Traffic Safety Data
State Data System Quality Varies and Limited Resources and Coordination Can Inhibit Further Progress Gao ID: GAO-10-454 April 15, 2010Traffic crashes kill or injure millions of people each year. High-quality traffic safety data is vital to allocate resources and target programs as the Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and states work to improve traffic safety through data-driven approaches. To qualify for federal funding, states must submit plans which include fatality and crash data analyses to identify areas for improvement. This requested report provides information on (1) the extent to which state traffic safety data systems meet NHTSA performance measures for assessing the quality of data systems, and (2) progress states have made in improving traffic safety data systems, and related challenges. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed state traffic records assessments, visited eight states, and interviewed federal officials and other traffic safety experts.
GAO's analysis of traffic records assessments--conducted for states by NHTSA technical teams or contractors at least every 5 years--indicates that the quality of state traffic safety data systems varies across the six data systems maintained by states. Assessments include an evaluation of system quality based on six performance measures. Across all states, GAO found that vehicle and driver data systems met performance measures 71 percent and 60 percent of the time, respectively, while roadway, crash, citation and adjudication, and injury surveillance data systems met performance measures less than 50 percent of the time. Also, data system quality varies by performance measure. For example, across all data systems, states met the performance measure for consistency 72 percent of the time, but states met the integration performance measure 13 percent of the time. According to NHTSA, assessments should be in-depth reviews of state traffic safety data systems; however, in some cases, incomplete or inconsistent information limits assessment usefulness. Of the 51 assessments we reviewed, 49 had insufficient information to fully determine the quality of at least one data system. Furthermore, an updated assessment format has resulted in more frequent instances of insufficient information. Despite varying state traffic safety data system performance, data collected by NHTSA show that states are making some progress toward improving system quality. All states GAO visited have implemented projects to improve data systems, such as switching to electronic data reporting and adopting forms consistent with national guidelines. However, states face resource and coordination challenges in improving traffic safety data systems. For example, custodians of data systems are often located in different state agencies, which may make coordination difficult. In addition, rural and urban areas may face different challenges in improving data systems, such as limited technology options for rural areas or timely processing of large volumes of data in urban areas. States GAO visited have used strategies to overcome these challenges, including establishing an executive-level traffic records coordinating committee, in addition to the technical-level committee that states are required to establish to qualify for traffic safety grant funding. An executive-level committee could help states address challenges by targeting limited resources and facilitating data sharing.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Susan A. Fleming Team: Government Accountability Office: Physical Infrastructure Phone: (202) 512-4431GAO-10-454, Traffic Safety Data: State Data System Quality Varies and Limited Resources and Coordination Can Inhibit Further Progress
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-454
entitled 'Traffic Safety Data: State Data System Quality Varies and
Limited Resources and Coordination Can Inhibit Further Progress' which
was released on April 16, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
April 2010:
Traffic Safety Data:
State Data System Quality Varies and Limited Resources and
Coordination Can Inhibit Further Progress:
GAO-10-454:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-454, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Traffic crashes kill or injure millions of people each year. High-
quality traffic safety data is vital to allocate resources and target
programs as the Department of Transportation‘s (DOT) National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and states work to improve
traffic safety through data-driven approaches. To qualify for federal
funding, states must submit plans which include fatality and crash
data analyses to identify areas for improvement. This requested report
provides information on (1) the extent to which state traffic safety
data systems meet NHTSA performance measures for assessing the quality
of data systems, and (2) progress states have made in improving
traffic safety data systems, and related challenges. To conduct this
work, GAO analyzed state traffic records assessments, visited eight
states, and interviewed federal officials and other traffic safety
experts.
What GAO Found:
GAO‘s analysis of traffic records assessments”conducted for states by
NHTSA technical teams or contractors at least every 5 years”indicates
that the quality of state traffic safety data systems varies across
the six data systems maintained by states. Assessments include an
evaluation of system quality based on six performance measures.
Figure: Traffic Safety Data Systems and Performance Measures:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Traffic data systems:
* Vehicle;
* Driver;
* Roadway;
* Crash;
* Citation and adjudication;
* Injury surveillance.
Performance measures:
* Timeliness;
* Consistency;
* Completeness;
* Accuracy;
* Accessibility;
* Integration.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Across all states, GAO found that vehicle and driver data systems met
performance measures 71 percent and 60 percent of the time,
respectively, while roadway, crash, citation and adjudication, and
injury surveillance data systems met performance measures less than 50
percent of the time. Also, data system quality varies by performance
measure. For example, across all data systems, states met the
performance measure for consistency 72 percent of the time, but states
met the integration performance measure 13 percent of the time.
According to NHTSA, assessments should be in-depth reviews of state
traffic safety data systems; however, in some cases, incomplete or
inconsistent information limits assessment usefulness. Of the 51
assessments we reviewed, 49 had insufficient information to fully
determine the quality of at least one data system. Furthermore, an
updated assessment format has resulted in more frequent instances of
insufficient information.
Despite varying state traffic safety data system performance, data
collected by NHTSA show that states are making some progress toward
improving system quality. All states GAO visited have implemented
projects to improve data systems, such as switching to electronic data
reporting and adopting forms consistent with national guidelines.
However, states face resource and coordination challenges in improving
traffic safety data systems. For example, custodians of data systems
are often located in different state agencies, which may make
coordination difficult. In addition, rural and urban areas may face
different challenges in improving data systems, such as limited
technology options for rural areas or timely processing of large
volumes of data in urban areas. States GAO visited have used
strategies to overcome these challenges, including establishing an
executive-level traffic records coordinating committee, in addition to
the technical-level committee that states are required to establish to
qualify for traffic safety grant funding. An executive-level committee
could help states address challenges by targeting limited resources
and facilitating data sharing.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that NHTSA take steps to ensure state traffic records
assessments are complete and consistent to provide an in-depth
evaluation of all state traffic safety data systems across all
performance measures. NHTSA should also study and communicate to
Congress on the value of requiring an executive-level traffic records
coordinating committee for states to qualify for traffic safety grant
funding. DOT agreed with those recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-454] or key
components. For more information, contact Susan Fleming at 202-512-
2834 or flemings@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
State Traffic Data System Quality Varies, but the Full Extent of Data
System Quality Is Difficult to Determine:
States Have Demonstrated Progress in Some Data Systems, but Face
Resource and Coordination Challenges:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Additional Data Analysis:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Traffic Safety Data Systems:
Table 2: Requirements for Section 408 Grant Program:
Table 3: NHTSA Performance Measures for State Traffic Safety Data
System Quality:
Table 4: Progress Demonstrated to NHTSA by States in Improving Traffic
Safety Data Systems, Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009:
Figures:
Figure 1: Typical Schedule for Traffic Records Assessment Process:
Figure 2: State Data System Quality:
Figure 3: State Data System Quality by Performance Measure:
Figure 4: Instances of Unknown Areas in Traffic Records Assessments:
Figure 5: Multiple Purposes of Assessments:
Figure 6: Screenshot of Crash Depiction Software and Resulting Diagram
of a Trailer on Its Side at an Intersection.
Figure 7: Maine Department of Transportation Map Viewer System:
Figure 8: Vehicle Video Data Recorder:
Figure 9: Projects Increasing Accessibility in Law Enforcement
Vehicles:
Figure 10: Backlog of Crash Reports in Texas:
Figure 11: Advantages of an Executive-Level TRCC:
Figure 12: Ohio LBRS Map Illustrating the Locations of Newly Captured
Crash Data:
[End of section]
Abbreviations:
CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
CDIP: Crash Data Improvement Program:
CODES: Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
DMV: Department of Motor Vehicles:
EMS: Emergency Medical Service:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FMCSA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
GIS: Geographic Information Systems:
HPMS: Highway Performance Monitoring System:
LBRS: Location Based Response System:
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users:
TREDS: Traffic Record Electronic Data System:
TRCC: traffic records coordinating committee:
VIN: Vehicle Identification Number:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 15, 2010:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Chairman:
The Honorable John L. Mica:
Ranking Republican Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Peter A. Defazio:
Chairman:
The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.
Ranking Republican Member:
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
In 2008, about 37,000 people were killed on public roadways in the
United States and another 2.3 million were injured. While these
fatality and injury statistics are some of the lowest in decades, high-
quality traffic safety data remains vital to the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) and state efforts to further improve traffic safety. State
officials increasingly use data-driven approaches to allocate
resources and target programs to improve traffic safety, as well as to
avoid incurring financial penalties. For example, in 2007 state
departments of transportation were required to submit plans to qualify
for federal funding, which included state fatality and crash data
analyses to identify a state's highway safety hazards. To support data-
driven efforts, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized
$138 million for NHTSA's Section 408 Traffic Safety Information System
Improvement (Section 408) grant program from fiscal years 2006 through
2009. States can use Section 408 grant funding to improve the quality
of six core types of traffic safety data systems--crash, driver,
vehicle, roadway, citation and adjudication, and injury surveillance.
Congress is considering whether and in what form to reauthorize the
Section 408 grant program as part of the next surface transportation
reauthorization act. As requested, this report provides information on
(1) the extent to which state traffic safety data systems meet NHTSA
performance measures for assessing the quality of data systems, and
(2) progress states have made in improving traffic safety data
systems, and related challenges.
To identify the extent to which state traffic safety data systems met
NHTSA performance measures, we analyzed the most recent traffic
records assessments[Footnote 1] for each of the 50 states and the
District of Columbia (D.C.)[Footnote 2] and from that information
determined and coded the extent to which a state's six traffic safety
data systems met each of NHTSA's six performance measures--timeliness,
consistency, completeness, accuracy, accessibility, and integration.
[Footnote 3] Throughout this document we use the term "coding
category" to refer to the extent to which a data system meets an
individual performance measure and reported these categories as met,
did not meet, or unknown. We created these broad coding categories
based on information presented in state traffic records assessments.
These categories are not precise measurements of the extent to which
data systems met performance measures, but provide a reflection of
data system quality. See appendix I for a full description of our
coding category definitions, data analysis, and methodology.
To identify the progress states have made in improving traffic safety
data systems and to determine what challenges remain, we reviewed
states' reported progress in meeting performance measures required by
NHTSA and in state documents, such as highway safety data and traffic
records strategic plans. We conducted site visits to eight states:
Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and
Virginia. We selected these states based on a number of factors,
including NHTSA recommendations,[Footnote 4] fatality rates,
population, roadway ownership, prevalence of rural roads, and
geographic diversity. We also reviewed project funding and other
information from the eight states that we visited to provide examples
of how states are improving traffic safety data systems. In addition,
we interviewed state officials about their progress in improving the
quality of traffic safety data and associated systems. To identify
state challenges in improving data systems, we conducted in-depth
interviews during our state site visits with officials responsible for
data systems, as well as data collectors and users. We spoke with
NHTSA officials, national industry association representatives, and
other experts in the field to inform our analysis of the challenges
states face and strategies to address them. We compiled all of the
interviews and identified the most frequently cited challenges.
We performed our work from May 2009 to April 2010 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient and
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
To help identify priorities for highway and traffic safety programs,
states maintain six core types of traffic safety data systems:
vehicle, driver, roadway, crash, citation and adjudication, and injury
surveillance (see table 1). Organizations responsible for implementing
and maintaining these systems vary among states, but generally include
highway safety offices, law enforcement agencies, motor vehicle
offices, courts, emergency medical service (EMS) providers, and others.
Table 1: Traffic Safety Data Systems:
Data System: Vehicle;
Description: Includes information on the identification and ownership
of vehicles registered in the state. Data should be available
regarding vehicle make, model, year of manufacture, body type, and
vehicle history (including odometer readings) in order to produce the
information needed to support analysis of vehicle-related factors that
may contribute to a state‘s crash experience.
Data System: Driver;
Description: Includes information about the state‘s population of
licensed drivers, as well as data about convicted traffic violators
who are not licensed in the state. Information about persons licensed
in the state should include: personal identification, driver license
number, license status, driver restrictions, certain convictions in
prior states, crash history whether or not cited for a violation, and
driver education data.
Data System: Roadway;
Description: Includes roadway location, identification, and
classification, as well as a description of a road‘s total physical
characteristics (e.g., type of surface, presence of traffic control
devices, and intersections) and usage (e.g., travel by vehicle type).
