Attachment J.1, Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory 2018 Edition.pdf

Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory, 2018 Edition

Suggested APA Format Citation:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2018, August). Traffic records program assessment advisory, 2018 edition (Report No. DOT HS 812 601). Washington, DC: Author.

i

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

August 2018

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES

COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory, 2018 Edition

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAMEAND ADDRESS

8. PERFORMING

ORGANIZATION REPORT

NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.

Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOT HS 812 601

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, www.ntis.gov.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT

High-quality State traffic record data is critical to effective safety programming, operational management, and strategic planning. Every State should maintain a traffic records system that supports the data-driven, science-based decision-making necessary to identify problems; develop, deploy, and evaluate countermeasures; and efficiently allocate resources.

Federal statute requires States to certify that “an assessment of the State’s highway safety data and traffic records system was conducted or updated during the preceding 5 years” to qualify for a State traffic safety information system improvements grant, per. 23 U.S.C. §405(c). NHTSA regulations in 23 C.F.R. §1300.22(b)(4) require that the assessment comply with “procedures and methodologies” outlined in this advisory. 23 C.F.R. §1300.22(b)(4).

This document provides guidance on three different assessment processes so that States may choose the process that best fits their needs.

This Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory provides voluntary guidance and describes the ideal traffic records systems from which States can assess their capabilities. Like the 2012 version, this updated advisory provides contents, capabilities, and data quality of an effective traffic records system by describing an ideal system that supports high-quality decisions and leads to cost-effective improvements in highway and traffic safety. The benefit for States to align to the description of the ideal traffic records system would be to ensure that complete, accurate, and timely traffic safety data is collected, analyzed, and made available for decision making, which is central to identifying traffic safety problems, and designing countermeasures to reduce injuries and deaths caused by crashes. The ideal described is aspirational, and there is no expectation that States align perfectly with the ideal as described. A national group of subject matter experts developed this Advisory as a heuristic for States to identify their traffic records system’s strengths as well as opportunities for improvement.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION OF

REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

http://www.ntis.gov/ ii

CONTENTS

The Traffic Records Assessment Process

Section 1: Introduction

Section 2: Traffic Records System Management

Section 2-A: Traffic Records Coordinating Committee

Section 2-B: Strategic Planning for Traffic Records Systems

Section 3: Traffic Records System Components

Section 3-A: Crash Data System

Section 3-B: Driver Data System

Section 3-C: Vehicle Data System

Section 3-D: Roadway Data System

Section 3-E: Citation and Adjudication Systems

Section 3-F: Injury Surveillance System

Section 4: Data Use and Integration

Appendices

APPENDIX A: Funding Sources

Appendix B: Contributors

Appendix C: Key Terms

Appendix D: List of Acronyms

Appendix E: Assessment Questions

THE TRAFFIC RECORDS ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Federal statute requires States to certify that “an assessment of the State’s highway safety data and traffic records system was conducted or updated during the preceding 5 years” to qualify for a State traffic safety information system improvements grant, per 23 U.S.C. §405(c). NHTSA regulations in 23 C.F.R. §1300.22(b)(4) require that the assessment comply with “procedures and methodologies” outlined in this advisory. NHTSA seeks to provide States with flexibility in meeting these requirements.

Therefore, this document provides guidance on three different assessment processes so that States may choose the process that best fits their needs.

First, States may design their own assessments of their traffic safety information systems. NHTSA regulations require States to list all recommendations from the most recent highway safety data and traffic records system assessment and identify whether and how they intend to address those recommendations, per 23 C.F.R. §1300.22(b)(2)(ii-iv). A State’s assessment should therefore result in a comprehensive set of recommendations that will improve the State traffic safety information systems and inform the State’s traffic records strategic plan. When designing an assessment, States may consider the following noteworthy practices when assessing their data systems.

• Using third-party assessors with knowledge in each of the core safety databases—crash, driver, vehicle, roadway, citation and adjudication, and injury surveillance systems, who can provide helpful expertise and an outside perspective.

• Comparing States capabilities with the ideal described in the advisory to benchmark systems and identify the strengths and opportunities for improvement within each core safety system.

• Examining the role of the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee—including data integration efforts and the strategic planning process—as well as evaluating the crash, driver, vehicle, roadway, citation and adjudication, and injury surveillance systems.

• Identifying critical data quality control practices (including the use of performance measures and metrics), conformance to applicable guidelines, adequacy of State or system procedures and processes, data integration, and capacity to interface with other systems.

