2017 State of Missouri Highway Safety & Performance Plan & Section 405 Grant Program Appendix A to Part 1200 Certifications & Assurances 1 Appendix B to Part 1300 Application Requirements 13 Missouri’s HSP and Performance Plan 14 Evidence-Based Traffic Safety Enhancement (E-Be) Program 30 Statewide Traffic Crash Analysis 37 Statewide Total Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Target Area 44 Crashes by City, County and Unincorporated County 45 Public Information and Education 80 Aggressive Drivers 84 Alcohol and Other Drugs 87 CON TEN TS Occupant Restraints 94 Distracted Drivers 103 Young Drivers 106 Older Drivers - 65 Years of age and over 111 Commercial Motor Vehicles 114 Motorcycle Crashes 117 Crashes Involving School Buses 121 Vulnerable Roadway Users 125 Engineering Services and Data Collection 129 Highway Safety Driver Survey 132 HS217/Budgets and Projects 224 FY 2015 Equipment List 242 NHTSA Program Assessments 243 Traffic Records Program Assessment 244 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ‘ MISSOURI’S HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN (HSP) AND PERFORMANCE PLAN Supporting Background – Missouri’s Blueprint ence in October 2008. The new goal was set to reduce to SAVE MORE LIVES traffic fatalities to 850 or fewer by 2012. That goal was reached two years early with 821 fatalities in 2010. In In 2003, Missouri participated with the American As- 2011 the fatality total was 786. Not only did we achieve sociation of State Highway Transportation Officials the 2008 goal but also attained the lowest number of (AASHTO) in a national effort to reduce the prevent- people lost in roadway related fatalities in Missouri able tragedies associated with traffic crashes. Utilizing since 1947. a partnership approach, the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Missouri’s Blueprint for Safer Missouri’s third Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Missouri Roadways, was developed that outlined opportunities Blueprint to SAVE MORE LIVES, was rolled out in Octo- to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on Missouri’s ber of 2012 at the Blueprint Conference. The new tar- roads. The goal established in the Blueprint was set get for this document is 700 or fewer fatalities by 2016. at 1,000 or fewer fatalities by 2008. That goal was The document challenges all of us to not only focus on reached one year early, with a year-end fatality total this target, but also concentrate on a higher vision and for 2007 of 992, as well as in 2008 with 960 fatalities. move Toward Zero Roadway Deaths. The second SHSP, Missouri’s Blueprint to ARRIVE ALIVE, was unveiled at the semi-annual Blueprint Confer- Year Fatalities Serious Injuries 2007 992 7,744 2008 960 6,932 2009 878 6,540 2010 821 6,096 2011 786 5,643 2012 826 5,506 2013 757 4,938 2014 766 4,657 2007-2009 Total 2,830 21,216 2008-2010 Total 2,659 19,568 2009-2011 Total 2,485 18,278 2010-2012 Total 2,433 17,244 2011-2013 Total 2,369 16,087 2012-2014 Total 2,349 15,101 14 Missouri Annual Comparative Data Chart CORE OUTCOME MEASURES: Traffic Fatalities & Serious Injuries Number of Fatalities 821 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 886 Total Rural Fatalities Total Urban Fatalities 492 329 2010 2011 2012 786 949 826 828 887 495 291 2014 757 811 854 474 350 814 459 298 5,643 5,363 10.15 9.48 8.60 8.20 7.11 Fatalities and Serious Injuries Combined 6917 6429 6332 6152 5817 70,909 5,745 4,658 5,034 5,368 70,864 68,789 69,153 69,458 Total Fatalities Per 100 Million VMT 1.16 1.14 1.19 1.09 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 1.28 Total Rural Fatalities per 100 million VMT 1.60 1.71 1.64 1.61 1.62 Total Urban Fatalities per 100 million VMT 0.82 0.73 0.87 0.73 0.7 70,864 68,789 69,153 69,458 70,909 8.60 8.20 7.96 8.12 6.71 1.37 1.19 1.28 1.16 1.23 1.14 791 471 295 Serious Injury Rate Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Driven Vehicle Miles (Billions) 5,506 5,748 6,143 700 783 6,096 6,523 6,591 2016 Target 766 790 Number of Serious Injuries 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 7,093 5,643 6,093 2013 1.08 1.17 1.12 4,534 1.0 1.13 Serious Injuries per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Driven Vehicle Miles (Billions) Total Serious Injuries Per 100 Million VMT Passenger Vehicle Occupant Fatalities (all seat positions) Total 620 597 600 559 556 Restrained 195 177 155 192 198 Unrestrained Passenger Vehicle Fatalities 383 371 394 325 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 431 Unknown 464 42 396 427 49 389 414 51 312 370 384 42 324 352 366 46 Alcohol‐Impaired Driving Fatalities (BAC=.08+) Fatalities 257 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 291 258 318 272 283 293 246 265 282 204 262 269 233 244 249 Speed Related Fatalities Fatalities 324 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 381 310 410 338 326 378 308 320 356 267 315 329 268 300 307 Motorcyclist Fatalities Total 95 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 96 82 94 87 104 92 74 92 94 Helmeted 83 71 90 66 Unhelmeted 11 10 9 7 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 19 Unknown 19 1 14 18 1 10 15 5 91 85 87 86 87 87 79 7 9 12 1 7 8 9 5 Drivers age 20 or younger involved in fatal crashes Aged Under 15 4 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average Aged 15‐20 4 118 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 141 2 3 3 2 3 131 164 131 4 3 3 127 145 3 3 3 111 125 136 3 3 94 123 126 111 111 116 Pedestrians Fatalities Fatalities 55 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 62 68 75 66 68 84 71 69 73 77 71 65 74 70 71 7 4 6 1 3 4 6 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 Fatalities 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 182 181 201 161 166 186 85 143 158 74 107 131 61 73 113 CORE BEHAVIOR MEASURE Observed seat belt use for passenger vehicles, front seat outboard occupants 76% 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 76% Warnings and Citations: Safety Belt Citations Grant Funded * Impaired Driving Arrests Grant Funded Speeding Citations Grant Funded 2010 36,773 8,844 128,529 Bicyclist Fatalities Fatalities 3‐Year Rolling Average/5‐Year Rolling Average 4 Distracted Driving Involved Fatalities 79% 76% 77% 2011 38,111 8,831 124,668 79% 77% 78% 80% 77% 2012 30,687 8,072 116,625 79% 70 79% 78% 2013 36,969 7,021 120,470 79% 83% 79% 2014 33,620 6,069 119,625 2015 39,237 5,458 129,112 CORE OUTCOME MEASURES CORE BEHAVIOR MEASURE C-1) Traffic Fatalities B-1) Observed Belt Usage To decrease traffic fatalities from the expected 2012 calendar To increase statewide observed seat belt use of front seat base year of 850 to 700 by December 31, 2016. outboard occupants in passenger vehicles 1% annually from the 2013 calendar base year average usage rate of 79% to 83% C-2) Serious Traffic Injuries by December 31, 2016. To decrease serious traffic injuries from the 2012 calendar base year of 5,506 to 4,534 by December 31, 2016. ACTIVITY MEASURES C-3) Fatalities/VMT To decrease fatalities/VMT from the expected 2012 cal- A-1) Number of Seat Belt Citations Issued endar base year of 1.2 to 1.0 by December 31, 2016. To increase the number of seat belt citations and warn- C-4) Unrestrained Passenger Vehicle Occupant Fatalties ings issued during grant funded enforcement activities To decrease unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant by .25 percent annually from the 2011-2103 calendar fatalities in all seating positions from the 2012 calendar base year average of 35,256 to 35,520 by December 31, base year of 394 to 324 by December 31, 2016. 2016. C-5) Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities A-2) Number of Impaired Driving Arrests To decrease alcohol impaired driving fatalities from the To increase the number of substance-impaired driving 2012 calendar base year of 283 to 233 by December 31, arrests made during grant funded enforcement activi- 2016. ties by .25 percent annually from the 2011-2103 calendar base year average of 7,975 to 8,035 by December 31, C-6) Speeding Related Fatalities 2016. To decrease speeding-related fatalities from the 2012 A-3) Number of Speeding Citations Issued calendar base year of 326 to 268 by December 31, 2016. To increase the number of speeding citations and warnC-7) Motorcyclist Fatalities ings issued during grant funded enforcement activities To decrease motorcyclist fatalities from the 2012 calen- by .25 percent annually from the 2011-2103 calendar dar base year of 104 to 86 by December 31, 2016. base year average of 120,588 to 121,907 by December C-8) Unhelmeted Motorcyclist Fatalities 31, 2016. To decrease unhelmeted motorcyclist fatalities from the 2012 calendar base year of 9 to 7 by December 31, 2016. C-9) Drivers Age 20 or Younger Involved in Fatal Crashes E To decrease drivers age 20 or younger involved fatalities from the 2012 calendar base year of 127 to 111 by December 31, 2016. R C-10) Pedestrian Fatalities S To decrease pedestrian fatalities from the 2012 calendar base year of 84 to 71 by Decem- U ber 31, 2016. C-11) Bicyclist Fatalities A To decrease bicyclist fatalities from the 2012 E calendar base year of 6 to 4 by December 31, 2016. M 5 Blueprint Strategies Through extensive data analysis, current research findings, and best practices, strategies were identified that must be implemented in order to make significant progress toward reaching the projected goal of 700 or fewer fatalities by 2016. Key strategies in the Blueprint to SAVE MORE LIVES were identified and called the “Necessary Nine”: 1. Increase Safety Belt Use 8. Increase Enforcement Efforts • Pass a primary safety belt law • Focus on high crash corridors • Increase the number of local communities with • Target high impact work zones primary safety belt ordinances • Increase the fine for non-use of a safety belt 9. Expand and Improve Roadway Visibility under the current law • Ensure all roadway signs meet acceptable retro reflectivity 2. Expand the Installation of Rumble Strips/Stripes • Expand the use of delineation • • Expand the use of centerlines and edgelines Increase the number of miles of edgeline and centerline rumble strips/stripes and ensure the markings meet acceptable retroreflectivity 3. Increase Efforts to Reduce the Number of Substance-Impaired Vehicle Drivers and Motorcycle Operators • Increase the number of sobriety checkpoints • Expand the use of ignition interlocks • Increase the number of DWI courts 4. Improve Intersection Safety • Increase the use of Innovative Intersection Solutions (J-turns, Roundabouts) • Expand the use of technology • Increase targeted enforcement • Increase pedestrian safety features 5. Improve Curve Safety • • Increase the use of curve alignment signs Increase curve recognition with pavement marking • Increase pavement friction 6. Change Traffic Safety Culture • Develop focused public education • Expand outreach efforts 7. Improve Roadway Shoulders • • Increase the miles of shoulders Reduce pavement edge drop-offs through maintenance 17 Emphasis/Focus Areas Six key Emphasis Areas and 25 Focus Areas were identified within the Blueprint Emphasis Area I / Serious Crash Types Focus Areas o Run-Off-Road Crashes o Horizontal Curve Crashes o Intersection Crashes o Collisions with Trees and Utility Poles o Head-On Crashes Emphasis Area II / High-Risk Drivers and Unrestrained Occupants Focus Areas o Aggressive Drivers o Unrestrained Drivers and Occupants o Distracted and Drowsy Drivers o Young Drivers (15 through 20 years of age) o Substance-Impaired Drivers o Unlicensed, Revoked or Suspended Drivers Emphasis Area III / Special Vehicles Focus Areas o Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs) o All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) o School Buses/School Bus Signals Emphasis Area IV / Vulnerable Roadway Users Focus Areas o Older Drivers (65 years of age or older) o Motorcyclists o Pedestrians o Bicyclists Emphasis Area V / Special Roadway Environments Focus Areas o Nighttime Driving o Work Zones o Highway / Rail Crossings o Traffic Incident Management Areas Emphasis Areas VI / Data and Data System Improvements Focus Areas o Data Collection o Data Accessibility o System Linkage Strategies were developed for each of these focus areas that incorporated the 4 E’s – education, enforcement, engineering, and emergency response as well as technology and public policy. Many of these are also included in the Highway Safety Plan (HSP). 2 18 Statewide Targets, Performance Measures & Benchmarks motorcyclist fatalities • Justification and Explanation for Setting Performance Measures and Benchmark for the • Fatality Reduction Goal have set fatality reduction goals. In the 2012 plan, an interim fatality reduction goal of 700 or fewer fatalities using a trend line starting from the 850 baseline. The A serious Injury reduction goal was not established in yearly goals are listed below. Missouri’s 2012 Strategic Highway Safety Plan. As a result, the 2012 actual serious injury number was estab- Target #1: To reduce fatalities to: • 775 by 2014 • 738 by 2015 • 700 by 2016 lished as the benchmark. From the 2012 number, the same fatality reduction trend line was used to calculate interim yearly serious injury reduction goals from 2013 through 2016. Target #2: To reduce serious injuries to: Performance Measures: • Number of statewide fatalities • Fatality rate per 100M VMT Benchmarks: • Expected 2012 fatalities = 850 • 5,266 by 2013 • 5,020 by 2014 • 4,781 by 2015 • 4,534 by 2016 Performance Measure: (766 in 2014) • Bicyclist fatalities Serious Injury Reduction Goal terim years (2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016) were calculated 813 by 2013 Pedestrian fatalities • Performance Measures and Benchmark for the goal of 850 was used as the baseline number. The in- • • Justification and Explanation for Setting was established for 2016. The 2012 fatality reduction 850 by 2012 • Expected 2012 fatality rate per 100M VMT = 1.2 • ity reduction goals were calculated in the following Throughout the remainder of the document, the fol- manner. The percent of contribution of the various lowing serious injury reduction goals were calculated in crash types was applied to the 2012 baseline of 850 the following manner. The percent of contribution of fatalities. From that point, the interim years’ fatality the various crash types was applied to the 2012 baseline goals (2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016) were calculated using of 5,506 serious injuries. From that point, the interim a trend line aimed at reaching the 700 or fewer fatali- years’ serious injury goals (2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016) ties by 2016. Fatality reduction goals were calculated were calculated using a trend line aimed at reaching for the following crash types: • Speed-related fatalities • Fatalities involving drivers with a .08 BAC or greater • Fatalities involving alcohol-impaired drivers under the 4,534 or fewer serious injuries by 2016. Serious injury goals were set for the following areas: Unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities • Fatalities involving drivers age 15 through 20 • Fatalities involving older drivers • Motorcyclist fatalities • Un-helmeted or non-DOT compliant helmeted • Serious injuries involving drivers age 15 through 20 • Serious injuries involving older drivers • the age of 21 years old • 2012 serious injuries = 5,506 (4,657 in 2014) Throughout the remainder of the document, the fatal- Aggressive driving related fatalities Number of serious injuries Benchmark: (1.1 in 2014) • Fatalities resulting from crashes involving school buses or school bus signals Historically, Missouri’s Strategic Highway Safety Plans • Fatalities involving motorcycle operators who are not licensed or improperly licensed Serious injuries resulting from crashes involving school buses or school bus signals ( ) Information in parenthesis is actual data for the respective year listed. 3 19 Targets by Region The Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety has seen varied success from each of the seven regions in reducing fatalities on our roadways. While some regions have seen greater success than others in regards to percentage reduction, each has done a tremendous job in making our roads safer for the traveling public. In order for the Coalition to reach the target of 700 or fewer by the end of 2016, each region will need to continue efforts Fatalities by Region in all disciplines. By the end of Reduction per Region (2013-2016 estimated) 2016, the state will have seen a roadway fatality reduction of 44 Year NW NE KC CD SL SW SE Total percent since 2005. More impor- 2005 85 93 203 188 238 257 193 1,257 tantly, each region will have to 2006 56 63 150 190 205 260 172 1,096 reduce the roadway fatalities by 2007 52 71 162 175 206 173 153 992 over 40 percent in order for the 2008 59 62 171 155 195 179 139 960 state to reach the target. 2009 57 49 155 133 170 165 149 878 2010 32 66 145 101 175 167 135 821 The fatality number established 2011 48 50 122 120 162 154 130 786 for each region was determined 2012 46 58 161 123 171 143 124 826 from the previous eight years 2013 46 55 135 126 162 160 128 813 starting with 2005 (eight-year 2014 44 52 129 121 155 152 122 775 average). This method was 2015 42 50 123 115 147 145 116 738 preferred in order to minimize 2016 40 47 117 109 140 138 110 700 the fluctuations realized by each region. Safety Plan Integration Missouri’s target of 700 or fewer fatalities has been integrated into all key planning documents that in- Blueprint Implementation clude: State Highway Safety Strategic Plan, Missouri’s Blueprint to Save More Lives; the Commercial Vehicle The Blueprint is a collective effort of the Missouri Coali- Safety Plan (CVSP); and the Highway Safety Plan and tion for Roadway Safety (MCRS) and safety profession- Performance Plan (HSP). The fatality reduction goal als throughout the state. The MCRS leads the charge to is also included in the Highway Safety Improvement implement the Blueprint and encourage safety partners Program (HSIP) Annual Report along with fatalities, to focus their activities and programs in support of the fatality rates and serious injuries. Every effort will be “Necessary Nine” and subsequent emphasis areas, focus made to establish evidence based strategies that will areas, and strategies. The state is divided into seven guide Missouri to meet this target. regional coalitions that develop annual safety plans. These coalitions meet on a regular basis to discuss their 4 20 concerns, review how their countermeasures are The strategies outlined within the HSP and Perfor- working, and consider ways to improve their efforts. mance Plan will be implemented in an attempt to reach Approximately $2 million of state road funds are dedi- the overarching statewide Blueprint target of 700 or cated to this effort. fewer fatalities by 2016. The Blueprint is an overarching strategic highway safety plan for the State of Missouri while the state’s Section 402 Highway Safety Plan serves as one of the Performance Measures implementation components in support of the BluePerformance measures enable the state to track print efforts. progress, from a specific baseline, toward meeting an interim target. In August 2008, the US Department of HSP and Performance Plan Overview Transportation released a document, DOT HS 811 025, that outlines a minimum set of performance measures Under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, the National to be used by states and federal agencies in the devel- Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pro- opment and implementation of behavioral highway vides grants and technical assistance to states and safety plans and programs. An expert panel from the communities. Section 402 of the Act requires each state National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, State to have a highway safety program to reduce traffic Highway Safety Offices, academic and research organi- crashes and deaths, injuries and property damage. Sec- zations, and other key groups developed these perfor- tion 402 grant funds mance measures, which are apportioned to the were agreed upon by states based on the ra- NHTSA and the Governors tio of state population Highway Safety Associa- to the national popula- tion. tion (75%) and state public road mileage The initial minimum set to the total national contains 15 measures: 11 public road mileage core outcome measures, (25%). 1 core behavior measure; and 3 activity measures. Section 402 funds must be used to support the state's These 15 measures cover the major areas common to performance plan (which contains performance goals state highway safety plans and use existing data sys- based on the traffic safety problems identified by the tems. Beginning with the 2010 Highway Safety Plans state) and the HSP. These plans provide for the imple- and Annual Reports, states set goals for and report mentation of a program that addresses a wide range progress on each of the 11 core outcome and behavior of highway safety problems related to human factors measures annually. In 2014, an additional outcome and the roadway environment and that contributes measure, bicycle fatalities, was added. The following to the reduction of crashes and resulting deaths and page outlines the 15 performance measures which will injuries. be identified within their respective program areas: The Blueprint serves as a roadmap for the State’s Highway Safety Plan The “Necessary Nine” provides direction for the HSP The goal determines our interim fatality reduction target 5 21 1. Fatalities (actual) 2. Fatality rate per 100M VMT (statewide; urban; rural) 3. Number of serious (disabling) injuries 4. Number of fatalities involving drivers or motorcycle operators with .08 BAC or above 5. Number of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities 6. Number of speeding-related fatalities 7. Number of motorcyclist fatalities 8. Number of un-helmeted motorcyclist fatalities 9. Number of drivers age 20 or younger involved in fatal crashes 10. Number of pedestrian fatalities 11. Number of bicycle fatalities 12. Percent observed belt use for passenger vehicles – front seat outboard occupants 13. Number of seat belt citations issued during grant-funded enforcement activities 14. Number of impaired driving arrests made during grant-funded enforcement activities 15. Number of speeding citations issued during grant-funded enforcement activities Benchmarks Our benchmarks will serve as points of reference by which we are able to measure our progress. These benchmarks are not totally reliant upon the programs implemented by the highway safety office. They are often highly dependent upon existing public policy 3. and the motoring public’s adherence to traffic laws and types, target populations and geographic locations in safe driving habits. order to most effectively implement countermeasure Evaluating traffic crash data to determine crash efforts; The Statewide Goals, Performance Measures, and 4. Benchmarks are “expectations” based upon the targets mobilizations that combine blanketed enforcement and established in Missouri’s Blueprint to ARRIVE ALIVE saturated media during established timeframes and in (850 or fewer fatalities by 2012) and Missouri’s Blue- targeted traffic corridors; print to SAVE MORE LIVES (700 or fewer fatalities by 5. 2016). training opportunities in order to gain insight into Participating in national law enforcement Participating in state, regional, and national proven programs that can be replicated in Missouri; Best Practices Countermeasures and 6. Reviewing highway safety research studies The Highway Safety Office makes every attempt to en- from Transportation Research Board, NHTSA, FHWA, sure that effective countermeasure efforts are incorpo- FMCSA, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, AAA rated into the strategies of the Plan by employing the Foundation, etc. to guide the inclusion of various strate- following methods: gies in the Plan. 1. Utilizing proven countermeasures identified within the latest update of Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, US DOT, NHTSA; 2. Utilizing countermeasures identified in NCHRP report 622 publication (Effectiveness of Highway Safety Countermeasures) 22 No highway safety office can work in a vacuum without communication, cooperation and coordination with our safety partners. This partnership approach allows us to expand our resources, generate diverse ideas, and incorporate new concepts and projects into our Highway Safety Plan. A sampling of the myriad of safety partners include: American Automobile Association MO Department of Mental Health American Association of Retired Persons MO Department of Public Safety Blueprint Regional Coalitions (7 – MO Department of Revenue Northwest, Northeast, Kansas City, MO Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Central, St. Louis, Southwest, MO Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control Southeast) MO Head Injury Advisory Council Cape Girardeau Safe Communities MO Injury and Violence Prevention Program Advisory Committee City/County Engineers MO Trucking Association County Health Departments MO Office of Prosecution Services East-West Gateway Coordinating Council MO Police Chiefs Association Emergency Nurses Association MO Safety Center Federal Highway Administration MO Sheriffs Association Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administra- MO State Highway Patrol tion MO Youth/Adult Alliance Institutions of Higher Education Mothers Against Drunk Driving Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Advisory Motorcycle Safety Task Force Council National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Region 7 Law Enforcement Training Academies Office of State Courts Administrator Local Technical Assistance Program Operation Impact Mercy Hospital Operation Lifesaver Metropolitan Planning Organizations Partners in Prevention Mid-American Regional Council Regional Planning Commissions MO Association of Insurance Agents Safe Kids Coalitions MO Automobile Dealers Association State Farm Insurance MO Coalition for Roadway Safety Think First Missouri MO Department of Health & Senior Traffic Safety Alliance of the Ozarks Services Trailnet MO Department of Labor and Industrial Relations In addition to these highway safety partners, each Blueprint regional coalition has an extensive base of regional partners. 7 23 Planning, Programming and Implementation Timeframes The state’s highway safety program, as explained earlier, is a federal grant program. The federal fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30. The table on the following page represents the timeframes within which the agency must operate in order to meet our federal requirements. The timeframes also provide a quick overview of when grant applications, program reports, and annual reports are due. This information provides our grantees and the general public a clearer picture of our internal process. Some dates are firm—those established by the federal government for submitting our HSP, annual report, and supplemental grant applications. Some of the dates established by the Highway Safety Office are more fluid; they may be revised in order to allow the agency to function more efficiently. The following table sets the timeframes for the basic Section 402/405 Highway Safety Program and the annual report. 8 24 25 1 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 15 15 Require submission of program income documentation 31 31 31 Annual report & final cost summary due Audit closeout (within 90 days of fiscal year end) Compile & print annual report Year end reports due from grantees Mail letters requesting year-end reports 30 30 30 Federal fiscal year begins (contract start date) 1 1 All funds must be obligated for new fiscal year 21-25 30 30 15-31 SEP Federal fiscal year ends (contract ending date) Program income submissions from grantees Verify that soft match letters are on file Regional contract award workshops w/grantees Mail grantee award and denial letters 30 3-14 HSP & Performance Plan/405 grants due to NHTSA 1 10 2-13 Contracts written and reviewed internally Grant applications review & budget meetings Grant applications due to HS Conduct regional grant application training sessions O N G O I N G 1 DEC V O U C H E R S A R E P R O C E S S E D MULTIPLE TIMES PER MONTH NOV Grantee reimbursement vouchers 31 OCT Contract and equipment monitoring by HS staff Mail out requests for project proposals for new fiscal year planning and input solicitation for new fiscal year Data collection & analysis, problem identification, internal ACTIVITY Highway Safety Plan and Annual Report Planning, Programming and Implementation Timeframes Grant Application Process safety grants (budgets, grantee lists, inventory, vouchering, reporting data, disbursement reports, etc.). The The Highway Safety Office hosts grant application system went live for the 2003 grant application cycle. workshops each spring for potential grantees. These Since that time, the Highway Safety Office has contin- workshops are held in five strategic regional locations ued to work with REJIS to refine the system in order to (Cape Girardeau, Chesterfield, Jefferson City, Spring- make it more user friendly for the grantees, in addition field, and Lee’s Summit) so that no participant has to to being more functional and robust for the Highway travel terribly far in order to attend. They are usually Safety Office. An extensive rewrite took place to scheduled during January. coincide with the 2010 grant cycle. The system was refined so that the processes of application submission, Workshop participants are provided a packet explaining contract development, enforcement reporting, and the highway safety grant program, the types of projects vouchering are now entirely web- eligible for award, and an overview of statewide sta- based. Three additional programs tistical traffic crash data. Potential grantees were also added to the system: Safe are given instruction on Routes to School; Work Zones; and how to retrieve the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance traffic crash Program. In 2010 the Safe Routes data for analysis to School program was transferred through the to another division of MoDOT, Missouri State therefore, this section of the GMS Highway Patrol’s was not further developed. Ad- web site. ditional reporting components have been developed including The purpose of a training section. The Highway the highway safety Safety Office will continue to program and the maintain and improve the GMS and is statewide goal are currently working toward an entirely paperless grant discussed to help process. the potential grantees understand how their efforts are imperative in order to Grant Selection Process impact the fatality reduction goal. Program areas are identified and the Highway Safety Grant Management The Highway Safety program staff reviews the applica- System (GMS) and on-line reporting systems are re- tions relative to their specific areas of expertise. During viewed. These seminars are used as an opportunity to this preliminary review, they assess the applications to share any new contract conditions, application process determine their relevancy toward meeting the highway changes, or legislative changes that may impact the safety goals. Applicants are contacted if clarification grant programs. The grant application deadline for the is needed. In essence, a case is prepared to present to 2017 fiscal year was March 1, 2016. management and the remaining program staff members to support whether the application should be Internal Grants Management System funded in full, in part, or denied. In late 2001, the Highway Safety Office began work Fatal and serious injury crash rankings are performed with the Regional Justice Information Service (REJIS) for all cities, counties, and the unincorporated areas in to develop the first-of-its-kind on-line grants manage- the state. These rankings are conducted for the prob- ment system. The system allows grantees to electroni- lem areas of alcohol, speed, young drinking drivers, cally submit applications. This information feeds into a distracted, unbelted, under 21 years of age and older system that builds databases for managing the highway 10 26 drivers. These rankings are also used in determining proposed in order to make a positive impact on the the overall severity of the problem for each respec- identified problem? tive location. Fatal and serious injury county, city, and • unincorporated county rank orders are located in the in a particular geographic region (such as multi-juris- Crashes by City, County & Unincorporated County sec- diction enforcement) or in a particular program area tion of this report. Ranking by problem area can be (occupant protection)? found on the Missouri State Highway Patrol’s on-line • State Traffic Accident Records System (STARS) located ect” that satisfies criteria for additional federal funding at https://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/ (e.g., safety belt observational survey)? stars_index.html • Will this project provide continuity of effort Will the activity serve as a “foundational proj- Does the project alleviate, eliminate or correct a problem that was identified in a federally conducted Law enforcement applications are assessed to deter- assessment of a highway safety priority program area? mine their rankings by the type of project they are • choosing to conduct. While the highest-ranking locals goals for regional highway safety issues? are given priority because of the potential impact of • their project, other considerations are taken into ac- and, if so, is there an effective evaluation component count. For instance, a lower-ranking city may be given included? a project because the county in which they reside • ranks high or they may fall within a dangerous corri- match the federal grant efforts? dor. Some communities are given a project in order to • participate in the national mobilizations while others nerships (e.g., working with service organizations, are given consideration because the Highway Safety health agencies, and/or insurance companies; conduct- Office has determined a need exists to garner traffic ing multi-jurisdiction enforcement efforts) in order to safety minded agencies within a particular geographic expand their resources and enhance their outcomes? location. An additional consideration may be their • participation in multi-jurisdictional law enforcement portive of this proposed activity? task forces. • Will the project satisfy or help satisfy federal Are innovative countermeasures proposed Are any local in-kind resources proposed to Does the applicant propose developing part- Is the local government or administration supIf equipment is requested, will the equipment sup- port a project or enforcement activity; does the agency have An internal team of highway safety program staff the ability to provide a local match for part of the equipment review all grant applications. Several days are set aside purchase? to review the applications and hear both supporting • arguments and issues of concern. The reviewers take or part of this application? many factors into consideration when assessing these • applications: federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of • Does the project fall within the national prior- ity program areas (alcohol and other drug countermeasures; police traffic services; occupant protection; traffic records; emergency medical services; speed; motorcycle, pedestrian, or bicycle safety)? • Does the project address the key emphasis areas identified within the Blueprint and does it have the ability to impact statewide traffic crash fatalities and serious injuries? • Does the problem identification sufficiently docu- ment problem locations, crash statistics, targeted populations, demonstrated need, and the impact this project would have on traffic safety problems in their community? • Have “best practices” countermeasures been 11 27 Is there sufficient funding in the budget to support all Has the sub recipients risk of noncompliance with the sub award been considered for such factors as: *The sub recipient’s prior experience with the same or Grantee Compliance Requirements COMPLIANCE similar sub awards; Any agency receiving a Highway Safety grant must comply *The results of previous audits including whether with the following statutes or rules: or not the sub recipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F-Audit Requirements of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar sub-award has been audited as a Nondiscrimination — CFR Chapter 50 prohibits discrimina- major program; tion on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin *Whether the sub recipient has new personnel or new including DBE and Segregated Facilities. or substantially changed systems; and Hatch Act – Pursuant to United States Code Sections 1501-1508, *The extent and results of federal awarding agency employees who are paid in whole or in part with federal funds monitoring are prohibited from participating in certain partisan political The applications are discussed at length using a risk assessment activities including, but not limited to, being candidates for checklist to ensure consistency and to determine whether the elective office. agency should be funded, the level of funding, which grant funding source should support the project, and whether the ac- Federal Funding Accountability & Transparency Act - Grantees tivity is a state or local benefit (40 percent of funds must be ex- must disclose detailed information about their operations in- pended toward local benefit). Each applicant funding amount cluding the name and location of the entity, amount of award, is determined by reviewing at least two prior years awarded transaction type, unique identifier, names and the total com- funding amounts and spending history; the agencies risk for pensation of the five most highly compensated officers of the potential fraud, waste and abuse; and the agencies willing- entity if certain parameters are met. The state then compiles ness to comply with the contract conditions regarding timely this information for all grantees and facilitates the disclosure of vouchering. A key reference document is Countermeasures this information to the federal government and the public. that Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices to assure we support research-based Buy America Act – The state will comply with the provisions strategies. Other considerations for research-based strategies of the Buy America Act (49 U.S.C. 5323 (j), which contains the are Transportation Research Board research and reports, other following requirements: DOT funded research and university-based research. When equipment is required, the grantee agency is requested Only steel, iron and manufactured products produced in the to provide a local match. If the local match is unavailable, those United States may be purchased with federal funds unless the applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestic whether this agency can provide full support. purchases would be inconsistent with the public interest, that such materials are not reasonably available and of a satisfac- During the meeting, this information is continually updated tory quality, or that inclusion of domestic materials will in- into the Highway Safety Office’s Grants Management System crease the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 so that real-time information is immediately available. By the percent. Clear justification for the purchase of non-domestic end of the meeting, there is a complete listing of the approved items must be in the form of a waiver request submitted to and projects that will best support the mission and work toward approved by the Secretary of Transportation. reaching the Blueprint’s target of 700 or fewer fatalities by 2016. The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 – The state will provide a drug-free workplace according to 41 U.S.C. 8103 by notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee’s workplace. The state will also establish a drug-free awareness program; notify employees of the requirements of the workplace and conviction of such offense and the actions to be taken. Certification Regarding Federal Lobbying Restriction of State Lobbying - Certifies no federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for 28 influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee when operating company-owned, rented, or personally- of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee owned vehicles. of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract. None Policy on Banning Text Messaging While Driving – In ac- of the funds under the programs will be used for any activity cordance with Executive Order 13513, Federal Leadership specifically designed to urge or influence a state or local legis- On Reducing Text Messaging While Driving, and DOT Order lator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative 3902.10, Text Messaging While Driving, States are encour- proposal pending before any state or local legislative body. aged to adopt and enforce workplace safety policies to decrease crashes caused by distracted driving, including Certification Regarding Debarment and Suspension policies to ban text messaging while driving company- and Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspen- owned or –rented vehicles, Government-owned, leased or sion, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier rented vehicles, or privately-owned when on official Govern- Covered Transactions – Certifying that the agency and ment business or when preforming any work on or behalf of it’s principals are presently not debarred, suspended, the Government. proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in the transaction by LOCAL ORDINANCES AND POLICIES any federal department or agency. Agencies are encouraged to adopt, if possible: • Model Traffic Ordinance—RSMo 300.00—Rules Any law enforcement agency receiving a Highway Safety grant governing traffic administration and regulation must also comply with the following statutes or rules: • Child Restraints—RSMo 307.179—Passenger re- straint system required for children birth through age seven Peace Officer Standards and Training Certification (P.O.S.T.) — years (Primary Offense) Pursuant to RSMo 590.100-590.180 all peace officers in the State • of Missouri are required to be certified by the Department of passenger cars Public Safety • Seat Belts—RSMo 307.178—Seat belts required for Primary Seat Belt – A model ordinance allowing primary enforcement of a seat belt violation. Statewide Traffic Analysis Reporting (STARS) – Pursuant to • RSMo 43.250, law enforcement agencies must file accident the possession of an open container of alcoholic beverages reports with the Missouri State Highway Patrol in a motor vehicle. • Open Container—A model ordinance prohibiting Law enforcement vehicular pursuit training Title Uniform Crime Reporting — Pursuant to RSMo 43.505, all law 23, USC, Chapter 4 402a(j)—A state shall actively encourage enforcement agencies shall submit crime incident reports to all relevant law enforcement agencies in such state to follow the Department of Public Safety on the forms or in the format the guidelines established for vehicular pursuits issued by prescribed by DPS, as shall any other crime incident informa- the International Association of Chiefs of Police that are in ef- tion that may be required by DPS. fect on the date of enactment of this subsection or as revised and in effect after such date as determined by the secretary. Racial Profiling — Pursuant to RSMo 590.650, each law enforcement agency shall compile the data described in Subsection 2 of Section 590.650 for the calendar year into a report to the Attorney General and submit the report to the AG no later than March first of the following calendar year. Prohibition on Using Grant Funds to Check for Helmet Usage The State and each subrecipient will not use 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 grant funds for programs to check helmet usage or to create checkpoints that specifically target motorcycles. Policy on Seat Belt Use – In accordance with Executive Order 13043, Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States, dated April 16, 1997, the Grantee is encouraged to adopt and enforce onthe-job seat belt use policies and programs for its employees 29 EVIDENCE-BASED TRAFFIC SAFETY ENFORCEMENT (E-Be) PROGRAM The Highway Safety Office has four law enforcement program managers that cover specific regions of the state and two Law Enforcement Liaisons. (LEL) Below is a map that outlines the areas of responsibility for each program manager. These managers are responsible for the statewide coordination of state, county, and local law enforcement projects. The evidence-based traffic safety enforcement program is focused on preventing traffic violations, crashes, and crash fatalities and injuries in areas of most risk for such incidents. It involves an array of enforcement activities throughout the fiscal year. This section includes: Problem Identification, Implementation Plan and Performance Measures. 14 30 section of the HSP. Problem Identification Process • o Fatal and serious injury crash rankings are per- Once LE grant award decisions are formed for all cities, counties, and the unincorporated made that best support the mission and work toward areas in the state. These rankings are conducted for reaching the Blueprint’s target of 700 or fewer fatalities the problem areas of alcohol, speed, young drinking by 2016, grant award meetings are held in the fall at drivers, distracted, unbelted, under 21 years of age and five locations around the state. LE program managers older drivers. These rankings are also used in deter- provide a copy of the award, review grantee compli- mining the overall severity of the problem for each re- ance requirements, address any questions and concerns, spective location. Fatal and serious injury county, city, and network with any new and continuing grantees. and unincorporated county rank orders are located in • the Crashes by City, County & Unincorporated County Mobilizations o section of this report. Ranking by problem area can be The Law Enforcement Traffic Safety found on the Missouri State Highway Patrol’s on-line Advisory Council identifies quarterly substance-im- State Traffic Accident System located at https://www. paired driving and occupant protection mobilization mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/stars_index. dates for each fiscal year. The LE program management html staff aggressively seeks participation in these mobilizations as well as the NHTSA required Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over and the Click It or Ticket mobilizations. Implementation Plan Efforts are also made to encourage participation in the • Grant Application Selection distracted driving month emphasis area enforcement o activities and techniques. Grant application workshops are held for potential grantees in five locations around the • state. The purpose of the highway safety program and DWI/Traffic Unit o statewide goal are discussed at each workshop to help A key enforcement technique used is grantees understand how their efforts are imperative to team with a city or county law enforcement agency in order to impact the fatality and serious injury prob- to financially support DWI/Traffic Units. We have a lem on Missouri highways. total of 10 units. The mission of these units is to focus o on substance-impaired drivers/high risk drivers and to Law Enforcement (LE) program man- agement staff participate in each workshop and offer aggressively enforce DWI and hazardous moving viola- assistance to agencies interested in submitting a grant. tions. o Below is a list of the full-time DWI Units: Joplin Police Department Once grantees submit their applica- tions into the Highway Safety Office Grant Manage- Greene County Sheriff’s Office ment System, law enforcement program manage- Boone County Sheriff’s Office ment staff reviews each application for their fatality / Columbia Police Department Jackson County Sheriff’s Office serious injury rankings. During this review, LE program Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office managers assess the applications to determine their Franklin County Sheriff’s Office relevancy toward meeting the highway safety goals. o St. Louis County Police Department The LE program management team Creve Coeur Police Department reviews their respective applications and, in spring, a grant application review meeting is held for all grant applications. The LE staff share supporting arguments and issues of concern recommending either to fully fund, partially fund or deny the LE applications. The reviewers take many factors into consideration when assessing these applications. A list of considerations are located in the Missouri’s HSP & Performance Plan 15 31 Platte County Sheriff’s Office • management staff reviews the results of various law Law Enforcement Task Forces/Councils enforcement initiatives/mobilizations. State, local and o county LE agencies are encouraged to review their Multiple city/county LE agencies meet on a regular basis to plan and coordinate key enforce- results and area crash data on a regular basis. Based ment activities. Several agencies have a shortage of upon these reviews, adjustments are made to opera- personnel to conduct sobriety checkpoints and other tional plans to improve the activity’s effectiveness. enforcement initiatives. The task force concept pro- Performance Measures vides the opportunity to pool resources to conduct more manpower intensive activities such as sobriety o checkpoints or corridor projects. It also provides a To monitor law enforcement participa- forum for the LE officers to network and share traffic tion in the NHTSA and LETSAC mobilizations, the Traffic issues or concerns. Below is a list of the multi-jurisdic- and Highway Safety Division has three performance tional task forces operating in Missouri: measures in their division tracker. These measures iden- Southwest DWI Task Force (12 Agencies) tify the number of participating agencies, number of Northwest DWI Task Force (2 Agencies) hours worked, number of sobriety checkpoints, and the Jackson County Traffic Safety Task Force (11 Agencies) type and number of citation and warning tickets. The Cass County STEP DWI Task Force (7 Agencies) 2014-2015 annual results are located at the end of the section. Clay/Platte County DWI Task Force (13 Agencies) St. Louis Regional Traffic Safety Council (50 Agencies) o St. Charles County DWI Task Force (7 Agencies) throughout the HSP designed to track the progress of Central Ozarks Regional DWI Task Force (14 Agencies) Southeast Missouri DWI Task Force (12 Agencies) our law enforcement activities. The most important Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Advisory Council outcome involves a reduction in the number of fatali- (20 Agencies) ties and serious injuries occurring by crash type. The following is a list of other measures: West Central Traffic Task Force (7 Agencies) • • during grant-funded enforcement activities and o mobilizations In 2009 an effort was made to increase • each year. tions • Communication Component o Number of safety belt citations issued during grantfunded enforcement activities and mobilizations There is a communication plan devel- oped with each mobilization. These plans vary depending on the available funding and involve press releases, paid media, social media, and earned media. Sample pre- and postpress releases are sent to LE departments choosing to participate in various law enforcement initiatives/mobilizations. In the case of sobriety checkpoints, these releases are required and help make the general deterrent strategy more effective. Continuous Follow-Up and Adjustment o Number of impaired driving arrests made during grant-funded enforcement activities and mobiliza- Since that time approximately 500 checkpoints are held • Number of speeding citations/warnings issued Sobriety Checkpoints the number of sobriety checkpoints held each year. • There are a number of measures listed Program 16 32 17 33 18 34 19 35 20 36 STATEWIDE CRASH ANALYSIS Making the roadway traffic system less hazardous requires understanding the system as a whole – under- In March 2015, an attitudinal survey was conducted standing the interaction between its elements (vehicles, on 2,502 adult Missouri drivers to capture their current roads, road users and their physical, social and econom- attitudes and awareness of specific items concerning ic environments) and identifying where there is poten- highway safety such as seat belt usage, speeding issues, tial for intervention. This integrated approach more cell phone use while driving and alcohol impaired driv- effectively addresses our traffic safety problems. ing. (2016 survey results not available until July, 2016) Problem Identification Since this plan is directed toward modifying behavior so that safety will be the accepted norm, it stands to rea- Problem identification involves the study of the re- son that we must identify and categorize those individ- lationship between collisions and the characteristics uals who are making unsafe decisions and/or who are of people using the roadways, types and numbers of causing traffic crashes. It will be obvious to the reader vehicles on the roads, miles traveled, and roadway that this document references targeted audiences or engineering. populations. The term “target audience” infers a population group that is overrepresented in a particu- Most motor vehicle crashes have multiple causes. lar type of crash (e.g., drinking drivers) or is under- Experts and studies have identified three categories of represented in using safety devices (e.g., un-helmeted factors that contribute to crashes – human, roadway en- motorcyclists or unrestrained occupants). This terminol- vironment, and vehicle factors. Human factors involve ogy is in no way meant to profile certain populations by the driver’s actions (speeding and violating traffic laws, age, gender, race, or nationality. Rather, this is an ac- etc.) or condition (effects of alcohol or drugs, inatten- cepted term to identify specific population groups that tion, decision errors, age, etc.). Roadway environment must be reached with our messages and our enforce- factors include the design of the roadway, roadside ment efforts if we are to reduce traffic crashes, prevent hazards, and roadway conditions. Vehicle factors in- injuries and save lives. clude any failures in the vehicle or its design. Human factors are generally seen as contributing most often to crashes at 93 percent, followed by roadway environment at 33 percent, and finally the vehicle at 13 percent (US General Accounting Office, GAO-03-436, Research Continues on a Variety of Factors that Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes, March 2003). 21 21 37 Research has shown that the number of crashes at a when a victim observed at the scene has sustained in- particular site can vary widely from year to year, even juries that prevent them from walking, driving, or con- if there are no changes in traffic or in the layout of the tinuing activities the person was capable of performing road. Since a single year’s data is subject to consider- before the crash. While we recognize that many crashes able statistical variation; three years is generally re- result simply in property damage, only fatal and serious garded as a practical minimum period for which a fairly injury crashes have been targeted because they are reliable annual average rate can be calculated. The FY more costly in human suffering, social and economic 2017 Highway Safety Plan references crash statistics for terms. 2012 through 2014. The first series of graphs on the following pages presIn the 3-year period 2012-2014, a total of 2,349 people ent a long-term depiction of death and serious injury died on Missouri’s roadways while another 15,101 rates covering the 20-year period 1995 through 2014. suffered serious injuries. A fatality is recorded when The second series of graphs address only the three-year a victim dies within 30 days of the crash date from inju- period, 2012-2014. The final graphs show the three- ries sustained in the crash. A serious injury is recorded year moving average for fatalities and serious injuries starting with 2006-2008. 1 Miles traveled were obtained from the Missouri Department of Transportation - Planning (not an official number) 2 Number 3 of fatalities per 100 million miles of vehicle travel Number of serious injuries per 100 million miles of vehicle travel 22 38 23 39 24 40 Current Traffic Crash Data: 2012-2014 Although overall fatalities and the death rate reflect a positive reduction, it should not be a cause for complacency. A substantial number of people continue to be killed and seriously injured on Missouri roadways and most of these traffic crashes are preventable. In 2012-2014, there were 414,173 traffic crashes, 2,143 resulted in fatalities and 12,000 resulted in serious injuries. These fatal and serious injury crashes resulted in 2,349 deaths and 15,101 serious injuries. A substantial number of persons killed or injured in Missouri’s 2012-2014 traffic crashes were drivers and passengers of motorized vehicles. Of the fatalities, 67.3% were drivers and 19.5% were passengers; of those seriously injured, 65.9% were drivers and 25.3% were passengers. 2012-2014 Missouri Fatalities & Serious Injuries Persons Killed = 2,349 Persons Seriously Injured = 15,101 Note: OTHER = drivers/passengers on farm implements, motorized bicycles, other transport devices, construction equipment and unknown vehicle body types 25 41 Data Collection Data is the cornerstone of this plan, and is essential traffic volume, work zones, visibility factors, location for diagnosing crash problems and monitoring efforts within high crash corridors to solve traffic safety problems. We must identify the Roadway users – age, gender, vehicle users demographics of the roadway users involved in crashes, versus pedestrians what behaviors or actions led to their crashes, and the Safety devices – used/not used (safety belts, conditions under which the crashes occurred. Data col- child safety seats, DOT compliant motorcycle helmets) lection and analysis is dynamic throughout the year. Causation factors – Primary: aggressive driving, impaired by alcohol and/or When data is effectively used to identify repeating pat- other drugs, distracted or fatigued, speeding or driving terns in the dynamic interaction of people, pavement, too fast for conditions, red light running vehicles, traffic, and other conditions, there is increased Secondary: run off the road, head-on, horizontal potential for successful mitigation. From this comes a curves, collisions with trees or utility poles, unsignalized reduction in the number and severity of crashes, ulti- intersections mately resulting in fewer fatalities and serious injuries. Vehicles – type (e.g., passenger vehicles, motorcycles, pickup trucks) The Missouri State Highway Patrol serves as the central Contributing Factors repository for all traffic crash data in the state. The Safety Section of MoDOT’s Traffic and Highway Safety Division analyzes that data to compile statistics on fa- Analysis of our statewide traffic crash data was based talities and serious injuries. Three years’ worth of crash on the six emphasis areas and their focus areas as de- statistics are compiled to provide a more representative fined in the Missouri’s Blueprint to SAVE MORE LIVES: sampling, thereby more effectively normalizing the Emphasis Area I – Serious Crash Types data. Missouri uses comprehensive data sources which Emphasis Area II – High-Risk Drivers and include: STARS and Traffic Management System (TMS). Unrestrained Occupants Emphasis Area III – Special Vehicles Collisions are analyzed to identify: Emphasis Area IV – Vulnerable Roadway Users Occurrence – time of day, day of week, month Emphasis Area V – Special Roadway Environments of year, holidays and/or special events Emphasis Area VI – Data and Data System Roadways – urban versus rural, design, signage, Improvements 26 42 Urban versus Rural Crash Experience Traffic crashes are not evenly distributed on Missouri roadways. As expected, crashes occur in large numbers in the densely populated urban areas (population of 5,000 or more) of the state. Since such a large portion of Missouri’s overall population is in the rural areas (under 5,000 population or unincorporated area), the greater number of crashes occur in those areas. Of the 14,143 fatal and serious injury crashes in 2012-2014, 52% occurred in an urban community while 48% occurred in a rural area. The rural areas of the state take on even greater significance when examining only fatal traffic crashes. In 2012-2014 fatal traffic crashes, 41.9% occurred in an urban area of the state while 58.1% occurred in a rural area. FATALITIES AND SERIOUS INJURIES BY COUNTY 2012-2014 KEY: 2012-2014 Total Fatalities: 2,349 Total Serious Injuries: 15,101 County name xx-xx (Fatality #-Serious Injury #) WORTH ATCHISON 0-26 NODAWAY 2-10 7-64 PUTNAM MERCER 1-15 HOLT SULLIVAN ADAIR 4-34 6-73 GRUNDY DEKALB 5-29 LINN MACON 2-20 LIVINGSTON 5-52 5-33 31-456 CLINTON 5-55 5-55 CLAY 207-1814 CASS RAY RALLS MONROE 6-21 RANDOLPH 9-39 9-60 3-31 14-103 3-17 PIKE 11-88 AUDRAIN SALINE HOWARD 16-61 5-39 13-70 LINCOLN 13-103 32-206 BOONE MONTGOMERY 46-260 JOHNSON PETTIS 35-117 26-111 36-126 COOPER CALLAWAY 10-68 15-126 10-46 WARREN 10-58 COLE 22245 13-83 BENTON 17-97 9-53 29-141 HICKORY FRANKLIN 10-54 71-333 90-569 MARIES 10-37 PHELPS 3-4 PULASKI 15-63 CRAWFORD WASHINGTON 15-79 31-84 DALLAS POLK 5-23 18-49 ST. FRANCOIS LACLEDE 10-91 8-21 REYNOLDS 6-41 JASPER 89-571 15-137 15-57 SHANNON WAYNE 9-44 CHRISTIAN 25-311 42-203 MCDONALD 21-117 BARRY STONE 30-158 26131 8-13 23-160 BOLLINGER 12-70 SCOTT 12-33 24-152 NEWTON CAPE GIRARDEAU MADISON 19-138 LAWRENCE 14-49 8-31 TEXAS WRIGHT PERRY IRON DADE WEBSTER 17-54 32-130 DENT 19-288 GREENE STE. GENEVIEVE 33-100 21-153 CEDAR BARTON GASCONADE CAMDEN VERNON 7-44 165-1606 7-35 JEFFERSON 33-119 ST. CLAIR 116-700 OSAGE MILLER 3-50 ST. LOUIS CITY 59-475 ST. LOUIS MORGAN HENRY BATES 40-225 ST. CHARLES 17-67 MONITEAU 9-40 8-27 12-93 CHARITON LAFAYETTE JACKSON MARION 0-12 5-26 CARROLL 61-420 SHELBY CALDWELL PLATTE 34147 LEWIS 4-32 DAVIESS 6-31 BUCHANAN 7-30 KNOX 2-24 ANDREW 11-39 CLARK 1-13 5-16 7-24 GENTRY 6-32 SCHUYLER SCOTLAND 5-25 1-19 HARRISON 17-117 CARTER DOUGLAS 6-20 HOWELL 7-52 29-130 TANEY OZARK 9-61 MISSISSIPPI 16-48 11-33 BUTLER OREGON 23-174 STODDARD 10-35 RIPLEY 21-136 11-42 NEW MADRID 14-74 PEMISCOT 18-84 DUNKLIN 23-71 27 43 APPENDIX A STATEWIDE Total Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Target Area 2012 - 2014 Fatalities Involving Description Serious Injuries Involving 2012 2013 2014 Total Description 2012 2013 2014 Total Run-off-Road Crashes 401 365 352 1,118 Run-off-Road Crashes 2,281 1,982 1,936 6,199 Unrestrained Occupants Killed 396 334 327 1,057 Horizontal Curves 1,484 1,245 1,264 3,993 Horizontal Curves 279 263 256 798 Unrestrained Occupants Seriously Injured 1,449 1,240 1,175 3,864 Alcohol and - or Other Drugs 244 239 205 688 Aggressive Driving-Too Fast for Conditions 1,280 1,086 1,102 3,468 Aggressive Driving-Too Fast for Conditions 200 195 164 559 Young Drivers - 15-20 1,261 1,050 932 3,243 Unlicensed / Improperly Licensed Drivers 153 135 159 447 Unsignalized Intersection Crashes 935 828 811 2,574 Collision with Tree 131 141 143 415 Alcohol and - or Other Drugs 912 787 749 2,448 Aggressive Driving-Speed Exceeded Limit 143 121 131 395 Unlicensed / Improperly Licensed Drivers 879 743 772 2,394 Young Drivers - 15-20 135 120 114 369 Distraction / Inattention 860 767 748 2,375 Commercial Motor Vehicle 113 99 111 323 Distracted / Inattentive Drivers 825 722 711 2,258 Head-On Crashes (Non-Interstates) 86 97 109 292 Motorcyclists Seriously Injured 688 555 545 1,788 Older Drivers - 65-75 86 92 102 280 Collision with Tree 634 560 543 1,737 Unsignalized Intersection Crashes 104 76 83 263 Older Drivers - 65-75 512 484 511 1,507 Motorcyclists Killed 102 72 87 261 Head-On Crashes (Non-Interstates) 479 427 450 1,356 Distraction / Inattention 92 85 68 245 Signalized Intersection Crashes 405 454 368 1,227 Pedestrians Killed 86 75 69 230 Aggressive Driving-Speed Exceeded Limit 430 410 359 1,199 Distracted / Inattentive Drivers 85 74 61 220 Commercial Motor Vehicle 389 402 371 1,162 Older Drivers - 76 or Older 60 67 69 196 Aggressive Driving-Following Too Close 345 378 302 1,025 Collision with Utility Pole 25 37 24 86 Older Drivers - 76 or Older 284 249 241 774 Signalized Intersection Crashes 31 24 28 83 Pedestrians Seriously Injured 229 276 252 757 Aggressive Driving-Following Too Close 16 9 17 42 Collision with Utility Pole 178 159 161 498 Head-On Crashes (Interstates) 10 9 10 29 Bicyclists Seriously Injured 73 66 51 190 Work Zones 9 9 8 26 Work Zones 73 34 55 162 Bicyclists Killed 6 4 4 14 Head-On Crashes (Interstates) 27 16 17 60 School Buses/Bus Signal 3 3 4 10 School Buses/Bus Signal 15 19 14 48 Note: This summary of traffic crashes represents only those crashes that occurred on Missouri's highway system, including all public roadways. The information is a summary of the crash reports submitted to the Missouri State Highway Patrol. This publication is possible only through the conscientious reporting efforts of Missouri law-enforcement agencies. These statistics are compiled pursuant to federal law, 23 USC Section 152. Sep 21, 2015 28 44 3:42:13 PM County Rank Order 2012-2014 FATAL CRASHES 1 45 2012-2014 MISSOURI FATAL TRAFFIC CRASHES RANK ORDER COUNTY LIST Ranking County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Count JACKSON ST LOUIS ST LOUIS CITY GREENE JEFFERSON FRANKLIN CLAY ST CHARLES BOONE NEWTON JASPER ST FRANCOIS JOHNSON CASS PHELPS PLATTE BARRY LINCOLN BUCHANAN WASHINGTON CAMDEN MILLER HOWELL CHRISTIAN CAPE GIRARDEAU DUNKLIN PETTIS PULASKI TANEY LAWRENCE MCDONALD STONE LACLEDE BUTLER COLE WARREN POLK SCOTT BENTON CALLAWAY CRAWFORD STE GENEVIEVE Percent 194 156 105 85 82 64 60 57 43 38 35 32 31 30 30 30 28 28 27 27 25 25 24 23 22 21 21 21 21 20 20 20 19 18 18 17 16 16 15 15 15 15 46 9.1% 7.3% 4.9% 4.0% 3.8% 3.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.0% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 NEW MADRID PEMISCOT TEXAS RANDOLPH SALINE STODDARD VERNON WEBSTER WRIGHT BOLLINGER LAFAYETTE PERRY WAYNE ANDREW AUDRAIN MARION COOPER DENT MONTGOMERY OREGON PIKE RIPLEY GASCONADE MARIES MISSISSIPPI MONITEAU MORGAN OZARK RALLS RAY SHANNON HENRY IRON REYNOLDS BARTON CEDAR DOUGLAS HARRISON MADISON NODAWAY OSAGE ST CLAIR ADAIR CLARK DADE CARTER CHARITON 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 47 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 Total CLINTON DAVIESS DEKALB HOLT HOWARD LEWIS MACON SCHUYLER CALDWELL DALLAS KNOX LIVINGSTON PUTNAM SULLIVAN BATES CARROLL MONROE GRUNDY HICKORY LINN WORTH GENTRY MERCER SCOTLAND ATCHISON SHELBY 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 2,143 48 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% County Rank Order 2012-2014 SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES 2 49 2012-2014 MISSOURI SERIOUS INJURY TRAFFIC CRASHES RANK ORDER COUNTY LIST County Count Percent 1 JACKSON 1,486 12.4% 2 ST LOUIS 1,343 11.2% 3 ST LOUIS CITY 579 4.8% 4 JEFFERSON 450 3.8% 5 GREENE 436 3.6% 6 ST CHARLES 394 3.3% 7 CLAY 355 3.0% 8 BUCHANAN 354 3.0% 9 FRANKLIN 259 2.2% 10 CHRISTIAN 239 2.0% 11 BOONE 218 1.8% 12 LACLEDE 200 1.7% 13 COLE 185 1.5% 14 JASPER 178 1.5% 15 NEWTON 162 1.4% 16 LINCOLN 157 1.3% 17 TANEY 154 1.3% 18 CAPE GIRARDEAU 131 1.1% 19 PLATTE 126 1.1% 20 PULASKI 121 1.0% 21 BARRY 116 1.0% 22 LAWRENCE 109 0.9% 23 WEBSTER 108 0.9% 24 TEXAS 107 0.9% 25 BUTLER 105 0.9% 26 CASS 104 0.9% 27 CAMDEN 102 0.9% 28 HOWELL 102 0.9% 29 CALLAWAY 100 0.8% 30 STONE 100 0.8% 31 ST FRANCOIS 99 0.8% 32 LAFAYETTE 89 0.7% 33 SCOTT 89 0.7% 34 MCDONALD 86 0.7% 35 PETTIS 86 0.7% 36 MILLER 85 0.7% 37 MARION 83 0.7% Ranking 50 38 PHELPS 83 0.7% 39 JOHNSON 80 0.7% 40 BENTON 72 0.6% 41 DENT 69 0.6% 42 RANDOLPH 69 0.6% 43 MORGAN 66 0.6% 44 WASHINGTON 65 0.5% 45 CRAWFORD 64 0.5% 46 PEMISCOT 64 0.5% 47 PIKE 61 0.5% 48 BOLLINGER 59 0.5% 49 NEW MADRID 56 0.5% 50 ADAIR 54 0.5% 51 AUDRAIN 54 0.5% 52 WARREN 54 0.5% 53 NODAWAY 52 0.4% 54 COOPER 50 0.4% 55 HENRY 48 0.4% 56 OZARK 48 0.4% 57 RALLS 47 0.4% 58 BATES 46 0.4% 59 SALINE 45 0.4% 60 ST CLAIR 45 0.4% 61 VERNON 45 0.4% 62 DUNKLIN 44 0.4% 63 WRIGHT 43 0.4% 64 CLINTON 42 0.4% 65 MACON 42 0.4% 66 STE GENEVIEVE 42 0.4% 67 DOUGLAS 40 0.3% 68 GASCONADE 40 0.3% 69 PERRY 40 0.3% 70 STODDARD 40 0.3% 71 POLK 39 0.3% 72 ANDREW 38 0.3% 73 LEWIS 36 0.3% 74 SHANNON 36 0.3% 75 DADE 35 0.3% 76 CEDAR 34 0.3% 77 HOWARD 34 0.3% 78 MARIES 34 0.3% 51 79 MONITEAU 32 0.3% 80 MONTGOMERY 32 0.3% 81 RAY 30 0.3% 82 RIPLEY 30 0.3% 83 WAYNE 30 0.3% 84 LIVINGSTON 28 0.2% 85 OSAGE 27 0.2% 86 DEKALB 26 0.2% 87 REYNOLDS 26 0.2% 88 OREGON 25 0.2% 89 ATCHISON 24 0.2% 90 DAVIESS 24 0.2% 91 HOLT 24 0.2% 92 KNOX 24 0.2% 93 SULLIVAN 24 0.2% 94 CLARK 23 0.2% 95 HARRISON 20 0.2% 96 MISSISSIPPI 20 0.2% 97 MONROE 20 0.2% 98 CALDWELL 19 0.2% 99 GRUNDY 19 0.2% 100 IRON 19 0.2% 101 PUTNAM 19 0.2% 102 CARTER 18 0.2% 103 DALLAS 18 0.2% 104 BARTON 17 0.1% 105 CARROLL 16 0.1% 106 CHARITON 16 0.1% 107 GENTRY 15 0.1% 108 LINN 15 0.1% 109 MERCER 14 0.1% 110 SCHUYLER 12 0.1% 111 MADISON 11 0.1% 112 SHELBY 11 0.1% 113 SCOTLAND 10 0.1% 114 WORTH 7 0.1% 115 HICKORY Total 3 12,000 0.0% 52 City Rank Order 2012-2014 FATAL CRASHES 3 53 2012-2014 MISSOURI FATAL TRAFFIC CRASHES RANK ORDER CITY LIST City Ranking Count 164 106 46 29 18 17 14 12 11 11 11 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 1 KANSAS CITY 2 ST. LOUIS 3 SPRINGFIELD 4 INDEPENDENCE 5 JOPLIN 6 COLUMBIA 7 ST. JOSEPH 8 CHESTERFIELD 9 CAPE GIRARDEAU 10 LEES SUMMIT 11 ST. CHARLES 12 OZARK 13 MARYLAND HEIGHTS 14 ROLLA 15 SIKESTON 16 SUNSET HILLS 17 FERGUSON 18 JEFFERSON CITY 19 ST. PETERS 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ARNOLD BERKELEY BLUE SPRINGS BRANSON BRIDGETON EUREKA FENTON FLORISSANT HAZELWOOD NEVADA O'FALLON RIVERSIDE ST. CLAIR SULLIVAN TOWN AND COUNTRY WEST PLAINS WRIGHT CITY BELTON 54 Percent 19% 12% 5% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 38 FARMINGTON 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 39 KEARNEY 40 LIBERTY 41 NEOSHO 42 ST. JOHN 43 WARRENTON 44 WENTZVILLE 45 CAMDENTON 46 DEXTER 47 FESTUS 48 GRANDVIEW 49 HANNIBAL 50 JACKSON 51 KIRKSVILLE 52 KIRKWOOD 53 LAKE ST. LOUIS 54 MURPHY 55 PERRYVILLE 56 PINEVILLE 57 POPLAR BLUFF 58 REPUBLIC 59 SCOTT CITY 60 UNIVERSITY CITY 61 WARRENSBURG 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 WILDWOOD ANDERSON ASHLAND BELLEFONTAINE NEIGHBORS BOLIVAR BYRNES MILL CLARK CLINTON CREVE COEUR DES PERES DESLOGE ELLISVILLE FAIR GROVE GRAY SUMMIT HOUSTON IMPERIAL LADUE LEBANON 55 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 80 MARIONVILLE 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 81 MARYVILLE 82 MEXICO 83 MONETT 84 NORTH KANSAS CITY 85 OSAGE BEACH 86 PACIFIC 87 PLEASANT HILL 88 PORTAGEVILLE 89 RAYTOWN 90 REEDS SPRING 91 SEDALIA 92 SUGAR CREEK 93 TROY 94 VALLEY PARK 95 WASHINGTON 96 ARROW POINT 97 AVILLA 98 ALTON 99 BALLWIN 100 BEVERLY HILLS 101 BLACK JACK 102 BOONVILLE 103 BRENTWOOD 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 BRONAUGH BUNKER CABOOL CALIFORNIA CAMERON CANTON CARTHAGE CARUTHERSVILLE CASSVILLE CEDAR HILL CHILLICOTHE COTTLEVILLE COUNTRY CLUB HILLS COUNTRY CLUB VILLAGE CRESTWOOD CRYSTAL CITY CUBA DE SOTO 56 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 122 DIAMOND 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 123 EVERTON 124 EWING 125 EXCELSIOR SPRINGS 126 FORT LEONARD WOOD 127 FREDERICKTOWN 128 FULTON 129 GAINESVILLE 130 GLADSTONE 131 GLASGOW 132 GRAIN VALLEY 133 GRANBY 134 GRAVOIS MILLS 135 HARRISONVILLE 136 HIGBEE 137 HIGH RIDGE 138 HILLSBORO 139 JANE 140 JENNINGS 141 JONESBURG 142 KAHOKA 143 KENNETT 144 KINGDOM CITY 145 KINGSVILLE 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 KNOB NOSTER LA MONTE LADDONIA LAKE LOTAWANA LAKE OZARK LAKE WINNEBAGO LANCASTER LAWSON LEADWOOD LEXINGTON LINCOLN LINN CREEK MACON MALDEN MANCHESTER MAPLEWOOD MARSHFIELD MILAN 57 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 164 MINDENMINES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 165 MONTGOMERY CITY 166 MOUNTAIN VIEW 167 NEELYVILLE 168 NEW FLORENCE 169 NEW HAVEN 170 NIXA 171 NOEL 172 OAK GROVE 173 OAKLAND 174 OLIVETTE 175 OVERLAND 176 OWENSVILLE 177 PAGEDALE 178 PALMYRA 179 PARKVILLE 180 PEACH ORCHARD 181 PHILLIPSBURG 182 PINE LAWN 183 PLATTSBURG 184 QUEEN CITY 185 RANDOLPH 186 ROGERSVILLE 187 RUSSELLVILLE 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 SALEM SENATH SENECA SEYMOUR SILVER CREEK SMITHVILLE ST. ROBERT ST. THOMAS STEELVILLE STRAFFORD THAYER TRENTON UNION UNIONVILLE UNITY VILLAGE URBANA VAN BUREN VERONA 58 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 206 VILLA RIDGE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 207 VINITA PARK 208 WARSAW 209 WAYNESVILLE 210 WEAUBLEAU 211 WEBB CITY 212 WELLSTON 213 WINFIELD 214 WINONA 215 WYATT Total 850 Note: 1,293 fatal crashes occurred in Non-City or Unincorporated areas. 59 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% City Rank Order 2012-2014 SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES 6 60 2012-2014 MISSOURI SERIOUS INJURY TRAFFIC CRASHES RANK ORDER CITY LIST Count 839 Percent 2 ST. LOUIS 580 9.8% 3 INDEPENDENCE 448 7.6% 4 ST. JOSEPH 325 5.5% 5 SPRINGFIELD 6 JEFFERSON CITY 207 3.5% 137 2.3% 7 LEES SUMMIT 133 2.3% 8 COLUMBIA 117 2.0% 9 BLUE SPRINGS 104 1.8% 10 ST. CHARLES 87 1.5% 11 LIBERTY 12 JOPLIN 84 1.4% 75 1.3% 13 BRIDGETON 73 1.2% 14 OZARK 57 1.0% 15 ST. PETERS 55 0.9% 16 TOWN AND COUNTRY 51 0.9% 17 CHESTERFIELD 18 FLORISSANT 43 0.7% 40 0.7% 19 MARYLAND HEIGHTS 40 0.7% 20 KIRKWOOD 38 0.6% 21 HANNIBAL 37 0.6% 22 HAZELWOOD 37 0.6% 23 LEBANON 24 RAYTOWN 37 0.6% 36 0.6% 25 ARNOLD 35 0.6% 26 CAPE GIRARDEAU 35 0.6% 27 SUNSET HILLS 35 0.6% 28 FERGUSON 34 0.6% 29 GLADSTONE 34 0.6% 30 FENTON 33 0.6% 31 BRANSON 31 0.5% 32 KIRKSVILLE 31 0.5% 33 SIKESTON 30 0.5% 34 POPLAR BLUFF 29 0.5% 35 WENTZVILLE 29 0.5% Ranking City 1 KANSAS CITY 61 14.2% 36 MURPHY 27 0.5% 37 WEBSTER GROVES 27 0.5% 38 JACKSON 26 0.4% 39 OVERLAND 40 BALLWIN 26 0.4% 25 0.4% 41 BELLEFONTAINE NEIGHBORS 25 0.4% 42 GRANDVIEW 25 0.4% 43 WILDWOOD 25 0.4% 44 JENNINGS 24 0.4% 45 RICHMOND HEIGHTS 46 ROLLA 24 0.4% 24 0.4% 47 UNIVERSITY CITY 24 0.4% 48 CREVE COEUR 23 0.4% 49 SEDALIA 23 0.4% 50 BERKELEY 22 0.4% 51 O'FALLON 52 UNION 22 0.4% 21 0.4% 53 MOBERLY 20 0.3% 54 EUREKA 19 0.3% 55 CARTHAGE 18 0.3% 56 LADUE 18 0.3% 57 ST. CLAIR 58 TROY 18 0.3% 18 0.3% 59 WELDON SPRING 18 0.3% 60 BELTON 17 0.3% 61 CLAYTON 17 0.3% 62 CLINTON 17 0.3% 63 FESTUS 64 MANCHESTER 17 0.3% 17 0.3% 65 KENNETT 15 0.3% 66 MONETT 15 0.3% 67 ST. ROBERT 15 0.3% 68 DES PERES 14 0.2% 69 EXCELSIOR SPRINGS 14 0.2% 70 FARMINGTON 14 0.2% 71 LAKE ST. LOUIS 14 0.2% 72 MEXICO 14 0.2% 73 OSAGE BEACH 14 0.2% 74 PLEASANT HILL 14 0.2% 75 SALEM 14 0.2% 62 76 BOLIVAR 13 0.2% 77 NEOSHO 13 0.2% 78 NIXA 13 0.2% 79 NORTH KANSAS CITY 80 ST. ANN 13 0.2% 13 0.2% 81 AURORA 12 0.2% 82 CLAYCOMO 12 0.2% 83 MAPLEWOOD 12 0.2% 84 WRIGHT CITY 12 0.2% 85 GRAIN VALLEY 86 NEVADA 11 0.2% 11 0.2% 87 VALLEY PARK 11 0.2% 88 WARRENTON 11 0.2% 89 BRENTWOOD 10 0.2% 90 DONIPHAN 10 0.2% 91 SMITHVILLE 92 ELDON 10 0.2% 9 0.2% 93 ELLISVILLE 9 0.2% 94 FULTON 9 0.2% 95 HIGH RIDGE 9 0.2% 96 HIGHLANDVILLE 9 0.2% 97 KEARNEY 98 KINGDOM CITY 9 0.2% 9 0.2% 99 OAK GROVE 9 0.2% 100 OLIVETTE 9 0.2% 101 SULLIVAN 9 0.2% 102 WARRENSBURG 9 0.2% 103 WEBB CITY 104 AIRPORT DRIVE 9 0.2% 8 0.1% 105 BARNHART 8 0.1% 106 BEL‐RIDGE 8 0.1% 107 CAMERON 8 0.1% 108 CEDAR HILL 8 0.1% 109 CRYSTAL CITY 8 0.1% 110 GRAY SUMMIT 8 0.1% 111 HARRISONVILLE 8 0.1% 112 PERRYVILLE 8 0.1% 113 RIVERSIDE 8 0.1% 114 BRANSON WEST 7 0.1% 115 DESLOGE 7 0.1% 63 116 GLENDALE 7 0.1% 117 IMPERIAL 7 0.1% 118 LAKE LOTAWANA 7 0.1% 119 LONE JACK 120 MARSHALL 7 0.1% 7 0.1% 121 MARYVILLE 7 0.1% 122 PACIFIC 7 0.1% 123 PARK HILLS 7 0.1% 124 PARKVILLE 7 0.1% 125 PEVELY 126 PLATTE CITY 7 0.1% 7 0.1% 127 REPUBLIC 7 0.1% 128 SHREWSBURY 7 0.1% 129 ST. JOHN 7 0.1% 130 WAYNESVILLE 7 0.1% 131 BOONVILLE 132 DELLWOOD 6 0.1% 6 0.1% 133 HERCULANEUM 6 0.1% 134 LAKE OZARK 6 0.1% 135 MOUNTAIN VIEW 6 0.1% 136 OAKLAND 6 0.1% 137 POTOSI 138 ROCK HILL 6 0.1% 6 0.1% 139 SUGAR CREEK 6 0.1% 140 WARSAW 6 0.1% 141 WEST PLAINS 6 0.1% 142 AVA 5 0.1% 143 CAMDENTON 144 CARUTHERSVILLE 5 0.1% 5 0.1% 145 HAYTI 5 0.1% 146 HIGGINSVILLE 5 0.1% 147 LAMAR 5 0.1% 148 LEADWOOD 5 0.1% 149 NORWOOD COURT 5 0.1% 150 ROGERSVILLE 5 0.1% 151 SAVANNAH 5 0.1% 152 SENECA 5 0.1% 153 WASHINGTON 5 0.1% 154 ASHLAND 4 0.1% 155 CARL JUNCTION 4 0.1% 64 156 FRONTENAC 4 0.1% 157 HILLSBORO 4 0.1% 158 LAURIE 4 0.1% 159 LOWRY CITY 160 MINER 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 161 NEW MADRID 4 0.1% 162 NORMANDY 4 0.1% 163 PALMYRA 4 0.1% 164 PECULIAR 4 0.1% 165 PINE LAWN 166 RAYMORE 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 167 REEDS SPRING 4 0.1% 168 SEYMOUR 4 0.1% 169 WELLSTON 4 0.1% 170 BETHANY 3 0.1% 171 BLACK JACK 172 BULL CREEK 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 173 CABOOL 3 0.1% 174 CHILLICOTHE 3 0.1% 175 CLARK 3 0.1% 176 CONWAY 3 0.1% 177 COOL VALLEY 178 COTTLEVILLE 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 179 DEXTER 3 0.1% 180 DIAMOND 3 0.1% 181 EDINA 3 0.1% 182 ELLSINORE 3 0.1% 183 ELSBERRY 184 EMINENCE 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 185 FORISTELL 3 0.1% 186 FREEMAN 3 0.1% 187 IRONTON 3 0.1% 188 KIMBERLING CITY 3 0.1% 189 LEXINGTON 3 0.1% 190 LOCKWOOD 3 0.1% 191 LOUISIANA 3 0.1% 192 MARSHFIELD 3 0.1% 193 MOLINE ACRES 3 0.1% 194 MOSCOW MILLS 3 0.1% 195 MOUNTAIN GROVE 3 0.1% 65 196 NEW HAVEN 3 0.1% 197 NEW LONDON 3 0.1% 198 NORTHWOODS 3 0.1% 199 PAGEDALE 200 PLEASANT VALLEY 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 201 RICHMOND 3 0.1% 202 RIVER BEND 3 0.1% 203 SPARTA 3 0.1% 204 ST. JAMES 3 0.1% 205 STE. GENEVIEVE 206 STRAFFORD 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 207 TAOS 3 0.1% 208 TRENTON 3 0.1% 209 TWIN OAKS 3 0.1% 210 VILLA RIDGE 3 0.1% 211 WESTON 212 WILLARD 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 213 WOODSON TERRACE 3 0.1% 214 ANDERSON 2 0.0% 215 APPLETON CITY 2 0.0% 216 BATTLEFIELD 2 0.0% 217 BEL‐NOR 218 BONNE TERRE 2 0.0% 2 0.0% 219 BOWLING GREEN 2 0.0% 220 BRECKENRIDGE HILLS 2 0.0% 221 BROOKFIELD 2 0.0% 222 BRUNSWICK 2 0.0% 223 CALIFORNIA 224 CARROLLTON 2 0.0% 2 0.0% 225 CENTRALIA 2 0.0% 226 CHAFFEE 2 0.0% 227 COUNTRY CLUB VILLAGE 2 0.0% 228 DE SOTO 2 0.0% 229 DIGGINS 2 0.0% 230 DUQUESNE 2 0.0% 231 EDMUNDSON 2 0.0% 232 EL DORADO SPRINGS 2 0.0% 233 FLORDELL HILLS 2 0.0% 234 FORSYTH 2 0.0% 235 GALENA 2 0.0% 66 236 HERMANN 2 0.0% 237 HOLCOMB 2 0.0% 238 HOLLISTER 2 0.0% 239 HOPKINS 240 HOUSTON 2 0.0% 2 0.0% 241 IBERIA 2 0.0% 242 JAMESPORT 2 0.0% 243 JONESBURG 2 0.0% 244 LEADINGTON 2 0.0% 245 LINN CREEK 246 MACKS CREEK 2 0.0% 2 0.0% 247 MACON 2 0.0% 248 MARBLE HILL 2 0.0% 249 MARIONVILLE 2 0.0% 250 MERRIAM WOODS 2 0.0% 251 MONROE CITY 252 NEW CAMBRIA 2 0.0% 2 0.0% 253 OAK GROVE VILLAGE 2 0.0% 254 ODESSA 2 0.0% 255 PINEVILLE 2 0.0% 256 RIVERVIEW 2 0.0% 257 SOUTHWEST CITY 258 SPICKARD 2 0.0% 2 0.0% 259 STEELE 2 0.0% 260 UNIONVILLE 2 0.0% 261 UNITY VILLAGE 2 0.0% 262 VERSAILLES 2 0.0% 263 WINONA 264 ALTENBURG 2 0.0% 1 0.0% 265 ANNISTON 1 0.0% 266 ASH GROVE 1 0.0% 267 AUXVASSE 1 0.0% 268 BAGNELL 1 0.0% 269 BARING 1 0.0% 270 BARNETT 1 0.0% 271 BATES CITY 1 0.0% 272 BELL CITY 1 0.0% 273 BELLE 1 0.0% 274 BERNIE 1 0.0% 275 BEVIER 1 0.0% 67 276 BIG LAKE 1 0.0% 277 BILLINGS 1 0.0% 278 BIRCH TREE 1 0.0% 279 BOURBON 280 BRAGG CITY 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 281 BRAYMER 1 0.0% 282 BRECKENRIDGE 1 0.0% 283 BUFFALO 1 0.0% 284 BURLINGTON JUNCTION 1 0.0% 285 BYRNES MILL 286 CAINSVILLE 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 287 CARTERVILLE 1 0.0% 288 CASSVILLE 1 0.0% 289 CENTER 1 0.0% 290 CENTERVILLE 1 0.0% 291 CHULA 292 CLARENCE 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 293 CLARKSVILLE 1 0.0% 294 CLEVER 1 0.0% 295 COLE CAMP 1 0.0% 296 COLLINS 1 0.0% 297 COUNTRY CLUB HILLS 298 CRESTWOOD 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 299 CROCKER 1 0.0% 300 CROSS TIMBERS 1 0.0% 301 CUBA 1 0.0% 302 DIXON 1 0.0% 303 DOWNING 304 ESSEX 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 305 ETHEL 1 0.0% 306 EVERTON 1 0.0% 307 FAYETTE 1 0.0% 308 FIDELITY 1 0.0% 309 FOLEY 1 0.0% 310 FORDLAND 1 0.0% 311 FRANKFORD 1 0.0% 312 FREDERICKTOWN 1 0.0% 313 FREMONT HILLS 1 0.0% 314 GAINESVILLE 1 0.0% 315 GARDEN CITY 1 0.0% 68 316 GOODMAN 1 0.0% 317 GORDONVILLE 1 0.0% 318 GOWER 1 0.0% 319 GRANT CITY 320 GREEN PARK 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 321 GREENFIELD 1 0.0% 322 HALLSVILLE 1 0.0% 323 HAMILTON 1 0.0% 324 HANLEY HILLS 1 0.0% 325 HARRISBURG 326 HAYTI HEIGHTS 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 327 HENRIETTA 1 0.0% 328 HERMITAGE 1 0.0% 329 HIGBEE 1 0.0% 330 HOLTS SUMMIT 1 0.0% 331 HORINE 332 HUMANSVILLE 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 333 HUNTSVILLE 1 0.0% 334 JASPER 1 0.0% 335 JERICO SPRINGS 1 0.0% 336 JOSEPHVILLE 1 0.0% 337 KNOB NOSTER 338 KOSHKONONG 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 339 LA BELLE 1 0.0% 340 LACLEDE 1 0.0% 341 LAKE TAPAWINGO 1 0.0% 342 LAKELAND 1 0.0% 343 LAMAR HEIGHTS 344 LAWSON 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 345 LEASBURG 1 0.0% 346 LEAWOOD 1 0.0% 347 LEVASY 1 0.0% 348 LINN 1 0.0% 349 LURAY 1 0.0% 350 MALDEN 1 0.0% 351 MARCELINE 1 0.0% 352 MARLBOROUGH 1 0.0% 353 MARSTON 1 0.0% 354 MEMPHIS 1 0.0% 355 META 1 0.0% 69 356 MIAMI 1 0.0% 357 MILAN 1 0.0% 358 MONTGOMERY CITY 1 0.0% 359 MOUND CITY 360 NAPOLEON 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 361 NEELYVILLE 1 0.0% 362 NEW FLORENCE 1 0.0% 363 NEW HAMPTON 1 0.0% 364 NEW MELLE 1 0.0% 365 NOEL 366 NOVINGER 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 367 ORAN 1 0.0% 368 OREGON 1 0.0% 369 OSCEOLA 1 0.0% 370 PARKWAY 1 0.0% 371 PASCOLA 372 PASSAIC 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 373 PHILLIPSBURG 1 0.0% 374 PICKERING 1 0.0% 375 PIERCE CITY 1 0.0% 376 PILOT KNOB 1 0.0% 377 PLATTE WOODS 378 POLO 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 379 PORTAGE DES SIOUX 1 0.0% 380 PORTAGEVILLE 1 0.0% 381 PRINCETON 1 0.0% 382 PURDY 1 0.0% 383 QULIN 384 RANDOLPH 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 385 REDINGS MILL 1 0.0% 386 RICHLAND 1 0.0% 387 ROCKAWAY BEACH 1 0.0% 388 ROCKVILLE 1 0.0% 389 ROSCOE 1 0.0% 390 SAGINAW 1 0.0% 391 SARCOXIE 1 0.0% 392 SCHELL CITY 1 0.0% 393 SCOTT CITY 1 0.0% 394 SELIGMAN 1 0.0% 395 SHERIDAN 1 0.0% 70 396 SHOAL CREEK DRIVE 1 0.0% 397 ST. CLOUD 1 0.0% 398 ST. ELIZABETH 1 0.0% 399 ST. PAUL 400 STANBERRY 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 401 STOTTS CITY 1 0.0% 402 STOUTLAND 1 0.0% 403 SUMMERSVILLE 1 0.0% 404 SUNRISE BEACH 1 0.0% 405 TARKIO 406 THEODOSIA 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 407 TIPTON 1 0.0% 408 TRACY 1 0.0% 409 TRUESDALE 1 0.0% 410 UTICA 1 0.0% 411 VERONA 412 VILLAGE OF FOUR SEASONS 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 413 WAYLAND 1 0.0% 414 WHITE OAK 1 0.0% 415 WHITEMAN AFB 1 0.0% 416 WILLOW SPRINGS 1 0.0% 417 WINSTON 418 WOOD HEIGHTS 1 0.0% 1 0.0% Total 5,891 Note: 6,109 serious injury crashes occurred in Non-City or Unincorporated areas. 71 Unincorporated County Rank Order 2012-2014 FATAL CRASHES 4 72 2012-2014 MISSOURI FATAL TRAFFIC CRASHES RANK ORDER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY LIST Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 County JEFFERSON FRANKLIN ST. LOUIS GREENE JOHNSON WASHINGTON CASS NEWTON ST. CHARLES LINCOLN MILLER ST. FRANCOIS BARRY BOONE PHELPS CAMDEN JASPER CLAY DUNKLIN HOWELL LAWRENCE PETTIS STONE LACLEDE TANEY PULASKI BUTLER MCDONALD BENTON CALLAWAY CRAWFORD PEMISCOT SALINE STE. GENEVIEVE BOLLINGER CHRISTIAN NEW MADRID POLK RANDOLPH WRIGHT Count 68 54 44 33 26 26 25 25 25 24 24 24 23 23 21 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 16 16 15 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 73 Percent 5.3% 4.2% 3.4% 2.6% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 41 ANDREW 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 LAFAYETTE PLATTE TEXAS WAYNE BUCHANAN CAPE GIRARDEAU COLE COOPER JACKSON RIPLEY STODDARD MARIES MISSISSIPPI MORGAN OREGON PERRY PIKE RALLS RAY WEBSTER DENT GASCONADE IRON MONITEAU OZARK REYNOLDS SHANNON VERNON WARREN CEDAR DOUGLAS HARRISON HENRY MARION MONTGOMERY OSAGE ST. CLAIR AUDRAIN BARTON DADE SCOTT CARTER CHARITON 74 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 85 CLARK 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 Total 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 DAVIESS HOLT MADISON NODAWAY CALDWELL CLINTON DEKALB HOWARD KNOX MACON SCHUYLER ADAIR BATES CARROLL DALLAS LEWIS LIVINGSTON MONROE PUTNAM SULLIVAN HICKORY LINN WORTH GENTRY GRUNDY MERCER SCOTLAND 1,294 75 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Unincorporated County Rank Order 2012-2014 SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES 5 76 2012-2014 MISSOURI SERIOUS INJURY TRAFFIC CRASHES RANK ORDER UNINCORPORATED COUNTY LIST Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 County ST. LOUIS JEFFERSON GREENE FRANKLIN LACLEDE ST. CHARLES CHRISTIAN NEWTON LINCOLN TANEY TEXAS BARRY WEBSTER LAWRENCE BOONE PULASKI HOWELL STONE CALLAWAY LAFAYETTE BUTLER CAMDEN MCDONALD CAPE GIRARDEAU JOHNSON MILLER BENTON JASPER PETTIS PHELPS MORGAN ST. FRANCOIS WASHINGTON BOLLINGER CRAWFORD DENT SCOTT COLE PIKE JACKSON Count 438 354 217 197 159 142 138 126 122 111 102 100 95 94 93 93 90 85 79 77 75 73 73 72 68 68 66 65 63 60 58 58 58 57 57 57 56 52 51 49 77 Percent 7.1% 5.8% 3.5% 3.2% 2.6% 2.3% 2.3% 2.1% 2.