Roadway information should be available for all public roadways,
including local roads.
Data System: Crash;
Description: Documents the time, location, environment, and
characteristics (sequence of events, rollover, etc.) of a motor
vehicle crash. Through links to other data systems, the crash
component identifies roadways, vehicles, and people (drivers,
occupants, and pedestrians) involved in the crash and documents the
consequences of the crash (fatalities, injuries, property damage, and
citations).
Data System: Citation and adjudication;
Description: Includes information on tracking a citation from the time
of its distribution to a law enforcement officer, through its issuance
to an offender, its disposition, and the posting of conviction in the
driver history database. Information should be available to identify
the type of violation, location, date and time, the enforcement
agency, court of jurisdiction, and final resolution.
Data System: Injury surveillance;
Description: Incorporates information from pre-hospital (i.e.,
emergency medical services), trauma, emergency department, hospital in-
patient/discharge, rehabilitation, and morbidity databases to track
injury causes, magnitude, costs, and outcomes. This system should
allow the documentation of information that tracks magnitude,
severity, and types of injuries sustained by persons in motor vehicle
related crashes.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
While state funds are generally the primary source of funding to
implement and maintain these systems, states also use federal funds.
SAFETEA-LU provides the Section 408 grant program with the most
authorized funding exclusively for traffic safety data systems.
Administered by NHTSA, this grant program authorized $34.5 million
annually from fiscal year 2006 through 2009. For fiscal year 2009, all
50 states and D.C., received funding through the Section 408 grant
program, with amounts ranging from $346,262[Footnote 5] to $2.3
million.[Footnote 6] As stated in SAFETEA-LU, goals of this program
are to encourage states to adopt and implement effective programs to:
* improve the timeliness, consistency, completeness, accuracy,
accessibility, and integration of traffic safety data;
* evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to make such improvements;
* link these state traffic safety data systems with other data systems
within the state; and:
* improve the compatibility of the state data system with national and
other state data systems to enhance the ability to observe and analyze
national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and
circumstances.[Footnote 7]
To receive funding through the Section 408 grant program, states must
meet certain requirements, including establishing a traffic records
coordinating committee (TRCC), demonstrating measurable progress
toward meeting goals and objectives identified in a multi-year highway
safety data and traffic records systems strategic plan, and certifying
that an assessment[Footnote 8] of the state traffic records system has
been performed within the last 5 years (see table 2).
Table 2: Requirements for Section 408 Grant Program:
First year requirements: Establish a multi-disciplinary highway safety
data and traffic records coordinating committee (TRCC);
Subsequent year requirements: Certify that the TRCC continues to
operate and supports the multi-year strategic plan.
Subsequent year requirements: First year requirements Develop a multi-
year highway safety data and traffic records systems strategic plan,
approved by the TRCC and containing performance measures: Specify how
the grant funds and any other funds of the state will support the
multi-year strategic plan.
First year requirements: Develop a multi-year highway safety data and
traffic records systems strategic plan, approved by the TRCC and
containing performance measures;
Subsequent year requirements: Demonstrate measurable progress toward
achieving the goals and objectives identified in the multi-year
strategic plan.
Subsequent year requirements: First year requirements: Submit a report
to NHTSA, showing measurable progress in the implementation of the
multi-year strategic plan.
Subsequent year requirements: First year requirements Certify that the
state has adopted and is using the model data elements included in the
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria[A] and National Emergency Medical
Service (EMS) Information System[B] determined by the Secretary of
Transportation to be useful, or certify that grant funds will be used
toward adopting and using the most elements practicable.: Certify that
an in-depth assessment or audit of the state traffic records system
has been conducted or updated within the preceding 5 years.
First year requirements: Certify that the state has adopted and is
using the model data elements included in the Model Minimum Uniform
Crash Criteria[A] and National Emergency Medical Service (EMS)
Information System[B] determined by the Secretary of Transportation to
be useful, or certify that grant funds will be used toward adopting
and using the most elements practicable.
Source: GAO summary of NHTSA implementing guidance published in the
Federal Register.
[A] The purpose of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria is to
provide a dataset for describing crashes of motor vehicles in
transport on a roadway that will generate the information necessary to
improve safety within each state and nationally. This is a voluntary
and collaborative effort to generate uniform crash data that are
accurate, reliable, and credible for data-driven safety decisions
within a state, between states, and at the national level.
[B] The National EMS Information System is the national repository
that will be used to potentially store EMS data from every state in
the nation. The project was developed to help states collect more
standardized elements and eventually submit the data to a national EMS
database. Benefits include facilitating research efforts, providing
valuable information, and evaluating EMS outcomes.
[End of table]
Among these requirements for the Section 408 grant program, a state
TRCC serves to guide and make decisions about traffic safety data
systems within the state. The Section 408 grant program requires
states to include technical experts on the TRCC, including
representatives from highway safety, highway infrastructure, law
enforcement and adjudication, public health, injury control, motor
carrier agencies, and other stakeholders. In addition to a technical-
level TRCC, some states have also established an executive-level TRCC,
which can include a manager or director--rather than technical--
representatives from state organizations.
To determine state eligibility for the Section 408 grant program and
progress toward meeting goals and objectives set forth in a strategic
plan, NHTSA has developed six performance measures of data system
quality: timeliness, consistency, completeness, accuracy,
accessibility, and integration (see table 3). While performance
measure definition and relative significance may vary for each system
within a state depending on the state's baseline, goals and
objectives, NHTSA officials are working to provide examples of these
performance measures to make it easier for states to measure progress.
NHTSA expects to finalize these improvements in April 2010.
Table 3: NHTSA Performance Measures for State Traffic Safety Data
System Quality:
Performance measure: Timeliness;
General description: Refers to varying times by which data should be
entered, updated, or made available for analysis. For example, crash
information should be available within a time frame to be currently
meaningful for effective analysis of the state's crash experience
(preferably within 90 days of a crash). Roadway data should be
available when a project is completed, and vehicle data should be
updated at least annually.[A]
Performance measure: Consistency;
General description: Refers to all reporting jurisdictions within a
state collecting the same data elements over time and remaining
consistent with nationally accepted and published guidelines and
standards, such as Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria. For example,
injury surveillance data should be consistent with statewide formats,
which should follow national standards such as those published by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Performance measure: Completeness;
General description: Refers to ensuring that all necessary state data
and associated elements are collected in a complete manner. This can
include having fewer missing or unknown values. For example, roadway
information should be complete in terms of the miles of roadway,
highway structures, traffic volumes, traffic control devices, speeds,
signs, etc.
Performance measure: Accuracy;
General description: Refers to a state employing quality control
methods to ensure accurate and reliable information (e.g., edit
checks). For example, for vehicle data states should use current
technologies designed for these purposes. This includes using bar-
coded vehicle registration forms that allow scanning of vehicle
registration information directly onto appropriate forms.
Performance measure: Accessibility;
General description: Refers to information being readily and easily
accessible to the principal users of these databases, or to relevant
communities. For example, citation and adjudication data should be
available to driver control personnel, law enforcement, agencies with
administrative oversight responsibilities related to the courts, and
court officials.
Performance measure: Integration;
General description: Refers to information being capable of linkage
with other information sources to evaluate the relationship between
specific roadway, crash, vehicle and human factors at the time of a
crash, and for those factors to be linked to health outcome data to
determine their association with specific medical and financial
consequences. For example, driver data should be capable of linkage
with other information sources and use common identifiers (e.g.,
driver license number, citation number, and crash report number) where
possible and permitted by law.
Source: GAO summary of NHTSA implementing guidance published in the
Federal Register.
[A] NHTSA officials added that data on newly registered vehicles
should be updated as soon as possible.
[End of table]
Traffic records assessments are an evaluation of states' traffic
safety data systems, which includes discussions of how systems met
NHTSA's performance measures. A NHTSA technical team or private sector
contractors conduct assessments for states using a "peer" review
approach. Technical teams recommended by NHTSA conduct most
assessments. The teams are generally composed of five assessors that
states approve to conduct the assessment. These assessors have
demonstrated expertise in major highway safety program areas, such as
law enforcement, engineering, driver and vehicle services, injury
surveillance systems, and general traffic records development,
management, and data use. The peer review team generally takes about 5
days to complete an assessment, including interviews with state
officials, preparing the assessment report, and conducting a final
briefing with state officials (see figure 1). Assessors and NHTSA
officials described the principal document to guide the traffic
records assessment process as the Traffic Records Program Assessment
Advisory, which was updated in 2006, and for the purposes of this
report will be referred to as the 2006 Advisory. The format of traffic
records assessments was updated to reflect changes made to the
original advisory. The principle change made to the assessment format
is that the sections describing traffic safety data systems are now
combined with previously separate sections describing the information
quality.
Figure 1: Typical Schedule for Traffic Records Assessment Process:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Prior to assessment process:
Questionnaire sent to state stakeholders, to be filled out and
returned prior to state visit. Assessors review related state
documents.
Sunday:
Preliminary discussion between assessors and state officials.
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday:
Interviews with state and local law enforcement; transportation
officials including database managers; and other users.
Wednesday, Thursday:
Draft report.
Friday:
Report closeout and briefing to state officials.
Source: GAO analysis of traffic records assessment information.
[End of figure]
Besides the Section 408 grant program, SAFETEA-LU authorized other
NHTSA grant programs, such as the Section 402 State and Community
Highway Safety Grants and the Section 406 Safety Belt Performance
Grants, which states can use for any traffic safety purpose, including
traffic safety data improvement projects. Also, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA), and other federal agencies--such as the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security--
have provided support to state traffic safety data projects. For
example, the Highway Safety Improvement Program has provided funding
to help states achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities
and serious injuries on public roads through the implementation of
infrastructure-related highway safety improvements, which can include
traffic safety data projects. A new program is FHWA's Crash Data
Improvement Program (CDIP), which is designed to assist states in
developing or improving methods of assessing the quality of their
crash data. As part of CDIP, a technical team performs an assessment
of a state's crash data system and then produces a report with
recommendations on the establishment of performance measures. FHWA
officials reported that after the completion of the assessment, states
are eligible to receive up to $50,000 in funding from FHWA to
implement recommendations of the report. At the time of this report
the program was in its beginning stages and three states had
participated so far.[Footnote 9]
State Traffic Data System Quality Varies, but the Full Extent of Data
System Quality Is Difficult to Determine:
State Traffic Data System Quality Varies by System and Performance
Measure:
Based on our analysis of traffic records assessments, state data
system quality varies by system type. For example, state vehicle and
driver data systems met performance measures 71 percent and 60 percent
of the time, respectively, while roadway, crash, citation and
adjudication, and injury surveillance data systems met performance
measures less than 50 percent of the time (see figure 2). While
vehicle and driver data systems do tend to be of higher quality than
these latter systems, we do not intend to categorically rank the
latter systems against each other because system quality does not
differ considerably. For example, excluding the effect of unknown
codes, the extent to which crash systems met performance measures does
not differ considerably from the extent to which roadway systems met
performance measures.
Figure 2: State Data System Quality:
[Refer to PDF for image: 6 pie-charts]
Vehicle systems:
Met performance measures: 71%;
Did not meet performance measures: 19%;
Unknown[A]: 10%.
Driver systems:
Met performance measures: 60%;
Did not meet performance measures: 31%;
Unknown[A]: 9%.
Roadway systems:
Met performance measures: 47%;
Did not meet performance measures: 39%;
Unknown[A]: 14%.
Crash systems:
Met performance measures: 44%;
Did not meet performance measures: 49%;
Unknown[A]: 7%.
Citation and Adjudication systems:
Met performance measures: 41%;
Did not meet performance measures: 43%;
Unknown[A]: 17%.
Injury surveillance systems:
Met performance measures: 37%;
Did not meet performance measures: 46%;
Unknown[A]: 17%.
Source: GAO analysis of traffic records assessment information.
Note: These percentages represent a compilation of all coding scores
across all 50 states and D.C., and across all six performance
measures. We assigned a total of 306 codes for each of the six traffic
safety data systems (51 assessments multiplied by six performance
measures). For example, for state roadway data systems, 145 of the 306
codes fell in the met performance measures category, which equals 47
percent of the time. Due to rounding, totals may not add up to 100
percent.
