Improving highway safety is a critical transportation policy priority. In order to improve the public’s safety on the nation’s highways, federal legislation beginning with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public law 109-59; SAFETY-LU) called for the states to improve their traffic records data systems. To that end, in February 2011, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a set of Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems. NHTSA’s reason for improved traffic records is stated thusly: “Quality traffic safety records are critical to the planning, management, and evaluation of any successful state traffic safety program.” NHTSA also stated that the purpose of the model measures is to: “help each state improve its own performance. Each state selects the measures it uses, establishes its own definitions of key terms, and may modify the measures to fit its circumstances” (NHTSA 2011:2). Thus, the Model Performance Measures are not mandatory, with NHTSA noting that “states are free to modify them or develop their own.” States are thus granted a great deal of flexibility to craft a program that best fits their needs and concerns. Kentucky elected to create its own set of measures. NHTSA stipulates, however, that the measures must produce quantifiable data. Such data will allow state governments to more effectively monitor the development and implementation of improvements to their traffic record data systems, strategic plans, and grant applications to fund improved data collection. Whether adopting NHTSA’s model measures or creating their own, states are expected to have quantitative performance measures of the six core traffic data systems: 1. Collision reporting and analysis (CRASH)–the repository for law enforcement crash reports 2. Vehicle–the vehicle registration system 3. Driver–the repository for information on licensed drivers and their histories 4. Roadway–a database that stores information on the roads in the state highway system 5. Citation/adjudication–a repository containing the records of traffic citations, arrests, and final disposition charges 6. Emergency Medical Services (EMS)/Injury Surveillance–, the component repositories for data on motor-vehicle related injuries and deaths. These can have multiple databases: for example, prehospital EMS data, hospital emergency department data; hospital discharge data, trauma registries, and death records. During the first phase of this study in 2013, the Kentucky Transportation Center (KTC) identified possible performance measures (referred to as metrics) for Kentucky’s ten traffic records databases. In all, 117 potential metrics were developed, as one or more metrics was proposed for most of the six performance attributes of each database–timeliness, accuracy, consistency/uniformity, completeness, integration, and accessibility. The second phase of the research consisted of three main tasks. The first task was to assess the utility of each proposed metric and the availability of data. This task eliminated those metrics that were deemed to be of little utility or too difficult to measure. The second task involved collecting quantitative data on the remaining metrics. The third was to assess the possibility of incorporating a larger number of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) elements into the CRASH database. Table 1 lists the 10 databases, the organizations that contributed information to this study, and the liaisons KTC contacted. This phase of the project began by identifying liaison officials with knowledge of the databases. They were interviewed to ascertain which of the proposed performance metrics they deemed both useful and measurable. This series of meetings and telephone conversations with the liaisons yielded a smaller list of metrics. During this research phase, KTC refined knowledge of the proposed metrics, doing so by working with officials responsible for a traffic records database. This step in the study provided information on: 1. The benefit of each proposed metric to the agency’s mission 2. The agency’s present capacity to compile or generate the information related to the metric 3. The agency’s likely capacity to compile or generate the information for the metric in the future; and 4. The potential role KTC could play in compiling or generating information for the metric After identifying a new list of metrics, liaisons were asked to provide quantitative data for them (n = 51). The original plan was to collect data at three month intervals. However, data collection is expensive as well as time-consuming and the liaisons decided that they could only collect data on an annual basis for some of the metrics. For a subset of metrics they had annual data from previous years, in which case they reported previous years as well as the most recent data. This practice enriched the results, and this report contains annual data for numerous metrics for multiple years. The research conducted thus far has yielded the following eight conclusions. These findings are tentative, and more data collection, as well as interviews with liaisons will be initiated to firm these up and further explore the best strategies to improve the traffic records data system. 1. The liaisons saw no merit or insufficient merit (given the effort involved) in gathering information for more than half of the proposed metrics. Interviews with the liaisons reduced the number of metrics from 117 to 51. Moreover, the liaisons would need new funding to measure many of these 51. 2. The liaisons at KIPRC and EMS voiced less satisfaction with their current databases than liaisons at the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. That is, the latter expressed less interest in improvements to their databases. In all there are ten datasets containing data related to highway safety. Only the Cabinet officials responsible for roadway and traffic data sought more data and more timely data, specifically data describing recent alterations in local road systems. 3. All the liaisons, especially those at KYTC, said they cannot provide the precise number of people who have access to legally appropriate information from their respective databases; but all thought that access is open and unproblematic for the public. Given their beliefs and NHTSA’s model performance measures for accessibility that call for surveys of data users, it is advisable to explore further, with the liaisons, some acceptable ways to collect quantitative survey data on accessibility. 4. The liaisons at KIPRC identified several issues with the quality of their data. They documented problems with missing E-codes, incomplete data on death certificates, and non-specific E-Codes. They expressed a desire to improve their data but will require a new funding source to do so. 5. Officials with the Administrative Office of the Courts, who control the database for adjudication/arrest records, recommend standardizing the citation codes by removing old codes and discontinuing the use of paper citations. Doing so would facilitate analysis of their database by researchers. 6. Currently, no liaison can provide data on agreement with linked variables between the database they are responsible for and CRASH, or for any other database. The liaisons contended that KTC or KSP can generate this type of data for the metrics; however in some cases it may be too costly to generate it without tapping into new funding sources. 7. The trauma registry data suggests several areas in need of reform, especially information on ambulance time to the crash scene and time to the hospital. The data would be more complete with the incorporation of information from the 8,000 residents in Kentucky who were treated at a hospital not designated as a trauma center. Perhaps, the concordance between the CRASH database and the trauma registry database can be improved. 8. The review of the CRASH database for compliance with MMUCC found that 470 out of 682 elements are currently MMUCC compliant. There were 75 elements that the review committee did not want to add, and 137 elements that could be added to the crash database to render it more MMUCC compliant. Once this is accomplished, CRASH will be 89 percent compliant with the elements in MMUCC. Summing up, this ongoing research has produced a living document that can be updated throughout the year. Clearly, the continuation of this research will improve the monitoring of the quality of Kentucky’s traffic records. It will also facilitate future efforts to maximize the quality of traffic safety data and analysis–a goal that was laid out by the USDOT Traffic Records Coordinating Committee. This will let researchers more readily identify problems with the current traffic records system. Using this information, it will be possible to justify requests for NHTSA funding for programs to improve traffic records databases. (Author/publisher)
Abstract