Second, NHTSA has developed a self-assessment tool that States may use. The assessment tool consists of a series of questions developed by NHTSA with the input of subject matter experts that will result in recommendations. The questions can be found in Appendix E. This assessment tool is available at www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/traffic-records or upon request.

Third, States may opt to participate in NHTSA’s State Traffic Records Assessment Program at no cost to the State. STRAP is a peer assessment process using the questions from NHTSA’s assessment tool, found in Appendix E. Qualified independent assessors will evaluate the State’s responses to the questions and then provide recommendations; more specific, actionable considerations; and a personalized report.

This process is supported by a highly qualified facilitator and is punctuated by two on-site meetings and a webinar report.

Regardless of which process a State chooses to conduct its assessment, NHTSA GO Teams remain available to States that wish to apply for additional technical assistance. GO Teams provide technical expertise and guidance on specific small to mid-scale projects that the States wish to undertake but may require additional, specialized knowledge. Application forms are available on the NHTSA website at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/go_team_fact_sheet.pdf.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

High-quality State traffic records data is critical to effective safety programming, operational management, and strategic planning. Every State—in cooperation with its local, regional, and Federal partners—should maintain a traffic records system that supports the data-driven, science-based decision-making necessary to identify problems; develop, deploy, and evaluate countermeasures; and efficiently allocate resources. Functionally, a traffic records system includes the collection, management, and analysis of traffic safety data. It is comprised of six core data systems—crash, driver, vehicle, roadway, citation and adjudication, and injury surveillance—as well as the organizations and people responsible for them.

This Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory provides voluntary guidance and describes the ideal traffic records systems from which States can assess their capabilities. Like the 2012 version, this updated advisory provides information on the contents, capabilities, and data quality of an effective traffic records system by describing an ideal system that supports high-quality decisions and leads to cost-effective improvements in highway and traffic safety. The benefit for States to align to the description of the ideal traffic records system would be to ensure that complete, accurate, and timely traffic safety data is collected, analyzed, and made available for decision making, which is central to identifying traffic safety problems, and designing countermeasures to reduce injuries and deaths caused by crashes. The ideal described is aspirational, and there is no expectation that States align perfectly with the ideal as described. A national group of subject matter experts developed this advisory as a heuristic for States to identify their traffic records systems’ strengths as well as opportunities for improvement.

Scope The advisory provides voluntary guidance on the collection, management, and analysis of data used to inform highway and traffic safety decision-making. This includes data from the six core data systems and the State’s Traffic Records Coordinating Committee, its data use and management protocols, and the State’s integration of traffic safety data for analysis purposes. Traffic records data is critical to States’ strategic planning processes. Indeed, quality traffic records data provides the foundation for the four major planning documents required by law: The State Traffic Records Coordination Committee’s own “multiyear highway safety data and traffic records system strategic plan” (State Traffic Records Strategic Plan), the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan, the Highway Safety Plan, and the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. States need timely, accurate, complete, and uniform traffic records to identify and prioritize traffic safety issues and to choose appropriate countermeasures and evaluate their effectiveness. The advisory is updated regularly to keep pace with State traffic records systems as new technologies and innovations enter common use.

Note on Critical Concepts This document’s utility and clarity are contingent in large part on several foundational parameters and definitions outlined below:

Interface and Integration Linkages This document makes a distinction between interface and integration linkages. Both rely on connections among traffic records data systems, but their desired outcomes and connection protocols differ. System interface reflects a standing or real-time relationship between datasets and a high degree of system interoperability. In practice, system interface linkage is useful when circumstances demand real-time relationships between databases that need to be connected and accessible always. Interface linkages exist primarily to support key business processes, for example allowing law enforcement officers to validate and verify drivers’ license information in the crash report or citation. Interface linkages are addressed in each module.

In contrast, system integration generally describes a linking of administrative databases to support in-depth analysis. Integration linkages are often executed at set points in time, such as at the end of a calendar year or when all records for the period are considered final. System integration and related data exchange programs are discussed in Section 4.

Measures and Metrics The advisory—as well as NHTSA’s 2011 Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems1—makes a clear distinction between traffic safety data performance measures and performance metrics. While both address the six core traffic records performance attributes (timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility), performance measures are tools used to gauge the performance of a specific system in one of the six core areas. In contrast, performance metrics are explicit—usually numeric—goals established by each State for individual systems or subsystems.