[A] We assigned "unknown" codes where no other categorization was
possible due to limited or otherwise absent information in a state
traffic records assessment.
[End of figure]
Data system quality also varies by performance measure. For example,
across all traffic safety data systems, states met the consistency
performance measure 72 percent of the time, but met the data
integration measure only 13 percent of the time (see figure 3). The
comparatively high level of consistency in state data systems may
result from states using uniform reporting forms, such as uniform
crash, citation, and EMS reports that are consistent with nationally
accepted and published guidelines and standards. According to state
officials, integrating data systems can be difficult due to older and
outdated system design and obtaining cooperation from different data
managers. Assessors said that integration is difficult to measure and
report on. Further, state and other officials described integration as
one of the last performance measures that states tend to focus on in
creating high-quality traffic safety data systems while timeliness,
accuracy, and completeness are addressed first.
Figure 3: State Data System Quality by Performance Measure:
[Refer to PDF for image: 6 pie-charts]
Timeliness:
Met performance measures: 56%;
Did not meet performance measures: 28%;
Unknown[A]: 16%.
Consistency:
Met performance measures: 72%;
Did not meet performance measures: 19%;
Unknown[A]: 9%.
Completeness:
Met performance measures: 49%;
Did not meet performance measures: 38%;
Unknown[A]: 13%.
Accuracy:
Met performance measures: 56%;
Did not meet performance measures: 29%;
Unknown[A]: 15%.
Accessibility:
Met performance measures: 55%;
Did not meet performance measures: 33%;
Unknown[A]: 12%.
Data Integration:
Met performance measures: 13%;
Did not meet performance measures: 78%;
Unknown[A]: 8%.
Source: GAO analysis of traffic records assessment information.
Note: These percentages represent a compilation of all coding scores
across all 50 states and D.C. and across all six data systems. We
assigned a total of 306 codes for each of the six performance measures
(51 assessments multiplied by six performance measures). For example,
for the performance measure for timeliness, we assigned a code
signifying that systems had met this measure 172 of 306 times, or 56
percent of the time. Due to rounding, totals may not add up to 100
percent.
[End of figure]
In addition to data system quality varying by system type and by
performance measure, our analysis revealed differences in the extent
to which individual state systems met various performance measures.
Vehicle and Driver Systems: Vehicle and driver systems met at least 60
percent of the performance measures; specifically, 38 vehicle systems
and 31 driver systems met four or more of the six performance
measures.[Footnote 10] Vehicle systems performed best in the area of
timeliness--completely meeting that performance measure in 45 states--
while driver systems met the accessibility performance measure in 35
states. State officials cited multiple reasons why state vehicle and
driver systems may be high-performing compared to other data systems,
such as (1) these data systems need to be reliable and customer-
oriented since the public has contact with the systems through vehicle
registrations and driver license applications; and (2) these data
systems generate revenue for states through fees and other charges for
vehicle and driver licenses. In one state we visited, revenue
collected through the Bureau of Motor Vehicles for motor vehicle
licenses and fees amounted to over $90 million in 2009.
Despite the general ability of driver and vehicle systems to meet most
performance measures, only seven driver and five state vehicle systems
met the integration performance measure. State officials said that
integrating driver and vehicle systems with other traffic safety data
systems is difficult due to the age of some systems. For example, in
one state we visited the vehicle database is 30 years old and has no
ability to electronically communicate or integrate with other data
systems.[Footnote 11] In addition, 31 state driver systems met the
performance measure for completeness of data. Based on assessments we
reviewed, one reason why all states did not have complete driver data
may be that some states do not collect previous driver histories from
other states for non-commercial drivers. In order to meet the
performance measure for completeness, driver histories must be
included for all licensed drivers in particular adverse actions
received by drivers in other states, either while licensed elsewhere
or driving in other states. In addition, having complete records for
drivers promotes safety for law enforcement officers conducting
roadside traffic stops. For example, an officer can determine whether
the driver that he or she has pulled over has a warrant out for his or
her arrest or a suspended license, and with access to vehicle data,
can find out if the driver is in a stolen vehicle. With this
information the officer can better prepare for the interaction,
whereas the officer may be more at risk without it.
Roadway Systems: Roadway systems met almost half of the performance
measures; specifically, they performed best in consistency--38 states
met the performance measure--but, less than half of the states met the
performance measure of completeness. According to one assessor and a
state official, roadway data plays an important role in state
planning. This may lead some states to collect such data consistently.
However, in several states we visited, state officials only collected
and inventoried roadway characteristics for the state maintained
roadways, but less for locally maintained and other roadways, which
may contribute to roadway data incompleteness. Nationally, locally
maintained roads account for about 77 percent of all public roads,
while state maintained roads represent about 20 percent of the total
road mileage.[Footnote 12] In Idaho, of the over 47,000 miles of
roadway in the state, the Idaho Transportation Department is
responsible for collecting and maintaining data on about 5,000 miles
of these roads. The remaining approximately 42,000 miles are the
responsibilities of local road authorities. As GAO has previously
reported, most states have not developed roadway inventory data for
locally maintained roads because they do not operate and maintain
those roads and are concerned about costs and time frames involved in
collecting the data.[Footnote 13] In addition, state officials
reported that they collect the amount of data on locally maintained
roads that are required for the national database--the Highway
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)[Footnote 14]--which consists of
all data collected and updated by states on selected highway segments
across the United States. Because of this, officials said detailed
data are not collected for all roadways. One effect of incomplete
roadway data is that location data for some crashes will make the
identification of hazardous locations difficult or impossible and can
also prevent states from fully identifying and reporting on potential
remedies for hazardous locations and estimating the costs of those
remedies.
Crash Systems: While state crash data systems met about as many
performance measures as not, our analysis showed, and we have
previously reported,[Footnote 15] that state crash data systems varied
considerably in the extent to which they met NHTSA's performance
measures. For example, crash data systems in five states met all six
performance measures, while systems in six states did not meet any of
the performance measures. In addition, systems in 27 states met two or
fewer of the six performance measures. Also, according to our
analysis, crash systems in 32 states met the consistency performance
measure. Several of the states that we visited had uniform crash
report forms used by law enforcement to report vehicle crashes, which
may contribute to the consistency of crash data. Traffic records
assessors, NHTSA officials, and state officials said that states have
tended to focus on improving crash data systems, in part, due to crash
data having a clearer link to improving public safety than other
traffic safety data systems. However, systems in 23 states did not
meet the performance measure for crash data accuracy. Manual data
entry and a lack of electronic edit checks could lead to less accurate
data,[Footnote 16] which can inhibit meaningful analysis. For example,
in one state we visited, law enforcement officers provided incorrect
longitude coordinate data using Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
equipment. This human error resulted in inaccurate crash location
data; in multiple instances, the computer program located crashes in
China.
Citation and Adjudication Systems: For citation and adjudication
systems, about as many performance measures were met as were not met;
specifically, systems in 18 states met four or five performance
measures, while systems in 21 states met one or none of the six
performance measures. However, 17 percent of the time, the extent to
which the performance measure was met was unknown. Citation and
adjudication systems performed best in consistency--38 systems met
this performance measure. Similar to crash data, the adoption of
uniform citation forms may have improved consistency for this system.
However, about half of state citation and adjudication systems did not
meet accessibility and completeness performance measures, and only one
state met the integration performance measure.[Footnote 16] These
performance measures may be difficult for some states to meet due to
the high number of jurisdictions that states rely on to report data or
because a statewide citation system may not exist. For example,
Georgia officials said that the state has nearly 800 different courts--
about 400 of which are municipal courts, which handle most traffic
violations--each with its own court data system. There is no
comprehensive collection of citation data in the state, and the state
has a limited ability to require jurisdictions to submit data. Georgia
officials said that citation and adjudication data are relatively
incomplete because some courts do not report all data. Also, if states
do not have an electronic citation system, even police departments
with the ability to submit citations electronically must submit their
citations on paper. For example, a law enforcement officer from one
state we visited said that his department has the capability to
electronically submit citations, but must still print out citations to
submit them to the state because the state is not able to
electronically receive citations.
Injury Surveillance Systems: Less than half of the performance
measures were met, but similar to the citation and adjudication
systems, the extent to which performance measures were met was unknown
17 percent of the time. Systems in 39 states met 3 to 0 performance
measures, while systems in 12 states met four to six. In addition,
within injury surveillance systems, 25 states met the performance
measure for accuracy and 30 states met the performance measure for
consistency. This may be attributed to training provided to those
responsible for data entry. For example, one state hospital
administration provides training to data entry staff on how to enter
cases into the state data system properly. In contrast, 40 state
injury surveillance systems did not meet the performance measure for
integration. Assessors and one state official reported that the
multiple components necessary for a state injury surveillance data
system make meeting various performance measures more difficult than
for other data systems. According to the 2006 Advisory for traffic
records assessments, a complete injury surveillance system typically
has five components: pre-hospital (i.e., EMS), trauma, emergency
department, hospital in-patient/discharge, and rehabilitation to track
injury causes, magnitude, costs, and outcomes. Officials said that
maintaining multiple components often requires that several
departments contribute data, which can make data management difficult.
For example, in Minnesota, the EMS Regulatory Board collects EMS data,
the Minnesota Hospital Association collects patient discharge
information, and the Minnesota Department of Health maintains the
Minnesota Trauma Data Bank, which contains trauma and mortality data,
all of which are reported to the Minnesota Department of Health. In
addition, systems in several states have only some components of a
fully functioning injury surveillance system in place or have system
components that are just in the beginning stages of development.
Many Traffic Records Assessments Are Incomplete or Inconsistent;
therefore, the Full Extent of Data System Quality Is Difficult to
Determine:
Although NHTSA's implementing guidance for the Section 408 program
states that a traffic records assessment should be an in-depth, formal
review of a state's highway safety data and traffic records system,
[Footnote 18]our analysis revealed instances where assessments were
incomplete or inconsistent. We assigned "unknown" codes where no other
categorization was possible due to limited or otherwise absent
information in a state traffic records assessment, which includes both
incomplete and inconsistent performance measure descriptions. The
results of our analysis were that 49 of 51 traffic records assessments
had at least 1 area[Footnote 19] out of 36 (six state traffic data
systems multiplied by six performance measures) for which the extent
to which a system met a performance measure was unknown.[Footnote 20]
Incomplete or inconsistent information could limit the usefulness of
these assessments to state officials and make it difficult to
ascertain the full extent of data system quality. NHTSA officials said
that they review traffic records assessments for quality and that they
have accepted all state assessments as adequate to fulfill the
statutory requirement included in NHTSA's Section 408 grant program
implementing guidance. NHTSA officials said that they are currently
beginning work with a contractor to study the assessments. While the
contract to study the assessments includes a component to examine
state traffic records assessments for effectiveness and utility, the
main objective is to review state traffic records programs and data
systems from states that have had at least two traffic records
assessments and identify any improvements or degradations that
occurred between the two assessments. In addition to the contract,
NHTSA officials reported starting other activities, which will include
updating related advisory documents, increasing participation of other
DOT administrations, aligning traffic records assessments with other
similar NHTSA program assessments, determining the most effective
frequency for requiring assessments, incorporating all performance
measures identified in advisory documents, and developing a more
robust list of assessors for states. As these efforts are in the
beginning or planning stages, it is too soon to tell how they will
impact the traffic records assessment process.
Our review of traffic records assessments showed that for those
traffic records assessments that had any unknown areas, the number of
unknown areas ranged from 1 to 18 out of a possible 36, but most
assessments had five or fewer unknown areas. Of the 49 assessments we
coded with unknown areas, 27 had between 1 and 3 unknown areas and 6
had 10 or more (see figure 4). Out of the total 1,836[Footnote 21]
codes that we assigned across all 51 assessments, 226 (about 12
percent) were coded as unknown.
Figure 4: Instances of Unknown Areas in Traffic Records Assessments:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Coded and unknown: 0;
Number of states: 2.
Coded and unknown: 1;
Number of states: 6.
Coded and unknown: 2;
Number of states: 12.
Coded and unknown: 3;
Number of states: 9.
Coded and unknown: 4;
Number of states: 1.
Coded and unknown: 5;
Number of states: 7.
