Data Collection

Crash Data Improvement Program (CDIP) Final Report

RECOMMENDATIONS

The CDIP is well accepted by States and is successful in responding to States' comments and suggestions for improvement. The value of the 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 positive aspects of the program and should be retained as it moves from FHWA to 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. As more LEAs adopt the Data Driven Approaches To Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS), or similar analysis-based resource allocation models, they will rely more heavily on detailed location data for crashes, citations, and crime data. This fits well with the uses already covered in the CDIP and could easily be incorporated in the examples presented in the Workshop.

Injury Surveillance Programs' needs also mesh well with the engineering uses already focused on in the CDIP. Some of the examples in the Workshop are drawn from injury surveillance analyses; for example, Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) information using hospital discharge data is 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 known to be inaccurate. The appeal of the CDIP program to users from the injury surveillance program staffs is limited because most of the presentations rely on how engineers could better use the injury surveillance data, and not vice versa.

Altering the CDIP to appeal to a broader audience, including injury surveillance, court, and driver or vehicle records staffs is likely to be a challenge. The material as it is today does not touch on these users' needs. These needs are different enough from the kinds of issues covered in the CDIP's engineering-focused examples and exercises that accommodating them would require large changes in the program. This could be accomplished with a longer workshop, for example, or by cutting back on the amount of presentation material in order to allow time for additional group exercises. The new exercises could focus on the needs of one or more of these other user groups by examining uses of crash data for driver control, epidemiological research, or as a factor in adjudication. In addition, examples of data quality performance measures could be expanded to include items that specifically relate to these other, non-engineering users of the crash data. Examples of key data elements and measurements of their accuracy and timeliness, in particular, would be useful in broadening the audience to include these other groups. As was done for the existing CDIP materials, it would be a good idea to test any new materials with a select audience of representative participants.

As the CDIP transitions from FHWA to NHTSA, there are further opportunities to reinforce the messages from both the CDIP and the NHTSA Traffic Records Advisory/ Assessment process, the CDIP could also help to reinforce the need for more detailed strategic plans. One way to do this would be to set aside time in the Day 2 Technology Transfer session to discuss the State's strategic planning efforts and how they are coordinated. The CDIP includes a review of the documents that the State provides, including the Traffic Records Strategic Plan and the SHSP. These are both also reviewed as part of the Traffic Records Assessment. States that need help coordinating these two plans (and perhaps other strategic planning documents as well), could also request additional help from NHTSA in the form of a different Go Team. However, it is a good idea to intentionally incorporate a brief discussion of strategic planning on Day 2 of the CDIP. If nothing else, this will give the TAT a good idea of what the State personnel think is part of their existing plans and how they see those plans unfolding over the next few years.