State Data Reporting Systems Division

1. State Data Reporting Systems Division State Data Program • State Data System (SDS) • Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) • Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 29th International Traffic Records Forum Denver, Colorado July 13, 2003

2. NHTSA’s State Data System Expansion Effort

3. SDS • A collection of crash data received directly from the 21 participating states. • The data consists of all state-reported crashes. Census data received annually. • The primary use of state data is for specialized internal studies.

4. SDS • State data are converted into a standard SAS format—the data structure is similar to FARS. • State variable attributes are retained. No recoding or standardization of attributes is done in SDS. • State annual Traffic Facts are used to ensure that data is processed correctly.

5. Data Confidentiality • Data files are sanitized: • All personal identifiers are removed during creation of the SAS data files. • VINs are truncated to 12 characters to protect vehicle owners. • General information may be retained, for example: • State of Vehicle Registration • Driver Zip Code

6. Internet Access • Internet access to state raw data files is strictly prohibited. • Internet access to NHTSA’s SAS data files is strictly prohibited. • If state chooses to allow its crash statistics to be published, statistical summary information may be posted on the Internet.

7. How SDS Data are Used • Rollover Analysis: • Firestone/Ford Explorer rollover analysis. • Implementation of rollover ratings in NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program. • Supports NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation. • Useful for evaluating state voluntary implementation of MMUCC. • Useful for linkage to injury outcome data in CODES.

8. How SDS Data are Used • Useful for evaluating the effectiveness of vehicle safety equipment and safety campaigns: • Safety belts. • Anti-lock braking systems. • High mounted stop lamps and daytime running lights. • Alcohol awareness campaign. • Moving young children to the back seat.

9. Crash Data Report Crash Data Report: 1990-1999 available for downloading. Includes descriptive stats in tables and charts. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/sds.html

10. California Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Kansas Maryland Michigan Missouri New Mexico North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania Texas Utah Virginia Washington SDS States Before Expansion Effort

11. Why Expand SDS? • Dr. Jeff Runge has made data collection one of NHTSA’s top priorities. • Additional state data strengthens NHTSA’s ability to provide accurate assessments, leading to better public policy and improved traffic safety.

12. Why Expand SDS? • State data are diverse—Although they share a common purpose, each state’s PAR consists of a unique set of data elements and attributes. • The success of specialized studies depends on pertinent information being available on the state PARs. • Expanding SDS can potentially increase the sample size for these studies.

13. Main Expansion Approaches • Regional Office Solicitations—Regional Staff contact state officials directly regarding SDS. • Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) meetings—SDS representative makes direct pitch with assistance from Regional Staff in attendance.

14. Both Approaches Successful Direct Solicitation by RO Staff • South Carolina (1/03), thanks to Region IV’s Erick Moran. • Wisconsin (5/03), thanks to Region V’s Bob Pollack. TRCC Meetings • Connecticut (3/03), thanks to Region I’s Mario Damiata. • Delaware (7/03), thanks to Region III’s Rod Chu.

15. Probable New Members • Kentucky—Based on work by Region IV’s Erick Moran. NHTSA is expecting an MOU from KY. • West Virginia—Positive response to TRCC briefing on 6/18, with valuable assistance by Bill Naff.

16. Other SDS Invitations Sent • Arkansas • Massachusetts • Mississippi • Montana • New Jersey • Tennessee

17. States Declining Membership • New York—Concerns over losing data sales revenue, data publication pre-emption, data misinterpretation, and lack of resources to reconcile discrepancies between NHTSA and state totals. • Rhode Island—Concern over data misinterpretation and incomplete nature of RI data files. • Vermont—"No compelling reason to join".

18. Two Levels of SDS Membership • State permits dissemination of state-specific summary information via publications and other methods. • State prohibits dissemination of state-specific summary information. For research purposes, the data is aggregated, making it impossible to determine the state’s contribution to the analysis pool.

19. US DOT Data Access Policy • US DOT researchers outside of NHTSA do not have access to SDS data files unless written permission is obtained from state. • During the approval process, state is advised of the specific intended use of state data by the requesting US DOT modality.

20. Public Data Access Policy • Public access to SDS data files is prohibited unless the researcher obtains written permission from state. • During the approval process, state is advised of the specific intended use of state data by the researcher.

21. Where Do We Go From Here? • Are the current SDS marketing materials sufficient for state solicitations? • Should we continue SDS presentations at TRCC meetings? • What additional assistance is needed by Regional staff to help with Dr. Runge’s data initiative?

22. MODEL MINIMUM UNIFORM CRASH CRITERIA • MMUCC 2nd Edition (2003), published June 2003. • Standardizes state crash data to generate the comprehensive information needed to improve highway safety within each state and nationally. • Facilitates inter- and intra state comparisons.

23. MMUCC FORMAT • Data element name, definition, set of attribute values. • Based on existing standards (ANSI D16.1, ANSI D20.1, FARS, NASS and FMCSA). • Data elements collected at scene, derived, or obtained through linkage. • Voluntary implementation. No MMUCC police!!

24. REPORTING THRESHOLD • Death, personal injury or property damage of $1,000 or more. • All involved persons (injured and non-injured). • Consistent and uniformly implemented statewide.

25. BENEFITS OF MMUCC • Facilitates inter- and intra state comparisons. • Standardizes population-based data to identify national trends and issues.

26. NEXT STEPS • MMUCC incorporated into TraCS software • Next revision in 2007; publication in 2008 • Assistance to be available: • web-based training • marketing materials • roll call video for law enforcement • surveys of state implementation • best practices guides, etc.

27. CRASH OUTCOME DATA EVALUATION SYSTEM • 29 CODES States funded. • Fifty percent or more of the states in nine of the 10 NHTSA Regions. • 41% of CODES states also part of SDS. • Goal is to add all CODES states.

28. PURPOSE OF CODES • Expands crash data so that all components of highway safety can be evaluated in terms of death, injury, injury severity and total inpatient charges.

29. CODES MODEL Links injury outcome to: • specific person, vehicle and event characteristics for all persons, injured or uninjured, involved in crashes statewide.

30. CRASH DATA LINKED TO: • Injury Data • EMS, ED, Inpatient, Trauma Registry • Death Certificate, Medical Examiner • Insurance Claims (health or vehicle) • Other Traffic Records • Roadway, Traffic Citation, Adjudication • Driver License • Vehicle Registration • Training: motorcycle, impaired driver

31. CODES DATA NETWORK • 21 (72%) of CODES states participate in the CODES Data Network • Purpose: • Facilitate use of linked data by NHTSA analysts • Assist states to institutionalize CODES

32. SIGNIFICANCE OF CODES FOR STATES • Only source of population-based state-specific highway safety-related outcome data that: • Indicates effectiveness of countermeasures in terms of death, injury, injury severity and costs. • Justifies the priorities in the state highway safety strategic plan. • Provides a permanent data base to monitor trends over time.