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 41 COOPER 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 47 47 47 45 45 44 44 44 43 42 40 39 38 36 36 36 36 36 36 35 34 34 34 34 33 33 32 32 32 31 31 31 30 30 29 26 26 25 25 25 24 24 24 23 OZARK PEMISCOT CASS RANDOLPH BATES MARION NEW MADRID RALLS NODAWAY WRIGHT AUDRAIN GASCONADE DOUGLAS MACON PLATTE SALINE STE. GENEVIEVE STODDARD LEWIS CLAY CLINTON HOWARD VERNON ST. CLAIR WARREN MARIES PERRY SHANNON ANDREW CEDAR HENRY DADE WAYNE MONITEAU DUNKLIN REYNOLDS MONTGOMERY OREGON OSAGE BUCHANAN LIVINGSTON RAY ATCHISON 78 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 85 POLK 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 Total 23 22 22 22 21 21 21 20 20 19 18 17 17 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 13 12 12 11 11 11 9 8 5 2 1 ADAIR HOLT SULLIVAN DAVIESS DEKALB KNOX CLARK RIPLEY MONROE MISSISSIPPI HARRISON PUTNAM CALDWELL CARTER CHARITON DALLAS IRON CARROLL GRUNDY GENTRY BARTON MERCER LINN SCHUYLER SHELBY MADISON SCOTLAND WORTH ST. LOUIS CITY HICKORY 6,127 79 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION Background From 2005-2014, due to the combined efforts of highway safety advocates in the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety, 3,270 lives have been saved on Missouri roadways, a decrease of 39.1 percent. The coalition credits a combination of law enforcement, educational efforts, emergency medical services, engineering enhancements and public policy as the successful formula for saving lives. However, the historic four “E’s” of safety must be expanded to include Evaluation and Everyone. Measuring success by Evaluation of performance measures holds each of us accountable for its success. In turn, addressing the This is accomplished by developing highly visible, catchy need to change traffic safety culture challenges each campaigns that are coupled with strong enforcement person to make personal responsibility for their behav- efforts. We rely on our traffic safety partners to be ior as a roadway user and includes Everyone. active participants in these campaigns. Some of the most effective campaigns have been the national law The Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety set a new enforcement mobilization efforts such as “Click It or fatality reduction goal of 700 or fewer by 2016 at its Ticket” and “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over.” People Blueprint to SAVE MORE LIVES 2012 fall conference. heard about the mobilizations in the media, and drivers This goal reflects the overall vision to continuously were aware that the risk of apprehension was high. move Missouri toward zero deaths. These campaigns have proven their ability to not only heighten awareness, but also to ultimately make posi- While our roads are safer than they have been in many tive behavioral changes. years, there are still too many senseless crashes and deaths happening every year. We are committed to fur- In order to continue to raise awareness and change ther reducing the number of traffic crashes in Missouri, driving attitudes and behaviors, the safe driving mes- so we must work even harder to reach those remaining sages need to be perpetuated through traditional people who haven’t gotten the message that: • Seat belts save lives; • Drinking and driving are a deadly mix; • Distracted drivers are dangerous drivers; and • Parents and caregivers must secure children in media vehicles (TV, radio, print, outdoor, digital) as well as through social media throughout the year. Social media has become a key part of the highway safety campaigns, increasing awareness and conversation about safe driving, complementing PSA distributions size-and age-appropriate car seats that are properly and helping to spread campaign messages virally. Social installed media efforts will continue through mainstream platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, Instagram and Vine. Dynamic Message Boards (DMS) statewide help promote campaign awareness by alerting the traveling public to enforcement efforts. The Public Information Subcom30 80 mittee of the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety belted. In 2014 those least likely to wear seat (MCRS) has been instrumental in increasing public belts were males, 50 years of age and older, education and information on traffic safety issues. The whose primary vehicle was a pickup truck. subcommittee develops an annual statewide media In 2013 those least likely to wear seat belts plan; has identified ARRIVE ALIVE as the overarching were males, between the ages of 18 and 29, message for the coalition’s public information activi- whose primary vehicle was a pickup truck or ties; and manages the saveMOlives.com website to grab other type of truck. Also, drivers’ perception people’s attention and convey safety information in the of law enforcement efforts was revealed. best way possible. The site features eye-catching graph- Those who were the least likely to wear seat ics, intriguing videos, news and information, driving belts were the most likely to be aware of seat tips and advice on how to Arrive Alive at your destina- belt enforcement publicity, but were the least tion. likely to receive a ticket if they did not wear their seat belt. Those who lived in very rural The Traffic and Highway Safety Division has added a areas were also less likely to always buckle up tool to combat fatalities and serious injuries on our than those living in other communities. Fifty- roadways. This tool is a driver survey that reflects seven percent of the drivers surveyed prefer drivers’ views on a variety of highway safety issues to keep Missouri’s seat belt law a secondary including seat belt usage, speeding, cell phone use, law, slightly higher, but similar to the findings and impaired driving. Heartland Market Research con- from recent years. Fifty-one percent preferred ducted this research project that reached 2,514 adult to leave the penalty for violating the law Missouri drivers in April of 2014. People were surveyed unchanged ($10). Out of the minority who fa- from all of the 114 counties as well as the independent vored increasing the fine, 35 percent thought city of St. Louis. Residents from 671 different zip codes the fine should range from $25 to $49, and 23 are represented. The standard phone survey practice percent thought the fine should range from of alternatively asking for either the oldest or young- $50 to $74. Thirty-six percent thought people est adult was not employed. Instead, the calling center who did not wear their seat belt would only was given specific goals for each age group and gender rarely get a ticket, while 47 percent thought within various geographic areas to ensure the most people would be caught at least half of the representative sample possible. time. The vast majority of the respondents, 81 percent, were not aware of any publicity The purpose of this survey was to capture current at- concerning seat belt enforcement. titudes and awareness of highway safety issues. These findings will be used to design and implement public Over 87 percent of Missouri drivers stated information and law enforcement campaigns that ef- they rarely or never talk on a cell phone while fectively deter drivers from engaging in unsafe driving driving, and over 98 percent stated they behaviors. In addition, better understanding driver atti- rarely or never text on a cell phone while tudes on highway safety issues will aide in public policy driving. Ninety-three percent of Missouri driv- and legislative decisions. The research was designed so ers favored some type of restriction on how that in addition to providing a statewide result, statisti- people could use cell phones while driving, 32 cally useful information was also available at the district percent favored banning all cellphone use by level. Special emphasis was placed on ensuring that drivers and 61 percent wanted to ensure driv- the sample reflected Missouri’s geographic, age, and ers could still use cell phones for talking while gender diversity. seeing the need for some restrictions. In 2014 men age 65 and older were the least likely The 2014 results of this driver survey showed that to talk on a cell phone while driving, and drivers perceive their driving abilities and habits to females between age 30-39 were the most be better than citation numbers and what accident likely group to talk on a cell phone while driv- rates reflect. For example, 84.6 percent of the sample ing, with 22 percent of this segment stating in the driver survey claim to always use their seat belt they do so 50 percent of the time or more. but the most recent safety belt survey (2014) showed In 2013 women 65 and older were the least that only 79 percent of drivers observed were actually likely to talk on a cell phone while driving. 31 81 * Target audiences reached * News clippings * Venues utilized * Total spots aired * Total impressions/reach • Increase in safety devices used: * Statewide safety belt use rate * Teen safety belt use rate * Commercial vehicle safety belt use rate ** * Child safety seat and/or booster seat use rate ** * Motorcycle helmet usage rate ** • Pieces of traffic safety materials distributed The largest perceived risk of being ticketed or arrested was associated with driving while impaired; 70 percent of those surveys expected people who drove after drinking would be arrested at least half of the time. Ninety percent of Missouri drivers stated that they had not driven a vehicle within two hours of consuming an alcoholic beverage any time in the last 60 days. In 2014 those most likely to drive under the influence of alcohol were males 65 years of age and older. Men were much more likely to drive after drinking than women. Drivers of motorcycles were more likely to drive under the influence than drivers of vehicles, followed by drivers of pickup trucks. In 2013 those most likely to drive under Benchmarks: • 2012 fatalities - 826 (757 in 2013) (869 in 2014) • Increase in safety devices used: * Statewide safety belt use rate 80% in 2013 (79% in 2014) (80% in 2015) * Teen safety belt use rate 67% in 2013 (67% in 2014) (69% in 2015) * Commercial vehicle safety belt use rate** 80.6% in 2010 (81% in 2014) * Child safety seat and/or booster seat use rate** 91% in 2009 (91% in 2014) * Motorcycle helmet usage rate** 99.2% in 2005 • Pieces of traffic safety materials distributed through on-line ordering system 209,000 in 2013 (239,860 in 2014) (207,714 in 2015) the influence of alcohol were males 50 to 64 years of age and older. Approximately half of Missouri drivers were aware of recent publicity regarding enforcement. The full executive summary of this report is attached in Appendix A of the Highway Safety Plan. GOAL: Promote Missouri’s traffic safety issues to improve understanding and increase compliance with state traffic laws, thereby reducing fatalities and serious injuries Performance Measure: ** Surveys not conducted annually. ( ) Information in parenthesis is actual data for the respective year listed. • Traffic crash statistics relevant to target audiences • Campaign messages: Campaign Media Source and Impressions (2013-2015) 32 82 STRATEGIES 1. mittees/boards in order to broaden opportunities to Serve as the point of contact for the media and promote traffic safety issues the general public to field questions, conduct interviews, and provide information 16. 2. tion efforts: Click It or Ticket safety belt Conduct an attitude and Promote law enforcement mobiliza- awareness survey. The survey will con- campaign; Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over tain questions on occupant protection, alcohol campaign; quarterly occupant substance-impaired driving, speeding, protection and substance-impaired driving and distracted driving (cell phone/tex- mobilizations; youth seat belt enforcement ting) campaign 3. 17. Organize and/or participate Purchase paid advertising to support in press events and work with media traffic safety campaigns (e.g., occupant pro- outlets across the state to promote tection and substance-impaired driving) highway safety initiatives 18. 4. construction work zone public awareness Encourage the media to par- Support and promote MoDOT’s ticipate in campaigns by publicizing campaign our messages 19. 5. Takes One programs Publicize the services and Promote Saved by the Belt and It Only resources of the Highway Safety Of- 20. fice to the general public through our Rollover Simulator, and driving simulator Promote the Seat Belt Convincer, programs to reach as many people as pos- web sites at www.saveMOlives.com, in workshops, at conferences/exhibits, and through social sible. media channels. 21. 6. the public on traffic safety issues and any modifications Develop, update and disseminate public infor- Participate in the Missouri State Fair to educate mation/educational materials and websites to traffic safety laws 7. 22. Develop and promote materials/campaigns to Promote the cellular phone ICE program (In reach specific audiences (e.g., high risk drivers, vulner- Case of Emergency) which is designed to assist first able roadway users, substance-impaired drivers, mature responders in rapidly identifying a crash victim’s emer- drivers) gency contacts 8. 23. Actively participate in the Missouri Coalition for Promote Commercial Motor Roadway Safety (MCRS) Public Information Subcommit- Vehicle Awareness through public tee in order to increase coordination, communication awareness campaigns geared primar- and cooperation among safety advocates statewide ily toward passenger vehicle drivers, 9. then CMV drivers. Promote and incorporate the ARRIVE ALIVE theme and logo developed by the MCRS 24. De- 10. velop and Work with the MCRS regional coalitions to ap- propriately target their messages and develop programs promote to meet their needs materials 11. and media Develop strategies to work with partners— both traditional and nontraditional—in order to reach to reach the wider audiences and maximize resources limited Eng- 12. lish speak- Solicit public information activity reports from law enforcement partners and district coalitions ing and 13. deaf/hard Work with the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, Missouri Motorcycle Safety Education Pro- of hearing gram, and others to promote joint traffic safety aware- communi- ness campaigns when possible ties. 14. Give presentations and provide training to com- munity groups, schools, etc. as available 15. Serve on federal, state, and regional com33 83 AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS 2012-2014 Missouri Aggressive Driver Background Involved Fatalities & Serious Injuries The causes of aggressive driving are complex. However, Type Of Circumstance (by Crash Severity1) three factors in particular are linked to aggressive driving: 1) lack of responsible driving behavior; 2) reduced Circumstance levels of traffic enforcement; and 3) increased conges- Too fast for tion and travel in our urban areas. One researcher has conditions suggested that, “A driving behavior is aggressive if it is Exceeding deliberate, likely to increase the risk of collision and is speed limit motivated by impatience, annoyance, hostility and/or an attempt to save time.” Following too close 1 Aggressive driving is a serious problem on Missouri’s Fatalities - Serious 996 Injuries - 5,692 56.1% 60.9% 39.7% 21.1% 4.2% 18.0% Percentage of 2012-2014 aggressive driving related fatalities and roadways and has contributed substantially to traffic serious injuries by type of aggressive driving behavior involved. For crashes, especially crashes resulting in death. Aggressive instance, in aggressive driving related fatalities, 39.1% involved a drivers are defined within Missouri’s Blueprint to SAVE motorized vehicle-driver exceeding the speed limit. NOTE: Multiple MORE LIVES as, “drivers of motorized vehicles who com- aggressive driving factors can be related to a single fatality or mitted one or more of the following violations which serious injury. contributed to the cause of a traffic crash: speeding; driving too fast for conditions; and/or following too In 2012-2014, there were 414,173 traffic crashes in Mis- close.” souri – 15.1% involved speeding. Correlating with the Aggressive drivers not only put their own lives at risk, national data, Missouri’s problem is also more signifi- but the lives of others as well. Of the 930 people killed, cant when examining fatal crashes—of the 2,143 fatal 67.4% were the aggressive driver and the other 32.6% crashes, 37.5% involved drivers who were speeding. were some other party in the incident. Of the 5,266 seriously injured, slightly more than one-half (53.9%) were the aggressive drivers and nearly one-half (46.1%) being some other person involved. Speeding (too fast for conditions or exceeding the posted limit) is a large part of the aggressive driving problem. In 2002, NHTSA conducted a national telephone survey of over 4,000 drivers which verified that speeding is a pervasive behavior with most drivers—51% indicated they drive 10 mph over the posted speed on the interstates and 34% responded that they drive 10 mph faster than most other vehicles. According to an April 2009 report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, aggressive driving actions “were reported in 56 percent of fatal crashes from 2003 through 2007, with excessive speed being the number one factor.” 34 84 GOAL #1: To decrease aggressive driving-related fatalities to 270 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 121,300 121,603 121,907 by 2016: 2013 2014 2015 Performance Measure: 314 299 288 • Number of speeding citations and warnings issued during grant-funded enforcement activities and Performance Measure: mobilizations • Benchmark: Number of aggressive driving-related fatalities Benchmark: • 2011-2013 speeding citations and warnings • 2012 aggressive driving-related fatalities - 326 issued during grant-funded enforcement activities and (308 in 2013) (287 in 2014) mobilizations - 120,588 (118,907 - 2012-2014 three-year rolling average) (123,069 - 2013-2015 three-year rolling GOAL #2: average) To decrease speed-related fatalities to 268 by 2016: 2013 2014 2015 312 297 283 Performance Measure: • ( ) Information in parenthesis is actual data for the respective year listed. STRATEGIES Number of speed-related fatalities Benchmark: 1. • 2012 speed-related fatalities - 326 violation enforcement overtime grants with local law (302 in 2013) (276 in 2014) enforcement and the Highway Patrol 2. Continue funding speed/hazardous moving Encourage law enforcement agencies to target GOAL #3: aggressive drivers when working statewide DWI and To increase speed-related citations and warnings made occupant protection mobilization campaigns during grant-funded enforcement activities and mobi- 3. lizations by .25 percent annually based on a three-year ects (Travel Safe Zones) and Selective Traffic Enforce- rolling average of grant years 2011, 2012, 2013 - 120,588 ment Programs (STEPs) and High Enforcement Action Continue implementing targeted corridor proj- Teams (HEAT) conducted by law enforcement agencies 4. Continue to strategize with law enforcement and training academy partners to develop enforcement/awareness countermeasures and share their concepts and programs 5. Fund enforcement efforts in construction/work zones in the MoDOT districts and enhance the enforcement with public awareness campaigns 6. Continue the use of speed monitoring devices (radars) and changeable message signs 7. Expand efforts to educate roadway users on the dangers of aggressive driving and the rules of the road 8. Encourage the local regional coalitions of the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety to fund and promote enforcement. 9. Educate roadway users on the dangers of ag- gressive driving and rules of the road. 10. Use pre- and post- enforcement operation news releases to educate the public about enforcement efforts. 85 AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS Who What Where When Why - See Statewide Total Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Target Area 36 86 ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS Background and in the opinion of the investigating officer their It is impossible to predict how alcohol will affect a intoxicated condition was a contributing factor to the person on any given occasion. Every drink influences crash. In these crashes where drivers or pedestrians both the body and mind and has a profound impact were impaired by alcohol or other drugs, 689 people on the physical and mental skills needed to drive a were killed and another 2,447 were seriously injured. It motor vehicle. One drink could have serious conse- also is important to note that substance-impaired driv- quences. ing is under-reported as a contributing factor in traffic crashes. This under-reporting is due to drivers experi- Alcohol and other drugs contribute substantially to encing injuries sustained from crashes without being traffic crashes on Missouri’s roads, particularly those tested for blood alcohol content. Also, some forms of resulting in death or serious injury. In the 2012-2014 drug impairment may not be apparent to officers on period, 414,173 traffic crashes occurred in the state. the scene. As a result, it is an even greater problem Of those, 0.5% resulted in a fatality and 2.9% than these statistics would indicate. In addition, 86.1% involved someone being seriously injured. During the of substance-impaired drivers killed also failed to wear same time period, there were 19,161 a safety belt further compounding the problem of traffic crashes where one or more drivers and/or substance-impaired driving. pedestrians were under the influence of intoxicants 2012-2014 Missouri Alcohol and Other Drug Related Fatalities & Serious Injuries Persons Killed Persons Seriously Injured 2,349 15,101 A common misconception is that substance-impaired to the cause of the collision. Of the 689 people killed drivers are primarily injuring and killing themselves. in alcohol and other drug-related traffic crashes, 71.4% While that is often true, a substantial number of were the substance-impaired driver/pedestrian and people killed and seriously injured in these crashes 28.6% were some other involved party. Of the 2,447 were not intoxicated by alcohol or other drugs. Their seriously injured, 61.8% were the substance-impaired actions in these incidents probably did not contribute drivers/pedestrians while 38.2% were other persons in the incidents. 38 87 2012-2014 Missouri Alcohol and Other Drug Related Fatalities & Serious Injuries (Person Involvement) Persons Killed Persons Seriously Injured 689 2,447 Young Alcohol Impaired Drivers (Under Age 21) Youth make up a significant proportion of alcohol- In 2012-2014, a total of 531 alcohol-impaired drivers impaired drivers causing traffic crashes on Missouri were involved in crashes where one or more persons roadways. Of the 16,440 alcohol-impaired drivers in- were killed. In known cases, 8.9% of these drivers volved in traffic crashes during 2012-2014, 10.1% were were under the age of 21. A total of 55 persons were under the age of 21 (in known cases). This is especially killed in traffic crashes involving these young alcohol- significant when you consider it is illegal for someone impaired drivers. Of those persons killed, 56.4% were under 21 to possess or consume alcohol in Missouri. the underage alcohol-impaired driver and 43.6% were some other party in the crash. 2012-2014 Missouri Alcohol-Impaired Driver Involved Fatalities & Serious Injuries (By Age of Impaired Driver) Persons Killed Persons Seriously Injured 572 2,058 NOTE: The data for persons killed and seriously injured involving an substance-impaired driver by age does not include data for those crashes where the pedestrian was the impaired party. Also, one substance-impaired related crash has the potential of consisting of substance-impaired driver younger than 21 and one 21 or older. In these cases, the persons killed and seriously injured will be counted in each chart shown above. 39 88 GOAL #1: To decrease fatalities involving drivers with .08 BAC or greater to 233 by 2016: 2013 2014 2015 271 258 246 Performance Measure: • Number of fatalities involving drivers with .08 BAC or greater Benchmark: • 2012 fatalities involving drivers with .08 BAC or greater - 283 (246 in 2013) (204 for 2014) GOAL #2: To increase substance-impaired driving arrests made during grant funded enforcement activities and mobilizations by .25 percent annually based on a three-year rolling average of grant years 2011, 2012, 2013 = 7,975 2014 2015 2016 7,995 8,015 8,035 Performance Measure: • Number of substance-impaired driving arrests made during grant-funded enforcement activities and mobilizations Benchmark: • 2011-2013 substance-impaired driving arrests made during grant-funded enforcement activities and mobilizations - 7,975 (DWI) (7,054 - 2012-2014 three-year rolling average) (6,183 - 2013-2015 three-year rolling average) GOAL #3: To decrease fatalities involving alcohol-impaired drivers under the age of 21 years to 14 by 2016: 2013 2014 2015 16 15 15 Performance Measure: • Number of fatalities involving alcohol-impaired drivers under the age of 21 years Benchmark: • 2012 fatalities involving alcohol-impaired drivers under the age of 21 years - 17 (28 for 2013) (10 for 2014) ( ) Information in parenthesis is actual data for the respective year listed. 40 13. STRATEGIES Revise and reprint impaired driving educational materials as needed; expand partnerships to encourage Public Information and Education use of these materials in their publications 1. 14. Educate the public on the dangers of driv- Develop campaigns/materials to reach targeted ing after drinking or using other drugs through public high-risk groups awareness campaigns such as Drive Sober or Get Pulled 15. Over, through quarterly impaired driving mobilizations, ideas, avoid duplication of efforts, and maximize re- and through the distribution of educational materi- sources (MCRS and the MCRS Impaired Driving Sub- als at traffic safety workshops, health and safety fairs, committee, Missouri Youth/Adult Alliance, Partners in displays, on the website, and through public service Prevention) announcements 16. 2. driving – especially underage drinking – by providing Incorporate impaired driving educational pro- Participate in interagency committees to share Support local efforts to reduce drinking and grams into school systems and businesses technical assistance to develop programs such as DWI 3. docudramas or Every 15 Minutes, loaning them col- Continue statewide designated driver pro- grams which stress alternatives to drinking and driving lateral materials to enhance their efforts (fatal vision (CHEERS designated driver program) goggles, videos, community program guides), and 4. providing speakers Educate large numbers of alcohol servers in in- tervention techniques utilizing the Server Training pro- 17. gram conducted by the Division of Alcohol and Tobacco tional Professionals across the state Control and through the SMART Web-based server 18. training program; continue to expand and promote the work with media outlets across the state to promote programs highway safety initiatives 5. Provide Drug Impairment Training for EducaOrganize and/or participate in press events and Provide support for the MCRS Impaired Driving Subcommittee to address impaired driving crashes and Enforcement underage impaired driving 1. 6. ment teams, DWI Task Forces, sobriety checkpoints, Incorporate toxicology into Impaired Driving Provide funding for alcohol saturation enforce- Subcommittee efforts quarterly impaired driving mobilizations, overtime sala- 7. ries for Breath Alcohol Testing (BAT) van operations, Checkpoint news releases mention that spe- cially trained drug detection officers will be working the and maintenance for BAT vans overtime enforcement effort and/or sobriety check- 2. point efforts and appropriate training to ensure effective 8. Provide equipment to enhance enforcement use of this equipment (e.g., breath alcohol testing Encourage law enforcement and prosecutors to report the type(s) of drug involvement suspected in instruments; enforcement vehicles; digital in-car video crashes to the media cameras; and sobriety checkpoint supplies) 9. 3. Include drug arrest details in after-action en- Provide training on detection and apprehen- forcement reports to the media sion of impaired drivers (e.g., standardized field sobri- 10. ety testing (SFST), sobriety checkpoint supervisor train- Implement, as appropriate, recommendations identified in the 2008 Statewide Impaired Driving As- ing, courtroom testimony, drug recognition experts sessment (DRE), ARIDE, and DWI crash investigation techniques) 11. 4. Work with the MCRS Impaired Driving Subcom- Ensure access to DRE and/or ARIDE trained of- mittee to implement strategies outlined in the Impaired ficers at sobriety checkpoints Driving Strategic Plan 5. 12. for law enforcement personnel during training events Continue support for youth and young adult Provide motivational and educational speakers prevention and education programs including Team such as the annual Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Advi- Spirit Leadership Conference; Team Spirit Reunion; sory Council (LETSAC) conference Think First Programs (School Assembly Programs, El- 6. ementary School Curriculum, Young Traffic Offenders and the DRE recertification training to ensure continu- Program); university level Partners in Prevention; local ity of the program community educational programs; and Missouri Safe 7. and Sober work in cooperation with the Impaired Driving Sub- 41 90 Provide supplies, support, and training for DREs Support a state SFST/DRE coordinator who will committee of the MCRS and the DRE/SFST 6. Advisory Committee in order to maintain DWI Tracking System (DWITS) standardization of the program 7. 8. personnel during training events such as their annual Support projects designed to pre- Provide equipment and training to enhance the Provide motivational speakers for judicial vent underage alcohol purchase, apprehend municipal judges and court clerks conference minors attempting to purchase alcohol, and 8. provide a physical enforcement/intervention or specifications to local law enforcement agencies that presence (e.g., Server Training, Party Patrol, will allow them to access the DWITS and enter DWI ar- Underage Drinking LE Training, selective rest information that can be tracked through prosecu- enforcement, compliance checks, and special tion and sentencing events) 9. 9. Provide an integrated system, a web link and/ Continue expansion of DWI courts throughout the state Incorporate, as appropriate, recom- mendations identified in the 2008 Impaired 10. Driving Assessment tion attorney at the Missouri Department of Revenue to 10. provide legal representation for alcohol-related license Increase participation in statewide Provide funding for an additional transporta- multi-jurisdiction mobilization enforcement appeals to Missouri appellate courts efforts 11. 11. Provide funding for a paralegal position in the legal counsel’s office at the Missouri Department of Support selective enforcement efforts to address young drinking drivers Revenue whose dedicated function will be to serve as by funding statewide underage drinking the ignition interlock coordinator enforcement projects and training 12. 12. implement no-refusal policies for BAC testing Support DWI traffic units with local Work with local jurisdictions across the State to law enforcement agencies 13. 13. to implement electronic warrant systems in order to Update administrative rules for the Work with local jurisdictions across the State ignition interlock program as needed to reduce the amount of time it takes for law enforcement insure that DWI offenders cannot operate a officers to obtain a warrant in DWI cases vehicle while intoxicated 14. Provide specimen kits to coroners and medical examiners in order to obtain BAC test results in fatal crashes Prosecution/Adjudication 1. Provide training for judges, prosecu- tors and law enforcement personnel on local/ Technology national 1. DWI issues utilizing the expertise of the Mis- design specifications for program linkages; develop re- souri Office of Prosecution ports as needed by the users; conduct training for users Services, Department of Revenue, Office of of the system State Courts Administrator, the National Traffic Law Center and the National Drug Court Institute 2. Provide continued funding for the statewide Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor whose job it is to provide training and technical support for prosecutors in Missouri 3. Continue to provide funding for the MADD Court Monitoring project in selected counties and municipalities in order to increase conviction rates 4. Provide National Drug Court Insti- tute training to DWI court teams from across the state 5. Incorporate topics on toxicology in law enforcement and prosecutor trainings 42 91 Continue to provide DWITS enhancements: 2. Support the efforts of the Missouri Safety Safety Office) or be utilized for qualifying hazard Center Breath Alcohol Instrument Training and Repair elimination projects. Some of the alcohol counter- Laboratory to calibrate and repair breath test instru- measures identified within this plan are supported ments in order to improve their reliability, and reassign by Section 154 transfer funds. The remainder of instruments as needed the funding has been retained for hazard elimina- 3. tion efforts. Work with the Missouri Safety Center and the Missouri State Highway Patrol to purchase and place new breath testing technology around the state Historically Missouri has focused on the prevention 4. of crossover fatalities through the installation of Seek ways to expedite processing of DWI of- fenders 5. 3-strand median guard cable on major roadways – Improve the process of tracking DWI offenders one of the most serious types of crashes occurring who have been sanctioned to install ignition interlock in Missouri. Because of our efforts using the Open devices Container Transfer funds to install the median 6. Monitor ignition interlock manufacturers/ guard cable, we have almost eliminated crossover installers for adherence to the Breath Alcohol Ignition fatalities on our divided roadways. Currently safety Interlock Device Program guidelines and administrative engineering efforts using this funding source rules involve the installation of rumble stripes focused on keeping vehicles on the roadway, systematically Open Container (Section 154 Open Container addressing horizontal curve crash locations, and the Transfer Funds) systematic improvement to numerous intersections The open container transfer provision was initially with both low-cost and higher-cost initiatives. authorized under TEA-21 and reauthorized under SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21. The provision requires states to pass and enforce a qualifying open container law or be subject to a 3% transfer of their federal aid highway funds until FY 2012 when it decreased to 2.5%. These funds were required to be diverted to either alcohol countermeasure safety programs (within the Highway 92 ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS Who What Where When Why - See Statewide Total Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Target Area 44 93 OCCUPANT RESTRAINTS Background A substantial number of occupants killed in 2012-2014 Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death in the Missouri traffic crashes were not wearing safety belts United States. It is well recognized that one of the or in a child safety seat compared to those injured and best means of defense in a crash is to be protected by a not injured. In fatal crashes where safety belt usage safety belt or a child safety seat. Increasing safety belt was known, 65.6% of the people who died were not and child safety seat use has tremendous potential for restrained. Of those seriously injured, 36.0% were not saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing the eco- restrained. Conversely, of those not injured, 685,537 nomic costs associated with traffic crashes. For many were wearing a safety belt or in a child safety seat. years, motor vehicle manufacturers have been required to install safety belts in their vehicles, so the vast major- Safety belt use dramatically reduces a person’s chance ity of vehicles on the roads today have these types of of being killed or seriously injuried in a traffic crash. safety devices installed. The overwhelming percentage Of the drivers involved in 2012-2014 crashes, 1 in 2 of people killed on Missouri roads or seriously injured was injured when they failed to wear their safety belt, in 2012-2014, in all probability, had a safety belt avail- however, when they were wearing a safety belt, their able for use (except for pedestrians, bicyclists, and chances of being injured in the crash were 1 in 8. When motorcyclists): examining driver deaths, the differences are much more significant. Drivers had a 1 in 29.8 chance of being • 2,349 killed – 75.6% had a safety belt available; killed if they were not wearing a safety belt; but that • 15,101 seriously injured – 79.2% had a safety chance dropped dramatically to only 1 in 1,343 if the driver was wearing a safety belt. belt available. 2012-2014 Vehicle Occupant Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries By Restraint Usage Occupants Killed Occupants Seriously Injured 1,776* 11,959* *Data includes Child Safety Seats 62% of 2014 vehicle occupants killed were unrestrained! 46 94 Ejections The possibility of death and serious injury dramatically increases in cases where the person is ejected from the vehicle at the time of the crash. One of the benefits of being restrained is it increases the probability of the person staying in the vehicle and being protected by the vehicle passenger compartment. In known cases of those occupants killed who were totally ejected from the vehicle, 97.4% were not restrained and of those partially ejected, 93.5% were not restrained. Of the occupants killed who were not ejected from their vehicles, 50.4% were not restrained. 2012-2014 Vehicle Occupant Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries By Restraint Usage Ejected Occupants Killed Partially Ejected Occupants Killed 406 147 In known cases of those occupants seriously injured who were totally ejected from the vehicle, 97.9% were not restrained and of those partially ejected, 74.9% were not restrained. Of the occupants seriously injured who were not ejected from their vehicles, 29.5% were not restrained. Ejected Occupants Seriously Injured Partially Ejected Occupants 921 Seriously Injured 188 95 DOT region would be proportionate to the number of Safety Belt Usage Among High School Students schools in that region in comparison to the state total of 496 public high schools. While 65.6% of the occupants who died were not 4. The high schools within each region would be restrained, lack of safety belt use becomes even more selected in their descending order of student enroll- significant when we segregate young people. When ment to maximize the number of high school students just looking at young people between the ages of 15 from each MoDOT region. through 20, 73.4% of those who died were not buckled One hundred-fifty high schools were selected for the up. survey in 92 counties (80 percent of the 115 counties in The Office of Highway Safety had long been concerned Missouri). Observational data were collected in April, with the lack of safety belt usage among young drivers Monday through Friday. Two instruments were used and passengers. Unfortunately, in the past, there was to collect the data. One instrument focused on the ve- no survey data to provide an established use rate for hicle and the driver, while the other targeted the front this age group. In 2003, parameters were developed safety outboard passenger and other occupants in the to conduct an observational safety belt use survey for vehicle. A detailed report of all findings is available on teens. It was determined that the most effective way file at the Office of Highway Safety. to reach this very targeted age group was to survey Results of the high school surveys reflected mostly specific high schools throughout the state. modest increases until a 5 percent jump in usage in Several guiding principles served as the underlying basis 2010. The usage rate has been very stagnant since 2010, for the sampling plan: fluctuating between 66 and 67 percent. 1. • 2006 – 58 percent basic sample unit at which safety belt usage observa- • 2007 – 61 percent tions would be made. • 2008 – 62 percent 2. • 2009 – 61 percent The individual public high school would be the The safety belt usage rates of high school stu- dents would be computed for each of the seven MoDOT • 2010 – 66 percent regions in the state. • 2011 – 67 percent 3. • 2012 – 66 percent • 2013 – 67 percent The number of schools selected from each Mo- 48 96 • 2014 – 67 percent • 2015 - 68 percent Very Young Passengers While Missouri must continue to promote the use of safety belts, particular attention must be paid to increasing the use of restraint devices for transporting young children. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), approximately 7,500 lives have been saved by the proper use of child restraints during the past 20 years. Yet, motor vehicle crashes still remain the number one killer of children ages 4 to 14 in America. The reason? Too often it is the improper or non-use of child safety seats and booster seats. Children Birth through Age Three – Child Safety Seats In 2012-2014, 21 children under the age of 4 were killed in a motor vehicle; 19.0% were not using any type of restraint device (in known cases). Another 106 were seriously injured. In known cases, 27.4% were not in any restraint device and 2.8% were in an adult safety belt. 2012-2014 Vehicle Occupant Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries By Restraint Device - Children Under Age 4 Children Under Age 4 Killed Children Under Age 4 Seriously Injured 21 106 49 97 recommended they do so until age 13. This is a danger- Children Age 4 through 7 – Booster Seats ous position for young children and parents should be educated on the importance of children remaining in the back seats. Research indicates that when children are graduated to a safety belt too soon, they are much more likely to In 2012-2014, 12 children, 4 through 7 years of age, suffer serious injuries in a crash due to “safety belt syn- were killed in a motor vehicle; in known cases, 25.0% drome.” Therefore, during the 2006 legislative session, were not using any type of restraint device and 8.3% Missouri’s child passenger restraint law was strength- were in an adult safety belt. Another 137 children ened to require children ages 4 through 7 (unless they within this age group were seriously injured – 24.1% are 4’9” tall or weigh more than 80 pounds) to be se- were not secured in any type of restraint device, 35.0% cured in a booster seat (or child safety seat if appropri- were in a child restraint, and 24.1% were in an adult ate for their height and weight). Many children in the safety belt. upper end of this age group are also allowed to ride in the front passenger seat of vehicles, when it is not 2012-2014 Vehicle Occupant Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries By Restraint Device - Children Age 4-7 Children Age 4-7 Killed Children Age 4-7 Seriously Injured 12 137 GOAL #1: To increase statewide safety belt usage by 1% annually Performance Measure: to: 2014 2015 2016 • Number of unrestrained passenger vehicle oc- 81% 82% 83% cupant fatalities Benchmark: • Performance Measure: • Statewide percent observed belt use for pas- senger vehicles (front seat outboard occupants) GOAL #3: Benchmark: • 2012 unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatali- ties - 394 (325 in 2013) (312 in 2014) To increase safety belt related citations and warnings 2013 statewide safety belt usage - 80% made during grant funded enforcement activities and (79% in 2014) (80% in 2015) mobilizations by .25 percent annually based on a threeyear rolling average of grant years 2011, 2012, 2013 = GOAL #2: 35,256 To reduce unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities to 324 by 2016: 2013 2014 2015 377 359 342 50 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 35,344 35,432 35,520 Performance Measure: • Number of safety belt citations and warnings GOAL #7: issued during grant funded enforcement activities and To maintain an adequate base of certified Child Pas- mobilizations senger Safety Technicians throughout the state to fall Benchmark: within the following range: • • 2011-2013 safety belt citations and warnings issued during grant funded enforcement and mobiliza- 800-1,000 with representation in each of the seven blueprint regional coalitions tions - 35,256 (33,759 - 2012-2014 three -year rolling average) (36,609 - 2013-2015 three-year rolling aver- Performance Measure: age) • Number of certified Child Passenger Safety Technicians in the statewide database maintained by GOAL #4: the Highway Safety Office To increase teen safety belt usage by 1% annually to: Benchmark: 2014 2015 2016 68% 69% 70% • Certified Technicians as of February 2014 - 989 (1,053 in December 2014) (1,039 in December 2015) Performance Measure: • GOAL #8: Percent observed belt use for teen front seat outboard occupants To maintain an adequate base of certified Child Pas- Benchmark: senger Safety Instructors throughout the state to fall • 2013 statewide safety belt usage - 67% within the following range: (67% in 2014) (68% in 2015) • 30-40 with representation in each of the seven blueprint regional coalitions GOAL #5: To increase safety belt usage of commercial motor Performance Measure: vehicle (CMV) drivers by 1% during surveys conducted • biennually to: Instructors in the statewide database maintained by the 2014 2016 Highway Safety Office 82% 83% Benchmark: • Certified instructors as of February 2014 - 38 (38 in December 2014) Performance Measure: • Number of certified Child Passenger Safety Percent observed safety belt use for CMV driv- ers GOAL #9: Benchmark: To maintain an adequate base of Missouri inspec- • 2012 CMV driver safety belt usage - 81% tion stations (that are listed on the NHTSA website) (81% in 2014) throughout the state to fall within the following range: • 125 – 200 with representation in each of the seven blueprint regional coalitions GOAL #6: To increase child safety seat usage by 1% annually to: 2014 2015 2016 92% 93% 94% Performance Measure: • statewide database maintained by the Highway Safety Office Performance Measure: • Benchmark: Percent observed child safety seat use • Benchmark: • Number of Missouri inspection stations in a Inspection stations in Missouri as of February 2014 - 198 2013 child safety seat usage rate - 91% (198 in December 2014) (207 in December 2015) (91% in 2014) ( ) Information in parenthesis is actual data for the respective year(s) listed. 51 99 hance campaigns as needed to keep a fresh approach STRATEGIES for the teen audience 4. Child Passengers 1. Produce, promote and distribute educational 5. materials addressing: the proper installation of child Traffic Safety Leadership Training Program & Reunion, Maintain a state CPS Advisory Committee and Think First, It Only Takes One, and the Young Traffic Of- implement their recommendations where appropriate 3. Educate youth on the importance of safety belts through programs such as Team Spirit Youth safety seats and booster seat use 2. Develop youth safety belt public awareness materials with input from young drivers fenders Program Conduct six Certified Child Passenger Safety 6. Technician classes statewide Support the First Impact parent program geared toward educating the parents of teen drivers on 4. Certify an additional CPS Instructor each year 5. Maintain a statewide computer list-serve of CPS the important role they play in the early driving years technicians and instructors 6. General Occupant Protection Support child safety seat checkup events and 1. educational programs through local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, Safe Communities, hospitals peak, and post surveys in conjunction with enforcement and health care agencies, safety organizations such as mobilizations and public awareness campaigns) Safe Kids, and the Traffic and Highway Safety Division 7. 2. Work with partners and with the media to gar- tance of wearing safety belts all the time and air bag When funding is available, provide child safety safety seats/booster seats and supplies to inspection stations 3. for distribution to low income families (note: inspection who are willing to speak publicly about their life-saving CPS Advisory Committee and must be listed on the experience NHTSA Web site http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/in- 4. jury/childps/CPSFittingStations/CPSinspection.htm ) Develop educational pieces to heighten aware- with collateral public information and awareness efforts such as press releases, observational surveys, and derived from enhanced child safety seat laws educational programs utilizing the Click It or Ticket Conduct Child Restraint Observational Survey safety belt campaign message every other year 11. 5. Conduct annual CPS enforcement and public augmented with collateral public information and Focus educational materials toward booster awareness efforts, namely through press releases. seats and children remaining in the back seat of a ve- 6. hicle until age 13 13. Compliment annual Click It or Ticket campaign with quarterly occupant protection enforcement days, awareness campaign during National CPS Week 12. Conduct annual Click It or Ticket selective traf- fic enforcement wave during May/June, augmented ness concerning the life-saving and economic benefits 10. Promote the Saved by the Belt survivor pro- gram; maintain a database of survivors to contact those stations must meet guidelines established by Missouri’s 9. Produce, promote and distribute educational materials addressing: occupant protection laws; impor- ner support for annual CPS Week in September 8. Conduct NHTSA-approved statewide observa- tional safety belt survey every year, in May/June (pre, Conduct paid media efforts and work toward continual increases in earned media efforts Create educational materials to accommodate the non-english speaking and deaf/hard of hearing com- 7. Develop educational pieces to heighten aware- ness concerning the life-saving and economic benefits munities derived from primary safety belt laws 8. Teen Passengers/Drivers 1. tion strategies training to law enforcement agencies Conduct a safety belt survey of young drivers throughout the state. and their passengers every two years and conduct an- 9. nual law enforcement mobilizations and public aware- such as the annual Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Advi- schools sory Council (LETSAC) conference Conduct youth safety belt selective traffic en- 9. forcement efforts statewide coupled with press releases, Provide motivational and educational speakers for law enforcement personnel during training events radio spots, and materials targeting young drivers 3. Provide motivational and educational speakers for law enforcement personnel during training events ness campaigns targeting lack of safety belt use at high 2. Continue funding traffic occupant protec- such as the annual Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Advi- Promote the youth campaigns; modify or en- sory Council (LETSAC) conference 52 100 53 101 OCCUPANT RESTRAINTS Who What Where When Why - See Statewide Total Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Target Area 54 102 DISTRACTED DRIVERS Background Distracted driving is a voluntary diversion of the driver’s attention from activities critical to safe driving. There are four types of driver distraction; visual, auditory, manual, and cognitive. There is a growing body of On January 1, 2012, Missouri’s law enforcement officers evidence which suggests driver distractions, both inside began using a revised crash report which includes ad- the vehicle and the road environment, are becoming ditional data elements that address distracted driving. increasingly large contributors to road trauma. This more detailed report will prvide data that can be used to more accurately assess the magnitude of this It is estimated that drivers engage in a secondary task high-risk behavior. From 2012-2014, 9.7% of Missouri between one-quarter and one-half of the time they fatal traffic crashes involved at least one distracted driv- drive. In recent surveys, about two-thirds of all drivers er. About 35 percent of the distracted drivers involved reported using a cell phone while driving. In daytime in fatal crashes in the last three years were between 15 observational studies, 7 to 10 percent of all drivers were and 30 years of age. using a cell phone. Based on a study by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, a risk for being involved in a critical incident is 23 times greater if the driver texts while driving. 2012-2014 Statewide Fatalities & Serious Injuries Vs. Number of Distracted Driver Involved Persons Killed Persons Seriously Injured 2,349 15,101 55 103 GOAL #1: GOAL #2: To decrease fatalities involving distracted drivers to 70 To decrease serious injuries involving distracted drivers by 2016: to 674 by 2016: 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 81 78 74 783 747 711 Performance Measure: Performance Measure: • • Number of distracted driving-related fatalities Number of distracted driving-related serious injuries Benchmark: Benchmark: • 2012 distracted driving-related fatalities - 85 • 2012 distracted driving-related serious injuries (74 in 2013) (61 for 2014) - 819 (722 in 2013) (771 in 2014) ( ) Information in parenthesis is actual data for the respective year listed. STRATEGIES presentations at businesses, schools, and community 1. Continue to expand public information cam- organizations paigns to educate the roadway user on the dangers of 4. distracted driving ers 2. 5. Encourage companies to strengthen distracted Enact legislation to restrict texting for all drivExpand GDL law to ban cell phone use by be- driving policies and consequences for those who text ginner drivers and drive, use cell phones and other electronic devices 6. while driving implement countermeasures to reduce crashes involving 3. distracted drivers Seek opportunities to give distracted driving 56 104 Work with safety advocates and partners to DISTRACTED DRIVERS Who What Where When Why - See Statewide Total Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Target Area 57 105 YOUNG DRIVERS Background Young drivers are categorized as those ages 15 through Of all 2012-2014 fatal and serious injury crashes in Mis- 20 years. These young drivers are substantially over- souri, 19.7% involved a young driver of a motor vehicle. involved in Missouri traffic crashes. In 2014, 13.9% of In 2012-2014, 362 persons were killed and 3,180 were all fatal crashes involved a young driver of a motor ve- seriously injured in traffic crashes involving a young hicle; this is particularly significant since young drivers driver of a motor vehicle. comprised only 7.9% of the licensed driver population in Missouri. 2012-2014 Statewide Fatalities & Serious Injuries Vs. Number of Young Drivers Involved Persons Killed Persons Seriously Injured 2,349 15,101 NOTE: data for persons killed and seriously injured involving a young driver does not include young drivers of ATVs, bicycles, farm implements, construction equipment, other vehicles and unknown vehicle body types. Several factors work together to make this age group so • susceptible to crashes: cent impulsiveness is a natural behavior, but it results • in poor driving judgment and participation in high-risk Inexperience: All young drivers start out with Risk-taking behavior and immaturity: Adoles- very little knowledge or understanding of the com- behaviors such as speeding, inattention, impairment plexities of driving a motor vehicle. Like any other skill, and failing to wear a safety belt. Peer pressure also learning to drive well takes a lot of time. Technical often encourages risk taking. In general a smaller per- ability, good judgment and experience are all needed centage of young drivers in Missouri wear their safety to properly make the many continuous decisions—small belts compared to other drivers (teen safety belt usage and large—that add up to safe driving. This is con- rate for 2015 was 68 percent compared to the overall firmed by the larger percentage of single-vehicle fatal usage rate of 80 percent). crashes involving young drivers where the vehicle frequently leaves the road and overturns or hits a station- • ary object like a tree or pole. drive at night with other friends in the vehicle. During Greater risk exposure: Young drivers often night driving, reaction time is slower since the driver can only see as far as the headlights allow. More teen fatal crashes occur when passengers—usually other teenagers—are in the car than do crashes involving 58 106 other drivers. Driving with young, exuberant passengers usually poses a situation of distraction from the driving task. There are many other distractions in vehicles including the loud music and cell phones; all of which are factors that increase crash risk. The top 5 contributing circumstances attributable to young drivers of motor vehicles involved in 2012-2014 fatal and serious injury crashes were: 1. Driving Too Fast for Conditions 2. Distracted / Inattentive 3. Failed to Yield 4. Improper Lane Usage / Change 5. Speed Exceeded Limit 59 107 In 2012-2014, 569 (24.2%) of the fatalities and 2,057 Young Drinking Drivers (13.6%) of the serious injuries involved a drinking When analyzing statistics involving young drinking driver. Of these, 55 (9.7%) of the fatalities and 213 drivers, it is all the more important for us to keep in (10.4%) of the serious injuries involved an underage mind that drinking alcohol is an illegal behavior for drinking driver. those under 21 years of age. Missouri has a “zero tolerance” law for people under 21 that sets their illegal In 2012-2014, 333 young drivers were involved in 325 blood alcohol content level at .02 percent (consider- fatal traffic crashes where 362 people died. In those ably lower than the .08 BAC level for adults). crashes, 47 or 14.1% of the young drivers were drinking and driving. In other words, one of every 7 young driv- In 2012-2014, there were 2,082 drivers whose consump- ers involved in fatal crashes was drinking alcohol and tion of alcohol contributed to the cause of a fatal or their intoxicated condition contributed to the cause of serious injury crash. In known cases, 193 (9.3%) of the the crash. drinking drivers were under the legal drinking age of 21. In 2012-2014, a total of 529 drinking drivers were involved in crashes where one or more people were killed. In known cases, 47 (8.9%) of those drinking drivers were under the legal drinking age of 21. 60 108 GOAL #1: web/social media information on young, high-risk driv- To decrease fatalities involving drivers age 15 through ers; develop materials that are especially appealing to 20 to 111 by 2016: young drivers 2013 2014 2015 129 123 117 5. Include information on the graduated driver license (GDL) law in materials, on the web/social media sites and within presentations 6. Performance Measure: • Number of fatalities involving drivers age 15 on all highway safety measures, especially the GDL law through 20 7. Benchmark: • Continue to support the First Impact parent program to educate parents of young, high-risk drivers 2012 fatalities involving drivers age 15 through 20 - Support projects designed to prevent under- age alcohol purchase, educate law enforcement and the public about underage drinking, apprehend minors 127 (111 in 2013) (94 in 2014) attempting to purchase alcohol and adults purchasing alcohol for minors, and provide a physical enforcement/ GOAL #2: To decrease serious injuries involving drivers age 15 on-line server training, underage drinking law enforce- through 20 to 1,038 by 2016: 2013 2014 2015 1,206 1,150 1,095 Performance Measure: • Number of people seriously injured involving drivers age 15 through 20 Benchmark: • intervention presence (e.g., Server Training, SMART 2012 serious injuries involving drivers age 15 through 20 - 1,261 (1,050 in 2013) (932 in 2014) ( ) Information in parenthesis is actual data for the respective year listed. ment training, compliance checks and multi-jurisdiction enforcement teams) 8. Conduct a safety belt survey of young drivers and their passengers every two years and conduct annual law enforcement mobilizations and public awareness campaigns targeting lack of safety belt use at high schools 9. Conduct an annual law enforcement campaign focused on underage drinking and driving 10. Provide funding to support college/university prevention programs (Partners in Prevention, CHEERS Designated Driver program, SMART online server training and START online student alcohol awareness training) that focus on the development and implemen- STRATEGIES tation of UMC’s Drive Safe. Drive Smart campaign 11. 1. Continue support for youth prevention and Encourage strict enforcement of Missouri laws targeting young drivers (e.g., Graduated Driver License, education programs to include Team Spirit Youth Traffic Zero Tolerance, Abuse and Lose) Safety Leadership Training Program and Reunion; It 12. Only Takes One, ThinkFirst Programs (school assemblies, marketing sites that appeal to youth (Facebook, Twit- Traffic Offenders Program and the corporate program); ter, Instagram, etc.) Every15 Minutes; DWI docu dramas; CHEERS university- 13. based designated driver program, Safe Communities Roadway Safety Substance-Impaired Driving Subcom- programs throughout the state and statewide It Only mittee to address underage substance-impaired driving Takes One campaign 14. 2. high-risk groups Continue statewide distribution of Road Wise: Promote the saveMOlives website and social Provide support for the Missouri Coalition for Develop campaigns/materials to reach targeted Parent/Teen Safe Driving Guide through Department of 15. Revenue licensing offices, Highway Patrol driver exami- paigns; modify or enhance campaigns as needed to nation stations, First Impact parent program and upon keep a fresh approach for the teen audience request 3. Seek out and continually assess young driver educational programs to determine the best and most cost-effective way to reach the largest number of parents and teens 4. Continue to update, as needed, materials and Promote the seat belt and youth alcohol cam- YOUNG DRIVERS Who What Where When Why - See Statewide Total Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Target Area 62 110 OLDER DRIVERS 65 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER Background Our population is aging and older adult drivers are they age, while collisions per mile driven increase. Driv- increasing their exposure (miles driven/year) on the ers 65 and older who are injured in automobile crashes highways. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Missouri are more likely than younger drivers to die from their ranked 16th nationally in 2010 with 15% of the popula- injuries. Accordingly, several reports have noted that tion age 65 or older. By the year 2030 it is estimated per mile driven, older drivers experience higher crash that over 20% of the population in Missouri will be fatality rates than all other drivers except teen-age age 65 or older. That means approximately one in five drivers. Studies have shown that a driver 70 or over is people will be 65 or older. about three times as likely as someone 35-54 years old to sustain a fatal injury in a crash. Being able to go where we want and when we want is important to our quality of life. Personal mobility In May of 2016, there were 830,670 people licensed in is often inextricably linked to the ability to drive a car. Missouri who were age 65 or over. They accounted for However, as we age our ability to drive a motor vehicle 18.8% of the 4,426,742 persons licensed in Missouri. may be compromised by changes in vision, attention, perception, memory, decision-making, reaction time Of all 2012-2014 fatal and serious injury crashes in Mis- and aspects of physical fitness and performance. souri, 15.5% involved an older driver of a motor vehicle. In 2012-2014, 449 persons were killed and 2,199 were A wide variety of age-related decreases in physical and seriously injured in Missouri traffic crashes involving an mental abilities can contribute to decreased driving abil- older driver of a motor vehicle. ity, as implied by reports that elderly drivers drive less as 64 111 2012-2014 Statewide Fatalities & Serious Injuries Vs. Number of Older Drivers Involved Total Persons Killed Total Persons Seriously Injured 2,349 15,101 GOAL #1: GOAL #2: To decrease fatalities involving older drivers to 117 by To decrease serious injuries involving older drivers to 2016: 632 by 2016: 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 136 129 123 732 698 665 Performance Measure: Performance Measure: • • Number of fatalities occurring in crashes involv- Number of serious injuries occurring in crashes ing older drivers involving older drivers Benchmark: Benchmark: • 2012 fatalities involving older drivers - 142 • (151 in 2013) (166 in 2014) 768 2012 serious injuries involving older drivers (707 in 2013) (736 in 2014) ( ) Information in parenthesis is actual data for the respective year listed. 6. STRATEGIES Improve the process for reporting unsafe or medically unfit drivers (revisions of forms, internal pro1. cesses, and needed training) Work with safety advocates and partners to as- sess and implement countermeasures to reduce crashes 7. involving older drivers identified in the SHSP Missouri’s and Safety under the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Blueprint to Save More Lives Safety to address older driver safety 2. 8. Develop and distribute public informational Work with the Subcommittee on Elder Mobility Develop a package of office-based screening materials to assist older drivers and their families tools that can be used by healthcare providers and 3. agencies involved in licensing decisions Provide educational programs to community groups and the public 4. Train law enforcement personnel to identify signs of impairment specific to older drivers 5. Identify and promote self-assessment tools to enable older drivers to check their own driving abilities 65 112 OLDER DRIVERS 65 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER Who What Where When Why - See Statewide Total Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Target Area 66 113 COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES Background Commercial motor vehicles are involved in a substantial number of traffic crashes in Missouri, especially those Large trucks have blind spots – identified as No Zones resulting in the death of one or more persons. In 2012- – around the front, back and sides of the truck, which 2014, there were 414,173 traffic crashes in the state. make it difficult for the driver to see. It is critically In these crashes, 35,624 (8.6%) involved at least one important that other drivers stay out of the No Zone of commercial motor vehicle. Of the 2,143 fatal crashes, a commercial vehicle. Because most commercial motor however, 289 (13.5%) involved at least one commercial vehicles (CMVs) are large transport devices that are motor vehicle. much heavier than the normal vehicle population, they cause greater amounts of personal injury and severity Of those killed in 2012–2014 CMV crashes, 67 (20.6%) to the occupants of vehicles with which they collide. were CMV occupants and 258 (79.4%) were other par- When analyzing the types of persons killed or injured in ties in the incident. When examining serious injuries, CMV crashes, the great majority were not the occu- 338 (29.1%) were CMV occupants while 824 (70.9%) pants of the commercial motor vehicle. were some other party. 2012-2014 Statewide Fatalities & Serious Injuries Commercial Motor Vehicle Involved Total Persons Killed Total Persons Seriously Injured 325 1,162 The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and Highway Safety Division administers MCSAP, but is a federal grant program that provides financial as- the MCSAP program operates under a separate federal sistance to states to reduce the number and severity of grant. Goals, benchmarks and strategies are outlined accidents and hazardous materials incidents involving within the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP), commercial motor vehicles. The goal of the MCSAP is which is submitted to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety to reduce CMV involved crashes, fatalities, and injuries Administration. through consistent, uniform and effective CMV safety programs. Investing grant monies in appropriate Goals, benchmarks and strategies are outlined within safety programs will increase the likelihood that safety the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP), which is defects, driver deficiencies, and unsafe motor carrier submitted to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin- practices will be detected and corrected before they istration. become contributing factors to crashes. The Traffic 68 114 69 115 COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES Who What Where When Why - See Statewide Total Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Target Area 116 MOTORCYCLE CRASHES Background A responsible motorcyclist must think about the con- Of the 414,173 traffic crashes in 2012-2014, 0.5% re- sequences of their riding behavior in traffic and accept sulted in a fatality and 2.9% involved someone being personal responsibility for the results of their decisions seriously injured in the incident. During the same pe- and actions, as well as develop good skills and judg- riod, there were 7,317 traffic crashes involving motorcy- ment. The motorcyclist must consider their personal cles. In these incidents, 255 (3.5%) resulted in a fatality margin of safety or margin for error – how much extra and 1,683 (23.0%) resulted in someone being seriously time and space they need given their skill level. injured in the crash. These figures demonstrate the overrepresentation of motorcycles in fatal and serious Likewise, the general motoring public must be aware injury crashes. of their surroundings while driving and share the road with motorcyclists. A significant number of motorcycle An area of particular concern is the number of unli- crashes involve another vehicle. censed and improperly licensed motorcyclists involved in crashes. Between 2012-2014, 22.8% of the 7,317 mo- Although motorcycle traffic crashes do not occur with torcycle involved traffic crashes involved an unlicensed great frequency in Missouri, they usually result in or improperly licensed motorcycle driver. In fatal deaths or serious injuries at a considerably greater rate crashes, 40.0% involved an unlicensed or improperly than other traffic crashes. This reality makes helmet licensed motorcycle driver, while 28.2% of the serious use imperative. injury crashes involved an unlicensed or improperly licensed motorcycle driver. 2012-2014 Statewide Motorcycle Involved Crashes 7,317 In most instances, motorcycle drivers and/or their passengers are the ones killed and seriously injured when they are involved in a traffic crash. Of the 265 persons killed in motorcycle-involved crashes (2012-2014), 261 (98.5%) were motorcycle riders and 4 (1.5%) were some other person in the incident. Of the 1,823 seriously injured (20122014), 1,788 (98.1%) were the motorcycle riders while only 35 (1.9%) were some other person in the incident. 117 2012-2014 Statewide Fatalities & Serious Injuries Motorcycle Involved Total Persons Killed Total Persons Seriously Injured 265 1,823 A significant number of motorcyclists and their passengers killed and seriously injured in Missouri traffic crashes are middle age. Of those killed, 41.8% were between the ages of 41-60 and 44.9% of those seriously injured were in this age group. 2012-2014 Statewide Motorcycle Drivers and Passengers Killed and Seriously Injured in Missouri Traffic Crashes (Age by Personal Injury Severity) GOAL #2: GOAL #1: To decrease motorcyclist fatalities to 86 by 2016: 2013 2014 2015 99 95 90 To decrease un-helmeted or non-DOT-compliant helmeted motorcyclist fatalities to 21 by 2016 (does not include fatalities where helmet use was “unknown”): Performance Measure: • Number of motorcyclist fatalities Benchmark: • Number of 2012 motorcyclist fatalities = 104 (74 in 2013) (91 in 2014) 2013 2014 2015 25 24 22 Performance Measure: • Number of un-helmeted or non-DOT compliant helmeted motorcyclist fatalities (only those fatalities where helmet use was known) Benchmark: • Number of 2012 un-helmeted or non-DOT- STRATEGIES compliant helmeted motorcyclist fatalities = 26 1. (21 in 2013) (22 in 2014) Continue support for the Missouri Motorcycle Safety Program administered by the Missouri Safety Center at University of Central Missouri GOAL #3: 2. To decrease fatalities involving motorcycle operators statewide in order to train 4500+ riders annually who are not licensed or improperly licensed to 40 by 3. 2016: courses as needed in order to train and expand the base 2013 2014 2015 46 43 41 Continue to provide motorcycle rider education Conduct RiderCoach (Instructor) Preparation of certified motorcycle RiderCoaches to meet demand 4. Actively participate in the Motorcycle Safety Subcommittee of the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Performance Measure: Safety • 5. Number of fatalities involving motorcycle op- Implement, where possible, strategies in the erators with no license or improperly licensed Missouri Motorcycle Strategic Safety Plan 2012-2016 Benchmark: 6. • to law enforcement statewide on detecting non-compli- 2012 fatalities involving a motorcycle operator Create and distribute Missouri helmet law cards ant helmets with no license or improperly licensed = 48 7. (24 in 2013) (33 in 2014) Continue working with numerous grass-roots motorcycle safety groups in promoting the “Watch for Motorcycles” message throughout the state 74 119 MOTORCYCLE CRASHES Who What Where When Why - See Statewide Total Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Target Area 120 CRASHES INVOLVING SCHOOL BUSES Background Although school buses provide one of the safest modes as weight, provides passenger protection similar to of transportation, there are still school bus related that provided by safety devices in passenger cars. Both injuries and, unfortunately, some fatalities every year. types of vehicles protect children from harm but in dif- Some of these are due to crashes with other vehicles ferent ways. Many school buses throughout Missouri while others are due to the school bus striking a pe- are now equipped with 3-point safety belts. This safety destrian or bicyclist. The responsibility borne by school enhancement, when properly used, provides additional bus drivers is considerable. protection in the event of a crash. A vehicle must meet safety standards that are appro- School buses are not involved in a large number of traf- priate for its size and type because different types of fic crashes in Missouri. Of all 2012-2014 Missouri traffic vehicles perform differently in a crash. For example, crashes, 0.7% involved a school bus or school bus signal. because a large school bus is heavier than most other In 95.9% of the school bus crashes, a school bus was vehicles, its weight can protect its occupants from directly involved in the crash and in 4.1% of the crashes, crash forces better than a light vehicle such as a pas- no school bus was directly involved but a school bus senger car. The passive protection engineered into signal was involved. large school buses, combined with other factors such 121 2012-2014 Statewide School Bus/School Bus 2012-2014 Statewide School Bus/ Signal Crashes School Bus Signal Crashes (By Severity) (Involvement Type) Of the 10 persons killed during 2012-2014 in crashes involving school buses, no bus occupants or pedestrians were killed. All 10 of the fatalities were some other person in the incident. Of the 48 persons seriously injured, 10 were occupants of the school bus, no pedestrians were seriously injured, and 38 were some other person in the incident. 2012-2014 Statewide School Bus/School Bus 2012-2014 Statewide School Bus/School Bus Signal Involved Fatalities by Location of Signal Involved Serious Injuries by Location of Persons Killed Persons Seriously Injured A significant number of persons killed or seriously injured in crashes involving school buses are young. 122 STRATEGIES GOAL #1: To decrease or maintain fatalities involving school buses 1. or school bus signals to 2 by 2016: 2013 2014 2015 3 3 2 Task Force 2. 3. Number of fatalities occurring in crashes involv- tion of school buses, general safety issues regarding Benchmark: riding a school bus, safety around the loading zones 2012 fatalities occurring in crashes involving and sharing the road with school buses school buses or school bus signals = 3 (3 in 2013) (4 in 2014) GOAL #2: To decrease serious injuries involving school buses or school bus signals to 12 by 2016: 2013 2014 2015 14 14 13 Performance Measure: • Number of serious injuries occurring in crashes involving school buses or school bus signals Benchmark: • Expand current public awareness materials to address seat belts on school buses, compartmentaliza- ing school buses or school bus signals • Continue to serve on any state school bus safety committees Performance Measure: • Support and implement, if feasible, recom- mendations made by the 2005 Governor’s School Bus 2012 serious injuries occurring in crashes involv- ing school buses or school bus signals = 15 (19 in 2013) (14 in 2014) 78 123 CRASHES INVOLVING SCHOOL BUSES Who What Where When Why - See Statewide Total Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Target Area 79 124 VULNERABLE ROADWAY USERS Background Many Missourians rely on non-motorized means of transportation such as walking and bicycling. Both of these modes have the ability to provide physical and health benefits, but they also have the potential for serious or fatal injuries in the event of a crash. Crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists do not occur in extremely large numbers (1.0% and 0.4% of all crashes, respectively) but when a pedestrian or bicyclist is involved in a traffic crash, the potential for harm is much greater. Pedestrians and bicyclists alike need to understand that they have primary responsibility for their own safety; however, the motoring public also has a responsibility to share the road in a safe manner with these vulnerable road users. This is especially true since many pedestrians and bicyclists are children who often lack the knowledge or skills to interact safely in traffic. PEDESTRIANS For the period 2012-2014, there were 232 fatal pedestrian-involved crashes and 744 serious injury pedestrianinvolved crashes. During that three-year period, of the 235 persons killed in pedestrian involved crashes, 230 (97.9%) were the pedestrians. Of the 789 seriously injured in pedestrian involved crashes, 757 (95.9%) were the pedestrians. 2012-2014 Statewide Pedestrian Involved Traffic Crashes (Person Involvement) Persons Killed Persons Seriously Injured 235 789 80 125 BICYCLISTS For the period 2012-2014, there were 14 fatal bicycle-involved crashes and 191 serious injury bicycle-involved crashes. For that same three-year period, of the 14 persons killed in bicycle-involved crashes, all were the bicyclists. Of the 193 persons seriously injured in bicycle-involved crashes, 190 (98.4%) were the bicyclists. 2012-2014 Statewide Bicycle Involved Traffic Crashes (Person Involvement) Persons Killed Persons Seriously Injured 14 193 GOAL #1: To decrease pedestrian fatalities to 71 by 2016: 2013 2014 2015 82 78 75 STRATEGIES 1. Educate the motoring public on sharing the Performance Measure: road safely with pedestrians and bicyclists • 2. Number of pedestrian fatalities Educate pedestrians and bicyclists on safely Benchmark: interacting with motor vehicles • 3. 2012 pedestrian fatalities = 84 (73 in 2013) Purchase helmets for distribution at exhibits and for school/local safety awareness programs (65 for 2014) 4. Promote bicycle safety events/awareness GOAL #2: programs at the local level utilizing the Safe Communi- To decrease or maintain bicyclist fatalities to 4 by 2016: ties programs and the Missouri Coalition for Roadway 2013 2014 2015 6 5 5 Safety regional coalitions 5. Partner with law enforcement agencies to focus on pedestrian/bicycle safety education Performance Measure: 6. • focus on driver safety around pedestrians and bicyclists Number of bicyclist fatalities Benchmark: • 2012 bicyclist fatalities = 6 (4 in 2013) (5 in 2014) 81 Partner with law enforcmenet agenices to VULNERABLE ROADWAY USERS Pedestrians Who What Where When Why - See Statewide Total Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Target Area 82 127 VULNERABLE ROADWAY USERS Bicyclists Who What Where When Serious Injuries by Target Area Why - See Statewide Total Fatalities and 83 128 ENGINEERING SERVICES & DATA COLLECTION one of Missouri’s most common severe crash types. ENGINEERING SERVICES Roundabouts and J-Turn intersections are successful Engineering is a vital component of a comprehensive examples of how intersections can be improved to approach to improve highway safety. The techniques eliminate or greatly reduce right angle crashes, another and strategies engineers use to design and improve common severe crash type in Missouri. roads can have a direct impact on the safety of motorists. Engineering countermeasures to improve safety TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE can be implemented during the design of a roadway PROGRAM (TEAP) or in modifications after a road has already been built. During design, engineers strive to create a roadway IIt is often necessary for cities and counties to obtain environment that mitigate traffic crashes from the start. the services of private consulting engineering firms to This can be achieved in various aspects of design: lane aid them in correcting safety and operational concerns widths, the use of shoulders, curve design, signing, on local streets and highways. Correction of these striping, rumble strips, etc. However, some roads were problems can require detailed assessment of traffic designed long before today’s safety countermeasures crash analysis, traffic counts, speed surveys, minor ori- were discovered. As a result, many roads will often gin and destination studies, non-rapid transit studies, be retrofitted to include safety enhancements such as parking supply and demand studies, capacity analysis, rumble strips, brighter signs and pavement marking, lighting analysis and design, traffic control devices and intersection improvements. (inventory and layout), or traffic signal progression analysis and design. Most cities and counties do not One of the most successful examples of this in Missouri have the personnel with expertise in these areas to is the statewide application of paved shoulders and perform the necessary analysis. (This is not a complete rumble stripes on Missouri’s most heavily traveled roads. list of the studies a traffic engineering consultant may Over 10,000 miles of rumble stripes have been installed. be called upon to perform.) This is a support problem Rumble stripes have proven very beneficial in reducing where methods of correcting a particular situation must crashes in which a vehicle leaves its lane or the roadway, first be examined and determined before they can be 84 129 implemented or evaluated for effectiveness. In order to provide assistance in this area, the Highway Safety Office allocates funding for consultants to perform this service for the local jurisdictions. component, it would be difficult to develop a comprehensive plan based on consistently reported crash data TRAINING especially as it relates to contributing circumstances that caused the crash. This crash information is shared Support is also provided for traffic engineering forums with MoDOT’s Traffic and Highway Safety Division. and technology transfer to enhance the ability of the local communities to develop crash countermeasures. LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAFFIC SOFTWARE (LETS) This is accomplished through training workshops and conferences funded through the Missouri Department of Transportation. This web-based computerized system for collection and comprehensive management of traffic data provides DATA COLLECTION on-line information concerning traffic activities and needs for local law enforcement agencies. LETS allows Each state has developed, to varying degrees, systems agencies to track crash occurrences, deploy enforce- for the collection, maintenance and analysis of traffic ment efforts, design crash countermeasure programs, safety data. Motor vehicle crash data tells us about the and develop customized reports. The LETS software characteristics of the crash and the vehicles and persons also allows agencies to electronically transfer crash data involved. Crash data elements describe the date, time, to the STARS database. location, harmful events, type of crash, weather, and contributing circumstances. Vehicle data elements de- SELECTION OF TRAFFIC RECORDS COORDINATING COMMITTEE (TRCC) PROJECTS scribe the vehicle in terms of the make, year, type, role, actions, direction, impact, sequence of events, and damaged areas. Person data elements describe all persons involved by age, sex, injury status, and type. Additional The TRCC plays a role in the creation, approval and information describing the vehicle number, seating evaluation of the data improvement projects. The TRCC position, use of safety equipment, driver status infor- consists in developing initial project proposals as well mation, non-motorist status, alcohol/drug involvement, as discusses the proposals openly in the TRCC monthly and EMS transport status is collected when relevant to meetings. The TRCC through the discussion of pro- the occupants involved. posed projects, prioritize the projects and determine the funding sources. Once the project begins, the TRCC STARS MAINTENANCE AND TRAFFIC SAFETY COMPENDIUM provides additional guidance on the projects activities. Projects are selected based on recommendations from The traffic safety program supports maintenance of the the most current assessments and their ability to meet Statewide Traffic Accident Reporting System (STARS), six characteristics: timeliness, accuracy, integration, which is the repository for all crash statistics. The Mis- uniformity, accessibility and completeness. souri State Highway Patrol started electronically filing crash reports in 2007. Approximately 45% of crash These projects are evaluated on an annual basis to en- reports are now entered electronically into the STARS sure they are in compliance with project milestones and system. Revision of the crash report form has been their ability to improve the states traffic records data completed with training provided annually. The form systems. became effective on January 1, 2012. The Traffic Safety Compendium is compiled from statistics collected in STARS and is available in .pdf format. Without this vital 85 130 STRATEGIES GOAL #1: To assure there is a robust traffic data system available 1. to assist all data users in development of appropriate Encode all crash reports into the STARS system, ensuring accuracy and efficiency, and provide equip- traffic safety countermeasures ment to support STARS maintenance Performance Measure: 2. • MoDOT’s Traffic and Highway Safety Division and local Percent of all crash reports filed electronically Utilize statistics gathered from STARS to assist through LETS into the STARS system. communities in developing problem identification • 3. Ability to track positive or negative trends in Provide expertise and funding to assure com- traffic crashes by target populations, geographic loca- munities are in compliance with uniform traffic codes tion, driver subgroups, and causation factors and that the bridges within their jurisdictions are up- Benchmark: graded in terms of their safety • 4. In 2009, local law enforcement agencies began Provide training to assure state and local engi- neers are kept abreast of current technology electronically submitting crash reports through LETS. 5. Continue LETS software improvement and GOAL #2: training – train users on accessing and utilizing LETS To provide adequate training on an annual basis that system, log users into the system, and provide help desk will support and enhance the ability of state and local through REJIS agencies in developing accident countermeasures 6. Continue to serve on the Traffic Records Coor- dinating Committee and assist in the redevelopment of Performance Measure: the Missouri Traffic Records Strategic Plan • 7. Continue partnership with Mid America Re- Continue to emphasize linkage capability with- gional Council to conduct road safety audits with law in the traffic records data systems to generate merged enforcement records for analytic purposes. Benchmark: 8. • fic Records Assessment into the statewide strategic plan Conduct one road safety audit with law en- Implement recommendations of the 2015 Traf- (as required in Section 405C implementing guidelines) forcement 9. Continually refine and enhance Missouri’s data collection and analysis systems in order to produce BENCHMARKS: tables and reports that provide standardized exposure A. data for use in developing traffic safety countermea- Provide consultant assistance to local communi- ties for traffic engineering assessments sure programs B. 10. Provide consultant assistance to local communi- Promote use of the online law enforcement ties for bridge engineering assessments mobilization reporting system C. 11. Provide training for engineering professionals Collaborate with the Missouri State Highway at workshops and the Annual Traffic Conference (num- Patrol to assure that Missouri’s traffic crash report form ber of attendees depends upon conference costs which complies with MMUCC standards. is based on location and travel constraints) 12. D. web-based Highway Safety grants management system Provide an effective, efficient software system Maintain and improve, as needed, a totally for capturing local law enforcement crash data working in conjunction with the Highway Safety Office, E. REJIS, and MoDOT’s Information Technology Division Provide an effective, efficient web-based high- way safety grants management system 86 131 Final Report 6-150205LK Highway Safety Drivers Survey Prepared for Missouri Department of Transportation Organizational Results By Lance Gentry May 5, 2015 The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the principal investigators and the Missouri Department of Transportation. They are not necessarily those of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard or regulation. 