SAFETY Performance Measures & Serious Injury Reporting FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 SAFETY Performance Measures & Serious Injury Reporting Traffic Records Forum August 8, 2017 Mike FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Agenda FHWA’s and NHTSA’s Safety Performance Measure Requirements FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Agenda FHWA’s and NHTSA’s Safety Performance Measure Requirements Requirements for Serious Injury Reporting – Will your State be compliant with the new criteria by 2019? Resources Available Mike FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Safety Plans and Coordination Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Highway Safety Plan (HSP) Updated every five years Infrastructure and behavioral countermeasures SHSP process approved by FHWA Requirement of HSIP Mike There are several safety plans in a State where coordination is currently happening. Each State is required to have a SHSP, updated at least every five years. The SHSP identifies a State's key safety needs and guides investment decisions towards strategies and countermeasures that have the greatest potential to save lives and prevent injuries. This plan allows highway safety programs and partners in the State to work together to collectively address the State's safety challenges. The strategies and programs identified in the SHSP are developed into specific projects and programs in the HSIP and the HSP and there is a requirement that both the HSIP and HSP be coordinated through the SHSP. I’m now going to turn it over to Danielle to talk about coordination and target setting. Plan submitted annually Behavioral programs NHTSA approved Report submitted annually Infrastructure improvements FHWA approved

Major Provisions in the FHWA Safety PM Final Rule FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Major Provisions in the FHWA Safety PM Final Rule 5 safety performance measures Process for State DOTs and MPOs to establish & report on their targets Process for FHWA to assess whether a State has met or made significant progress in achieving targets A common national definition for serious injuries Mike FHWA’s Safety Performance Measures Final Rule became effective in April of 2016. The regulation can be summarized as having 4 major provisions. It established 5 safety performance measures for the HSIP, instituted a process for State DOTS and MPOs to establish and report targets, as well as created a process for FHWA to assess whether a State has met or made significant progress toward achieving their targets. Lastly, the rule also established a national definition for reporting serious injuries. FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Safety Performance Management Measures for the HSIP FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Safety Performance Management Measures for the HSIP 5 Performance Measures (5-year rolling averages) Number of Fatalities Rate of Fatalities per 100 million VMT Number of Serious Injuries Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non-motorized Serious Injuries Targets must be identical for NHTSA HSP targets for common measures Mike The 5 safety performance measures States and MPOs will be establishing are the number and rate of fatalities; the number and rate of serious injuries and a combined measure for the number of non-motorized fatalities and the number of non motorized serious injuries. All five of these performance measures are based on 5-year rolling averages. The rule also requires State DOTs to establish 3 targets that are identical to their State Highway Safety Office’s Highway Safety Plan targets for the number and rate of fatalities and the number of serious injuries. FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Provisions of the FHWA Safety PM Final Rule FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Provisions of the FHWA Safety PM Final Rule Institutes the process for State DOTs and MPOs to use to establish and report their annual safety targets: State DOTs report targets in HSIP Annual Report due in August MPOs set targets within 180 days after State reports targets. States and MPOs must coordinate on targets, to maximum extent practicable State DOTs and SHSO should coordinate when establishing the three identical targets Mike How do State DOTs and MPOs establish and report their annual safety targets? State DOTs report their targets in the HSIP Annual Report due that is due August 31st of each year. MPOs have until February 27 of the following year to establish their own targets or agree to support the State targets The rule requires State DOTs and MPOs to coordinate on establishing targets. Since there is a requirement for State DOTs and SHSO’s to have the three identical targets, it is important that both these entities coordinate on target setting as well. FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Provisions of the FHWA Safety PM Final Rule FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Provisions of the FHWA Safety PM Final Rule Institutes the process for FHWA to assess whether State DOTs have met or made significant progress toward meeting safety targets: Determination made one year after target year Four out of five targets either “met” or “better than baseline” Consequences if State does not meet or make significant progress toward meeting targets Mike State DOTs are held accountable to making significant progress toward the achievement of their HSIP targets. A State DOT is considered to have met or made significant progress toward meeting its safety targets when at least 4 out of the 5 targets are met or the outcome for a performance measure is better than the baseline. The baseline is the 5-year rolling average for the performance measure ending the year prior to the establishment of the target being evaluated. A State DOT that does not met or make significant progress loose flexibility with their HSIP funding and must submit a plan that will describe how they will achieve targets in the future. FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Target Assessment Example Performance Measure 5-year Rolling Averages Target Achieved? Better than baseline? Met or Made Significant Progress 2012 – 2016 Baseline Performance 2014-2018 Target 2014-2018 Actual Performance Number of Fatalities 474.0 468.0 472.4 No Yes Fatality Rate 0.988 0.980 0.990 Number of Serious Injuries 2,310.4 2,160.0 2,185.6 Serious Injury Rate 4.822 4.572 4.584 Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries 113.2 110.0 109.4 N/A Mike This slide is an example of a state’s performance outcome and target achievement for each of the 5 HSIP targets for CY 2018 . Let’s walk a few. The number of fatalities target was 468.0. The actual performance for the 5 year rolling average from 2014-2018 was 472.4. The target was NOT met, but the performance (472.4) was better than the baseline 5 year rolling average from 2012-2016 (474.0). The rate of fatalities target was 0.980. The actual outcome was 0.990. Again, the target was NOT met. The outcome for this measure (0.990) was NOT better than the baseline (0.988) The number of serious injuries target was 2,160.0. The actual outcome was 2,185.6. This target was NOT met, but the performance (2,185.6) was better than the baseline (2,310.4). The rate of serious injuries target was 4.572. The actual outcome was 4.584. This target was NOT met, but the performance (4.584) was better than the baseline (4.822). Finally, the number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries target was 110.0. The actual performance was 109.4. This target was met. If a target is met, we do not look at the baseline performance. As you can see, One target was met For three targets, performance was better than the baseline and One target not met and not better than baseline Since four of the five targets were either met or performance was better than baseline, FHWA would determine that the State, in this example, met or made significant progress toward meeting their safety performance targets.

