1. Traffic Records Assessment Overview and Insights Luke Johnson | John Siegler Traffic Records Forum August 8, 2016

2. NEW ASSESSMENT: WHY & HOW Relaunched in 2012 – Based on feedback from States, GAO, assessors All new methodology developed with: – OMB PART – SMEs from GHSA, ATSIP, et. al. Key Changes – NHTSA underwrites – Uniform question set – Data collection & analysis online – Double the # of assessors – High level recommendations & detailed “considerations” – Archives answers & evidence for next time 2

3. ASSESSMENT SCOPE 3 TRCC MANAGEMENT CRASHDRIVERROADWAYVEHICLECITATION/ ADJUDICATON INJURY SURVEILLANCE DATA USE & INTEGRATION STRATEGIC PLANNING

4. Basis of the Assessment 4 Since 2012, NHTSA has assessed State traffic records systems using a standard set of questions and criteria. The questions and criteria are based upon the ideal traffic records system as defined by a broad group of SMEs in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory.

5. Comparing States to the Ideal System Assessment questions allow assessors to: Identify strengths and challenge areas Rank questions to help prioritize investment Supply brief recommendations for improvement 5

6. Scoring 6 Question RatingQuestion Weight Meets3Very Important3 Partially Meets2Somewhat Important2 Does Not Meet1Less Important1 Possible Points = Question Weight X 3 (Meets) Question Score = Actual/Possible Points The Traffic records assessment is based on OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), which requires respondents to provide evidence for each question.

7. FIVE YEAR ASSESSEMENT CYCLE 7

8. IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE NEXT CYCLE Updated Advisory (2017) Rework/Replace/Eliminate problematic questions Clarify & expand the SUGGESTED evidence Reorganize Injury Surveillance section Updated STRAP online assessment tool Leverage data collected from prior assessments Update old responses Identify prior respondents for each question Track changes made since last assessment 8

9. 9 17 Respondents 151 Hours States 14 Assessors 264 Hours NHTSA Average Level of Effort for Assessments

10. Module Scores 10

11. Score Distribution by Assessment Module 11

12. Assessment Scores 12 Overall National Average 66.3%

13. System Module Component Scores 13

14. Description and Contents Using the advisory criteria, States are assessed by their peers on 1.How they describe the purpose and function of each system module, 2.the data that they collect, and 3.the ownership and administration of each system. 14

15. Use data to identify crash risk factors, prioritize law enforcement resources, and evaluate programs Have criteria for PDO crash reports More than 75% of the States Assessed Include rehabilitation data in the Injury Surveillance System Less than 25% of the States Assessed Description and Contents Strengths and Opportunities 15

16. Applicable Guidelines Using the advisory criteria, States are assessed by their peers on the data standards and guidelines for the different components of their traffic records systems. 16

17. Use MMUCC to identify crash data elements and attributes to collect Has data on vehicle records recommended by AAMVA and/or received through NMVTIS Data interacts with the national driver registers PDPS and CDLIS Are NEMSIS-compliant More than 75% of the States Assessed Do not derive AIS and ISS scores from the State emergency department and hospital discharge data for motor vehicle crash patients Less than 25% of the States Assessed Applicable Guidelines Strengths and Opportunities 17

18. Data Dictionary Using the advisory criteria, States are assessed by their peers on the content and use of data dictionaries for each component system. 18

19. Have data dictionaries for EMS, hospital discharge, and trauma registry systems. More than 75% of the States assessed Data Dictionary Strengths 19

20. Procedures and Process Flows Using the advisory criteria, States are assessed by their peers on the ideal procedures for the collecting and managing the data for each system module 20

21. Have established procedures for identifying internal and external driver license fraud and CDL fraud A single entity collects and compiles data from local EMS, hospital discharge Have separate procedures for paper and electronic filing of EMS patient care reports Allow outside parties to access aggregate vital records data for analytic purposes More than 75% of the States Assessed Procedures and Process Flow: Strengths 21

22. Interface with Other Systems Using the advisory criteria, States are assessed by their peers on the ideal real time relationships between data sets that need to be connected and accessible at all times 22

23. Retrieve vehicle records using VIN, title number and license plate numbers. Driver information is accessed by authorized law enforcement and court personnel More than 75% of the States Assessed Share data between Crash and citation and Adjudication Crash and injury surveillance EMS and (1)Emergency department, (2) hospital discharge, and (3) trauma registry Less than 25% of the States assessed Interface with Other Systems Strengths and Opportunities 23

24. Data Quality Control Using the advisory criteria, States are assessed by their peers on the ideal practices for the data quality management for each component system. 24

25. Authorize staff to amend obvious errors and omissions in the vehicle database More than 75% of the States Assessed Data Quality Strengths 25

26. Conduct independent sample-based audits of crash reports and related database content. Produce data quality reports for their vehicle and driver databases. Less than 25% of the States Assessed Crash: Data Quality Opportunities 26

27. TimelinessAccuracy CompletenessUniformityIntegration Accessibility Crash XX Vehicle XXXXX Driver XXXXX Roadway XXXXX Citation & Adjudication X Less than 25% of the 22 States Assessed had Performance Measures in the following areas: 27

28. TimelinessAccuracy CompletenessUniformityIntegration Accessibility EMS XXX Emergency Room X XXXX Trauma Registry XXX Hospital Discharge Vital Records X XXXXX Less than 25% of the 22 States assessed had performance measures in the following areas: 28

29. Traffic Records Assessments In comparing a State’s traffic records system to the ideal outlined in the Advisory, assessments: 29 Identify strengths and challenge areas Rank questions to help prioritize investment Supply recommendations & considerations for improvement How do we move forward?

30. Programs to Improve Data Quality Go Team Training & Technical Assistance Crash Data Improvement Program (CDIP) Rodway Data Improvement Program (RDIP) State-To-State (S2S) Project Vehicle Product Information Catalog (VPIC) 30

31. QUESTIONS? JOHN.SIEGLER@DOT.GOV LUKE.JOHNSON@DOT.GOV 31