132 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 6-150205LK 2. Government Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 5. Report Date May 5, 2015 6. Performing Organization Code Highway Safety Drivers Survey 7. Author(s) Lance C. Gentry, Ph.D., M.B.A. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 8. Performing Organization Report No. Heartland Market Research LLC 1405 Hawkins Meadow Drive Fenton, MO 63026-7222 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 11. Contract or Grant No. 6-150205LK 10. Work Unit No. 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Missouri Department of Transportation Research, Development and Technology P. O. Box 270-Jefferson City, MO 65102 15. Supplementary Notes The investigation was conducted in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract Missouri drivers were surveyed to capture their current attitudes and awareness of specific items concerning highway safety such as seat belt usage, speeding issues, cell phone use while driving, and alcohol impaired driving. The results are presented for the entire state, and by district (stratified), and weighted proportionally to the region distribution in terms of geographic, gender, and age distributions. Results are also compared to that of previous years. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Driver survey, highway safety, seat belts, speeding, driving under the No restrictions. This document is available to the public influence (DUI), cell phones through National Technical Information Center, Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified Form DOT F 1700.7 (06/98) 133 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 TECHNICAL APPROACH .......................................................................................................................................... 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (EVALUATION) ............................................................................................................. 6 SEAT BELT USAGE ...........................................................................................................................................................7 SPEEDING ISSUES ..........................................................................................................................................................12 CELL PHONE USE WHILE DRIVING ....................................................................................................................................16 ALCOHOL IMPAIRED DRIVING ..........................................................................................................................................18 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR AND PROJECT MEMBERS ........................................................................................... 22 WORKS CITED ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX A: WORK PLAN ................................................................................................................................... A1 APPENDIX B: SURVEY SCRIPT .............................................................................................................................. B1 PHONE SURVEY SCRIPT ................................................................................................................................................. B1 APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: CROSSTABS OF INTEREST ........................................................................ C1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS BY DISTRICT ................................................................................................................................. C1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS BY RURAL/URBAN ...................................................................................................................... C18 APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................D1 i 134 List of Tables Table 1: Survey Margin of Error ..................................................................................................................................6 Table 2: Statewide Seatbelt Usage................................................................................................................................ 7 Table 3: Secondary vs. Primary Law ............................................................................................................................ 9 Table 4: Statewide Support for Increasing Fine for Violating Seat Belt Law ............................................................ 10 Table 5: Respondent Input on Increasing Fine ........................................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Seat Belt Law Enforcement Publicity Awareness ........................................................................................ 11 Table 7: Perceived Chance of Obtaining Ticket for Violating Seat Belt Laws .......................................................... 11 Table 8: Speeding in 30 MPH Zones .......................................................................................................................... 12 Table 9: Speeding in 70 MPH Zones .......................................................................................................................... 12 Table 10: Speeding Enforcement Publicity Awareness .............................................................................................. 15 Table 11: Perceived Chance of Obtaining Ticket for Speeding .................................................................................. 15 Table 12: Frequency of Talking while Driving .......................................................................................................... 16 Table 13: Frequency of Texting while Driving .......................................................................................................... 16 Table 14: Statewide Opinions Regarding Cell Phone Restrictions ............................................................................. 17 Table 15: Statewide Drinking Behavior before Driving ............................................................................................. 19 Table 16: DUI Enforcement Publicity Awareness ...................................................................................................... 21 Table 17: Perceived Chance of Arrest after DUI ........................................................................................................ 21 Table 18: Timeline for 2015 Surveys ........................................................................................................................ A1 Table 19: Margin of Error by District ........................................................................................................................ C1 Table 20: District by Question 1 ................................................................................................................................ C2 Table 21: District by Question 2 ................................................................................................................................ C3 Table 22: District by Question 3 ................................................................................................................................ C4 Table 23: District by Question 3b .............................................................................................................................. C5 Table 24: District by Question 4 ................................................................................................................................ C6 Table 25: District by Question 5 ................................................................................................................................ C7 Table 26: District by Question 6 ................................................................................................................................ C8 Table 27: District by Question 7 ................................................................................................................................ C9 Table 28: District by Question 8 .............................................................................................................................. C10 Table 29: District by Question 9 .............................................................................................................................. C11 Table 30: District by Question 10 ............................................................................................................................ C12 Table 31: District by Question 11 ............................................................................................................................ C13 Table 32: District by Question 12 ............................................................................................................................ C14 Table 33: District by Question 13 ............................................................................................................................ C15 Table 34: District by Question 14 ............................................................................................................................ C16 Table 35: District by Question 15 ............................................................................................................................ C17 Table 36: District by Nielson Community Type...................................................................................................... C18 Table 37: Nielson Community Type by Question 1 ................................................................................................ C19 Table 38: Nielson Community Type by Question 2 ................................................................................................ C20 Table 39: Nielson Community Type by Question 3 ................................................................................................ C21 Table 40: Nielson Community Type by Question 3b .............................................................................................. C22 Table 41: Nielson Community Type by Question 4 ................................................................................................ C23 Table 42: Nielson Community Type by Question 5 ................................................................................................ C24 Table 43: Nielson Community Type by Question 6 ................................................................................................ C25 Table 44: Nielson Community Type by Question 7 ................................................................................................ C26 Table 45: Nielson Community Type by Question 8 ................................................................................................ C27 Table 46: Nielson Community Type by Question 9 ................................................................................................ C28 Table 47: Nielson Community Type by Question 10 .............................................................................................. C29 Table 48: Nielson Community Type by Question 11 .............................................................................................. C30 Table 49: Nielson Community Type by Question 12 .............................................................................................. C31 Table 50: Nielson Community Type by Question 13 .............................................................................................. C32 Table 51: Nielson Community Type by Question 14 .............................................................................................. C33 Table 52: Nielson Community Type by Question 15 .............................................................................................. C34 Table 53: Question a .................................................................................................................................................. D1 Table 54: Question b.................................................................................................................................................. D1 ii 135 Table 55: Table 56: Table 57: Table 58: Table 59: Table 60: Question c .................................................................................................................................................. D1 Question d.................................................................................................................................................. D2 Question e .................................................................................................................................................. D3 Question f .................................................................................................................................................. D3 Question g.................................................................................................................................................. D7 Question h................................................................................................................................................ D25 iii 136 Executive Summary Highway Safety Findings This research project surveyed 2,502 adult Missouri drivers in March 2015 to capture their current attitudes and awareness of specific items concerning highway safety such as seat belt usage, speeding issues, cell phone use while driving, and alcohol impaired driving. The research was designed so that in addition to providing a statewide result, statistically useful information was also available at the district level. Special emphasis was placed on ensuring that the sample reflected Missouri’s geographic, age, and gender diversity. People were surveyed from 113 counties as well as the independent city of St. Louis. Residents from 620 different zip codes are represented. The typical market research survey practice of alternatively asking for either the oldest or youngest adult was not employed. Instead, the calling center was given specific goals for each age group and gender within various geographic areas to ensure the most representative sample possible. Seat Belt Findings 83.1% of Missouri drivers claimed to always use their seat belts, statistically identical to the results from the previous four years. In 2015 those least likely to wear seat belts when driving or riding in a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick up were males of at least 50 years of age who primarily drove either a motorcycle or a pick up. Those who lived in areas classified as relatively urbanized were most likely to wear their seat belts whereas those who lived in either very rural location or in very urban areas such as St. Louis were less likely to wear seat belts. A majority (54.6%) of the respondents prefer to keep Missouri’s seat belt law a secondary law, similar to the findings from recent years. Likewise, a slight majority (51.6%) preferred to leave the penalty for violating the law unchanged. All responses were statistically identical to those from the previous year. Out of the minority who favored increasing the fine, a plurality (44.0%) thought the fine should range from $25 to $49. The second largest group (20.0%) thought the fine should range from $50 to $74. These were also the two largest groups the last five years out of the minority who wished to increase the fine. The vast majority of the respondents (82.4%) were not aware of any publicity concerning seat belt law enforcement. While statistically similar to the previous year, this continued a downward trend in awareness since 2010. There may be several reasons for this trend. First of all, people have many more options for their free time, making it much more difficult to reach them. People have access to more video and audio options than ever before, many of which are now available directly over the internet making local advertising very challenging. Secondly, this research measures the statewide perception on the issues being discussed. However, MoDOT may spend its marketing efforts targeting citizens at special risk. If so, any report of the statewide results will underestimate the effectiveness of publicity efforts as the responses from the citizens not being targeted make up a significant portion of the overall measure captured by this research. Finally, the timing of this research makes the current survey methodology a poor instrument for measuring the effectiveness of MoDOT’s seat belt safety awareness campaign which last took place in May 2014, approximately 10 months before respondents were surveyed. 1 137 Speeding Findings 72.4% of Missouri drivers stated they never or rarely drive more than 35 mph when the speed limit is 30 mph less than the 86.8% of Missouri drivers who stated they never or rarely drive more than 75 mph when the speed limit is 70 mph on local roads. Both findings were similar to those found in 2014. In 2015, females between 18 to 29 were more likely to speed on roads with speed limits of 30 mph compared to other groups. Women between 30 and 49 and men between 30 and 64 were more likely to speed on roads with speed limits of 70 mph. All age and gender segments were more likely to speed on roads with a 30 mph speed limit than roads with a 70 mph speed limit. In a change from last year, this was not true of motorcyclists. While they remain the group most likely to speed on roads with a speed limit of 70 mph, this year motorcyclists stated they were less likely to speed on roads with speed limits of 30 mph than drivers of other vehicles. It is important to understand that the sample size of motorcyclists is very small, thus there is likely to be greater variation from year to year in this group. In keeping with the findings since 2010, there was no correlation between speeding and any publicity about relevant law enforcement activities; nor was there any correlation between speeding and the respondent’s perception of the chance of being caught. The majority (73.3%) of Missouri drivers were unaware of any recent publicity regarding speed enforcement. This was virtually identical to the findings from the previous two years. Twothirds (66.6%) of Missouri drivers thought their chances of receiving a ticket if they speed were at least fifty percent. This was also similar to the findings since 2011. Cell Phone Findings 88.4% of Missouri drivers stated they rarely or never talk on a cell phone while driving. 11.2% of Missourians talk at least half of the time they drive. 99.1% of Missouri drivers stated they rarely or never text on a cell phone while driving. These numbers are statistically identical to the findings from last year. 92.5% of Missouri drivers favored some type of restriction on how people could use cell phones while driving. 29.9% favored banning all cell phone use by drivers, while a majority (62.6%) wanted to ensure drivers could still use cell phones for talking while seeing the need for some restrictions. These results were similar to previous findings and continue a downward trend in the number of people who support a complete ban on cell phone use while driving. In 2015 women 65 and older were the least likely to drive while talking on a cell phone whereas females from 30 to 49 where the most likely group to talk on a cellular phone while driving. However, at just under 18% (17.9% for women 30 to 39 and 17.8% for women 40 to 49), this is significantly lower than the measures recorded in previous years. Self-reported texting while driving also continued to decline. In 2015, males 40 to 49 were the most likely age/gender segment to text while driving and only 2% of this group said they did so at least 50% of their driving time. 2 138 DUI Findings 89.4% of Missouri drivers stated that they had not driven a vehicle within two hours of consuming an alcoholic beverage anytime in the last sixty days. This is similar to last year’s findings. 8.1% of Missouri drivers admitted to having done so at least once in the last sixty days. Another 2.5% refused to answer the question. Heartland Market Research concluded that approximately 10.6% of Missouri drivers have driven under the influence of alcohol in the last sixty days. Considering the margin of error, this is similar to the findings that have been measured most years of this study (11.5% in 2010, 18.7% in 2011, 8.3% in 2012, 12.7% in 2013, and 9.3% in 2014). Out of those who admitted to drinking before driving, the average driver did so about three times in the last sixty days (average of 3.1 times). This is the lowest amount recorded since Heartland became involved with this research in 2010. It compares to an average of 3.6 times in 2014 and 2013, 5.5 times in 2012, 6.2 times in 2011, and an average of 5.2 times in 2010. Similar to last year, in 2015 males 65 years of age and older were most likely to drive under the influence of alcohol, closely followed by males 40 to 49 years of age. For every age category, women were less likely to drive under the influence of alcohol than males. Motorcyclists and pickup truck drivers were more likely to drive under the influence than drivers of other vehicles. Drivers of other types of trucks, closely followed by van/minivan drivers, were least likely to drive under the influence. Drivers residing in highly urbanized areas were more likely to drive after consuming alcohol than residents of less populated areas. While awareness of DUI enforcement was not correlated with stated behavior, the expectation of being ticketed reduced the likelihood of DUI behavior similar to the results in 2014, 2013, and 2011. Approximately half (47.2%) of Missouri drivers were aware of recent publicity regarding DUI enforcement. This was similar to the findings of the previous years. The timing of this survey made these results intriguing. Before 2013, this survey has been conducted in the summer (typically in June). In 2013 the survey was conducted in March, in 2014 the survey was conducted in April, and in 2015 the survey was conducted in March. Results were quite consistent despite the variation in timing. Recommended Improvements for This Research Program This survey instrument used in this study is remarkably accurate. As detailed within, the selfreported behavior for seat belt usage from this research was compared to an observational study. The difference between the two studies was approximately the combined margin of error of the two efforts. However, while this comparison supports the accuracy of the research methodology, current practice is not well suited for determining the effectiveness of MoDOT’s various public safety campaigns. For example, MoDOT conducts most of its “Click It or Ticket” outreach in May compared to offering multiple campaigns about DUI throughout the year. Since the current survey asks about consumer awareness for the last 30 to 60 days, it is not surprising that awareness of DUI enforcement (47.2%) is much higher than awareness of seat belt enforcement (17.5%). Thus in the case of the seat belt enforcement awareness question, the better a person recalls when a campaign was conducted, the more likely the person is to answer no and give the impression that the campaign was ineffective. 3 139 Recommendation 1: The three enforcement awareness questions should be reworded to be internally consistent and cover a longer period of time. Specifically, these questions should ask about the last six months instead of the current 60 days for one question and 30 days for two questions. In addition, they questions should be more specific where feasible (e.g., instead of simply asking about seat belt law enforcement, include “Click It or Ticket” in the question). The three awareness questions cover seat belt enforcement, speeding enforcement, and DUI enforcement. Chronologically, MoDOT uses two different tactics to publicize seat belt enforcement and DUI enforcement. MoDOT currently makes an annual effort to publicize “Click It or Ticket” in May for seat belt enforcement compared with several campaigns throughout the year for DUI enforcement (“Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over” in March and August/September along with the “Choose Your Ride” in November/December). Recommendation 2: Ideally, MoDOT split the current sample size into thirds and conduct the survey three times throughout the year (e.g., February, June, and October). The cost of conducting three smaller surveys would be similar to one larger survey and this would also allow MoDOT to track awareness of the three enforcement efforts throughout the year. Alternatively, MoDOT could keep the survey as an annual survey, but move it to June. Other Recommendations for MoDOT Recommendation 3: MoDOT spends a large portion of their seat belt enforcement money on campaigns aimed at teenagers under 18. While this survey does an excellent job of measuring current attitudes and behaviors of adult drivers, it is not designed for – and specifically excludes – teenagers under 18. MoDOT may wish to commission a survey to measure the effectiveness of seat belt enforcement efforts aimed at this age group. Recommendation 4: In the six years Heartland has been conducting this survey, public awareness of DUI enforcement campaigns has been much higher – often more than double – than public awareness of seat belt enforcement. Even when the survey was being asked in June, there was a very large difference. While other factors probably also influence this difference, it suggests that the tactic of publicizing enforcement activities multiple times a year is more effective than an annual effort. MoDOT should evaluate the feasibility of publicizing seat belt enforcement campaigns three times a year similar to the DUI enforcement campaigns. 4 140 Introduction The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) desired to know more regarding attitudes and awareness concerning impaired driving, seat belt use, and speeding from Missouri adults. Following standard practice, MoDOT requested bids from qualified research organizations by posting a request for proposals on their public website. Heartland Market Research LLC was selected from this competitive process as having the best research proposal and was awarded the research contract. The research was conducted during March 2015 using a phone survey instrument. Objective The primary objective of this research project was to survey adult Missouri drivers to capture their current attitudes and awareness of specific items concerning highway safety such as seat belt usage, speeding, cell phone use while driving, and alcohol impaired driving while minimizing the margin of error. The research was designed so that in addition to providing a statewide result, statistically useful information was also available at the district level. Special emphasis was placed on ensuring that the sample reflected Missouri’s geographic, age, and gender diversity. Technical Approach The survey questions were provided by MoDOT and were similar to the questions used in the 2010 and 2011 Highway Safety studies and identical to the questions asked in 2012, 2013, and 2014. In 2012 additional questions were added pertaining to cell phone and texting usage while driving and these were also employed in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Starting on March 9 and ending on March 29, 2015, Quancor Virtual Sales and Marketing (QVSM) placed 139,473 calls in the State of Missouri. During this process, they reached 5,369 persons, of whom 2,502 completed the survey. The operators were instructed to mention MoDOT only if the respondent asked who had commissioned the survey. A copy of the operator script appears in Appendix B. Special efforts were made to make the phone survey as representative as possible, especially in terms of the research objectives (geographic, gender, and age). People were surveyed from 113 counties as well as the independent city of St. Louis. Residents from 620 different zip codes are represented. The typical phone survey practice of alternatively asking for either the oldest or youngest adult was not employed. Instead, the calling center was given specific goals for each age group and gender within various geographic areas to ensure the most representative sample possible within the constraints of the project. The survey results were weighted proportionally to the actual population in terms of geographic, gender, and age distributions. Information from 2010 Census was used for this purpose as this was the most recent complete information available. The weighted results from the three previous phone surveys are also shown for comparative purposes and this information was taken from the 2012 Highway Safety Driver Survey report. All years compared utilized the exact same weights from the 2010 Census. 5 141 Results and Discussion (Evaluation) In surveying, it is usually not reasonable to survey everyone in the population of interest. Therefore, a portion of the population is surveyed and this portion is called the sample. Since the sample is usually much smaller than the population of interest, the mean of the population may vary from the mean of the sample. The expected error depends upon the size of the sample and the desired level of confidence. As the sample size increases, the margin of error decreases. The general formula for computing the margin of error at the 95% level of confidence is .98 divided by the square root of the sample size. The following table shows the margin of error for the most recent Highway Safety surveys. Table 1: Survey Margin of Error Responses Margin of Error 2010 Phone Survey 3,010 2011 Phone Survey 1,207 2012 Phone Survey 2,616 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey 2,510 2,513 2,502 1.79% 2.82% 1.92% 1.96% 1.95% 1.96% Thus with an overall sample size of 2,502 we can be 95% certain that the sample mean is within 1.96% of the population mean. Thus if 17.48% of our sample is aware of any recent publicity concerning seat belt law enforcement, we can be 95% certain that between 15.5% and 19.4% of the adult driving population in Missouri would actually be aware of any recent publicity. These statistics assume honest answers by the respondents. Research has shown that people tend to answer surveys honestly unless the answer is perceived to have an appropriate answer. For example, most people believe that wearing seatbelts is the socially correct thing to do, so the answer to the seat belt question may be slightly inflated. Likewise, most people believe that driving under the influence of alcohol is socially incorrect, so the answers to these questions may be slightly deflated. In these cases, the most important factor is to look for statistically significant changes from year to year. The results from the previous four surveys are provided along with this year’s survey so that changes over time may also be reviewed. When comparing surveys, the margins of error are cumulative. Therefore, we can be 95% confident there has been a significant change in the attitudes of Missourian from 2014 to 2015 if the survey results differ by more than 3.91%. The statewide results have been weighted proportionally to the actual population in terms of geographic, gender, and age distributions. Readers should not use this research to draw conclusions about the behavior of those who primarily drove motorcycles. While the sample size is quite adequate for drivers of other vehicles, only eight respondents stated that their primary vehicle was a motorcycle. This is to be expected in a survey that represents the general public given that only a small percentage of the US population rides motorcycles. Further, out of the entire population of motorcycle riders, many of them may have another vehicle they drive more often than their bike. 6 142 Seat Belt Usage Depending upon their opinions, respondents answered five to six questions pertaining to their behavior and thoughts concerning seat belts. Question 1: How often do you use seat belts when you drive or ride in a car, van, sport utility vehicle or pick up? In 2015, 83.1% of Missouri drivers claimed to always use their seat belts, statistically identical to the results from the previous four years. This is slightly higher than the 75% average observed seat belt use Pickrell and Ye (2008) documented for states with secondary enforcement laws. It is also remarkably close to the 78.8% observed rate for Missouri in an extensive study commissioned by MoDOT for the period from June 2 to June 15 2014. The 2014 study was based on total of 90,015 vehicles and 117,297 vehicle occupants observed across twenty roadway segments in each of 28 survey counties for a total of 560 observed sites. The margin of error for the observed studies was 2.5% so the combined margin of error of the two studies was about 4.5%. In other words, the difference between the two studies is about the expected margin of error. The fact that the 2014 observed seatbelt rate and the self-reported rates from 2010 to 2015 are so close shows the reliability of the self-report method – at least when it comes to reporting seat-belt usage. Table 2: Statewide Seatbelt Usage How often do you use seat belts when you drive or ride in a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick up? 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Always 82.0% 84.1% 84.2% 82.7% 84.6% 83.1% 8.6% 9.6% 9.7% 9.6% Most of the time 9.2% 7.7% 3.0% 2.9% 1.8% 2.7% Half of the time 3.2% 3.4% 1.9% 2.5% 1.7% 2.1% Rarely 2.4% 2.6% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.4% Never 3.1% 2.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Refused 0.1% 0.1% Similar to other years, males were less likely to wear seat belts than females in 2015. Those least likely to wear seat belts when driving or riding in a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick up were males of at least 50 years of age who primarily drove either a motorcycle or a pick up. Those who lived in areas classified as relatively urbanized were most likely to wear their seat belts whereas those who lived in either very rural location or in very urban areas such as St. Louis were less likely to wear seat belts. In 2014 those least likely to wear seat belts were males, 50 years of age and older, whose primary vehicle was a pickup truck. Similar to previous findings, those who were the least likely to wear seat belts were also the least likely to believe that people would receive a ticket if they did not wear their seat belt. Also similar to previous years, those who lived in very rural areas were also less likely to always buckle up than those living in other communities. 7 143 In 2013 those least likely to wear seat belts were males, between the ages of 18 and 29, whose primary vehicle was a pickup truck or other type of truck. As was also the case last year, those who were the least likely to wear seat belts were the most likely to be aware of seat belt enforcement publicity, but were the least likely to believe that people would receive a ticket if they did not wear their seat belt. Also similar to last year, those who lived in very rural areas were also less likely to always buckle up than those living in other communities. In 2012 those least likely to wear seat belts were males, between the ages of 50 and 64, whose primary vehicle was a pickup truck or a motorcycle. In 2012 those who were the least likely to wear seat belts were the most likely to be aware of seat belt enforcement publicity, but were also the least likely to believe that people would receive a ticket if they did not wear their seat belt. This was a change from the findings from the previous two years. Those who lived in very rural areas were also less likely to buckle up than those living in other communities. In 2011 the results were similar with one major difference. While those least likely to wear seat belts were still males between the ages of 30 and 64 who drive a pickup truck, those who drove some other type of truck wear their seat belts “always” or “most of the time”. In 2011, there was no correlation between seat belt usage and any publicity about law enforcement activities. While smaller than the 2010 impact, those with a higher expectation of receiving a ticket if they did not wear their seat belt were more likely to wear one. In 2010 those least likely to wear seat belts were males, between the ages of 30 and 64, who drove some type of truck (e.g, either a pickup truck or “other type of truck”). There was no correlation between seat belt usage and any publicity about law enforcement activities; however, those more likely to think they would receive a ticket for not wearing a seat belt were more likely to comply with the law. 8 144 Question 2: Do you favor keeping Missouri's seat belt law as a "secondary law"—where you can only be pulled over or ticketed if you are observed committing another violation; or do you favor changing Missouri’s seat belt law to a "primary law"—where you can be pulled over or ticketed if the officer clearly observes you are not wearing your seat belt? A majority (54.6%) of the respondents prefer to keep Missouri’s seat belt law a secondary law, similar to the findings from recent years. Table 3: Secondary vs. Primary Law Do you favor keeping Keep Missouri's seat belt law as a "secondary "secondary law" - where you law" can only be pulled over or Change to ticketed if you are observed "primary committing another violation; law" or do you favor changing Missouri's seat belt law to a "primary law" - where you can be pulled over or ticketed No Opinion/ Refused if the officer clearly observes you are not wearing your seat belt? 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 54.7% 51.4% 51.0% 52.5% 57.0% 54.6% 41.1% 38.5% 41.2% 36.7% 36.1% 39.0% 4.2% 10.0% 7.8% 10.8% 6.8% 6.5% 9 145 Question 3: Currently, the fine for violating Missouri’s seat belt law is $10. Would you support an increase in the fine associated with this violation? A slight majority (51.6%) preferred to leave the penalty for violating the law unchanged. All responses were statistically identical to those from the previous year. Table 4: Statewide Support for Increasing Fine for Violating Seat Belt Law Currently, the fine for violating Missouri's seat belt law is $10. Would you support an increase in the fine associated with this violation? 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Yes 46.6% 45.8% 43.7% 44.3% 45.3% 45.9% No 51.7% 50.1% 52.9% 51.9% 51.2% 51.6% No Opinion / Refused 1.8% 4.1% 3.4% 3.8% 3.5% 2.5% Question 3b: In your opinion, what should the fine associated with violating Missouri’s seat belt law be? Question 3b was only asked of 1,079 respondents who supported an increase in the fine associated with not wearing a seatbelt (Question 3). Since the number of respondents for this question is smaller than for the other questions, the margin of error is slightly larger (3.0%). Out of the minority who favored increasing the fine, a plurality (44.0%) thought the fine should range from $25 to $49. The second largest group (20.0%) thought the fine should range from $50 to $74. These were also the two largest groups the last five years out of the minority who wished to increase the fine. Table 5: Respondent Input on Increasing Fine In your opinion, what should the fine associated with violating Missouri's seat belt law be? Under $25 $25 to $49 $50 to $74 $75 to $100 Over $100 No Opinion/Refused Margin of Error 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 14.1% 17.0% 14.5% 17.3% 15.7% 17.3% 38.8% 31.0% 35.6% 36.5% 35.6% 44.0% 25.9% 21.6% 24.5% 22.9% 23.4% 20.0% 12.9% 16.1% 13.6% 12.2% 14.0% 10.9% 9.3% 6.2% 6.7% 11.8% 8.9% 8.7% 2.0% 1.6% 1.6% 2.5% 2.9% 2.4% 2.7% 4.5% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 10 146 Question 4: In the past 60 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about seat belt law enforcement by police? The vast majority of the respondents (82.4%) were not aware of any publicity concerning seat belt law enforcement. While statistically similar to the previous year, this continued a downward trend in awareness since 2010. There may be several reasons for this trend. First of all, people have many more options for their free time, making it much more difficult to reach them. People have access to more video and audio options than ever before, many of which are now available directly over the internet making local advertising very challenging. Secondly, this research measures the statewide perception on the issues being discussed. However, MoDOT may spend its marketing efforts targeting citizens at special risk. If so, any report of the statewide results will underestimate the effectiveness of publicity efforts as the responses from the citizens not being targeted make up a significant portion of the overall measure for this research. Table 6: Seat Belt Law Enforcement Publicity Awareness In the past 60 days, have you read, seen, or heard anything about seat belt law enforcement by police? Yes No 2010 Phone Survey 31.7% 68.1% 2011 Phone Survey 29.0% 70.3% 2012 Phone Survey 26.5% 73.2% 2013 Phone Survey 20.9% 78.7% 2014 Phone Survey 17.7% 81.5% 2015 Phone Survey 17.5% 82.4% 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% 0.1% No Opinion / Refused Question 5: What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you don’t wear your safety belt? Opinions varied greatly on this issue, but a plurality (35.1%) thought people who did not wear their seat belt would only rarely get a ticket. 47.6% of the respondents thought people would be caught at least half of the time. The number of people who thought someone would always get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt was similar to the findings since 2012. Table 7: Perceived Chance of Obtaining Ticket for Violating Seat Belt Laws What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you don't wear your seat belt? Always Most of the time Half of the time Rarely Never No Opinion/Refused 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 12.4% 7.6% 12.9% 12.4% 10.6% 13.6% 16.2% 15.0% 15.1% 15.9% 15.9% 15.3% 21.4% 20.5% 19.7% 16.5% 20.5% 18.7% 37.4% 40.8% 36.4% 35.2% 36.3% 35.1% 10.0% 7.1% 8.5% 10.5% 10.0% 9.9% 7.4% 2.6% 9.0% 7.4% 9.6% 6.7% 11 147 Speeding Issues Missouri drivers answered four questions concerning speeding. Question 6: On a local road with a speed limit of 30 mph, how often do you drive faster than 35 mph? 72.4% of Missouri drivers stated they never or rarely drive more than 35 mph when the speed limit is 30 mph, similar to the findings from recent years. Table 8: Speeding in 30 MPH Zones On a local road with a speed limit of 30 mph, how often do you travel faster than 35 mph? Always Most of the time Half of the time Rarely Never Refused 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 3.9% 3.3% 2.5% 9.8% 8.0% 9.5% 10.5% 10.8% 10.4% 13.0% 15.1% 14.9% 12.4% 12.7% 13.3% 44.7% 43.8% 39.0% 39.5% 48.3% 44.7% 27.7% 28.2% 31.2% 32.3% 24.4% 27.6% 0.5% 0.7% 1.3% 1.4% 0.5% 1.4% Question 7: On a local road with a speed limit of 70 mph, how often do you drive faster than 75 mph? 86.8% of Missouri drivers stated they never or rarely drive more than 75 mph when the speed limit is 70 mph on local roads. Table 9: Speeding in 70 MPH Zones On a local road with a speed limit of 70 mph, how often do you driver faster than 75 mph? Always Most of the time Half of the time Rarely Never Refused 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 2.6% 1.8% 2.2% 1.9% 1.3% 1.6% 3.5% 3.4% 4.0% 4.0% 3.7% 4.4% 7.2% 9.6% 8.5% 5.9% 6.5% 6.9% 32.3% 38.0% 32.7% 31.2% 39.2% 37.6% 54.2% 46.2% 51.7% 56.4% 48.9% 49.1% 0.2% 1.0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 12 148 In 2015, females between 18 to 29 were more likely to speed on roads with speed limits of 30 mph compared to other groups. Women between 30 and 49 and men between 30 and 64 were more likely to speed on roads with speed limits of 70 mph. All age and gender segments were more likely to speed on roads with a 30 mph speed limit than roads with a 70 mph speed limit. In a change from last year, this was not true of motorcyclists. While they remain the group most likely to speed on roads with a speed limit of 70 mph, this year motorcyclists stated they were less likely to speed on roads with speed limits of 30 mph than drivers of other vehicles. It is important to understand that the sample size of motorcyclists is very small, thus there is likely to be greater variation from year to year in this group. In keeping with the findings since 2010, there was no correlation between speeding and any publicity about relevant law enforcement activities; nor was there any correlation between speeding and the respondent’s perception of the chance of being caught. In 2014, men between 40 to 49 years of age were more likely to speed than other groups on local roads with speed limits of 30 mph while men 30 to 39 were more likely to speed on faster roads with speed limits of 70 mph. Similar to last year, women 65 and older were the least likely to speed under both 30 and 70 mph limits. Also similar to last year, all segments were more likely to speed on local roads with a speed limit of 30 mph than on local roads with speed limits of 70 mph. Motorcyclists continue to be the most prevalent speeders on roads with speed limits of 30 mph and this year reported being the most likely to speed on roads with speed limits of 70 miles per hour. In keeping with the findings since 2010, there was no correlation between speeding and any publicity about relevant law enforcement activities; nor was there any correlation between speeding and the respondent’s perception of the chance of being caught. In 2013, women between 30 to 39 years of age were more likely to speed than other groups on both local roads with speed limits of 30 mph and faster roads with speed limits of 70 mph. Similar to last year, women 65 and older were the least likely to speed under both 30 and 70 mph limits. Motorcyclists continue to be the most prevalent speeders on roads with speed limits of 30 mph. As has been the case in the past, truck (non-pickup) drivers were the least likely to speed on roads with speed limits of 30 mph, but the most likely to speed on local roads with speed limits of 70 mph. There was no correlation between speeding and any publicity about relevant law enforcement activities; nor was there any correlation between speeding and the respondent’s perception of the chance of being caught. In 2012, people between 18 to 29 years of age and males 40 to 49 years of age were most likely to speed on local roads with a speed limit of 30 mph. On roads with speed limits of 70 mph, males between 18 to 49 and females between 30 to 39 were more likely to speed than other groups. Women 65 and older were the least likely to speed under both 30 and 70 mph limits. All segments were more likely to speed on local roads with a speed limit of 30 mph than on local roads with speed limits of 70 mph. Motorcyclists and drivers of other types of trucks (not pickups) were the outlying cases for speeding, but their behavior was the inverse of each other. Motorcyclists said they were the most likely to speed on local roads with speed limits of 30 mph, but the least like to speed on roads where the speed limit was 70 mph. Truck (non-pickup) drivers were the least likely to speed on roads with speed limits of 30 mph, but the most likely to speed on local roads with speed limits of 70 mph. As was the case in the last two years, there was no correlation between awareness of speed enforcement by police and speeding behavior nor between speeding and the respondent’s perception of the chance of being caught. 13 149 In 2011 the results were similar but varied slightly. Those most likely to speed were anyone between 18 to 29, males 40 to 49, and females 65 and older. Those who stated they drove an “other type of truck” were more likely to speed than drivers of other vehicles followed by motorcyclists. Just like 2010, there was no correlation between speeding and any publicity about relevant law enforcement activities; nor was there any correlation between speeding and the respondent’s perception of the chance of being caught. In 2010 those most likely to speed were either males between 18 to 29 years of age or females between 40 to 49 years of age. Motorcycle drivers were much more likely to speed than other drivers, followed by those who stated they drove an “other type of truck” (i.e., a truck that was neither a pickup truck, a SUV, nor a crossover). There was no correlation between speeding and any publicity about relevant law enforcement activities; nor was there any correlation between speeding and the respondent’s perception of the chance of being caught. 14 150 Question 8: In the past 30 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about speed enforcement by police? The majority (73.3%) of Missouri drivers were unaware of any recent publicity regarding speed enforcement. This was virtually identical to the findings from last year. Table 10: Speeding Enforcement Publicity Awareness In the past 30 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about speed enforcement by police? Yes No No Opinion / Refused 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 37.4% 31.4% 34.6% 28.0% 28.1% 26.2% 62.4% 67.9% 65.0% 71.6% 71.5% 73.3% 0.2% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% Question 9: What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you drive over the speed limit? Two-thirds (66.6%) of Missouri drivers thought their chances of receiving a ticket if they speed were at least fifty percent. This was also similar to the findings since 2011. Table 11: Perceived Chance of Obtaining Ticket for Speeding What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you drive over the speed limit? Always Most of the time Half of the time Rarely Never No Opinion/Refused 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 11.3% 8.5% 10.2% 9.9% 7.3% 8.1% 27.4% 26.4% 26.3% 27.3% 27.5% 22.9% 35.3% 32.8% 30.9% 31.4% 35.6% 35.6% 21.4% 24.2% 26.3% 23.0% 25.1% 27.1% 3.4% 4.5% 3.6% 4.3% 2.8% 3.6% 1.3% 3.5% 2.7% 4.1% 1.6% 2.7% 15 151 Cell Phone Use While Driving Respondents were asked three questions about cell phone use while driving. The first two questions were added in 2012. Question 10: How often do you talk on a hand-held cellular phone while driving a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick-up? 88.4% of Missouri drivers stated they rarely or never talk on a cell phone while driving. 11.2% of Missourians talk at least half of the time they drive. Table 12: Frequency of Talking while Driving 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey 1.0% 1.0% 0.7% 0.7% Always How often do you talk on a hand-held cellular phone while driving a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick-up? Most of the Time 2.6% 3.5% 1.8% 2.2% Half of the Time 9.8% 8.1% 9.7% 8.4% 44.4% 41.8% 0.3% 39.0% 47.9% 0.5% 44.0% 43.5% 0.5% 43.4% 45.0% 0.4% Rarely Never No Opinion/Refused Question 11: How often do you use a hand-held cellular phone for texting while driving a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick-up? 99.1% of Missouri drivers stated they rarely or never text on a cell phone while driving. Table 13: Frequency of Texting while Driving 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Always How often do you use a hand-held cellular phone for texting while driving a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick-up? Most of the Time 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% Half of the Time 1.5% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 11.0% 86.3% 0.4% 7.6% 91.2% 0.3% 9.6% 89.1% 0.6% 8.9% 90.3% 0.2% Rarely Never No Opinion/Refused 16 152 Question 12: Many states have passed laws which restrict or ban cellular phone use, including texting, while driving. What level of restrictions would you support regarding cellular phone usage while driving? 92.5% of Missouri drivers favored some type of restriction on how people could use cell phones while driving. 29.9% favored banning all cell phone use by drivers, while a majority (62.6%) wanted to ensure drivers could still use cell phones for talking while seeing the need for some restrictions. These results were similar to previous findings. Table 14: Statewide Opinions Regarding Cell Phone Restrictions Many states have passed laws which restrict or ban cellular phone use, including texting, while driving. What level of restrictions would you support regarding cellular phone usage while driving? Full Restrictions - No Cellular Phone Use Allowed Ban on Texting While Driving, Phone Use Allowed Ban on Texting While Driving, Hands-Free Phone Device Allowed Hands-Free Phone Device Use Only No Restrictions No Opinion / Refused 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 39.3% 34.2% 34.0% 28.9% 32.5% 29.9% 24.7% 30.8% 22.8% 21.2% 18.8% 17.9% 20.1% 16.4% 16.8% 14.2% 19.1% 17.0% 12.8% 14.0% 19.7% 26.8% 23.2% 27.7% 2.4% 0.7% 3.6% 1.0% 4.4% 2.4% 5.6% 3.1% 3.8% 2.5% 4.4% 3.1% In 2015 women 65 and older were the least likely to drive while talking on a cell phone whereas females from 30 to 49 where the most likely group to talk on a cellular phone while driving. However, at just under 18% (17.9% for women 30 to 39 and 17.8% for women 40 to 49), this is significantly lower than the measures recorded in previous years. Self-reported texting while driving also continued to decline. In 2015, males 40 to 49 were the most likely age/gender segment to text while driving and only 2% of this group said they did so at least 50% of their driving time. In 2014 men 65 and older were the least likely to talk on a cell phone while driving. As has been the case since this question was first asked, females between 30 to 39 were the most likely group to talk on a cell phone while driving with 22.3% of this segment stating they do so fifty percent of the time or more. In 2013 women 65 and older were the least likely to talk on a cell phone while driving. Females between 30 to 39 continue to be the most likely group to talk on a cell phone while driving with 24.3% of this segment stating they do so fifty percent of the time or more. This segment was also most likely to text while driving, but only 3.4% texted at least half the time they were driving. 17 153 In 2012 females between 30 to 39 years of age were much more likely to talk on a cell phone while driving than other groups with 27.8% of this segment stating that they do so at least half of the time they are driving. People between 18 to 29 were more likely to text while driving than other segments, but only about 4% of this segment texted at least half the time they were driving. Alcohol Impaired Driving Missouri drivers were asked three questions regarding alcohol impaired driving. When these questions were first asked in 2010, the researchers were concerned that people might not answer these questions honestly considering the legal and ethical implications of driving under the influence. However, the survey operators had the consistent impression that people were either answering these questions honestly or simply refusing to answer the question. The same calling center has been used since the 2010 survey and the call center operators have had similar impressions every year they have conducted the surveys. Question 13: In the past 60 days, how many times have you driven a motor vehicle within two (2) hours after drinking alcoholic beverages? 89.4% of Missouri drivers stated that they had not driven a vehicle within two hours of consuming an alcoholic beverage anytime in the last sixty days. This is similar to last year’s findings. 8.1% of Missouri drivers admitted to having done so at least once in the last sixty days. Another 2.5% refused to answer the question. Researchers usually hesitate to draw conclusions from refusals, but after considering the implications for self-incrimination and the impressions of the survey operators, Heartland Market Research concluded that approximately 10.6% of Missouri drivers have driven under the influence of alcohol in the last sixty days. Considering the margin of error, this is similar to the findings that have been measured most years of this study (11.5% in 2010, 18.7% in 2011, 8.3% in 2012, 12.7% in 2013, and 9.3% in 2014). Out of those who admitted to drinking before driving, the average driver did so about three times in the last sixty days (average of 3.1 times). This is the lowest amount recorded since Heartland became involved with this research in 2010. It compares to an average of 3.6 times in 2014 and 2013, 5.5 times in 2012, 6.2 times in 2011, and an average of 5.2 times in 2010. 18 154 Table 15: Statewide Drinking Behavior before Driving 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey In the past 60 days, how many times have you driven a vehicle within two (2) hours after drinking alcoholic beverages? 2015 Phone Survey 0 88.20% 81.30% 91.70% 87.30% 90.71% 89.41% 1 3.20% 4.60% 2.50% 2.20% 2.57% 2.68% 2 3.00% 1.80% 2.10% 2.60% 2.18% 2.49% 3 0.80% 1.10% 0.40% 0.70% 0.62% 0.89% 4 0.60% 2.20% 0.30% 0.60% 0.36% 0.75% 5 0.30% 0.40% 0.60% 0.40% 0.45% 0.25% 6 0.40% 0.00% 0.30% 0.10% 0.16% 0.29% 7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.03% 0.09% 8 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.00% 0.12% 10 0.50% 0.40% 0.10% 0.20% 0.21% 0.11% 12 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.02% 0.15% 14 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 20 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.14% 24 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.01% 0.00% 30 0.10% 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 60 0.20% 0.10% 0.30% 0.10% 0.09% 0.00% Refused 2.20% 7.30% 1.50% 5.50% 2.58% 2.52% Similar to last year, in 2015 males 65 years of age and older were most likely to drive under the influence of alcohol, closely followed by males 40 to 49 years of age. For every age category, women were less likely to drive under the influence of alcohol than males. Motorcyclists and pickup truck drivers were more likely to drive under the influence than drivers of other vehicles. Drivers of other types of trucks, closely followed by van/minivan drivers, were least likely to drive under the influence. Drivers residing in highly urbanized areas were more likely to drive after consuming alcohol than residents of less populated areas. While awareness of DUI enforcement was not correlated with stated behavior, the expectation of being ticketed reduced the likelihood of DUI behavior similar to the results in 2014, 2013, and 2011. 19 155 In 2014 those most likely to drive under the influence of alcohol were males of 65 years of age and older. Men were much more likely to drive after drinking than women. As was the case for the two previous years, men 18 to 29 stated they drove after drinking less than the other male segments, but this group was still more likely to drive under the influence than women 18 to 29 (the female age range most likely to drink and drive). Drivers of motorcycles were more likely to drive under the influence than drivers of other vehicles followed by drivers of pickup trucks. Drivers of vans or minivans were the least likely to drive after drinking. Those who lived in highly urbanized areas were most likely to drive under the influence of alcohol compared to residents of other areas. While awareness of DUI enforcement was not correlated with stated behavior, the expectation of being ticketed reduced the likelihood of DUI behavior similar to the results in 2013 and 2011. In 2013 those most likely to drive under the influence of alcohol were males 50 to 64 years of age and older. Men were much more likely to drive after drinking than women. As was the case in 2012, men 18 to 29 stated they drove after drinking less than the other male segments, but this group was still more likely to drive under the influence than women 30 to 39 (the female age range most likely to drive and drive). Drivers of pickup trucks were more likely to drive under the influence than drivers of other vehicles followed by drivers of SUVs/crossovers. In a change from the previous year, drivers of other types of truck were the least likely to drive after drinking. While awareness of DUI enforcement was not correlated with stated behavior, the expectation of being ticketed reduced the likelihood of driving under the influence. In 2012 those most likely to drive under the influence of alcohol were males 40 years of age and older. Men were much more likely to drive after drinking than women. Men 18 to 29 stated they drove after drinking less than the other male segments, but this group was still more likely to drive under the influence than women 30 to 39 (the female age range most likely to drive and drive). Drivers of motorcycles, SUVs, and all types of trucks were more likely to drive under the influence than drivers of other vehicles. Neither awareness of DUI enforcement nor expectations of being ticketed was correlated with drinking and driving behavior. In 2011 those most likely to drive under the influence of alcohol were again males between 50 to 64 years of age. Males 18 to 29 and females 30 to 39 were also more likely to drive under the influence than other segments. Similar to 2010, neither motorcyclists nor drivers of “other type of truck” stated they had consumed alcohol within two hours of driving, but this year some of the motorcyclists refused to answer the question. While awareness of DUI enforcement was not correlated with stated behavior, in 2011 the expectation of being ticketed reduced the likelihood of driving under the influence. In 2010 those most likely to drive under the influence of alcohol were males between 50 to 64 years of age. Unlike other risky behavior measured in this survey, drivers of motorcycles and those who stated they drove an “other type of truck” were the least likely to drink before driving. According to the research, not a single motorcycle driver or “other” truck driver stated they had consumed alcohol within two hours of driving. 20 156 Question 14: In the past 30 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about alcohol impaired driving (or drunk driving) enforcement by police? Approximately half (47.2%) of Missouri drivers were aware of recent publicity regarding DUI enforcement. This was similar to the findings of the previous years. The timing of this survey made these results intriguing. Before 2013, this survey has been conducted in the summer (typically in June). In 2013 the survey was conducted in March, in 2014 the survey was conducted in April, and in 2015 the survey was conducted in March. Results were quite consistent despite the variation in timing. Table 16: DUI Enforcement Publicity Awareness In the past 30 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about alcohol impaired driving (or drunk driving) enforcement by police? Yes No 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 54.9% 48.4% 49.9% 52.0% 50.6% 47.2% 44.8% 50.6% 49.3% 47.1% 48.8% 52.1% No Opinion / Refused 0.3% 1.0% 0.8% 0.9% 0.5% 0.7% Question 15: What do you think the chances are of someone getting arrested if they drive after drinking? 69.0% of the respondents expected people who drove after drinking would be arrested at least half of the time, statistically identical to that of the previous measurements. Table 17: Perceived Chance of Arrest after DUI What do you think the chances are of someone getting arrested if they drive after drinking? Always Most of the time Half of the time Rarely Never No Opinion/Refused 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Phone Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 16.6% 14.1% 16.9% 17.4% 13.0% 13.4% 21.5% 22.9% 21.9% 24.3% 23.4% 21.3% 34.2% 32.1% 32.5% 30.5% 34.4% 34.3% 24.6% 27.4% 24.4% 23.0% 25.8% 26.6% 1.2% 0.7% 1.7% 0.7% 0.8% 1.1% 2.0% 2.8% 2.7% 4.1% 2.6% 3.4% 21 157 Principal Investigator and Project Members Heartland Market Research LLC Gentry, Lance Principal Investigator: The Principal Investigator (PI) had the primary responsibility for achieving the objectives of the project, while also ensuring the project complied with the financial, administrative, and legal constraints associated with the project contract. General responsibilities of the PI included the following: Complete the project as documented in the contract (e.g., weight and analyze results, write reports, manage subcontractor, etc.) or make changes to the plan as needed to ensure all work is completed in accordance with the research goals and objectives within the original proposal Fulfill the project’s financial plan as presented in the funded proposal or make changes to the plan as needed to ensure all work is completed within the original budget Report project progress to MoDOT to ensure sponsor is kept aware of key activities and benchmarks Keep records of all project related expenses Quancor Virtual Sales and Marketing Korn, Marie President and CEO: Responsible for overall operations of the company. On this project she helped program caller scripts and ensured that QVSM’s Operations staff had all the tools they need to complete all jobs and exceed the project goals. Korn, Steve Vice-President of Sales: Responsible for ensuring how QVSM’s telemarketing merges in with the rest of QVSM’s clients’ marketing efforts to achieve their sales and marketing goals. Duties also included contacting Heartland Market Research about any issues regarding this project and was day-to-day contact regarding the progress of survey. Bitter, Tammy Operations Manager: Responsible for the day-to-day operations for QVSM. Doddy, Terry Traffic Manager: Ensured survey calls were run at the best times to maximize their results. This included watching what days agents called, what times of day they run and which agents made the calls. Ying, Darral Quality Manager: Responsible for QVSM’s Quality Assurance staff. 22 158 Works Cited Nielsen Media Research, Glossary of Media Terms, accessed from http://www.nielsenmedia.com/glossary/ on June 19, 2011 Pickrell, Timothy M and Tony J. Ye (2008), Seat Belt Use in 2008 – Overall Results, Traffic Safety Facts Research Note, NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811036.pdf 2014 Statewide Safety Belt Survey conducted June 2 – June 15, 2014 for MoDOT 23 159 Appendix A: Work Plan Given the objectives of this project, Heartland proposed a phone survey of Missouri drivers. MoDOT notified Heartland that their proposal was the best of those submitted on February 25 and provided a contract to Heartland on February 27. Heartland immediately notified Quancor Virtual Sales and Marketing (QVSM) that the project was underway. After Heartland received the contract from MoDOT, Quancor Virtual Sales and Marketing immediately started programming the final version of the survey into their call center system. Next their callers and their management team were trained on the new scripts. Each caller was thoroughly tested on the scripts before they were permitted to make any live calls. Quancor Virtual Sales and Marketing started surveying people on March 9, 2015. All survey answers were recorded and stored for 30 days in case MoDOT wanted to review any of the phone interviews. Quancor Virtual Sales and Marketing delivered 2,502 completed surveys to Heartland on March 31, 2015. Heartland organized the data and provided top line (unweighted) results to MoDOT on April 1, 2015. Heartland analyzed the data and wrote a draft report for MoDOT. In accordance with MoDOT guidelines, the report was written using their Research Report Template to ensure a consistent format with other technical reports. Heartland provided MoDOT with an initial report on April 24, 2015. MoDOT reviewed the document and provide feedback on the report to Heartland on May 5. Heartland then delivered the final report to MoDOT on May 5. Table 18: Timeline for 2015 Surveys Schedule of Events MoDOT awarded the contract to Heartland QVSM programs survey into call center system and tests program QVSM conducts regional stratified survey starting March 9 QVSM provides all data to Heartland Heartland provides top line results to MoDOT Heartland analyzes data and provides draft report to MoDOT MoDOT provides Heartland with feedback on draft report Heartland completes final report and provides to MoDOT A-1 160 Completion February 27 March 6 March 31 March 31 April 1 April 24 May 5 May 5 Appendix B: Survey Script Phone Survey Script Hello, this is (RepName) calling on behalf of Heartland Market Research. We are conducting a brief survey about transportation issues facing people in Missouri. We are not selling anything, this number was selected at random, and no personal information will be gathered. This means your answers will be completely anonymous – we are just interested in the overall opinion of Missouri drivers. a. Are you a licensed Missouri driver? a. Yes b. No [end interview] b. What is your age? a. 18-29 years old b. 30-39 years old c. 40-49 years old d. 50-64 years old e. 65+ years old [If the respondent is under 18 years old, ask respondent if anyone over the age of 18 is available, if not, end interview] c. Are you male or female? a. Male b. Female d. What is your ethnicity? a. American Indian or Alaska Native b. Asian c. Black or African American d. Hispanic or Latino e. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander f. White [Respondent may select multiple categories] e. Is the vehicle you drive most often a: a. Car b. Van or Minivan c. Motorcycle d. Sport Utility Vehicle or Crossover e. Pickup Truck f. Other type of truck f. In what county do you currently live? a. _______ county name g. What is your home zip code: a. _______ zip code B-1 161 h. What is your household income? a. Under $30,000 b. $30,000 – $49,999 c. $50,000 – $69,999 d. $70,000 or greater e. I prefer not to answer [do not ask, only use if respondent volunteers this answer] 1. How often do you use seat belts when you drive or ride in a car, van, sport utility vehicle or pick up? a. Always b. Most of the Time c. Half of the Time d. Rarely e. Never 2. Do you favor keeping Missouri's seat belt law as a "secondary law"—where you can only be pulled over or ticketed if you are observed committing another violation; or do you favor changing Missouri’s seat belt law to a "primary law"—where you can be pulled over or ticketed if the officer clearly observes you are not wearing your seat belt? a. Keep “secondary law” b. Change to “primary law” 3. Currently, the fine for violating Missouri’s seat belt law is $10. Would you support an increase in the fine associated with this violation? a. Yes [Skip to Question 3b] b. No [Skip to Question 4] 3b. In your opinion, what should the fine associated with violating Missouri’s seat belt law be? a. Under $25 b. $25 - $49 c. $50 - $74 d. $75 - $100 e. Over $100 4. In the past 60 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about seat belt law enforcement by police? a. Yes b. No B-2 162 5. What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you don’t wear your safety belt? a. Always b. Most of the Time c. Half of the Time d. Rarely e. Never 6. On a local road with a speed limit of 30 mph, how often do you drive faster than 35 mph? a. Always b. Most of the Time c. Half of the Time d. Rarely e. Never 7. On a local road with a speed limit of 70 mph, how often do you drive faster than 75 mph? a. Always b. Most of the Time c. Half of the Time d. Rarely e. Never 8. In the past 30 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about speed enforcement by police? a. Yes b. No 9. What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you drive over the speed limit? a. Always b. Most of the Time c. Half of the Time d. Rarely e. Never 10. How often do you talk on a hand-held cellular phone while driving a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick-up? a. Always b. Most of the Time c. Half of the Time d. Rarely e. Never B-3 163 11. How often do you use a hand-held cellular phone for texting while driving a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick-up? a. Always b. Most of the Time c. Half of the Time d. Rarely e. Never 12. Many states have passed laws which restrict or ban cellular phone use, including texting, while driving. What level of restrictions would you support regarding cellular phone usage while driving? a. Full Restrictions – No Cellular Phone Use Allowed b. Ban on Texting While Driving, Phone Use Allowed c. Ban on Texting While Driving, Hands-Free Phone Device Allowed d. Hands-Free Phone Device Use Only e. No Restrictions 13. In the past 60 days, how many times have you driven a motor vehicle within two (2) hours after drinking alcoholic beverages? a. ______ (number) times 14. In the past 30 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about alcohol impaired driving (or drunk driving) enforcement by police? a. Yes b. No 15. What do you think the chances are of someone getting arrested if they drive after drinking? a. Always b. Most of the Time c. Half of the Time d. Rarely e. Never Thank you very much. Have a great day/night. B-4 164 Appendix C: Additional Findings: Crosstabs of Interest The survey results in the main report were weighted proportionally to the actual population in terms of geographic, gender, and age distributions. In this appendix, the results are presented by various variables of interest, such as by district and are unweighted. The crosstabs that the researchers thought would be of most interest to MoDOT are presented in this appendix (all research questions by district and all research questions by category of residence). Heartland Market Research will gladly provide additional crosstabs upon request. Research Questions by District Since the sample size for each district is smaller than the overall survey, the respective margin of error is greater. Margins of error are cumulative, so in order for a change from 2014 to 2015 to be statistically significant, it must be greater than the sum of the district’s margin of error for these years. For example, for the St. Louis District, any change from 2014 to 2015 must be greater than 10.4% (5.2% + 5.2%) in order to be 95% certain it is truly a change in opinion or behavior. Location NW NE KC CD SL SW SE State Table 19: Margin of Error by District 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 4.5% 7.0% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.0% 7.9% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.4% 9.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 4.9% 7.5% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.7% 9.1% 5.0% 5.2% 5.2% 4.2% 6.7% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 4.1% 6.4% 5.0% 5.2% 5.1% 1.8% 2.8% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% C-1 165 2015 5.2% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 2.0% 166 Total Districts SE SW SL CD KC NE NW % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count 262 79.9% 2000 83.2% 297 78.8% 278 86.2% 307 81.0% 289 85.9% 304 72.5% 263 72.4% Always 11.8% 296 9.2% 33 13.0% 46 5.6% 20 10.4% 37 9.9% 35 17.1% 62 17.4% 63 Most of the time C-2 3.0% 76 2.5% 9 3.7% 13 2.0% 7 3.6% 13 2.0% 7 4.1% 15 3.3% 12 Half of the time Rarely 2.6% 65 3.1% 11 2.0% 7 2.2% 8 2.2% 8 0.6% 2 3.9% 14 4.1% 15 Never 2.4% 61 1.7% 6 2.5% 9 3.7% 13 2.2% 8 1.7% 6 2.5% 9 2.8% 10 0.2% 4 0.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.3% 1 0.6% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Opinion/Refused No How often do you use seat belts when you drive or ride in a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick up? Districts * How often do you use seat belts when you drive or ride in a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick up? Crosstabulation Table 20: District by Question 1 100.0% 2502 100.0% 357 100.0% 353 100.0% 356 100.0% 357 100.0% 354 100.0% 363 100.0% 362 Total Table 21: District by Question 2 Districts * Do you favor keeping Missouri's seat belt law as a "secondary law"—where you can only be pulled over or ticketed if you are observed committing another violation; or do you favor changing Missouri’s seat belt law to a "primary law"—where you can be pulled Crosstabulation Do you favor keeping Missouri's seat belt law as a "secondary law"—where you can only be pulled over or ticketed if you are observed committing another violation; or do you favor changing Missouri’s seat belt law to a "primary law"—where you can be pulled Districts NW Count % within Districts NE Count % within Districts KC Count % within Districts CD Count % within Districts SL Count % within Districts SW Count % within Districts SE Count % within Districts Total Count % within Districts Keep Change to No "secondary law" "primary law" Opinion/Refused Total 220 120 22 362 60.8% 33.1% 6.1% 100.0% 236 98 29 363 65.0% 27.0% 8.0% 100.0% 178 153 23 354 50.3% 43.2% 6.5% 100.0% 215 122 20 357 60.2% 34.2% 5.6% 100.0% 180 157 19 356 50.6% 44.1% 5.3% 100.0% 191 128 34 353 54.1% 36.3% 9.6% 100.0% 214 121 22 357 59.9% 33.9% 6.2% 100.0% 1434 899 169 2502 57.3% 35.9% 6.8% 100.0% C-3 167 Table 22: District by Question 3 Districts * Currently, the fine for violating Missouri’s seat belt law is $10. Would you support an increase in the fine associated with this violation? Crosstabulation Currently, the fine for violating Missouri’s seat belt law is $10. Would you support an increase in the fine associated with this violation? No Yes Districts NW Count % within Districts NE Count % within Districts KC Count % within Districts CD Count % within Districts SL Count % within Districts SW Count % within Districts SE Count % within Districts Total Count % within Districts No Opinion/Refused Total 140 215 7 362 38.7% 59.4% 1.9% 100.0% 140 213 10 363 38.6% 58.7% 2.8% 100.0% 180 169 5 354 50.8% 47.7% 1.4% 100.0% 155 192 10 357 43.4% 53.8% 2.8% 100.0% 186 161 9 356 52.2% 45.2% 2.5% 100.0% 125 213 15 353 35.4% 60.3% 4.2% 100.0% 153 197 7 357 42.9% 55.2% 2.0% 100.0% 1079 1360 63 2502 43.1% 54.4% 2.5% 100.0% C-4 168 169 Total Districts SE SW SL CD KC NE NW % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count 22 17.8% 192 21.6% 33 19.2% 24 14.5% 27 16.1% 25 17.7% 32 20.7% 29 15.7% Under $25 66 43.5% 470 38.6% 59 40.0% 50 48.9% 91 40.6% 63 44.8% 81 42.9% 60 47.1% $25 - $49 C-5 28 21.1% 228 20.3% 31 18.4% 23 18.8% 35 25.8% 40 21.0% 38 23.6% 33 20.0% $50 - $74 10.2% 110 10.5% 16 12.8% 16 9.7% 18 11.0% 17 10.5% 19 5.0% 7 12.1% 17 $75 - $100 6 5.9% 64 7.8% 12 7.2% 9 5.9% 11 5.2% 8 5.5% 10 5.7% 8 4.3% Over $100 1.5% 16 1.3% 2 2.4% 3 2.2% 4 1.3% 2 0.6% 1 2.1% 3 0.7% 1 Opinion/Refused No In your opinion, what should the fine associated with violating Missouri’s seat belt law be? Districts * In your opinion, what should the fine associated with violating Missouri’s seat belt law be? Crosstabulation Table 23: District by Question 3b 100.0% 1080 100.0% 153 100.0% 125 100.0% 186 100.0% 155 100.0% 181 100.0% 140 100.0% 140 Total Table 24: District by Question 4 Districts * In the past 60 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about seat belt law enforcement by police? Crosstabulation In the past 60 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about seat belt law enforcement by police? No Yes Districts NW Count % within Districts NE CD SL 79.3% 0.3% 100.0% 78 284 1 363 21.5% 78.2% 0.3% 100.0% 71 282 1 354 20.1% 79.7% 0.3% 100.0% 51 304 2 357 14.3% 85.2% 0.6% 100.0% 63 293 0 356 17.7% 82.3% 0.0% 100.0% 56 297 0 353 15.9% 84.1% 0.0% 100.0% 57 299 1 357 16.0% 83.8% 0.3% 100.0% 450 2046 6 2502 18.0% 81.8% 0.2% 100.0% Count % within Districts Total 20.4% Count % within Districts SE 362 Count % within Districts SW 1 Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Total 287 Count % within Districts Opinion/Refused 74 Count % within Districts KC No C-6 170 171 Total Districts SE SW SL CD KC NE NW % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count 58 14.2% 356 15.7% 56 15.9% 56 10.4% 37 14.3% 51 13.0% 46 14.3% 52 16.0% Always 16.6% 416 21.8% 78 13.6% 48 12.9% 46 21.0% 75 13.0% 46 15.2% 55 18.8% 68 Most of the time C-7 19.6% 491 20.7% 74 20.4% 72 17.1% 61 17.1% 61 17.2% 61 22.3% 81 22.4% 81 Half of the time 98 32.8% 820 28.0% 100 30.9% 109 43.0% 153 31.4% 112 35.3% 125 33.9% 123 27.1% Rarely 27 8.9% 222 7.6% 27 10.5% 37 9.6% 34 7.8% 28 13.3% 47 6.1% 22 7.5% Never No 7.9% 197 6.2% 22 8.8% 31 7.0% 25 8.4% 30 8.2% 29 8.3% 30 8.3% 30 Opinion/Refused What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you don’t wear your safety belt? Districts * What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you don’t wear your safety belt? Crosstabulation Table 25: District by Question 5 100.0% 2502 100.0% 357 100.0% 353 100.0% 356 100.0% 357 100.0% 354 100.0% 363 100.0% 362 Total 172 Total Districts SE SW SL CD KC NE NW % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count 12 2.8% 71 2.5% 9 4.5% 16 2.0% 7 2.5% 9 2.8% 10 2.2% 8 3.3% Always 10.1% 253 11.5% 41 9.1% 32 13.2% 47 10.1% 36 7.9% 28 9.9% 36 9.1% 33 Most of the time C-8 13.1% 328 15.4% 55 11.3% 40 13.8% 49 12.0% 43 14.1% 50 13.5% 49 11.6% 42 Half of the time 162 44.2% 1105 42.0% 150 42.2% 149 45.2% 161 46.2% 165 44.4% 157 44.4% 161 44.8% Rarely 110 28.3% 707 27.5% 98 31.7% 112 24.4% 87 27.2% 97 28.5% 101 28.1% 102 30.4% Never No 1.5% 38 1.1% 4 1.1% 4 1.4% 5 2.0% 7 2.3% 8 1.9% 7 0.8% 3 Opinion/Refused On a local road with a speed limit of 30 mph, how often do you drive faster than 35 mph? Districts * On a local road with a speed limit of 30 mph, how often do you drive faster than 35 mph? Crosstabulation Table 26: District by Question 6 100.0% 2502 100.0% 357 100.0% 353 100.0% 356 100.0% 357 100.0% 354 100.0% 363 100.0% 362 Total 173 Total Districts SE SW SL CD KC NE NW % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count 6 1.7% 43 1.4% 5 1.4% 5 1.7% 6 2.5% 9 1.4% 5 1.9% 7 1.7% Always 4.7% 117 5.9% 21 3.4% 12 4.8% 17 5.3% 19 4.0% 14 4.1% 15 5.2% 19 Most of the time C-9 6.4% 159 6.4% 23 6.2% 22 8.7% 31 5.6% 20 4.8% 17 5.5% 20 7.2% 26 Half of the time 122 35.9% 899 35.0% 125 33.7% 119 39.0% 139 36.1% 129 39.5% 140 34.4% 125 33.7% Rarely 188 51.0% 1275 51.3% 183 54.4% 192 45.5% 162 50.4% 180 50.0% 177 53.2% 193 51.9% Never No 0.4% 9 0.0% 0 0.8% 3 0.