State Data Reporting Systems Division State Data Program  State Data System (SDS)  Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC)  Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 29 th International Traffic Records Forum Denver, Colorado July 13, 2003

NHTSA’s State Data System Expansion Effort

 A collection of crash data received directly from the 21 participating states.  The data consists of all state-reported crashes. Census data received annually.  The primary use of state data is for specialized internal studies. SDS

 State data are converted into a standard SAS format—the data structure is similar to FARS.  State variable attributes are retained. No recoding or standardization of attributes is done in SDS.  State annual Traffic Facts are used to ensure that data is processed correctly.

 Data files are sanitized:  All personal identifiers are removed during creation of the SAS data files.  VINs are truncated to 12 characters to protect vehicle owners.  General information may be retained, for example: State of Vehicle Registration Driver Zip Code Data Confidentiality

 Internet access to state raw data files is strictly prohibited.  Internet access to NHTSA’s SAS data files is strictly prohibited.  If state chooses to allow its crash statistics to be published, statistical summary information may be posted on the Internet. Internet Access

 Rollover Analysis:  Firestone/Ford Explorer rollover analysis.  Implementation of rollover ratings in NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program.  Supports NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation.  Useful for evaluating state voluntary implementation of MMUCC.  Useful for linkage to injury outcome data in CODES. How SDS Data are Used

 Useful for evaluating the effectiveness of vehicle safety equipment and safety campaigns:  Safety belts.  Anti-lock braking systems.  High mounted stop lamps and daytime running lights.  Alcohol awareness campaign.  Moving young children to the back seat. How SDS Data are Used

Crash Data Report: available for downloading. Includes descriptive stats in tables and charts. 30/ncsa/sds.html Crash Data Report

 California  Florida  Georgia  Illinois  Indiana  Kansas  Maryland  Michigan  Missouri  New Mexico  North Carolina  Ohio  Pennsylvania  Texas  Utah  Virginia  Washington SDS States Before Expansion Effort

Why Expand SDS?  Dr. Jeff Runge has made data collection one of NHTSA’s top priorities.  Additional state data strengthens NHTSA’s ability to provide accurate assessments, leading to better public policy and improved traffic safety.

Why Expand SDS?  State data are diverse—Although they share a common purpose, each state’s PAR consists of a unique set of data elements and attributes.  The success of specialized studies depends on pertinent information being available on the state PARs.  Expanding SDS can potentially increase the sample size for these studies.

Main Expansion Approaches  Regional Office Solicitations— Regional Staff contact state officials directly regarding SDS.  Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) meetings—SDS representative makes direct pitch with assistance from Regional Staff in attendance.

Both Approaches Successful Direct Solicitation by RO Staff  South Carolina (1/03), thanks to Region IV’s Erick Moran.  Wisconsin (5/03), thanks to Region V’s Bob Pollack. TRCC Meetings  Connecticut (3/03), thanks to Region I’s Mario Damiata.  Delaware (7/03), thanks to Region III’s Rod Chu.

Probable New Members  Kentucky—Based on work by Region IV’s Erick Moran. NHTSA is expecting an MOU from KY.  West Virginia—Positive response to TRCC briefing on 6/18, with valuable assistance by Bill Naff.

Other SDS Invitations Sent  Arkansas  Massachusetts  Mississippi  Montana  New Jersey  Tennessee

States Declining Membership  New York—Concerns over losing data sales revenue, data publication pre- emption, data misinterpretation, and lack of resources to reconcile discrepancies between NHTSA and state totals.  Rhode Island—Concern over data misinterpretation and incomplete nature of RI data files.  Vermont—"No compelling reason to join".

Two Levels of SDS Membership 1.State permits dissemination of state-specific summary information via publications and other methods. 2.State prohibits dissemination of state-specific summary information. For research purposes, the data is aggregated, making it impossible to determine the state’s contribution to the analysis pool.

 US DOT researchers outside of NHTSA do not have access to SDS data files unless written permission is obtained from state.  During the approval process, state is advised of the specific intended use of state data by the requesting US DOT modality. US DOT Data Access Policy

 Public access to SDS data files is prohibited unless the researcher obtains written permission from state.  During the approval process, state is advised of the specific intended use of state data by the researcher. Public Data Access Policy

Where Do We Go From Here?  Are the current SDS marketing materials sufficient for state solicitations?  Should we continue SDS presentations at TRCC meetings?  What additional assistance is needed by Regional staff to help with Dr. Runge’s data initiative?

MODEL MINIMUM UNIFORM CRASH CRITERIA  MMUCC 2 nd Edition (2003), published June  Standardizes state crash data to generate the comprehensive information needed to improve highway safety within each state and nationally.  Facilitates inter- and intra state comparisons.

MMUCC FORMAT  Data element name, definition, set of attribute values.  Based on existing standards (ANSI D16.1, ANSI D20.1, FARS, NASS and FMCSA).  Data elements collected at scene, derived, or obtained through linkage.  Voluntary implementation. No MMUCC police !!

REPORTING THRESHOLD  Death, personal injury or property damage of $1,000 or more.  All involved persons (injured and non- injured).  Consistent and uniformly implemented statewide.

BENEFITS OF MMUCC  Facilitates inter- and intra state comparisons.  Standardizes population-based data to identify national trends and issues.

 MMUCC incorporated into TraCS software  Next revision in 2007; publication in 2008  Assistance to be available:  web-based training  marketing materials  roll call video for law enforcement  surveys of state implementation  best practices guides, etc. NEXT STEPS

 29 CODES States funded.  Fifty percent or more of the states in nine of the 10 NHTSA Regions.  41% of CODES states also part of SDS.  Goal is to add all CODES states. CRASH OUTCOME DATA EVALUATION SYSTEM

PURPOSE OF CODES  Expands crash data so that all components of highway safety can be evaluated in terms of death, injury, injury severity and total inpatient charges.

CODES MODEL Links injury outcome to:  specific person, vehicle and event characteristics for all persons, injured or uninjured, involved in crashes statewide.

CRASH DATA LINKED TO:  Injury Data EMS, ED, Inpatient, Trauma Registry Death Certificate, Medical Examiner  Insurance Claims (health or vehicle)  Other Traffic Records Roadway, Traffic Citation, Adjudication Driver License Vehicle Registration Training: motorcycle, impaired driver

CODES DATA NETWORK  21 (72%) of CODES states participate in the CODES Data Network  Purpose:  Facilitate use of linked data by NHTSA analysts  Assist states to institutionalize CODES

SIGNIFICANCE OF CODES FOR STATES  Only source of population-based state- specific highway safety-related outcome data that:  Indicates effectiveness of countermeasures in terms of death, injury, injury severity and costs.  Justifies the priorities in the state highway safety strategic plan.  Provides a permanent data base to monitor trends over time.