Provisions of the FHWA Safety PM Final Rule Continued FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Provisions of the FHWA Safety PM Final Rule Continued Established a National Definition for Serious Injury FHWA’s Safety PM Rule (23 CFR 490) NHTSA’s Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grants Program Interim Final Rule (23 CFR 1300) Within 36 months (by April 15, 2019) all States must use the definition for “Suspected Serious Injury (A) from the MMUCC 4th edition Mike The Rule also established a national definition for serious injury. NHTSA included the same requirement in their IFR. By April 15, 2019 all states must use the definition per the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) 4th Edition for Suspected Serious Injury (A). We are going to go in more detail about this requirement later in the presentation. Now I am going to turn the presentation over to Amy to go over NHTSA’s program requirements. FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

NHTSA Performance measure requirements FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 NHTSA Performance measure requirements Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Performance Measures Targets are reported annually in the Highway Safety Plan (HSP) The HSP includes a description of all funds to be used to improve behavioral traffic safety States are required to have an approved HSP, containing 15 core outcome measures, to receive Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grants Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Highway Safety Plan (HSP) The culmination of State highway safety planning is the annual HSP, a critical document that illustrates linkages between data, planning, targets, strategies, performance and funding. A State HSP must include a description of all funds to be used to improve behavioral traffic safety. HSPs must contain highway safety performance measures to receive Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grants. Amy Each State HSP is reviewed and approved by a NHTSA Regional Administrator.