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.3% 1 0.8% 3 0.3% 1 Opinion/Refused On a local road with a speed limit of 70 mph, how often do you drive faster than 75 mph? Districts * On a local road with a speed limit of 70 mph, how often do you drive faster than 75 mph? Crosstabulation Table 27: District by Question 7 100.0% 2502 100.0% 357 100.0% 353 100.0% 356 100.0% 357 100.0% 354 100.0% 363 100.0% 362 Total Table 28: District by Question 8 Districts * In the past 30 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about speed enforcement by police? Crosstabulation In the past 30 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about speed enforcement by police? No Yes Districts NW Count % within Districts NE Count % within Districts KC Count % within Districts CD Count % within Districts SW SE Total 3 362 27.9% 71.3% 0.8% 100.0% 110 250 3 363 30.3% 68.9% 0.8% 100.0% 100 254 0 354 28.2% 71.8% 0.0% 100.0% 92 260 5 357 25.8% 72.8% 1.4% 100.0% 102 252 2 356 28.7% 70.8% 0.6% 100.0% 71 282 0 353 20.1% 79.9% 0.0% 100.0% 77 279 1 357 21.6% 78.2% 0.3% 100.0% 653 1835 14 2502 26.1% 73.3% 0.6% 100.0% Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Total 258 Count % within Districts Opinion/Refused 101 Count % within Districts SL No C-10 174 175 Total Districts SE SW SL CD KC NE NW % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count 31 8.2% 206 10.1% 36 8.5% 30 5.6% 20 8.4% 30 9.0% 32 7.4% 27 8.6% Always 24.1% 603 26.6% 95 26.1% 92 19.1% 68 23.5% 84 22.6% 80 27.5% 100 23.2% 84 Most of the time C-11 35.3% 884 34.2% 122 30.6% 108 35.7% 127 35.0% 125 38.7% 137 35.5% 129 37.6% 136 Half of the time 85 25.7% 642 23.0% 82 26.1% 92 34.6% 123 27.2% 97 23.7% 84 21.8% 79 23.5% Rarely 11 3.4% 86 3.1% 11 5.7% 20 3.1% 11 2.8% 10 3.7% 13 2.8% 10 3.0% Never No 3.2% 81 3.1% 11 3.1% 11 2.0% 7 3.1% 11 2.3% 8 5.0% 18 4.1% 15 Opinion/Refused What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you drive over the speed limit? Districts * What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you drive over the speed limit? Crosstabulation Table 29: District by Question 9 100.0% 2502 100.0% 357 100.0% 353 100.0% 356 100.0% 357 100.0% 354 100.0% 363 100.0% 362 Total 176 Total Districts SE SW SL CD KC NE NW % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count Always 0.7% 18 0.3% 1 1.1% 4 0.3% 1 1.1% 4 1.1% 4 0.8% 3 0.3% 1 2.0% 50 2.2% 8 2.3% 8 2.2% 8 2.2% 8 1.7% 6 1.1% 4 2.2% 8 Most of the time C-12 8.2% 205 8.1% 29 10.2% 36 7.3% 26 6.4% 23 8.2% 29 9.9% 36 7.2% 26 Half of the time 159 43.4% 1085 41.7% 149 41.6% 147 40.2% 143 46.2% 165 44.1% 156 45.7% 166 43.9% Rarely 167 45.3% 1133 46.8% 167 44.5% 157 49.2% 175 44.0% 157 44.9% 159 41.6% 151 46.1% Never 0.4% 11 0.8% 3 0.3% 1 0.8% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 3 0.3% 1 Opinion/Refused No How often do you talk on a hand-held cellular phone while driving a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick-up? Districts * How often do you talk on a hand-held cellular phone while driving a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick-up? Crosstabulation Table 30: District by Question 10 100.0% 2502 100.0% 357 100.0% 353 100.0% 356 100.0% 357 100.0% 354 100.0% 363 100.0% 362 Total 177 Total Districts SE SW SL CD KC NE NW % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count Always 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.1% 3 0.3% 1 0.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.3% 1 Most of the time C-13 3 0.5% 13 0.6% 2 1.1% 4 0.6% 2 0.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.3% 1 0.8% Half of the time 38 9.4% 34 9.7% 35 8.6% 216 7.8% 28 6.8% 24 6.5% 23 9.5% 34 10.7% Rarely 321 90.4% 2261 91.3% 326 90.9% 321 92.7% 330 90.2% 322 89.3% 316 89.5% 325 88.7% Never 0.3% 8 0.0% 0 0.6% 2 0.3% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.8% 3 0.6% 2 Opinion/Refused No How often do you use a hand-held cellular phone for texting while driving a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick-up? Districts * How often do you use a hand-held cellular phone for texting while driving a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick-up? Crosstabulation Table 31: District by Question 11 100.0% 2502 100.0% 357 100.0% 353 100.0% 356 100.0% 357 100.0% 354 100.0% 363 100.0% 362 Total 178 Total Districts SE SW SL CD KC NE NW % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count Phone Use Allowed Phone Use Allowed 30.9% 772 31.1% 111 32.3% 114 30.9% 110 29.7% 106 31.1% 110 29.2% 106 31.8% 18.7% 469 19.6% 70 20.1% 71 13.8% 49 19.0% 68 17.2% 61 20.7% 75 20.7% 75 While Driving, No Cellular 115 Ban on Texting Full Restrictions - C-14 66 16.0% 401 14.8% 53 14.2% 50 19.4% 69 17.1% 61 15.0% 53 13.5% 49 18.2% Allowed Phone Device Hands-Free While Driving, Ban on Texting 75 27.1% 677 27.7% 99 26.6% 94 27.8% 99 29.4% 105 28.5% 101 28.7% 104 20.7% Use Only Phone Device Hands-Free 4.0% 100 2.8% 10 3.4% 12 5.1% 18 3.4% 12 4.5% 16 4.7% 17 4.1% 15 No Restrictions restrictions would you support regarding cellular phone usage while driving? 3.3% 83 3.9% 14 3.4% 12 3.1% 11 1.4% 5 3.7% 13 3.3% 12 4.4% 16 Opinion/Refused No Many states have passed laws which restrict or ban cellular phone use, including texting, while driving. What level of regarding cellular phone usage while driving? Crosstabulation 100.0% 2502 100.0% 357 100.0% 353 100.0% 356 100.0% 357 100.0% 354 100.0% 363 100.0% 362 Total Districts * Many states have passed laws which restrict or ban cellular phone use, including texting, while driving. What level of restrictions would you support Table 32: District by Question 12 Table 33: District by Question 13 C-15 179 Table 34: District by Question 14 Districts * In the past 30 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about alcohol impaired driving (or drunk driving) enforcement by police? Crosstabulation In the past 30 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about alcohol impaired driving (or drunk driving) enforcement by police? No Yes Districts NW Count % within Districts NE Count % within Districts KC Count % within Districts CD Count % within Districts SL Count % within Districts SW Count % within Districts SE Count % within Districts Total Count % within Districts No Opinion/Refused Total 190 171 1 362 52.5% 47.2% 0.3% 100.0% 182 177 4 363 50.1% 48.8% 1.1% 100.0% 174 178 2 354 49.2% 50.3% 0.6% 100.0% 173 182 2 357 48.5% 51.0% 0.6% 100.0% 165 187 4 356 46.3% 52.5% 1.1% 100.0% 158 194 1 353 44.8% 55.0% 0.3% 100.0% 178 177 2 357 49.9% 49.6% 0.6% 100.0% 1220 1266 16 2502 48.8% 50.6% 0.6% 100.0% C-16 180 181 Total Districts SE SW SL CD KC NE NW % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count % within Districts Count 47 14.3% 358 17.9% 64 19.3% 68 8.1% 29 16.0% 57 11.3% 40 14.6% 53 13.0% Always 22.0% 550 25.2% 90 21.8% 77 19.7% 70 21.8% 78 19.2% 68 24.5% 89 21.5% 78 Most of the time C-17 34.0% 850 29.7% 106 32.3% 114 35.4% 126 30.5% 109 36.7% 130 36.9% 134 36.2% 131 Half of the time 98 25.3% 634 22.4% 80 22.4% 79 32.9% 117 24.9% 89 27.4% 97 20.4% 74 27.1% Rarely 4 1.0% 26 1.4% 5 0.8% 3 1.1% 4 1.1% 4 1.4% 5 0.3% 1 1.1% Never 3.4% 84 3.4% 12 3.4% 12 2.8% 10 5.6% 20 4.0% 14 3.3% 12 1.1% 4 Opinion/Refused No What do you think the chances are of someone getting arrested if they drive after drinking? Districts * What do you think the chances are of someone getting arrested if they drive after drinking? Crosstabulation Table 35: District by Question 15 100.0% 2502 100.0% 357 100.0% 353 100.0% 356 100.0% 357 100.0% 354 100.0% 363 100.0% 362 Total Research Questions by Rural/Urban Differences between rural and urban communities often show themselves in various research projects. These differences in community are so common that the Nielsen Company has used the US Census data to develop four distinct categories of residence: Highly Urbanized, Relatively Urbanized, Relatively Rural, and Very Rural. The highly urbanized responses come from the St. Louis area and a few counties adjacent to it. The relatively urbanized responses come from the Kansas City area and a few counties adjacent to it. The rest of the state falls in the categories of relatively rural or very rural. The following table may make this more apparent. Table 36: District by Nielson Community Type Districts * Nielsen Crosstabulation Nielsen Districts NW Count % within Districts NE Count % within Districts KC Count % within Districts CD Count % within Districts SL Count % within Districts SW Count % within Districts SE Count % within Districts Total Count % within Districts Highly Relatively Urbanized Urbanized Relatively Rural Very Rural Total 0 18 38 306 362 0.0% 5.0% 10.5% 84.5% 100.0% 43 0 0 320 363 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 88.2% 100.0% 0 236 0 118 354 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0% 0 0 43 314 357 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 88.0% 100.0% 356 0 0 0 356 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0 0 84 269 353 0.0% 0.0% 23.8% 76.2% 100.0% 0 0 14 343 357 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 96.1% 100.0% 399 254 179 1670 2502 15.9% 10.2% 7.2% 66.7% 100.0% It is important to note that some of Nielsen’s classifications may not be intuitive for Missourians. For example, most people in Missouri would probably consider Springfield and Jefferson City to be relatively urbanized, but these areas are classified as relatively rural by Nielsen. C-18 182 183 Total or pick up? a car, van, sport utility vehicle, belts when you drive or ride in How often do you use seat No Opinion/Refused Never Rarely Half of the time Most of the time Always % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count C-19 100.0% 399 0.3% 1 3.3% 13 2.0% 8 1.8% 7 5.8% 23 87.0% 347 Highly Urbanized 217 100.0% 254 0.0% 0 1.6% 4 0.4% 1 2.0% 5 10.6% 27 85.4% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 0.0% 0 2.2% 4 3.4% 6 3.9% 7 14.5% 26 76.0% 136 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 0.2% 3 2.4% 40 3.0% 50 3.4% 57 13.2% 220 77.8% 1300 Very Rural How often do you use seat belts when you drive or ride in a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick up? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Table 37: Nielson Community Type by Question 1 100.0% 2502 0.2% 4 2.4% 61 2.6% 65 3.0% 76 11.8% 296 79.9% 2000 Total The percentages in these tables are by column (not by row as has been the case for most of the tables in this document). This allows readers to quickly see how people in each Nielson Community answered the research questions. 184 Total be pulled "primary law"—where you can Missouri’s seat belt law to a do you favor changing committing another violation; or ticketed if you are observed can only be pulled over or "secondary law"—where you Missouri's seat belt law as a Do you favor keeping No Opinion/Refused Change to "primary law" Keep "secondary law" % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count C-20 100.0% 399 5.0% 20 43.1% 172 51.9% 207 Highly Urbanized 137 100.0% 254 6.3% 16 39.8% 101 53.9% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 7.3% 13 35.8% 64 57.0% 102 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 7.2% 120 33.7% 562 59.2% 988 Very Rural violation; or do you favor changing Missouri’s seat belt law to a "primary law"—where you can be pulled * Nielsen Crosstabulation 100.0% 2502 6.8% 169 35.9% 899 57.3% 1434 Total Do you favor keeping Missouri's seat belt law as a "secondary law"—where you can only be pulled over or ticketed if you are observed committing another Table 38: Nielson Community Type by Question 2 185 Yes Total violation? No Opinion/Refused Would you support an increase No in the fine associated with this Missouri’s seat belt law is $10. Currently, the fine for violating % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count C-21 100.0% 399 2.3% 9 45.6% 182 52.1% 208 Highly Urbanized Crosstabulation 130 100.0% 254 0.8% 2 48.0% 122 51.2% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 3.9% 7 51.4% 92 44.7% 80 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 2.7% 45 57.7% 964 39.6% 661 Very Rural 100.0% 2502 2.5% 63 54.4% 1360 43.1% 1079 Total Currently, the fine for violating Missouri’s seat belt law is $10. Would you support an increase in the fine associated with this violation? * Nielsen Table 39: Nielson Community Type by Question 3 186 Total law be? violating Missouri’s seat belt the fine associated with In your opinion, what should No Opinion/Refused Over $100 $75 - $100 $50 - $74 $25 - $49 Under $25 % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count C-22 100.0% 208 1.9% 4 7.2% 15 8.7% 18 19.7% 41 46.6% 97 15.9% 33 Highly Urbanized 22 100.0% 131 0.0% 0 3.8% 5 11.5% 15 22.9% 30 45.0% 59 16.8% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 80 1.3% 1 6.3% 5 8.8% 7 17.5% 14 48.8% 39 17.5% 14 Relatively Rural 100.0% 661 1.7% 11 5.9% 39 10.6% 70 21.6% 143 41.6% 275 18.6% 123 Very Rural In your opinion, what should the fine associated with violating Missouri’s seat belt law be? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Table 40: Nielson Community Type by Question 3b 100.0% 1080 1.5% 16 5.9% 64 10.2% 110 21.1% 228 43.5% 470 17.8% 192 Total 187 Total enforcement by police? about seat belt law read, seen or heard anything In the past 60 days, have you No Opinion/Refused No Yes % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count C-23 100.0% 399 0.0% 0 81.2% 324 18.8% 75 Highly Urbanized 53 100.0% 254 0.4% 1 78.7% 200 20.9% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 0.0% 0 85.5% 153 14.5% 26 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 0.3% 5 82.0% 1369 17.7% 296 Very Rural In the past 60 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about seat belt law enforcement by police? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Table 41: Nielson Community Type by Question 4 100.0% 2502 0.2% 6 81.8% 2046 18.0% 450 Total 188 Total No Opinion/Refused Never Rarely Half of the time Most of the time % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen are of getting a ticket if you don’t wear your safety belt? Count What do you think the chances Always C-24 100.0% 399 7.3% 29 8.8% 35 42.9% 171 17.5% 70 13.3% 53 10.3% 41 Highly Urbanized 34 100.0% 254 7.5% 19 13.8% 35 34.6% 88 18.1% 46 12.6% 32 13.4% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 6.7% 12 7.8% 14 39.7% 71 16.2% 29 16.8% 30 12.8% 23 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 8.2% 137 8.3% 138 29.3% 490 20.7% 346 18.0% 301 15.4% 258 Very Rural What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you don’t wear your safety belt? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Table 42: Nielson Community Type by Question 5 100.0% 2502 7.9% 197 8.9% 222 32.8% 820 19.6% 491 16.6% 416 14.2% 356 Total 189 Total you drive faster than 35 mph? limit of 30 mph, how often do On a local road with a speed No Opinion/Refused Never Rarely Half of the time Most of the time Always % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count C-25 100.0% 399 1.3% 5 24.3% 97 45.6% 182 13.8% 55 13.0% 52 2.0% 8 Highly Urbanized 6 100.0% 254 2.0% 5 28.3% 72 45.3% 115 14.6% 37 7.5% 19 2.4% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 0.6% 1 26.3% 47 51.4% 92 12.3% 22 7.8% 14 1.7% 3 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 1.6% 27 29.4% 491 42.9% 716 12.8% 214 10.1% 168 3.2% 54 Very Rural On a local road with a speed limit of 30 mph, how often do you drive faster than 35 mph? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Table 43: Nielson Community Type by Question 6 71 100.0% 2502 1.5% 38 28.3% 707 44.2% 1105 13.1% 328 10.1% 253 2.8% Total 190 Total you drive faster than 75 mph? limit of 70 mph, how often do On a local road with a speed No Opinion/Refused Never Rarely Half of the time Most of the time Always % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count C-26 100.0% 399 0.3% 1 47.1% 188 38.6% 154 8.0% 32 4.5% 18 1.5% 6 Highly Urbanized 3 100.0% 254 0.4% 1 48.0% 122 40.2% 102 6.3% 16 3.9% 10 1.2% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 0.6% 1 54.2% 97 30.7% 55 7.8% 14 5.0% 9 1.7% 3 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 0.4% 6 52.0% 868 35.2% 588 5.8% 97 4.8% 80 1.9% 31 Very Rural On a local road with a speed limit of 70 mph, how often do you drive faster than 75 mph? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Table 44: Nielson Community Type by Question 7 43 100.0% 2502 0.4% 9 51.0% 1275 35.9% 899 6.4% 159 4.7% 117 1.7% Total 191 Total police? about speed enforcement by read, seen or heard anything In the past 30 days, have you No Opinion/Refused No Yes % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count C-27 100.0% 399 0.5% 2 69.2% 276 30.3% 121 Highly Urbanized 75 100.0% 254 0.0% 0 70.5% 179 29.5% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 0.0% 0 76.5% 137 23.5% 42 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 0.7% 12 74.4% 1243 24.9% 415 Very Rural In the past 30 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about speed enforcement by police? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Table 45: Nielson Community Type by Question 8 100.0% 2502 0.6% 14 73.3% 1835 26.1% 653 Total 192 Total No Opinion/Refused Never Rarely Half of the time Most of the time % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen are of getting a ticket if you drive over the speed limit? Count What do you think the chances Always C-28 100.0% 399 2.8% 11 3.3% 13 33.3% 133 36.1% 144 19.3% 77 5.3% 21 Highly Urbanized 22 100.0% 254 2.4% 6 3.1% 8 25.6% 65 39.4% 100 20.9% 53 8.7% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 2.2% 4 5.0% 9 33.0% 59 32.4% 58 19.6% 35 7.8% 14 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 3.6% 60 3.4% 56 23.1% 385 34.9% 582 26.2% 438 8.9% 149 Very Rural What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you drive over the speed limit? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Table 46: Nielson Community Type by Question 9 100.0% 2502 3.2% 81 3.4% 86 25.7% 642 35.3% 884 24.1% 603 8.2% 206 Total 193 Total vehicle, or pick-up? driving a car, van, sport utility hand-held cellular phone while How often do you talk on a No Opinion/Refused Never Rarely Half of the time Most of the time Always % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count C-29 100.0% 399 0.8% 3 47.4% 189 40.9% 163 8.5% 34 2.0% 8 0.5% 2 Highly Urbanized 3 100.0% 254 0.0% 0 42.5% 108 46.5% 118 7.9% 20 2.0% 5 1.2% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 0.0% 0 36.9% 66 52.0% 93 8.4% 15 1.7% 3 1.1% 2 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 0.5% 8 46.1% 770 42.6% 711 8.1% 136 2.0% 34 0.7% 11 Very Rural How often do you talk on a hand-held cellular phone while driving a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick-up? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Table 47: Nielson Community Type by Question 10 18 100.0% 2502 0.4% 11 45.3% 1133 43.4% 1085 8.2% 205 2.0% 50 0.7% Total 194 Total utility vehicle, or pick-up? while driving a car, van, sport held cellular phone for texting How often do you use a hand- No Opinion/Refused Never Rarely Half of the time Most of the time Always % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count C-30 100.0% 399 0.3% 1 92.5% 369 6.8% 27 0.5% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Highly Urbanized 0 100.0% 254 0.0% 0 88.6% 225 11.4% 29 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 0.0% 0 88.8% 159 10.1% 18 0.6% 1 0.6% 1 0.0% 0 Relatively Rural 1 100.0% 1670 0.4% 7 90.3% 1508 8.5% 142 0.6% 10 0.1% 2 0.1% Very Rural How often do you use a hand-held cellular phone for texting while driving a car, van, sport utility vehicle, or pick-up? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Table 48: Nielson Community Type by Question 11 1 100.0% 2502 0.3% 8 90.4% 2261 8.6% 216 0.5% 13 0.1% 3 0.0% Total 195 Total while driving? regarding cellular phone usage restrictions would you support while driving. What level of Count % within Nielsen Ban on Texting While Driving, Hands-Free Phone Device No Opinion/Refused Count No Restrictions % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen % within Nielsen Only Hands-Free Phone Device Use Count Allowed % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count Phone Use Allowed Ban on Texting While Driving, Phone Use Allowed which restrict or ban cellular phone use, including texting, Full Restrictions - No Cellular Many states have passed laws C-31 100.0% 399 3.0% 12 5.0% 20 27.8% 111 18.3% 73 15.8% 63 30.1% 120 Highly Urbanized 100.0% 254 3.5% 9 5.1% 13 27.2% 69 15.7% 40 19.7% 50 28.7% Urbanized 73 Nielsen Relatively cellular phone usage while driving? * Nielsen Crosstabulation 100.0% 179 4.5% 8 2.2% 4 28.5% 51 19.6% 35 16.8% 30 28.5% 51 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 3.2% 54 3.8% 63 26.7% 446 15.1% 253 19.5% 326 31.6% 528 Very Rural 100.0% 2502 3.3% 83 4.0% 100 27.1% 677 16.0% 401 18.7% 469 30.9% 772 Total Many states have passed laws which restrict or ban cellular phone use, including texting, while driving. What level of restrictions would you support regarding Table 49: Nielson Community Type by Question 12 Table 50: Nielson Community Type by Question 13 In the past 60 days, how many times have you driven a motor vehicle within two (2) hours after drinking alcoholic beverages? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Nielsen Count % Count 1 % Count 2 % Count 3 % Count 4 % In the past Count 60 days, 5 % how many times have Count 6 you driven % a motor Count vehicle 7 % within two Count (2) hours 8 % after Count drinking 10 alcoholic % beverages? Count 12 % Count 16 % Count 20 % Count 30 % Count Refused % Total Count % 0 Highly Urbanized 336 84.2% 15 3.8% 15 3.8% 7 1.8% 6 1.5% 4 1.0% 3 .8% 1 .3% 0 0.0% 1 .3% 1 .3% 1 .3% 1 .3% 0 0.0% 8 2.0% 399 100.0% Relatively Relatively Very Urbanized Rural Rural Total 235 162 1524 2257 92.5% 90.5% 91.3% 90.2% 7 4 31 57 2.8% 2.2% 1.9% 2.3% 3 6 33 57 1.2% 3.4% 2.0% 2.3% 1 1 3 12 .4% .6% .2% .5% 0 2 6 14 0.0% 1.1% .4% .6% 0 0 3 7 0.0% 0.0% .2% .3% 0 1 1 5 0.0% .6% .1% .2% 0 0 0 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% .0% 1 0 2 3 .4% 0.0% .1% .1% 0 0 1 2 0.0% 0.0% .1% .1% 0 0 2 3 0.0% 0.0% .1% .1% 0 0 0 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% .0% 0 1 1 3 0.0% .6% .1% .1% 0 0 1 1 0.0% 0.0% .1% .0% 7 2 62 79 2.8% 1.1% 3.7% 3.2% 254 179 1670 2502 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% C-32 196 197 Total by police? (or drunk driving) enforcement about alcohol impaired driving read, seen or heard anything In the past 30 days, have you No Opinion/Refused No Yes % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count C-33 100.0% 399 1.0% 4 52.4% 209 46.6% 186 Highly Urbanized 127 100.0% 254 0.4% 1 49.6% 126 50.0% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 0.6% 1 46.9% 84 52.5% 94 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 0.6% 10 50.7% 847 48.7% 813 Very Rural 100.0% 2502 0.6% 16 50.6% 1266 48.8% 1220 Total In the past 30 days, have you read, seen or heard anything about alcohol impaired driving (or drunk driving) enforcement by police? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Table 51: Nielson Community Type by Question 14 198 Total drinking? No Opinion/Refused Never Rarely Half of the time Most of the time % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen Count % within Nielsen are of someone getting arrested if they drive after Count What do you think the chances Always C-34 100.0% 399 2.8% 11 1.0% 4 32.1% 128 36.8% 147 18.5% 74 8.8% 35 Highly Urbanized 24 100.0% 254 4.7% 12 1.2% 3 30.7% 78 34.3% 87 19.7% 50 9.4% Urbanized Relatively Nielsen 100.0% 179 2.8% 5 0.6% 1 36.9% 66 28.5% 51 18.4% 33 12.8% 23 Relatively Rural 100.0% 1670 3.4% 56 1.1% 18 21.7% 362 33.8% 565 23.5% 393 16.5% 276 Very Rural What do you think the chances are of someone getting arrested if they drive after drinking? * Nielsen Crosstabulation Table 52: Nielson Community Type by Question 15 100.0% 2502 3.4% 84 1.0% 26 25.3% 634 34.0% 850 22.0% 550 14.3% 358 Total Appendix D: Demographics Table 53: Question a Are you a licensed Missouri driver? Cumulative Frequency Valid Yes 2502 Percent Valid Percent 100.0 100.0 Percent 100.0 Table 54: Question b What is your age? Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 18 to 29 354 14.1 14.1 14.1 30 to 39 355 14.2 14.2 28.3 40 to 49 515 20.6 20.6 48.9 50 to 64 610 24.4 24.4 73.3 65 and up 668 26.7 26.7 100.0 2502 100.0 100.0 Total Table 55: Question c Gender Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Female 1283 51.3 51.3 51.3 Male 1219 48.7 48.7 100.0 Total 2502 100.0 100.0 D-1 199 Table 56: Question d What is your ethnicity? Cumulative Frequency Valid American Indian or Alaska Percent Valid Percent Percent 44 1.8 1.8 1.8 1 .0 .0 1.8 1 .0 .0 1.8 1 .0 .0 1.9 17 .7 .7 2.6 Asian 7 .3 .3 2.8 Asian, and White 4 .2 .2 3.0 52 2.1 2.1 5.1 1 .0 .0 5.1 8 .3 .3 5.4 31 1.2 1.2 6.7 2 .1 .1 6.8 6 .2 .2 7.0 2 .1 .1 7.1 66 2.6 2.6 9.7 White 2259 90.3 90.3 100.0 Total 2502 100.0 100.0 Native American Indian or Alaska Native, and Asian American Indian or Alaska Native, and Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native, and White Black or African American Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latino, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Black or African American, and White Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino, and White Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White Refused D-2 200 Table 57: Question e Is the car you drive most often a: Cumulative Frequency Valid Car Valid Percent Percent 1002 40.0 40.0 40.0 330 13.2 13.2 53.2 8 .3 .3 53.6 535 21.4 21.4 74.9 570 22.8 22.8 97.7 50 2.0 2.0 99.7 7 .3 .3 100.0 2502 100.0 100.0 Van or Minivan Motorcycle Sport Utility Vehicle or Crossover Pickup Truck Other type of truck No Opinion/Refused Total Percent Table 58: Question f In what county do you currently live? Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent ADAIR 22 .9 .9 .9 ANDREW 18 .7 .7 1.6 ATCHISON 17 .7 .7 2.3 AUDRAIN 21 .8 .8 3.1 BARRY 17 .7 .7 3.8 BARTON 18 .7 .7 4.5 BATES 18 .7 .7 5.2 BENTON 16 .6 .6 5.9 BOLLINGER 15 .6 .6 6.5 BOONE 20 .8 .8 7.3 BUCHANAN 20 .8 .8 8.1 BUTLER 14 .6 .6 8.6 CALDWELL 18 .7 .7 9.4 CALLAWAY 20 .8 .8 10.2 CAMDEN 20 .8 .8 11.0 CAPE GIRARDEAU 14 .6 .6 11.5 D-3 201 CARROLL 18 .7 .7 12.2 CARTER 14 .6 .6 12.8 CASS 39 1.6 1.6 14.3 CEDAR 16 .6 .6 15.0 CHARITON 17 .7 .7 15.7 CHRISTIAN 17 .7 .7 16.3 CLARK 21 .8 .8 17.2 CLAY 42 1.7 1.7 18.9 CLINTON 18 .7 .7 19.6 COLE 21 .8 .8 20.4 COOPER 20 .8 .8 21.2 CRAWFORD 19 .8 .8 22.0 DADE 16 .6 .6 22.6 DALLAS 16 .6 .6 23.3 DAVIESS 18 .7 .7 24.0 DEKALB 20 .8 .8 24.8 DENT 19 .8 .8 25.5 DOUGLAS 14 .6 .6 26.1 DUNKLIN 15 .6 .6 26.7 FRANKLIN 73 2.9 2.9 29.6 GASCONADE 20 .8 .8 30.4 GENTRY 18 .7 .7 31.1 GREENE 17 .7 .7 31.8 GRUNDY 17 .7 .7 32.5 HARRISON 12 .5 .5 33.0 HENRY 17 .7 .7 33.7 HICKORY 16 .6 .6 34.3 HOLT 18 .7 .7 35.0 HOWARD 19 .8 .8 35.8 HOWELL 14 .6 .6 36.3 IRON 14 .6 .6 36.9 JACKSON 39 1.6 1.6 38.4 JASPER 17 .7 .7 39.1 JEFFERSON 70 2.8 2.8 41.9 JOHNSON 40 1.6 1.6 43.5 D-4 202 KNOX 24 1.0 1.0 44.5 LACLEDE 18 .7 .7 45.2 LAFAYETTE 38 1.5 1.5 46.7 LAWRENCE 17 .7 .7 47.4 LEWIS 21 .8 .8 48.2 LINCOLN 21 .8 .8 49.1 LINN 19 .8 .8 49.8 LIVINGSTON 19 .8 .8 50.6 MACON 20 .8 .8 51.4 MADISON 14 .6 .6 52.0 MARIES 20 .8 .8 52.8 MARION 21 .8 .8 53.6 MCDONALD 16 .6 .6 54.2 MILLER 19 .8 .8 55.0 MISSISSIPPI 15 .6 .6 55.6 MONITEAU 23 .9 .9 56.5 MONROE 20 .8 .8 57.3 MONTGOMERY 21 .8 .8 58.2 MORGAN 19 .8 .8 58.9 NEW MADRID 14 .6 .6 59.5 NEWTON 18 .7 .7 60.2 NODAWAY 51 2.0 2.0 62.2 OREGON 14 .6 .6 62.8 OSAGE 19 .8 .8 63.5 OZARK 15 .6 .6 64.1 PEMISCOT 16 .6 .6 64.8 PERRY 15 .6 .6 65.4 PETTIS 39 1.6 1.6 66.9 PHELPS 20 .8 .8 67.7 PIKE 21 .8 .8 68.6 PLATTE 39 1.6 1.6 70.1 POLK 17 .7 .7 70.8 PULASKI 19 .8 .8 71.6 PUTNAM 9 .4 .4 71.9 20 .8 .8 72.7 RALLS D-5 203 RANDOLPH 36 1.4 1.4 74.2 RAY 39 1.6 1.6 75.7 REYNOLDS 14 .6 .6 76.3 RIPLEY 14 .6 .6 76.9 SAINT CHARLES 71 2.8 2.8 79.7 SAINT CLAIR 16 .6 .6 80.3 SAINT FRANCOIS 14 .6 .6 80.9 SAINT LOUIS 70 2.8 2.8 83.7 SAINT LOUIS CITY 72 2.9 2.9 86.6 SAINTE GENEVIEVE 14 .6 .6 87.1 SALINE 39 1.6 1.6 88.7 SCHUYLER 21 .8 .8 89.5 SCOTLAND 11 .4 .4 90.0 SCOTT 14 .6 .6 90.5 SHANNON 13 .5 .5 91.0 SHELBY 20 .8 .8 91.8 STODDARD 14 .6 .6 92.4 STONE 17 .7 .7 93.1 SULLIVAN 18 .7 .7 93.8 TANEY 17 .7 .7 94.5 TEXAS 14 .6 .6 95.0 VERNON 17 .7 .7 95.7 WARREN 22 .9 .9 96.6 WASHINGTON 22 .9 .9 97.5 WAYNE 14 .6 .6 98.0 WEBSTER 17 .7 .7 98.7 WORTH 17 .7 .7 99.4 WRIGHT 15 .6 .6 100.0 2502 100.0 100.0 Total D-6 204 Table 59: Question g What is your home zip code? Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 63005 1 .0 .0 .0 63010 13 .5 .5 .6 63011 4 .2 .2 .7 63012 3 .1 .1 .8 63013 4 .2 .2 1.0 63015 1 .0 .0 1.0 63016 1 .0 .0 1.1 63017 3 .1 .1 1.2 63020 6 .2 .2 1.4 63021 4 .2 .2 1.6 63023 2 .1 .1 1.7 63025 4 .2 .2 1.8 63026 4 .2 .2 2.0 63028 7 .3 .3 2.3 63031 3 .1 .1 2.4 63033 8 .3 .3 2.7 63034 1 .0 .0 2.8 63038 1 .0 .0 2.8 63039 3 .1 .1 2.9 63041 1 .0 .0 3.0 63042 1 .0 .0 3.0 63043 1 .0 .0 3.0 63044 1 .0 .0 3.1 63048 3 .1 .1 3.2 63049 5 .2 .2 3.4 63050 4 .2 .2 3.6 63051 7 .3 .3 3.8 63052 9 .4 .4 4.2 63055 3 .1 .1 4.3 63056 2 .1 .1 4.4 63060 1 .0 .0 4.4 D-7 205 63061 1 .0 .0 4.5 63069 8 .3 .3 4.8 63070 2 .1 .1 4.9 63071 1 .0 .0 4.9 63072 2 .1 .1 5.0 63074 1 .0 .0 5.0 63077 9 .4 .4 5.4 63080 1 .0 .0 5.4 63084 3 .1 .1 5.6 63089 7 .3 .3 5.8 63090 28 1.1 1.1 7.0 63104 7 .3 .3 7.2 63107 3 .1 .1 7.4 63108 6 .2 .2 7.6 63109 14 .6 .6 8.2 63110 6 .2 .2 8.4 63111 4 .2 .2 8.6 63112 3 .1 .1 8.7 63114 3 .1 .1 8.8 63115 3 .1 .1 8.9 63116 13 .5 .5 9.4 63118 1 .0 .0 9.5 63119 4 .2 .2 9.6 63120 1 .0 .0 9.7 63121 1 .0 .0 9.7 63122 2 .1 .1 9.8 63123 7 .3 .3 10.1 63125 1 .0 .0 10.1 63126 3 .1 .1 10.2 63127 1 .0 .0 10.3 63128 3 .1 .1 10.4 63129 5 .2 .2 10.6 63130 2 .1 .1 10.7 63131 2 .1 .1 10.8 63132 1 .0 .0 10.8 D-8 206 63135 1 .0 .0 10.8 63136 2 .1 .1 10.9 63137 1 .0 .0 11.0 63139 4 .2 .2 11.1 63141 2 .1 .1 11.2 63146 3 .1 .1 11.3 63147 3 .1 .1 11.4 63301 10 .4 .4 11.8 63303 9 .4 .4 12.2 63304 9 .4 .4 12.5 63334 7 .3 .3 12.8 63336 3 .1 .1 12.9 63339 2 .1 .1 13.0 63341 1 .0 .0 13.1 63344 2 .1 .1 13.1 63348 2 .1 .1 13.2 63349 2 .1 .1 13.3 63350 3 .1 .1 13.4 63351 3 .1 .1 13.5 63353 5 .2 .2 13.7 63357 4 .2 .2 13.9 63361 13 .5 .5 14.4 63362 4 .2 .2 14.6 63366 9 .4 .4 14.9 63367 5 .2 .2 15.1 63368 6 .2 .2 15.4 63376 11 .4 .4 15.8 63377 2 .1 .1 15.9 63379 8 .3 .3 16.2 63382 6 .2 .2 16.5 63383 7 .3 .3 16.7 63384 3 .1 .1 16.9 63385 10 .4 .4 17.3 63386 1 .0 .0 17.3 63389 4 .2 .2 17.5 D-9 207 63390 8 .3 .3 17.8 63401 20 .8 .8 18.6 63430 1 .0 .0 18.6 63432 1 .0 .0 18.7 63435 8 .3 .3 19.0 63436 1 .0 .0 19.0 63437 3 .1 .1 19.1 63440 5 .2 .2 19.3 63441 2 .1 .1 19.4 63443 1 .0 .0 19.5 63445 17 .7 .7 20.1 63446 1 .0 .0 20.2 63447 1 .0 .0 20.2 63448 3 .1 .1 20.3 63450 1 .0 .0 20.4 63452 4 .2 .2 20.5 63454 1 .0 .0 20.6 63456 4 .2 .2 20.7 63457 1 .0 .0 20.8 63459 9 .4 .4 21.1 63460 3 .1 .1 21.3 63461 4 .2 .2 21.4 63462 1 .0 .0 21.5 63465 1 .0 .0 21.5 63468 10 .4 .4 21.9 63469 9 .4 .4 22.3 63501 21 .8 .8 23.1 63531 1 .0 .0 23.1 63532 2 .1 .1 23.2 63534 1 .0 .0 23.3 63536 10 .4 .4 23.7 63537 15 .6 .6 24.3 63543 2 .1 .1 24.3 63546 2 .1 .1 24.4 63547 2 .1 .1 24.5 D-10 208 63548 11 .4 .4 24.9 63549 7 .3 .3 25.2 63551 2 .1 .1 25.3 63552 6 .2 .2 25.5 63555 5 .2 .2 25.7 63556 15 .6 .6 26.3 63557 1 .0 .0 26.4 63558 1 .0 .0 26.4 63563 4 .2 .2 26.6 63565 6 .2 .2 26.8 63601 2 .1 .1 26.9 63620 3 .1 .1 27.0 63621 2 .1 .1 27.1 63622 2 .1 .1 27.2 63623 4 .2 .2 27.3 63624 1 .0 .0 27.4 63625 1 .0 .0 27.4 63626 1 .0 .0 27.5 63627 2 .1 .1 27.5 63628 3 .1 .1 27.7 63629 4 .2 .2 27.8 63630 3 .1 .1 27.9 63631 1 .0 .0 28.0 63633 2 .1 .1 28.1 63638 1 .0 .0 28.1 63640 7 .3 .3 28.4 63645 13 .5 .5 28.9 63648 1 .0 .0 28.9 63650 4 .2 .2 29.1 63653 1 .0 .0 29.1 63654 3 .1 .1 29.3 63655 1 .0 .0 29.3 63656 1 .0 .0 29.3 63660 2 .1 .1 29.4 63662 2 .1 .1 29.5 D-11 209 63664 11 .4 .4 29.9 63670 12 .5 .5 30.4 63701 10 .4 .4 30.8 63703 1 .0 .0 30.9 63730 3 .1 .1 31.0 63736 2 .1 .1 31.1 63748 1 .0 .0 31.1 63751 3 .1 .1 31.2 63755 3 .1 .1 31.3 63764 6 .2 .2 31.6 63771 2 .1 .1 31.7 63775 14 .6 .6 32.2 63780 2 .1 .1 32.3 63781 4 .2 .2 32.5 63801 9 .4 .4 32.8 63823 2 .1 .1 32.9 63824 1 .0 .0 32.9 63825 1 .0 .0 33.0 63826 1 .0 .0 33.0 63827 3 .1 .1 33.1 63829 2 .1 .1 33.2 63830 7 .3 .3 33.5 63834 6 .2 .2 33.7 63841 6 .2 .2 34.0 63845 7 .3 .3 34.3 63846 2 .1 .1 34.3 63848 1 .0 .0 34.4 63851 2 .1 .1 34.5 63852 1 .0 .0 34.5 63857 6 .2 .2 34.7 63863 3 .1 .1 34.9 63866 1 .0 .0 34.9 63867 2 .1 .1 35.0 63869 3 .1 .1 35.1 63873 5 .2 .2 35.3 D-12 210 63876 1 .0 .0 35.3 63877 1 .0 .0 35.4 63878 1 .0 .0 35.4 63879 1 .0 .0 35.5 63901 10 .4 .4 35.9 63933 2 .1 .1 35.9 63935 8 .3 .3 36.3 63936 2 .1 .1 36.3 63937 3 .1 .1 36.5 63939 2 .1 .1 36.5 63940 2 .1 .1 36.6 63942 1 .0 .0 36.7 63943 4 .2 .2 36.8 63944 1 .0 .0 36.9 63952 1 .0 .0 36.9 63953 3 .1 .1 37.0 63954 1 .0 .0 37.1 63956 4 .2 .2 37.2 63957 9 .4 .4 37.6 63965 7 .3 .3 37.8 63967 3 .1 .1 38.0 64011 4 .2 .2 38.1 64012 16 .6 .6 38.8 64014 2 .1 .1 38.8 64015 5 .2 .2 39.0 64017 2 .1 .1 39.1 64018 2 .1 .1 39.2 64019 3 .1 .1 39.3 64020 7 .3 .3 39.6 64024 12 .5 .5 40.1 64029 1 .0 .0 40.1 64030 2 .1 .1 40.2 64034 3 .1 .1 40.3 64035 1 .0 .0 40.4 64040 9 .4 .4 40.7 D-13 211 64050 1 .0 .0 40.8 64052 1 .0 .0 40.8 64055 2 .1 .1 40.9 64057 1 .0 .0 40.9 64060 2 .1 .1 41.0 64061 6 .2 .2 41.2 64062 10 .4 .4 41.6 64067 7 .3 .3 41.9 64068 7 .3 .3 42.2 64071 2 .1 .1 42.3 64076 15 .6 .6 42.9 64077 2 .1 .1 43.0 64079 4 .2 .2 43.1 64080 3 .1 .1 43.2 64081 2 .1 .1 43.3 64083 10 .4 .4 43.7 64084 1 .0 .0 43.8 64085 13 .5 .5 44.3 64086 3 .1 .1 44.4 64089 3 .1 .1 44.5 64093 16 .6 .6 45.2 64096 2 .1 .1 45.2 64108 1 .0 .0 45.3 64109 1 .0 .0 45.3 64110 1 .0 .0 45.4 64113 1 .0 .0 45.4 64116 1 .0 .0 45.4 64117 2 .1 .1 45.5 64118 11 .4 .4 46.0 64119 5 .2 .2 46.2 64124 1 .0 .0 46.2 64125 1 .0 .0 46.2 64128 1 .0 .0 46.3 64130 1 .0 .0 46.3 64131 2 .1 .1 46.4 D-14 212 64133 2 .1 .1 46.5 64134 1 .0 .0 46.5 64137 2 .1 .1 46.6 64138 1 .0 .0 46.6 64145 1 .0 .0 46.7 64151 10 .4 .4 47.1 64152 15 .6 .6 47.7 64153 2 .1 .1 47.8 64154 2 .1 .1 47.8 64155 5 .2 .2 48.0 64156 1 .0 .0 48.1 64157 2 .1 .1 48.2 64158 1 .0 .0 48.2 64163 1 .0 .0 48.2 64402 9 .4 .4 48.6 64422 3 .1 .1 48.7 64423 1 .0 .0 48.8 64424 7 .3 .3 49.0 64427 1 .0 .0 49.1 64429 16 .6 .6 49.7 64430 1 .0 .0 49.8 64434 2 .1 .1 49.8 64437 2 .1 .1 49.9 64439 2 .1 .1 50.0 64441 1 .0 .0 50.0 64442 3 .1 .1 50.2 64444 2 .1 .1 50.2 64446 3 .1 .1 50.4 64448 1 .0 .0 50.4 64451 1 .0 .0 50.4 64454 5 .2 .2 50.6 64456 14 .6 .6 51.2 64457 1 .0 .0 51.2 64458 1 .0 .0 51.3 64461 1 .0 .0 51.3 D-15 213 64463 3 .1 .1 51.4 64465 3 .1 .1 51.6 64468 42 1.7 1.7 53.2 64469 4 .2 .2 53.4 64470 15 .6 .6 54.0 64474 2 .1 .1 54.1 64476 1 .0 .0 54.1 64477 2 .1 .1 54.2 64479 1 .0 .0 54.2 64482 2 .1 .1 54.3 64484 1 .0 .0 54.4 64485 13 .5 .5 54.9 64486 2 .1 .1 55.0 64487 2 .1 .1 55.0 64489 4 .2 .2 55.2 64490 6 .2 .2 55.4 64491 10 .4 .4 55.8 64492 2 .1 .1 55.9 64493 1 .0 .0 56.0 64494 2 .1 .1 56.0 64497 2 .1 .1 56.1 64498 2 .1 .1 56.2 64501 1 .0 .0 56.2 64503 1 .0 .0 56.3 64504 4 .2 .2 56.4 64505 8 .3 .3 56.8 64506 4 .2 .2 56.9 64601 19 .8 .8 57.7 64620 3 .1 .1 57.8 64624 2 .1 .1 57.9 64628 14 .6 .6 58.4 64633 16 .6 .6 59.1 64639 1 .0 .0 59.1 64640 7 .3 .3 59.4 64644 6 .2 .2 59.6 D-16 214 64645 3 .1 .1 59.8 64648 2 .1 .1 59.8 64649 1 .0 .0 59.9 64650 1 .0 .0 59.9 64655 1 .0 .0 60.0 64657 1 .0 .0 60.0 64658 6 .2 .2 60.2 64660 2 .1 .1 60.3 64668 1 .0 .0 60.4 64670 5 .2 .2 60.6 64671 1 .0 .0 60.6 64676 1 .0 .0 60.6 64681 2 .1 .1 60.7 64683 17 .7 .7 61.4 64689 2 .1 .1 61.5 64701 8 .3 .3 61.8 64720 4 .2 .2 62.0 64723 1 .0 .0 62.0 64724 4 .2 .2 62.2 64725 1 .0 .0 62.2 64730 8 .3 .3 62.5 64733 2 .1 .1 62.6 64735 12 .5 .5 63.1 64738 3 .1 .1 63.2 64740 2 .1 .1 63.3 64742 1 .0 .0 63.3 64744 8 .3 .3 63.6 64748 1 .0 .0 63.7 64755 2 .1 .1 63.7 64756 2 .1 .1 63.8 64759 12 .5 .5 64.3 64761 2 .1 .1 64.4 64762 3 .1 .1 64.5 64763 2 .1 .1 64.6 64770 2 .1 .1 64.7 D-17 215 64772 17 .7 .7 65.3 64776 4 .2 .2 65.5 64780 1 .0 .0 65.5 64783 2 .1 .1 65.6 64788 2 .1 .1 65.7 64801 5 .2 .2 65.9 64804 7 .3 .3 66.2 64831 6 .2 .2 66.4 64834 3 .1 .1 66.5 64835 1 .0 .0 66.6 64836 4 .2 .2 66.7 64840 1 .0 .0 66.8 64843 3 .1 .1 66.9 64850 7 .3 .3 67.2 64854 3 .1 .1 67.3 64856 2 .1 .1 67.4 64861 1 .0 .0 67.4 64862 2 .1 .1 67.5 64865 4 .2 .2 67.7 64870 2 .1 .1 67.7 64873 1 .0 .0 67.8 64874 1 .0 .0 67.8 65001 2 .1 .1 67.9 65010 2 .1 .1 68.0 65011 1 .0 .0 68.0 65013 7 .3 .3 68.3 65014 4 .2 .2 68.5 65016 2 .1 .1 68.5 65017 1 .0 .0 68.6 65018 11 .4 .4 69.0 65020 5 .2 .2 69.2 65024 3 .1 .1 69.3 65025 1 .0 .0 69.4 65026 5 .2 .2 69.6 65032 1 .0 .0 69.6 D-18 216 65037 3 .1 .1 69.7 65039 1 .0 .0 69.8 65040 3 .1 .1 69.9 65041 13 .5 .5 70.4 65043 8 .3 .3 70.7 65046 3 .1 .1 70.9 65047 1 .0 .0 70.9 65049 4 .2 .2 71.1 65051 8 .3 .3 71.4 65052 1 .0 .0 71.4 65054 2 .1 .1 71.5 65055 1 .0 .0 71.5 65058 3 .1 .1 71.7 65061 1 .0 .0 71.7 65063 1 .0 .0 71.7 65066 3 .1 .1 71.9 65068 4 .2 .2 72.0 65072 1 .0 .0 72.1 65074 5 .2 .2 72.3 65078 4 .2 .2 72.4 65079 4 .2 .2 72.6 65080 1 .0 .0 72.6 65081 5 .2 .2 72.8 65082 3 .1 .1 72.9 65083 1 .0 .0 73.0 65084 6 .2 .2 73.2 65085 2 .1 .1 73.3 65101 8 .3 .3 73.6 65109 8 .3 .3 73.9 65201 2 .1 .1 74.0 65202 6 .2 .2 74.3 65203 4 .2 .2 74.4 65230 2 .1 .1 74.5 65232 1 .0 .0 74.5 65233 14 .6 .6 75.1 D-19 217 65236 5 .2 .2 75.3 65237 2 .1 .1 75.4 65239 5 .2 .2 75.6 65240 4 .2 .2 75.7 65243 2 .1 .1 75.8 65247 1 .0 .0 75.9 65248 6 .2 .2 76.1 65250 1 .0 .0 76.1 65251 10 .4 .4 76.5 65254 5 .2 .2 76.7 65255 1 .0 .0 76.8 65256 3 .1 .1 76.9 65257 4 .2 .2 77.1 65258 2 .1 .1 77.1 65260 1 .0 .0 77.2 65261 4 .2 .2 77.3 65263 5 .2 .2 77.5 65264 2 .1 .1 77.6 65265 14 .6 .6 78.2 65270 26 1.0 1.0 79.2 65274 2 .1 .1 79.3 65275 6 .2 .2 79.5 65279 2 .1 .1 79.6 65280 1 .0 .0 79.7 65281 1 .0 .0 79.7 65283 1 .0 .0 79.7 65301 30 1.2 1.2 80.9 65321 2 .1 .1 81.0 65323 1 .0 .0 81.1 65324 1 .0 .0 81.1 65325 6 .2 .2 81.3 65326 2 .1 .1 81.4 65327 1 .0 .0 81.5 65329 1 .0 .0 81.5 65332 2 .1 .1 81.6 D-20 218 65334 1 .0 .0 81.6 65336 3 .1 .1 81.7 65337 4 .2 .2 81.9 65338 1 .0 .0 81.9 65340 26 1.0 1.0 83.0 65345 2 .1 .1 83.1 65347 1 .0 .0 83.1 65348 1 .0 .0 83.1 65349 6 .2 .2 83.4 65350 1 .0 .0 83.4 65351 4 .2 .2 83.6 65355 7 .3 .3 83.9 65360 1 .0 .0 83.9 65401 12 .5 .5 84.4 65436 1 .0 .0 84.4 65438 3 .1 .1 84.5 65440 1 .0 .0 84.6 65441 7 .3 .3 84.9 65443 1 .0 .0 84.9 65449 1 .0 .0 84.9 65452 3 .1 .1 85.1 65453 4 .2 .2 85.2 65459 6 .2 .2 85.5 65463 3 .1 .1 85.6 65466 3 .1 .1 85.7 65470 1 .0 .0 85.7 65483 1 .0 .0 85.8 65486 2 .1 .1 85.9 65534 2 .1 .1 85.9 65535 3 .1 .1 86.1 65536 12 .5 .5 86.5 65542 4 .2 .2 86.7 65550 1 .0 .0 86.7 65552 2 .1 .1 86.8 65555 1 .0 .0 86.9 D-21 219 65556 6 .2 .2 87.1 65557 1 .0 .0 87.1 65559 9 .4 .4 87.5 65560 18 .7 .7 88.2 65565 4 .2 .2 88.4 65567 1 .0 .0 88.4 65571 3 .1 .1 88.5 65582 6 .2 .2 88.8 65583 6 .2 .2 89.0 65588 6 .2 .2 89.2 65590 5 .2 .2 89.4 65591 2 .1 .1 89.5 65601 1 .0 .0 89.6 65603 3 .1 .1 89.7 65604 2 .1 .1 89.8 65605 3 .1 .1 89.9 65606 7 .3 .3 90.2 65608 6 .2 .2 90.4 65609 1 .0 .0 90.4 65610 1 .0 .0 90.5 65611 1 .0 .0 90.5 65613 12 .5 .5 91.0 65615 1 .0 .0 91.0 65616 11 .4 .4 91.5 65622 3 .1 .1 91.6 65625 3 .1 .1 91.7 65626 1 .0 .0 91.8 65632 1 .0 .0 91.8 65633 2 .1 .1 91.9 65635 3 .1 .1 92.0 65637 1 .0 .0 92.0 65640 2 .1 .1 92.1 65644 2 .1 .1 92.2 65646 4 .2 .2 92.4 65647 2 .1 .1 92.4 D-22 220 65650 2 .1 .1 92.5 65652 1 .0 .0 92.6 65653 1 .0 .0 92.6 65655 3 .1 .1 92.7 65656 1 .0 .0 92.8 65661 3 .1 .1 92.9 65662 1 .0 .0 92.9 65668 3 .1 .1 93.0 65672 1 .0 .0 93.1 65679 2 .1 .1 93.2 65681 3 .1 .1 93.3 65682 1 .0 .0 93.3 65685 3 .1 .1 93.4 65686 2 .1 .1 93.5 65689 4 .2 .2 93.7 65692 1 .0 .0 93.7 65704 4 .2 .2 93.9 65705 1 .0 .0 93.9 65706 5 .2 .2 94.1 65708 7 .3 .3 94.4 65711 7 .3 .3 94.7 65712 2 .1 .1 94.8 65713 1 .0 .0 94.8 65714 4 .2 .2 95.0 65717 5 .2 .2 95.2 65721 6 .2 .2 95.4 65722 2 .1 .1 95.5 65723 7 .3 .3 95.8 65724 2 .1 .1 95.8 65729 2 .1 .1 95.9 65732 2 .1 .1 96.0 65737 4 .2 .2 96.2 65742 3 .1 .1 96.3 65746 6 .2 .2 96.5 65747 5 .2 .2 96.7 D-23 221 65753 5 .2 .2 96.9 65754 1 .0 .0 97.0 65755 1 .0 .0 97.0 65757 2 .1 .1 97.1 65759 2 .1 .1 97.2 65760 1 .0 .0 97.2 65761 3 .1 .1 97.3 65764 2 .1 .1 97.4 65766 1 .0 .0 97.4 65767 3 .1 .1 97.6 65768 2 .1 .1 97.6 65769 1 .0 .0 97.7 65772 4 .2 .2 97.8 65773 2 .1 .1 97.9 65774 3 .1 .1 98.0 65775 11 .4 .4 98.5 65779 4 .2 .2 98.6 65785 6 .2 .2 98.9 65786 1 .0 .0 98.9 65787 2 .1 .1 99.0 65789 1 .0 .0 99.0 65791 6 .2 .2 99.3 65793 2 .1 .1 99.4 65802 3 .1 .1 99.5 65803 3 .1 .1 99.6 65804 4 .2 .2 99.8 65807 4 .2 .2 99.9 65809 1 .0 .0 100.0 65810 1 .0 .0 100.0 2502 100.0 100.0 Total D-24 222 Table 60: Question h What is your household income? Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Under $30,000 501 20.0 20.0 20.0 $30,000 - $49,999 398 15.9 15.9 35.9 $50,000 - $69,999 307 12.3 12.3 48.2 $70,000 or greater 554 22.1 22.1 70.3 Refused 742 29.7 29.7 100.0 2502 100.0 100.0 Total D-25 223 224 225 226 Project Description NHTSA NHTSA 402 Planning and Administration PA‐2017‐02‐01‐00 THSD‐Planning & Administration Planning and Administration Total Emergency Medical Services EM‐2017‐02‐01‐00 UofMO Curators‐Safety Training for Em Re Emergency Medical Services Total Motorcycle Safety MC‐2017‐12‐01‐00 KC Bd of Pol Comm‐Police Motorcycle Inst Motorcycle Safety Total Occupant Protection OP‐2017‐05‐01‐00 MO Safety Center‐Statewide Seat Belt Sur OP‐2017‐05‐02‐00 MO Safety Center‐Enforcement CIOT OP‐2017‐05‐03‐00 Jeferson Co Sheriff‐Occupant Protection OP‐2017‐05‐04‐00 Kirkwood Police‐Buckle Up,Save A Life,Yo OP‐2017‐05‐05‐00 Lake St Louis Police‐Occupant Protection OP‐2017‐05‐06‐00 Maryland Heights Pol‐Safety&Drivers Lice OP‐2017‐05‐07‐00 Moline Acres Police‐Safety Enforcement OP‐2017‐05‐08‐00 Olivette Police‐Occupant Protection Init OP‐2017‐05‐09‐00 Pevely Police‐Occupant Protection Enforc OP‐2017‐05‐10‐00 St Charles City Police‐Occupant Protecti OP‐2017‐05‐11‐00 St Louis Co Police‐Occupant Protection E OP‐2017‐05‐12‐00 MO Safety Center‐Enforcement‐Youth Seat OP‐2017‐05‐13‐00 Webster Groves Police‐Occupant Protectio OP‐2017‐05‐14‐00 Wentzville Police‐Click It or Ticket OP‐2017‐05‐15‐00 Independence Police‐Occupant Protection OP‐2017‐05‐16‐00 KC Bd of Police Comm‐Occupant Protection OP‐2017‐05‐17‐00 Eureka Police‐Occupant Protection OP‐2017‐05‐18‐00 Florissant Police‐Occupant Protection OP‐2017‐05‐19‐00 Adair Co Sheriff‐CIOT: Zero Deaths Occupant Protection Total Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety PS‐2017‐02‐01‐00 Trailnet‐Share Our Streets Safely Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Total Police Traffic Services PT‐2017‐02‐00‐00 THSD‐Statewide PTS PT‐2017‐02‐01‐00 THSD‐PTS Program Coordination Program Area 2017 HSP 1 Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,947,102.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds $0.00 $0.00 Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Previous Bal. $1,300,000.00 $260,000.00 $8,200.00 $8,200.00 $157,752.76 $232,103.72 $45,000.00 $13,438.08 $4,500.00 $2,207.36 $5,000.00 $2,450.00 $5,000.00 $5,750.00 $30,000.00 $77,498.72 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $52,000.00 $71,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,000.00 $11,998.56 $742,699.20 $13,800.00 $13,800.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Incre/(Decre) $1,300,000.00 $260,000.00 $8,200.00 $8,200.00 $157,752.76 $232,103.72 $45,000.00 $13,438.08 $4,500.00 $2,207.36 $5,000.00 $2,450.00 $5,000.00 $5,750.00 $30,000.00 $77,498.72 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $52,000.00 $71,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,000.00 $11,998.56 $742,699.20 $13,800.00 $13,800.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Current Balance $1,300,000.00 $0.00 $8,200.00 $8,200.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $45,000.00 $13,438.08 $4,500.00 $2,207.36 $5,000.00 $2,450.00 $5,000.00 $5,750.00 $30,000.00 $60,000.00 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $52,000.00 $71,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,000.00 $11,998.56 $535,344.00 $13,800.00 $13,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Share to Local 227 Program Area Project PT‐2017‐02‐02‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐04‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐05‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐06‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐07‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐08‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐09‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐10‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐12‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐13‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐14‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐15‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐16‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐17‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐18‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐20‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐22‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐23‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐24‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐25‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐26‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐27‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐28‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐29‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐30‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐31‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐32‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐33‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐34‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐35‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐36‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐37‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐38‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐39‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐40‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐41‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐42‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐43‐00 2017 HSP 1 Prior Approved Program Funds THSD‐402 Training Survey Assessments $0.00 Arnold Police‐Aggressive Drivers $0.00 THSD‐2017 LETSAC $0.00 MO Sheriffs Assoc‐Law Enforcement Liaiso $0.00 MO Police Chiefs Assoc‐LETSAC Conf 2017 $0.00 Ballwin Police‐Hazardous Moving $0.00 Byrnes Mill Police‐Move Over & Slow Down $0.00 Calverton Park Police‐HMV Enf, 2 School $0.00 THSD‐Older Driver Program $0.00 Chesterfield Police‐HMV Enforcement $0.00 Clayton Police‐HMV Enforcement $0.00 Creve Coeur Police‐Speed HMV $0.00 Crystal City Police‐HMV $0.00 DeSoto Pub Safety‐HMV $0.00 Eureka Police‐HMV $0.00 Festus Police‐Hazardous Moving Overtime $0.00 Florissant Police‐HMV $0.00 Glendale Police‐HMV $0.00 Hazelwood Police‐Hazardous Moving Enforc $0.00 Herculaneum Police‐HMV $0.00 Jefferson Co Sheriff‐HMV $0.00 Kirkwood Police‐HMV, Distracted Driving $0.00 Lake St Louis Police‐HMV $0.00 Lincoln Co Sheriff‐HMV $0.00 Macon Co Sheriff‐Operation Drive Safe $0.00 Macon Police‐Macon Our Roads Safe‐HMV 16 $0.00 Manchester Police‐Haz Moving /Occupant P $0.00 Maryland Heights Police‐Interstate Speed $0.00 Monroe Co Sheriff‐HMV Enforcement $0.00 O'Fallon Police‐Speeding /Red Light Enf, $0.00 Olivette Police‐HMV Enforcement $0.00 Overland Police‐Hazardous & Speeding $0.00 Pevely Police‐HMV Enforcement $0.00 Richmond Heights Police‐HMV Enforcement $0.00 Shrewsbury Police‐HMV & Speeders $0.00 St Ann Police‐Speed Enforcement $0.00 St Charles City Police‐HMV $0.00 St Charles Co Police‐HMV $0.00 Description Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds Previous Bal. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $125,000.00 $13,700.00 $24,500.00 $68,400.00 $25,500.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $9,000.00 $5,989.20 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $2,000.00 $13,000.00 $18,250.00 $18,000.00 $4,750.00 $19,250.00 $4,409.00 $216,500.00 $11,198.00 $6,000.00 $10,500.00 $4,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,005.00 $13,025.00 $2,000.00 $21,000.00 $4,900.00 $8,175.00 $8,750.00 $8,500.00 $7,500.00 $8,000.00 $16,000.00 $17,000.00 Incre/(Decre) $125,000.00 $13,700.00 $24,500.00 $68,400.00 $25,500.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $9,000.00 $5,989.20 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $2,000.00 $13,000.00 $18,250.00 $18,000.00 $4,750.00 $19,250.00 $4,409.00 $216,500.00 $11,198.00 $6,000.00 $10,500.00 $4,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,005.00 $13,025.00 $2,000.00 $21,000.00 $4,900.00 $8,175.00 $8,750.00 $8,500.00 $7,500.00 $8,000.00 $16,000.00 $17,000.00 Current Balance $0.00 $13,700.00 $0.00 $68,400.00 $25,500.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 $5,989.20 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $2,000.00 $13,000.00 $18,250.00 $18,000.00 $4,750.00 $19,250.00 $4,409.00 $216,500.00 $11,198.00 $6,000.00 $10,500.00 $4,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,005.00 $13,025.00 $2,000.00 $21,000.00 $4,900.00 $8,175.00 $8,750.00 $8,500.00 $7,500.00 $8,000.00 $16,000.00 $17,000.00 Share to Local 228 Program Area Project PT‐2017‐02‐44‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐45‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐46‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐47‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐48‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐49‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐50‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐51‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐52‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐53‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐54‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐55‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐56‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐57‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐58‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐59‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐60‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐61‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐62‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐63‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐64‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐65‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐66‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐67‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐68‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐69‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐70‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐71‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐72‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐73‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐74‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐75‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐76‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐77‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐78‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐79‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐80‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐81‐00 2017 HSP 1 St Clair Police‐Speed Enforcement St John Police‐HMV St Louis Co Police‐Highway Safety Unit St Louis Metro Police‐Haz Violations/Spe St Peter Police‐Hazardous Moving Town & Country Police‐HMV Initiative Troy Police‐HMV Union Police‐HMV Enforcement Webster Groves Police‐HMV 2017 Wentzville Police‐HMV Belton Police‐Hazardous Moving Blue Springs Police‐Hazardous Moving Buchanan Co Sheriff‐HMV Cameron Police‐Operation Safe Travels Cass Co Sheriff‐HMV Chillicothe Police‐HMV Enforcement Clay Co Sheriff‐HMV Enforcement Excelsior Springs Police‐HMV Enforcement Gladstone Pub Safety‐HMV Grain Valley Police‐HMV Enforcement Grandview Police‐HMV Harrisonville Police‐Speeding Henry Co Sheriff‐HMV Enforcement Independence Police‐HMV Jackson Co Sheriff‐HMV & LETSAC Training KC Bd of Police Comm‐HMV Kearney Police‐Remove Aggressive Drivers Lee's Summit Police‐HMV LIberty Police‐HMV Marshall Police‐HMV Enforcement Pettis Co Sheriff‐Aggressive Driving Platte Co Sheriff‐Traffic Safety Officer Platte Co Sheriff‐HMV Pleasant Hill Police‐HMV Raymore Police‐HNV Enforcement Raytown Police‐Hazardous Moving 2017 Richmond Police‐HMV Enforcement Riverside Pub Safety‐ HMV Enforcement Description Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds Previous Bal. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,500.00 $9,000.00 $299,873.50 $144,500.00 $27,073.44 $9,000.00 $7,000.00 $11,525.00 $5,750.00 $9,086.00 $8,864.00 $12,585.00 $15,100.00 $8,500.00 $4,600.00 $7,030.00 $11,080.00 $5,400.00 $7,500.00 $1,680.00 $15,000.00 $2,800.00 $9,135.00 $181,800.00 $14,000.00 $240,000.00 $3,000.00 $30,000.00 $10,500.00 $3,250.00 $4,823.80 $28,500.00 $20,750.00 $3,500.00 $5,500.00 $4,000.00 $3,120.00 $3,000.00 Incre/(Decre) $5,500.00 $9,000.00 $299,873.50 $144,500.00 $27,073.44 $9,000.00 $7,000.00 $11,525.00 $5,750.00 $9,086.00 $8,864.00 $12,585.00 $15,100.00 $8,500.00 $4,600.00 $7,030.00 $11,080.00 $5,400.00 $7,500.00 $1,680.00 $15,000.00 $2,800.00 $9,135.00 $181,800.00 $14,000.00 $240,000.00 $3,000.00 $30,000.00 $10,500.00 $3,250.00 $4,823.80 $28,500.00 $20,750.00 $3,500.00 $5,500.00 $4,000.00 $3,120.00 $3,000.00 Current Balance $5,500.00 $9,000.00 $299,873.50 $144,500.00 $27,073.44 $9,000.00 $7,000.00 $11,525.00 $5,750.00 $9,086.00 $8,864.00 $12,585.00 $15,100.00 $8,500.00 $4,600.00 $7,030.00 $11,080.00 $5,400.00 $7,500.00 $1,680.00 $15,000.00 $2,800.00 $9,135.00 $181,800.00 $14,000.00 $240,000.00 $3,000.00 $30,000.00 $10,500.00 $3,250.00 $4,823.80 $28,500.00 $20,750.00 $3,500.00 $5,500.00 $4,000.00 $3,120.00 $3,000.00 Share to Local 229 Program Area Project PT‐2017‐02‐82‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐83‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐84‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐85‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐86‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐87‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐88‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐89‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐90‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐91‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐92‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐93‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐94‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐95‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐96‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐97‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐98‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐99‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐A0‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐A2‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐A3‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐A5‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐A6‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐A9‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐B0‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐B1‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐B2‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐B3‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐B4‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐B5‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐B6‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐B7‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐B8‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐B9‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐C0‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐C1‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐C2‐00 PT‐2017‐02‐C3‐00 2017 HSP 1 Sedalia Police‐Hazardous Moving 2017 Smithville Police‐HMV Enforcement St Joseph Police‐HMV Enforcement MO Southern St Univ‐Law Enf Training MSHP‐Skill Development MSHP‐Radar/EVOC/Instr Dev/Equip Material Scott City Police‐HMV Enforcement 2017 Scott Co Sheriff‐HMV Enforcement Wayne Co Sheriff‐HMV Enforcement West Plains Police‐HMV 2017 Willow Springs Police‐HMV Howell Co Sheriff‐HMV Jackson Police‐HMV Project Kennett Police‐HMV Enforcement Butler Co Sheriff‐HMV 2016‐17 Cape Girardeau Police‐HMV Enforcement Essex Police‐Safer Roads for Essex Farmington Police‐HMV Madison Co Sheriff‐Operation Safe Travel Mountain View Police‐HMV Violations MSHP‐Hazardous Moving Operations MO Safety Center‐Driver Improvement Prog Livingston Co Sheriff‐HMV Project Hollister Police‐HMV Enforcement Greene Co Sheriff‐HMV Potosi Police‐HMV Osage Beach Police‐Hazardous Moving Enfo Republic Police‐Safety Is Our 1st Priori Phelps Co Sheriff‐Hazardous Moving Enf 2 Rolla Police‐HMV & Occupant Protection Rogersville Police‐HMV 2016‐17 St Clair Co Sheriff‐Traffic Enforcement Springfield Police‐HMV THSD‐Statewide HMV Stone Co Sheriff‐HMV Jasper Co Sheriff‐HMV Jefferson City Police‐HMV Enforcement Joplin Police‐HMV Overtime Description Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds Previous Bal. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,250.00 $4,492.00 $6,480.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $96,560.00 $3,200.00 $3,718.00 $10,185.00 $3,500.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $3,750.00 $3,500.00 $7,192.73 $6,500.00 $3,675.04 $4,500.00 $3,750.00 $2,250.00 $250,000.00 $47,673.33 $2,500.00 $2,750.00 $65,000.00 $7,142.21 $4,500.00 $3,500.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $76,404.20 $30,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,750.00 $10,000.00 Incre/(Decre) $3,250.00 $4,492.00 $6,480.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $96,560.00 $3,200.00 $3,718.00 $10,185.00 $3,500.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $3,750.00 $3,500.00 $7,192.73 $6,500.00 $3,675.04 $4,500.00 $3,750.00 $2,250.00 $250,000.00 $47,673.33 $2,500.00 $2,750.00 $65,000.00 $7,142.21 $4,500.00 $3,500.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $76,404.20 $30,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,750.00 $10,000.00 Current Balance $3,250.00 $4,492.00 $6,480.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,200.00 $3,718.00 $10,185.00 $3,500.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $3,750.00 $3,500.00 $7,192.73 $6,500.00 $3,675.04 $4,500.00 $3,750.00 $2,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,750.00 $65,000.00 $7,142.21 $4,500.00 $3,500.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $76,404.20 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,750.00 $10,000.00 Share to Local 230 Project Description PT‐2017‐02‐C4‐00 Christian Co Sheriff‐Enforcing HMV PT‐2017‐02‐C5‐00 Branson Police‐HMV Enforcement PT‐2017‐02‐C6‐00 Boone Co Sheriff‐HMV Slowdown PT‐2017‐02‐C7‐00 Bolivar Police‐HMV Enforcement PT‐2017‐02‐C8‐00 Franklin Co Sheriff‐HMV PT‐2017‐02‐C9‐00 Cole Co Sheriff‐HMV Enforcement PT‐2017‐02‐D0‐00 Brentwood Police‐Citizen Traffic Safety PT‐2017‐02‐D1‐00 Greene Co Sheriff‐HMV Unit PT‐2017‐02‐D2‐00 Newton Co Sheriff‐Hazardous Moving PT‐2017‐02‐D3‐00 Washington Police‐HMV Enforcement PT‐2017‐02‐D4‐00 Waynesville Police‐Slow the Roll PT‐2017‐02‐D5‐00 Neosho Police‐HMV PT‐2017‐02‐D6‐00 Camden Co Sheriff‐HMV PT‐2017‐02‐D7‐00 Seneca Police‐HMV Enforcement PT‐2017‐02‐D8‐00 Camdenton Police‐Overtime Enforcement PT‐2017‐02‐D9‐00 Callaway Co Sheriff‐Callaway Co Sheriffs PT‐2017‐02‐E0‐00 Webb City Police‐HMV Patrols PT‐2017‐02‐E1‐00 Washington Co Sheriff‐HMV PT‐2017‐02‐E2‐00 Neveda Police‐HMV Enforcement PT‐2017‐02‐E3‐00 St Robert Police‐HMV Enforcement PT‐2017‐02‐E4‐00 Nixa Police‐HMV PT‐2017‐02‐E5‐00 Ozark Police‐HMV Enforcement PT‐2017‐02‐E6‐00 Lawrence Co Sheriff‐HMV Enforcement PT‐2017‐02‐E7‐00 Webster Co Sheriff‐HMV Enforcement PT‐2017‐02‐E8‐00 Lake Winnebago Police‐HMV Police Traffic Services Total Accident Investigation AI‐2017‐04‐01‐00 MO Safety Center‐Crash Investigation Tra AI‐2017‐04‐02‐00 KC Bd of Pol Comm‐Adv Crash Investigatio AI‐2017‐04‐03‐00 MSHP‐Accident Investigation Accident Investigation Total Program Area 2017 HSP 1 Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,947,102.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Previous Bal. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $61,097.54 $15,000.00 $70,180.90 $146,278.44 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $20,528.00 $6,050.00 $30,000.00 $7,425.00 $4,500.00 $25,376.58 $8,300.00 $15,617.00 $2,000.00 $6,700.00 $5,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,250.00 $8,208.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,990.00 $5,500.00 $8,798.00 $2,000.00 $4,496,092.03 Incre/(Decre) $61,097.54 $15,000.00 $70,180.90 $146,278.44 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $20,528.00 $6,050.00 $30,000.00 $7,425.00 $4,500.00 $25,376.58 $8,300.00 $15,617.00 $2,000.00 $6,700.00 $5,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,250.00 $8,208.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,990.00 $5,500.00 $8,798.00 $2,000.00 $4,496,092.03 Current Balance $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $20,528.00 $6,050.00 $30,000.00 $7,425.00 $4,500.00 $25,376.58 $8,300.00 $15,617.00 $2,000.00 $6,700.00 $5,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,250.00 $8,208.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,990.00 $5,500.00 $8,798.00 $2,000.00 $3,624,858.70 Share to Local 231 Project Description Community Traffic Safety Project CP‐2017‐09‐01‐00 THSD‐Tween Safety CP‐2017‐09‐02‐00 THSD‐Teen Driving Programs CP‐2017‐09‐03‐00 Cape Girardeau Safe Comm‐Team Spirit You CP‐2017‐09‐04‐00 Mercy Hospital‐Occupant Protection‐Injur CP‐2017‐09‐05‐00 Univ of MO Curators‐ThinkFirst MO CP‐2017‐09‐06‐00 THSD‐Youth & CPS Training Community Traffic Safety Project Total Driver Education DE‐2017‐02‐01‐00 MO Police Chiefs Assoc‐Law Enf Driving T DE‐2017‐02‐02‐00 MO Sheriffs Assoc‐Law Enf Driver Trainin DE‐2017‐02‐03‐00 Univ of MO Curators‐MobileAge Comp Educa Driver Education Total Driver Licensing DL‐2017‐02‐01‐00 Wash Univ StL‐R&D Standard Tr Sign Namin DL‐2017‐02‐02‐00 Wash Univ Stl‐R&D ID & Ed of Older Drive DL‐2017‐02‐03‐00 Wash Univ StL‐R&D Older Drvr Fitness Ass Driver Licensing Total Railroad/Highway Crossings RH‐2017‐02‐01‐00 MO Operation Livesaver‐MO Operation Life Railroad/Highway Crossings Total Roadway Safety RS‐2017‐11‐01‐00 THSD‐TEAP RS‐2017‐11‐02‐00 U of MO Curators‐Traffic Safety & Bluepr Roadway Safety Total Safe Communities SA‐2017‐09‐01‐00 Cape Girardeau Safe Comm‐Safe Communitie SA‐2017‐09‐02‐00 St Joseph Safety&Health‐Traffic Safety T Safe Communities Total Speed Enforcement SE‐2017‐02‐01‐00 MSHP‐Speed Enforcement Speed Enforcement Total Program Area 2017 HSP 1 Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Previous Bal. $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $76,053.87 $65,403.00 $141,456.87 $60,000.00 $30,000.00 $90,000.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $126,047.40 $134,293.40 $45,338.00 $305,678.80 $41,300.00 $9,600.00 $52,290.00 $103,190.00 $30,000.00 $33,590.00 $183,177.00 $60,000.80 $497,431.00 $150,000.00 $954,198.80 Incre/(Decre) $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $76,053.87 $65,403.00 $141,456.87 $60,000.00 $30,000.00 $90,000.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $126,047.40 $134,293.40 $45,338.00 $305,678.80 $41,300.00 $9,600.00 $52,290.00 $103,190.00 $30,000.00 $33,590.00 $183,177.00 $60,000.80 $497,431.00 $150,000.00 $954,198.80 Current Balance $0.00 $0.00 $76,053.87 $65,403.00 $141,456.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $41,300.00 $9,600.00 $0.00 $50,900.00 $0.00 $0.00 $183,177.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150,000.00 $333,177.00 Share to Local 232 Description CR‐2017‐05‐01‐00 THSD‐CPS Program Activities CR‐2017‐05‐02‐00 C MO Foster Care&Adopt‐Car Seat & Safety CR‐2017‐05‐03‐00 MO Safety Center‐Enforcement CPS Week CR‐2017‐05‐04‐00 MO Safety Center‐Survey CPS CR‐2017‐05‐05‐00 THSD‐Car Seat Distribution Program Child Restraint Total Project PM‐2017‐02‐01‐00 THSD‐Youth Seat Belt Enforcement Campaig PM‐2017‐02‐02‐00 THSD‐Work Zone Awareness PM‐2017‐02‐03‐00 THSD‐PI Creative Services PM‐2017‐02‐04‐00 THSD‐Bike, Ped & Distracted Drv PI&E PM‐2017‐02‐05‐00 THSD‐Motorcycle Safety Initiatives Paid Advertising Total NHTSA 402 Total 154 Transfer Funds 154AL‐2017‐AL‐00‐00 THSD‐Statewide 154AL Program 154AL‐2017‐AL‐01‐00 Barry Co Sheriff‐DWI Check Pt 154AL‐2017‐AL‐02‐00 Billings Police‐DWI Enforcement 154AL‐2017‐AL‐03‐00 Bolivar Police‐DWI Enforcement 154AL‐2017‐AL‐04‐00 Boone Co Sheriff‐Youth Alcohol Enf 154AL‐2017‐AL‐05‐00 Boone Co Sheriff‐FullTime DWI /Traffic U 154AL‐2017‐AL‐06‐00 Branson Police‐DWI Saturation Enf 154AL‐2017‐AL‐07‐00 Branson Police‐Youth Alcohol Enf 154AL‐2017‐AL‐08‐00 THSD‐Impaired Driving Paid Media Campaig 154AL‐2017‐AL‐09‐00 THSD‐Alliance Sports Marketing 154AL‐2017‐AL‐10‐00 Camden Co Sheriff‐DWI Enf 154AL‐2017‐AL‐11‐00 MSHP‐Wolfpack DWI Effort 154AL‐2017‐AL‐12‐00 Carterville Police‐SW MO DWI Task Force 154AL‐2017‐AL‐13‐00 Carthage Police‐DWI Sobriety Checkpoint 154AL‐2017‐AL‐14‐00 Christian Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement 154AL‐2017‐AL‐16‐00 Arnold Police‐Sobriety Checkpoint 154AL‐2017‐AL‐17‐00 Arnold Police‐Youth Alcohol Enforcement 154AL‐2017‐AL‐18‐00 Arnold Police‐DWI Saturation Patrol 154AL‐2017‐AL‐19‐00 Ballwin Police‐DWI Enforcement 154AL‐2017‐AL‐20‐00 Christian Co Sheriff‐Youth Alcohol Enf 154AL‐2017‐AL‐21‐00 Cole Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement 154AL‐2017‐AL‐22‐00 Columbia Police‐DWI Enforcement Activiti Paid Advertising Child Restraint Program Area 2017 HSP 1 Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,047,102.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Previous Bal. $3,500,000.00 $2,310.00 $1,500.00 $9,385.00 $2,750.00 $68,575.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $850,000.00 $80,000.00 $5,000.00 $64,600.00 $5,500.00 $3,125.00 $5,000.00 $8,400.00 $6,200.00 $13,000.00 $10,750.00 $3,000.00 $11,000.00 $25,000.00 $300,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $270,000.00 $35,000.00 $705,000.00 $8,188,411.49 $28,000.00 $10,967.00 $73,043.72 $47,806.63 $50,000.00 $209,817.35 Incre/(Decre) $3,500,000.00 $2,310.00 $1,500.00 $9,385.00 $2,750.00 $68,575.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $850,000.00 $80,000.00 $5,000.00 $64,600.00 $5,500.00 $3,125.00 $5,000.00 $8,400.00 $6,200.00 $13,000.00 $10,750.00 $3,000.00 $11,000.00 $25,000.00 $300,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $270,000.00 $35,000.00 $705,000.00 $8,188,411.49 $28,000.00 $10,967.00 $73,043.72 $47,806.63 $50,000.00 $209,817.35 Current Balance $3,500,000.00 $2,310.00 $1,500.00 $9,385.00 $2,750.00 $68,575.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,500.00 $3,125.00 $5,000.00 $8,400.00 $6,200.00 $13,000.00 $10,750.00 $3,000.00 $11,000.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,806,703.57 $0.00 $10,967.00 $56,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $66,967.00 Share to Local 233 Program Area Project 154AL‐2017‐AL‐23‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐24‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐25‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐26‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐27‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐28‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐29‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐30‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐31‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐32‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐33‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐34‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐35‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐36‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐37‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐38‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐39‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐40‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐41‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐43‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐44‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐45‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐46‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐47‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐48‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐49‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐50‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐51‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐52‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐53‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐54‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐55‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐56‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐57‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐58‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐59‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐60‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐61‐00 2017 HSP 1 Crocker Police‐Sobriety Ckpt & DWI Satur Franklin Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement Franklin Co Sheriff‐Youth Alcohol Greene Co Sheriff‐DWI Greene Co Sheriff‐Youth Alcohol Enf MO Sheriffs Assoc‐LE Liaison (Alcohol) 2 Hollister Police‐DWI Enforcement Hollister Police‐Youth Alcohol Enforceme THSD‐Youth Alcohol Program Jasper Co Sheriff‐DWI Enf & Checkpoint Jefferson City Police‐DWI Enf / Saturati Joplin Police‐DWI Enf & Youth Alcohol Joplin Police‐Full Time DWI Unit Lake Winnebago Pol‐DWI Enf /Youth Alcoho Lamar Police‐You Booze You Loose Lawrence Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement Monett Police‐DWI Enforcement Neosho Police‐DWI Enforcement Ballwin Police‐Youth Alcohol Byrnes Mill Police‐Arrive Safe & Sober Chesterfield Police‐DWI Enforcement Chesterfield Police‐Sobriety Checkpoint Clark Co Sheriff‐DWI Clayton Police‐DWI Enforcement Cottleville Pol‐Cottleville/StCharles DW Creve Coeur Police‐You Drink, Drive, Los Creve Coeur Police‐Sobriety Ckpoint /BAT Creve Coeur Police‐DWI Officer Des Peres Pub Safety‐DWI Enforcement Ellisville Police‐DWI Enforcement FY16‐1 Eureka Police‐DWI Enforcement Eureka Police‐Sobriety Checkpoint Eureka Police‐Youth Alcohol Festus Police‐DWI Overtime Enforcement Festus Police‐Youth Alcohol Overtime Enf Florissant Police‐DWI Enforcement Hazelwood Police‐DWI Enforcement Hazelwood Police‐Youth Alcohol Enforceme Description Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds Previous Bal. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,520.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $90,000.00 $38,000.00 $159,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $18,000.00 $20,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,000.00 $61,700.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $12,000.00 $1,234.80 $3,780.00 $2,750.00 $4,000.00 $6,500.00 $10,000.00 $8,995.35 $2,994.60 $6,400.00 $6,500.00 $13,000.00 $56,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $2,000.00 $12,000.00 $8,000.00 $9,000.00 $32,310.48 $10,000.00 Incre/(Decre) $5,520.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $90,000.00 $38,000.00 $159,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $18,000.00 $20,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,000.00 $61,700.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $12,000.00 $1,234.80 $3,780.00 $2,750.00 $4,000.00 $6,500.00 $10,000.00 $8,995.35 $2,994.60 $6,400.00 $6,500.00 $13,000.00 $56,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $2,000.00 $12,000.00 $8,000.00 $9,000.00 $32,310.48 $10,000.00 Current Balance $5,520.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $90,000.00 $38,000.00 $159,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,000.00 $61,700.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $12,000.00 $1,234.80 $3,780.00 $2,750.00 $4,000.00 $6,500.00 $10,000.00 $8,995.35 $2,994.60 $6,400.00 $6,500.00 $13,000.00 $56,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $2,000.00 $12,000.00 $8,000.00 $9,000.00 $32,310.48 $10,000.00 Share to Local 234 Program Area Project 154AL‐2017‐AL‐62‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐63‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐64‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐65‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐66‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐67‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐68‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐69‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐70‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐71‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐72‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐73‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐74‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐75‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐76‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐77‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐78‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐79‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐80‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐81‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐82‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐83‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐84‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐85‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐86‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐87‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐88‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐89‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐90‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐91‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐92‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐93‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐95‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐96‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐97‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐98‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐99‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐A0‐00 2017 HSP 1 Hazelwood Police‐BAT Van Operations Nevada Police‐DWI Enforcement Newton Co Sheriff‐Impaired Driver Nixa Police‐DWI Enforcement Jefferson Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement Jefferson Co Sheriff‐DWI Enf Unit Jefferson Co Sheriff‐Sobriety Checkpoint Jefferson Co Sheriff‐Youth Alcohol Lake St Louis Police‐DWI Saturation Patr Lake St Louis Police‐DWI Checkpoint Macon Police‐Macon Our Roads Safe‐DWI Pr Manchester Police‐DWI Enforcement Maryland Heights Police‐DWI Saturation P Maryland Heights Pol‐Hollywd Amph Youth Moberly Police‐DWI Enf /Checkpoint Osage Beach Police‐Stop Drinking & Drivi Monroe Co Sheriff‐DWI Saturation Enf O'Fallon Police‐DWI Saturation Patrols O'Fallon Police‐Sobriety Checkpoint O'Fallon Police‐Youth Alcohol, Before Th Olivette Police‐DWI Enforcement Initiati Overland Police‐Youth Alcohol Overland Police‐ DWI Saturation Patrols Overland Police‐DWI Sobriety Checkpoints Pevely Police‐DWI Wolf Pack Pevely Police‐Youth Alcohol Enforcement St Ann Police‐Sobriety Checkpoint St Charles City Police‐DWI Saturation/Wo St Charles City Police‐DWI Checkpoint St Charles City Police‐Youth Alcohol Enf St Charles Co Police‐DWI Checkpoint Ozark Police‐DWI Enforcement St Charles Co Police‐Youth Alcohol St Charles Co Police‐DWI Wolfpack/Satura Potosi Police‐DWI Enforcement Republic Police‐DWI Enf & Education Rogersville Police‐DWI Enforcement 2016‐ Rolla Police‐DWI Enf /Checkpoint Description Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds Previous Bal. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,750.00 $4,000.00 $7,500.00 $9,500.00 $215,000.00 $129,905.27 $80,000.00 $180,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,005.00 $6,230.00 $5,000.00 $3,750.00 $3,500.00 $2,000.00 $23,040.00 $10,000.00 $6,500.00 $10,575.00 $1,680.00 $7,500.00 $13,600.00 $5,500.00 $5,000.00 $14,000.00 $15,500.00 $15,125.00 $6,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,500.00 $8,000.00 $9,000.00 $3,000.00 $14,000.00 Incre/(Decre) $5,750.00 $4,000.00 $7,500.00 $9,500.00 $215,000.00 $129,905.27 $80,000.00 $180,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,005.00 $6,230.00 $5,000.00 $3,750.00 $3,500.00 $2,000.00 $23,040.00 $10,000.00 $6,500.00 $10,575.00 $1,680.00 $7,500.00 $13,600.00 $5,500.00 $5,000.00 $14,000.00 $15,500.00 $15,125.00 $6,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,500.00 $8,000.00 $9,000.00 $3,000.00 $14,000.00 Current Balance $5,750.00 $4,000.00 $7,500.00 $9,500.00 $215,000.00 $129,905.27 $80,000.00 $180,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,005.00 $6,230.00 $5,000.00 $3,750.00 $3,500.00 $2,000.00 $23,040.00 $10,000.00 $6,500.00 $10,575.00 $1,680.00 $7,500.00 $13,600.00 $5,500.00 $5,000.00 $14,000.00 $15,500.00 $15,125.00 $6,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,500.00 $8,000.00 $9,000.00 $3,000.00 $14,000.00 Share to Local 235 Program Area Project 154AL‐2017‐AL‐A1‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐A2‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐A3‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐A4‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐A5‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐A6‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐A7‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐A8‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐A9‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐B0‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐B1‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐B2‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐B3‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐B4‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐B5‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐B6‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐B7‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐B8‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐B9‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐C0‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐C1‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐C2‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐C3‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐C4‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐C5‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐C6‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐C7‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐C8‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐C9‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐D0‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐D1‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐D2‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐D3‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐D4‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐D5‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐D6‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐D7‐00 154AL‐2017‐AL‐D8‐00 2017 HSP 1 Seneca Police‐Zero Tolerance MADD‐Power of Parents & Power of Youth Safe & Sober Inc‐MO Safe & Sober St Clair Police‐R.I.D. St John Police‐Sobriety Checkpoints St John Police‐DWI Saturation St Louis Co Police‐Sobriety Ckpt/Saturat St Louis Metro Police‐DWI Enforcement St Louis Metro Police‐Sobriety Ckpoint St Peters Police‐DWI Enforcement Sullivan Police‐DWI Enf Overtime Sullivan Police‐Franklin Co DWI Task For Troy Police‐DWI Enforcement U of MO Curators‐Partners In Prevention Union Police‐Franklin Co Impaired Drivin Velda City Police‐Safer Roads Vinita Park Police‐DWI Ckpoint & Saturat Wentzville Police‐Sobriety Checkpoint Wentzville Police‐Underage Drinking Wentzville Police‐DWI Enforcement Woodson Terrace Police‐DWI Wolfpack Enf DeSoto Public Safety‐DWI Enforcement Belton Police‐DWI Wolfpack Belton Police‐Sobriety Checkpoint Benton Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement Blue Springs Police‐DWI Enforcement Blue Springs Police‐Sobriety Checkpoints Cass Co Sheriff‐Alcohol Enforcement Clay Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement Clay Co Sheriff‐Youth Alcohol Enforcemen Clay Co Sheriff‐Sobriety Ckpt / Task For Excelsior Springs Police‐Clay/Platte DWI Gladstone Pub Safety‐DWI & Ckpoint Grain Valley Police‐DWI Enforcement Grandview Police‐DWI Enforcement Harrisonville Police‐DWI Enforcement Springfield Police‐Youth Alcohol Enforce St Clair Co Sheriff‐DWI Enf & Checkpoint Description Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds Previous Bal. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $53,500.00 $310,000.00 $5,500.00 $13,000.00 $8,000.00 $31,500.00 $115,000.00 $20,000.00 $28,000.00 $5,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $320,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,000.00 $5,500.00 $10,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $3,048.00 $10,080.00 $8,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $9,300.00 $12,995.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $7,300.00 $8,000.00 $3,500.00 $19,000.00 $1,750.00 $29,879.00 $1,548.00 Incre/(Decre) $1,500.00 $53,500.00 $310,000.00 $5,500.00 $13,000.00 $8,000.00 $31,500.00 $115,000.00 $20,000.00 $28,000.00 $5,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $320,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,000.00 $5,500.00 $10,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $3,048.00 $10,080.00 $8,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $9,300.00 $12,995.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $7,300.00 $8,000.00 $3,500.00 $19,000.00 $1,750.00 $29,879.00 $1,548.00 Current Balance $1,500.00 $53,500.00 $310,000.00 $5,500.00 $13,000.00 $8,000.00 $31,500.00 $115,000.00 $20,000.00 $28,000.00 $5,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,000.00 $5,500.00 $10,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $3,048.00 $10,080.00 $8,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $9,300.00 $12,995.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $7,300.00 $8,000.00 $3,500.00 $19,000.00 $1,750.00 $29,879.00 $1,548.00 Share to Local 236 Project Description 154AL‐2017‐AL‐D9‐00 St Robert Police‐DWI Enforcement 154AL‐2017‐AL‐E0‐00 Stone Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement 154AL‐2017‐AL‐E1‐00 Washington Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement 154AL‐2017‐AL‐E2‐00 Jackson Co Sheriff‐DWI Unit Salary 154AL‐2017‐AL‐E3‐00 KC Bd of Pol Comm‐Youth Alcohol 154AL‐2017‐AL‐E4‐00 Kearney Police‐DWI Enforcement 154AL‐2017‐AL‐E5‐00 Webster Co Sheriff‐Youth DWI 16‐17 154AL‐2017‐AL‐E6‐00 Liberty Police‐DWI Enforcement 154AL‐2017‐AL‐E7‐00 Livingston Co Sheriff‐DWI Project 154AL‐2017‐AL‐E8‐00 Marshall Police‐Sobriety Checkpoint 154AL‐2017‐AL‐E9‐00 Oak Grove Police‐DWI Enforcement 2017 154AL‐2017‐AL‐F0‐00 Platte City Police‐Platt & Clay Co Ckpt 154AL‐2017‐AL‐F1‐00 Platte Co Sheriff‐Sobriety Checkpoint 154AL‐2017‐AL‐F2‐00 Raymore Police‐Sobriety Ckpt /DWI Enforc 154AL‐2017‐AL‐F3‐00 Riverside Pub Safety‐DWI Enforcement 154AL‐2017‐AL‐F4‐00 Sedalia Police‐DWI Enforcement 2017 154AL‐2017‐AL‐F5‐00 Smithville Police‐Youth Alcohol Enforcem 154AL‐2017‐AL‐F6‐00 St Joseph Police‐Midland Empire Alcohol 154AL‐2017‐AL‐F7‐00 St Joseph Police‐NW MO DWI Task Force 154AL‐2017‐AL‐F8‐00 THSD‐DWI Enforcement Equipment 154AL‐2017‐AL‐F9‐00 MADD‐Court Monitoring Program 154AL‐2017‐AL‐G0‐00 OSCA‐DWI Court Project 154AL‐2017‐AL‐G1‐00 MSHP‐Sobiety Checkpoint Operations 154AL‐2017‐AL‐G2‐00 MSHP‐DWI Saturations 154AL‐2017‐AL‐G3‐00 Franklin Co Sheriff‐Sobriety Checkpoint 154AL‐2017‐AL‐G4‐00 Christian Co Sheriff‐Sobriety Checkpoint 154AL‐2017‐AL‐G5‐00 Phelps Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement 2017 154AL‐2017‐AL‐G6‐00 Gladstone Pub Safety‐Not 21, Do Not Sell 154 Alcohol Total 154 Transfer Funds Total MAP 21 405b OP Low M2HVE‐2017‐05‐01‐00 Arnold Police‐Unrestrained Drivers & Pas M2HVE‐2017‐05‐02‐00 Greene Co Sheriff‐Occupant Protection M2HVE‐2017‐05‐03‐00 Ballwin Police‐Occupant Protection M2HVE‐2017‐05‐04‐00 Brentwood Police‐Max Prim Seat Belt Ordi M2HVE‐2017‐05‐05‐00 Byrnes Mill Police‐Safety First M2HVE‐2017‐05‐06‐00 Calverton Park Police‐Click It Or Ticket M2HVE‐2017‐05‐07‐00 Creve Coeur Police‐Click It Or Ticket Program Area 2017 HSP 1 Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Previous Bal. