As stated in  SAFETEA-LU, goals of this program are to encourage states to adopt and  implement effective programs to:  improve the timeliness, consistency, completeness, accuracy,  accessibility, and integration of traffic safety data;   evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to make such improvements;  link these state traffic safety data systems with other data systems  within the state; and  improve the compatibility of the state data system with national and  other state data systems to enhance the ability to observe and analyze  national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and  circumstances. Traffic records assessments are an evaluation of states’ traffic safety data  systems, which includes discussions of how systems met NHTSA’s  performance measures. A NHTSA technical team or private sector  contractors conduct assessments for states using a “peer” review  approach. State Traffic Data System Quality Varies, but the Full Extent of Data System Quality Is Difficult to Determine

		State Traffic Data System Quality Varies by System and Performance Measure

Data system quality also varies by performance measure. For example,  across all traffic safety data systems, states met the consistency  performance measure 72 percent of the time, but met the data integration  measure only 13 percent of the time (see fig. In  addition, 31 state driver systems met the performance measure for  completeness of data. States Have Demonstrated Progress in Some Data Systems, but Face Resource and Coordination Challenges

		States Have Demonstrated Some Progress Nationwide

Information collected by NHTSA from the states shows that 49 states and  D.C. have demonstrated progress in improving the quality of all six traffic  safety data systems. For example, some progress has  resulted from smaller-scale projects, such as printers for citations or  online tutorials. State officials in all states that we  visited also reported that just maintaining one data system requires  significant funding, time, or other limited resources. All of the technical-level TRCC’s activities are reported to the  executive-level TRCC. Rural and Urban Areas May Face Distinct Challenges

Rural and urban areas across the country faced some distinct challenges in  improving traffic safety data systems. Some rural areas face additional challenges due to limited technology  options. Conclusions

Improving state traffic safety data systems is critical to state efforts to use  data-driven approaches to improve traffic safety and reduce traffic  fatalities and injuries. However, incomplete and inconsistent information in the  assessments limits the usefulness of the assessments, which, according to  NHTSA’s implementing guidance, should be an “in-depth, formal review of  a state’s highway safety data and traffic records system.” Furthermore,  assessments in the updated traffic records assessment format currently  being used often do not systematically evaluate each of the six  performance measures as they relate to each of the six data systems. One of these strategies—establishing an executive-level  TRCC—can potentially address multiple resource and coordination  challenges. In particular, we sought  to identify (1) the extent to which state traffic safety data systems meet  National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s (NHTSA)  performance measures for assessing the quality of data systems, and (2)  what progress states have made in improving traffic safety data systems  and what challenges remain. Assessments are conducted or updated at least every  5 years as one of the eligibility requirements for Section 408 grant program  funding.
Why GAO Did This Study

Traffic crashes kill or injure millions of people each year. High-quality traffic safety data is vital to allocate resources and target programs as the Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and states work to improve traffic safety through data-driven approaches. To qualify for federal funding, states must submit plans which include fatality and crash data analyses to identify areas for improvement. This requested report provides information on (1) the extent to which state traffic safety data systems meet NHTSA performance measures for assessing the quality of data systems, and (2) progress states have made in improving traffic safety data systems, and related challenges. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed state traffic records assessments, visited eight states, and interviewed federal officials and other traffic safety experts.

What GAO Found

GAO's analysis of traffic records assessments--conducted for states by NHTSA technical teams or contractors at least every 5 years--indicates that the quality of state traffic safety data systems varies across the six data systems maintained by states. Assessments include an evaluation of system quality based on six performance measures. Across all states, GAO found that vehicle and driver data systems met performance measures 71 percent and 60 percent of the time, respectively, while roadway, crash, citation and adjudication, and injury surveillance data systems met performance measures less than 50 percent of the time. Also, data system quality varies by performance measure. For example, across all data systems, states met the performance measure for consistency 72 percent of the time, but states met the integration performance measure 13 percent of the time. According to NHTSA, assessments should be in-depth reviews of state traffic safety data systems; however, in some cases, incomplete or inconsistent information limits assessment usefulness. Of the 51 assessments we reviewed, 49 had insufficient information to fully determine the quality of at least one data system. Furthermore, an updated assessment format has resulted in more frequent instances of insufficient information. Despite varying state traffic safety data system performance, data collected by NHTSA show that states are making some progress toward improving system quality. All states GAO visited have implemented projects to improve data systems, such as switching to electronic data reporting and adopting forms consistent with national guidelines. However, states face resource and coordination challenges in improving traffic safety data systems. For example, custodians of data systems are often located in different state agencies, which may make coordination difficult. In addition, rural and urban areas may face different challenges in improving data systems, such as limited technology options for rural areas or timely processing of large volumes of data in urban areas. States GAO visited have used strategies to overcome these challenges, including establishing an executive-level traffic records coordinating committee, in addition to the technical-level committee that states are required to establish to qualify for traffic safety grant funding. An executive-level committee could help states address challenges by targeting limited resources and facilitating data sharing.