For example, a State may choose to track the timeliness of its crash database by using a performance measure such as the median or mean number of days between (a) the crash date to (b) the date the crash report is entered into the database. A performance metric related to the above example would be within 3 years, ensure that all crash records are entered into the database within 10 business days. It is incumbent upon the State to determine whether to establish performance metrics and to set any metrics’ parameters based on their own goals.

1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011, February). Model performance measures for State traffic records systems (Report No. DOT HS 811 441). Washington, DC: Author. Available at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811441.pdf

SECTION 2: TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

A State traffic records system assists the traffic safety community in implementing programs and countermeasures that reduce motor vehicle crashes, deaths, and injuries. Data-driven improvements rely on a State’s traffic records system to identify opportunities to improve highway safety, measure progress, and systematically evaluate countermeasure effectiveness. Because the data comes from many sources, the process requires coordination and cooperation, best achieved with the establishment of a traffic records coordinating committee and a statewide “multiyear highway safety data and traffic records system strategic plan” (State Traffic Records Strategic Plan). The development and management of a State’s traffic records system, a fully functioning traffic records coordinating committee (TRCC), and State Traffic Records Strategic Plan all require close coordination and cooperation among the data collectors, managers, and users of the six core data systems—crash, vehicle, driver, roadway, citation and adjudication, and injury surveillance.

SECTION 2-A: TRAFFIC RECORDS COORDINATING COMMITTEE

The following are the critical features of an ideal TRCC.

Establish a TRCC The ideal TRCC is sufficiently representative to possess both the staff-level technical expertise and executive-level decision-making capabilities required to ensure the TRCC can adequately coordinate and influence the State’s traffic records system. In practice, the ideal TRCC includes executives—or their designees—who are empowered to establish policy, direct resources within their areas of responsibility, and set the vision and mission for the TRCC. The TRCC also includes technical staff representatives from all stakeholder groups and organizations and is responsible—as defined by the TRCC Chair—for the oversight and coordination of the State’s traffic records system. The specifics of how the ideal TRCC is organized will vary—some will have separate executive committees, others will have single sitting bodies including both executive and technical representatives.

Ensure TRCC Membership is Representative The ideal TRCC is composed of members representing the interests of traffic safety data collectors, managers, and users. At a minimum, membership includes the State agencies or entities responsible for the core data systems—crash, driver, vehicle, roadway, citation and adjudication, and injury surveillance. The TRCC includes executive-level individuals that have resource allocation responsibilities within each of the custodial agencies. Specifically, these entities include at least: crash (State law enforcement, DMV, DOT, SHSO), driver (licensing agency), roadway (DOT), citation and adjudication (State and local law enforcement, Administrative Office of the Courts), and injury surveillance (EMS, State DOH, public health).

The TRCC ideally also includes technical staff tasked with the oversight and coordination of the traffic records system’s components. Specifically, these individuals represent all appropriate stakeholder entities, including those on the TRCC and some or all the following: State IT agency and offices, State Fatality Analysis Reporting System analyst, metropolitan and regional planning agencies, Federally recognized Indian Tribes, county/city engineers, judges, prosecutors, university researchers, and non-governmental safety advocates such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Appropriate Federal liaisons— including FHWA, FMCSA, and NHTSA at a minimum—are included as non-voting members. States containing National Parks, U.S. Park Police jurisdictions, or Federally recognized Indian Tribes should coordinate with Department of Interior agencies that have a role in managing traffic records (National

Park Service Rangers, Bureau of Land Management enforcement, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Enforcement Services). The ideal composition of a TRCC will vary depending on a State’s unique circumstances. These circumstances should be considered in seeking additional TRCC representatives.

Obtain Formal TRCC Authorization The ideal TRCC is formally chartered by a memorandum of understanding, charter, or another foundational document that describes the powers and duties of the committee as specified in enabling State legislation. This authorization empowers each member to officially participate in the State's TRCC and leverage resources, streamline processes, integrate systems, and focus on strategic investments.

Institutionalize TRCC Responsibilities The TRCC (1) provides the leadership and coordination necessary to develop, implement, and monitor the State Traffic Records Strategic Plan; (2) influences agency policy decisions that impact the State’s traffic records system; (3) advises the SHSO regarding the allocation of Federal funding as appropriate;

(4) identifies performance measures and monitors progress; (5) serves as a forum for the discussion of the State’s traffic records investments and challenges; and (6) provides meaningful coordination among stakeholders.