Coded and unknown: 6;
Number of states: 3.
Coded and unknown: 7;
Number of states: 3.
Coded and unknown: 8;
Number of states: 2.
Coded and unknown: 10;
Number of states: 3.
Coded and unknown: 13;
Number of states: 1.
Coded and unknown: 14;
Number of states: 1.
Coded and unknown: 18;
Number of states: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of state traffic records assessments.
[End of figure]
Our coding analysis revealed that the frequency of unknown areas is
greater in the updated assessment format compared to the prior
assessment format. Of the 51 assessments we reviewed, 11 (22 percent)
were in the updated assessment format. Despite the lower number of
assessments in the updated format, proportionally, we coded about
three times as many areas as unknown in the updated assessment format
than the prior format. The updated traffic records assessment format,
which is based on the 2006 Advisory, is less tied to NHTSA's Section
408 grant program implementing guidance than previously. The 2006
Advisory describes what characteristics state traffic safety data
systems should have, but unlike NHTSA's implementing guidance and the
prior advisory, in several areas it does not include a discussion of
each of the six performance measures as they relate to each of the six
data systems. For example, the 2006 Advisory notes that data should be
timely and includes an example of a quality control measure for
timeliness, but unlike the prior advisory, does not establish a
specific time frame by which timeliness can be assessed.[Footnote 22]
The 2006 Advisory also does not expressly discuss the accessibility
performance measure for five of the six traffic safety data systems.
[Footnote 23] This means that for five of the six data systems, the
2006 Advisory addresses only four of the six performance measures.
As previously noted, several assessments were incomplete, meaning that
there was not enough information provided to determine the extent to
which a state had met a performance measure. There was one instance in
which an assessment lacked performance measure evaluation information
on that state's entire injury surveillance system since
"representatives of the various medical data systems were not present
during [the] Traffic Records Assessment. Therefore no information
related to timeliness, consistency, completeness, accuracy,
accessibility, and integration—could be presented in [the] report." In
other instances, we were unable to make a determination based on
information provided in the assessment. For example, in 14 traffic
records assessments it was unclear whether citation and adjudication
data were timely. In another assessment, the timeliness of injury
surveillance data was explained as the timeliness of EMS arrival time
as opposed to the timeliness of when the injury data are available for
analysis. Incomplete injury surveillance data may lessen a state's
ability to track injury causes, magnitude, costs, and outcomes.
Some incomplete assessments may result from differing views on the
value of various performance measures between NHTSA officials and
traffic records assessors. According to NHTSA officials, the six
performance measures across the six data systems are of equal
importance in the context of assessing a state's qualification for
subsequent year Section 408 grant funding. NHTSA officials also said
that making progress in one data system or performance measures is not
more highly valued than making progress in another. Additionally,
NHTSA officials said that part of the value of assessments is that
they provide information on all areas of states' traffic safety data
systems. In contrast, some of the assessors we interviewed questioned
the value of some or all of NHTSA's performance measures for the
various state traffic safety data systems. For example, assessors said
that information on the integration performance measure was not
valuable because it is difficult to measure. Others said that injury
surveillance data assessors focus on integration more than the other
performance measures and that one of the most important findings in
the injury surveillance section of a traffic records assessment is how
it integrates with other traffic safety data systems. Furthermore,
some assessors reported that they do not evaluate certain performance
measures if it appears that nothing has changed in a state since the
last assessment, and that some performance measures and traffic safety
data systems are not as important as others.
As noted previously, the principal document used by assessors as a
guide for the traffic records assessment process is the 2006 Advisory.
The purpose of this guidance is to provide states with guidance on the
necessary contents, capabilities, and quality of data in a traffic
records system and to be a description of an ideal system, not to
describe what information should be included in a traffic records
assessment. Furthermore, as opposed to the previous advisory, the 2006
Advisory explicitly discusses some, but not all of the six performance
measures for each traffic records systems. Given that, per Section 408
grant program requirements, assessments are conducted every 5 years,
there is merit in having clearer guidance that assessments include all
performance measures to update state officials on their traffic safety
data systems, even if such an update explains that nothing has changed
since the last assessment.
In addition to completeness concerns, some traffic records assessments
are inconsistent, meaning that information provided in one part of the
assessment describing the extent to which a state met a performance
measure was inconsistent with information provided elsewhere in the
assessment. For example, one assessment described the performance
measure of consistency as "...not [appearing] to be an issue in that a
uniform citation is used and there are a relatively small number of
police agencies ...that submit traffic citations." However, later on
the same page in the accuracy section it was noted that "The Court
indicated that officer reporting is not consistent and more training
is needed to assure that charging documents and affidavits of probable
cause are completed correctly. Additional training could help to
assure uniformity of submissions." Another assessment explained,
"Information provided during the assessment interviews indicated that
the data are timely; the latest data available for analysis is 2006."
Upon review, the available data were at least a year old since the
traffic records assessment was conducted in 2008. However, NHTSA
guidance suggests that all injury data be available in a comparable
time frame for the crash data, which is preferably within 90 days of a
crash.
Despite these limitations, traffic records assessments remain vital in
helping states identify problems, develop plans, and prioritize
projects to improve traffic safety data systems (see figure 5). For
example, Minnesota officials used recommendations made in a traffic
records assessment, along with the strategic plan, to prioritize
traffic records projects. In addition to being useful to states for
making traffic records improvements, NHTSA officials emphasize traffic
records assessments as valuable for strategic planning purposes. NHTSA
officials added that the traffic records assessment process is
important because it provides an independent look at the quality of
traffic safety data systems, helps determine where priorities should
lie, and guides states on targeting limited resources. Assessors and
state officials also emphasized the value of traffic records
assessments for states. For example, one assessor said that traffic
records assessments serve as a tool and guideline for states in how to
move forward with traffic safety data systems and to promote a data-
driven approach by balancing stakeholder interests with priorities
highlighted by data.
Figure 5: Multiple Purposes of Assessments:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
5-year report:
Traffic records assessment:
State DOT uses assessment to identify state strengths and weaknesses
in traffic safety data systems.
State activities:
Strategic planning:
Creation of plan, which helps set goals and address assessment
recommendations, among other things.
Project prioritization and budgeting:
Setting priorities, including consideration of whether a project
adequately addresses assessment recommendations.
Applying for grant:
States track progress annually to support receiving Section 408 grant
funding, which assists with project implementation.
Set goals:
Improved traffic safety data quality.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
In contrast, state officials reported that while information captured
in traffic records assessments is useful, the more specific
information such as problem identification, definitions of performance
measures and data analysis recommendations included in FHWA CDIP
assessments has additional benefits. Although CDIP began in 2008 and
only three states have currently participated, officials in states
where both a traffic records and CDIP assessment were conducted said
that the information included in CDIP assessments was more in-depth
and specific. CDIP assessments are conducted in a similar manner as
traffic records assessments, take roughly the same amount of time to
conduct, and cover all six performance measures identified in NHTSA's
implementing guidance, but focus only on a state's crash data system.
CDIP assessments include recommendations and particular steps or
methods states can take to potentially improve their crash system.
By contrast, assessors identify problems in traffic records
assessments but state officials said that traffic records assessments
generally do not provide specific strategies for ways to improve the
traffic safety data systems. State officials reported that an
assessment with information as specific as that provided in CDIP
assessments would be valuable to have for each of their traffic safety
data systems. In addition, several state officials said that
insufficient time is spent conducting traffic records assessments to
produce an in-depth, detailed report. In one state, traffic records
assessment officials spent only 10 minutes with the team representing
one of the six data systems.
States Have Demonstrated Progress in Some Data Systems, but Face
Resource and Coordination Challenges:
States Have Demonstrated Some Progress Nationwide:
Information collected by NHTSA from the states shows that 49 states
and D.C. have demonstrated progress in improving the quality of all
six traffic safety data systems.[Footnote 24] States have demonstrated
progress in all six traffic safety data systems, as well as across all
six performance measures. It is important to note that reported state
progress is not equivalent to achieving a high-quality traffic safety
data system; rather, such progress represents steps toward that end
goal. Of the possible 36 areas in which to demonstrate progress, by
system and by performance measure, states demonstrated progress in 23
areas to NHTSA from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2009 (see
table 4). To remain eligible for Section 408 grant funding states must
demonstrate measurable progress related to achieving the goals and
objectives of a state's multi-year highway safety data and traffic
records strategic plans. NHTSA officials reported that states can
fulfill this requirement by demonstrating progress in one performance
measure for one data system per year. For example, a state might
report progress involving the performance measure of completeness
within the roadway data system. States can and have reported more than
one area of progress. NHTSA does not require states to report all
progress toward improving traffic safety data systems and, as a
result, states may be making progress that is not reported.
Additionally, NHTSA does not always accept every area of progress that
a state reports if the state demonstrates sufficient progress in at
least one area; therefore, state progress may be understated.
Sometimes NHTSA cannot verify that progress has taken place in all
reported areas, due to a lack of evidence or incomplete information.
[Footnote 25] For example, Maine officials reported five areas of
progress to NHTSA for fiscal year 2009 and NHTSA officials accepted
four of those areas. West Virginia officials reported four areas of
progress, one of which NHTSA officials accepted. While NHTSA officials
reported that demonstrated progress does not represent all progress
that states are making, it serves as a useful approximation for the
areas in which states are making progress. Moreover, NHTSA officials
said that in regards to qualifying for Section 408 grant funding, the
most important development is that states are making some progress in
improving traffic safety data systems.
Table 4: Progress Demonstrated to NHTSA by States in Improving Traffic
Safety Data Systems, Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009:
Performance measures: Data system: Vehicle;
Timeliness: 2;
Completeness: 1;
Consistency: 0;
Accuracy: 1;
Accessibility: 0;
Integration: 0;
Data system totals: 4.
Performance measures: Data system: Driver;
Timeliness: 1;
Completeness: 1;
Consistency: 0;
Accuracy: 0;
Accessibility: 1;
Integration: 0;
Data system totals: 3.
Performance measures: Data system: Roadway;
Timeliness: 0;
Completeness: 7;
Consistency: 0;
Accuracy: 1;
Accessibility: 0;
Integration: 3;
Data system totals: 11.
Performance measures: Data system: Crash;
Timeliness: 32;
Completeness: 27;
Consistency: 10;
Accuracy: 10;
Accessibility: 2;
Integration: 8;
Data system totals: 89.
Performance measures: Data system: Citation and adjudication;
Timeliness: 15;
Completeness: 2;
Consistency: 2;
Accuracy: 0;
Accessibility: 0;
Integration: 0;
Data system totals: 19.
Performance measures: Data system: Injury surveillance;
Timeliness: 7;
Completeness: 18;
Consistency: 9;
Accuracy: 0;
Accessibility: 3;
Integration: 1;
Data system totals: 38.
Performance measures: Total;
Timeliness: 57;
Completeness: 56;
Consistency: 21;
Accuracy: 12;
Accessibility: 6;
Integration: 12;
Data system totals: 164.
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA information.
Note: The performance measures are defined by NHTSA implementing
guidance published in the Federal Register.
[End of table]
State progress, for the 2 most recent fiscal years, may reflect some
trends identified by our analysis of the extent to which state traffic
safety data systems met NHTSA performance measures. For example,
states demonstrated the least progress in the vehicle and driver data
systems (7 of the 164 total areas of progress listed in table 4). This
may reflect that vehicle and driver systems already met most
performance measures, as shown in our coding analysis. In contrast,
states have demonstrated progress for crash data systems more often
than other systems. Out of the 164 instances states have demonstrated
progress, 89--over half--involved improvements to state crash data
systems. This may indicate heightened state efforts to improve crash
data systems due to these systems not meeting various performance
measures, as shown in our analysis. Furthermore, state and NHTSA
officials, as well as assessors, reported that states have focused on
improving crash systems.
Progress has resulted from states pursuing small-and large-scale
projects to improve traffic safety data systems. For example, some
progress has resulted from smaller-scale projects, such as printers
for citations or online tutorials. NHTSA officials said that they have
encouraged states to use Section 408 grant program funding to support
near term, quick projects, recognizing that large-scale projects might
require significant, additional time or funds. However, some state
officials said that smaller-scale projects are less likely to
immediately lead to substantial improvements in the overall quality of
state traffic safety data systems.
