U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
The CDIP project team consists of the FHWA Office of Safety Project Manager, the contractor Project Manager, and the TAT members. The CDIP team has marketed the CDIP to States through direct contact and at conferences and meetings. States may request a CDIP through their FHWA Division Office and, more recently, through the NHTSA regional staffs or the Traffic Records Team in the National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Information describing the program is also available via the CDIP website where users may obtain a summary of the program, the CDIP brochure, and the 2010 CDIP Program Guide (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/cdip/). During the transition to NHTSA, these materials will be updated and the website will move. States that express interest in having a CDIP are contacted by the CDIP team to begin the scheduling and information exchange process that precedes CDIP on-site work. In the months leading up to the TAT's site visit the State must schedule suitable conference rooms for three meetings on three successive days, respond to the CDIP Information Request and complete the CDIP Pre-Site Visit Questionnaire (see Appendix A). Sufficient lead time is required to enable the State to respond and for the TAT to conduct analyses and tailor the CDIP presentation in reaction to the documents and answers the State provides.
The CDIP process follows a standard sequence:
Attendance sheets are collected at each of the three CDIP meetings to identify participants. Evaluations are collected at the end of the Workshop on Day 1. Feedback on Day 2 activity is gathered during the out-brief meeting on Day 3 and via the State's comments on the Matrix Summary Report. A CDIP Final Report is provided to the State in draft form and revised based on the State's comments.
The CDIP Information Request provided in Appendix A presents a list of documents and data that States supply including, but not limited to, their Strategic Plan for Traffic Records, their most recent Traffic Records Assessment, relevant sections of their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), a copy of the crash report, the crash reporting instruction manual, the crash database data dictionary, crash data quality edit checks and business rules, descriptions of projects designed to improve crash data quality, and existing crash data quality reports. States are also asked to produce a series of standard data quality analyses referenced in the CDIP. As an alternative, they may provide three or more years of their most recent crash data (redacted to remove personal identifiers) for the TAT to conduct the analyses.
The CDIP Pre-Visit Questionnaires provided in Appendix B and C present a series of questions covering the crash data custodial responsibilities, laws and policies, data quality management program, and specific data quality measurements of timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity/consistency, integration, and accessibility. Each of these data quality attributes is defined in the questionnaire and information request. Appendix B is the original questionnaire used through 2012. Appendix C is the updated questionnaire used during 2013.
The State uploads all materials to the contractor extranet site assigned for the project. This site allows two-way sharing of documents and data files between the State and CDIP team. The CDIP team reviews all the documents and the answers to the questionnaire in the weeks leading up to the CDIP site visit. If the State chooses to produce their own analyses– calculations of standard data quality measures–those will be reviewed at this time. If the CDIP team conducts the analyses there are additional contacts with the State in order to ensure the TAT analyst understands the database structure and contents and that items such as the total number of crashes are in close agreement with the numbers already reported by the State. To facilitate this process, States are asked to provide a crash data users guide along with the data extracts.
When the CDIP team's reviews and analyses are completed, they revise the presentation materials (workshop slides and talking points) to tailor the session contents to the unique features of the State's crash data management process and to include State-specific examples of data quality measurements. The final materials are provided to the State in advance of the CDIP site visit.
The CDIP site visit typically sets Monday as a travel day which allows the team to arrive, unpack materials, and review the presentations. The next three days are a combination of meetings with State personnel and post- session work by the TAT. The CDIP contents are designed to appeal to an audience including data collectors, data managers, and data users. The first day is designed as a workshop training session to explain and promote data quality measurement. It typically has the largest attendance of the three day CDIP process. The State is encouraged to gather a group of 20-30 individuals from engineering, law enforcement, crash data management, the State's Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) membership, and other stakeholders, but the decision of who to invite is left up to the State. The second day is intended to be a detailed discussion with the crash data manager and a select group of data collectors and key data users. Typically the State safety engineer and a representative of State-level law enforcement will attend along with the crash data custodian and key staff responsible for data entry, electronic data transfer, database management, information technology (IT) support, FARS, SafetyNet, and data analysis. The third day is set aside for the report out in which the TAT briefs attendees on their findings and recommendations. Typical attendees include most of the people who participated in the discussions on the second day, plus any additional invitees. Some States choose to invite senior management and agency executives or schedule a separate briefing with these upper-level decision makers.