The TRCC oversees traffic records improvement projects under its direct responsibility. The TRCC also monitors other projects to ensure coordination among the traffic records system’s component organizations and assess system-wide impacts. For example, when a custodial agency considers making changes to its traffic records-related systems, the TRCC should be briefed so the TRCC can assess potential impacts on other systems and identify potential opportunities to leverage investments.

The TRCC also coordinates the development of a traffic records inventory. By consolidating the discrete systems documentation maintained by custodial agencies into a coherent whole, the TRCC-maintained traffic records inventory can improve accessibility and analysis for all stakeholders.

Designate TRCC Leadership There are two primary leadership roles within the TRCC: the TRCC chair and the TRCC coordinator. These roles may, in some cases, be assumed by the same individual.

The TRCC chair provides leadership for committee activities as specified in the State Traffic Records Strategic Plan. The ideal individual is employed by the SHSO or one of the other key custodial agencies and has rank and authority sufficient to advise the executive TRCC on matters pertaining to technical TRCC efforts. Like all TRCC leadership positions, the chair’s term should be specified in the charter, a memorandum of understanding (MOU), or appropriate foundational document.

The TRCC coordinator is designated by the committee to aid the TRCC chair. The coordinator may be an employee of a key custodial agency or a contractor. Specific duties include coordination of the TRCC at the direction of the chair; coordination of the development, implementation, and maintenance of the State Traffic Records Strategic Plan; and providing secretariat support for the executive TRCC.

Conduct Regular Meetings The TRCC meets regularly—at least quarterly to maintain optimal organizational performance. The TRCC creates working sub-committees to address specific issues or projects as they arise. These sub-committees may need to meet independently and/or separately from the primary TRCC.

Oversee Quality Control and Data Improvements The TRCC prioritizes, promotes, and coordinates quality control and data improvement programs that impact the core traffic records systems. The presentation of quality control metrics should be part of the TRCC’s regular meetings.

The TRCC encourages the implementation of information quality best practices and use of NHTSA’s Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems.2

Oversee Training and Technical Assistance for Traffic Records Data Improvement The TRCC promotes the deployment of training needs assessments and works to address identified training and technical assistance needs. Presentations detailing these needs and participation in relevant training are a part of the technical TRCC's regular meetings. The TRCC monitors and encourages the deployment and promotion of training programs and training sessions held at the annual International Forum on Traffic Records and Highway Safety Information Systems.

Coordinate Grant Funds The TRCC advises the SHSO on the allocation of NHTSA grant funds dedicated to traffic records data improvement and monitors traffic records programs supported by other Federal funds. The TRCC serves as a critical forum for the coordination, and efficient leveraging of funds used to improve the collection, processing, management, and analysis of State traffic records data. Specifically, the TRCC is responsible for creating and approving the States’ Traffic Records Strategic Plan. The TRCC discusses how to optimally invest available traffic records improvement funds and coordinate the use of these resources—in particular, DOT grant funds that can be used for State traffic records systems data improvement projects.

For additional information and recommendations regarding effective TRCC conduct, refer to State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Noteworthy Practices.3

2 Ibid.

3 Scopatz, R. A., Lefler, N., & Peach, K. (2015, June). State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee noteworthy practices (Report No. FHWA-SA-15-083). Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Available at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/trcc_noteworthy.pdf

SECTION 2-B: STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEMS

The Traffic Records Coordinating Committee is responsible for developing the State Traffic Records Strategic Plan that guides the State’s traffic records improvement efforts. This document is a multi-year plan, updated annually, that addresses all the recommendations from the State’s most recent Traffic Records assessment, sets the framework for improving all aspects of the State’s traffic records system, and provides goals and objectives for activities over the short and long term.

The State Traffic Records Strategic Plan is distinct from other congressionally-mandated strategic planning documents, including the Highway Safety Plan, the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan. One way to reduce duplication of efforts within a State’s traffic records system is to incorporate the TRCC’s strategic planning into these three State safety plans.

The State Traffic Records Strategic Plan is data-driven, addresses measurable areas of opportunity, and works towards State-defined performance metrics to enhance system performance. The State Traffic Records Strategic Plan includes activities that improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of State highway safety data. By identifying and addressing these traffic records data quality issues, the strategic plan enhances the State’s ability to conduct traffic safety problem identification, select and develop countermeasures, and measure the effectiveness of said countermeasures. Developed and approved by the State’s TRCC, the ideal State Traffic Records Strategic Plan:

• Identifies performance-based measures and corresponding metrics for each of the six core data systems;

• Demonstrates quantitative improvement in a data attribute (accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility or integration) of a core database on an annual basis;

• Addresses areas of opportunity to improve existing data and data systems, and documents how these will be addressed;

• Identifies strategies that address the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of the six core data systems;

• Indicates what funds will be used to undertake efforts detailed in the strategic plan and describes how these allocations address the plan’s stated goals;

• Prioritizes traffic records improvement projects;

• Identifies and addresses technical assistance and training needs;

• Leverages Federal funds and assistance programs;

• Establishes timelines and responsibilities for the projects in the plan; and,

• Integrates State and local data needs and goals into the highway safety data and traffic records system strategic plan.