NHTSA Required Core “Outcome” Measures FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 NHTSA Required Core “Outcome” Measures Number of Fatalities Rate of Fatalities per 100 million VMT Number of Serious Injuries Unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities, all seat positions Alcohol impaired driving fatalities (BAC of .08 and above) Speeding-related fatalities Motorcyclist fatalities Unhelmeted motorcyclist fatalities Drivers age 20 or younger involved in fatal crashes Pedestrian fatalities Bicyclist fatalities Observed seat belt use rate Amy Grant Activity Measures (targets not required) Number of seat belt citations, impaired driving arrests and speeding citations issued during grant-funded enforcement activities FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Other Required Measures Behavior Measure Observed seat belt use for passenger vehicles, front seat outboard occupants (survey) Grant Activity Measures (targets not required) Number of seat belt citations issued during grant-funded enforcement activities Number of impaired driving arrests made during grant-funded enforcement activities Number of speeding citations issued during grant-funded enforcement activities Amy Emphasize grant activity measures aren’t targets

Additional Performance Measures FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Additional Performance Measures The minimum set of performance measures developed by NHTSA and the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) addresses core highway safety areas, but not all of the possible highway safety problem areas NHTSA works with States to develop supplemental measurements of performance for emerging highway safety areas such as drugged and distracted driving. Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

NHTSA Performance Measure Requirements FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 NHTSA Performance Measure Requirements Performance measures must include… Documentation of current safety levels; Quantifiable performance targets; and Justification for each target that explains how the target is data-driven, including a discussion of the factors that influenced the performance target selection The process for selecting countermeasure strategies and projects should allow the State to meet its targets Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Basic Target Setting Processes: FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Basic Target Setting Processes: Use trend analysis. Consider external factors (e.g., population, demographic distribution). Identify data on expected countermeasure strategy impact. Forecast fatality reductions based on planned implementation of proven countermeasure strategies. Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Setting Safety Targets Targets must be data-driven. Evidence-based targets are established in part from trend analysis, anticipated levels of effort and situational factors such as economic conditions, demographics, vehicle miles traveled, legislative changes and other factors. This information guides States to focus on areas likely to have meaningful impacts on highway safety. Performance measures guide investments in programs to achieve highway safety goals. Amy Data driven --- supported by data and evidence based.

FY18 Performance Measure Baselines FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 FY18 Performance Measure Baselines For HSP purposes, the baseline should be viewed as the documentation of current safety levels. Consider HSP baselines as a standalone # (independent of the years used to project a trendline) Its purpose to give context to the target, e.g., how realistic is the target when compared to last 5-years of available FARS data. States have the flexibility to use any data-driven methodology (and years) that’s most suitable for them in their trendlines and when establishing safety targets.  Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Linkage States must demonstrate a linkage between their problem ID, targets, countermeasure strategies and funding allocation. Safety projects and expenditures in each program area should align with performance targets. HSPs must describe how projects were selected to help achieve performance goals. Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Things to consider… Use performance targets to effectively guide funding and programmatic decisions States typically select targets they believe they can reasonably achieve based on historical crash data and trend projections. Performance targets should be selected for proactively guiding safety investments and actions within program areas. Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Things to consider… Don’t set program area specific targets in isolation or independent of the total fatality and serious injury targets Performance targets for the individual measures (e.g. pedestrian and motorcyclist fatalities) should be factored into the overall performance targets (total fatalities, serious injuries and fatalities rates). Due to the interrelationship among performance measures, States may set conflicting performance targets if they are not careful. For example, a disconnect may exist if a State opts for a performance target to reduce total fatalities by 3% but sets targets to decrease program specific fatalities (e.g. unrestrained, impaired and speeding-related fatalities) by 8%. The program area specific targets should logically feed into the overall measures. Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Benefits of Performance Management FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Benefits of Performance Management Increases accountability and transparency. Provides information to help decision makers understand the effects of investment decisions Improves communications between decision makers, stakeholders, and the traveling public. Enhances coordination among different safety agencies and plans. Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Safety Target Setting Coordination Training Workshops FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Safety Target Setting Coordination Training Workshops FHWA in collaboration with NHTSA offered State workshops Purpose: To jump start the target setting coordination process in each State 45 workshops delivered In an effort to facilitate coordination and provide clarification on the new requirements, FHWA in collaboration with NHTSA offered no cost State Safety Target Setting Coordination Training Workshops. The workshops were very successful in helping get all partners assembled to begin the target setting process. We were able to honor all 45 States that requested the workshop. Seven States declined the offering. The workshops have had a good showing of participants from a variety of agencies and disciplines and include those represented on this slide. FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Comments Better understanding of perspectives Really liked the coordination process discussion and action items defined as partners continued the process Helped to identify roles, responsibilities and timeline Validated the difficulty in target setting Enjoyed having Federal, State and MPO representatives together to discuss openly and answer questions These are some of the comments about the workshop: It provided state partners with understanding each of their perspectives on safety target setting and coordination The workshop helped States identify who would be responsible for what and how to move forward with this process Participants and the facilitators all acknowledged that target setting isn’t easy and there will be bumps in the road Our stakeholders really appreciated the face time with us, the State and MPO representatives to have an open discussion and answer questions