Support for large projects also depends on state funding in addition
to Section 408 grant program funding awarded to a state. For example,
Virginia has expended over $900,000 in state and local funding on the
Traffic Record Electronic Data System (TREDS) project, which
integrates federal, state, and local data; provides law enforcement
the ability to collect and submit crash data electronically; reduces
manual entry of data; provides enhanced analysis capabilities and
increases accessibility for data users; among other things. Thus far,
NHTSA has awarded Virginia approximately $2.5 million in Section 408
grant funding.
For the states that we visited, federal assistance has helped states
to improve traffic safety data systems. Officials in all eight states
that we visited stressed the important role of the Section 408 grant
program to improve traffic safety data and have used this and other
federal funding to implement projects. Officials reported that while
state funding makes up the majority of support for traffic safety data
projects, without Section 408 grant program or other federal funding
some projects would have happened much more slowly, or not at all.
NHTSA officials estimated that for every dollar provided through
Section 408 grant funding, states spend an additional $4 for traffic
safety data projects. Below are examples of state projects that have
used federal funding.[Footnote 26]
Timeliness-Several states have implemented or are currently working on
projects to transition from manual to electronic reporting of data.
Electronic reporting reduces reliance on paper processes and can
increase the speed of submission and eventual availability of data for
analysis. Minnesota has undergone such a transition for crash data.
Minnesota officials said that in 2009 over 90 percent of the state's
crash reporting was submitted electronically to its crash database.
This includes all crash reports from Minnesota's State Highway Patrol.
Electronic submission has helped the state submit and finalize all
data in Minnesota's crash database within 30 days. This represents an
improvement from the 6-week backlog to enter crash data that Minnesota
experienced in 2003.
Completeness-To improve the completeness of crash data, officials in
three states that we visited reported using diagram software to help
law enforcement officers depict crashes. Officers generate these
diagrams by entering information electronically at the scene of a
crash (see figure 6). The diagram increases completeness by including
visual information like the position of the vehicle(s), location of
damage, intersection layout, and other crash features, such as trees
and pedestrians. Using crash diagram software, officers can edit
information before completing and submitting the diagram as part of
the crash report.
Figure 6: Screenshot of Crash Depiction Software and Resulting Diagram
of a Trailer on Its Side at an Intersection.
[Refer to PDF for image: screen shot of Crash Depiction Software]
Source: Deep River LLC; Maine Department of Public Safety.
[End of figure]
Consistency: Some states have improved consistency by adopting uniform
reporting forms and increasing compliance with national guidelines. In
2007, Virginia revised its crash data collection form using guidance
from NHTSA and guidelines captured in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash
Criteria. Virginia officials reported that the form revision increased
compliance with the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria from 55 to 80
percent. Also, Georgia's Emergency Medical Services Information System
has used a revised form that includes approximately 300 data elements-
-as opposed to the previous form, which had 103. This revised form is
"gold compliant" with National EMS Information System guidelines.
[Footnote 27] Approximately 30 percent of Georgia's EMS agencies are
still using the previous forms, but state officials expect a continued
transition to the new form.
Accuracy: To improve the accuracy of roadway data, including roadway
features such as bridge locations, some states have explored projects
available through GIS and other technology. Maine's Department of
Transportation has created the Maine Department of Transportation Map
Viewer System, which will eventually become available to a variety of
state data users. This system integrates existing GIS technologies
into a viewer screen where users can view roadway data and update
information to increase accuracy. Users of the viewer system can also
select and change which data are displayed and view photographs of a
particular section of roadway to illustrate local features (see figure
7).
Figure 7: Maine Department of Transportation Map Viewer System:
[Refer to PDF for image: map viewer system]
Depicted on the system are:
Data display options;
Associated photographs for certain locations;
State reference points.
Source: Maine Department of Transportation.
[End of figure]
In another example, one law enforcement jurisdiction that we
interviewed installed video data recorders in police vehicles. These
devices record scenes to the front or rear of a vehicle. Uses of these
recorders include reviewing crash footage to verify information and
ensure that crash, driver, and vehicle data are accurate (see figure
8).
Figure 8: Vehicle Video Data Recorder:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Accessibility: Several state and local jurisdictions we met with,
including those in Maine, Minnesota, and Ohio, have completed projects
to make traffic safety data more accessible to users. For example,
data captured by Ohio's Location Based Response System (LBRS) is
available to data users and other citizens on the Internet.
Ohio officials reported that this has increased accessibility to
roadway information, and reduced public requests for roadway data. In
addition to state Department of Transportation officials, LBRS users
have included County Emergency Management Agencies, utilities, and
county engineers. In addition to LBRS, other projects have included
jurisdictions incorporating new technologies to make crash, driver,
citation, and vehicle data more accessible in law enforcement
vehicles. Figure 9 provides examples of other, completed projects that
have increased the accessibility of various data systems for law
enforcement officials.
Figure 9: Projects Increasing Accessibility in Law Enforcement
Vehicles:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs]
Rear hood camera:
A camera positioned on the rear hood transmits license plate images to
the vehicle's laptop. An automatic check of all records associated
with the license plate follows, making any violations or other
information accessible to law enforcement.
Vehicle laptop:
Laptops link to various traffic safety data systems, making a variety
of data readily accessible, including information on drivers' past
citations and crashes. Law enforcement officials can also enter and
submit data remotely to state databases.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Integration: To improve the integration of traffic safety data systems
with one another, 19 states participate in the Crash Outcome Data
Evaluation System (CODES) effort.[Footnote 29] Facilitated and
supported by NHTSA, CODES seeks to better link and otherwise integrate
crash and injury surveillance data.[Footnote 30] Such integration can
result in state officials better understanding the medical
consequences of traffic crashes and the types of injuries that certain
crashes are likely to produce. Of the states that we visited, Georgia,
Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, and Virginia participate in the CODES project.
Ohio officials reported that the most extensive linkage between injury
surveillance systems in the state has happened through the CODES
program, which has established links between EMS, trauma, and crash
data. Virginia officials cited CODES in helping to submit and link
data to other organizations including the Department of Motor Vehicles.
States We Visited Face Resource and Coordination Challenges, but Some
Have Implemented Strategies to Help Address These Challenges:
While states have demonstrated progress, a number of overarching
challenges exist to improving traffic safety data systems. This is due
in part to the complexity and multifaceted nature of trying to
establish traffic safety data systems. The Section 408 grant program
is designed to improve six, oftentimes completely separate, state
traffic safety data systems. We have previously reported that
overhauling one outdated data system can be both challenging and
expensive, particularly when integrating a new system with existing
legacy systems.[Footnote 31] State officials in all states that we
visited also reported that just maintaining one data system requires
significant funding, time, or other limited resources. Therefore,
trying to make simultaneous improvements to multiple traffic safety
data systems can magnify these challenges.
Limited Resources: Officials in all the states that we visited
identified limited resources as a significant challenge in state
efforts to improve traffic safety data systems. Some of the most
frequently cited limitations in funding and human capital resources
are discussed below.
* Limited funding. According to state officials, making improvements
to one data system can cost tens of millions of dollars. Therefore,
obtaining funding necessary to make improvements to six state traffic
safety data systems is a challenge. As we previously reported, while
traffic safety data grants have provided states with funding to
improve traffic safety data systems and complete associated projects,
the cost of developing and maintaining data systems can exceed Section
408 program grant amounts.[Footnote 32] While state officials reported
that state funding supports most of the cost of traffic safety data
projects, NHTSA and officials in five out of eight states we visited
indicated that traffic safety data system improvements are not among
the highest state priorities due to budgetary constraints or limited
interest. The recent economic recession has amplified state funding
limitations for data projects.
Moreover, a state's legislative process may delay funding for traffic
safety data projects. Even in instances where funding is available,
some traffic safety data improvements require state legislative action
or approval to move forward on contracting, design, and implementation
processes. Infrequent state legislative sessions can heighten delays
in receiving approval to spend awarded federal funding. For example,
according to state officials, the legislature in one state we visited
meets every other year, which can delay approval of spending of
federal grant and other funding on traffic safety data projects and
contribute to carry over of funds. In another state, major technology
projects must first be approved by the state's information technology
authority. The project planning involved to obtain state approval can
make some projects cost prohibitive. For example, the state wanted to
update the injury surveillance system 4 years prior, but had to obtain
approval first, which resulted in delays in implementation and a
doubling of the project's costs.
* Limited human capital resources. States that rely on paper crash and
citation forms require manual, time-consuming data entry, which can
strain resources and lead to backlogs in data. For example, the Texas
Department of Transportation assumed responsibility for the state's
crash data system in 2007 from another state department, and also
assumed responsibility of a backlog of some 3 million crash reports
over a 5-year period that needed to be entered into the data system
(see figure 10). The accumulated backlog was the result of the state's
use of a manual crash data system designed in the 1970s prior to
implementing the state's electronic crash data system in 2008.
According to a Texas Department of Transportation briefing report, the
manual process was inefficient, resource intensive, and not conducive
to the timely dissemination of data.
Figure 10: Backlog of Crash Reports in Texas:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: Texas Department of Transportation.
[End of figure]
In some states, there are only a few staff that manage a state's
traffic safety data programs and grants. This is significant because
state officials reported that grant applications are time consuming
and difficult to balance with other key job responsibilities. In one
instance, a state we visited had to return federal grant funding
because it did not have available staff resources to effectively
manage the grant and associated project. A regional NHTSA official
also reported that the turnover and training of new, state staff can
be a challenge, particularly when staff must be trained on the
specifics of the Section 408 grant program due to limited
institutional knowledge. Furthermore, NHTSA officials reported that
regional meetings have helped state officials obtain contacts and
share leading practices, but state budget restrictions have curtailed
these meetings, removing this training opportunity and resource. NHTSA
officials reported that they have recently begun using online webinars
as an alternative for national, state, and regional audiences.
Training individuals is an important component in ensuring the
collection of high quality traffic safety data, as recommended in
several traffic records assessments. However, a number of state
officials told us that training on data collection may be limited due
to funding and resource constraints, such as staff resources and
travel expenses. In several states, officials reported that the local
law enforcement officers collecting the data may not fill out a crash
report completely or accurately, or submit the form in a timely
fashion, which may lead to instances where crash data are inaccurate,
incomplete, and untimely.
Officials in several states reported that information technology
resources are limited and that state agencies often have to share
staff with technical expertise between different data systems and
projects. Due to limited internal technical expertise, some states
have used contractors, but state officials reported that this can be
expensive. Also, some states have a limited list of contractors a
state will approve or technologies that the contractor can offer. For
example, officials from one state we visited reported that the
technologies provided by contractors were not completely compatible
with existing local traffic safety data systems, which limited its
usefulness. However, we have previously reported that hiring a
contractor can help states obtain the technical expertise needed to
efficiently integrate data systems.[Footnote 33]
In light of these challenges, some states have implemented strategies
to overcome resource limitations. For example, North Carolina's
Governor's Highway Safety Program office took a series of targeted,
incremental steps to first focus on improving the quality of two
traffic safety data system performance measures--specifically
timeliness and accuracy--in each system before working on other
performance measures, such as integration. State officials emphasized
the importance of focusing on the "basics" and working from there,
rather than starting with the most complicated improvements. For
example, North Carolina initially used Section 408 grant program
funding to create a guidebook that provides consolidated information
on all six traffic safety data systems and their status. The guidebook
enabled state officials to identify the most pressing needs among all
six traffic safety data systems and target limited resources. Although
the primary function of the guidebook was to increase the
accessibility of data system information, it also helped state
officials recognize the need to integrate traffic safety data systems
to increase data accessibility between data systems. Accordingly,
North Carolina has an active project to complete the linkage of crash
and injury surveillance data. Although the amount of Section 408 grant
program funding is small compared to state funding, North Carolina
officials explained that the program is a catalyst for progress by
sometimes supporting smaller projects like the guidebook, which then
pave the way for larger projects, such as integrating data systems.
According to state officials and one assessor, another strategy that
one state has used to overcome limited funding and staff was to
contract out the management of its centralized crash data system.