Ideally, the creation and management of the State Traffic Records Strategic Plan include the following considerations.

Monitor Opportunities to Use New Technology The State Traffic Records Strategic Plan addresses the adoption and integration of new technology at the project level to ensure timely, accurate, and complete traffic safety data required for more complex analyses. The application of new technology in all operational phases (data collection, interface, processing, retrieval, integration, and analysis) should be continuously reviewed and assessed.

Consider Lifecycle Costs The State Traffic Records Strategic Plan considers the costs of data improvement projects’ lifecycle maintenance to ensure the traffic records system continues to function even in the absence of Federal grant funds.

Engage with Localities The State Traffic Records Strategic Plan is responsive to the needs of all stakeholders, including local users and tribal nations.

Coordinate with Federal Data Systems The State Traffic Records Strategic Plan's data collection, management, and analysis portfolio include coordination of the State's systems with key Federal traffic records data systems. These include the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, the National Driver Register's Problem Driver Pointer System, the Motor Carrier Management Information System, and the Commercial Driver License Information System.

SECTION 3: TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM COMPONENTS

SECTION 3-A: CRASH DATA SYSTEM

Description and Contents of the Crash Data System

The crash data system is the keystone of a State’s traffic records system. The crash system not only holds the basic data critical to developing and deploying effective traffic safety countermeasures, it frequently also serves as the hub through which other systems are connected.

The benefits and overall utility derived from the other traffic records systems are significantly enhanced by reliable, valid statewide crash data. Linking other systems’ data with crash data enables invaluable opportunities for analysis. The resulting information drives State highway safety and injury prevention programs and has widespread applicability for all levels of government, industry, research groups, lawmakers, healthcare providers, and the public.

The State crash system ideally contains—at a minimum—basic information about every reportable motor vehicle crash in the State. (Reportable is defined by the applicable State statute.) The available data should be sufficient to permit decision-makers to draw valid conclusions about the crash experience in their State. Ideally, all State crash data is consolidated into one generally accessible database with a clearly defined organizational custodian. The crash system provides both an official record of the crash and data for analytic purposes. The crash system documents the characteristics of a crash and provides the following details about each incident.

• Who: Information about the drivers, occupants, and non-motorists involved in a crash (e.g., license status, age, sex);

• What: Information about the type of vehicles involved in crashes (e.g., make, model, body type, vehicle registration);

• When: Information detailing the time and date a crash occurred (e.g., date, time of day, the day of the week)

• Where: Information about the crash location (e.g., location name, Lat/Long coordinates, type, attributes);

• How: Information describing the sequence of events and circumstances related to a crash— up to and including the first harmful event through the end of a crash and its consequences (e.g., damage, injury);

• Why: Information about the interaction of various systems that may have contributed to the crash occurrence (e.g., weather, light conditions, driver actions, non-motorist actions) and/or the crash severity.

Ideally, crash data reflecting all levels of severity—including fatal, injury, and property damage only—is collected and used to support safety analysis.

Through linkages to other traffic records data systems, the crash data system identifies detailed specifics of the roadways (number of lanes, AADT, etc.), vehicles (registration, etc.), and persons (license status, citation history, etc.) involved in a crash. Data and analytic tools are broadly available so safety stakeholders can identify locations, roadway features, behaviors, driver characteristics, and vehicle characteristics that relate to crash risk.

Crash data is used to guide engineering and construction projects, prioritize law enforcement activity, and select and evaluate safety countermeasure programs. Crash data is also used in analysis related to emergency response and to maximize the level of care and the survivability associated with injuries sustained in a crash.

Applicable Guidelines for Crash Systems

There are several voluntary guidelines available to States wishing to build and maintain an ideal crash data system. The Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline4 provides a suggested minimum set of crash data elements, attributes and edit checks that enable valid statistical analysis. As a minimum standard set for any reportable crash, States are encouraged, but not required, to adopt additional data elements and attributes as required by their specific data needs.