Take Aways from the Workshops Critical to have all the stakeholders participate Target setting will prove easy for some States and difficult for others Quantifying external factors difficult Data issues in many States Workshops achieved goal Coordination process and setting targets is an iterative process In summary, it is critical to have all the stakeholders participate in the target setting process. It is evident that some States will have an easier time than others in setting targets Quantifying external factors is difficult when thinking about altering the trend line and States want more information SI data is a problem in some States The coordination process for setting targets is an iterative process each year and can be improved each year as they master target setting

Serious Injury Reporting FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Serious Injury Reporting Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Crashes by Severity, 2015 FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Importance of Serious Injury Data FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Importance of Serious Injury Data Fatalities are only part of the picture Serious injuries resulting from traffic crashes have tremendous social and economic costs—$1M per seriously injured survivor While important to safety all our improvement efforts, the quality of today’s serious injury data is low Amy * 1M per injured survivor # from NHTSA’s recent impact analysis, “The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised)” (DOT HS 812 013) FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Regulatory Background FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Regulatory Background Safety Performance Management Measures Final Rule (23 CFR 490) Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grants Program Interim Final Rule (23 CFR 1300) Amy FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Uniform Definition KABCO FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Uniform Definition “Suspected Serious Injury (A): a suspected serious injury is any injury other than fatal which results in one or more of the following: Severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying tissues/ muscle/ organs or resulting in significant loss of blood Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg) Crush injuries Suspected skull, chest; or abdominal injury other than bruises or minor lacerations Significant burns (second and third degree burns over 10% or more of the body) Unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene Paralysis” - MMUCC 4th Edition KABCO Mike When MMUCC 4 was dvp. Those criteria are observable – stress the criteria were looking for our criteria LE can physically observe that lead them to categorize the injury. FHWA’s Safety Performance Measures Management Final Rule (23 CFR 490) and NHTSA’s Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grants Program Interim Final Rule (23 CFR 1300) establish a single, national definition for States to report serious injuries per the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) 4th Edition’s “Suspected Serious Injury (A)” attribute found in the “P5. Injury Status” element As many of you are aware, serious injury reporting is critical to helping all of us understand the magnitude of highway safety problems. Currently, States use different definitions and coding conventions for reporting serious injuries and we all know that inconsistent reporting can lead to poor data quality. Accurate and comprehensive crash data is important to determining effective infrastructure and behavioral countermeasures. Requiring States to report serious injuries using a standardized definition is a step to improving injury data. FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Compliance Standard The following items shall employ the verbatim terminology and definitions for the MMUCC 4th edition suspected serious injury attribute: The State crash database data dictionary The State crash report user manual The police crash form And: The State crash database accurately aggregates the MMUCC 4th edition injury attribute for “Suspected Serious Injury (A)” None of the six injury types specified within the “Suspected Serious Injury (A)” attribute are included in any of the other attributes listed in the States’ injury status element Mike FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Adoption of Full Element Recommended FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Adoption of Full Element Recommended While the rulemakings only require adoption of the serious injury attribute, DOT strongly suggests that States adopt the full injury status element in its entirety. Adoption of the full element will ease the implementation, transition, training, and use of serious injury data as reporting requirements come online. Mike FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Deadline: April 15, 2019 States must be compliant with the rules by April 15, 2019. DOT strongly encourages States to adopt the MMUCC 4th Edition attribute on or before January 1, 2019, to produce a consistent and compliant data set for the year. Mike FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Status Reporting & Conversion Tables FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Status Reporting & Conversion Tables FHWA and NHTSA require States to include their serious injury reporting compliance progress/status in their Highway Safety Plans (HSP) and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) reports beginning 2017. Conversion tables for use by States who have not yet adopted the MMUCC 4th Edition definition have been developed. Convert the equivalent definition and injury status attribute from a State’s Motor Vehicle Crash Database Should be used to convert historical data that does not use the MMUCC definition http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/conversion_tbl/ Mike FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