On Day 1, the TAT conducts the CDIP Workshop. The Workshop is divided into the following sections:
Section 1: Introduction. The TAT and the State participants introduce themselves and discuss the goals for the day and for the CDIP effort overall.
Section 2: Opening Exercise. Participants are divided into groups and asked to discuss their use of crash data, unmet needs, and impressions of overall crash data quality.
Section 3: CDIP Introduction. The TAT presents details of the CDIP goals and process, followed by an overview of the six data quality attributes to be discussed in Sections 4A and 4B.
Section 4A: Quality Attributes, Part 1. The TAT presents definitions and examples of measurements of timeliness, accuracy, and completeness.
Section 4B: Quality Attributes, Part 2. The TAT presents definitions and examples of measurements of uniformity, integration, and accessibility.
Section 5: Group Exercise. Participants break into groups to conduct a safety review of a complex intersection based on one of two versions of the crash data. One set of groups receives a relatively complete dataset with detailed information about each crash and motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the intersection. The other set of groups receives a less complete data set which lacks several key pieces of information. Both groups are asked to identify problems at the intersection and to propose solutions, as well as to discuss any problems they saw in the data. At the end of the exercise, the groups present their findings and recommendations, and the facilitators reveal that not everyone had a complete dataset. The full meeting reconvenes to discuss the value of complete and accurate data.
On Day 2, the TAT facilitates a half-day round-table discussion with the select group of attendees who are most responsible for administering/managing/maintaining the crash database. The goal of the session is to confirm and expand on conclusions the TAT has reached based on the pre-site visit questionnaire answers, their review of documents supplied by the State, and the results of any analyses conducted in support of the CDIP site visit. This meeting is also used to discuss the feasibility of any preliminary recommendations the TAT is considering in order to gauge the State's ability to implement the suggestions. In this way, the TAT is able to more fully understand the existing processes and the barriers to implementing improvements. After the meeting, the TAT works alone to produce the Matrix Summary Report. The report is submitted to the FHWA program manager for review and finalized that evening or early the next morning.
On Day 3, the TAT delivers the Matrix Summary Report to the primary State contact for the CDIP. The report's contents are reviewed and discussed in a meeting typically lasting two to three hours. This meeting is often attended by the key personnel responsible for crash data management, safety engineering, and law enforcement. Participants are encouraged to respond verbally to the findings and recommendations as presented and to provide their comments after reviewing the Matrix Summary Report. The TAT then presents the timeline and activities required for completion of the CDIP, including the State providing comments on the Matrix Summary Report and the TAT incorporating those comments into an expanded CDIP Final Report. At the State's request, Day 3 may also include a separate briefing for key agency executives.
The Matrix Summary Report is designed as a simplified report listing the TAT's findings and associated recommendations. These are presented in a table where each row addresses a specific data quality management process or a data quality attribute measurement. The section headings are:
The CDIP Final Report is due to the State approximately one month after the completion of the CDIP site visit. It has the same sections as the Matrix Summary Report and represents an expansion of that document to provide additional background information; more detailed findings, and expanded explanations of each recommendation. For example, in the Matrix Summary Report there might be a recommendation that the State develop a measure based on the ratio of serious (fatal and injury) crashes to total crashes reported by each LEA. That same recommendation in the CDIP Final Report would discuss the reasons for the recommendation, the method of calculation, and provide a table (or extract of a table) presenting sample data for the State. The CDIP Final Report also includes, at the State's request, the CDIP team's suggested priorities. These are based on the TAT's understanding of the critical needs in the State as well as the State's preparedness to implement each of the recommendations in the report.
The CDIP Final Report is delivered in draft form to the State. A final draft is produced addressing each of the State's comments on the draft version.
The CDIP project team follows-up with each CDIP State at prescribed intervals. Three, six, and twelve months after delivery of the final report, the State is contacted to obtain feedback and a status update on each of the recommendations. There are no penalties for failure to implement a recommendation. The follow-up phone call or email is a way for FHWA to gauge the practical utility of the CDIP report. States are asked for suggestions to improve the project and specifically which of the recommendations have proven useful, or problematic. Another form of follow-up with CDIP States has been scheduled sessions/peer exchanges at the Traffic Records Forum. FHWA has sponsored CDIP States' meetings at Traffic Records Forums and taken the opportunity to gather feedback and suggestions for improvement. These sessions also serve as useful marketing opportunities when other interested States attend.
| <<Previous | Table of Content | Next >> |