[Footnote 34] For the state, this project was revenue neutral because
it does not require additional funds for continued maintenance, as the
contracted vendor receives payment by selling crash reports and data
extracts to interested parties. The profit gave the vendor an
incentive to work diligently with law enforcement agencies to ensure
reports are complete, accurate, and submitted in a timely fashion to
the central data system. There was also a built in incentive for the
law enforcement agency that submits the crash reports as it also
receives a reimbursement of 67 percent of the cost of each report
sold. As a result of contracting out the crash data system, the state
eliminated an annual cost of over $1 million for staffing, consulting,
and system maintenance, and no longer requires annual federal funds to
help support the system. This funding has since been redirected to
hire additional state troopers and add additional staff where needed.
Coordination Issues: Officials in all states we visited identified
coordination issues that presented challenges in improving state
traffic safety data. Some of the most frequently cited coordination
issues are discussed below.
* "Stove-piped" agencies. Custodians of the different state traffic
safety data systems are oftentimes housed in different state offices
or agencies. A number of federal officials, state officials, and
assessors reported instances of unwillingness to share data between
various offices because of the "stove-piped" structure where there is
little interaction between traffic safety data stakeholders.
Furthermore, we heard from state officials and assessors that there is
not always a clear understanding of the relationship among all six
traffic safety data systems. Typically most of the data systems are
housed within a state's Department of Transportation or Department of
Public Safety, which can compound coordination challenges for data
systems housed elsewhere (e.g., injury surveillance data).
* Privacy concerns. According to state officials and assessors,
federal and state privacy laws can limit accessibility and sharing of
certain traffic safety data. A traffic records assessment for one
state that we visited reported that restrictions placed on release of
crash data in general, and of personal identifiers in the crash data
for use by analysts within state government offices, posed major
barriers to crash data analysis. This assessment also reported that
these restrictions do not affect the state's ability to generate
reports such as annual crash reports or most ad hoc analyses of the
state's crash experience, but does limit the state's ability to
perform more detailed crash problem identification and to support
research into the safety implications of specific laws or policies.
* Decentralized state governance structures. State governance
structures can further complicate coordination efforts. For example,
decentralized court systems such as those found in two states we
visited make it difficult for the state to collect adjudication data
from lower-level courts. Addressing such governance issues can take
many years. For example, Minnesota officials said that the state has
worked to centralize its court system over a 15-year process. State
officials and assessors also reported that there is little incentive
for jurisdictions, agencies, and individuals to collect and submit
data in a timely fashion. Some states have mandated deadlines for the
submission of data, but these deadlines are not always adhered to by
all agencies required to report. Although some states have the ability
to sanction those jurisdictions that do not submit data, this option
is not always used.
Federal and state officials, as well as assessors, told us that
executive-level TRCCs, which include key decisionmakers such as agency
directors, can help technical-level TRCCs overcome a variety of
coordination and resource impasses. The technical-level TRCCs have
been one of the successes of the Section 408 grant program and NHTSA
officials and officials in nearly all of the states that we visited
praised TRCC activities in bringing state stakeholders together,
establishing important relationships, and moving traffic safety data
systems forward. While technical-level TRCCs may lack the authority to
implement certain decisions or traffic safety data projects, according
to NHTSA officials, several assessors, and state officials, the
authority associated with executive-level TRCCs can help prioritize
traffic safety data improvements and coordinate efforts. For example,
assessors explained that if a data manager refuses to share data, an
executive-level TRCC could compel data sharing. They also said that
the involvement and support of executive-level decision makers can
raise the profile of traffic safety data projects, which do not always
receive much attention, and provide the necessary leadership to
complete traffic safety data improvement projects. NHTSA officials
also noted that executive-level TRCCs can help states commit resources
to traffic safety data projects. For example, officials in one state
reported that information technology staff sometimes have not
prioritized traffic safety data projects due to limited resources.
However, executive-level TRCC representatives in that state have the
authority to target and dedicate these sometimes limited information
technology resources to traffic safety data projects. Figure 11
depicts some of the advantages of an executive-level TRCC.
Figure 11: Advantages of an Executive-Level TRCC:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Technical-level TRCC:
Provides a forum for discussion and coordination among state
stakeholders. Members include highway safety, law enforcement, and
public health officials, and others.
Impasse:
* Limited resources;
* Limited coordination.
Executive-level TRCC (bypasses the impasse):
Has the authority to overcome disagreements and break impasses. Members
include agency directors.
Improved traffic safety data quality.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Officials from North Carolina, a state we visited with an executive-
level TRCC,[Footnote 35] reported that the state's executive-level
TRCC oversees all highway safety issues and fills the role of
"champion" for the state's initiatives. All of the technical-level
TRCC's activities are reported to the executive-level TRCC. The
executive-level TRCC helps the technical-level TRCC prioritize issues,
provide assistance on legislative initiatives or interagency projects
requiring significant resources. Currently, the state is developing
new traffic safety data projects that will require legislation to be
passed for funding. A state official said that executive-level TRCC
endorsement and support will be necessary to pass the legislation.
While advantageous, currently few states have established executive-
level TRCCs. A NHTSA study recommended that states should have both a
technical-level and executive-level TRCC to be successful,[Footnote
36] but as previously noted, only technical-level TRCCs are required
for states to be eligible for funding under the Section 408 grant
program. Based on estimates from one traffic records assessor, as of
November 2009, nine states had an executive-level TRCC. Several
traffic records assessments, however, have recommended that states
establish executive-level TRCCs to help improve traffic safety data
systems.
Rural and Urban Areas May Face Distinct Challenges:
Rural and urban areas across the country faced some distinct
challenges in improving traffic safety data systems. As previously
discussed, some state roadway data systems do not include locally
maintained roadway data, which may include rural road data, and
therefore do not provide a full picture of a state's roadway system.
As previously reported, many states have not developed roadway
inventory data for locally maintained roads because they do not
operate and maintain those roads, and are concerned about the possible
costs and time frames involved in obtaining these data. As a result,
states may have difficulty applying a data-driven, strategic approach
to highway safety.[Footnote 37] In addition, despite the higher
proportion of fatalities occurring in rural areas, officials in one
state expressed concerns that a proportional amount of state traffic
safety funding is not allocated to reflect this higher fatality level.
We have also previously reported that limited data on rural roads can
hinder state efforts in funding and addressing its top traffic safety
priorities.[Footnote 38] However, some states are working to improve
data on non-state owned roadways, including rural roads. For example,
Ohio's LBRS established a partnership between state and local
governments and has allowed Ohio's Department of Transportation to
expand roadway data to include more comprehensive roadway information.
Figure 12 depicts a map of Ohio's Clark County, showing the 188
percent increase in the number of located crashes available for
analysis through LBRS. This increase largely consisted of crashes
occurring on locally maintained roadways.
Figure 12: Ohio LBRS Map Illustrating the Locations of Newly Captured
Crash Data:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map]
Map depicts:
* Located using existing road inventory data;
* Additional crashes located using improved road inventory data with
house number and intersection information.
Source: Ohio Department of Transportation
[End of figure]
An additional challenge involves the volume of vehicle crashes
affecting when and how much data rural and urban areas can submit. For
example, state officials in two states we visited reported that rural
areas submit crash data more regularly due to lower volumes. According
to one assessor, some large urban law enforcement agencies have
refused to report crash data, leading to gaps that limit the state's
ability to make decisions that effectively target resources. In
contrast, officials in three states we visited reported that urban
areas find it more difficult to submit crash data in a timely manner
due to the large volumes of reports filed. Further, some cities have
their own discrete crash data systems due to their high crash rates.
According to officials in one state we visited, though large cities
may have their own crash records systems, the system may not be linked
to the state crash data system and contributes to a large number of
missing crash reports.
Some rural areas face additional challenges due to limited technology
options. The lack of telecommunications services, such as access to
the Internet, limits the ability of local jurisdictions to
electronically submit data to state data systems, which can reduce the
timely submission of data. We have previously reported that the cost
of providing telecommunications services is higher in rural areas than
in urban areas, in part due to lack of infrastructure.[Footnote 39]
For some rural jurisdictions, even when the technology is available,
it may not be cost effective to use due to lower volumes of traffic
safety data submitted per year.
Officials from states we visited reported on some strategies being
implemented to overcome some of the challenges for rural and urban
areas. For example, in one state we visited, the state's highway
safety office provided funding to equip state highway patrol vehicles
in rural areas with mobile data terminals. Currently, roughly 70 to 80
percent of state highway patrol vehicles in rural areas have these
terminals, which have increased the timeliness of crash reports
submitted in the state. In another state, the state legislature
created an organization to oversee funding for rural and locally
maintained roadways. This organization had the mission of helping
local agencies receive funding specifically targeted at locally
maintained roadways. Lastly, officials in another state we visited
reported an increase in the electronic submission of crash reports
when the state required at least a certain percentage of crash reports
to be electronically submitted in order to qualify for the Section 402
grant funding. State officials identified certain urban areas that
were either underreporting crashes or not electronically submitting
crash reports and then worked with these jurisdictions to improve
submission rates. Since 2007, one urban area in this state has
increased its electronic submission of crash reports from 44 percent
to nearly 100 percent by the end of 2009. Overall, 91 percent of all
crashes are now being electronically submitted in this state.
Conclusions:
Improving state traffic safety data systems is critical to state
efforts to use data-driven approaches to improve traffic safety and
reduce traffic fatalities and injuries. The Section 408 grant program
has helped states to improve the quality of traffic safety data
systems across NHTSA's six performance measures. Despite this
progress, however, almost all states have traffic safety systems that
do not meet one or more performance measures. The wide range of
quality we found in state traffic safety data systems underscores the
importance of state traffic records assessments in helping states to
plan and prioritize improvements to traffic safety data systems.
However, incomplete and inconsistent information in the assessments
limits the usefulness of the assessments, which, according to NHTSA's
implementing guidance, should be an "in-depth, formal review of a
state's highway safety data and traffic records system." Furthermore,
assessments in the updated traffic records assessment format currently
being used often do not systematically evaluate each of the six
performance measures as they relate to each of the six data systems.
Improving the completeness and consistency of assessments would help
states more accurately identify problems and effectively target
limited resources. NHTSA officials recognize the importance of these
assessments for states and are taking steps to identify improvements
to some aspects of the assessment process. However, NHTSA's efforts to
review the assessment process and the effectiveness and utility of
traffic records assessments are in the early stages. Based on NHTSA's
statement of work for the study, the contract includes a component to
examine state traffic records assessments for effectiveness and
utility and identify any improvements or degradations of traffic
safety data quality. However, it is unclear whether this review will
evaluate the overall content and quality of the information provided
in the assessments to the level of specificity that may be needed.
States face various resource and coordination challenges, which make
further progress in improving the quality of traffic safety data
systems difficult. State officials we spoke with noted several
strategies to address these challenges. One of these strategies--
establishing an executive-level TRCC--can potentially address multiple
resource and coordination challenges. Specifically, an executive-level
TRCC can be a helpful tool for states to prioritize traffic safety
data improvements, coordinate efforts, and overcome impasses. Although
the Section 408 grant program requires that states have a technical-
level TRCC, it does not require states to establish an executive-level
TRCC. The establishment of an executive-level TRCC holds promise, but
we did not fully assess its value for states as it was beyond the
scope of this report.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the NHTSA
Administrator to take the following two actions:
* Ensure that traffic records assessments provide an in-depth
evaluation that is complete and consistent in addressing all
performance measures across all state traffic safety data systems. As
part of NHTSA's ongoing initiatives to improve the traffic records
assessment process, specific efforts could include revisiting
available assessment guidance, the frequency and manner in which
assessments are conducted, and NHTSA's assessment review process.
* Study and communicate to Congress on the value of requiring states
to establish an executive-level TRCC in order to qualify for Section
408 grant funding.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. DOT
officials agreed with the findings and recommendations in the report
and offered technical corrections that we incorporated, as
appropriate. Regarding the recommendation to ensure that traffic
records assessments provide an in-depth evaluation that is complete
and consistent, the officials noted that NHTSA has begun several
initiatives to identify opportunities to improve the assessment
process and provide the states with a more effective assessment
document.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of
Transportation and interested congressional committees. The report is
also available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me on (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for
our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Susan A. Fleming:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
In response to your request, this report provides information on the
status of the quality of state traffic safety data systems. In
particular, we sought to identify (1) the extent to which state
traffic safety data systems meet National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration‘s (NHTSA) performance measures for assessing the
quality of data systems, and (2) what progress states have made in
improving traffic safety data systems and what challenges remain.
