The Working Group on DWI System Improvements is a prestigious coalition of senior leaders of organizations representing frontline professionals in all segments of the DWI system. The initiatives undertaken by the Working Group in the past decade have demonstrated the need for increased understanding of operational and system practices associated with proven countermeasures, and the importance of accounting for these practices when conducting and implementing research. More recently, the Working Group has turned its attention to the need for robust and comparable performance measures in all segments of the DWI system with linkages to traffic safety measures. This critical gap impedes progress in reducing impaired driving and was exemplified by the activities of the Working Group in 2011 and 2012 which highlighted priority impaired driving performance measures in the criminal justice system, and the magnitude and characteristics of impaired driving in rural jurisdictions across the United States. In 2013, this series of activities culminated in the pursuit of a project undertaken by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) that was funded by Anheuser-Busch. The project involved the development of a user-friendly, flexible tool designed to capture information that states can use to increase understanding of why they are, or are not, making more progress in reducing impaired driving prevalence, deaths and injuries. The aim of this work was to broaden the scope of discussion about “progress” and how this can best be measured to inform the activities at each level within a jurisdiction. The tool was structured to acknowledge the significance of a “systems approach” to achieving effectiveness that is embodied in the Working Group. A variety of performance indicators are often cited as measures of progress (or lack thereof) in reducing impaired driving. However, progress is typically measured using a few key traffic safety performance indicators. Among these typical indicators are: annual number of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities and injuries; fatalities per vehicle miles travelled (VMT), and criminal justice performance indicators (e.g., impaired driving arrests and/or convictions). Although these indicators provide important insight and are helpful to measure progress nationally as well as to facilitate comparisons across jurisdictions, they reveal little about how or why progress is, or is not, occurring within jurisdictions. This incomplete picture of the problem makes it challenging for jurisdictions to determine what action to take, particularly in an era when most jurisdictions have implemented a comprehensive array of proven countermeasures6 and interventions (e.g., alcohol interlocks, DWI courts, substance abuse treatment). At the same time, the effectiveness of these tools is often measured at a programmatic level, in other words, how well programs operate individually as opposed to in relation to each other. This makes it difficult to link results to overall success to identify the next steps or best strategies for reinforcing or re-establishing progress. Compounding this issue are factors related to the context of the jurisdiction (e.g., cultural aspects, population, geography, resources, political environment), and the actual quality of interventions (e.g., use of program features, evidence-based practices, fidelity to the model) at the implementation level. These factors often receive limited attention. Yet they can significantly impact the ability of jurisdictions to implement programs and interventions and deliver them in a consistent fashion to produce the desired results (i.e., reductions in impaired driving prevalence, deaths and injuries). These gaps make it challenging for jurisdictions to make informed decisions about impaired driving priorities, and to strategically pursue those that are most achievable and that represent the most efficient use of dwindling resources. Ultimately, this hampers the ability of jurisdictions to capitalize on their strengths, or to target problem areas that can have the biggest impact and are most amenable to change. The outcome of the 2013 project is this report. It is structured in several key sections to provide insight into why this project was undertaken and what was achieved. The first two sections describe the rationale behind this work, as well as the purpose and methods of the study. Section 3 describes how the DWI Dashboard is intended to be used by jurisdictions, and Section 4 contains insight into the next steps that will further build on this work, to help jurisdictions develop a strategic plan to address gaps identified by the Dashboard. Section 5 provides a comprehensive review of the DWI Dashboard and its different components and features. (Author/publisher)
Abstract