When creating or updating crash system data dictionaries, States can also consider ANSI D16.1, the Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes,5 a standard for statistical motor vehicle traffic crash classifications for nationwide use. ANSI D16 provides a common language for crash data reporters, classifiers, analysts, and users.

States are responsible for protecting against unlawful disclosure of personal information as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2725 and relevant State statutes. Per the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), States may not release personally identifying information without the express consent of the individual in question, except for certain circumstances set forth in 18 U.S.C. §2721.6

Finally, the FARS coding and validation manuals provide critical guidance for the collection of data specifically for the Fatalities Analysis Reporting System, the nationwide annual census of fatalities occurring because of motor vehicle crashes. The FARS manuals are updated annually. State FARS analysts must use the manual appropriate to the current program year.

Data Dictionary for the Crash Data System

Ideally, the State maintains a crash system data dictionary documenting the following.

• All data elements, definitions, and attributes in the crash data collection form/software;

• All data elements, definitions and attributes in the crash database, to include linked and derived variables; and

• All system edit-checks and validation rules (e.g., rules that are applied to prevent improper or inconsistent data from being entered).

4 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2017, July). MMUCC guideline: Model minimum uniform crash criteria, fifth edition, 2017 (Report No. DOT HS 812 433). Washington, DC: Author. Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812433

5 D.16 Committee on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes (2017). ANSI D16.1 – 2017 American national standard manual on classification of motor vehicle traffic crashes, Eighth Edition. Mechanicsville, VA:

Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals. Available at http://www.atsip.org/ANSI_Ver_2017_D16.pdf

6 Available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap123-sec2721/content-detail.html

The data dictionary is kept up-to-date and consistent with the field data collection manual, coding manual, crash report, database schema and any training materials. Access should be granted to all appropriate data collectors, managers, and users.

The data dictionary explains each data element. Specifically, it outlines what is included and not included, rules of use, and any exceptions to the rules. The data dictionary also indicates the data elements that are (a) populated through linkages to other traffic records system components and (b) link crash data to data in other traffic records systems.

Procedures and Process Flows for Crash Data Systems

Ideally, crash data should be collected electronically in the field by all jurisdictions using a uniform, efficient approach (e.g., question or scenario-based software) that is consistent with the MMUCC Guideline and the statewide database's validation rules. Data is subject to validation checks at the point it is added to the record.

The State maintains accurate and up-to-date documentation—including process flow diagrams—that details the policies and procedures for key processes governing the collection, submission, processing (e.g., location coding), posting, and maintenance of crash data. This should include provisions for submitting fatal crash data to the State FARS data collection unit and commercial vehicle crash data to SafetyNet.

Process flow diagrams document key processes including interactions with other data systems. Ideally, each diagram should be annotated to show the time required to complete each critical step. The process flow diagram also includes the processes for managing errors and incomplete data (e.g., returning crash reports to the originating officer or department for correction and resubmission). The documentation accounts for both paper and electronic process flows.

In addition, crash system documentation indicates if edits and other steps are accomplished manually or electronically. The State ideally has documented retention and archival storage policies that serve the needs of safety engineers and other users with a legitimate need for long-term access to the reports.

Ideally, the State also maintains standards for all traffic records applications and databases, and the data dictionary should include consistent definitions for all elements—particularly those common across applications and databases.

Crash Data Systems Interface with Other Traffic Records Components

The crash system is linked with other traffic records systems to enhance data quality and support the crash system’s critical business processes. Given the relative maturity of State crash systems and the higher standards of their formal data quality control programs, the ideal is consequently more developed for the crash module. System interface describes a timely, seamless relationship and a high degree of interoperability between systems. In contrast, system integration refers to the discrete linking of datasets for analytic purposes. Data integration is addressed in Section 4.

In practice, the system interface is useful when circumstances require relationships between traffic records data systems that always need to be connected and accessible. These interfaces occur throughout a crash record's lifecycle: data collection, submission, processing, posting, and maintenance.

Ideally, such interfaces improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the crash system.

The State’s crash data ideally exists in one consolidated, generally accessible database. If data is first aggregated in separate law enforcement databases or records management systems, upload to the statewide database is electronic and automatic. The statewide crash database is also capable of supplying data to law enforcement agencies’ RMS.

Routine protocols for uploading data to FARS and SafetyNet are created to ensure congruence with the State’s crash data and to generate management and analysis efficiencies. Examples of useful interfaces between the crash data system and other traffic records system components are outlined below.