To identify the extent of state traffic safety data systems meeting
NHTSA‘s performance measures, we analyzed the most recent traffic
records assessments for each of the 50 states and the District of
Columbia (D.C.).[Footnote 40] A traffic records assessment is a state
document that contains findings and recommendations on the quality of
a state‘s traffic safety data systems, among other things. Assessments
are conducted or updated at least every 5 years as one of the
eligibility requirements for Section 408 grant program funding. At
least three team members reviewed each assessment and coded the extent
to which a state‘s six traffic safety data systems met each of NHTSA‘s
six performance measures”timeliness, consistency, completeness,
accuracy, accessibility, and integration. After individual team
members independently coded the data quality of assigned state traffic
records assessments, the three member sub-group met to discuss the
coding categories and reached consensus on the final coding category
assignment for each performance measure. Independently coding, initial
unanimous agreement was reached 37 percent of the time amongst the
three coders before discussions to reach consensus. Across states,
initial unanimous agreement was as high as 58 percent for one state,
but for two states there was no unanimous agreement for any of the
coding categories. Within the performance measures there was also a
range of initial unanimous agreement. For vehicle information
timeliness, individual coders reached unanimity for 37 states,
including D.C. (73 percent). The lowest level of initial unanimity (14
percent, or seven states) occurred within the injury surveillance
system‘s accuracy performance measure.
Throughout this document we use the term ’coding category“ to refer to
the extent to which a data system meets an individual performance
measure. We created broad categories based on information presented in
state traffic records assessments; these coding categories are not
precise measurements of the extent to which data systems met
performance measures. We assigned numbers to correlate with the coding
categories defined below:
0 – Did not meet or minimally met performance measure (i.e.,
negligible, 0 to 5 percent). The state did not meet or minimally met a
particular performance measure based on the available evidence. The
state clearly did not meet, or the state met the performance measure
to a negligible extent. For example, one state‘s crash data timeliness
was described as, ’At present, crash data entry is experiencing a 12-
month backlog. This is due to delays at every step in the process from
initial crash reporting through final data entry and the multi-
step/multi-stop process that is used in handling crash reports. The
delays are having an impact on highway safety analysis and decision
making in the state.“ Since the criteria for crash timeliness is that
the information should be available within a time frame to be
currently meaningful for effective analysis of the state‘s crash
experience, preferably within 90 days, this performance measure area
was coded as a zero.
1 – Marginally met performance measure (i.e., slightly, to a limited
extent, greater than 5 to 50 percent). The state met the performance
measure at some level above ’minimally,“ but not to a significant
extent. The state met the performance measure to a slightly, or to a
very limited extent. For example, one state‘s citation and
adjudication data consistency was described as, ’Although there is a
uniform traffic citation for [the state], not all agencies use it in
the same manner. [One city] has opted to use it differently than the
rest of the state. Since [the state] is a state with a court
administrator that oversees each court, there seems to be some
consistency in the way cases are adjudicated— [how it] is recorded at
the courts is controlled so that each court records the same
information.“ Since the criteria for citation consistency is that all
jurisdictions should use a uniform traffic citation form, and the
information should be uniformly reported throughout all enforcement
jurisdictions, this performance measure area was coded as a one.
2 – Generally met performance measure (i.e., significant extent, for
the most part, greater than 50 to 95 percent). For the most part, the
state met the performance measure, but with some limitations. For
example, one state‘s vehicle data accuracy was described as, ’—in
transition. The Department of Motor Vehicles has used Vehicle
Identification Number (VIN) Analysis Software to enhance accuracy, but
the descriptive information about vehicles was taken from registration
and title applications. Beginning in 2006, the Department of Motor
Vehicles has been entering the body style and descriptive information
from VIN decoding and has been upgrading the descriptions to VIN
decoded entry when re-titling vehicles.“ The criteria for vehicle
system accuracy includes that the state should employ methods for
collecting and maintaining vehicle data that produces accurate data
and should make use of current technologies designed for these
purposes; therefore, this performance measure area was coded as a two.
3 – Completely met performance measure (i.e., fulfills or satisfies the
condition, greater than 95 to 100 percent). The state fully met all
aspects of the performance measure, and if any limitation was
identified it was not material in nature. For example, one state‘s
roadway data accessibility was described as, ’Data are accessed
through the Roadway Information Management System and Integrated
Transportation Management System. Various reports are produced on a
daily basis for use both within the Department of Transportation (DOT)
and for use by consultants, businesses and the general public.“ Since
the criteria for roadway accessibility is that the information should
be readily and easily available to the principal users of these
databases containing the roadway information for both direct
(automated) access and periodic outputs (standard reports) from the
files, this performance measure was coded as a three.
9 – Unknown. By ’unknown“ we mean that no other categorization was
possible. This may be due to limited information preventing
categorization, or that such information is absent. For example, one
state‘s roadway data integration was described as, ’The integration of
road and crash files seems to be adequate for present uses within [the
state‘s Department of Transportation].“ This limited information did
not directly address the integration of roadway data. In another
example, a state‘s injury surveillance data completeness and accuracy
was described as, ’Data completeness and data accuracy were not able
to be evaluated during our assessment.“ Due to the absent information,
these performance measure areas were coded as a nine.
The extent to which a state has met a performance measure is
considered a reflection of data system quality. Throughout this
report, in instances where a performance measure was coded as a zero
or a one the performance measure is considered not met, whereas, if a
two or a three was assigned the performance measure is considered met.
After we concluded the coding of the assessments, we conducted a
series of statistical analysis. Analysis included answering the
following questions:
* Overall frequency of each coding category (0, 1, 2, 3, 9).
* Frequency of each coding category for each of the six data systems
(0, 1, 2, 3, 9).
* Frequency of each coding category for each of the six performance
measures (0, 1, 2, 3, 9).
* Frequencies by measure and system (total of 36 sets of frequencies).
* Sum ’score“ for each state (excluding the coding category 9).
* Frequency of the coding category 9 in the new assessment format as
compared with the old format (which includes a section dedicated to
’Information Quality“).
* Percent of states with one or more 9s and total percent of the time
a 9 was assigned.
* The number of times a state scored a 3 or 2 (completely or
substantially) in each system. Provided as the number of states with
zero 2s or 3s in each system, one 2 or 3 in each system, etc.
* The number of times a state scored a 0 or 1 (not met or marginally)
in each system. Provided as the number of states with zero 1s or 2s in
each system, one 0 or 1 in each system, etc.
The extent to which a state has met a performance measure is a
reflection of data system quality. In addition to our analysis of
state traffic records assessments, this objective was informed through
documentary and testimonial evidence gathered on site visits. We
collected and reviewed relevant advisories and guidance related to
traffic safety. We also interviewed federal, state, and local
officials, data users, and other experts to obtain perspectives on the
quality of traffic safety data. However, we did not factor these other
information sources into our traffic records assessment coding
analysis.
To identify the progress states have made in improving traffic safety
data systems and to determine what challenges remain, we reviewed
states‘ progress in meeting performance measures reported to NHTSA and
in state documents, such as State Highway Safety Strategic Plans. We
conducted site visits to eight states: Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota,
North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia. We selected these states
based on a number of factors, including NHTSA recommendations,
fatality rates, population, roadway ownership, prevalence of rural
roads, and geographic diversity. NHTSA officials also provided input
on states that they believed encompassed a wide range of traffic
safety data system quality. During our site visits we interviewed
state officials to identify progress in improving the quality of
traffic safety data and associated systems. To identify state
challenges in improving data systems, we conducted a literature review
of past GAO work and other relevant studies. We also conducted in-depth
interviews with state officials responsible for data systems, and
collectors and users of state traffic safety data during our state
site visits. Additionally, we spoke with NHTSA, national industry
associations representing the different data systems, and experts in
the field to inform our analysis of the primary challenges states
face, as well as to inform us of state efforts to address these
challenges. We compiled all the various interviews and conducted an
analysis to identify the most frequently cited challenges.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Additional Data Analysis:
The following table represents all values associated with our coding
analysis of traffic records assessments for 50 states and D.C. We
calculated scores for all 50 states and D.C. by adding the number of
points received by a state. The total number possible was calculated by
multiplying the number of systems (6) by the number of performance
measures (6) by the number of possible points available per measure (3).
This resulted in a maximum score of 108 points that states could
receive based on the quality of their traffic safety data systems.
In addition to including the values for each area, we color coded them
as follows:
[A] Light gray - 0 - Did not meet or minimally met performance measure;
[B] Medium gray - 1 - Marginally met performance measure;
[C] Dark gray - 2 - Generally met performance measure;
[D] Black - 3 - Completely met performance measure;
[E] White - 9 – Unknown.
