Data Collection

Crash Data Improvement Program (CDIP) Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Crash Data Improvement Program (CDIP) provides States with a means to measure the quality of the information within their crash database, and provides recommendations for improvement. It can provide States with measures to address the six data quality attributes of timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity/consistency, integration, and accessibility. Additionally, the CDIP helps familiarize the collectors, processors, maintainers and users with the concepts of data quality and how high quality data helps to improve safety decisions.

This report covers the period of October 2010 through May 2013, during which time ten States participated in the program. None of the States had data quality performance measurements for more than one attribute–that is, States that measured timeliness, for example, were not also measuring accuracy, completeness, or other data quality attributes. More importantly, none of the States operate a formal, comprehensive data quality management program. Only two of the States had enough of a start on such a program that the CDIP Technical Assistance Team (TAT) could recommend additions to the existing processes. In the other eight States, the TAT recommended the State begin by developing a formal, comprehensive data quality management program.

In the CDIP reports to States, the TAT has recommended a gradual approach in establishing and formalizing a data quality management program. This is important because (a) States should establish the program that makes the most sense for their own situation, and (b) it is costly and resource-intensive to set up such a program while most of the effort will be manual in nature. The better course is to work toward the more formal data quality management program by including it in the Traffic Records Strategic Plan as a project (or series of projects) and to link those projects to specific upgrades to the crash data management system (software and analytic capabilities) over time. Automating the components of a data quality management program– especially the components related to calculating data quality performance measures–helps to lower costs and increases the likelihood that the State will be able to maintain the effort in the long term.

States are also very likely to need help with strategic planning. The CDIP includes a review of the documents the State provides, including their most recent Traffic Records Strategic Plan update and the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). In some States, the two plans are not coordinated. The CDIP has also uncovered that some States do not include sufficient details in their plans to fully describe the process they will use to reach key goals–such as the goal to increase electronic submission of crash reports by law enforcement agencies (LEAs). If a State lacks knowledge of the technological capabilities of the LEAs, for example, it cannot effectively plan the future of electronic submissions from those agencies. Where States have detailed, up- to-date information on the capabilities of LEAs to collect and submit crash data electronically, staff can also determine how best to meet the needs for interfaces, data submission guidelines, a certification process, and test procedures. Several States need assistance in setting up an effective process.

Perhaps the most critical need seen among the CDIP States is for a single official repository of crash data. Many States are faced with a situation in which it is easier and cheaper for key users of the crash data to simply make changes to a copy taken for their own use, largely relegating the official crash data system to the role of repository of the original source data. Unfortunately, this "cheaper, quicker" method has unrecognized costs associated with its long term use. Most notably, States in this situation often find that the highest quality crash data are not in the official crash data repository but in some other system maintained by a key user agency. Worse, there may not be a single "best" version of the data. A single centralized system that includes both the as-submitted and corrected/enhanced crash data would also support most of the processes of a formal, comprehensive data quality management program.

States will not achieve this ideal centralized system quickly or without cost. The CDIP reports include advice to States that they should add these capabilities as they are redesigning or upgrading their crash records systems. At that time the data quality support features can be added to the system for a relatively small incremental cost. Grafting these capabilities onto an existing system, conversely, is likely to be difficult and expensive.

The CDIP is well accepted by States and has been successful in responding to States' comments and suggestions for improvement. The value of a focus on engineering uses of crash data is appreciated by the participants from the crash data management operation and law enforcement as much as it is by the engineers themselves. These are definitely positive aspects of the program and should be retained as it moves from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

There are opportunities to expand the CDIP to reach a broader audience and to address a wider range of issues. For example, there are key users in law enforcement whose needs mesh well with the engineering needs already being addressed because LEAs need location data. Injury Surveillance Programs' needs also mesh well with the engineering uses already focused on in the CDIP. Some of the examples in the CDIP Workshop are drawn from injury surveillance analyses; the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) information included in the section on Data Integration. The utility of CODES and similar programs in the engineering context stems from their ability to produce valid information on the outcomes of crash-related injuries both in terms of severity and cost–two things that engineers normally have to estimate, often using sources they know are not as accurate as the data from State healthcare records.