Crash system and driver system interfaces can:

• Verify and validate the driver’s personal information in the crash record;

• Access driver records in the field;

• Identify inconsistencies between the crash and driver records for review and possible correction; and

• Indicate crash involvement on the driver file.

Crash system and vehicle system interfaces can:

• Verify and validate the vehicle information in the crash record;

• Access vehicle records in the field; and

• Identify inconsistencies between crash and vehicle records for review and possible correction.

Crash system and roadway system interfaces can:

• Verify and validate the roadway information in the crash record; and

• Identify inconsistencies between the crash and roadway records for review and possible correction.

Crash system and citation or adjudication system interfaces can:

• Verify and validate the citation and alcohol or drug test information in the crash record;

• Identify inconsistencies between the crash and citation records for review and possible correction; and

• Provide access to crash history in addition to criminal history, contact history, and location history in the field.

Crash system and injury surveillance data system interfaces can:

• Verify and validate the EMS information in the crash record; and

• Identify inconsistencies between the crash and EMS records for review and possible correction.

Table 1: Common Interface Links Between

Crash and Other Data Systems

Crash System Interfaces With the Driver System

• Full name

• Date of birth

• Address

• Driver’s license number

• Photo match

Crash System Interfaces With the Vehicle System

• Vehicle make

• Vehicle model

• Vehicle year

• License plate number

• VIN

Crash System Interfaces With the Roadway System

• Precise location (lat/long coordinates, route and milepost, street address, etc.)

Crash System Interfaces With the Citation and Adjudication Systems

• Full name

• Date of birth

• Address

• Driver’s license number

• Photo match

Crash System Interfaces With the Injury Surveillance System

• Full name

• Date of birth

• Address

• EMS run report number

• Unique patient ID number

• Precise location (lat/long coordinates, route and milepost, street address, etc.)

Data Quality Control Programs for the Crash Data System

A formal, comprehensive crash data quality management program’s review protocols cover the entire process—the collection, submission, processing, posting, and maintenance of crash data. Ideally, such a system includes the aspects enumerated below.

Automated edit checks and validation rules that ensure entered data falls within the range of acceptable values and is logically consistent between other fields. Edit checks are applied when data is added to the record. Many systems have a two-tiered error classification system, distinguishing critical errors that must be corrected before submission and non-critical error warnings that may be overridden.

Limited State-level correction authority is granted to quality control staff working with the statewide crash database to amend obvious errors and omissions without returning the report to the originating officer. Obvious errors include minor misspellings, location corrections, and directional values. Obvious omissions include missing values that can easily be obtained from the narrative or diagram.

Processes for returning rejected crash reports are in place to ensure the efficient transmission of rejected reports between the statewide data system and the originating officer as well as tracking the corrected report’s submission.

Performance measures are tailored to the needs of data managers and address the concerns of data users. Measures can be aggregated from collectors, users, and the State TRCC. The crash data should be timely, accurate, complete, uniform, integrated, and accessible. These attributes are tracked using State-established quality control measures. The measures in Table 2 are examples of high-level quality management indicators. The State is encouraged to develop additional measures that address their specific needs.

Table 2: Example Quality Control Measurements For Crash Data Systems

Timeliness • The median or mean number of days from (a) the crash date to (b) the date the crash report is entered into the database.

• The percentage of crash reports entered into the database within XX* days after the crash. *e.g., 30, 60, or 90 days.

Accuracy • The percentage of crash records with no errors in critical data elements (for example, crash severity).

• The percentage of in-State registered vehicles on the State crash file with VIN matched to the State vehicle registration file.

Completeness • The percentage of crash records with no missing critical data elements.

• The percentage of crash records with no missing data elements.

• The percentage of unknowns or blanks in critical data elements for which unknown is not an acceptable value.

Uniformity • The number of MMUCC-compliant data elements entered into the crash database or obtained via linkage to other databases.

Integration • The percentage of appropriate records in the crash database that are linked to another system or file. Examples: crash with in-State driver linked to driver file, crash with EMS response linked to EMS file.

Accessibility • Identify the principal users of the crash database. Query the principal users to assess (a) their ability to obtain the data or other services requested and (b) their satisfaction with the timeliness of the response to their request. Document the method of data collection and the principal users’ responses.

Source: Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems, DOT HS 811 411.

Numeric goals —or performance metrics—for each performance measure are established and regularly updated by the State in consultation with users via the TRCC.

Performance reporting provides specific feedback to each law enforcement agency on the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of their submissions to the statewide crash database relative to applicable State standards.