Table:
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 87;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 3;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 3;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 3;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 3;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 3;
Crash Information: Consistency: 3;
Crash Information: Completeness: 3;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 2;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 1;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 78;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 3;
Driver information: Timeliness: 9;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 3;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 9;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 3;
Roadway Information: Integration: 3;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 3;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 3;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 2;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 3;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 1.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 74;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 3;
Driver information: Timeliness: 1;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 2;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 3;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 9;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 0;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 1;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 2;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 3;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 9;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 9;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 3;
Injury surveillance Integration: 2.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 72;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 2;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 2;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 3;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 3;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 1;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 0;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 0;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 0;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 71;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 9;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 2;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 2;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 3;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 3;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 2;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 3;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 9;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 1;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 1.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 70;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 1;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 3;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 2;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 1;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 9;
Injury surveillance Integration: 1.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 69;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 1;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 1;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 3;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 3;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 2;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 68;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 3;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 9;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 3;
Crash Information: Consistency: 3;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 2;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 68;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 1;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 2;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 9;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 9;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 3;
Roadway Information: Integration: 2;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 2;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 3;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 3;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 3;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 3;
Injury surveillance Integration: 2.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 67;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 2;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 3;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 3;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 3;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 3;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 1;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 3;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 1;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 1;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 67;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 2;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 9;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 3;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 3;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 1;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 1;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 1;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 2.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 66;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 2;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 2;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 3;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 1;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 9;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 3;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 9;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 1;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 1.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 62;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 1;
Driver information: Timeliness: 1;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 9;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 3;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 1;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 3;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 2.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 61;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 9;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 2;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 1;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 1;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 1;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 0;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 1;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 2.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 60;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 2;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 1;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 2;
Driver information: Completeness: 9;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 1;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 9;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 3;
Roadway Information: Integration: 9;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 3;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 1;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 1.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 60;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 2;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 2;
Vehicle information: Integration: 1;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 9;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 1;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 9;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 1;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 1;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 1.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 60;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 2;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 1;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 9;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 3;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 3;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 3;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 2;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 9;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 1;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 58;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 2;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 2;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 1;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 9;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 3;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 2;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 9;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 3;
Injury surveillance Integration: 1.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 56;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 1;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 9;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 2;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 9;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 9;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 2;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 3;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 2.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 55;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 2;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 9;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 9;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 9;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 9.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 55;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 9;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 2;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 3;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 0;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 1;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 9;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 9;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 9;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 9;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 9;
Injury surveillance Integration: 9.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 54;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 9;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 9;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 1;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 9;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 9;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 3;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 3;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 9;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 53;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 0;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 2;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 1;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 9;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 3;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 3;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 3;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 1;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 0;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 53;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 9;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 1;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 9;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 1;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 51;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 2;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 9;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 9;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 9;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 9;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 9;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 9;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 51;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 2;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 9;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 0;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 1;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 9;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 1;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 1;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 9;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 0;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 1;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 1;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 9;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 3;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 3.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 51;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 2;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 9;
Driver information: Timeliness: 1;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 1;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 1;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 0;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 3;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 9;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 49;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 9;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 2;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 1;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 9;
Driver information: Accuracy: 9;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 9;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 9;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 1;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 3;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 3;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 48;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 1;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 1;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 0;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 0;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 0;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 3;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 2;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 9;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 48;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 2;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 1;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 9;
Driver information: Consistency: 0;
Driver information: Completeness: 0;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 2;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 9;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 1;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 1;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 2;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 1.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 48;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 1;
Roadway Information: Integration: 9;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 2;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 9;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 47;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 1;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 0;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 0;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 0;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 0;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 0;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 47;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 2;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 2;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 9;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 9;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 9;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 0;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 9;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 9;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 1;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 46;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 1;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 1;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 1;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 9;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 9;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 1;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 0;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 3;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 1;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 0;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 1;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 0;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 46;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 9;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 9;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 9;
Vehicle information: Integration: 9;
Driver information: Timeliness: 2;
Driver information: Consistency: 2;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 9;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 9;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 1;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 9;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 9;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 9;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 1;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 9;
Injury surveillance Integration: 1.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 44;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 2;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 2;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 2;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 3;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 9;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 1;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 1;
Crash Information: Consistency: 9;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 9;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 1;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 9;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 9;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 43;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 9;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 9;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 9;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 9;
Vehicle information: Integration: 9;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 2;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 0;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 3;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 3;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 9;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 1;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 3;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 43;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 9;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 2;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 2;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 2;
Vehicle information: Integration: 1;
Driver information: Timeliness: 0;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 9;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 3;
Roadway Information: Integration: 9;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 9;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 1;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 3;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 9;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 42;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 2;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 1;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 1;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 0;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 9;
Crash Information: Consistency: 0;
Crash Information: Completeness: 0;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 1;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 0;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 0;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 0;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 42;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 1;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 1;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 1;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 1;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 1;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 9;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 1;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 1;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 41;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 9;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 1;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 1;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 1;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 2;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 0;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 9;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 41;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 9;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 3;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 9;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 1;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 1;
Roadway Information: Integration: 9;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 9;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 0;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 0;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 9;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 1;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 3;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 40;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 9;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 0;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 9;
Driver information: Consistency: 2;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 9;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 9;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 3;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 3;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 9;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 9;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 9;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 37;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 9;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 9;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 9;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 1;
Vehicle information: Integration: 9;
Driver information: Timeliness: 9;
Driver information: Consistency: 9;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 2;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 9;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 9;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 9;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 2;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 0;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 0;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 0;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 0;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 0;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 0;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 0;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 37;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 9;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 9;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 9;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 1;
Vehicle information: Integration: 9;
Driver information: Timeliness: 9;
Driver information: Consistency: 9;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 3;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 2;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 9;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 9;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 9;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 0;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 0;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 9;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 9;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 3;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 9;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 2;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 9;
Injury surveillance Integration: 2.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 36;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 9;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 2;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 1;
Driver information: Consistency: 9;
Driver information: Completeness: 1;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 1;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 2;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 1;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 2;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 2;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 1;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 9;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 0;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 0;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 9;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 36;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 2;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 3;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 3;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 1;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 2;
Driver information: Accessibility: 2;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 1;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 9;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 1;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 9;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 9;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 0;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 9;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 3;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 9;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 9;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 33;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 9;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 9;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 0;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 2;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 3;
Driver information: Consistency: 9;
Driver information: Completeness: 9;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 9;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 2;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 2;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 9;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 2;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 1;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 2;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 9;
Crash Information: Integration: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 9;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 9;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 0;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 1;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 9;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 9;
Injury surveillance Integration: 2.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 32;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 2;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 3;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 2;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 9;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 2;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 1;
Driver information: Consistency: 3;
Driver information: Completeness: 2;
Driver information: Accuracy: 0;
Driver information: Accessibility: 0;
Driver information: Integration: 0;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 2;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 9;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 0;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 1;
Roadway Information: Integration: 0;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 1;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 3;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 9;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 9;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 0;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 9;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 0;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 31;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 9;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 3;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 9;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 1;
Vehicle information: Integration: 0;
Driver information: Timeliness: 9;
Driver information: Consistency: 9;
Driver information: Completeness: 9;
Driver information: Accuracy: 0;
Driver information: Accessibility: 9;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 1;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 3;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 1;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 9;
Roadway Information: Integration: 1;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 0;
Crash Information: Consistency: 2;
Crash Information: Completeness: 0;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 0;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 1;
Crash Information: Integration: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 1;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 0;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 0;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 9;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 3;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 3;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 2;
Injury surveillance Integration: 1.
Sum of all scores excluding all unknown values (9s): 24;
Vehicle information: Timeliness: 3;
Vehicle information: Consistency: 1;
Vehicle information: Completeness: 1;
Vehicle information: Accuracy: 2;
Vehicle information: Accessibility: 1;
Vehicle information: Integration: 1;
Driver information: Timeliness: 9;
Driver information: Consistency: 9;
Driver information: Completeness: 9;
Driver information: Accuracy: 1;
Driver information: Accessibility: 1;
Driver information: Integration: 1;
Roadway Information: Timeliness: 9;
Roadway Information: Consistency: 1;
Roadway Information: Completeness: 1;
Roadway Information: Accuracy: 9;
Roadway Information: Accessibility: 9;
Roadway Information: Integration: 9;
Crash Information: Timeliness: 9;
Crash Information: Consistency: 3;
Crash Information: Completeness: 1;
Crash Information: Accuracy: 1;
Crash Information: Accessibility: 9;
Crash Information: Integration: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Timeliness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Consistency: 2;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Completeness: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accuracy: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Accessibility: 9;
Citation/Adjudication Information: Integration: 9;
Injury surveillance Information: Timeliness: 9;
Injury surveillance Consistency: 9;
Injury surveillance Completeness: 2;
Injury surveillance Accuracy: 9;
Injury surveillance Accessibility: 1;
Injury surveillance Integration: 0.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Susan Fleming (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Sara Vermillion (Assistant
Director), Matt Cail (Analyst-in-Charge), Emily Eischen, Brandon Haller,
Delwen Jones, Catherine Kim, Kirsten Lauber, Hannah Laufe, Josh
Ormond, and Crystal Wesco made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] A traffic records assessment is a state document that contains
findings and recommendations on the quality of a state‘s traffic
safety data systems, among other things. A technical team conducts or
updates these assessments at least every 5 years as one of the
eligibility requirements for Section 408 grant program funding.
[2] We reviewed the most recent state traffic records assessments
conducted through October 31, 2009. Assessments conducted since then
are not a part of our analysis.
[3] NHTSA‘s implementing guidance for the Section 408 grant program
refers to these six items as performance measures. See, e.g., 71 Fed.
Reg. 5729 (Feb. 2, 2006).
[4] NHTSA officials provided input on states that they believed
encompassed a wide range of traffic safety data system quality.
[5] The statutory minimum amount of grant funding for subsequent year
grants is $500,000, but $300,000 for first year participants.
[6] Puerto Rico; the territories of American Samoa, Guam, Virgin
Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands; and
Indian nations have also received funding under the Section 408 grant
program. However, we did not include these jurisdictions in our
analysis.
[7] 23 U.S.C. § 408. This program (Section 408) is the successor to
the Section 411 traffic safety data incentive grant program authorized
under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The grant
was specifically directed at improving state traffic safety data
systems and required states to establish a foundation for improving
them.
[8] A traffic records audit would also meet Section 408 grant program
requirements.
[9] As of December 2009, the states of Illinois, Louisiana, and New
Mexico have participated in CDIP.
[10] In several instances of discussing state traffic safety data
system performance, we report the information in terms of which
systems met a certain number of the six performance measures. These
thresholds can vary by data system because we determined them by
identifying the threshold that captured the largest number of states
(i.e., states meeting four or more versus three or fewer of the six
performance measures).
[11] While this affects the performance measure of integration we
recognize that such limitations can also impact other performance
measures. For example, this same system also had a limited ability to
perform queries and data extracts, which can have an effect on the
performance measure of accessibility.
[12] The remaining 3 percent of roads are owned by the federal
government (e.g., national park roads) and Indian tribes.
[13] GAO, Highway Safety: Improved Monitoring and Oversight of Traffic
Safety Data Program Are Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-24] (Washington, D.C.: November
2004).
[14] One purpose of HPMS is to support congressional legislative,
program, and budget decisions.
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-24].
[16] According to GAO, Internal Control and Management Evaluation
Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.: August 2001), a variety of
control activities should be incorporated to ensure accuracy and
completeness, among these activities are edit checks. This tool is to
assist agencies in maintaining or implementing effective internal
controls and improving or maintaining effective operations.
[17] For complete results see appendix II.
[18] See, e.g., 71 Fed. Reg. 5729 (Feb. 2, 2006).
[19] For the purposes of this report, the word ’area“ refers to one of
the six performance measures associated with the six data systems that
were coded for the extent to which the performance measure was met.
Therefore, there are 36 areas per assessment where a code was assigned.
[20] As previously described, to be assigned an unknown code the
assessment provided limited or no information for certain performance
measures and data systems.
[21] This total represents a compilation of all coding scores assigned
across all 50 states and D.C., and across all six data systems and all
six performance measures. We assigned a total of 306 codes for each of
the six performance measures (51 assessments multiplied by six
performance measures) and across six data systems (306 multiplied by
six), which equals 1,836 codes.
[22] The prior advisory established specific time frames for
determining timeliness. For example, crash data information should be
’available within a time frame to be currently meaningful for
effective analysis of the State‘s crash experience, preferably within
90 days of a crash,“ while vehicle information ’should be updated at
least annually.“
[23] By contrast, the prior advisory stated that information should be ’
readily and easily accessible to the principal users“ of the traffic
data system, and in some cases, identified the relevant users and how
those users should be able to access the data (e.g., for the
enforcement/adjudication data system, ’driver control personnel”to
take timely license sanction actions when appropriate“ and ’law
enforcement personnel”for operational analysis and allocation of
resources“).
[24] The number is not 50 states since 1 state began participating in
the Section 408 grant program during fiscal year 2009. Per the
requirements of the program, that one state will not have to
demonstrate progress until fiscal year 2010, during its second year in
the program.
[25] In these instances, NHTSA officials provide feedback to states,
but not all states follow up to provide more information, especially
if another area of progress is accepted, allowing the state to meet
the threshold for Section 408 program grant funding.
[26] Project examples are separated into the particular performance
measure they were intended to improve, but some projects have helped
states improve traffic safety data systems across multiple performance
measures.
[27] An EMS data system can be labeled as ’compliant“ with the
National EMS Information System at the ’silver“ or ’gold“ level when
certain conditions are confirmed, such as every data element contained
in the guidelines being available for use.
[28] Ohio‘s LBRS project is a county/state partnership that gathers
accurate location information on all roads and addresses in a county.
Ohio‘s LBRS project has several goals, one of which is to increase
access to traffic safety data for users.
[29] This number refers to participating states as of September 2009.
[30] The mission of CODES is to (1) foster and cultivate the use and
analysis of multiple traffic safety data systems for application at
the state level, and (2) enable availability of linked data for
applications at the federal level. To support CODES program
objectives, NHTSA sponsors cooperative agreements that provide
software access, technical assistance, and program assistance to
participating states.
[31] Legacy systems refer to older data systems. GAO, Motor Carrier
Safety: Commercial Vehicle Registration Program Has Kept Unsafe
Carriers from Operating, but Effectiveness Is Difficult to Measure,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-495] (Washington, D.C.:
May 12, 2009).
[32] GAO, Traffic Safety Programs: Progress, States‘ Challenges, and
Issues for Reauthorization, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-990T] (Washington, D.C.: July 16,
2008).
[33] GAO, Motor Carrier Safety: Commercial Vehicle Registration
Program Has Kept Unsafe Carriers from Operating, but Effectiveness Is
Difficult to Measure, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-495] (Washington, D.C.: May 12,
2009).
[34] This strategy was used in one state, but not in any of the states
that we visited.
[35] In North Carolina, the executive-level TRCC equivalent is
referred to as the Executive Committee for Highway Safety.
[36] NHTSA, Initiatives to Address Improvement of Traffic Safety Data
(July 2004).
[37] GAO, Highway Safety Improvement Program: Further Efforts Needed
to Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States‘ Top
Safety Priorities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-35]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 2008).
[38] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-35].
[39] GAO, Telecommunications: FCC Needs to Improve Oversight of
Wireless Phone Service, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-34] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10,
2009).
[40] We reviewed the most recent state traffic records assessments
conducted through October 31, 2009. Assessments conducted since then
are not a part of our analysis.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
