U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
< Previous | Table of Contents | Next > |
This evaluation set out to:
Determine whether the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program produced the expected short- and long-term outcomes;
Investigate trends and patterns in Program outcomes to better understand critical success factors;
Provide specific, actionable recommendations for improving the design and implementation of the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program; and
Establish the foundation for a broader assessment of the longer term outcomes and impacts of the pedestrian component of the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program.
Figure 1 illustrates the theory underlying the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program. In the short term, participation in the program activities is expected to:
Improve awareness and understanding of pedestrian issues;
Increase knowledge, skills, and abilities to address these issues;
Help with the identification and planning of policy, business process, institutional, and infrastructure changes that will improve pedestrian safety.
These short-term outcomes are expected to lead to long-term outcomes such as the implementation of new countermeasures, policies, business processes, and organizational changes that will improve pedestrian safety. If successful, these outcomes will ultimately lead to a safer pedestrian environment.
Figure 1. Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program Theory
In implementing the evaluation model shown in Figure 1, participants’ learning experiences can be categorized into Kirkpatrick’s four levels of learning:1
Reaction of students: Did the participants enjoy the training? Did they find it relevant to their jobs?
Learning: Did the training increase participants’ knowledge?
Behavior: Did the training change participants’ behavior? Did they apply what they learned?
Results: Did the participants’ behavior have an impact upon the environment?
PBIC prepared a report on the Focused Approach to Safety Program2 summarizing its progress from September 2004 to December 2007. It collected comprehensive information on Kirkpatrick’s first level of evaluation, the reaction of students to the pedestrian safety courses. The evaluators also gathered self-assessments from participants to gauge their knowledge of pedestrian safety before and after the courses (level two evaluations). Finally, PBIC collected data from the focus locations on countermeasures and initiatives implemented as a result of the training (levels three and four).
Building on the results of the PBIC evaluation, the current evaluation examined five focus locations—New York City, Chicago, and the states of California, Georgia, and Michigan. The primary emphasis was on Kirkpatrick’s evaluation levels three and four:
Did participants change their behavior because of Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety activities?
Was this change in behavior sustained over time?
Did the changes in behavior lead to any of the short- or long-term outcomes shown in Figure 1?
The five focus locations for this study were chosen based on:
Geographic diversity – States with both rural and urban populations and from various geographic regions.
Number and type of Program activities – Locations with a relatively high number of Program activities.
Information available for data collection - States where course administrators consistently collected and compiled participant information.
Time after Program activities were delivered - Locations where some Program activities were conducted in FY06 to assess the Program’s longer term influence (22-33 months).
Focus city - States containing a focus city.
Location | Year | Courses | Technical Assistance |
Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
California | FY06 | 5 | • Many Program activities • Large state with diverse areas to study • Los Angeles focus city | |
FY07 | 10 | |||
Georgia | FY06 | 1 | 1 | • Urban and suburban areas • Technical assistance |
FY07 | 2 | |||
Chicago | FY06 | 2 | 1 | • Focus city • Technical assistance |
FY07 | 2 | |||
Michigan | FY06 | 4 | • Focus city; Detroit focus city • State Pedestrian Safety Action Plan | |
FY07 | 2 | |||
New York City | FY06 | 8 | • Many Program activities • Large state with diverse areas to study • Focus city: New York City | |
FY07 | 4 |
Data for this study were collected using semi-structured telephone interviews with key pedestrian safety actors from a variety of organizations in each of the five focus locations. In each location, interviews were conducted with the FHWA Division Office staff in charge of pedestrian safety and with the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety coordinator, usually a person from the state department of transportation or the metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Other interviewees were chosen based on recommendations made by these two key contacts, including:
Active in pedestrian issues at the state and local levels.
Responsible for pedestrian safety in a locality that has made notable progress addressing pedestrian safety issues since the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program activities were delivered.
Involved in the development of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP).
Involved in pedestrian safety follow-up initiatives that were influenced by Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety activities.
Twenty-nine interviews were conducted across the five locations. Table 2 summarizes the mix of interviewees for each location.
Location/ Representative | California | Georgia | Chicago | Michigan | New York |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FHWA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
State DOT | 2 | 1 | — | 2 | — |
MPO | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
City | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
County | 1 | — | — | — | — |
Consulting firm | — | 1 | — | — | — |
Public Health Organization | 1 | — | — | 1 | — |
Advocacy Group | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — |
Total | 7 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 5 |
Interviewees were asked:
How the Program was implemented in their location;
What changes, if any, have occurred in pedestrian safety policies, practices, behaviors, or organization that can be attributed (at least in part) to participation in the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program;
What factors contributed to or detracted from the Program’s success;
What lessons they learned from participation in the Program that could help other focus locations in implementing pedestrian safety improvements; and
What recommendations they had for improving the Program.3
1 Kirkpatrick, Donald and James Kirkpatrick. 2006. “Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels” Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc. (San Francisco, CA)
2 University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, “Developing and Implementing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan,” February 2008.
3See Appendix B for the interview guide.
< Previous | Table of Contents | Next > |