High-frequency errors are tracked and used to generate new training content and data collection manuals, update the validation rules, and prompt form revisions.

Quality control reviews comparing the narrative, diagram, and coded report contents are considered part of the statewide crash database’s data acceptance process.

Independent sample-based audits are conducted periodically for crash reports and related database contents. A random sample of reports is selected for review. The resulting reviews are also used to generate new training content and data collection manuals, update the validation rules, and prompt form revisions. At a minimum, these audits occur on an annual basis.

Periodic comparative and trend analyses are used to identify unexplained differences in the data across years and jurisdictions. At a minimum, these analyses occur on an annual basis.

Data quality feedback from key users is regularly communicated to data collectors and data managers.

This feedback will include corrections to existing records as well and comments relating to frequently occurring errors. Data managers disseminate this information to law enforcement officers as appropriate.

Data quality management reports are provided to the TRCC for regular review. The TRCC uses the reports to identify problems and develop countermeasures.

SECTION 3-B: DRIVER DATA SYSTEM

Description and Contents of the Driver Data System

The driver data system ensures that each person licensed to drive has one identity, one license to drive, and one record. Custodial responsibility for the driver system resides in a single location, generally the State Department or Division of Motor Vehicles. For this advisory, that State means the custodial agency.

Ideally, the driver system maintains information on all out-of-State or unlicensed drivers convicted of traffic violations within the State’s boundaries. At a minimum, the driver system maintains driver identities, histories, and licensing information for all records in the system. The driver history record (DHR) contains all sanctions and convictions received by a driver as well as driver’s license issuance and expiration dates and restrictions. While the structure of the driver system is typically oriented towards individual drivers, the system is also designed to support (in concert with other data systems) both aggregate and detailed analyses of driver behaviors as they relate to safety.

Critical information the driver system maintains about all persons licensed by the State includes—but is not limited to—the items found in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Critical Information Maintained by the Driver Data System

• Personally, identifiable information

• Driver’s license number

• License type

• License status

• Conviction history for violations in current and other States

• Commercial driver’s license endorsements

• Non-commercial driver’s license endorsements

• All commercial driver convictions, in and out of

State

• Driver restrictions, including interlocks

• Crash involvement regardless of violation

• Driver improvement or control actions

• Novice driver education or training, including the type of license, the name of the provider, and type of education (e.g., classroom or behind-the-wheel)

• Driver improvement or traffic violation courses (may be provided via linkage with another system)

• Dates of original issuance for all permits, licenses, and endorsements (e.g., learner’s permit, provisional license, commercial driver’s license [CDL], motorcycle license)

At a minimum, the driver system should be linked to the crash data system, the DUI tracking system, and the citation and adjudication systems (for both original charges and the final dispositions of all traffic citations).

Applicable Guidelines for the Driver Data System

Ideally, ANSI D.20 standards are used to develop data definitions for traffic records-related information in the driver system. Driver information is maintained in a manner that accommodates interaction with the National Driver Register Problem Driver Pointer System and FMCSA’s Commercial Driver’s License Information System. These systems enable States to assess complete driving histories and prevent problem drivers from circumventing driver control actions and falsely obtaining multiple licenses. Data exchange for PDPS and CDLIS relies upon the AAMVA Code Dictionary.

Data Dictionary for the Driver Data System

Ideally, the contents of the driver data system are well documented; each field has an established definition and validated values—including appropriate null codes. Applicable edit checks and data collection guidelines match the data definitions. The data dictionary is maintained and updated to keep pace with system, legislative, and other changes.

Procedures and Process Flows for the Driver Data System

Ideally, the driver data system’s custodial agency maintains accurate and up-to-date documentation detailing the policies and procedures that govern the collection, reporting, and posting of license, conviction, and sanction information. Key processes include license, permit, and endorsement issuance;

reporting and recording relevant convictions; reporting and recording driver education and improvement courses; reporting and recording other information that may result in a change of license status; and, maintaining the appropriate system and information security.

The custodial agency also maintains detailed process flow diagrams outlining the driver system’s key data process flows, including inputs from other components and the processes for error correction and error handling (returning reports to the original source for correction and resubmission). Quality assurance, error correction, and error handling processes should also be explicitly shown in the diagrams.

Process flow diagrams include information on how each step is accomplished—whether manually or electronically—and clearly distinguish between the two. In States that have administrative authority to suspend licenses based on a DUI arrest independent of adjudication, the steps in this process are included in the diagram as well.