MMUCC 5th Ed. Opportunities FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 MMUCC 5th Ed. Opportunities In most States, changes to the database, crash data dictionary, police crash form, and user manual will be necessary. The serious injury requirement presents an excellent opportunity to consider alterations suggested in the 5th Edition while making the necessary changes. Mike NOTE: we do not anticipate a change to the serious injury definition in the 5th edition. (Regardless, the rules require the use of the 4th edition definition). FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Serious Injury Fact Sheet FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Serious Injury Fact Sheet FHWA and NHTSA issued a joint fact sheet Available on FHWA’s Safety PM and the DOT TRCC websites Mike FHWA and NHTSA have issued a SI Fact Sheet. It is posted on FHWA’s Safety PM website as well as the US DOT website. The fact sheet is set up as and Q and A format and can be used by both internal and external staff. The external audience includes TRCC committee members, State motor vehicle crash database managers and others. The fact sheet explains the new reporting requirement for serious injuries and the criteria States must meet in order to be considered compliant. FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Serious Injury Reporting Assistance FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 Serious Injury Reporting Assistance Technical assistance and webinars A self administered Checklist – coming soon Law Enforcement training materials Reporting serious injury training video Slide deck to be used in tandem with the video or as a stand alone Visor tip card Mike FHWA and NHTSA stand ready to assist States with the serious injury reporting requirement. We can assist with delivering webinars to your State stakeholders and providing technical assistance. A self administered checklist is being developed by FHWA and NHTSA for States to use as they work to ensure their crash database, data dictionary, police crash form and police crash manual use the MMUCC 4th edition guideline. Training law enforcement to report serious injuries consistently and accurately using the new definition is critical to the new requirement. A law enforcement training video, slide deck and visor tip card have been developed to assist law enforcement with this change. The materials are found both on the safety pm website and US DOT website. FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR

Safety PM Resources FHWA’s Safety PM website: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/ Target Setting Methodology Reports, Peer Exchange, Noteworthy Practices Target Setting Coordination Workshops & Report Fact Sheets Safety Performance Measures Significant Progress MPO Timeline FAQs Guidance MPO VMT Technical Guidance Serious Injury Conversion Tables NHTSA’s Highway Safety Grant Programs website: http://www.nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Highway-Safety-Grant-Programs Mike Since the safety performance measures are a new requirement within the HSIP, FHWA has a variety of safety performance measure support materials available for States. A webpage has been dedicated specifically to Safety Performance Measures and can be accessed by going to the link provided. This page provides a toolbox of resources to include publications on target setting and performance measures. NHTSA also has information on their program on their website.

FHWA INTERNAL USE ONLY 12/10/2015 QUESTIONS? FAST ACT OVERVIEW WEBINAR