting into the Monitoring Device Driving Program (MDDP). Additionally, it appears that a significant number of that very tiny minority of program participants is indigent. That means the State pays the providers for their BAIID devices.
(o) The Indigent BAIID Fund is created as a special fund
|
| in the State treasury. The Secretary shall, subject to appropriation by the General Assembly, use all money in the Indigent BAIID Fund to reimburse ignition interlock device providers who have installed devices in vehicles of indigent persons pursuant to court orders issued under this Section. The Secretary shall make payments to such providers every 3 months. If the amount of money in the fund at the time payments are made is not sufficient to pay all requests for reimbursement submitted during that 3 month period, the Secretary shall make payments on a pro‑rata basis, and those payments shall be considered payment in full for the requests submitted.
|
|
(p) The Monitoring Device Driving Permit Administration
|
| Fee Fund is created as a special fund in the State treasury. The Secretary shall, subject to appropriation by the General Assembly, use the money paid into this fund to offset its administrative costs for administering MDDPs.
|
|
While it is true that those paying MDDP participants have some of the funds they pay placed into the Indigent fund, it is clear that it is anticipated that the paid participant's fees will be inadequate to cover all of those who are indigent and participating in the program. Get it, that means the State has to get the money to pay those BAIID providers from somewhere. I think it is from the taxpayers, what do you think?
In other states, an individual who completes treatment is "presumed" to have "resolved the alcohol problem" that led to the DUI arrest. Not so in Illinois. The Secretary of State's Office re-evaluates the evaluation, re-evaluates the offender, and re-evaluates the treatment experience. At what point in time is this called "medical malpractice"? Part of the fault is with the Illinois Department of Human Services themselves--only two tests are used to determine an individual's classification--the DRI-II and Mortimer-Filkins. Neither of these are "objective" tests. The DRI-II uses "truth-correction" which adds 20 points to the "risk" level AFTER an individual completes treatment. If a client is female, 20 points get added to the risk scores,(women are less truthful) and even more points get added,based on race and socioeconomic status. This test is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an "objective" test. Instead, this test was designed to justify the number of treatment hours an individual is supposed to pay for--women, minorities, and the poor will always score as more of a "danger" to highway safety, than the average white guy,(who, by the way, is actually the real danger, based on NHTSA statistics). Behavior Data Systems,who makes the test, has always stated that the Reinstatement Review Inventory is the correct test to administer to someone who has already completed treatment and was designed to be utilized at formal hearings. Therefore, based on the current administrative rules, everyone who has already completed treatment is being assessed by the incorrect instrument. Once someone has completed treatment, the individual will score higher than before, creating a "treatment loop" which will require more treatment,another hearing, another evaluation, etc. This concept has worked well to finance all of the substance abuse clinics in the state, but, unfortunately, female, minority, and poor clients all suffer, by not being reinstated, and by being re-classified into a higher classification, based on the findings of an SOS employee (who is not certified to make any such assessments). Meanwhile, the white male DUI offender is back on the road. No one else, but them, will be getting an MDDP, because the SOS "mirrors" the process of reinstatement, by requiring a hearing for the MDDP, and the "objective tests" effectively discriminate against everyone EXCEPT the white boys. Illinois really can't afford to keep people in treatment for the test of their lives for a DUI conviction. If they really wanted people to obtain BAIIDs, the SOS office would let anyone who is currently revoked get one, instead of preventing people from obtaining them. Only the white boys will get one, because only the white boys can afford them--the BAIID providers are assured of their income because, of course, women, minorities, and the poor are prevented from accessing the Indigent Fund. After all, based on their DRI-II scores, they'll be too much of a "risk" to be permitted a MDDP. So, you really don't have to worry about taxpayers paying for anything, because that Indigent Fund is just another phony way for the SOS to gouge a little extra money for its Office.
ReplyDelete