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,700.00 $22,000.00 $3,977.00 $2,500.00 $3,500.00 $4,500.00 $8,000.00 $7,924.00 $9,000.00 $5,800.00 $159,485.08 $22,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,700.00 $2,500.00 $3,510.00 $7,749.87 $3,348.00 $1,500.00 $27,401.00 $7,500.00 $5,040.00 $4,220.00 $3,432.00 $33,984.00 $31,500.00 $80,000.00 $123,000.00 $258,284.00 $240,000.00 $246,850.00 $19,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,656,568.45 $8,656,568.45 Incre/(Decre) $14,700.00 $22,000.00 $3,977.00 $2,500.00 $3,500.00 $4,500.00 $8,000.00 $7,924.00 $9,000.00 $5,800.00 $159,485.08 $22,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,700.00 $2,500.00 $3,510.00 $7,749.87 $3,348.00 $1,500.00 $27,401.00 $7,500.00 $5,040.00 $4,220.00 $3,432.00 $33,984.00 $31,500.00 $80,000.00 $123,000.00 $258,284.00 $240,000.00 $246,850.00 $19,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,656,568.45 $8,656,568.45 Current Balance $14,700.00 $22,000.00 $3,977.00 $2,500.00 $3,500.00 $4,500.00 $8,000.00 $7,924.00 $9,000.00 $5,800.00 $159,485.08 $22,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,700.00 $2,500.00 $3,510.00 $7,749.87 $3,348.00 $1,500.00 $27,401.00 $7,500.00 $5,040.00 $4,220.00 $3,432.00 $33,984.00 $31,500.00 $0.00 $123,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $19,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,498,834.45 $6,498,834.45 Share to Local 237 Project Description 405b Low CSS Purchase/Distribution Total 405b OP Low M2X‐2017‐05‐00‐00 THSD‐Statewide 405b OP Low 405b OP Low Total MAP 21 405b OP Low Total MAP 21 405c Data Program M3DA‐2017‐04‐00‐00 THSD‐Statewide 405c Data Program M3DA‐2017‐04‐01‐00 Blue Springs Police‐E Citation M3DA‐2017‐04‐02‐00 OSCA‐JIS Monitoring & Reporting M3DA‐2017‐04‐03‐00 MSHP‐STARS and FARS Support M3DA‐2017‐04‐04‐00 Ballwin Police‐E Citations M3DA‐2017‐04‐05‐00 Christian Co Sheriff‐E Citation M3DA‐2017‐04‐06‐00 Dexter Police‐Ticket Printers For Patrol M3DA‐2017‐04‐07‐00 Jackson Police‐E Ticketing Project M2HVE‐2017‐05‐08‐00 Hazelwood Police‐Seat Belt Enforcement M2HVE‐2017‐05‐09‐00 Maryland Heights Police‐Seat Belt Enforc M2HVE‐2017‐05‐10‐00 Winfield Police‐Winfield Cares Buckle Up M2HVE‐2017‐05‐11‐00 Jackson Police‐Occupant Protection M2HVE‐2017‐05‐12‐00 Cape Girardeau Co Sheriff‐Occup Protecti M2HVE‐2017‐05‐13‐00 Dexter Police‐Occupant Protection Enforc M2HVE‐2017‐05‐14‐00 Fredericktown Police‐Keep Our Citizens S M2HVE‐2017‐05‐15‐00 Madison Co Sheriff‐Safety First M2HVE‐2017‐05‐16‐00 MSHP‐Occupant Protection Project M2HVE‐2017‐05‐17‐00 Jackson Co Sheriff‐Seat Belt Enf/Educati M2HVE‐2017‐05‐18‐00 Grandview Police‐Occupant Protection M2HVE‐2017‐05‐19‐00 Harrisonville Police‐Safety Belt Enforce M2HVE‐2017‐05‐20‐00 Clay Co Sheriff‐Occupant Protection 405b Low HVE Total 405b Low Public Education M2PE‐2017‐05‐02‐00 THSD‐Click It Or Ticket Enf Campaign M2PE‐2017‐05‐03‐00 THSD‐Child Passenger Safety 405b Low Public Education Total 405b Low Community CPS Services M2CPS‐2017‐05‐01‐00 THSD‐Child Passenger Safety Coordination 405b Low Community CPS Services Total 405b Low CSS Purchase/Distribution M2CSS‐2017‐05‐01‐00 THSD‐MAP 21 Child Safety Seat Distributi Program Area 2017 HSP 1 Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri $438,719.25 $438,719.25 $438,719.25 $550,504.27 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Previous Bal. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,300,000.00 $52,000.00 $169,325.64 $224,052.00 $14,300.00 $40,912.04 $4,365.00 $44,815.33 $900,000.00 $900,000.00 $1,754,877.00 $42,700.00 $42,700.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $350,000.00 $150,000.00 $500,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,000.00 $120,000.00 $7,000.00 $20,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $267,177.00 Incre/(Decre) $1,300,000.00 $52,000.00 $169,325.64 $224,052.00 $14,300.00 $40,912.04 $4,365.00 $44,815.33 $900,000.00 $900,000.00 $1,754,877.00 $42,700.00 $42,700.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $350,000.00 $150,000.00 $500,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,000.00 $120,000.00 $7,000.00 $20,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $267,177.00 Current Balance $0.00 $52,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,300.00 $40,912.04 $4,365.00 $44,815.33 $900,000.00 $900,000.00 $1,047,177.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 $7,000.00 $20,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $147,177.00 Share to Local 238 Project M3DA‐2017‐04‐08‐00 M3DA‐2017‐04‐09‐00 M3DA‐2017‐04‐10‐00 M3DA‐2017‐04‐11‐00 M3DA‐2017‐04‐12‐00 M3DA‐2017‐04‐13‐00 M3DA‐2017‐04‐14‐00 M3DA‐2017‐04‐15‐00 405c Data Program Total MAP 21 405c Data Program Total MAP 21 405d Impaired Driving Mid M5HVE‐2017‐03‐01‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐02‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐03‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐04‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐05‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐06‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐07‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐08‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐09‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐10‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐11‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐12‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐13‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐14‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐15‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐16‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐17‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐18‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐19‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐20‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐21‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐22‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐23‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐24‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐25‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐26‐00 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐27‐00 Program Area 2017 HSP 1 Boone Co Sheriff‐Sobriety Ckpt /Saturati Columbia Police‐DWI Full Time Unit Franklin Co Sheriff‐Traffic Safety /DWI Greene Co Sheriff‐DWI Unit Lebanon Police‐Sobriety Ckpt /DWI Enforc Union Police‐Impaired Driving Saturation Springfield Police‐DWI Enf /Sobriety Ckp Independence Police‐Sob Ckpt Youth Al Wo Washington Police‐Youth Alcohol Enforcem Jackson Co Sheriff‐Sobriety Checkpoint Jackson Co Sheriff‐Wolf Pack Saturation Jackson Co Sheriff‐No Refusal DWI Unit KC Bd of Police Comm‐Sobriety Checkpoint KC Bd of Police Comm‐DWI Enforcement Washington Police‐Sobriety Checkpoint Waynesville Police‐It Don't Jive To Drin Lee's Summit Police‐DWI Enforcement Webb City Police‐DWI Saturation Patrols Webster Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement 2016‐ Platte Co Sheriff‐DWI Enf Officer Pleasant Hill Police‐DWI Wolf Packs /Ckp MO Safety Center‐Enforcement Drive Sober Smithville Police‐DWI Enforcement Smithville Police‐Joint Clay/Platte DWI THSD‐Statewide DWI 405d Scott City Police‐SEMO DWI Task Force Scott Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement MSHP‐Statewide Traffic Accident Records REJIS‐LETS Sustainment & Enhancements REJIS‐Electronic Records Adoption Improv Rogersville Police‐E Ticketing THSD‐Traffic Records Data Improvement Washington Police‐Mobile Ticketing Print Webb City Police‐Digital Ticket Processi Willow Springs Police‐E Ticket Printers Description Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $550,504.27 $550,504.27 State Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Previous Bal. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,500.00 $74,302.40 $112,472.11 $50,753.15 $5,000.00 $13,750.00 $108,629.00 $260,000.00 $4,500.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $150,000.00 $110,000.00 $9,750.00 $3,750.00 $33,500.00 $11,500.00 $12,000.00 $43,562.50 $5,000.00 $419,239.12 $3,541.96 $4,976.64 $50,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,320.00 $139,300.00 $84,976.00 $17,812.00 $3,604.00 $90,000.00 $5,118.00 $4,297.08 $7,140.00 $2,202,017.09 $2,202,017.09 Incre/(Decre) $13,500.00 $74,302.40 $112,472.11 $50,753.15 $5,000.00 $13,750.00 $108,629.00 $260,000.00 $4,500.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $150,000.00 $110,000.00 $9,750.00 $3,750.00 $33,500.00 $11,500.00 $12,000.00 $43,562.50 $5,000.00 $419,239.12 $3,541.96 $4,976.64 $50,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,320.00 $139,300.00 $84,976.00 $17,812.00 $3,604.00 $90,000.00 $5,118.00 $4,297.08 $7,140.00 $2,202,017.09 $2,202,017.09 Current Balance $13,500.00 $74,302.40 $112,472.11 $50,753.15 $5,000.00 $13,750.00 $108,629.00 $260,000.00 $4,500.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $150,000.00 $110,000.00 $9,750.00 $3,750.00 $33,500.00 $11,500.00 $12,000.00 $43,562.50 $5,000.00 $360,000.00 $3,541.96 $4,976.64 $0.00 $4,000.00 $4,320.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,604.00 $0.00 $5,118.00 $4,297.08 $7,140.00 $176,551.45 $176,551.45 Share to Local 239 Project Description M5HVE‐2017‐03‐28‐00 Scott Co Sheriff‐DWI Task Force M5HVE‐2017‐03‐29‐00 St Genevieve Co Sheriff‐Impaired Driving M5HVE‐2017‐03‐30‐00 Thayer Police‐DWI Saturation Patrol M5HVE‐2017‐03‐31‐00 West Plains Police‐Sobriety Checkpoints M5HVE‐2017‐03‐32‐00 Willow Springs Police‐Sobriety Checkpoin M5HVE‐2017‐03‐33‐00 Howell Co Sheriff‐DWI Enforcement M5HVE‐2017‐03‐34‐00 Jackson Police‐DWI Enf /DWI Task Force M5HVE‐2017‐03‐35‐00 Kennett Police‐DWI Enforcement M5HVE‐2017‐03‐36‐00 Kennett Police‐Kennet PD /Task Force Ckp M5HVE‐2017‐03‐37‐00 Cape Girardeau Co Shrf‐DWI Enf/SEMO DWI M5HVE‐2017‐03‐38‐00 Cape Girardeau Police‐DWI Enforcement M5HVE‐2017‐03‐39‐00 Cape Girardeau Police‐Sobriety Ckpoint M5HVE‐2017‐03‐40‐00 Charleston Pub Safety‐SEMO DWI Task Forc M5HVE‐2017‐03‐41‐00 Dexter Police‐Sobriety Ckpoint Operation M5HVE‐2017‐03‐42‐00 Dexter Police‐Roving Patrol DWI Enforcem M5HVE‐2017‐03‐43‐00 Doniphan Police‐In Car & Officer Worn Ca M5HVE‐2017‐03‐44‐00 Hayti Police‐DWI Enforcement 2016‐17 M5HVE‐2017‐03‐45‐00 Madison Co Sheriff‐Sobriety Checkpoint M5HVE‐2017‐03‐46‐00 Madison Co Sheriff‐DWI Saturation Projec M5HVE‐2017‐03‐47‐00 MSHP‐DWI Tracking System (DWITS) M5HVE‐2017‐03‐48‐00 Mtn View Police‐DWI Checkpoints 405d Mid HVE Total 405d Mid ID Coordinator M5IDC‐2017‐03‐01‐00 THSD‐Alcohol Coordination M5IDC‐2017‐03‐02‐00 THSD‐Youth Alcohol Program Coordination 405d Mid ID Coordinator Total 405d Mid Court Support M5CS‐2017‐03‐01‐00 DOR‐Attorney & Legal Assistant M5CS‐2017‐03‐02‐00 MOPS‐Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor 405d Mid Court Support Total 405d Mid Training M5TR‐2017‐03‐01‐00 MO Police Chiefs Assoc‐DITEP 2017 M5TR‐2017‐03‐02‐00 MO South St U‐Alcohol Training for LE Of M5TR‐2017‐03‐03‐00 MSHP‐BAC/DRE/ARIDE/SFST 405d Mid Training Total Program Area 2017 HSP 1 Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Previous Bal. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $44,580.50 $54,600.00 $132,941.76 $232,122.26 $124,536.21 $294,684.09 $419,220.30 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $160,000.00 $5,000.00 $11,500.00 $2,556.80 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $10,600.00 $11,000.00 $9,030.00 $15,400.00 $7,700.00 $9,100.00 $1,100.00 $10,087.80 $6,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,330.00 $5,770.00 $6,200.00 $2,100.00 $1,699,521.48 Incre/(Decre) $44,580.50 $54,600.00 $132,941.76 $232,122.26 $124,536.21 $294,684.09 $419,220.30 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $160,000.00 $5,000.00 $11,500.00 $2,556.80 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $10,600.00 $11,000.00 $9,030.00 $15,400.00 $7,700.00 $9,100.00 $1,100.00 $10,087.80 $6,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,330.00 $5,770.00 $6,200.00 $2,100.00 $1,699,521.48 Current Balance $44,580.50 $0.00 $0.00 $44,580.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $11,500.00 $2,556.80 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $10,600.00 $11,000.00 $9,030.00 $15,400.00 $7,700.00 $9,100.00 $1,100.00 $10,087.80 $6,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,330.00 $5,770.00 $0.00 $2,100.00 $1,584,082.36 Share to Local 240 Project $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $72,500.00 $72,500.00 $72,500.00 $4,744,394.01 $4,744,394.01 $1,635,567.62 $1,635,567.62 $1,635,567.62 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Funds 405d Mid Other Based on Problem ID Total 405d Impaired Driving Mid M5X‐2017‐03‐00‐00 THSD‐Statewide 450d Impaired Driving Mid 405d Impaired Driving Mid Total MAP 21 405d Impaired Driving Mid Total MAP 21 405f Motorcycle Programs M9MA‐2017‐12‐01‐00 THSD‐Motorcycle Safety Initiatives 405f Motorcyclist Awareness Total 405f Motorcycle Programs M9X‐2017‐12‐00‐00 THSD‐Statewide 405f Motorcycle Program 405f Motorcycle Programs Total MAP 21 405f Motorcycle Programs Total NHTSA Total Total Prior Approved Program Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Description THSD‐Impaired Driving Program Activities DOR‐DOR & Law Enforcement Training REJIS‐Drug Recognition Expert System MO Safety Center‐Impaired Driving Counte THSD‐Drug Testing in Fatal Crashes 405d Mid Other Based on Problem ID M5OT‐2017‐03‐01‐00 M5OT‐2017‐03‐02‐00 M5OT‐2017‐03‐03‐00 M5OT‐2017‐03‐04‐00 M5OT‐2017‐03‐05‐00 Program Area 2017 HSP 1 Highway Safety Plan Cost Summary ‐ Missouri $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Previous Bal. $90,000.00 $90,000.00 $290,000.00 $27,634,144.49 $27,634,144.49 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $6,542,270.46 $1,031,406.42 $30,000.00 $23,594.00 $52,208.00 $875,604.42 $50,000.00 Incre/(Decre) $90,000.00 $90,000.00 $290,000.00 $27,634,144.49 $27,634,144.49 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $6,542,270.46 $1,031,406.42 $30,000.00 $23,594.00 $52,208.00 $875,604.42 $50,000.00 Current Balance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $17,157,929.33 $17,157,929.33 $0.00 $0.00 $3,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $4,628,662.86 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Share to Local Fiscal Year 2017 Equipment List 88 241 Fiscal Year 2017 Equipment List Agency Boone County DWI Unit Greene County DWI Unit Joplin PD DWI Unit Platte County HMV Unit Jefferson County St. Louis County Jackson County DWI Unit Item Description Amount SUV w/ equipment 2016 Ford Explorer Police Vehicle Police Vehicle Chevy Tahoes Ford Interceptor BAT van $55,000.00 $30,993.00 $40,000.00 $45,000.00 $176,988.00 $32,000.00 $94,275.00 Total $474,256.00 242 Contract 17-M5HVE-03-002 17-M5HVE-03-004 17-154-AL-035 17-PT-02-075 17-154-AL-067 17-PT-02-046 no contract NHTSA Program Assessments NHTSA Program Assessments completed in the last fiscal year are included in this section. Assessments included in previous HSP’s are referenced below with the date of competition. Please contact our office for a full copy of an assessment. Included in this section: • Traffic Records Program Assessment - January 19, 2016 Submitted in a previous HSP: • Occupant Protection Program Assessment - March 31 – April 4, 2014 • Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Program Assessment – May 16-18, 2006 (Scheduled for fall, 2016) • Impaired Driving Program Assessment – April 19-23, 1999 • Impaired Driving Special Management Review – May 7-10, 2007 87 243 State of Missouri Traffic Records Assessment January 19, 2016 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Technical Assessment Team 244 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 2 Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6 Background................................................................................................................................ 6 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 7 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Management ........................................................ 13 Strategic Planning ................................................................................................................ 23 Crash ................................................................................................................................... 34 Vehicle ................................................................................................................................. 57 Driver.................................................................................................................................... 76 Roadway .............................................................................................................................. 99 Citation / Adjudication ......................................................................................................... 118 EMS / Injury Surveillance.................................................................................................... 146 Data Use and Integration .................................................................................................... 210 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................ 217 Assessment Participants .................................................................................................... 217 State and Local Respondents............................................................................................. 218 Assessment Facilitator ....................................................................................................... 219 Assessment Team Members .............................................................................................. 219 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................ 220 National Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................ 220 State-Specific Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................... 223 Index of Figures Figure 1: Rating Distribution by Module ..................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Assessment Section Ratings ....................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Traffic Records Assessment Time Table ..................................................................... 8 Figure 4: State Schedule for the Traffic Records Assessment.................................................. 10 Figure 5: State Traffic Records Assessment Process............................................................... 11 245 Executive Summary Out of 391 assessment questions, Missouri met the Advisory ideal for 163 questions (41.7%), partially met the Advisory ideal for 58 questions (14.8%), and did not meet the Advisory ideal for 170 questions (43.5%). As Figure 1 illustrates, within each assessment module, Missouri met the criteria outlined in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory 63.2% of the time for Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Management, 75% of the time for Strategic Planning, 47.7% of the time for Crash, 41% of the time for Vehicle, 64.4% of the time for Driver, 57.9% of the time for Roadway, 14.8% of the time for Citation / Adjudication, 34.1% of the time for EMS / Injury Surveillance, and 7.7% of the time for Data Use and Integration. Figure 1: Rating Distribution by Module 246 Figure 2: Assessment Section Ratings Crash Vehicle Driver Roadway Citation / Adjudication EMS / Injury Surveillance 97.6% 66.7% 90.0% 100.0% 66.7% 52.9% 86.7% 86.7% 81.8% 81.0% 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 80.0% 64.9% 36.5% 87.7% 63.3% 77.1% 68.2% 98.0% 87.5% 66.7% 83.6% Interfaces Data Quality Control Programs 53.3% 57.6% 76.2% 88.9% 40.5% 81.0% 56.5% 52.0% 53.8% 51.9% 41.0% 48.4% Overall 73.0% 62.6% 79.3% 73.3% 53.2% 59.8% Description and Contents Applicable Guidelines Data Dictionaries Procedures / Process Flow Overall Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Management Strategic Planning for the Traffic Records System Data Use and Integration 84.0% 90.5% 44.4% Recommendations Figure 2 shows the aggregate ratings by data system and assessment module. Each question’s score is derived by multiplying its rank and rating (very important = 3, somewhat important = 2, and less important = 1; meets = 3, partially meets = 2, and does not meet = 1). The sum total for each module section is calculated based upon the individual question scores. Then, the percentage is calculated for each module section as follows: The cells highlighted in red indicate the module sub-sections that scored below that data system’s weighted average. The following priority recommendations are based on improving those module subsections with scores below the overall system score. According to 23 CFR Part 1200, §1200.22, applicants for State traffic safety information system improvements grants are required to maintain a State traffic records strategic plan that— 247 “(3) Includes a list of all recommendations from its most recent highway safety data and traffic records system assessment; (4) Identifies which such recommendations the State intends to implement and the performance measures to be used to demonstrate quantifiable and measurable progress; and (5) For recommendations that the State does not intend to implement, provides an explanation.” Missouri can address the recommendations below by implementing changes to improve the ratings for the questions in those section modules with lower than average scores. Missouri can also apply for a NHTSA Traffic Records GO Team, for targeted technical assistance. Crash Recommendations Improve the interfaces with the Crash data system to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. Improve the data quality control program for the Crash data system to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. Vehicle Recommendations Improve the interfaces with the Vehicle data system to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. Improve the data quality control program for the Vehicle data system to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. Driver Recommendations Improve the interfaces with the Driver data system to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. Improve the data quality control program for the Driver data system to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. Roadway Recommendations Improve the data quality control program for the Roadway data system to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. Citation / Adjudication Recommendations Improve the data dictionary for the Citation and Adjudication systems to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. Improve the interfaces with the Citation and Adjudication systems to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. Improve the data quality control program for the Citation and Adjudication systems to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. 248 EMS / Injury Surveillance Recommendations Improve the description and contents of the Injury Surveillance systems to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. Improve the data quality control program for the Injury Surveillance systems to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. Data Use and Integration Recommendations Improve the traffic records systems capacity to integrate data to reflect best practices identified in the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory. 249 Introduction A traffic records system consists of data about a State’s roadway transportation network and the people and vehicles that use it. The six primary components of a State traffic records system are: Crash, Driver, Vehicle, Roadway, Citation/Adjudication, and Injury Surveillance. These components address driver demographics, licensure, behavior and sanctions; vehicle types, configurations, and usage; engineering, education, enforcement measures; crash-related medical issues and actions; and how they affect highway traffic safety. Quality traffic records data exhibiting the six primary data quality attributes—timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility—is necessary to improve traffic safety and effectively manage the motor vehicle transportation network, at the Federal, State, and local levels. Such data enables problem identification, countermeasure development and application, and outcome evaluation. Continued application of data-driven, science-based management practices can decrease the frequency of traffic crashes and mitigate their substantial negative effects on individuals and society. State traffic records systems are the culmination of the combined efforts of collectors, managers, and users of data. Collaboration and cooperation between these groups can improve data and ensure that the data is used in ways that provide the greatest benefit to traffic safety efforts. Thoughtful, comprehensive, and uniform data use and governance policies can improve service delivery, link business processes, maximize return on investments, and improve risk management. Congress has recognized the benefit of independent peer reviews for State traffic records data systems. These assessments help States identify areas of high performance and areas in need of improvement in addition to fostering greater collaboration among data systems. In order to encourage States to undertake such reviews regularly, Congress’ Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) legislation requires States to conduct or update an assessment of its highway safety data and traffic records system every 5 years in order to qualify for §405(c) grant funding. The State’s Governor’s Representative must certify that an appropriate assessment has been completed within five years of the application deadline. Background In 2012, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published an updated Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory (Report No. DOT HS 811 644). This Advisory was drafted by a group of traffic safety experts from a variety of backgrounds and affiliations, including: State highway safety offices, the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and the Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals (ATSIP), as well as staff from NHTSA, FMCSA, and FHWA. The Advisory provides information on the contents, capabilities, and data quality of effective traffic records systems by describing an ideal that supports quality data driven decisions and improves highway safety. In addition, the Advisory describes in detail the importance of quality data in the identification of crash causes and outcomes, the development of effective interventions, implementation of countermeasures that prevent crashes and improve crash outcomes, updating traffic safety programs, systems, and policies, and evaluating progress in 250 reducing crash frequency and severity. The Advisory is based upon a uniform set of questions derived from the ideal model traffic records data system. This model and suite of questions is designed to be used by independent subject matter experts in their assessment of the systems and processes that govern the collection, management, and analysis of traffic records data in a given State. Methodology A State initiates the assessment process by submitting a formal request to its NHTSA Regional Administrator. Once that request is passed onto the NHTSA National Center for Statistics and Analysis Traffic Records Team, it appoints an assessment facilitator to work with the State Governor’s Representative to identify a State assessment coordinator and appropriate State respondents for each assessment question. Respondents enter the data into NHTSA’s State Traffic Records Assessment Program (STRAP), the Web-based application for the assessment. The assessment facilitator works with the State assessment coordinator to prepare for the assessment and establish a schedule consistent with the example outlined in Figure 3. Actual schedules can vary as dates may be altered to accommodate State-specific needs. 251 Figure 3: Traffic Records Assessment Time Table Initial pre-assessment conference call 1 month prior to kickoff meeting Facilitator introduction pre-assessment conference call Between facilitator conference call and kickoff State Coordinator assigns questions, enters contact information into STRAP, and builds initial document library Assessment Upon NHTSA TR Team receipt of request Monday, Week 1 On-site kickoff meeting Tuesday, Week 1 – 12pm EST, Friday, Week 3 Round 1 Data Collection: State answers standardized assessment questions Friday, Week 3 – Wednesday, Week 5 Round 1 Analysis: Assessors review State answers and rate the responses and, if needed, request necessary clarifications Thursday, Week 5 – 12pm EST, Friday, Week 7 Round 2 Data Collection: State responds to the assessors’ initial ratings and requests for more information and clarification Friday, Week 7 – Wednesday, Week 9 Round 2 Analysis: Assessors review additional information from the State and, if needed, adjust initial ratings Thursday, Week 9 – 12pm EST, Friday, Week 11 Round 3 Data Collection: State provides final response to the assessors’ ratings Friday, Week 11 – Monday, Week 13 Round 3 Analysis: make final ratings Tuesday, Week 13 – Monday, Week 14 Facilitator prepares final report Week 15 NHTSA delivers final report to State and Region (After completion of assessment, date set by State) NHTSA hosts webinar to debrief State participants (After completion of assessment) (OPTIONAL) State may request GO Team targeted technical assistance or training Following a kickoff meeting that explains the assessment process, schedule, and confirms question assignments, each respondent is sent an email with a token enabling them to log onto STRAP and answer assessment questions that had been assigned to them. The respondents may (a) answer a question, (b) answer the question and refer that question to another person to answer it as well, (c) refer the question—decline the question and send the question to someone else to answer—or (d) decline the question. The traffic records assessment is an iterative process that includes three question-answer cycles. In each, State respondents have the opportunity to answer each question assigned to them before the assessors examine their answers and supporting evidence, at which point the 252 assessors rate each response. The second and third question and answer cycles are used to clarify responses and provide the most accurate rating for each question. In an attempt to prioritize the capabilities of each system being assessed, each question is ranked as “very important,” “somewhat important” or “less important.” To assist the State in responding to each question, the Advisory also provides State respondents with standards of evidence that identify the specific information necessary to answer each assessment question. A group of qualified independent assessors rates the responses and determines how closely a State’s capabilities match those of the ideal system outlined in the Advisory. Each system component is evaluated independently by two or more assessors, who reach a consensus on the ratings. Specifically, the assessors rate each response and determine if a State (a) meets the description of the ideal traffic records system, (b) partially meets the ideal description, or (c) does not meet the ideal description. The assessors write a brief narrative to explain their rating for each question. In order for NHTSA to accept and approve an assessment each question must have an answer. When appropriate, however, a State may answer questions with “no, we do not have this capability/use this practice” etc. These responses constitute an acceptable answer and will receive a “does not meet” rating. An assessment with unanswered or blank questions will not be acceptable and cannot be used to qualify for §405 grant funds. The complete traffic records assessment process is outlined in Figure 5 below. States are encouraged to use the conclusions of this report as a basis for the State data improvement program strategic planning process, and are encouraged to review the conclusions at least annually to gauge how the State is addressing the items in this report. NHTSA can provide support in addressing these conclusions by means of GO Teams. NHTSA's Traffic Records GO Team program helps States improve their traffic records systems by deploying teams of subject matter experts to deliver tailored technical assistance and training based on States' actual needs. 253 Figure 4: State Schedule for the Traffic Records Assessment Kickoff October 14, 2015 Begin first Q&A Cycle October 14, 2015 End first Q&A Cycle October 30, 2015 Begin second Q&A Cycle November 12, 2015 End second Q&A Cycle November 27, 2015 Begin third Q&A Cycle December 10, 2015 End third Q&A Cycle December 25, 2015 Assessors’ Final Results Complete January 06, 2016 Final Report Due January 19, 2016 Debrief January 25, 2016 254 Figure 5: State Traffic Records Assessment Process 255 Results For each question, a rating was assigned based on the answers and supporting documentation provided by the State. The ratings are shown as three icons, depicting ‘meets’, ‘partially meets’, or ‘does not meet’. Legend: Meets Partially meets Does not meet 256 Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Management The State has a two tiered TRCC structure with a technical level committee that meets monthly and an executive level that meets as part of a larger coalition on a semi-annual basis. The TRCC has a designated chair and coordinator to facilitate the work of the committee. The members included in the technical TRCC roster are at a level to represent and influence the system in which they work. The State uses an overarching executive committee that meets on a wide variety of transportation issues as the executive TRCC. TRCC issues are a part of this semi-annual meeting. The State may wish to consider if this meets their needs as an executive committee and can provide the needed oversight. The TRCC works in a collaborative effort to positively impact traffic records systems and processes. The committee is actively involved in the project selection process and employs costs benefit analysis in the decision-making process. The TRCC does a good job monitoring projects funded with federal traffic records improvement dollars. State TRCCs are charged with developing, implementing, and monitoring the traffic records strategic plan over time. Projects are monitored, but no information was available related to monitoring the overall multi-year strategic plan. The TRCC should continue to work to establish performance measures for all core systems using NHTSA's ‘Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies’ document for guidance. Question 1: Does the State have both an executive and a technical TRCC? Standard of Evidence: Provide a charter and/or MOU. Also provide a roster with all members' names, affiliations, and titles for both the executive and technical TRCC. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The executive level TRCC functions under a broader coalition, which has other responsibilities beyond the functions of a TRCC. The documentation for the State TRCC is very clear, with MOUs for participating agencies. The documentation concerning the broader coalition is not as clearly defined concerning the authority that establishes the group as the executive level TRCC. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 257 Response rate 100% Question 2: Do the executive TRCC members have the power to direct the agencies' resources for their respective areas of responsibility? Standard of Evidence: Provide a charter and/or memorandum of understanding (MOU). Also provide a roster with all members' names, affiliations, and titles for the executive TRCC. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The members included in the technical TRCC roster work at a level to represent and influence the system in which they work. The State asserts that the executive TRCC membership is made up of members who supervise the technical level members. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 3: Does the executive TRCC review and approve actions proposed by the technical TRCC? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative example of recent actions or programs approved by the executive TRCC (e.g., an approved project or funding proposal). Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The executive level TRCC members have some say with proposed projects but do not appear to officially approve the planned actions and projects. The TRCC would benefit from a formal approval process from the executive level of Strategic Plan updates and applications for funding. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 258 Response rate 100% Question 4: Does the TRCC include representation from the core data systems at both the executive and technical levels? Standard of Evidence: Identify the executive and technical TRCC members that represent the core data systems: crash, driver, vehicle, roadway, citation and adjudication, and injury surveillance. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Rosters for both the technical and executive level TRCCs are available. It may be helpful for the State to provide titles for the TRCC members to further emphasize the decision-making ability of the members. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 5: Does the TRCC consult with the appropriate State IT agency or offices when planning and implementing technology projects? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative example of the TRCC's process of consulting the appropriate IT agency or offices. Identify the appropriate agency or offices and their responsibilities. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The TRCC proposes projects and then vets them through the appropriate agencies’ IT staff before proceeding. Projects are well coordinated with IT staff at the project level and State level. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 259 Response rate 100% Question 6: Is there a formal document authorizing the TRCC? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide the authorizing document (e.g. MOU, charter). Assessor conclusions: The FY16 405c Strategic Plan provides the MOUs for the TRCC going forward under the MAP-21 provisions. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 7: Does the TRCC provide the leadership and coordination necessary to develop, implement, and monitor the TRCC strategic plan? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative describing the TRCC's role in developing the TRCC strategic plan as well as implementation of a project detailed in the plan. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The TRCC is charged with developing, implementing, and monitoring the Strategic Plan over time. Although it appears the leadership is there and projects are monitored, no evidence of ongoing monitoring of the multi-year plan was provided. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 260 Response rate 100% Question 8: Does the TRCC influence policy decisions that impact the State's traffic records system? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative describing a specific example of how the TRCC is engaged by component agencies in the course of their decision-making processes. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The TRCC works in a collaborative effort to positively impact traffic records systems and processes. The State provided an excellent example of agencies working together to improve data quality and completeness with EMS data. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 9: Does the TRCC allocate federal traffic records improvement grant funds? Standard of Evidence: Specify what funds the TRCC is responsible for allocating (e.g., §405(c)) and provide a narrative describing how the TRCC allocated the most recent program year's funding. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The TRCC is actively involved in the project selection process and employs costs benefit analysis in the decision-making process. The committee allocates Section 405c funds based on the needs and benefits to the State. Thorough discussion and analysis is conducted prior to the award of Section 405c funding. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 261 Response rate 100% Question 10: Does the TRCC identify core system performance measures and monitor progress? Standard of Evidence: Provide at least one performance measure for each of the six core systems and describe how the TRCC identified it and has tracked its progress over time. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The TRCC has tracked crash data and commercial motor vehicle (CMV) citation timeliness but does not consistently track measures for all of the core systems. Other measures of timeliness and accuracy are done at the project (not system) level. While it is understood that there are some legislative hurdles that currently cause issues for setting clear performance measures for some of the core systems, the TRCC should continue to work to establish performance measures for all core systems. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 11: Does the TRCC enable meaningful coordination among stakeholders and serve as a forum for the discussion of the State's traffic records programs, challenges, and investments? Standard of Evidence: Provide the charter or MOU and minutes from the two most recent technical TRCC meetings. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The TRCC has representation from the core systems and serves as the forum for improvements on a Statewide level. The minutes provided were largely based on federal funding applications and projects and did not reflect a broader coordination of efforts. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 262 Response rate 100% Question 12: Does the TRCC have a traffic records inventory? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Somewhat Important Provide the traffic records inventory. Assessor conclusions: The TRCC does not have a traffic records inventory. A complete traffic records inventory is extremely helpful to data users and can help with data linkage opportunities and avoiding duplication of efforts among agencies. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 13: Does the technical TRCC have a designated chair? Standard of Evidence: Provide a position description, identify the individual, and describe the chair's responsibilities. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The TRCC has a designated chair who is responsible for facilitating discussion among members in regards to traffic data systems, reviewing projects, and presenting semiannually to the Executive committee the projects, proposed projects, and results. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 263 Response rate 100% Question 14: Does the TRCC have a designated coordinator? Standard of Evidence: Provide a position description, identify the individual, and describe the coordinator's responsibilities. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The TRCC has a designated coordinator. The coordinator schedules the TRCC meetings, takes the meeting minutes, creates the meeting agendas, provides guidance on contracting procedure, creates and manages the 405c contracts, and works with partners to improve the traffic data system. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 15: Does the executive TRCC meet at least once annually? Standard of Evidence: Provide a schedule of executive meeting dates from the past two program years. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State uses an overarching executive committee that meets on a wide variety of transportation issues as the executive TRCC. TRCC issues are a part of this semi-annual meeting. The State may wish to consider if this meets their needs as an executive committee. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 264 Response rate 100% Question 16: Does the technical TRCC meet at least quarterly? Standard of Evidence: Provide a schedule of technical TRCC meeting dates for the past program year. If the TRCC has topical sub-committees, identify these groups, their purposes, and meeting dates as well. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The TRCC technical level committee is scheduled to meet on a monthly basis. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 17: Does the TRCC oversee quality control and quality improvement programs impacting the core data systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide meeting minutes or reports that document the quality control activities that the TRCC undertakes regularly. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Although the TRCC monitors projects, the TRCC does not conduct regular quality control programs for the core systems at a Statewide system level. These may occur at the system owner level. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 265 Response rate 100% Question 18: Does the TRCC address technical assistance and training needs? Standard of Evidence: Document TRCC discussion of technical assistance and training needs with meeting agendas or minutes. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Training is a standing agenda item for the TRCC. Each of the core agencies discuss training needs at numerous meetings around the State in regards to their programs. These events include local engineer conferences, safety conferences, law enforcement training events, and ambulance services training events. Grants have training as a specific line item in the contract. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 19: Does the TRCC use a variety of federal funds to strategically allocate resources for traffic records improvement projects? Standard of Evidence: Provide an inventory of federal funds used to support traffic records improvement projects in the last program year. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: A wide variety of federal funds are being utilized for data improvement projects. The State seeks funding opportunities beyond data improvement specific funding (408, 405c) where appropriate. Some State funds are also used. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 266 Response rate 100% Strategic Planning Missouri's Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) has a process for development and review of its strategic plan for traffic records improvement. The Plan uses the latest traffic records assessment to determine deficiencies, as well as comments from data users and TRCC members. In determining what projects to select for funding, the State considers major systems first, then other interfacing and local data improvement projects. Missouri updates its strategic plan annually and the system seems to work well enough for the State and its data systems. While this process is relatively successful, as data management improves it is more important to perfect the process to insure that funding is used most effectively to upgrade data systems, which are the foundation of actions to improve traffic safety for the State's citizens and road users. Some areas which have room for improvement are: Prioritization of grant-funded projects should be based on a standard procedure that is transparent, agreed upon, and used by the TRCC. There are a number of processes which can be used for prioritization--one is the 4-box system. One aspect of determining the most effective selection process involves having the applications include not just timelines and milestones, but also performance measures which will show how the project will improve data quality in one or more of the six areas of timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, accessibility, or integration. This will require that a baseline measurement has been determined and the expected improvement outlined as a goal. The plan should include not just those projects which have been selected and funded, but projects which are deemed important to data improvement that cannot be funded with current resources. This is the basis for strategic thinking and planning. The State's vision for traffic records should be the foundation upon which the planning is built. Once the TRCC determines what direction it will take, the projects should align with and improve the aspects of records upon which the Plan is focusing for the future. With prioritized projects in the plan, it improves the likelihood that funding or resources that become available unexpectedly are used to maximum effectiveness. It can also lead to combination of similar projects which seek to meet a Statewide need. It is particularly true if the State makes an effort to locate various additional sources of grant money and when State agencies are aware of pending needs when State funds become available. Strategic planning should not be an annual or semi-annual process for data users, managers, and collectors. To be most effective, it must be a consistent way of thinking. If the State limits its strategic planning to a once-a-year exercise, it is less likely to change the status of data and data collection than will a consistent application of strategic thinking about data, data improvement, data use, and traffic safety improvement. Once the TRCC and the State make a concerted effort to think of data improvement holistically, it will be more likely that substantial improvement in data use and usefulness result. The ability to demonstrate how the funding is improving the data will also help advocates for funding show that data improvement is a wise use of resources and will help to justify the expense. 267 Question 20: Does the TRCC develop the TRCC strategic plan? Standard of Evidence: Document the process undertaken by the TRCC in developing the strategic plan. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: It appears that the TRCC is active in putting together the Strategic Plan for Traffic Records for the State, but the process seems dependent upon the 405 grant funding. Effective strategic planning should initially ignore funding availability. Strategic planning should begin with determination of the State's mission and vision, which has been accomplished including a plan for the near future. The vision should map out where the State hopes to be in the next 5-10 years. Once the vision is developed, the determined deficiencies in records and record systems will be the basis for the types of projects and programs which need to be accomplished or implemented. A list of projects should be developed and priorities set. At that point, the State can request grant proposals in order to fulfill the State's needs in its vision for the future. Projects for which funding is not currently available should remain in the plan, so that they can be considered when appropriate funding become available. Funding should be considered from State and federal sources as well as any and all grant opportunities that may apply. Once the projects are planned, it is much easier to take action on available funding or to seek grant funding that may exceed the traffic records funds that are supplied by NHTSA or available State funding. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 268 Response rate 100% Question 21: Does the TRCC strategic plan address existing data and data systems deficiencies and document how these deficiencies are identified? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, how the strategic plan addresses existing data and data systems deficiencies and documents how they were identified. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State describes how they identify and address existing data and data systems deficiencies presented by the data users and TRCC members each year to create the TRCC Strategic Plan. The deficiencies presented by the most recent traffic records assessment are also included in the plan noting which recommendations have been addressed by the State. Projects that address those deficiencies or which promise to substantially improve an aspect of data quality should be considered and solicited from State and local agencies who collect, manage, or use the data. The current status of each project addressing all of the noted deficiencies is also included in the Strategic Plan. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 269 Response rate 100% Question 22: Does the TRCC strategic plan identify strategies that address the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of the six core data systems? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, how the strategic plan identifies strategies that address the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of the six core data systems. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Any grant application which seeks 405c funding should outline the improvements to be made in the data by virtue of the project and should set forth performance measures that will ensure that the project is successful. While each project should have a plan and milestones for its completion, these performance measures should be separate and should address the results of the completion and implementation of the program or project that is proposed. For example, a grant request for electronic citation software should be able to: improve timeliness of citation arrival at courts; reduce officer time at the roadside; increase accuracy due to drop-down menus or GPS determination of the location of the stop; improve completeness or ability to determine system completeness due to centralized citation numbering; improve integration from ability to link from the citation system to the court case management system; or improve accessibility due to the direct input of the citation data into the case management systems, to name a few. These are the types of performance measures that should accompany each grant proposal as it outlines how the proposed project will improve the data upon which the State relies for its data-driven traffic safety initiatives. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 270 Response rate 100% Question 23: Does the TRCC strategic plan indicate what funds are used to undertake efforts detailed in the plan and describe how these allocations contribute to the plan's stated goals? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, how efforts detailed in the plan are funded and explain how these allocations address the plan's stated goals as specified in the strategic plan. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State details what funds are budgeted for each project and how the funds are used to complete the project. If local or other funds are used within the same project, this is noted in the progress reports. It is important to outline all funding used for traffic records projects, including funding other than 405c grant funds. It provides a record of the cost of traffic records improvements in the State and allows for an evaluation of return on investment if the improved records allow for improved engineering or education or more effective enforcement, based on data-driven countermeasure development. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 24: Does the TRCC have a process for prioritizing traffic records improvement projects in the TRCC strategic plan? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, how the TRCC prioritizes traffic records improvement projects as specified in the strategic plan. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The TRCC prioritizes the State's data projects by major systems first, then other interfacing and local data improvement requests. Developing a standardized method of reviewing and selecting projects helps to insure that funding is used most effectively. A standardized method of prioritization involving risk-assessment, cost/benefit, multi-attribute ranking, or something similar would ensure a transparent and uniform methodology. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 271 Response rate 100% Question 25: Does the TRCC have a process for identifying performance measures and corresponding metrics for the six core data systems in the TRCC strategic plan? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, how the TRCC identifies performance measures and any corresponding metrics for each of the six core data systems as specified in the strategic plan. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Performance measures are selected for each grant-funded project depending on which aspect of data the grant activity is deemed to be impacting. However, the State has not provided information on how the metrics are developed and how goals are set as systems improve. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 26: Does the TRCC have a process for identifying and addressing technical assistance and training needs in the TRCC strategic plan? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, how the TRCC identifies and addresses technical assistance and training needs as specified in the strategic plan. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The TRCC provides training when necessary; an example being that training is being provided by the municipal courts from in-house technical trainers. There is also training provided to law enforcement officers for the proper entry of traffic reports.. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 272 Response rate 100% Question 27: Does the TRCC have a process for leveraging federal funds and assistance programs in the TRCC strategic plan? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, how the TRCC leverages federal funds and assistance programs as specified in the strategic plan. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: While the State does not have a specific strategy for leveraging federal funds, it does require some grant recipients to find partial funding from other federal or State sources as they are able. Having a subcommittee of the TRCC which reviews and reports on available federal funding opportunities might be an effective first step in ensuring that funding opportunities are maximally utilized. The State might also include data improvement programs such as the Crash Data Improvement Program or the Roadway Data Improvement Program in the Strategic Plan if the State feels they would be beneficial. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 28: Does the TRCC have a process for establishing timelines and responsibilities for projects in the TRCC strategic plan? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, how the TRCC establishes timelines and responsibilities for projects in the plan. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Project progress is reviewed by the TRCC at least annually and the projects adopted include timelines and milestones. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 273 Response rate 100% Question 29: Does the TRCC have a process for integrating State and local data needs and goals into the TRCC strategic plan? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, how the TRCC integrates State and local data needs and goals into the TRCC strategic plan. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State specifically reviews requests for funding from local agencies. However, it is not clear how local data users are heard from. The TRCC should make every effort to ensure users from whatever level of government agency are heard in terms of their data needs. The cost of data collection and analysis is too high unless the data is used to its maximum potential for purposes of improving highway safety. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 30: Does the TRCC consider the use of new technology when developing and managing traffic records projects in the strategic plan? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, a project or projects in the strategic plan whose development included the application or consideration of new technology. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State has included projects using new technology in the Strategic Plan. One such project was to provide tablet computers for all local agencies allowing them to submit electronic EMS data more accurately and timely is an excellent use of technology in traffic records. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 274 Response rate 100% Question 31: Does the TRCC consider lifecycle costs in implementing improvement projects? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, a project or projects in the strategic plan whose development included consideration of lifecycle costs. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: While lifecycle costs were not fully considered in the initial field data collection software, experience has changed the State's perspective to a more forward-thinking approach. It is difficult to turn down much needed technological advancements when funding is immediately available. However, maintenance and hardware replacement, as well as software updates are expensive aspects of any such project. After experiencing difficulties with updating software in individual units, the State worked to provide a new approach that did not require the individual service that the original program required. The Strategic Plan does not address the need to consider on-going costs for all projects to prevent having to abandon a project or procedure due to lack of on-going funding. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 32: Is the strategic plan responsive to the needs of all stakeholders, including local users? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, specific instances demonstrating that local stakeholder needs are incorporated into the TRCC's strategic plan. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Local users are able to request funds to add or upgrade systems to allow them to better supply the traffic records data needed by an effective TRCC. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 275 Response rate 100% Question 33: Does the strategic plan make provisions for coordination with key federal traffic records data systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative demonstrating how the strategic plan coordinates with key federal traffic records data systems. Provide citations from the strategic plan if appropriate. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Coordination with federal data systems is considered by the State and such coordination has been the source of several projects over the last few years. State data systems transfer data to the federal systems, such as FARS. This data is monitored for timeliness and accuracy through reports submitted to the TRCC on a regular basis and updated in the Strategic Plan. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 34: Does the TRCC have a process for identifying and addressing impediments to coordination with key Federal traffic records data systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative detailing the processes used by the TRCC to identify and address impediments to coordination with key Federal traffic records data systems. Provide citations from the strategic plan if appropriate. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: It appears that the State's process is reactive in terms of reporting by TRCC members and discussion during TRCC meetings. Perhaps additional focus/measures regarding federal system reporting would help to prevent issues/problems that now seem to be the means by which these systems are addressed. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 276 Response rate 100% Question 35: Is the TRCC's strategic plan reviewed and updated annually? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative detailing the frequency and depth of strategic plan reviews and updates. Identify the stakeholder agencies represented in the review process. Provide a schedule or cite the plan itself if appropriate. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Traffic Records Strategic Plan is reviewed and updated annually by the entire technical and executive TRCC and is signed by the department administrators. The current Strategic Plan is up to date. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 277 Response rate 100% Crash The Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) is the primary custodian of the State’s crash data system called the Statewide Traffic Accident Records System (STARS), which is a component of the Missouri Department of Transportation’s Transportation Management System (TMS). The State’s Revised Statute 43.250 specifies the requirements for law enforcement officers who investigate a crash resulting in a fatal, injury, or PDO (damages to property in excess of $500) to submit the crash information to the State. While the State does not require crash reports for crashes occurring in non-trafficways, Missouri does collect limited crash, driver, and person information for non-trafficway crashes. Missouri does a great job of utilizing the crash data to identify crash risk factors, guide engineering projects, prioritize law enforcement activities, and evaluate safety countermeasure programs. The crash data is used extensively to help identify roadway segments in need of improvements. This can be seen in the “high severity” crash lists, “top horizontal curves” list, top intersections list, and top pedestrian corridors list. The data is also used to guide engineering and construction projects. By identifying roadway sections which are over-represented with serious crashes, the State has successful installed such countermeasures as rumble strips, median guard cable, chevrons, painted edge-lines, and j-turns to help decrease the number of crash-related serious injuries and fatalities. Lastly, the Missouri State Highway Patrol Troops routinely utilize the crash data to allocate manpower and develop enforcement activities. In 2010/2011, the STARS team considered both MMUCC and ANSI standards when evaluating their crash data report and crash system data dictionary. While ANSI D-16 was used, ANSI D-20 was not considered at that time. The State should consider reviewing their crash report and data dictionary again using the new ANSI D-20 standards. The 2012 Missouri Uniform Crash Report (MUCR) Preparation Manual and the 2012 MUCR Field Specification document together do a good job of defining each data element, field edits, valid codes, and validation rules. However, these documents do not address elements populated through data linkages with other systems. Adding this information to the current documents would be beneficial. Identifying and documenting elements populated through linkages would help stakeholders’ understanding of each data element and how the values are being derived. The State is commended for creating these documents and for developing processes used to keep these documents up-to-date. As of December 2015, the State does not know which agencies were collecting crash data electronically and does not have a desire to achieve 100% electronic crash data collection. However, the Missouri State Highway Patrol does maintain a list of law enforcement agencies reporting electronically and how many reports are reported electronically or via paper. It is strongly recommended that the State strive to increase the number of crash reports collected and submitted electronically. To help accomplish this, a survey could be conducted through the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) to determine if agencies are currently collecting and submitting crash data electronically and if not, why. The results of this survey can aid in identifying roadblocks for agencies and the State. Identifying these issues and assisting agencies in overcoming identified roadblocks will pave the way for improved crash data collection within the areas of timeliness, completeness, accuracy, and uniformity. 278 At the present time, the State’s crash system has an interface with the driver and vehicle data systems. Local law enforcement agencies and the Missouri State Highway Patrol have the ability to access driver and vehicle information via the Department of Revenue. Given a driver license number and/or a vehicle license plate number, an officer can populate the driver and/or vehicle information on the crash report. These processes help verify and validate information, as well as assist in identifying any inconsistencies in the data. The State is commended for their work in this area. However, there was no discussion of accessing the driver and/or vehicle record itself. This is something that should be considered, if not already in place. Having the ability to access a driver’s record to determine the driver’s previous crash involvements can assist an officer in their investigation. Likewise, accessing a vehicle’s record can assist identifying if a car is stolen. While the crash data may not directly interface with the roadway system, it does link with the roadway system. The State is doing excellent work in this area and can link crash data with the roadway inventory, sign inventory, rumble strip inventory, and traffic volumes data. This linkage was instrumental in the creation of the Transportation Management System (TMS) and allows the State to perform robust analyses of the data. The State should continue to strive to develop linkages with the citation & adjudication and injury surveillance systems. Having these systems integrated with the crash data will allow for more accurate data, enhanced data analysis, and benefit all stakeholders. The TRCC can be an effective resource in pushing data linkage forward by identifying the appropriate personnel, assisting with resources, and explaining the importance/benefits of data integration. Currently, Missouri does not have any crash data performance measures. It is highly recommended that the State review the NHTSA proposed performance measures and consider the creation of multiple crash system performance measures. Without system wide measurements of performance, there is no goal for data custodians to strive for and no means of measuring success/failure of projects. Since the Missouri State Highway Patrol houses the crash data, they should consider the creation of timeliness performance measures such as overall reporting days or percentage of reports received within 30 days of the crash. This should be performed at the State level for all reports. As the State increases electronic reporting, these performance measures will help document and demonstrate the State’s success. Completeness and uniformity performance measures should also be created. Since the State has crash interfaces with the driver and vehicle systems, examples of a possible completeness measures could be percentage of reports with no missing driver or vehicle information. Data quality is a very important aspect of crash data collection, evaluation, and reporting. Paper reports are manually entered into STARS and the Records Division has the authority to correct obvious errors, except for crash reports created by the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP). These reports are returned to MSHP via an inter-agency electronic workflow process for correction. The State is doing a great job of capturing and documenting common errors in need of correction. They are also using this information to update training content and data collection manuals. The State should use the information collected within these processes to create an accuracy performance measure. While Missouri seems to have a good foundation for the development of robust crash data quality processes, they should strive to capitalize more in this area. For example, a data quality project to be considered is performing independent random quality review audits on an agency basis. Random quality review audits could be implemented by randomly selecting X% of fatal reports, Y% of injury reports, and Z% of PDO reports at an agency level and reviewing the selected 279 reports for data quality issues. This process will help the State increase the data accuracy and assist with improving training content. It will also assist Missouri in distributing error reports and developing tailored data quality training at an agency level. All of which will help increase data accuracy over time. Lastly, data quality information should be shared and discussed more with key stakeholders and the TRCC. While the State is communicating data quality feedback to data collectors on occasion, they should strive to provide this communication on a regular basis. They are also strongly encouraged to consider getting the TRCC involved in data quality management. Having data quality topics discussions at TRCC meetings opens the opportunity for the TRCC to fulfill its roles in overseeing and advising on data quality improvement projects and fulfilling their role in Strategic Planning. Question 36: Is statewide crash data consolidated into one database? Standard of Evidence: Provide a description of the statewide database and specify how the data is consolidated. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Within Missouri, the crash data is consolidated into the Statewide Traffic Accident Records System (STARS) database. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 37: Is the statewide crash system's organizational custodian clearly defined? Standard of Evidence: Identify what agency has the custodial responsibility for the statewide crash system, detail the extent of the agency's role, and provide all relevant statutes. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: A Memorandum of Understanding between the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission and the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) clearly identifies the MSHP as the custodian of the State's crash database. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 280 Response rate 100% Question 38: Does the State have criteria requiring the submission of fatal crashes to the statewide crash system? Standard of Evidence: Provide the fatal crash inclusion criteria for the statewide crash system. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Section 43.250 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri requires submission of fatal crashes to the Statewide crash system. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 39: Does the State have criteria requiring the submission of injury crashes to the statewide crash system? Standard of Evidence: Provide the injury crash inclusion criteria for the statewide crash system. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Section 43.250 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri requires submission of injury crashes to the Statewide crash system. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 40: Does the State have criteria requiring the submission of PDO crashes to the statewide crash system? Standard of Evidence: Provide the PDO crash submission criteria for the statewide crash system. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Section 43.250 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri requires submission of PDO crashes to the Statewide crash system. PDO crashes within Missouri are defined as total property damage to an apparent extent of five hundred dollars or more to one person. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 281 Response rate 100% Question 41: Does the statewide crash system record crashes occurring in non-trafficway areas (e.g., parking lots, driveways)? Standard of Evidence: Provide the non-trafficway reporting criteria for the statewide crash system. Assessor conclusions: Question Rank: Somewhat Important While there are no documented criteria for non-trafficway areas, the State does collect limited crash, driver, and person information which is entered into their crash database for non-traffic crashes. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 42: Is data from the crash system used to identify crash risk factors? Standard of Evidence: Provide example reports and/or analyses that examine locations, roadway features, behaviors, driver characteristics, or vehicle characteristics as they relate to crash risk. If referencing large documents like the SHSP, please cite relevant page numbers. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State does utilize their crash data to identify crash risk factors. This can be seen by the identification of “high severity” crash lists, “top horizontal curves” list, roadways that are over-represented by most severe crash types, top intersections, and top pedestrian corridors as identified within the State's SHSP. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 282 Response rate 100% Question 43: Is data from the crash system used to guide engineering and construction projects? Standard of Evidence: Describe the State's network screening and countermeasure selection processes. Describe how construction projects are funded based on the analysis of crash data. If referencing large documents like the SHSP, please cite relevant page numbers. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State provided ample examples of how the crash system is used to guide engineering and construction projects. Those examples included rumble strips, guard cable, and j-turns. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 44: Is data from the crash system regularly used to prioritize law enforcement activity? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample location-based analysis and any associated law enforcement activities. If a State DDACTS program exists, provide details. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The reports created from Statewide Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP manual) are used by MHSP troops and zones to determine areas where there is an increased incidence of crashes. These reports can also be used by the State to show numbers of crashes involving fatalities, personal injury, involvement of alcohol/speed/following too closely, breakdown by type of highway/time of day/day of week/CMV involvement/etc. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 283 Response rate 100% Question 45: Is data from the crash system used to evaluate safety countermeasure programs? Standard of Evidence: Describe how crash data is used to evaluate safety countermeasure programs. If referencing large documents like the SHSP, HSP, or Crash Facts, please cite relevant page numbers. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has multiple strategies in place to reduce injury and fatality rates. Examples of such strategies include reducing alcohol/drug impairment, aggressive/hazardous driving, and increasing seat belt usage as identified within the Missouri State Highway Patrol’s Strategic Plan. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 46: Is MMUCC a primary source for identifying what crash data elements and attributes the State collects? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the process by which MMUCC was used to identify what crash data elements and attributes are included in the crash database and on the Police Accident Report (PAR). Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: During their last revision of the crash report, in 2010/2011, the State used the Third Edition of MMUCC to discuss and vote on various MMUCC data elements and attributes which were not previously identified within their crash report and STARS database. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 284 Response rate 100% Question 47: Are the ANSI D-16 and ANSI D-20 used as sources for the definitions in the crash system data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the process by which ANSI D-16 and ANSI D-20 were used to define data elements in the crash system's data dictionary and user manual. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: State identifies extensive use of ANSI D-16 for definitions and classifications which are incorporated within the crash manual and the State’s annual training sessions on this manual for patrol records personnel. State claims non-use of ANSI D-20. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 48: Does the data dictionary provide a definition for each data element and define that data element's allowable values? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide a copy of the crash system data dictionary. Assessor conclusions: The Missouri Uniform Crash Report (MUCR) Preparation Manual provides a definition of data elements used on the crash report and in STARS. Also, the 2012 MUCR Field Specification document lists all valid codes in STARS. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 285 Response rate 100% Question 49: Does the data dictionary document the system edit checks and validation rules? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the crash system data dictionary. If the crash system edit checks and validation rules are documented elsewhere, provide the appropriate document. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State has documentation outlining the crash database system, crash form, allowable values, and functional edits. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 50: Is the data dictionary up to date and consistent with the field data collection manual, coding manual, crash report, and any training materials? Standard of Evidence: Describe the processes to update the crash system's data dictionary, field data collection manual, coding manual, crash report, and training manuals. Specify which of the documents exist and describe processes to keep them consistent with each other. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State routinely updates their data dictionary and ensures it is consistent with the field data collection manual, coding manual, crash report, and any training materials. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 286 Response rate 100% Question 51: Does the crash system data dictionary indicate the data elements populated through links to other traffic records system components? Standard of Evidence: Provide a list of data elements that are populated in the crash system through linkages to other traffic records system components (e.g., the driver file, the vehicle file, the roadway inventory, or statewide mapping system). Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State's crash system data dictionary does not indicate data elements populated through linkages with other traffic records system components. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 52: Do all law enforcement agencies collect crash data electronically? Standard of Evidence: Provide a list of all reporting agencies and specify their data collection methods. Specify any State plans for achieving 100% electronic in-field data collection. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Less than 100% of police agencies use electronic data collection. No formal plan exists for achieving 100% electronic crash data collection though the "State is striving for 100%". Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 287 Response rate 100% Question 53: Do all law enforcement agencies submit their data to the statewide crash system electronically? Standard of Evidence: Describe—using a narrative or flow diagram—all data submission processes used to transmit data from collecting agencies to the statewide crash data system. Include the percentage of total data submitted for each specified method. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: While not all law enforcement agencies submit their data to the Statewide crash system electronically, some do utilize electronic submission. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 54: Do all law enforcement agencies collecting crash data electronically apply validation rules that are consistent with those in the statewide crash system prior to submission? Standard of Evidence: Describe the validation processes used by the collecting agencies. Specify if the validation rules are applied to the data prior to submission to the statewide crash system. Include, in the description, how the validation rules are distributed to the collecting agencies and how the State checks the submitted data for consistency to rules in the statewide crash system. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State is uncertain of validation rules relating to crash data collection in the field. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 288 Response rate 100% Question 55: Does the State maintain accurate and up to date documentation detailing the policies and procedures for key processes governing the collection, reporting, and posting of crash data—including the submission of fatal crash data to the State FARS unit and commercial vehicle crash data to SafetyNet? Standard of Evidence: Provide a process flow diagram (preferred) or narrative description documenting key processes governing the collection, reporting, and posting of crash data—including the submission of fatal crashes to the State FARS unit and commercial vehicle crashes to SafetyNet. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State maintains data flows of the different crash report types, including the FARS and SafetyNet processes. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 56: Are the processes for managing errors and incomplete data documented? Standard of Evidence: Provide a process flow diagram (preferred) or narrative description documenting the processes for managing errors and incomplete data. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has a detailed process of managing errors and incomplete data and maintains data flow diagrams outlining the processes. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 289 Response rate 100% Question 57: Do the document retention and archival storage policies meet the needs of safety engineers and other users with a legitimate need for long-term access to the crash data reports? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the retention policy. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Crash records are not removed from the database and date back to 1987. Crash report images exist from 1997 to present, and prior to 1997 they exist on microfilm. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 58: Does the crash system interface with the driver system? Standard of Evidence: Provide narrative description of the crash-to-driver system interfaces that enable: verification and validation of the driver's personal information, access to driver records, identification of inconsistencies between the crash and driver records, and/or identification of the driver's prior crash involvement? Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Local law enforcement agencies and the Missouri State Highway Patrol have the ability to input a driver's license number and populate the driver information on the crash report via an interface with DOR. This interface allows for verification and validation of the driver's personal information as well as identification of inconsistencies between the crash and driver records. However, there is no mention of the information helping with access to driver records, identification of inconsistencies between the crash and driver records, and/or identification of the driver's prior crash involvement. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 290 Response rate 100% Question 59: Does the crash system interface with the vehicle system? Standard of Evidence: Provide narrative descriptions of the crash-to-vehicle system interfaces that enable: verification and validation of the vehicle information, access to vehicle records, and/or identification of inconsistencies between the crash and vehicle records. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Local law enforcement agencies and the Missouri State Highway Patrol have the ability to input a vehicle's license number and populate the vehicle information on the crash report via an interface with DOR. This interface allows for verification and validation of the vehicle information. However, there is no mention of the information helping with access to the vehicle's records. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 Response rate 100% Question 60: Does the crash system interface with the roadway system? Standard of Evidence: Provide narrative descriptions of the crash-to-roadway interfaces that enable: verification and validation of the roadway information, and/or identification of inconsistencies between the crash and roadway records. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Crash and roadway records are linkable via a robust linear referencing system. The linked data are routinely utilized to produce useful analytical outputs. However, no discussion of verification and validation of the roadway information and/or identification of inconsistencies between the crash and roadway records were provided, though this might be considered an obvious conclusion. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 291 Response rate 100% Question 61: Does the crash system interface with the citation and adjudication systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide narrative descriptions of the crash-to-citation and -adjudication interfaces that enable: verification and validation of citations and/or alcohol or drug test information in the crash record; identification of any inconsistencies between crash and citation records; and access to criminal history, contact history, and location history. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Within the State, the crash system does not interface with the citation and adjudication system. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 62: Does the crash system interface with the injury surveillance system? Standard of Evidence: Provide narrative descriptions of the crash-to-injury surveillance interfaces that enable: verification and validation of EMS information, and identification of inconsistencies between crash and EMS records. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Within the State, the crash system does not interface with the injury surveillance system. However, Missouri’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Analyst does have access to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services EMS System and Missouri Patient Registry System. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 292 Response rate 100% Question 63: Are there automated edit checks and validation rules to ensure that entered data falls within a range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among data elements? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which automated edit checks or validation rules ensure entered data falls within the range of acceptable values and is logically consistent between fields. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has automated edit checks and validation rules to ensure that entered data falls within a range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among data elements. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 64: Is limited state-level correction authority granted to quality control staff working with the statewide crash database to amend obvious errors and omissions without returning the report to the originating officer? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which limited state-level correction authority is granted to quality control staff working with the statewide crash database. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Quality control staff is granted access to amend obvious errors and omissions for local law enforcement agencies. However, they do not have access to do so for crash reports submitted from Missouri State Highway Patrol. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 293 Response rate 100% Question 65: Are there formally documented processes for returning rejected crash reports to the originating officer and tracking resubmission of the report in place? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which rejected crash reports are returned to the originating officer and then resubmitted to the statewide crash database. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: They State does have in place a process for returning rejected crash reports to the originating officer and tracking resubmission of the reports. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 66: Are there timeliness performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of crash system timeliness measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There are no timeliness performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users within the State. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 294 Response rate 100% Question 67: Are there accuracy performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of crash system accuracy measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There are no accuracy performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users within the State. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 68: Are there completeness performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of crash system completeness measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There are no completeness performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users within the State. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 295 Response rate 100% Question 69: Are there uniformity performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of crash system uniformity measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There are no uniformity performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users within the State. However, all crash reports submitted to the State must match the format of the Missouri Uniform Crash Report form. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 70: Are there integration performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of crash system integration measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There are no integration performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users within the State. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 296 Response rate 100% Question 71: Are there accessibility performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of crash system accessibility measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There are no accessibility performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users within the State. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 72: Has the state established numeric goals—performance metrics—for each performance measure? Standard of Evidence: Provide the specific, State-determined numeric goals associated with each performance measure in use. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Established numeric goals—performance metrics—have not been created since the State does not have any defined performance measures at this time. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 73: Is there performance reporting that provides specific timeliness, accuracy, and completeness feedback to each law enforcement agency? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample report, list of receiving law enforcement agencies, and specify the frequency of issuance. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There are no performance reports that provide informative feedback generated or distributed to each law enforcement agency within the State. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 297 Response rate 100% Question 74: Is the detection of high frequency errors used to generate updates to training content and data collection manuals, update the validation rules, and prompt form revisions? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which high frequency errors are used to generate new training content and data collection manuals, update the validation rules, and prompt form revisions. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: In Missouri, high frequency crash reporting errors are monitored by the Missouri State Highway Patrol Information and Communication Technology Division to assess, in conjunction with the Patrol Records Division, various validation rules/edits. Also, the Patrol Records Division assesses reports being returned to officers for correction and makes modifications to annual training of Missouri law enforcement personnel. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 75: Are quality control reviews comparing the narrative, diagram, and coded contents of the report considered part of the statewide crash database's data acceptance process? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which quality control reviews comparing the narrative, diagram, and coded contents of the report are considered part of the statewide crash database's data acceptance process. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Within Missouri, a review of each crash report narrative, diagram, and coded contents is completed during the quality control phase. Some of the things Q/C analysts are checking include: crash classifications such as crash type and on/off roadway, sequence of events, crash location, number of lanes, directional analysis, roadway characteristics, trafficway type, intersection type if applicable, traffic control, fixed object codes, etc. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 298 Response rate 100% Question 76: Are independent sample-based audits periodically conducted for crash reports and related database contents? Standard of Evidence: Describe the formal audit methodology, provide a sample report or other output, and specify the audits' frequency. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There are no independent sample-based audits periodically conducted for crash reports and related database content. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 77: Are periodic comparative and trend analyses used to identify unexplained differences in the data across years and jurisdictions? Standard of Evidence: Describe the analyses, provide a sample report or other output, and specify the analyses' frequency. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State does perform periodic comparative and trend analyses in order to identify unexplained differences in the data across years and jurisdictions. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 299 Response rate 100% Question 78: Is data quality feedback from key users regularly communicated to data collectors and data managers? Standard of Evidence: Describe the process for transmitting and utilizing key users' data quality feedback to inform changes. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) on occasion will question crash data that they are analyzing. However, this process does not seem to occur on a regular basis and does not seem to be a formal process. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 79: Are data quality management reports provided to the TRCC for regular review? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample quality management report and specify how frequently they are issued to the TRCC. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Data quality management reports are not provided to the TRCC for regular review. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 300 Response rate 100% Vehicle As the centralized custodial agency, the Motor Vehicle Bureau in the Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing Division within the Missouri Department of Revenue is responsible for the contents of the vehicle data system and for the identification and ownership of vehicles registered in the State. While the agency does use a barcode on the vehicle registration receipt, it is only a 128 barcode and only used to retrieve the registration sub-transaction number on a transactional system. An opportunity exists to consider adopting the use of, at least, a minimum 2D standard barcode that could be used internally and would also allow the rapid and accurate collection of vehicle information by law enforcement officers in the field using barcode readers or scanners. When it comes to guidelines for the vehicle data system, Missouri generally meets the Advisory ideals with one major exception. Using AAMVA recommended title brands or those received through the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) is critical to ensure that a vehicle's history is accurately documented between States for consumer information and safety. Consideration should be given to change the practice of converting those brands to anything other than the AAMVA or NMVTIS title brands in the vehicle data system. Within the vehicle legacy mainframe-based system, a data dictionary is in place that contains documented definitions for each data field. However, in the documentation entitled 'TRIPS Title Validation/Edits,' no registration-specific edit checks were included. This does provide an opportunity to include references to tag, plate, license, or other registration-specific information. Missouri procedures and process flows for the vehicle data system are generally in line with Advisory; however, stolen vehicle information is not retained or flagged in the title or registration system. While all stolen vehicle data is retained by the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) and reportedly all title applications are run through the MSHP prior to issuance, it would appear that it may still be possible for the issuance of a title without checking with the MSHP. As the title and registration systems are updated, consideration should be given to including stolen vehicle flags in the title and/or registration system with the assistance of MSHP, including a possible data linkage. Being able to interface the vehicle data system with other components only enhances data quality and supports the vehicle system's critical business processes. Currently, the driver and vehicle systems are not unified and do not use the same personal information which prevents the ability to match driver and vehicle information with confidence. Consideration of a unified system utilizing the same personal information conventions would provide better analytic capabilities to increase data accuracy and improve data linkage possibilities. The data quality control programs for the vehicle data system represent a management program's review protocols covering the entire process. Opportunities exist to improve the use of vehicle system quality control measurements. Implementing timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility measures would significantly enhance in identifying the needs of data managers and addressing the concerns of data users. Consideration should be discussed to establish numeric goals for performance measures for each these quality control measurements. Also, regular and periodic comparative and trend analyses should be considered 301 to identify unexplained differences in data. Another opportunity exists through the use of regular vehicle system data quality management reports that could be presented at TRCC meetings to improve relationships with other agencies and to gain support for new programs and data linkages Question 80: Does custodial responsibility of the identification and ownership of vehicles registered in the State—including vehicle make, model, year of manufacture, body type, and adverse vehicle history (title brands)—reside in a single location? Standard of Evidence: Provide the custodial agency's name. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The centralized custodial responsibility resides with the Motor Vehicle Bureau in the Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing Division within the Missouri Department of Revenue. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 81: Does the State or its agents validate every VIN with a verification software application? Standard of Evidence: Describe the circumstances in which the VIN is validated and used. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: The State uses VIN validation software to appropriately identify motor vehicle information. Prior to issuance, all motor vehicle titles are processed through the VIN edit software. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 302 Response rate 50% Question 82: Are vehicle registration documents barcoded—using at a minimum the 2D standard—to allow for rapid, accurate collection of vehicle information by law enforcement officers in the field using barcode readers or scanners? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample document, and identify the information encoded. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The uses a 128 barcode on the registration receipt and scanners can be used to retrieve the registration sub-transaction registration number data on the transactional system. Code 128 barcodes only hold a maximum of 44 characters. The Advisory ideal requires a 2D barcode, such as PDF417, that can transmit a larger volume of data. Law enforcement in the field do not have access to the transactional system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 83: Does the vehicle system provide title information data to the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) at least daily? Standard of Evidence: Explain how and how often the State uploads data to NMVTIS, specifying the manner of transmittal and its frequency (e.g., real-time, nightly, weekly). Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The vehicle title data is uploaded to NMVTIS through a secure FTP on a nightly basis. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 303 Response rate 50% Question 84: Does the vehicle system query the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) before issuing new titles? Standard of Evidence: Provide the NMVTIS query processing instructions or provide a screen print of the query tool. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State's Title and Registration Intranet Processing System (TRIPS) initiates a NMVTIS inquiry real-time when the owner submits an application for title. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 85: Does the State incorporate brand information on the vehicle record that are recommended by AAMVA and/or received through NMVTIS, whether or not the brand description matches the State's brand descriptions? Standard of Evidence: Provide the list of the State's title brands and their definitions. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The NMVTIS recommended brands are converted to Missouri equivalent brands, when applicable, and applied to and stored in Missouri’s brand file. However, title branding code consistency is key to ensuring a vehicle's history is appropriately carried between States and converting those brands to other than the recommended AAMVA or NMVTIS prohibits that from occurring. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 86: Does the State participate in the Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) program? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide the PRISM processing instructions or a screen print. Assessor conclusions: Missouri is a PRISM participating State. Respondents assigned 4 Responses received 1 304 Response rate 25% Question 87: Does the vehicle system have a documented definition for each data field? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the data dictionary and provide an extract. Assessor conclusions: Question Rank: Somewhat Important The State vehicle data is stored in both the title and registration systems. The State's Office of Administration, Information Technology Services Division, maintains system and data documentation. Although Missouri's vehicle system is a legacy mainframe based system, they do have a data dictionary in place that contains a documented definition for each data field. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 88: Does the vehicle system include edit check and data collection guidelines that correspond to the data definitions? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the data dictionary's edit check and data collection guidelines and provide an extract. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State has an internally developed system (Title and Registration Intranet Processing System) that facilitates, edits, and validates data at the time of capture. The supplied documentation, titled 'TRIPS Title Validation/Edits' did not have any registration specific edit checks. Nowhere in the documentation were there any references to tag, plate, license, or anything registration specific that would be expected for an ideal system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 305 Response rate 50% Question 89: Are the collection, reporting, and posting procedures for registration, title, and title brand information formally documented? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the data dictionary's procedure for applying title brands and provide a copy of the brands applied. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The collection, reporting, and posting procedures for registration, title, and title brand information are formally documented. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 90: Is there a process flow diagram describing the vehicle data system? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Somewhat Important Provide the process flow diagram. Assessor conclusions: The State maintains a flow diagram that describes the vehicle data system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 306 Response rate 50% Question 91: Does the vehicle system flag or identify vehicles reported as stolen to law enforcement authorities? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the procedures for flagging and identifying vehicles reported as stolen. Provide the appropriate excerpt from the instruction manual. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Stolen vehicle information is not retained or 'flagged' in the title and registration system. The stolen vehicle data is retained by the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) and, while all titles are run through the MSHP prior to issuance, the information is not contained in the title and registration system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 92: If the vehicle system does flag or identify vehicles reported as stolen to law enforcement authorities, are these flags removed when a stolen vehicle has been recovered or junked? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of how the flags are removed. Provide the appropriate excerpt from the instruction or procedures manual. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State's title and registration system does not contain any stolen vehicle information. All information is currently retained by the Missouri State Highway Patrol. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 307 Response rate 50% Question 93: Does the State record and maintain the title brand history (previously applied to vehicles by other States)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of how title brand information is applied. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: NMVTIS brands from other States are converted to Missouri equivalent brands, when applicable, and applied to and stored in Missouri’s brand file. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 94: Are the steps from initial event (titling, registration) to final entry into the statewide vehicle system documented in a process flow diagram? Standard of Evidence: Provide the process flow diagram. If diagram does not exist, provide a narrative describing the process in detail. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State maintains a process flow diagram for the vehicle system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 95: Is the process flow diagram or narrative annotated to show the time required to complete each step? Standard of Evidence: Provide the process flow diagram. If diagram does not exist, provide a narrative describing the process in detail. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The process flow diagram provided by the State contained no information for the time required to complete each step. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 308 Response rate 50% Question 96: Does the process flow diagram or narrative show alternative data flows and timelines? Standard of Evidence: Provide the process flow diagram that specifies alternative data flows and timelines. If diagram does not exist, provide a narrative describing the process in detail. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The process flow diagram provided by the State does contain alternate process flows but does not include timelines for those processes. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 97: Does the process flow diagram or narrative include processes for error correction and error handling? Standard of Evidence: Provide the process flow diagram that specified the processes for error correction and error handling. If diagram does not exist, provide a narrative describing the process in detail. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State’s diagram does include 'system edits' and paths for errors and failures of those edits. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 309 Response rate 50% Question 98: Does the process flow diagram or narrative explain the timing, conditions, and procedures for purging records from the vehicle system? Standard of Evidence: Provide the process flow diagram that specifies the schedule and process for purging records. If diagram does not exist, provide a narrative describing the process in detail. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Missouri has an appropriate process in place for determining the timing, conditions, and procedures for purging records from the vehicle system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 99: Are the driver and vehicle files unified in one system? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the unified system's main components and identify the variables that link the vehicle and driver files. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State driver and vehicle files are not unified in one system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 100: If the driver and vehicle files are separate, is personal information entered into the vehicle system using the same conventions used in the driver system? Standard of Evidence: When the driver and vehicle systems are separate, provide extracts from the driver and vehicle system manuals detailing the data entry conventions for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State driver and vehicle files do not use the same personal information conventions. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 310 Response rate 50% Question 101: Can vehicle system data be used to verify and validate the vehicle information during initial creation of a citation or crash report? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the procedures governing the use of vehicle system data to verify and validate vehicle information during initial creation of a citation or crash report. ALTERNATIVE EVIDENCE: Describe how the vehicle system is accessed, if it is, to validate and verify vehicle information during crash report creation. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: While not yet having a Statewide citation system, the Missouri Law Enforcement Traffic System (LETS) does have a program currently being used through the Regional Justice Information System (REJIS) that allows officers to scan and search vehicle records to auto-populate crash report fields in order to verify and reduce issues with accuracy. In the State's Strategic Traffic Records Plan ongoing project activity with some of the local jurisdictions indicates that a similar effort is underway for citations. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 102: When discrepancies are identified during data entry in the crash data system, are vehicle records flagged for possible updating? Standard of Evidence: Provide an appropriate extract from the vehicle system manual that details the process for addressing a record flagged by the crash system. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: No records are flagged for possible updating of the vehicle records system when discrepancies are identified during data entry to the crash data system. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 311 Response rate 33.3% Question 103: Are VIN, title number, and license plate number the key variables used to retrieve vehicle records? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Identify the key variables used to retrieve vehicle records. Assessor conclusions: The VIN, year, make, title number, and registration can all be used to retrieve vehicle records. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 104: Is the vehicle system data processed in real-time? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide a narrative statement explaining the answer. Assessor conclusions: It was indicated that vehicle data is stored in both title and registration systems and may be processed through a transactional system (TRIPS). TRIPS, as well as the public facing on-line systems (on-line registration renewal), are processed in real-time. Data from these systems is extracted nightly and updated in the title and registration systems within two days. Clerk processed registration transactions processed in TRIPS are done in real-time and data is available for inquiry. Updates to other centralized repositories are done through the extract process. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 312 Response rate 50% Question 105: Are there automated edit checks and validation rules to ensure that entered data falls within a range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among data elements? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which automated edit checks or validation rules ensure entered data falls within the range of acceptable values and is logically consistent between fields. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Title and Registration Intranet Processing System (TRIPS) facilitates edits and validations on data at the time of capture. This occurs when data that is keyed by a processing clerk fails to meet system edits. An error message is displayed preventing the processing of the data until the clerk corrects it or it will terminate the transaction. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 106: Is limited state-level correction authority granted to quality control staff working with the statewide vehicle system to amend obvious errors and omissions? Standard of Evidence: Name the authority that allows quality control staff to correct the statewide vehicle database. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing Division, Motor Vehicle Bureau has limited State-level authority related to quality control. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 313 Response rate 50% Question 107: Are there timeliness performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of vehicle system timeliness measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Motor Vehicle Bureau does not have standard measures. Any analysis and measures are completed on an as needed basis and supported by ad-hoc queries to multiple motor vehicle related systems. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 108: Are there accuracy performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of vehicle system accuracy measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Motor Vehicle Bureau does not have accuracy performance measures. Any analysis and measures are completed on an as needed basis and supported by ad-hoc queries to multiple motor vehicle related systems. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 314 Response rate 50% Question 109: Are there completeness performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of vehicle system completeness measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Motor Vehicle Bureau does not have completeness performance measures. Any analysis and measures are completed on an as needed basis and supported by ad-hoc queries to multiple motor vehicle related systems. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 110: Are there uniformity performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of vehicle system uniformity measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Motor Vehicle Bureau does not have uniformity performance measures. Any analysis and measures are completed on an as needed basis and supported by ad-hoc queries to multiple motor vehicle related systems. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 315 Response rate 50% Question 111: Are there integration performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of vehicle system integration measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Motor Vehicle Bureau does not have integration performance measures. Any analysis and measures are completed on an as needed basis and supported by ad-hoc queries to multiple motor vehicle related systems. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 112: Are there accessibility performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of vehicle system accessibility measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The Motor Vehicle Bureau does not have accessibility performance measures. Any analysis and measures are completed on an as needed basis and supported by ad-hoc queries to multiple motor vehicle related systems. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 316 Response rate 50% Question 113: Has the State established numeric goals—performance metrics—for each performance measure? Standard of Evidence: Provide the specific, State-determined numeric goals associated with each performance measure in use. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Motor Vehicle Bureau does not have any established numeric goals-performance metrics-for each performance measure. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 114: Is the detection of high frequency errors used to generate updates to training content and data collection manuals, update the validation rules, and prompt form revisions? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which high frequency errors are used to generate new training content and data collection manuals, update the validation rules, and prompt form revisions. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Motor Vehicle Bureau has a process improvement group consisting of front line subject matter experts, management, and analysts. This group meets regularly and discusses identified frequent errors and makes recommendations for correction to management. The process improvement group updates manuals, rules, and forms as errors or issues are identified, analyzed, and recommended solutions are approved by management. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 317 Response rate 50% Question 115: Are independent sample-based audits conducted periodically for vehicle reports and related database contents for that record? Standard of Evidence: Describe the formal audit methodology, provide a sample report or other output, and specify the audits' frequency. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The vehicle reports are vetted at time of creation for accuracy. No independent sample-based audits are conducted. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 116: Are periodic comparative and trend analyses used to identify unexplained differences in the data across years and jurisdictions? Standard of Evidence: Describe the analyses, provide a sample report or other output, and specify the analyses' frequency. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Any analysis and measures are completed only on an as needed basis and supported by ad-hoc queries to multiple motor vehicle related systems. Not enough information was provided to determine if this includes periodic comparative and trend analyses. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 318 Response rate 50% Question 117: Is data quality feedback from key users regularly communicated to data collectors and data managers? Standard of Evidence: Describe the process for transmitting and utilizing key users' data quality feedback to inform changes. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The Motor Vehicle Bureau meets regularly with various data users where opportunities for feedback, concerns, and communication are made. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 118: Are data quality management reports provided to the TRCC for regular review? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample quality management report and specify how frequently they are issued to the TRCC. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: It was indicted only that vehicle-related data is available upon request. Not enough information was provided to determine if this includes data quality management reports. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 319 Response rate 50% Driver The Driver License Bureau maintains the responsibility of all driver data, including commercial license information. The licensing system maintains and stores original issuance of all license permits, identification cards, and licenses. The system interfaces with the National Driver Registry, the Problem Driver Pointer System, and CDLIS. While the DUI system is separate, the driver and DUI systems are linked via common data elements. Edit checks, data collection guidelines for each data element, data dictionary, and appropriate affiliated procedures all appear to be within the recommended parameters for the Missouri Driver License (MODL) system. During the issuance process photos are verified and all license transactions are verified through CDLIS, PDPS, SSOLV, and VLS/SAVE prior to issuance. In addition, the TSA portal is used to verify the assessment results prior to issuing a hazmat endorsement. These measures appear to be a solid foundation for a driver data system. Missouri has up to date documentation and flowcharts detailing the licensing, permitting, and endorsement issuance procedures. The Driver License Bureau also maintains accurate and timely documentation detailing the reporting and recording of convictions and any changes in license status. Established turnaround-times for each processing area exist and all work is processed within statutory requirements or, if not statutorily mandated, then within one to five business days. The State reports driver data can be purged through an automated program that is run quarterly or manually with a customer request. Both the automated and manual purges use specific criteria to determine if the record is eligible for purging. There are established processes to detect internal fraud by individual users or examiners. System logging, supervisor oversight, and annual security audits help enforce these processes. Missouri also has a policy on appropriate system access which employees must acknowledge and sign annually. Access authority is reviewed annually to ensure that the employees have access only to the functions they require to perform their duties. Missouri has strict guidelines, policies and procedures for accessing and releasing driver information. The State custodial agency does have the capability to grant authorized law enforcement personnel access to information in the driver system. Law enforcement agencies within the State have access to the MODL system in real-time. The custodial agency does have the capability to grant authorized court personnel access to information in the driver system. Once the appropriate MOU is signed, participating courts and authorized staff are assigned a User ID and are granted Resource Access Control Facility (RACF) access to the MODL system. The Missouri Approved Instructions (MAI) system allows personnel from other States to conduct inquiries and submit certain information electronically, such as conviction and withdrawal information, using the AAMVA message exchange, provided Missouri is the current State of record. The MODL System has field definition validations, online entry edits, and a nightly batch update program that also edits records to ensure data accuracy. These automated edit checks and validation rules ensure entered data falls within a range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among data elements. The State Weekly Production Report shows the timeliness performance measures in use. The 320 State also has overarching system performance metrics. The MODL System utilizes system-generated reports, error files, and employee monitoring to determine errors. High frequency errors may result in additional end-user training or enhancements to the system edits and validations. The overall Missouri Driver License (MODL) system appears to meet many of the Advisory ideals and is well documented. The system could benefit from data integration with other affiliated systems and biometric validations appear to be lacking, but overall the system is quite functional. Many quality control metrics are listed in the opportunities section below and the processes in Missouri could benefit from those targeted metrics. Opportunities: Interfaces/General - Storing historical novice driver training information - Linking crash & driver systems - Linking citation and driver systems Quality Control Of all of the areas within the driver system for Missouri, the greatest volume of opportunities exist within the quality control metrics. The establishment of metrics for timeliness, completeness, uniformity, accessibility and other associated focus areas is highly recommended. In addition, regular feedback of data quality reports to the TRCC is also recommended to establish a good interactive multi-agency consortium. Question 119: Does custodial responsibility for the driver system—including commercially-licensed drivers—reside in a single location? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide a narrative identifying the custodial agency. Assessor conclusions: The maintenance of all driver license information, including commercial, is the responsibility of the Driver License Bureau. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 321 Response rate 50% Question 120: Can the State's DUI s data system be linked electronically to the driver system? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative explanation of a State's linking protocols that demonstrated how a citation on the DUI data system is linked to a record on the driver system. Include identification of the linkage portal and organizations responsible for maintaining the link and the linking fields used. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri DUI data system can be electronically linked to the driver system but at this time they are two separate systems. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 121: Does the driver system capture novice drivers' training histories, including provider names and types of education (classroom or behind-the-wheel)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative documenting the availability of novice driver training history (including motorcycle and commercial license training), and specify the pertinent data fields and audit checks in the data dictionary or provide a sample system report. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: Novice driver training history information is not currently captured and stored in the MODL driver system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 322 Response rate 50% Question 122: Does the driver system capture drivers' traffic violation and/or driver improvement training histories, including provider names and types of education (classroom or behind-the-wheel)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative documenting the availability of traffic violation and/or driver improvement training history, including motorcycle and commercial license training, by specifying the pertinent data fields and audit checks in the data dictionary or provide a sample report. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: The following data fields are maintained on the MODL system: DIP Ticket (Y/N); Court ORI Number; Court Case Number; Results of Program (Completed/Failed); Date Program (Completed/Failed); and Signature Present (Y/N). Also, the record images contain the provider's name. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 123: Does the driver system capture and retain the dates of original issuance for all permits, licensing, and endorsements (e.g., learner's permit, provisional license, commercial driver's license, motorcycle license)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative documenting the availability of original issuance dates for all permits, licensing, and endorsements by specifying the pertinent data fields and audit checks in the data dictionary or provide a sample report. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri Driver License Bureau's license system maintains and stores original issuance of all license permits, identification cards, and licenses. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 323 Response rate 50% Question 124: Is driver information maintained in a manner that accommodates interaction with the National Driver Register's Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS) and the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS)? Standard of Evidence: Demonstrate functional integration with the PDPS and CDLIS. AAMVA audit reports can be provided as supporting documentation. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The driver information is maintained in a manner that allows for interactions with the National Driver Registry, the Problem Driver Pointer System, and CDLIS. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 125: Are the contents of the driver system documented with data definitions for each field? Standard of Evidence: Provide, at a minimum, a table of contents and sample elements from the data dictionary or a sample data dictionary report. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The field identification and definitions for the Electronic Conviction layout and the Ignition Interlock Electronic Files are maintained in State files. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 126: Are all valid field values—including null codes—documented in the data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide sample valid data field values from the data dictionary. Assessor conclusions: The State maintains documentation with data dictionary field names for the driver license fields. The actual definitions cannot be provided, but it would stand to reason the definitions exist if the programs refer to them. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 324 Response rate 50% Question 127: Are there edit checks and data collection guidelines for each data element? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide an example edit check and data collection guideline. Assessor conclusions: There are edit checks and data collection guidelines for each data element. Record layouts with the corresponding edit rules are available. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 128: Is there guidance on how and when to update the data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative explanation of the controls and procedures that ensure the data dictionary is kept up to date. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Data Dictionary/Record Layouts are updated anytime data fields, data definitions, and edits change based on system enhancements or legislative requirements that mandate a change. Programming and database staff updates the documentation accordingly when these changes occur. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 325 Response rate 50% Question 129: Does the custodial agency maintain accurate and up to date documentation detailing the licensing, permitting, and endorsement issuance procedures (manual and electronic, where applicable)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a process flow document for this specific process area, or provide a narrative explaining how these processes are documented and how that documentation is maintained. Include the percentage of reporting that is accomplished manually and electronically. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Missouri has up to date documentation detailing the licensing, permitting, and endorsement issuance procedures. The Uniform License Issuance Manual (ULIM) and process flow documents have been developed. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 130: Does the custodial agency maintain accurate and up to date documentation detailing the reporting and recording of relevant citations and convictions (manual and electronic, where applicable)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a process flow document for this specific process area, or provide a narrative explaining how these processes are documented and how that documentation is maintained. Include the percentage of reporting that is accomplished manually and electronically. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The Driver License Bureau maintains accurate and timely documentation detailing the reporting and recording of convictions. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 326 Response rate 50% Question 131: Does the custodial agency maintain accurate and up to date documentation detailing the reporting and recording of driver education and improvement course (manual and electronic, where applicable)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a process flow document for this specific process area, or provide a narrative explaining how these processes are documented and how that documentation is maintained. Include the percentage of reporting that is accomplished manually and electronically. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: All driver improvement program (DIP) key entry processes are documented in the Points Conviction Detail Entry procedure manual and are updated anytime a procedure changes. In addition, the conviction entry is approximately 75% electronic and 25% manual and the entry of the DIP completion is 100% manual. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 132: Does the custodial agency maintain accurate and up to date documentation detailing the reporting and recording of other information that may result in a change of license status (manual and electronic, where applicable)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a process flow document for this specific process area, or provide a narrative explaining how these processes are documented and how that documentation is maintained. Include the percentage of reporting that is accomplished manually and electronically. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: All withdrawal entry processes are documented in various Action Entry procedure manuals and are updated anytime a procedure changes. That action entry onto the driver record is nearly 100% manual and there are established turn-around-times for each processing area. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 327 Response rate 50% Question 133: Does the custodial agency maintain accurate and up to date documentation detailing any change in license status (e.g., sanctions, withdrawals, reinstatement, revocations, and restrictions)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative or flow diagram describing the processes and procedures governing the actual change to the license status, including timelines for each type of change. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Missouri maintains accurate and up to date documentation detailing any change in license status. There are established turn-around-times for each processing area and all work is processed within statutory requirements or if not statutorily mandated, then within one to five business days. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 134: Is there a process flow diagram that outlines the driver data system's key data process flows, including inputs from other data systems? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide the process flow diagram. Assessor conclusions: The State has appropriate process flow charts for the driver data system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 328 Response rate 50% Question 135: Are the processes for error correction and error handling documented for: license, permit, and endorsement issuance; reporting and recording of relevant citations and convictions; reporting and recording of driver education and improvement courses; and reporting and recording of other information that may result in a change of license status? Standard of Evidence: Provide the documentation or flow diagram that describes the processes and procedures for error correction and error handling in each of the listed process areas. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Only some error correction and error handling processes are documented. Missouri maintains flow charts on conviction corrections and Ignition Interlock Electronic files, as well as a process for the on-line edits that are built into the license system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 136: Are there processes and procedures for purging data from the driver system documented? Standard of Evidence: Provide the documentation or flow diagram that describes the processes and procedures for purging data and the timelines for these actions. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State driver data can be purged through an automated program that is run quarterly or manually with a customer request. Both the automated and manual processes use documented criteria to determine if the record is eligible for purging. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 329 Response rate 50% Question 137: In States that have the administrative authority to suspend licenses based on a DUI arrest independent of adjudication, are these processes documented? Standard of Evidence: Provide the documentation or flow diagram that describes the processes and procedures for administrative license suspension. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State has flow charts and procedure manuals for the administrative license suspensions, including one titled 'Administrative Alcohol Hearing Process' that appropriately describes the affiliated processes. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 138: Are there established processes to detect false identity licensure fraud? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative describing the systems or processes used to detect individuals attempting licensure under a new identity. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State verifies photos and checks all license transactions through CDLIS, PDPS, SSOLV, and VLS/SAVE prior to issuance. These efforts are good, but ideally a biometric component to the system would exist to help mitigate fraud. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 330 Response rate 50% Question 139: Are there established processes to detect internal fraud by individual users or examiners? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative describing the systems or processes used to detect internal fraud by individual users or examiners. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There are established processes to detect internal fraud by individual users or examiners. These include system logging, supervisor oversight, and annual security audits to help enforce these processes. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 140: Are the established processes to detect CDL fraud (including hazmat endorsements)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative describing the systems or processes used to detect commercial driver's license fraud, including for hazmat endorsements. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has established processes to detect CDL fraud. They noted checking a driver's image in addition to running all license transactions through CDLIS, PDPS, SSOLV, and VLS/SAVE prior to issuance. The TSA portal is also used to verify the assessment results prior to issuing a hazmat endorsement. While these manual steps are helpful, it would be ideal if a biometric component existed as well as an automated fraud detection engine. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 331 Response rate 50% Question 141: Are there policies and procedures for maintaining appropriate system and information security? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide copies of the relevant policies and procedure manuals. Assessor conclusions: The State has a policy on appropriate system access which employees must acknowledge and sign annually. Also, access authority is reviewed annually to ensure that the employees have access only to the functions they require to perform their duties. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 142: Are there procedures in place to ensure that driver system custodians track access and release of driver information adequately? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide copies of the relevant procedures or manuals. Assessor conclusions: Missouri has strict guidelines, policies, and procedures for accessing and releasing driver information. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 332 Response rate 50% Question 143: Can the State's crash system be linked to the driver system electronically? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative explanation of a State's linkage protocols that demonstrates how records in the crash system are linked to the driver record. Include identification of the linkage portal and the organization responsible for maintaining the link and the linking fields used. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri crash and driver systems are not currently electronically linked but the State indicated that they could be linked in the future. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 144: Can the State's citation system be linked to the driver system electronically? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative explanation of a State's linkage protocols that demonstrates how records in the citation system are linked to the driver record. Include identification of the linkage portal and the organization responsible for maintaining the link and the linking fields used. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri citation and driver systems are not currently linked but the State indicated that they could be linked in the future. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 333 Response rate 50% Question 145: Can the State's adjudication system be linked to the driver system electronically? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative explanation of a State's linkage protocols that demonstrates how records in the adjudication system are linked to the driver record. Include identification of the linkage portal and the organization responsible for maintaining the link and the linking fields used. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The communication between the State's adjudication system and driver system appears to be only one direction (coming from the adjudication system to the driver system). Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 146: Is there an interface link between the driver system and: the Problem Driver Pointer System, the Commercial Driver Licensing System, the Social Security Online Verification system, and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement system? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the policy for checking the PDPS, CDLIS, SSOLV, and SAVE for licensing commercial and non-commercial drivers (both original issuances and renewals). Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: All new and renewal non-commercial and commercial driver license are checked through PDPS, CDLIS, SSOLV, and VLS/SAVE prior to completing the issuance transaction. SSOLV is only checked if not previously verified. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 334 Response rate 50% Question 147: Does the custodial agency have the capability to grant authorized law enforcement personnel access to information in the driver system? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the protocols granting authorized law enforcement personnel access to information in the driver system. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The custodial agency does have the capability to grant authorized law enforcement personnel access to information in the driver system. Law enforcement agencies within Missouri have access to the MODL system in real-time. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 148: Does the custodial agency have the capability to grant authorized court personnel access to information in the driver system? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the protocols granting authorized law enforcement personnel access to information in the driver system. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The custodial agency does have the capability to grant authorized court personnel access to information in the driver system. Once the appropriate MOU is signed, participating courts and authorized staff are assigned a User ID and are granted RACF access to the MODL (Driver) system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 335 Response rate 50% Question 149: Does the custodial agency have the capability to grant authorized personnel from other States access to information in the driver system? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the protocols granting authorized law enforcement personnel access to information in the driver system. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The MAI system allows personnel from other States to conduct inquiries and submit certain information electronically, such as conviction and withdrawal information, using the AAMVA message exchange, provided Missouri is the current State of record. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 150: Is there a formal, comprehensive data quality management program for the driver system? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the driver system's data quality management programs and the most recent data quality reports issued. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The data quality management system relies on the MODL System which has field definition validations, online entry edits, and a nightly batch update program that also runs edits to ensure data accuracy. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 336 Response rate 50% Question 151: Are there automated edit checks and validation rules to ensure entered data falls within a range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among data elements? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which automated edit checks or validation rules ensure entered data falls within the range of acceptable values and is logically consistent between fields. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The MODL System has field definition validations, online entry edits, and a nightly batch update program that also runs edits to ensure data accuracy. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 152: Are there timeliness performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of driver system timeliness measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State produces Weekly Production Reports that show the timeliness performance measures. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 337 Response rate 50% Question 153: Are there accuracy performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of driver system accuracy measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The online and batch system edits require accuracy, completeness, and uniformity in excess of 99% of the data stored in the MODL system. However, the State should maintain supporting documentation detailing the list of driver system accuracy measures, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 154: Are there completeness performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of driver system completeness measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The online and batch system edits require accuracy, completeness, and uniformity in excess of 99% of the data stored in the MODL system. However, the State should maintain supporting documentation detailing the list of driver system accuracy measures, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 338 Response rate 50% Question 155: Are there uniformity performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of driver system uniformity measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The online and batch system edits require accuracy, completeness, and uniformity in excess of 99% of the data stored in the MODL system. However, the State should maintain supporting documentation detailing the list of driver system accuracy measures, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 156: Are there integration performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of driver system integration measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There is very limited driver system integration at this time; therefore, there are no performance measures. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 339 Response rate 50% Question 157: Are there accessibility performance measures tailored to the needs of data managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of driver system accessibility measures the State uses, including the most current baseline and actual values for each. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There are no accessibility performance measures that are provided to data managers and data users. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 158: Has the state established numeric goals—performance metrics—for each performance measure? Standard of Evidence: Provide the specific, State-determined numeric goals associated with each performance measure in use. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Missouri has not established numeric goals—performance metrics—for each performance measure. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 340 Response rate 50% Question 159: Is the detection of high frequency errors used to generate updates to training content and data collection manuals, update the validation rules, and prompt form revisions? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which high frequency errors are used to generate new training content and data collection manuals, update the validation rules, and prompt revisions. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The MODL System utilizes system-generated reports, error files, and employee monitoring to determine errors. High frequency errors may result in additional end-user training or enhancements to the system edits and validations. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 160: Are independent sample-based audits conducted periodically for the driver reports and related database contents for that record? Standard of Evidence: Describe the formal audit methodology, provide a sample report or other output, and specify the audits' frequency. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Independent sample-based audits are not conducted periodically for the driver reports and related database contents for that record. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 341 Response rate 50% Question 161: Are periodic comparative and trend analyses used to identify unexplained differences in the data across years and jurisdictions? Standard of Evidence: Describe the analyses, provide a sample report or other output, and specify the analyses' frequency. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Periodic comparative and trend analyses are not used to identify unexplained differences in the data across years and jurisdictions. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 162: Is data quality feedback from key users regularly communicated to data collectors and data managers? Standard of Evidence: Describe the process for transmitting and utilizing key users' data quality feedback to inform changes. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Data quality feedback from key users is not regularly communicated to data collectors and data managers. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 163: Are data quality management reports provided to the TRCC for regular review? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample quality management report and specify how frequently they are issued to the TRCC. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Missouri does not have data quality management reports that are provided to the TRCC for regular review. A strong TRCC can be of great value to a State and this is highly recommended. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 342 Response rate 50% Roadway Safety data is the key to making sound decisions on the design and operations of roadways. Critical safety data includes not only crash information but also traffic data, speed data, roadway data, and other files. The backbone of all data is dependent on an accurate and up-to-date roadway information system to which all other data events can be associated within an enterprise system. This then becomes the integrated system which allows for housing improved and more robust safety data. Producing quality, timely, and shareable data is important to improving traffic safety. In the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP 21), the importance of using these multiple data sources to understand and remediate highway safety issues was recognized. With limited resource allocation for safety, projects and improvements should be based on effective decision-making. With MAP 21, it was also anticipated that States would move forward in capturing and inventorying data for all public roadways, not just State-maintained roadways. This is an enormous task, but for a State to fully realize and understand any safety problems they may experience, a need exists for a complete and accurate inventory of all roadway attributes. With usually limited resources available, smart decisions are required to move forward. Missouri has a base-map with the ability to show all public roadways which are located using MoDOT’s location referencing system. This map has the capability of displaying roadway and traffic volumes on State-maintained roadways. All inventoried assets use the same referencing system. Though not all public roadways are populated, the structure is available to handle it. The enterprise system can also locate elements from other data systems, such as bridge and pavement. Crashes are shown on both State and non-State-maintained roadways. These are used for safety analysis and to produce the Highway Safety Plan. The State collects a majority of the MIRE FDEs, with many collected on all public roadways and others only on State-maintained roadways. Additional elements are also collected and do conform to the MIRE definitions. All data collected is shown in the State’s data dictionary, whether State or non-State-maintained. Updates to the tables and applications are performed on a monthly basis and tracked through the Transportation Planning Staff ensuring all changes occur. Other processes are documented with steps necessary to add new elements and roadway changes. The State’s TMS incorporates all of the data inventories such as crash, bridge, functional class, traffic, surface type, and right of way. Every data element requiring a location uses the same linear referencing tables and methodology to be stored and conversely retrieved. Roadway Data Managers have reports produced on a quarterly basis to review and analyze data for corrections. Error/edit checks occur at two different times to provide quality control. Training and documentation explaining how to provide fixes to inventories are on the TMS SharePoint page. Any errors found are expected to be edited at once. Overall Missouri has a roadway system with capabilities to locate all data elements. These can 343 then be used for any type of studies necessary to provide remedial safety programs and planning for the future. After this review a couple of areas were noticed that should be looked at for future enhancements of the State’s capabilities. First, and probably most important, would be to engage the TRCC along with the counties and local municipalities, to work toward integrating data in the enterprise system. This would not be a short term project but one which will take an enormous amount of planning and collaboration. However, once this system is in place, all roadway attribute data, crashes, speed, traffic , and geometrics will be together as one source for Statewide planning. Additionally this should become an open portal for all users to retrieve and analyze safety data. Secondly, of extreme importance is the development of performance measures that are monitored on an on-going basis. Performance measures should cover all aspects of the systems. These should cover the performance attributes of timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility. Once local data is being integrated into the enterprise system, a set of performance measures will need to be written to cover those processes and data quality also. The State is encouraged to review NHTSA’s February 2011 document “Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems”. This will assist in creating these necessary measures and metrics. Lastly, a consideration for beginning to improve the roadway data system in the State of Missouri would be to review the “Data Capabilities Assessment” conducted by the Federal Highway Administration. Each State was comprehensively assessed in terms of the collection, management, and use of roadway safety data. That document, in conjunction with this assessment, may assist in identifying further strengths and opportunities presently available. A comprehensive road map is necessary to move forward and needs to engage the TRCC and other users Statewide. Any programs or data improvements should then become a part of the State’s Traffic Records Strategic Plan. 344 Question 164: Are all public roadways within the State located using a compatible location referencing system? Standard of Evidence: Provide a map displaying all public roads that represents the system's statewide capabilities. Identify what percentage of the public road system is State owned or maintained. Explain whether the State uses a single compatible location referencing system for all public roads or if it has a set of compatible location referencing systems. Prior reports are acceptable. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State uses a compatible referencing system for all roads, of which 26% are State-maintained. All public roadways in Missouri are located using MoDOT's location referencing system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 165: Are the roadway and traffic data elements located using a compatible location referencing system (e.g., LRS, GIS)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a map displaying roadway features and traffic volume (FDEs) for all public roads (State and non-State routes) that is representative of the system's statewide capabilities. Explain whether the State uses a single compatible location referencing system for all public roads or if it has a set of compatible location referencing systems. Prior reports are acceptable. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has the capability of displaying roadway and traffic volumes on State-maintained roadways. The roadway and traffic data use the same location referencing system. As time goes on the State should be looking to populate all public roadways. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 345 Response rate 50% Question 166: Is there an enterprise roadway information system containing roadway and traffic data elements for all public roads? Standard of Evidence: Describe the enterprise roadway information system, which should enable linking between the various roadway information systems including: roadway, traffic, location reference, bridge, and pavement data. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State does have an enterprise information system that can locate all roadway elements from the various databases they use, such as bridge and pavement. Though all data elements are not collected, the system is in place to do so in the future. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 167: Does the State have the ability to identify crash locations using a referencing system compatible with the one(s) used for roadways? Standard of Evidence: Provide a map displaying crash locations on all public roads that is representative of the system's statewide capabilities. Explain whether the State uses a single compatible location referencing system for crash, roadway features, and traffic volume on all public roads or if it has a set of compatible location referencing systems. Prior reports are acceptable. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: All crashes use the same location referencing system as roadway. The State also shows crashes on their non-maintained roadways. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 346 Response rate 50% Question 168: Is crash data incorporated into the enterprise roadway information system for safety analysis and management use? Standard of Evidence: Describe how the crash data is incorporated into the enterprise roadway information system and provide an example of how it is used for safety analysis. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State's crash data housed in the enterprise system is used for both safety analysis and management use. The attributes of crash are used to produce the Highway Safety Plan and to focus on safety strategies. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 169: Are all the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements collected for all public roads? Standard of Evidence: Provide a list of FDEs collected and their definitions. Specify if the data collected is for all public roads or State roads only. If the State wishes to cite the data dictionary directly, please identify the FDEs. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State collects a majority of the FDE elements. Many are collected on all public roadways, where others are only on State-maintained roads. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 347 Response rate 50% Question 170: Do all additional collected data elements for any public roads conform to the data elements included in MIRE? Standard of Evidence: Provide a list of additional MIRE data elements collected beyond the FDEs. Specify if the data elements are collected for all public roads or State roads only. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There are elements collected outside of the fundamental data elements. The elements collected outside of the FDEs conform to MIRE definitions. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 171: Are all the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for all public roads documented in the enterprise system's data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, the MIRE FDE-related contents of the enterprise system's data dictionary. Specify if the data dictionary applies to all public roads or to State roads only. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: From previous references to FDE elements, the data elements are collected and included in the enterprise database. The data dictionary is a description of all of these elements whether State or non-State-maintained. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 348 Response rate 50% Question 172: Are all additional (non-Fundamental Data Element) MIRE data elements for all public roads documented in the data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, the additional (non-FDE) MIRE data elements included in the data dictionary. Specify if the data dictionary applies to all public roads or to State roads only. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: All data collected is shown in the State's data dictionary whether State or non-State-maintained, including non-Fundamental Data Elements. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 173: Does roadway data imported from local or municipal sources comply with the data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative statement explaining, how and if any roadway data are accepted and included in the statewide roadway database from local or municipal sources. Describe if the data from local or municipal sources meet the data dictionary standards. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State does not currently import local or municipal roadway inventory into the State's systems. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 349 Response rate 100% Question 174: Is there guidance on how and when to update the data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative explanation of the controls and procedures that ensure the data dictionary is kept up to date. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Updates to tables and applications are performed on a monthly basis. All change requests are tracked through the Transportation Planning staff to ensure all changes occur. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 Response rate 100% Question 175: Are the steps for incorporating new elements into the roadway information system (e.g., a new MIRE element) documented to show the flow of information? Standard of Evidence: Provide documentation or a narrative explaining the process for adding new data elements (e.g., a new MIRE element) to the roadway system. Identify who is responsible for each step in the process. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has developed and documented a process necessary to add a new data element to the roadway system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 350 Response rate 50% Question 176: Are the steps for updating roadway information documented to show the flow of information? Standard of Evidence: Provide documentation or a narrative explaining the process for updating data elements in the roadway system. Identify who is responsible for each step in the process. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State maintains a flow chart to show steps taken to update the Statewide route inventory. These are performed by the GIS staff in the Transportation Planning division. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 177: Are the steps for archiving and accessing historical roadway inventory documented? Standard of Evidence: Provide documentation or a narrative explaining the process of archiving and accessing historical roadway data. Identify who is responsible for each step in the process. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Archival of data is performed every year by the Information Systems developers using a series of ORACLE scripts. The steps for archiving and accessing historical roadway inventory are documented and handled by the Information Systems developers. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 351 Response rate 50% Question 178: Are the procedures that local agencies (e.g., county, MPO, municipality) use to collect, manage, and submit roadway data to the statewide inventory documented? Standard of Evidence: Provide documentation or a narrative explaining the local agency procedures for collecting, managing, and submitting data to the State roadway inventory. Identify who is responsible for each step in the process. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State works with localities to capture information which is then updated to the State's systems. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 179: Are local agency procedures for collecting and managing the roadway data compatible with the State's enterprise roadway inventory? Standard of Evidence: Provide official documentation or a narrative explanation of how compatibility between local data systems and the State roadway inventory is achieved. Identify who is responsible for each step in the process. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State does not import local agency data. A pilot project is in the works to develop a tool that would allow an interface between the State and localities. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 352 Response rate 50% Question 180: Are there guidelines for collection of data elements as they are described in the State roadway inventory data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Provide the guidelines and cite an example of data collection pursuant to the data dictionary. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has a process for collection of short-term traffic counts as described in the Traffic Monitoring Guide. There are also guidelines for covering the collection of HPMS data elements and guidelines regarding the collection of crash data. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 181: Are the location coding methodologies for all State roadway information systems compatible? Standard of Evidence: Describe the location referencing system and the information systems that use it. If there is more than one location referencing system in use, list each and the associated systems. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: TMS incorporates all of the data inventories such as crash, bridge, functional class, traffic, surface type, right of way, etc. Every data element for which a location could apply uses the same LRS tables and methodology to store and retrieve location information, thus integrating all data in the system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 353 Response rate 100% Question 182: Are there interface linkages connecting the State's discrete roadway information systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative that describes the interface links connecting the State's roadway information systems. Provide the result of a single query (e.g., table, view) that includes both roadway features and traffic data for a segment of road. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has documentation showing a distinct query that is possible. Since all data resides in the enterprise database, the State is able to link various tables for the purpose necessary. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 Response rate 100% Question 183: Are the location coding methodologies for all regional and local roadway systems compatible? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative describing the location referencing system and the associated regional and local roadway systems. If there is more than one location referencing system in use, list each and the associated regional and local systems. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There is only one location referencing system for the State and it is used for both State and non-State-maintained roadways. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 354 Response rate 50% Question 184: Do roadway data systems maintained by regional and local custodians (e.g., MPOs, municipalities) interface with the State enterprise roadway information system? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative that describes the interface links connecting the regional or local roadway information systems to the State's enterprise roadway information system. Provide the result of a single query (e.g., table, view) that includes both roadway features and traffic data for a local road segment. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State roadway data systems at the regional and local levels do not interface with the Statewide roadway system. There is a pilot project with St. Louis County and the city of Springfield, the objective of which is to develop a tool that would interface local data into the Statewide database. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 Response rate 100% Question 185: Does the State enterprise roadway information system allow MPOs and local transportation agencies on-demand access to data? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative that describes the system or process that enables localities to query the data system. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The MPOs and RPCs, by request, are being set up to have access to virtual machines in order to access data in the Statewide database. They can access applications that display data. The State can also provide the data upon request. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 355 Response rate 50% Question 186: Do Roadway system data managers regularly produce and analyze data quality reports? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample report and specify the release schedule for the reports. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Roadway Data Managers have reports usually created on a quarterly basis to review and analyze data. These are cross-check validations that are printed out so that employees may research the data and then make corrections as necessary in the database. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 Response rate 100% Question 187: Is the overall quality of information in the Roadway system dependent on a formal program of error/edit checking as data is entered into the statewide system? Standard of Evidence: Describe the formal program of error/edit checking, to include specific procedures for both automated and manual processes. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has error/edit checks at two different times: at time of entry when data is validated and verified visually on a map, and as nightly reports are run indicating if there are items to investigate. Further checking is also accomplished through quarterly check reviews. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 356 Response rate 100% Question 188: Are there procedures for prioritizing and addressing detected errors? Standard of Evidence: Describe the procedures for prioritizing and addressing detected errors in both automated and manual processes. Please specify where these procedures are formally documented. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State process is on the TMS SharePoint page. The TMS Training Materials document how to change or maintain system data. Errors are corrected as found and those resulting from GIS system updates are expected to be cleaned up on a quarterly basis. There is no documentation on prioritization of fixing errors, however all detected errors are expected to be corrected as they are found. Some errors, such as vertical clearance changes on bridges, or official ownership changes, would receive priority over others. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 Response rate 100% Question 189: Are there procedures for sharing quality control information with data collectors through individual and agency-level feedback and training? Standard of Evidence: Describe all the procedures used for sharing quality control information with data collectors. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has processes by which inventory data is shared and corrected through relationships with law enforcement. A batch job is run nightly that validates data types in the database and errors are displayed. Staff in Transportation Planning is responsible for correcting most errors with districts making additional corrections. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 357 Response rate 100% Question 190: Is there a set of established performance measures for the timeliness of the State enterprise roadway information system? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide the metrics used. Assessor conclusions: The State did not provide established performance measures or metrics for the timeliness of the State roadway system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 Response rate 100% Question 191: Is there a set of established performance measures for the timeliness of the roadway data maintained by regional and local custodians (municipalities, MPOs, etc.)? Standard of Evidence: Provide the metrics used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: No performance measures or metrics were provided for the timeliness of roadway data maintained by regional and local custodians. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 Response rate 100% Question 192: Is there a set of established performance measures for the accuracy of the State enterprise roadway information system? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide the metrics used. Assessor conclusions: The State has not established performance measures or metrics for the accuracy of the State enterprise roadway information system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 358 Response rate 100% Question 193: Is there a set of established performance measures for the accuracy of the roadway data maintained by regional and local custodians (municipalities, MPOs, etc.)? Standard of Evidence: Provide the metrics used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There were no established performance measures or metrics provided for the accuracy of roadway data maintained by regional and local custodians. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 Response rate 100% Question 194: Is there a set of established performance measures for the completeness of the State enterprise roadway information system? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide the metrics used. Assessor conclusions: The State has not established performance measures or metrics for the completeness of the State enterprise roadway information system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 Response rate 100% Question 195: Is there a set of established performance measures for the completeness of the roadway data maintained by regional and local custodians (municipalities, MPOs, etc.)? Standard of Evidence: Provide the metrics used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State has not established performance measures or metrics for the completeness of the roadway data maintained by regional and local custodians. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 359 Response rate 50% Question 196: Is there a set of established performance measures for the uniformity of the State enterprise roadway information system? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide the metrics used. Assessor conclusions: The State has not established performance measures or metrics for the uniformity of the State enterprise roadway information system. Business rules are not the same as a set of performance measures. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 197: Is there a set of established performance measures for the uniformity of the roadway data maintained by regional and local custodians (municipalities, MPOs, etc.)? Standard of Evidence: Provide the metrics used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State has not established performance measures or metrics for the uniformity of roadway data maintained by regional and local custodians. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 198: Is there a set of established performance measures for the accessibility of State enterprise roadway information systems? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Very Important Provide the metrics used. Assessor conclusions: The State has not established performance measures or metrics for the accessibility of State enterprise roadway information systems. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 360 Response rate 50% Question 199: Is there a set of established performance measures for the accessibility of the roadway data maintained by regional and local custodians (municipalities, MPOs, etc.)? Standard of Evidence: Provide the metrics used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State has not established performance measures or metrics for the accessibility of roadway data maintained by regional and local custodians. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 200: Is there a set of established performance measures for the integration of State enterprise roadway information systems and other critical data systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide the metrics used. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has not established performance measures or metrics for the integration of State enterprise roadway information systems and other critical data systems. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 201: Is there a set of established performance measures for the integration of the roadway data maintained by regional and local custodians (municipalities, MPOs, etc.) and other critical data systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide the metrics used. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There are no established performance measures or metrics for the integration of roadway data maintained by regional and local custodians with other critical data systems. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 361 Response rate 50% Citation / Adjudication The Missouri court system has only a small percentage of local courts using the same system as other courts throughout the State. It is unknown whether all of the systems used throughout the different local courts adhere to the same standards. Without the use of standards, it makes it more difficult to integrate multiple court systems. There is a need to standardize the court systems throughout the State in order to use the data for various performance measures and analyses at a Statewide level. The ability to look at multiple jurisdictions and the way cases are handled should be something the State is interested in. The State’s ability to ensure that similar violations and cases across the State are being handled in similar ways may lead to a better overall traffic safety program. Using standards within the State would make this integration easier if the idea of using one system for all of the court systems would not be feasible. Missouri has a baseline and potential to have a great citation tracking system. The State has a central authority to issue citation numbers. A tracking system will provide valuable insight into the scope of traffic enforcement within the State as well as the disposition of cases by the courts. The system will also indicate whether there is different treatment of like offenses across geographic areas or the various courts throughout the State. Not only will a tracking system assist in the enforcement and monitoring of the enforcement efforts, but it will also allow the State to identify missing citations throughout the process. With a paper process still in use, there is potential for citations to not make it to the Court in an expeditious manner. Performance measures can use certain metrics from a tracking system to improve the overall citation and adjudication systems. With a data dictionary not available for the court system, it is difficult for individuals who want to use the data to know what is available. Even though the system may be proprietary, the data dictionary should still be made available for key stakeholders within the State to promote the integration and linking of citation and adjudication data to other traffic safety systems. Missouri’s DUI tracking system does not meet the standard of MIDRIS. The MIDRIS model is more of an interactive system that provides for tracking of everything from fines and costs to treatment, education, and sanctions. This model system is meant to be accessible by all those who interact with DUI offenders from the alcohol assessors, the probation department, to those who develop curricula for DUI education to licensed treatment providers and the DMV. The system would provide insight and statistics on which types of services and interventions are most effective in preventing recidivism, ensuring court-ordered sanctions are completed or complied with, and to prevent any effort to reinstate driving privileges until all necessary requirements have been met by the offender. When a DUI tracking system is in place across the State, metrics and measures can be monitored more efficiently. There are no interfaces between the citation/adjudication systems and other traffic records systems within the State. A paper process and manual intervention is required to post disposition data to the driver record. Eliminating a paper process will reduce errors and assist with ensuring information is posted to the driver and vehicle records in a timely manner. Leveraging standards in place for the majority of the systems and coordinating the accessibility of the data throughout the various systems will allow the State to gain a better perspective of what is available. Using the adjudication data in conjunction with other traffic records systems also allows for analyses to 362 better respond to trends and identify problem areas throughout the State. Unless data from every court that adjudicates traffic violations were to be submitted to a Statewide system, it is difficult to ascertain information and metrics on the handling of traffic cases Statewide. Metrics such as the number of citations that are submitted by law enforcement, but not filed by prosecutors; the amount of plea bargaining that takes place; and whether there are regional variations in conviction rates of serious cases cannot be established. These are all important aspects of traffic safety data that are not readily accessible from the driver file since it is a repository of convictions, rather than citations. Having a citation tracking system that incorporates the entire lifecycle of a citation will allow the State to evaluate the metrics mentioned. Performance measures are not present. With performance measures in place, the State will be able to identify degradation of system processes. Performance measures also help identify areas of improvement across multiple system interfaces. These measures are meant to assist in decision-making, resource allocation, and system performance. They are not meant to determine how fast data is received from other sources or evaluate outside agency performance, but to evaluate the internal processes of the specific system and how it may relate to other traffic records systems. Performance measures should not be mistaken for processes and workflow of the data within the system. Performance measures should be quantifiable with the ability to set a baseline and monitor changes within. This will not only assist with determining the system components that may need improvement, but also the improvements a system has made within the process. This will then assist in maintaining the highest standard possible for the systems which meet or exceed the performance measures that are monitored. Question 202: Is there a statewide system that provides real-time information on individuals' driving and criminal histories? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the statewide system that provides realtime information on individuals' driving and criminal histories. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Approximately 40 percent of the courts use the system in which information is widely available in real-time. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 363 Response rate 33.3% Question 203: Do all law enforcement agencies, parole agencies, probation agencies, and courts within the State participate in and have access to a system providing real-time information on individuals driving and criminal histories? Standard of Evidence: Name the groups that have real time access and describe the system that these agencies use to access driver or criminal histories, i.e., police dispatch, direct system access, telephone help desk. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Appropriate personnel have access to court information. Driver history information may include administrative sanctions and other information that would not be available through the court system, i.e., administrative withdrawal of licenses, license denial, etc. and no information is available about access to the driver history record. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 204: Is there a statewide authority that assigns unique citation numbers? Standard of Evidence: Identify the agency responsible and describe the protocols used to generate and assign unique citation numbers. Provide a copy of the relevant statute or gubernatorial order. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri Highway Patrol is the responsible agency by statute to assign unique citation numbers to local law enforcement agencies to ensure numbers do not duplicate. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 364 Response rate 100% Question 205: Are all citation dispositions—both within and outside the judicial branch—tracked by the statewide data system? Standard of Evidence: If a statewide data tracking system exists, describe the means by which citation dispositions are transmitted and posted. If the system is the driver history file, note if deferrals or dismissals are posted. If the statewide system is managed through the courts, indicate whether all courts that handle traffic violations report to the same tracking system. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Citations with dispositions through the court are tracked. There is no indication that citations that prosecutors choose not to file, or those with deferred adjudications are also tracked, since they are not disposed until the period of deferral is complete. Also, those courts which are not part of the Judicial Information System do not appear to be centrally tracked anywhere. Citation tracking would require a centralized file of all citations written, including original charges, pleas, plea-bargains, deferrals, and determinations not to file. This type of tracking allows the State to determine if charges are not filed, whether a problem exists with officer training, or if some geographic areas of the State or some courts consistently treat some violations differently. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 Response rate 100% Question 206: Are final dispositions (up to and including the resolution of any appeals) posted to the driver data system? Standard of Evidence: Provide a flow chart or audit report documenting how all types of dispositions are posted to the driver file. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State flowchart includes processes but does not cover all types of dispositions and how they would flow into the court system and be sent to the driver record. The appeal process was also described, but not each type of disposition. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 365 Response rate 66.7% Question 207: Are the courts' case management systems interoperable among all jurisdictions within the State (including local, municipal and State)? Standard of Evidence: Provide the number of case management systems in use in the State and detail which are interoperable. Indicate if the State has a unified judicial system and if municipal or other local level courts share the same case management system. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Circuit and many municipal courts' case management systems are interoperable. Of the 610 municipal courts, only 245 of those courts' cases appear within the Judicial Information System. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 208: Is citation and adjudication data used for traffic safety analysis to identify problem locations, areas, problem drivers, and issues related to the issuance of citations, prosecution of offenders, and adjudication of cases by courts? Standard of Evidence: Provide an example analysis and describe the policy or enforcement actions taken as a result. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There is no indication that citation and adjudication data is used in analysis. Analysis of the data would include identifying problem locations or identifying issues with citation issuance or court adjudication. The only review done is of the individual driver's record to ascertain the appropriate sanction by the court. This is not the type of holistic traffic safety review that is intended by this question. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 366 Response rate 100% Question 209: Do the appropriate components of the citation and adjudication systems adhere to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) data guidelines? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative statement detailing the systems and their adherence to the NCIC guidelines. If not, specify if a comparable guideline is being used. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: The court system does not directly relate to NCIC and does not internally conform to NCIC guidelines. While courts send the disposition data to the State Highway Patrol, it is not clear if the data meets NCIC guidelines. Respondents assigned 4 Responses received 2 Response rate 50% Question 210: Do the appropriate portions of the citation and adjudication systems adhere to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program guidelines? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative statement detailing the systems and their adherence to the UCR program guidelines. If not, specify if a comparable guideline is being used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The adjudication system does not follow UCR guidelines, but it is possible the data elements reported to the State Criminal Justice authority may adhere to the UCR guidelines. Respondents assigned 4 Responses received 2 367 Response rate 50% Question 211: Do the appropriate portions of the citation and adjudication systems adhere to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) guidelines? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative statement detailing the systems and their adherence to the NIBRS guidelines. If not, specify if a comparable guideline is being used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The court system does not adhere to NIBRS guidelines. Respondents assigned 4 Responses received 2 Response rate 50% Question 212: Do the appropriate portions of the citation and adjudication systems adhere to the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS) guidelines? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative statement detailing the systems and their adherence to the NLETS guidelines. If not, specify if a comparable guideline is being used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There are no NLETS guidelines used by the citation and adjudication system. However, NLETS requires compliance prior to use of its system, so it is likely that the law enforcement reporting that is done through NLETS is compliant. It is important to understand whether the convictions/warrants reported through NLETS undergoes some type of interpretive transaction at the State level before being input into the criminal history database. Respondents assigned 4 Responses received 2 368 Response rate 50% Question 213: Do the appropriate portions of the citation and adjudication systems adhere to the National Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) guidelines? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative statement detailing the systems and their adherence to the LEIN guidelines. If not, specify if a comparable guideline is being used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The system used does not adhere to LEIN guidelines. LEIN guidelines apply only to the State of Michigan. Respondents assigned 4 Responses received 2 Response rate 50% Question 214: Do the appropriate portions of the citation and adjudication systems adhere to the Functional Requirement Standards for Traffic Court Case Management? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative statement detailing the systems and their adherence to the Functional Requirement Standards for Traffic Court Case Management. If not, specify if a comparable guideline is being used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Missouri utilizes the standards set forth by the Functional Requirement Standards for Traffic Court Case Management. All aspects are not automatic but the functionality is present. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 369 Response rate 66.7% Question 215: Do the appropriate portions of the citation and adjudication systems adhere to the NIEM Justice domain guidelines? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative statement detailing the systems and their adherence to the NIEM Justice domain guidelines. If not, specify if a comparable guideline is being used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State adheres to the NIEM guidelines within the JIS system. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 216: Does the State use the National Center for State Courts guidelines for court records? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative statement detailing the systems and their adherence to NCSC guidelines for court records. If not, specify if a comparable guideline is being used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State adheres to guidelines set forth by the National Center for State Courts. This includes the Functional Requirement Standards for Traffic Court Case Management. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 217: Does the State use the Global Justice Reference Architecture (GRA)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative statement detailing the systems and their adherence to GRA guidelines. If not, specify if a comparable guideline is being used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State uses Global Justice Reference Architecture for the court system. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 370 Response rate 100% Question 218: Does the State have an impaired driving data tracking system that meets the specifications of NHTSA's Model Impaired Driving Records Information System (MIDRIS)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative statement detailing the systems and their adherence to MIDRIS guidelines. If not, specify if a comparable guideline is being used. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: While the State has a system to track DUI offenders, the MIDRIS model is more of an interactive system that provides for tracking of everything from fines and costs to treatment, education, and sanctions. This model system is meant to be accessible by all those who interact with DUI offenders from the alcohol assessors, the probation department, to those who develop curricula for DUI education to licensed treatment providers and the DMV, to ensure that it is possible to determine which types of services and interventions are most effective in preventing recidivism. MIDRIS is more holistic in addressing the core problems that lead to impaired driving, by ensuring all those involved in DUI treatment and adjudication have a means by which to interact and track the violator through both the adjudication as well as the treatment processes. Respondents assigned 5 Responses received 3 Response rate 60% Question 219: Does the citation system have a data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Provide the data dictionary for the Statewide citation tracking system if one exists. If not, provide the data dictionary for the most widely used court case management system. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There is no data dictionary available for a citation system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 371 Response rate 50% Question 220: Do the citation data dictionaries clearly define all data fields? Standard of Evidence: If a statewide citation tracking system exists, does its data dictionary clearly define all data fields. If there are two or more repositories of citation data, provide data dictionaries for the two largest. NOTE: This response does not require data dictionaries from individual law enforcement agencies that track their own citations—it refers to a statewide system or one used by multiple agencies. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There is no data dictionary maintained in the State. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 221: Are the citation system data dictionaries up to date and consistent with the field data collection manual, training materials, coding manuals, and corresponding reports? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative describing the process—including timelines and the summary of changes—used to ensure uniformity in the field data collection manuals, training materials, coding manuals, and corresponding reports. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: No information was available related to the citation systems used throughout the State. Although there is no statewide citation tracking system, the information would be related to the systems in which the issuance of a citation occurs. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 372 Response rate 50% Question 222: Do the citation data dictionaries indicate the data fields that are populated through interface linkages with other traffic records system components? Standard of Evidence: Provide a list of data fields populated through interface linkages with other traffic records system components. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State does not have a data dictionary or documentation showing interfaces to a citation or court system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 223: Do the courts' case management system data dictionaries provide a definition for each data field? Standard of Evidence: Provide a list of Case Management Systems used by both State and local level courts and note if a data dictionary is available for each one. Provide a data dictionary for one State, one county/district, and one local (municipal) court if they do not use the same case management systems. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Even proprietary systems should provide full documentation to the user community, to ensure that data entered into the system meets the form and format intended. It is also important that users and collectors of data have access to the data dictionary and to any edits and validation rules within the system to determine edits are working properly or to determine whether additional edits are necessary. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 373 Response rate 66.7% Question 224: Do the courts' case management system data dictionaries clearly define all data fields? Standard of Evidence: Question Rank: Somewhat Important Use the data dictionaries provided in response to Question 223. Assessor conclusions: A data dictionary should address the needs of the system administrator, the data collector, and the data user. Each field should have a definition of the data element and describe the exact information to be included and the format in which it is to be entered into the system. The functional specification document does not meet this definition of a data dictionary. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 225: Do the courts' case management system data dictionaries indicate the data fields populated through interface linkages with other traffic records system components? Standard of Evidence: Provide a list of data fields populated through interface linkages with other traffic records system components. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There is potential to have an interface into the court system, but the available information does not show any other system populating the court data through an interface. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 374 Response rate 66.7% Question 226: Do the prosecutors' information systems have data dictionaries? Standard of Evidence: Provide a data dictionary for the State prosecutors' office (State level courts that handle the most traffic violations). Indicate whether local prosecutors (cities, counties) have one or numerous types of data systems. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: A data dictionary for a system for the prosecutor's office was not available. Such systems are similar to court Case Management Systems, but are more specific to the prosecutorial duties, including restitution accounting, child support accounting, civil case management, and templates for subpoenas and for letters to victims, witnesses, etc. Respondents assigned 1 Responses received 1 Response rate 100% Question 227: Can the State track citations from point of issuance to posting on the driver file? Standard of Evidence: Provide a flow diagram documenting citation lifecycle process that identifies key stakeholders. Ensure that alternative flows are included (e.g., manual and electronic submission). Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The citation can only be tracked beginning at the court. Receiving the citation is the first step in the process, but there is no ability to track a citation prior to the court receiving it. Tracking from issuance to the violator through to the court is important as well. Such tracking ensures that citations are not voided by officers without approval and gives a picture of how the prosecutors treat various charges or traffic charges overall. Prosecutors have discretion as to their decision to charge, defer, or dismiss and it is important to know the extent of each of those decisions that occurs. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 375 Response rate 66.7% Question 228: Does the State measure compliance with the process outlined in the citation lifecycle flow chart? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative describing how the State measures compliance with the citation lifecycle process specified in the flow chart. If there are official guidance documents, provide them. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Compliance is measured at the end of the lifecycle. Not all steps in the lifecycle are covered. The compliance on timeliness is measured from the court to the entry on the driver record. Additional tracking of compliance would be helpful to the State to ensure that every ticket issued finds its way through the system or is, at the very least, accounted for in some manner, such as "not filed by prosecutor" or "not received by the court", "voided by the officer", or necessary reporting for those charges that are deferred. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 229: Is the State able to track DUI citations? Standard of Evidence: Provide a flow chart that documents the criminal and administrative DUI processes, identifies all key stakeholders, and includes disposition per the criminal and administrative charges. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Missouri has a well-documented DUI tracking system where they can track DUI citations through the process. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 376 Response rate 50% Question 230: Does the DUI tracking system include BAC and any drug testing results? Standard of Evidence: If no statewide DUI tracking system is in place, indicate whether the driver history record contains the BAC test results. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The DUI tracking system contains BAC, however the system is not able to handle drug test results. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 231: Does the State have a system for tracking administrative driver penalties and sanctions? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative describing the protocol for reporting (posting) the penalty and/or sanction to the driver and/or vehicle file. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has a documented process for DUI per se and implied consent charges being entered onto the driver records. It does not appear that there is a connection to DUI arrest tracking to ensure that administrative sanctions match arrests. For this reason, it is very possible that some cases may not make it to the driver licensing authority for sanctions. There is also no information available on other driver-related penalties and sanctions that are posted to the driver record. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 377 Response rate 50% Question 232: Does the State have a system for tracking traffic citations for juvenile offenders? Standard of Evidence: Provide a flow chart that documents the processing of juvenile offenders' traffic citations, specifying any charges or circumstances that cause juveniles to be processed as adult offenders. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Juvenile citations are tracked, but not separately and not flagged as a juvenile offender. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 233: Does the State distinguish between the administrative handling of court payments in lieu of court appearances (mail-ins) and court appearances? Standard of Evidence: Provide a flow chart documenting the processing of administrative handling of court payments (mail-ins). Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There is no difference in the handling of payments instead of court appearances, but the fine is higher if there is a court case. There is no indicator or way of understanding if the defendant paid the fine or requested a court date. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 378 Response rate 66.7% Question 234: Does the State track deferral and dismissal of citations? Standard of Evidence: Provide a flow chart documenting the deferral and the dismissal of citations. Assessor conclusions: Question Rank: Somewhat Important The Highway Patrol tracks dismissals and deferrals for DUIs. There is no formal Statewide system that captures deferrals. This is a prosecutor function, but nothing is available to identify the process. Respondents assigned 4 Responses received 4 Response rate 100% Question 235: Are there State and/or local criteria for deferring or dismissing traffic citations and charges? Standard of Evidence: Provide the criteria for deferring or dismissing traffic citations and charges. Assessor conclusions: Question Rank: Somewhat Important Discretion is allowed in Missouri without specific criteria upon which to base the decision to defer or dismiss a charge. This could result in different handling in each county. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 379 Response rate 100% Question 236: If the State purges its records, are the timing conditions and procedures documented? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative documenting whether or not the State purges records. If so, list the types of records the State purges and provide the criteria for doing so. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Purging of records is documented by statute. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 237: Are the security protocols governing data access, modification, and release officially documented? Standard of Evidence: Provide the official security protocols governing data access, modification, and release. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Security controls are well documented through the Office of State Courts. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 380 Response rate 66.7% Question 238: Is citation data linked with the driver system to collect driver information, to carry out administrative actions (e.g., suspension, revocation, cancellation, interlock) and determine the applicable charges? Standard of Evidence: Describe how citation, adjudication and driver data are linked and by what means administrative actions are carried out or posted using these linkages. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Most administrative actions are performed manually by the Department of Revenue. There is little information, other than the Highway Patrol process, describing the process to link citation and adjudication data to the driver record. There is no linkage or integration with the paper process. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 239: Is adjudication data linked with the driver system to collect certified driver records and administrative actions (e.g., suspension, revocation, cancellation, interlock) to determine the applicable charges and to post the dispositions to the driver file? Standard of Evidence: Provide the results of a sample query and describe how the linked information is used to collect certified driver records and administrative charges and to post dispositions to the driver file. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Some courts submit dispositions electronically to the Department of Revenue, but those are then entered manually onto the driver record. Other courts submit paper. Respondents assigned 4 Responses received 3 381 Response rate 75% Question 240: Is citation data linked with the vehicle file to collect vehicle information and carry out administrative actions (e.g., vehicle seizure, forfeiture, interlock)? Standard of Evidence: Provide the results of a sample query and describe how the linked information is used to collect vehicle information and carry out administrative actions. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Citation data is not linked to the vehicle file in order to initiate administrative vehicle sanctions. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 241: Is adjudication data linked with the vehicle file to collect vehicle information and carry out administrative actions (e.g., vehicle seizure, forfeiture, interlock mandates and supervision)? Standard of Evidence: Provide the results of a sample query and describe how the linked information is used to collect vehicle information and carry out administrative actions. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There is no evidence that the data submitted to DOR is linked to the vehicle file. No information is available to indicate DOR is able to electronically update driver records. Respondents assigned 4 Responses received 3 Response rate 75% Question 242: Is citation data linked with the crash file to document violations and charges related to the crash? Standard of Evidence: Provide the results of a sample query and describe how the linked information is used to document violations and charges related to the crash. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Citation data is not linked to the crash data file. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 382 Response rate 50% Question 243: Is adjudication data linked with the crash file to document violations and charges related to the crash? Standard of Evidence: Provide the results of a sample query and describe how the linked information is used to document violations and charges related to the crash. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: No linkage exists between the crash and adjudication files to document charges within a crash. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 244: Is there a set of established performance measures for the timeliness of the citation systems? Standard of Evidence: If there is a statewide citation tracking system in the State, provide timeliness measures used. If there are two or more centralized citation tracking systems, provide timeliness measures for one of them. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: No performance measures for timeliness of the citation system are given. There is no Statewide citation system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 383 Response rate 50% Question 245: Is there a set of established performance measures for the accuracy of the citation systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide accuracy measures for the statewide citation tracking system. If there are several citation tracking systems, provide accuracy measures for one of them. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: No performance measures for accuracy of the citation system are given. There is no Statewide citation system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 246: Is there a set of established performance measures for the completeness of the citation systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide completeness measures for the statewide citation tracking system. If there are several citation tracking systems, provide completeness measures for one of them. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: No performance measures for the completeness of the citation system are given. There is no Statewide citation system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 384 Response rate 50% Question 247: Is there a set of established performance measures for the uniformity of the citation systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide uniformity measures for the statewide citation tracking system. If there are several citation tracking systems, provide uniformity measures for one of them. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: No performance measures for the uniformity of the citation system are given. There is no Statewide citation system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 248: Is there a set of established performance measures for the integration of the citation systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide integration measures for the statewide citation tracking system. If there are several citation tracking systems, provide integration measures for one of them. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: No performance measures for the integration of the citation system are given. There is no Statewide citation system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 385 Response rate 50% Question 249: Is there a set of established performance measures for the accessibility of the citation systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide accessibility measures for the statewide citation tracking system. If there are several citation tracking systems, provide accessibility measures for one of them. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: No performance measures for accessibility of the citation system are given. There is no Statewide citation system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 Response rate 50% Question 250: Is there a set of established performance measures for the timeliness of the adjudication systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide timeliness measures for the statewide adjudication tracking system. If there are several adjudication tracking systems, provide timeliness measures for one of them. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There is a statutory mandate in place requiring reporting of disposition data within 7 days. This is not a performance measure. A true performance measure would indicate the average number of days to report. The State tracks the amount of time taken court by court to transmit dispositions and reports the information back to the court administration. A more formal Statewide measure would help the Department of Revenue stay aware of the "overall" timeliness of disposition reporting. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 386 Response rate 66.7% Question 251: Is there a set of established performance measures for the accuracy of the adjudication systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide accuracy measures for the statewide adjudication tracking system. If there are several adjudication tracking systems, provide accuracy measures for one of them. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Having edit checks in the system helps to improve, but is no guarantee of accuracy, nor does it replace performance measures. Some data elements will allow free-text answers, for which edits are less effective. It is possible to mistype a date of birth, an address, or a driver license number. Measurement and review of accuracy in the system allows the State to improve the embedded edits and to locate and train those who input data into the system about repeated errors. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 252: Is there a set of established performance measures for the completeness of the adjudication systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide completeness measures for the statewide adjudication tracking system. If there are several adjudication tracking systems, provide completeness measures for one of them. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There is no indication that there is a performance measure for the completeness of the adjudication system within the courts, although there is a way to put a measurement on the log which is reviewed daily. The idea of a performance measure would be a quantitative way to determine where data is missing within the judicial system. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 387 Response rate 66.7% Question 253: Is there a set of established performance measures for the integration of the adjudication systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide integration measures for the statewide adjudication tracking system. If there are several adjudication tracking systems, provide integration measures for one of them. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There are standards but no measures of integration performance. Performance measures would be a quantitative measure to ensure the integration is correct. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 254: In States that have an agency responsible for issuing unique citation numbers, is information on intermediate dispositions (e.g., deferrals, dismissals) captured? Standard of Evidence: Provide documentation detailing the numbers of citations issued from the 10 largest law enforcement agencies and the number of dispositions for those citations that are in the driver file over a three month period. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Intermediate dispositions are not captured within the adjudication of the citations. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 388 Response rate 50% Question 255: Do the State's DUI tracking systems have additional quality control procedures to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the data? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the additional quality control measures for the DUI tracking systems and specify which systems use which measures. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There are controls in place to review information entered into the DUI tracking system. The controls to ensure timeliness of data are missing. Accuracy is reliant on previously entered information compared to newly entered data. Accuracy could also be improved and controlled by automating the transfer of data from other systems into the tracking system. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 1 389 Response rate 50% EMS / Injury Surveillance Missouri does not have an injury surveillance system; there is limited use of the disparate systems for injury reporting in the State. Each of the core components (data systems) resides within the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services: EMS, trauma, emergency department and hospital discharge, and vital records. Missouri EMS Information System Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 190, identifies the Bureau of EMS as the agency responsible for the Missouri Ambulance Reporting System (MARS) and the Statewide repository for all patient care data. MARS, developed by ImageTrend, is NEMSIS 2.2.1 compliant; all patient care records are submitted electronically to the State. The majority of user documentation resides online but the agency does maintain a data dictionary. Though not included in a comprehensive injury surveillance system, the EMS data is a rich source for information on the severity of injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes. Each ePCR (patient care report) entered into MARS is given a validation score that reflects its compliance with the requirements set forth in Missouri regulations; an ePCR with a validation score below 90% is rejected. Services that submit third party data that does not meet the minimum requirements receive a rejection notice and a report regarding missing data elements. State EMS inspectors conduct periodic audits of the patient care data. EMS data is used by the State’s Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Safety as well as several other agencies. The “Missouri Blueprint for Highway Safety” is a collaborative effort of several State agencies that includes an ongoing plan to reduce EMS response times to motor vehicle crashes by identifying problem areas and promoting 911 access across the State. External entities interested in EMS data may request it from the Bureau under Missouri’s Sunshine Law; the request must be in writing and the Bureau will respond in accordance with internal policies and procedures. The Bureau of EMS is represented on the State TRCC. Emergency Department and Hospital Discharge Data Emergency department and hospital discharge data, collectively known as PAS data – Patient Abstract System, are collected by and available through the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) under State regulations (19 CSR 10-33.010). The data conforms to the UB-04 standard but is tailored to meet the needs of the State; notations within the PAS data dictionary indicate the UB-04 data elements. State regulations for the submission of PAS data require that each data element shall have an acceptable code in at least 99% of the records and each data element shall be missing or unknown in less than 1% of the records. The regulations also require that a provider submit to DHSS a written notification and plan of correction for identified deficiencies. There is no formal data quality reporting or performance measures in place for the PAS data nor is feedback on data quality provided to the submitting hospitals. The PAS data is reviewed on a quarterly basis and 390 compared to the previous year’s data to identify obvious errors and missing data. The PAS data has been used for injury surveillance activities and publications such as “Health in Rural Missouri” as well as linked to the State’s crash database for the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES). Trauma Registry Data Missouri Revised Statutes requires that all designated trauma centers in the State maintain a trauma registry and submit their trauma data to the Department of Health and Senior Services. The trauma data conforms to the NTDB standard and upon entry into the Time Critical Diagnosis (TCD) System, the trauma record is subject to validation rules to ensure compliance with the standards. The TCD System includes validation rules for State-specific data elements required under State regulations. Records that do not meet a 94% minimum validation score are rejected. Quality control at the State level is an informal process. Data is reviewed daily as well as quarterly. Data quality issues are relayed back to the data collectors and managers through telephone calls, emails, and in-person visits to ensure regulatory compliance. Data collection problems are remedied by customizing the TCD System. In an effort to ensure a complete trauma registry, the State employs a data team that is available to assist users with data collection and submission. Though a robust system, it does not appear that the trauma registry data is used for injury surveillance activities or to support highway safety programs. Vital Records The Missouri Electronic Vital Records system supports the registration of vital events for the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services and other users. The number of deaths due to motor vehicle crashes was included in the “Health in Rural Missouri” publication and vital records data is available in aggregate form by request or via an online query tool. The vital records data is not used to support an injury surveillance system. Information provided about the vital records system was insufficient to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Strengths Missouri maintains the core components of an injury surveillance system and has, in the past, conducted comprehensive analyses on injuries caused by motor vehicle crashes in the State. Through a cooperative agreement and funding from NHTSA, Missouri was a CODES (Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System) State. The integrated database included crash data linked to emergency department and hospital discharge data, the outcome of which provides a better understanding of the medical and financial outcomes of motor vehicle crashes. The Missouri Ambulance Reporting System is linked to trauma registry system through the State’s Time Critical Diagnosis System. This interface enables receiving healthcare facilities to access patient care reports that have been uploaded into their system providing a complete record of pre-hospital care through discharge. 391 Opportunities The State may consider for each data system: 1) Formal documentation that describes how the data is collected, managed, and maintained and describes the data in a more comprehensive fashion than a data dictionary. The summary of the data should describe the characteristics of the data, values, limitations and exceptions, if the element is a required data element or a State- or user-created data element; 2) Documentation for each system detailing how rejected records are tracked from rejection through correction and resubmission to ensure a complete data system; 3) Performance reporting back to submitting agencies, hospitals, trauma centers, etc. on a routine basis to help both the submitting entity in recognizing routine errors and the State receiving improved quality data. Each of the State’s injury surveillance data systems is subject to regulation(s) that require timely reporting, a certain level of accuracy, completeness, and/or validation – depending on the system. A common issue among the State’s data systems is the lack of performance measures and reporting on data quality. Reporting requirements found in State regulations are not the same as performance measures. Performance measures enable an agency to monitor and improve the quality of the data in their traffic record systems. The State has an opportunity to use the data quality requirements as goals and create a baseline by which to measure the health and progress of the data going forward. The State should consider developing and instituting formal performance measures – for each data system - that can be used to improve data quality, inform validation rules, training content, and other data system documentation. Data quality management reports should be shared with the TRCC on a routine basis. NHTSA has available several publications that address performance measures for traffic records systems; including “Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems,” (DOT HS 811 441) published February 2011. This publication offers several examples of performance measures not only for the injury surveillance data systems, but all six components that make up a traffic records system. As representatives from each of the injury surveillance data systems regularly attend the TRCC meetings, it would be of value to the TRCC and highway safety stakeholders if those representatives submitted a brief description of their system, a data dictionary (including a list of identifiers that would facilitate the integration of the disparate traffic records systems), access instructions, and any limitations to the use and/or release of the data – an injury surveillance data inventory of sorts. The CODES data is an immensely valuable resource for the injury surveillance community, traffic safety stakeholders, and researchers. The State may want to determine the feasibility of resuming the linkage of the traffic records systems (crash, EMS, PAS data, trauma, etc.) to conduct comprehensive analyses on the outcomes of motor vehicle crash injuries in an effort to identify problems, allocate resources, and evaluate programs. 392 Question 256: Does the injury surveillance system include EMS data? Standard of Evidence: Provide an injury surveillance report that illustrates the use of EMS data and data from other injury surveillance systems. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: EMS data is collected in the State but it does not appear to be included in the overall State injury surveillance reports. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 257: Does the injury surveillance system include emergency department (ED) data? Standard of Evidence: Provide an injury surveillance report that illustrates the use of emergency department (ED) data and data from other injury surveillance systems. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Emergency department data is available to support injury prevention activities, including county profiles for each of Missouri's 115 counties. The 'Health in Rural Missouri' report demonstrates the use of Missouri's injury data. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 393 Response rate 66.7% Question 258: Does the injury surveillance system include hospital discharge data? Standard of Evidence: Provide an injury surveillance report that illustrates the use of hospital discharge data and data from other injury surveillance systems. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Inpatient hospitalization data is available to support the State's injury prevention activities through two separate websites, including one in which the user can query the inpatient data. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 259: Does the injury surveillance system include trauma registry data? Standard of Evidence: Provide an injury surveillance report that illustrates the use of trauma registry data and data from other injury surveillance systems. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Section 190.241.1 of the Missouri Revised Statutes requires that all designated trauma centers in the State maintain a trauma registry. No information was available to indicate that any data submitted by trauma centers to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services is used as part of an injury surveillance system. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 394 Response rate 33.3% Question 260: Does the injury surveillance system include rehabilitation data? Standard of Evidence: Provide an injury surveillance report that illustrates the use of rehabilitation data and data from other injury surveillance systems. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State does not collect rehabilitation data. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 261: Does the injury surveillance system include vital records data? Standard of Evidence: Provide an injury surveillance report that illustrates the use of vital data and data from other injury surveillance systems. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Vital statistics data is available through the Department of Health and Senior Services and may be used for special projects. However, the data is not used to support a comprehensive injury surveillance system. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 395 Response rate 66.7% Question 262: Does the injury surveillance system include other data? Standard of Evidence: List any other databases or sources included in the injury surveillance system and provide a sample report using data from each of these sources. Additional data resources may include medical examiner reports, payer-related databases, traumatic brain injury registry, and spinal cord injury registry. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State would appear to maintain a registry for all head and spinal cord injured persons in the State. However, no documentation of this system was available. The ability to describe the incidence of head and spinal cord injuries in motor vehicle crashes should be explored by the TRCC or its partners. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 263: Does the EMS system track the frequency, severity, and nature of injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes in the State? Standard of Evidence: Provide the most recent motor vehicle-related incident counts for the EMS system, any injury severity categorizations applied, and the provider’s primary impression (if applicable). Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Sample reports showing the frequency of EMS responses related to a motor vehicle crash are available. The frequencies were subset by severity (possible injury) and indication of injury (i.e. vehicle damage/deformation). Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 396 Response rate 33.3% Question 264: Does the emergency department data track the frequency, severity, and nature of injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes in the State? Standard of Evidence: Provide the most recent motor vehicle-related incident counts for the emergency department data, any injury severity categorizations applied (e.g., Abbreviated Injury Score, Injury Severity Scale), and principal diagnosis. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: While the State does collect emergency department data, it is unclear if it is used for highway safety activities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 Response rate 100% Question 265: Does the hospital discharge data track the frequency, severity, and nature of injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes in the State? Standard of Evidence: Provide the most recent motor vehicle-related incident counts for the hospital discharge data, any injury severity categorizations applied (e.g., Abbreviated Injury Score, Injury Severity Scale), and principal diagnosis. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: While the State does collect hospital discharge data it is unclear if it is used for highway safety activities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 397 Response rate 100% Question 266: Does the trauma registry data track the frequency, severity, and nature of injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes in the State? Standard of Evidence: Provide the most recent motor vehicle-related incident counts for the trauma registry data, any injury severity categorizations applied (e.g., Abbreviated Injury Score, Injury Severity Scale), and principal diagnosis. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Missouri trauma centers are required by State statute to submit trauma data to the State's trauma registry. While the State collects the data elements necessary to track the frequency, severity, and nature of injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes, documentation was not available. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 267: Does the vital records data track the frequency, severity, and nature of injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes in the State? Standard of Evidence: Provide the most recent motor vehicle-related incident counts from the vital records data and the cause of death. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Vital records data has been used to report on the number of deaths due to motor vehicle crashes though no information on the types of injuries sustained in fatal crashes has been reported. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 398 Response rate 33.3% Question 268: Is the EMS data available for analysis and used to identify problems, evaluate programs, and allocate resources? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample report or narrative description of a highway safety project that utilized EMS data to identify a problem, evaluate a program, or allocate resources. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Bureau of EMS identified several external users of the State's EMS data which includes, but is not limited to, the Missouri Department of Transportation and Missouri Department of Public Safety. The Missouri Blueprint for Highway Safety is a collaborative effort that includes a plan to reduce EMS response times to motor vehicle crashes by identifying problem areas and promoting 911 access across the State. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 269: Is the emergency department data available for analysis and used to identify problems, evaluate programs, and allocate resources? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample report or narrative description of a highway safety project that utilized emergency department data to identify a problem, evaluate a program, or allocate resources. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Emergency department data is available through the Department of Health and Senior Services. Limited information was available that describes how the data is used for problem identification or program evaluation activities in highway safety. A CODES (Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System) report was provided that demonstrates the availability of Missouri's linked crash and hospital data for use in a multi-State analysis though the data is several years old. The use of integrated data is a valuable resource in highway safety applications; it gives the State the ability to more accurately define the nature and severity of injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 399 Response rate 100% Question 270: Is the hospital discharge data available for analysis and used to identify problems, evaluate programs, and allocate resources? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample report or narrative description of a highway safety project that utilized hospital discharge data to identify a problem, evaluate a program, or allocate resources. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Hospital discharge data is available through the Department of Health and Senior Services. Limited information was provided to describe how the data is used for problem identification or program evaluation activities in highway safety. A CODES (Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System) report was provided that demonstrates the availability of Missouri's linked crash and hospital data for use in a multi-state analysis though the data is several years old. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 Response rate 100% Question 271: Is the trauma registry data available for analysis and used to identify problems, evaluate programs, and allocate resources? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample report or narrative description of a highway safety project that utilized trauma registry data to identify a problem, evaluate a program, or allocate resources. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Trauma registry data is available through the Department of Health and Senior Services. While the DHSS is to be commended for their participation on the State's TRCC, little information was available related to how the trauma registry data is used to support highway safety programs. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 400 Response rate 66.7% Question 272: Is the vital records data available for analysis and used to identify problems, evaluate programs, and allocate resources? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample report or narrative description of a highway safety project that utilized vital records data to identify a problem, evaluate a program, or allocate resources (e.g., research in support of helmet or GDL legislation). Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Vital records data was included in the health report available for review, but not in a way that demonstrated its use in highway safety applications. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 273: Does the State have a NEMSIS-compliant statewide database? Standard of Evidence: Demonstrate submission to the nationwide NEMSIS database and provide any relevant State statutes or regulations. If not compliant, provide narrative detailing the State's efforts to achieve NEMSIS compliance. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Missouri's EMS data collection tool, MARS, is compliant with NEMSIS version 2.2.1. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 401 Response rate 66.7% Question 274: Does the State's emergency department and hospital discharge data conform to the most recent uniform billing standard? Standard of Evidence: Provide the data dictionaries for both the emergency department and hospital discharge data as appropriate as well as any relevant State statutes or regulations. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State's emergency department and hospital discharge data conform to the UB-04 format as of October 1, 2015 though the data standard has been tailored to fit the needs of the State. The data dictionary includes a column that identifies the UB-04 data elements. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 Response rate 100% Question 275: Does the State's trauma registry database adhere to the National Trauma Data Standards? Standard of Evidence: Provide the trauma registry data dictionary and any relevant State statutes or regulations. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Missouri uses an ImageTrend product to collect data for their trauma registry. The data dictionary is available through the State and the NTDB lists Missouri as a contributing State. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 402 Response rate 66.7% Question 276: Are Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and Injury Severity Scores (ISS) derived from the State emergency department and hospital discharge data for motor vehicle crash patients? Standard of Evidence: Provide a distribution of AIS and ISS scores for the most recent year available. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The emergency department and hospital discharge data includes ICD codes which are the basis for the AIS and ISS calculations. However, documentation related to the emergency department and hospital discharge data systems was not available and it is unclear if ISS and/or AIS are calculated from the ICD codes within those systems. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 Response rate 100% Question 277: Are Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and Injury Severity Scores (ISS) derived from the State trauma registry for motor vehicle crash patients? Standard of Evidence: Provide a distribution of AIS and ISS scores for the most recent year available. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The trauma registry collects ICD codes which are the basis for the AIS and ISS calculations. A list of ISS scores for patients treated in 2014 is available, but the source AIS scores were not available for review. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 403 Response rate 100% Question 278: Does the State EMS database collect the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) data for motor vehicle crash patients? Standard of Evidence: Provide a distribution of GCS scores for motor vehicle crash patients for the most recent year available. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: The Glasgow Coma Scale is collected on a voluntary basis and submitted to MARS. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 279: Does the State trauma registry collect the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) data for motor vehicle crash patients? Standard of Evidence: Provide a distribution of GCS scores for motor vehicle crash patients for the most recent year available. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: The Total Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score is recorded for patients transported by EMS providers as well as for all trauma patients submitted to the registry. It is unclear if this process is exclusive to motor vehicle crash patients or all trauma patients. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 404 Response rate 66.7% Question 280: Are there State privacy and confidentiality laws that supersede HIPAA? Standard of Evidence: Provide the applicable State laws and describe how they are interpreted—including the identification of situations that may impede data sharing within the State and among public health authorities. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Confidentiality of health data is addressed in the State's Code of Regulations (19c10-33). The regulations do not specifically refer to HIPAA but they do allow the Department of Health and Senior Services to establish regulations regarding the release of health care data. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 Response rate 100% Question 281: Does the EMS system have a formal data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Provide the data dictionary including, at a minimum, the variable names and definitions. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Missouri uses the standard NEMSIS 2.2.1 schema and relies upon the vendor's XSD as reference documentation. The data dictionary for the Missouri Ambulance Reporting System (MARS) is maintained by the State. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 405 Response rate 66.7% Question 282: Does the EMS system have formal documentation that provides a summary dataset—characteristics, values, limitations and exceptions, whether submitted or user created—and how it is collected, managed, and maintained? Standard of Evidence: Provide a user's manual or other form of documentation of the EMS data collection system. Such documentation should include a list of the dataset's variables and a description of how the data is collected, managed and maintained. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri EMS data collection system was developed by ImageTrend which provides online documentation. The MARS User Guide addresses user set-up and does not address the data elements or attributes nor does it include a description of how the data is collected, managed, and maintained. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 283: Does the emergency department dataset have a formal data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Provide the data dictionary including, at a minimum, the variable names and definitions. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: A data dictionary for the Patient Abstract System (PAS) containing information for both emergency department visits and hospital discharges is available. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 406 Response rate 100% Question 284: Does the emergency department dataset have formal documentation that provides a summary dataset—characteristics, values, limitations and exceptions, whether submitted or user created—and how it is collected, managed, and maintained? Standard of Evidence: Provide the documentation. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The availability of a user's manual for the emergency department data system that includes a more complete description of the data elements and attributes and how they are collected in the system is valuable for both data collection and analysis purposes - a more comprehensive document than the simple data dictionary. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 Response rate 100% Question 285: Does the hospital discharge dataset have a formal data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Provide the data dictionary including, at a minimum, the variable names and definitions. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Patient Abstract System has a data dictionary that includes information for both the Emergency Department and Hospital Discharge databases. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 407 Response rate 100% Question 286: Does the hospital discharge dataset have formal documentation that provides a summary dataset—characteristics, values, limitations and exceptions, whether submitted or user created—and how it is collected, managed, and maintained? Standard of Evidence: Provide the documentation. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The availability of a user's manual for the hospital discharge data system that includes a more complete description of the data elements and attributes and how they are collected in the system is valuable for both data collection and analysis purposes - a more comprehensive document than the simple data dictionary. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 Response rate 100% Question 287: Does the trauma registry have a formal data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Provide the data dictionary including, at a minimum, the variable names and definitions. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State uses the National Trauma Data Standard for the trauma registry data collection system. The data dictionary used by the ImageTrend data collection software is available. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 408 Response rate 66.7% Question 288: Does the trauma registry dataset have formal documentation that provides a summary dataset—characteristics, values, limitations and exceptions, whether submitted or user created—and how it is collected, managed, and maintained? Standard of Evidence: Provide the documentation. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State uses an ImageTrend software package for the collection of the trauma registry data; much of the documentation provided by ImageTrend is accessible online. The Time Critical Diagnosis (TCD) User Guide gives direction to data entry personnel for standardized data entry and report writing. The documentation does not address limitations and exceptions, or specifics of how this registry is managed and maintained. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 289: Does the vital records system have a formal data dictionary? Standard of Evidence: Provide the data dictionary including, at a minimum, the variable names and definitions. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: A data dictionary was not available for the vital records system. It would benefit the TRCC to obtain this document as part of a complete traffic records system inventory. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 409 Response rate 33.3% Question 290: Does the vital records system have formal documentation that provides a summary dataset—characteristics, values, limitations and exceptions, whether submitted or user created—and how it is collected, managed, and maintained? Standard of Evidence: Provide the documentation. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Formal documentation for the vital records system was not available for review. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 291: Is there a single entity that collects and compiles data from the local EMS agencies? Standard of Evidence: Identify the State agency or third party to which the EMS data is initially submitted. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: State Statute 190 identifies the Bureau of EMS as the agency responsible for the Missouri Ambulance Reporting System (MARS). Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 292: Is there a single entity that collects and compiles data on emergency department visits from individual hospitals? Standard of Evidence: Identify the State agency or third party to which the data on emergency department visits is initially submitted. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri Hospital Association collects data from most hospitals in the State. The emergency department and hospital discharge data are passed along to the Missouri Department of Health on a quarterly basis. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 410 Response rate 100% Question 293: Is there a single entity that collects and compiles data on hospital discharges from individual hospitals? Standard of Evidence: Identify the State agency or third party to which the data on hospital discharges is initially submitted. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri Hospital Association collects data from most hospitals in the State. The emergency department and hospital discharge data are passed along to the Missouri Department of Health on a quarterly basis. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 Response rate 100% Question 294: Is there a process flow diagram that outlines the EMS system's key data process flows, including inputs from other systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide the flow diagram. Alternatively, provide a narrative description of the EMS data process flows from dispatch to submission of the report to the State EMS repository. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Bureau of EMS maintains a flow chart that shows how data is entered into the MARS. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 411 Response rate 33.3% Question 295: Is there a process flow diagram that outlines the emergency department data's key data process flows, including inputs from other systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide the flow diagram. Alternatively, provide a narrative description of the emergency department data process flows from patient arrival to submission of the uniform billing data to the State repository. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: No description or process flow diagram detailing the data collection process for the State's emergency department data was available. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 296: Is there a process flow diagram that outlines the hospital discharge data's key data process flows, including inputs from other systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide the flow diagram. Alternatively, provide a narrative description of the hospital discharge data process flows from patient arrival to submission of the uniform billing data to the State repository. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: No description or process flow diagram detailing the data collection process for the State's hospital discharge data was available. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 412 Response rate 33.3% Question 297: Is there a process flow diagram that outlines the trauma registry's key data process flows, including inputs from other systems? Standard of Evidence: Provide the flow diagram. Alternatively, provide a narrative description of the hospital discharge data process flows, from trauma activation to submission of the trauma data to the State registry. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Patient care providers chart all relevant trauma data which is then provided to the designated trauma registrar at each trauma facility. The relevant data points are entered into the trauma registry via a web based system. It would benefit the State to formalize the process flow to include the trauma activation component. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 298: Are there separate procedures for paper and electronic filing of EMS patient care reports? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the procedures for paper and electronic filing or a narrative describing the procedures. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: All patient care records in Missouri are submitted electronically. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 413 Response rate 33.3% Question 299: Are there procedures for collecting, editing, error-checking, and submitting emergency department and hospital discharge data to the statewide repository? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the procedures or a narrative describing the process of collecting, editing and submitting emergency department and hospital discharge data to the statewide repository. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Limited quality control is done by the State. Once the emergency department and hospital discharge data is submitted to the State, SAS software is used to check for outliers in the hospital charges. It is unclear if the hospitals use a uniform system for quality control before the data is submitted to the hospital association or if the hospital association employs a uniform system for quality control. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 300: Does the trauma registry have documented procedures for collecting, editing, error checking, and submitting data? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the procedures or a narrative describing the process for collecting, error-checking and submitting trauma registry data. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The trauma registry software provides end users with an immediate validation score as the data is submitted. Records not meeting the 94% minimum validation score are rejected. The State also has a data team who is available to assist users with data collection and submission. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 414 Response rate 66.7% Question 301: Are there procedures for collecting, editing, error-checking, and submitting data to the statewide vital records repository? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the procedures or a narrative describing the process for collecting, error-checking and submitting data to the vital records repository. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Quality control procedures for submitting data to the Statewide vital records repository were not available. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 302: Are there documented procedures for returning data to the reporting EMS agencies for quality assurance and improvement (e.g., correction and resubmission)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the procedures or a narrative describing the process for returning data to the reporting EMS agencies for correction and resubmission. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: State EMS inspectors conduct periodic audits of the ePCR data. Reports entered directly into MARS receive a validation score for QA/QC purposes. Agencies using third party vendors also receive feedback on data deficiencies. System validation rules prevent the end user from saving the record until the errors are addressed. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 415 Response rate 66.7% Question 303: Are there documented procedures for returning data to the reporting emergency departments for quality assurance and improvement (e.g., correction and resubmission)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the procedures or a narrative that describes the process for returning data to the reporting emergency departments for correction and resubmission. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri Hospital Association contacts the facilities when data quality errors have been identified. State regulations require that each data element shall have an acceptable code in at least 99% of the records and each data element shall be missing or unknown in less than 1% of the records. While the procedures for the correction and resubmission of rejected data were not available for review, the regulations require that a provider submit to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services a written notification and plan of correction for the identified deficiencies. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 304: Are there documented procedures for returning hospital discharge data to the reporting hospitals for quality assurance and improvement (e.g., correction and resubmission)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the procedures or a narrative describing the process for returning data to the reporting hospitals for correction and resubmission. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri Hospital Association contacts the facilities when data quality errors have been identified. State regulations require that each data element shall have an acceptable code in at least ninety-nine percent (99%) of the records and each data element shall be missing or unknown in less than 1% of the records. The regulations require that a provider submit to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services a written notification and plan of correction for the identified deficiencies. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 416 Response rate 66.7% Question 305: Are there documented procedures for returning trauma data to the reporting trauma center for quality assurance and improvement (e.g., correction and resubmission)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the procedures or a narrative describing the process for returning data to the reporting trauma center for correction and resubmission. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The data collection system, TCD, has validation rules inherent to the system that address both national standard data elements and State-specific data elements. Only those records meeting or exceeding the validation score are accepted into the system. There is no tracking of records that did not meet the validation score, were corrected, and resubmitted. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 306: Are there documented procedures for returning data to the reporting vital records agency for quality assurance and improvement (e.g., correction and resubmission)? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the procedures or a narrative describing the process for returning data to the reporting vital records agency for correction and resubmission. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: No information was available on the quality assurance process that may be used within the State for the correction and resubmission of vital records data that may contain errors. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 417 Response rate 33.3% Question 307: Is aggregate EMS data available to outside parties (e.g., universities, traffic safety professionals) for analytical purposes? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the data access policy, data use agreement, or link to appropriate data access website. Alternatively, provide a description of how outside parties may obtain access to the EMS data for analytical purposes. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: MARS data is available from the Bureau of EMS through Missouri's Sunshine Law (State Statute 610). Interested parties may make a specific request in writing to the Bureau of EMS, which will respond in accordance with their internal policies and procedures. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 308: Is aggregate emergency department data available to outside parties (e.g., universities, traffic safety professionals) for analytical purposes? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the data access policy, data use agreement, or link to appropriate data access website. Alternatively, provide a description of how outside parties may obtain access to the emergency department data for analytical purposes. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Emergency department data is available via an online querying tool. Aggregate data can also be requested through Missouri's Sunshine Law. Requests are subject to review by the General Counsel and may incur a time and materials cost depending on the nature of the request. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 418 Response rate 100% Question 309: Is aggregate hospital discharge data available to outside parties (e.g., universities, traffic safety professionals) for analytical purposes? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the data access policy, data use agreement, or link to appropriate data access website. Alternatively, provide a description of how outside parties may obtain access to the hospital discharge data for analytical purposes. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Hospital data is available through an online query system. Aggregate data is available under the Missouri Sunshine Law through a request process. The request is reviewed by the General Counsel to ensure HIPAA compliance and may incur a time and materials charge based on the extent of work required to provide the data. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 Response rate 100% Question 310: Is aggregate trauma registry data available to outside parties (e.g., universities, traffic safety professionals) for analytical purposes? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the data access policy, data use agreement, or link to appropriate data access website. Alternatively, provide a description of how outside parties may obtain access to the trauma registry data for analytical purposes. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Aggregate trauma registry data is available by request under the Missouri Sunshine Law. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 419 Response rate 66.7% Question 311: Is aggregate vital records data available to outside parties (e.g., universities, traffic safety professionals) for analytical purposes? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the data access policy, data use agreement, or link to appropriate data access website. Alternatively, provide a description of how outside parties may obtain access to the vital records data for analytical purposes. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Vital records data is available through an online query tool and aggregate data can be requested under the State's Sunshine Law. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 3 Response rate 100% Question 312: Is there an interface among the EMS data and emergency department and hospital discharge data? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the interface link between the EMS data and the emergency department and hospital discharge data. If available provide the applicable data exchange agreement. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: MARS allows hospital access to patient care reports through the Missouri Time Critical Diagnosis (TCD) system. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 420 Response rate 66.7% Question 313: Is there an interface between the EMS data and the trauma registry data? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the interface link between the EMS data and the trauma registry data. If available provide the applicable data exchange agreement. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: MARS is linked to the Trauma Registry through the Missouri Time Critical Diagnosis (TCD) application. This process allows receiving facilities to access EMS reports that have been uploaded into their system. A formal agreement is not required as both systems (TCD and MARS) are managed by the same Section for Health Standards and Licensure within the Division of Regulations of the Department of Health and Senior Services. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 314: Is there an interface between the vital statistics and hospital discharge data? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative description of the interface link between the vital statistics and hospital discharge data. If available provide the applicable data exchange agreement. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Vital statistics can be linked to inpatient hospital data but there is not a real-time interface between the two data systems. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 421 Response rate 66.7% Question 315: Are there automated edit checks and validation rules to ensure that entered data falls within a range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among data elements? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which automated edit checks and validation rules ensure entered data falls within the range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among fields. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Each ePCR entered into MARS receives a validation score that reflects the data's compliance with Missouri's required data elements. Services that submit third party data not meeting Missouri's data minimums receive a rejection notice along with a report regarding missing data elements. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 316: Is limited state-level correction authority granted to quality control staff working with the statewide EMS database in order to amend obvious errors and omissions without returning the report to the originating entity? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which limited state-level correction authority is granted to quality control staff working with the statewide EMS database. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The Bureau of EMS has administrative rights to MARS and does have the ability to make minor corrections. However, it is policy of the State that the local services should conduct their own quality reviews and make any necessary corrections at that level. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 422 Response rate 66.7% Question 317: Are there formally documented processes for returning rejected EMS patient care reports to the collecting entity and tracking resubmission to the statewide EMS database? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which rejected EMS patient care reports are returned to the collecting agency and tracked through resubmission to the statewide EMS database. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: MARS does not allow submission of PCR data with a validation score below a total 90% validation. Validation requires that the reports meet the Missouri State Minimums for EMS reporting. It is unclear if rejected records are tracked as well as any resubmission attempts. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 318: Are there timeliness performance measures tailored to the needs of EMS system managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of timeliness performance measures for the EMS system and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Reporting requirements are not the same as performance measures. A performance measure allows an agency to monitor the health and progress of a data system. For example, achieving 90% of all life threatening reports submitted to the Bureau of EMS within 30 days of incident is an example of a timeliness performance measure. The regulation change requiring 100% of incident data to be imported into the State system with 100% validation is a goal and offers an opportunity to develop performance measure to measure progress to these goals. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 423 Response rate 66.7% Question 319: Are there accuracy performance measures tailored to the needs of EMS system managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of accuracy performance measures for the EMS system and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Regulations are not performance measures. For example achieving 100% of patient care reports with a validation score of 95 or better is an example of a performance measure for accuracy. The regulatory change will provide an opportunity to develop performance measures to measure progress toward that goal. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 320: Are there completeness performance measures tailored to the needs of EMS system managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of completeness performance measures for the EMS system and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has established minimal time parameters for the transportation of Trauma, Stroke, and STEMI patients; these are goals only for timeliness and not completeness. No completeness performance measures related to the MARS system have been developed. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 424 Response rate 66.7% Question 321: Are there uniformity performance measures tailored to the needs of EMS system managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of uniformity performance measures for the EMS system and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has established minimal time parameters for the transportation of Trauma, Stroke, and STEMI patients; these goals are for timeliness and not performance measures of uniformity. No uniformity performance measures have been developed for MARS. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 322: Are there integration performance measures tailored to the needs of EMS system managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of integration performance measures for the EMS system and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has established minimal time parameters for the transportation of Trauma, Stroke, and STEMI patients. However, these are only goals for timeliness and not performance measures of integration. No integration performance measures have been developed for MARS. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 425 Response rate 33.3% Question 323: Are there accessibility performance measures tailored to the needs of EMS system managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of accessibility performance measures for the EMS system and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State has established minimal time parameters for the transportation of Trauma, Stroke, and STEMI patients; these are goals for timeliness and not measures for accessibility. No accessibility performance measures have been developed for MARS. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 324: Has the State established numeric goals—performance metrics—for each EMS system performance measure? Standard of Evidence: Provide specific numeric goals and related performance measures for each attribute as determined by the State. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The Time Critical Diagnosis System, implemented through State statute, requires that patients are transported to an appropriate medical facility in a timely manner based on certain medical criteria. The regulatory change will require 100% submission of patient care reports with 100% validation. The requirement of 100% submission with 100% validation can be used as numeric goals to measure improvements in the EMS data system. The committee, expected to be formed after the regulatory change, may consider additional performance metrics for the other performance measures. Respondents assigned 4 Responses received 2 426 Response rate 50% Question 325: Is there performance reporting for the EMS system that provides specific timeliness, accuracy, and completeness feedback to each submitting entity? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample report, list of receiving agencies, and specify frequency of issuance. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There are regulations in place that relate to timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of the State's EMS data. Routine onsite inspections are conducted for regulatory compliance, the results of which are addressed at State Advisory Committee meetings and regional meetings. The State does not provide performance reporting feedback to the reporting agencies in any formal manner such as quarterly reports. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 326: Are high frequency errors used to update EMS system training content, data collection manuals, and validation rules? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which high frequency errors are used to update EMS system training content, data collection manuals, and validation rules. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State provides local agencies with periodic analytical reports. When an anomaly is identified, the State’s Data Management team works directly with the agency to resolve any technical issues. The State also conducts side-by-side comparison of data from the records stored at the local level to the data that is submitted electronically into MARS. Onsite training for data managers is provided upon request and as necessary during the State inspection process. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 427 Response rate 33.3% Question 327: Are quality control reviews conducted to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and uniformity of injury data in the EMS system? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample quality control review of injury records that details the system's data completeness. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The Bureau of EMS conducts audits of the State's data by analyzing specific key elements. One example is the review of the Glasgow Coma Scale. This particular data element is used in conjunction with a validation rule that requires the end users to submit this data for all trauma patients. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 328: Are periodic comparative and trend analyses used to identify unexplained differences in the EMS data across years and agencies? Standard of Evidence: Describe the analyses, provide a sample record or output, and specify their frequency. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: The State conducts bi-annual comparisons of the data collected in MARS. Recently, the State saw an increase in the number of records submitted which increased the need to monitor the quality of the data and the ability of the State's system to handle the extra records. At the present time, reviews are conducted only to evaluate the accuracy of the data and the stability of the system. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 428 Response rate 33.3% Question 329: Is data quality feedback from key users regularly communicated to EMS data collectors and data managers? Standard of Evidence: Describe the process for transmitting and utilizing key users' data quality feedback to inform program changes. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The State Advisory Committee meets monthly in Jefferson City along with staff from the Bureau of EMS. Bureau staff will also provide assistance to the local data managers during normal State inspections being conducted. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 330: Are EMS data quality management reports produced regularly and made available to the State TRCC? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample quality management report and specify frequency of transmission to the State TRCC. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: A representative from the Bureau of EMS attends each TRCC meeting, providing data and information as needed or requested for review by the committee. The Bureau of EMS presents to State and Federal officials on the State of Missouri EMS System and its data. A sample quality management report was not available for review. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 429 Response rate 33.3% Question 331: Are there automated edit checks and validation rules to ensure that entered data falls within a range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among data elements? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which automated edit checks and validation rules ensure entered data falls within the range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among fields. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The MARS data collection system includes a series of automated edit checks and validation rules. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 332: Is limited state-level correction authority granted to quality control staff working with the statewide emergency department and hospital discharge databases in order to amend obvious errors and omissions without returning the report to the originating entity? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which limited state-level correction authority is granted to quality control staff working with the statewide emergency department and hospital discharge databases. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: No information was available to describe how hospital and emergency department records may be corrected at the State level. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 430 Response rate 33.3% Question 333: Are there formally documented processes for returning rejected emergency department and hospital discharge records to the collecting entity and tracking resubmission to the statewide emergency department and hospital discharge databases? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which rejected emergency department and hospital discharge records are returned to the collecting agency and tracked through resubmission to the statewide emergency department and hospital discharge databases. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri Hospital Association contacts the individual facilities when data quality errors are identified. The record is resubmitted to the hospital association after correction. Formally documenting the process used or time frame in which this occurs could lead to future performance measures that may help monitor improvements in the data system. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 334: Are there timeliness performance measures tailored to the needs of emergency department and hospital discharge database managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of timeliness performance measures for the emergency department and hospital discharge databases and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Regulations are not a substitute for performance measures but they can be used to develop useful measures to track improvements in the data collection system. For example, achieving 95% hospitals submitting data to the Missouri Hospital Association within 30 days of the end of the quarter. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 431 Response rate 66.7% Question 335: Are there accuracy performance measures tailored to the needs of emergency department and hospital discharge database managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of accuracy performance measures for the emergency department and hospital discharge databases and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Regulations are not a substitute for performance measures but they can be used to develop useful metrics to measure the improvements in a data system. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 336: Are there completeness performance measures tailored to the needs of emergency department and hospital discharge database managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of completeness performance measures for the emergency department and hospital discharge databases and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Regulations can be used to develop performance measures that would help the State measure improvements in their data system. NHTSA has published several documents that provide samples of performance measures that could be used as a model to develop metrics for the State. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 432 Response rate 66.7% Question 337: Are there uniformity performance measures tailored to the needs of emergency department and hospital discharge database managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of uniformity performance measures for the emergency department and hospital discharge databases and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Regulations can be used to develop performance measures that would help the State measure improvements in their data system. NHTSA has published several documents that provide samples of performance measures that could be used as a model to develop metrics for the State. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 338: Are there integration performance measures tailored to the needs of emergency department and hospital discharge database managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of integration performance measures for the emergency department and hospital discharge databases and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: No integration performance measures are in place for the hospital data systems. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 433 Response rate 66.7% Question 339: Are there accessibility performance measures tailored to the needs of emergency department and hospital discharge database managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of accessibility performance measures for the emergency department and hospital discharge database and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State does not have accessibility performance measures in place for the hospital data systems. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 340: Has the State established numeric goals—performance metrics—for each emergency department and hospital discharge database performance measure? Standard of Evidence: Provide specific numeric goals and related performance measures for each attribute as determined by the State. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Numeric goals have not been established for either the emergency department data system or the hospital discharge data system. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 434 Response rate 33.3% Question 341: Is there performance reporting for the emergency department and hospital discharge databases that provides specific timeliness, accuracy, and completeness feedback to each submitting entity? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample report, list of receiving agencies, and specify frequency of issuance. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services works collaboratively with the Missouri Hospital Association to make sure the hospital data is timely and complete but there is no formal method for performance reporting back to the submitting hospitals. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 342: Are high frequency errors used to update emergency department and hospital discharge database training content, data collection manuals, and validation rules? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which high frequency errors are used to update emergency department and hospital discharge database training content, data collection manuals, and validation rules. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Observed errors have been used to modify the analysis of the hospital data sets but this appears to be on an ad-hoc basis. There does not appear to be a formal process in place to routinely use high frequency data errors as a method to revise training and data collection manuals. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 435 Response rate 66.7% Question 343: Are quality control reviews conducted to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and uniformity of injury data in the emergency department and hospital discharge databases? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample quality control review of injury records that details the system's data completeness. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Each quarter of the Patient Abstract System data is reviewed for obvious errors and missing data. The sample provided is limited to the number of records submitted by a hospital and does not demonstrate quality control review to ensure accuracy or uniformity. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 344: Are periodic comparative and trend analyses used to identify unexplained differences in the emergency department and hospital discharge data across years and agencies? Standard of Evidence: Describe the analyses, provide a sample record or output, and specify their frequency. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: Current year data is compared with previous year data to identify obvious errors and missing data in the emergency department and hospital discharge datasets. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 436 Response rate 66.7% Question 345: Is data quality feedback from key users regularly communicated to emergency department and hospital discharge data collectors and data managers? Standard of Evidence: Describe the process for transmitting and utilizing key users' data quality feedback to inform program changes. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Feedback from analysts is given to the data managers on a case-by-case basis. For example, errors in the census tract information were reported to the Missouri Hospital Association, which corrected the problem by revising their SAS programming code. It is unclear if information that could be used to improve data quality is passed back to the data collectors at the individual facilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 346: Are emergency department and hospital discharge data quality management reports produced regularly and made available to the State TRCC? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample quality management report and specify frequency of transmission to the State TRCC. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Quality management reports related to hospital and emergency department data are not routinely made available to the TRCC. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 437 Response rate 33.3% Question 347: Are there automated edit checks and validation rules to ensure that entered data falls within a range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among data elements? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which automated edit checks and validation rules ensure entered data falls within the range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among fields. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Both the EMS and Trauma Registry datasets conform to respective national data parameters through a set of validation rules inherent to the data collection system. Also included in the data collection system are validation rules for data elements specific to the State and based on State regulations. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 348: Is limited state-level correction authority granted to quality control staff working with the statewide trauma registry in order to amend obvious errors and omissions without returning the report to the originating entity? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which limited state-level correction authority is granted to quality control staff working with the statewide trauma registry. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There is limited State-level correction authority to correct errors, but the policy is to have each facility make their own corrections. Corrections are made to ensure the validation minimum score is met for each record. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 438 Response rate 66.7% Question 349: Are there formally documented processes for returning rejected data to the collecting entity and tracking resubmission to the statewide trauma registry? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which rejected data is returned to the collecting agency and tracked through resubmission to the statewide trauma registry. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Records that do not meet a minimum validation score are automatically rejected from the TCD system. It is unclear if any other quality control reviews are in place to ensure complete and accurate patient records. No additional information was available to address the eventual inclusion of previously rejected records which pass validations. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 350: Are there timeliness performance measures tailored to the needs of trauma registry managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of timeliness performance measures for the trauma registry and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Missouri regulations require that facilities submit trauma registry data within 30 days after the end of each quarter. Regulations themselves are not a substitute for performance measures. Rather, they can be used to establish a goal that can be measured against. In this case, tracking the number of trauma centers that submit data within 30 days of the end of the quarter can be monitored. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 439 Response rate 66.7% Question 351: Are there accuracy performance measures tailored to the needs of trauma registry managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of accuracy performance measures for the trauma registry and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: TCD policy dictates that trauma facilities must meet a validity score of 94% - 100% for each trauma patient record entered into the registry. This is a goal and not a performance measure. Tracking the average validity scores for each trauma center would be one metric that could be used to monitor a center's performance. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 352: Are there completeness performance measures tailored to the needs of trauma registry managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of completeness performance measures for the trauma registry and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: TCD policy dictates that all trauma facilities must meet a validity score of 94% - 100% for each trauma patient entered into the registry. This is a goal not an indicator and the validity score by itself is not a substitute for a performance measure. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 440 Response rate 66.7% Question 353: Are there uniformity performance measures tailored to the needs of trauma registry managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of uniformity performance measures for the trauma registry and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: No uniformity performance measures are in place for the trauma registry system. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 354: Are there integration performance measures tailored to the needs of trauma registry managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of integration performance measures for the trauma registry and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Integration refers to the linkage of trauma registry records with records from other components of the traffic records system (i.e. crash, EMS). One performance measure could be to link trauma registry and crash records for calendar year 2014. The flow of data to and from the TCD or the NTDB registries for comparisons locally and at the national level would be more fitting for a uniformity measurement, not integration. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 441 Response rate 66.7% Question 355: Are there accessibility performance measures tailored to the needs of trauma registry managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of accessibility performance measures for the trauma registry and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Though all facilities in the State can access the online web portal known as the TCD (Time Critical Diagnosis System), this does not measure widespread accessibility. Performance measures are used to monitor changes in the 'health' of a data system. Goals should be established using metrics that can be measured on a periodic basis to allow the State to track improvements or to identify deficiencies. Accessibility is measured through customer satisfaction surveys, web portal metrics (down time-both scheduled and unscheduled), or data request metrics (number requests, completed, time to completion). Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 356: Has the State established numeric goals—performance metrics—for each trauma registry performance measure? Standard of Evidence: Provide specific numeric goals and related performance measures for each attribute as determined by the State. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There are a few goals that have been established by State regulation such as the 94% validation rule. These should be used as the basis for the development of performance measures. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 442 Response rate 66.7% Question 357: Is there performance reporting for the trauma registry that provides specific timeliness, accuracy, and completeness feedback to each submitting entity? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample report, list of receiving agencies, and specify frequency of issuance. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: TCD staff generates quality reports each quarter. If issues are identified, the responsible facilities are contacted. A more formal process of performance reporting back to the submitting facilities may benefit both the trauma facilities in recognizing routine data errors and the registry with better quality data. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 358: Are high frequency errors used to update trauma registry training content, data collection manuals, and validation rules? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which high frequency errors are used to update trauma registry training content, data collection manuals, and validation rules. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: TCD staff works to correct identified data collection problems by customizing the TCD system. They also provide onsite review and education, as needed, during their inspection process. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 443 Response rate 66.7% Question 359: Are quality control reviews conducted to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and uniformity of injury data in the trauma registry? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample quality control review of injury records that details the system's data completeness. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: It is unclear if the 'Total Incident Count Per Trauma Form' report is providing a count of data quality incidents or trauma incidents. While it was stated that the TCD staff conduct quarterly reviews of the data, that information is insufficient to determine if the quality control reviews conducted specifically ensure the completeness, accuracy, and uniformity of the trauma registry data. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 360: Are periodic comparative and trend analyses used to identify unexplained differences in the trauma registry data across years and agencies? Standard of Evidence: Describe the analyses, provide a sample record or output, and specify their frequency. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: Generated reports are reviewed on a regular basis. It is unclear what information is provided in those reports or how they are used to identify changes in frequency or quality of trauma registry records over time. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 444 Response rate 66.7% Question 361: Is data quality feedback from key users regularly communicated to trauma registry data collectors and data managers? Standard of Evidence: Describe the process for transmitting and utilizing key users' data quality feedback to inform program changes. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: TCD staff review data on a daily basis. Data quality is relayed back to data collectors and managers on a regular basis through phone calls, emails, and in-person visits to ensure regulatory compliance. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 362: Are trauma registry data quality management reports produced regularly and made available to the State TRCC? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample quality management report and specify frequency of transmission to the State TRCC. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The Department of Health is represented on the TRCC and reports are provided as requested. It would benefit the TRCC to include the Department reports as a standing agenda item, allowing the TRCC to stay abreast of changes and improvements in the health-related data systems and help facilitate integration and analysis of all traffic records data. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 445 Response rate 66.7% Question 363: Are there automated edit checks and validation rules to ensure that entered data falls within a range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among data elements? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which automated edit checks and validation rules ensure entered data falls within the range of acceptable values and is logically consistent among fields. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Information on edit checks and validation rules specific to the vital records system was not available. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 2 Response rate 66.7% Question 364: Is limited state-level correction authority granted to quality control staff working with vital records in order to amend obvious errors and omissions without returning the report to the originating entity? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which limited state-level correction authority is granted to quality control staff working with vital records. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Information regarding State-level correction authority to amend obvious errors was not available. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 446 Response rate 33.3% Question 365: Are there formally documented processes for returning rejected data to the collecting entity and tracking resubmission to vital records? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which rejected data is returned to the collecting agency and tracked through resubmission to vital records. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Information about formally documented processes for tracking rejected data between the originating entity and the State was not available. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 366: Are there timeliness performance measures tailored to the needs of vital records managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of timeliness performance measures for vital records and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 447 Response rate 33.3% Question 367: Are there accuracy performance measures tailored to the needs of vital records managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of accuracy performance measures for vital records and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 368: Are there completeness performance measures tailored to the needs of vital records managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of completeness performance measures for vital records and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 448 Response rate 33.3% Question 369: Are there uniformity performance measures tailored to the needs of vital records managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of uniformity performance measures for vital records and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 370: Are there integration performance measures tailored to the needs of vital records managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of integration performance measures for vital records and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 449 Response rate 33.3% Question 371: Are there accessibility performance measures tailored to the needs of vital records managers and data users? Standard of Evidence: Provide a complete list of accessibility performance measures for vital records and explain how these measures are used to inform decision-making. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 372: Has the State established numeric goals—performance metrics—for each vital records performance measure? Standard of Evidence: Provide specific numeric goals and related performance measures for each attribute as determined by the State. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 450 Response rate 33.3% Question 373: Is there performance reporting for vital records that provides specific timeliness, accuracy, and completeness feedback to each submitting entity? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample report, list of receiving agencies, and specify frequency of issuance. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 374: Are high frequency errors used to update vital records training content, data collection manuals, and validation rules? Standard of Evidence: Provide the formal methodology or describe the process by which high frequency errors are used to update vital records training content, data collection manuals, and validation rules. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 451 Response rate 33.3% Question 375: Are quality control reviews conducted to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and uniformity of injury data in the vital records? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample quality control review of injury records that details the system's data completeness. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 376: Are periodic comparative and trend analyses used to identify unexplained differences in the vital records data across years and agencies? Standard of Evidence: Describe the analyses, provide a sample record or output, and specify their frequency. Question Rank: Less Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 Response rate 33.3% Question 377: Is data quality feedback from key users regularly communicated to vital records data collectors and data managers? Standard of Evidence: Describe the process for transmitting and utilizing key users' data quality feedback to inform program changes. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 452 Response rate 33.3% Question 378: Are vital records data quality management reports produced regularly and made available to the State TRCC? Standard of Evidence: Provide a sample quality management report and specify frequency of transmission to the State TRCC. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Limited information was available about the vital records system to allow an adequate review of its processes and capabilities. Respondents assigned 3 Responses received 1 453 Response rate 33.3% Data Use and Integration Integration combines data from multiple systems to form a new, more robust dataset that is capable of answering a wider variety of safety-related questions. These integrations occur both within the core systems and between them. Data integration does not appear to be a high priority for the State. The State’s roadway system consists of many individually-maintained datasets in one. The addition of crash data gives decision-makers a more complete picture. This was the only documented integration provided. State decision-makers and the public have access to data and personnel to help them, but with the exception of the linked crash and roadway data, this access is limited to the individual data systems. Creation of, and access to, integrated databases would help planners to better understand the overall traffic safety picture. Question 379: Do behavioral program managers have access to traffic records data and analytic resources for problem identification, priority setting, and program evaluation? Standard of Evidence: Identify the data source(s), (crash, roadway, driver, vehicle, citation adjudication, injury surveillance), discuss and provide examples of program specific analysis (e.g., reports, fact sheets, web pages, ad hoc analyses. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: Program managers have access to some reports but it is not evident that they have broad access to resources to make informed decisions. There is data available to specific departments; however, there is no real identification of the data being used for analysis. Respondents assigned 9 Responses received 6 454 Response rate 66.7% Question 380: Does the State have a data governance process? Standard of Evidence: Provide a narrative detailing the State's data governance process, identifying the personnel involved and describing how it supports traffic safety data integration and formal data quality management. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Data owners are responsible for the data systems they oversee, but no formal overall governance process that supports the integration and quality management of systems is in place. Each agency may have governance in place for their own data, but there is no Statewide governance dealing with traffic records systems as a whole. Respondents assigned 9 Responses received 5 Response rate 55.6% Question 381: Does the State have a formal traffic records system inventory that identifies linkages useful to the State and data access policies? Standard of Evidence: Provide a copy of the system inventory specifying all traffic records data sources, system custodians, data elements and attributes, linkage variables, linkages useful to the State, and data access policies. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State does not have a comprehensive traffic records system inventory. Respondents assigned 8 Responses received 3 455 Response rate 37.5% Question 382: Does the TRCC promote data integration by aiding in the development of data governance, access, and security policies for integrated data? Standard of Evidence: Identify, with appropriate citations, the TRCC strategic plan sections that demonstrate the promotion of data integration. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: The TRCC does not actively promote data integration. Respondents assigned 8 Responses received 3 Response rate 37.5% Question 383: Is driver data integrated with crash data for specific analytical purposes? Standard of Evidence: Document an integrative crash-driver link, the linkage variables, and example analysis, and the frequency of linkage. Example analyses could include an assessment of graduated drivers' license (GDL) law effectiveness or of crash risk associated with motorcycle rider training, licensing, and behavior. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State does not conduct any analysis with driver data linked to crash data. Respondents assigned 9 Responses received 5 456 Response rate 55.6% Question 384: Is vehicle data integrated with crash data for specific analytical purposes? Standard of Evidence: Document an integrative crash-vehicle link, the linkage variables, and example analysis, and the frequency of linkage. Example analyses could include crash trends among vehicle types or vehicle weight restriction by road classification. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: The State does not conduct any analysis with vehicle data linked to crash data. Respondents assigned 9 Responses received 5 Response rate 55.6% Question 385: Is roadway data integrated with crash data for specific analytical purposes? Standard of Evidence: Document an integrative crash-roadway link, the linkage variables, and example analysis, and the frequency of linkage. Example analyses could include the identification of high crash locations and locations with similar roadway attributes or an assessment of engineering countermeasures' effectiveness. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: State crash data and roadway data can be linked by using a common linear reference system. Examples include: J turn safety analysis, safety treatments for rural two lane roads, and edgeline striping. Respondents assigned 9 Responses received 4 457 Response rate 44.4% Question 386: Is citation and adjudication data integrated with crash data for specific analytical purposes? Standard of Evidence: Document an integrative crash-citation or adjudication link, the linkage variables, and example analysis, and the frequency of linkage. Example analyses could include an assessment of the relationship between illegal actions and crashes for specific driver subpopulations (e.g., older drivers) or of crash-involved DUI offenders' adjudications. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There has been no linking of citation and adjudication data with crash data for analysis. Respondents assigned 2 Responses received 2 Response rate 100% Question 387: Is injury surveillance data integrated with crash data for specific analytical purposes? Standard of Evidence: Document an integrative crash-injury surveillance link, the linkage variables, and example analysis, and the frequency of linkage. Example analyses could include injury outcomes by specific crash type or injuries associated with occupant protection. Question Rank: Very Important Assessor conclusions: There is no integration of the injury surveillance data with crash data. The FARS analyst has access to health data for the coding of fatal crashes but no integration or linkage exists. Respondents assigned 9 Responses received 5 458 Response rate 55.6% Question 388: Are there examples of data integration among crash and two or more of the other component systems? Standard of Evidence: Document an integrative link among crash and multiple data systems, the linkage variables, and example analysis, and the frequency of linkage. Example analyses could include an assessment of the safety impact of differential speed limits for different vehicle types. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Although crash data is linked with several components of roadway system data, there does not appear to be linkage with a third dataset that is used for analysis. Data linkage among the core traffic records data systems other than crash and roadway does not appear to be in place in the State. Respondents assigned 9 Responses received 4 Response rate 44.4% Question 389: Is data from traffic records component systems—excluding crash—integrated for specific analytical purposes? Standard of Evidence: Document an integrative link using at least two traffic record component systems excluding the crash system. Include the systems, their linkage variables, example analysis, and the frequency of linkage. Example analyses could include an assessment of recidivism among specific driver populations. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There appear to be no data linkages between the core traffic records data systems outside of crash, such as driver, vehicle, injury, or citation/adjudication, used for analysis. Data integration between any two systems (excluding crash) is not being used for analysis. Respondents assigned 9 Responses received 5 459 Response rate 55.6% Question 390: Do decision-makers have access to resources—skilled personnel and user-friendly access tools—for the use and analysis of integrated datasets? Standard of Evidence: Identify the analytical resources available: personnel, software, or online resources. Specify the decision-makers who have access to these resources. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: Decision-makers have access to several types of data, but the State's lack of integrated datasets does not allow for the analysis of integrated datasets. Respondents assigned 8 Responses received 3 Response rate 37.5% Question 391: Does the public have access to resources—skilled personnel and user-friendly access tools—for the use and analysis of integrated datasets? Standard of Evidence: Identify the analytical resources available to the public: personnel, software, or online resources. Specify how the public has access to these resources. Question Rank: Somewhat Important Assessor conclusions: There is a public tool for crash data, but it is not integrated with any other data. Respondents assigned 8 Responses received 3 460 Response rate 37.5% Appendix A Assessment Participants State Highway Safety Office Representative(s) Patrick McKenna Missouri Department of Transportation Director Bill Whitfield MoDOT Highway Safety Director State Assessment Coordinator(s) Mr. Jeremy Hodges Missouri Department of Transportation Commercial Motor Vehicle Program Manager Mr. Andrew Williford MoDOT Traffic Studies Specialist NHTSA Regional Office Coordinator(s) Mr. Jeff Halloran NHTSA Highway Safety Specialist NHTSA Headquarters Coordinator Mr. John N Siegler Ph.D. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Team Lead, Traffic Records Team 461 State and Local Respondents The following State and Local staff assisted in the Assessment by providing responses to the Advisory criteria and questions. Name Mr. Doug Buschjost Agency OSCA Title Project Manager Megan Denkler MoDOT TMS Admin. Mr. Russ Dunwiddie Missouri State Highway Patrol Mr. Terry Ellsworth DHSS Mr. Jeremy Hodges Andrew Hunter Missouri Department of Transportation DHSS Commercial Motor Vehicle Program Manager Supervisor Ms. Tina Jones OSCA Support Services Manager Pamela Lueckenotto Benjamin J Miller Chris Phelps MoDOT Missouri Office of Prosecution Services DHSS Assistant Director Supervisor MCS Specialist Technology/Automation Resource Prosecutor EMS Inspector Ms. Christina Predmore Department of Revenue Manager Ms. Tracy Robertson Department of Revenue Manager Ms. Myrna R Tucker Missouri Dept. of Transportation 462 Planning Data Systems Coordinator Assessment Facilitator Ms. Cindy Burch Assessment Team Members Sgt. Christopher Corea Ms. Kathleen Haney Mr. Loren Hill Mr. Matthew Hudnall Mr. Cory Hutchinson Mr. Tim Kerns Mr. William Kovarik Ms. Roxanne Langford Mr. Don Nail Mr. John New Dr. Michael Pawlovich Ph.D., P.E Mr. R. Robert Rasmussen II Ms. Tracy Joyce Smith Ms. Joan Vecchi Mr. Fred E Zwonechek 463 Appendix B National Acronyms and Abbreviations AADT AAMVA AASHTO ACS AIS ANSI ATSIP BAC CDC CDIP CDLIS CODES DDACTS DHS DMV DPPA DOH DOJ DOT DOT-TRCC DRA DUI DUID DWI ED EMS FARS FDEs FHWA FMCSA GCS GDL GES GHSA GIS GJXDM GPS GRA HIPAA HPMS HSIP HSP Average Annual Daily Traffic American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials American College of Surgeons Abbreviated Injury Score American National Standards Institute Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals Blood Alcohol Concentration Center for Disease Control NHTSA’s Crash Data Improvement Program Commercial Driver License Information System Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety Department of Homeland Security Department of Motor Vehicles Drivers Privacy Protection Act Department of Health Department of Justice Department of Transportation The US DOT Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Deputy Regional Administrator (NHTSA) Driving Under the Influence Driving Under the Influence of Drugs Driving While Intoxicated Emergency Department Emergency Medical Service Fatality Analysis Reporting System Fundamental Data Elements Federal Highway Administration Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Glasgow Coma Scale Graduated Driver Licensing General Estimates System Governors Highway Safety Association Geographic Information System Global Justice XML Data Model Global Positioning System Government Reference Architecture Health Information Privacy and Accountability Act Highway Performance Monitoring System Highway Safety Improvement Plan Highway Safety Plan 464 ICD-10 IRB ISS IT JIEM LEIN MADD MCMIS MIDRIS MIRE MMUCC MOU MPO NAPHSIS NCHIP NCHS NCIC NCSC NDR NEMSIS NGA NHTSA NIBRS NIEM NLETS NMVTIS NTDS PAR PDPS PDO PII RA RDIP RPM RTS RMS RPC SaDIP SAVE SHSP SME SSOLV STRAP SWISS TCD TRA TRIPRS TRCC TRS International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems Institutional Review Board Injury Severity Score Information Technology Justice Information Exchange Model Law Enforcement Information Network Mothers Against Drunk Driving Motor Carrier Management Information System Model Impaired Driving Records Information System Model Inventory of Roadway Elements Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Memorandum of Understanding Metropolitan Planning Organization National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems National Criminal History Improvement Program National Center for Health Statistics National Crime Information Center National Center for State Courts National Driver Register National Emergency Medical Service Information System National Governor’s Association National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Incident-Based Reporting System National Information Exchange Model National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System National Motor Vehicle Title Information System National Trauma Data Standard Police Accident Report Problem Driver Pointer System Property Damage Only Personally Identifiable Information Regional Administrator (NHTSA) FHWA’s Roadway Data Improvement Program Regional Program Manager (NHTSA) Revised Trauma Score Records Management System Regional Planning Commission FMCSA’s Safety Data Improvement Program Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Strategic Highway Safety Plan Subject Matter Expert Social Security Online Verification State Traffic Records Assessment Program Statewide Injury Surveillance System Traffic Control Devices Traffic Records Assessment Traffic Records Improvement Program Reporting System Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Traffic Records System 465 UCR VIN VMT XML Uniform Crime Reports Vehicle Identification Number Vehicle Miles Traveled Extensible Markup Language 466 State-Specific Acronyms and Abbreviations DHHS DOR MAI MARS MODL MSHP MUCR MoDOT PAS RACF STARS TCD TMS TRIPS Department of Health and Senior Services Department of Revenue Missouri Approved Instructions Missouri Ambulance Reporting System Missouri Driver License system Missouri State Highway Patrol Missouri Uniform Crash Report Missouri Department of Transportation Patient Abstract System Resource Access Control Facility Statewide Traffic Accident Records System Time Critical Diagnosis system Transportation Management System Title and Registration Intranet Process System 467 MISSOURI FY 2017 Application Section 405(b) Occupant Protection Grant (23 CFR 1200.21) Missouri FY 2017 Application Section 405(b) Occupant Protection Grant Table of Contents Occupant Protection Plan Page 1 Comprehensive Occupant Protection Program Page 9 Click It or Ticket Mobilization Page 27 LE Agencies Contracted for 2017 CIOT Page 29 Population Map Page 30 Child Restraint Inspection Stations Page 38 Child Passenger Safety Technicians Page 41 High Risk Population Page 42 Appendix A List of CPS Technicians/Instructors List of Inspection Stations Page 46 Page 65 Appendix B Occupant Protection Program Assessment Page 79 Appendix C MCRS Occupant Protection Subcommittee Members Page 116 1. Occupant Protection Plan Updates to the Occupant Protection Plan were implemented during the December 11, 2014, Occupant Protection Subcommittee meeting. This Occupant Protection Plan describes programs and strategies the State will implement to achieve a reduction in fatalities and injuries on Missouri public roads. This and subsequent meetings led to the completion of the Occupant Protection Strategic Plan which is now a document in this application. Due to a substantial backlog of crash reports, Missouri’s 2015 crash file has not been finalized and closed. As a result, the FY 2017 405 Application references crash statistics only through 2014. A substantial number of occupants killed in 2012-2014 Missouri traffic crashes were not wearing safety belts or in a child safety seat compared to those injured and not injured. In fatal crashes where safety belt usage was known, 65.6% of the people who died were not restrained. Of those seriously injured, 36.0% were not restrained. Conversely, of those not injured, 685,537 were wearing a safety belt or in a child safety seat. When just looking at young people between the ages of 15 through 20, 73.4% of those who died were not buckled up. Safety belt use dramatically reduces a person’s chance of being killed or seriously injured in a traffic crash. Of the drivers involved in 2012-2014 crashes, 1 in 2 was injured when they failed to wear their safety belt, however, when they were wearing a safety belt, their chances of being injured in the crash were 1 in 8. When examining driver deaths, the differences are much more significant. Drivers had a 1 in 29.8 chance of being killed if they were not wearing a safety belt; but that chance dropped dramatically to only 1 in 1,343 if the driver was wearing a safety belt. Ejection from the vehicle at the time of the crash increases the probability of death or serious injury. In known cases of those occupants killed who were totally ejected from the vehicle, 97.4% were not restrained and of those partially ejected, 93.5% were not restrained. The Highway Safety Office conducts two annual Safety Belt Observational Surveys. In 2015, the General Survey had 118,081 observations collected at 560 sites in 28 counties. The teen survey was conducted at 150 high schools in 92 counties resulting in a total of 37,593 observations of which 26,033 were teens. The chart below shows the safety belt use rates for the past 5 years. Percent of Safety Belt/Passenger Vehicle Restraint Use by Year Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 General Survey 79% 79% 80% 79% 80% Teen 67% 66% 67% 67% 68% Page 1 of 117 Communication is vital in Missouri’s overall efforts to change public behavior in safety belt use. Missouri utilizes paid media, social media, and earned media. In an effort to ensure a comprehensive occupant protection plan, strategies to improve the number of people buckling up in an age appropriate restraint are in Missouri’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP Missouri’s Blueprint to Save More Lives), Highway Safety Plan and Performance Plan (HSP) , and the MCSAP Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP). The following is information from each of these Plans that are implemented throughout the State with the goal of increasing safety belt use thus reducing the number of people killed or injured in traffic crashes. Missouri Blueprint to Save More Lives The Executive Committee of the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety provides leadership, guidance and overall direction of Missouri’s SHSP. Missouri’s SHSP provides overall direction to our state’s highway safety program and includes our new statewide fatality reduction goal of 700 or fewer fatalities by 2016. The document contains a list of nine strategies having the greatest potential to save more lives and reduce serious injuries. Increasing Safety Belt Use is one of the nine strategies and encourages the passage of a primary safety belt law, increasing the number of communities passing primary safety belt ordinances, and increasing the fine for nonuse of a safety belt under the current law. (The Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety is currently working to complete the fourth edition of the Missouri Blueprint to be released later in 2016). In addition, Unrestrained Drivers and Occupants is a Focus Area under Emphasis Area II – HighRisk Drivers and Unrestrained Occupants. The following is the list of strategies for this Focus Area. In addition, at the end of the list of strategies are the performance measures that will be tracked to monitor progress. Education • Continue to educate law enforcement, parents and teens about the Graduated Driver License (GDL) statute and it’s provision that allows safety belt enforcement as a primary violation • Educate GDL recipients about the mandatory safety belt use component of the law • Educate parents, caregivers, and grandparents about proper selection and installation of child safety and booster seats • Recruit/certify more law enforcement officers as Child Passenger Safety Technicians • Continue to expand public information and education campaigns to educate the general public and target groups (pickup truck and teen occupants) about the importance of occupant protection Page 2 of 117 • Expand numbers of child safety seat inspection stations and certified Child Passenger Safety Technicians Enforcement • Aggressively enforce the occupant protection component of the GDL law • Aggressively enforce the child safety seat and booster seat laws • Encourage law enforcement to enact a zero tolerance policy when enforcing the secondary occupant protection law • Increase the emphasis on special occupant protection mobilizations that include public information campaigns and Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEP) Engineering • Increase use of message boards and signs that encourage restraint use Public Policy / Other • Enact a primary safety belt law • Expand the number of local primary safety belt ordinances Performance Measures Goal #1: To increase statewide safety belt usage by 1 percent annually to: • 81% by 2016 • 82% by 2017 • 83% by 2018 Performance Measures: • Statewide percent observed belt use for passenger vehicles (front seat outboard occupants) Benchmarks: • 2014 statewide safety belt usage rate = 79% o 2015 statewide safety belt usage rate = 80% Goal #2: To reduce unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities to 326 by 2016: • 379 by 2013 • 361 by 2014 • 344 by 2015 Page 3 of 117 Performance Measures: • Number of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities Benchmarks: • 2012 unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities = 396 o 2013 Actual = 334 o 2014 Actual = 327 Goal #3: To increase safety belt citations and warnings made during grant funded enforcement activities and mobilizations by .25 percent annually based on a three-year rolling average of grant years 2012, 2013, 2014 = 33,766: • 33,850 by 2015 (2013-2015) • 33,934 by 2016 (2014-2016) • 34,019 by 2017 (2015-2017) Performance Measures: • Number of safety belt citations issued during grant-funded enforcement and mobilizations Benchmarks: • 2012-2014 safety belt citations and warnings made during grantfunded enforcement activities and mobilizations = 33,766 o 2013-2015 three-year rolling average – 36,595 Goal #4: To increase teen safety belt usage by 1 percent usage annually to: • 68% by 2015 • 69% by 2016 • 70% by 2017 Performance Measures: • Percent observed belt use for teen front seat outboard occupants Benchmarks: • 2014 teen safety belt usage rate = 67% o 2015 teen safety belt usage rate = 68% Goal #5: To increase safety belt usage by commercial motor vehicle drivers by 1 percent during surveys conducted biennially to: • 82% by 2016 • 83% by 2018 Page 4 of 117 Performance Measures: • Percent observed safety belt use for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers Benchmarks: • 2012 CMV driver usage rate = 81% o 2014 CMV driver usage rate = 81% Highway Safety Plan and Performance Plan A section of the 2017 HSP is dedicated to Occupant Restraints. The occupant protection strategies in this application are taken from the 2017 Highway Safety Plan and are divided into the following sections: Child Passengers, Teen Passengers/Drivers, and General Occupant Protection. Child Passengers • Produce, promote and distribute educational materials addressing: the proper installation of child safety seats and booster seat use • Maintain a state CPS Advisory Committee and implement their recommendations where appropriate • Conduct six Certified Child Passenger Safety Technician classes statewide • Certify an additional CPS Instructor each year • Maintain a statewide computer list-serve of CPS technicians and instructors • Support child safety seat checkup events and educational programs through local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, Safe Communities, hospitals and health care agencies, safety organizations such as Safe Kids, and the Traffic and Highway Safety Division • Work with partners and with the media to garner support for annual CPS Week in September • When funding is available, provide child safety seats/booster seats and supplies to inspection stations for distribution to low income families (note: inspection stations must meet guidelines established by Missouri’s CPS Advisory Committee and must be listed on the NHTSA Web site http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/childps/CPSFittingStations/CPSinspection.ht m) • Develop educational pieces to heighten awareness concerning the life-saving and economic benefits derived from enhanced child safety seat laws • Conduct Child Restraint Observational Survey every other year Page 5 of 117 • Conduct annual CPS enforcement and public awareness campaign during National CPS Week • Focus educational materials toward booster seats and children remaining in the back seat of a vehicle until age 13 • Create educational materials to accommodate the non-english speaking and deaf/hard of hearing communities Teen Passengers/Drivers • Conduct annual teen statewide safety belt enforcement and public awareness campaign in March followed by the teen safety belt observational survey in April • Conduct youth safety belt selective traffic enforcement efforts statewide coupled with press releases, radio and internet spots, and materials targeting young drivers • Promote the youth seat belt campaigns; modify or enhance campaigns as needed to keep a fresh approach for the teen audience • Develop youth safety belt public awareness materials with input from young drivers • Educate youth on the importance of safety belts through programs such as Team Spirit Youth Traffic Safety Leadership Conferences and Reunion, Battle of the Belt/It Only Takes One, ThinkFirst and the Young Traffic Offenders Program General Occupant Protection • Conduct NHTSA-approved statewide safety belt observational survey on an annual basis • Produce, promote and distribute educational materials addressing occupant protection laws, the importance of wearing safety belts all the time, and air bag safety • Promote the Saved by the Belt survivor program; maintain a database of survivors to contact those who are willing to speak publicly about their life-saving experience • Conduct annual Click It or Ticket selective traffic enforcement wave during May/June, augmented with collateral public information and awareness efforts such as press releases, observational surveys, and educational programs utilizing the Click It or Ticket safety belt campaign message • Compliment annual Click It or Ticket campaign with quarterly occupant protection enforcement days, augmented with collateral public information and awareness efforts namely through press releases. • Conduct paid media efforts and work toward continual increases in earned media efforts • Develop educational pieces to heighten awareness concerning the life-saving and economic benefits derived from primary safety belt laws Page 6 of 117 • Continue funding traffic occupant protection strategies training to law enforcement agencies throughout the state. • Provide motivational educational speakers for law enforcement personnel during training events such as the annual Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Advisory Council (LETSAC) conference Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan Missouri has a unique advantage in that the State’s Highway Safety Plan and Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP) are coordinated out of the same office. Missouri’s Commercial Motor Vehicle Program Manager is based in the Office of Highway Safety. The Office of Highway Safety coordinates NHTSA and FMCSA funded traffic safety projects for both CMV and non-CMVs, thus allowing for more efficient use of funds and better collaborative efforts. There are two program strategies in the MCSAP CVSP that address safety belt use by commercial vehicle drivers. Missouri conducts a Commercial Motor Vehicle driver safety belt use observational survey on a biannual basis. In 2012, the safety belt use rate was 81 percent and remained the same (81%) in 2014. Below is the program strategies included in the 2016 MCSAP CVSP. Program Strategy: Statewide public information/education and enforcement efforts will be conducted in an effort to increase the CMV driver safety belt use rate. Program Activity Plan: Public Information and education FY 2016 efforts will include: Program Strategy: • Information at MoDOT Motor Carrier Services office • Press Releases during Operation Safe Driver • Safety Belt promotional information in the Motor Carrier Services News on Wheels, which is mailed to every carrier registered to operate in Missouri • Work with Missouri Trucking Association to share the safety message • Seatbelt use is discussed during Motor Carrier Services training sessions • Public education and awareness campaigns Safety belt enforcement projects will be conducted with a focus on observed safety belt violations which typically results in an inspection. Page 7 of 117 Program Activity Plan: Missouri State Highway Patrol, Kansas City Police Department and St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (MCSAP) officers will maintain a zero tolerance policy on seatbelt enforcement involving commercial vehicle drivers on all CMV stops and inspections. MoDOT Motor Carrier Services sends letters to carriers who employ a driver who received a seat belt violation. The letter reminds the carrier to encourage their drivers to buckle up and reminds them of the CSA and other consequences of not wearing a safety belt. Page 8 of 117 vi. Comprehensive Occupant Protection Program To qualify for an occupant protection grant, States must submit an occupant protection plan that describes programs the State will implement for achieving reduction in traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries on public roads. Missouri conducted a NHTSA-facilitated Occupant Protection Program Assessment March 31, 2014, to April 4, 2014. Input from the assessment was used when developing the multi-year strategic plan. Mike Stapp has been designated as the occupant protection coordinator and Missouri has established a statewide occupant protection task force. Over the past 7 years, safety belt use in Missouri has ranged between 76-80 percent. As a result, Missouri must apply as a lower seat belt use rate state and implement a comprehensive occupant protection program. The chart below shows Missouri’s seat belt use rate for the past five years. % of Safety Belt/Passenger Vehicle Restraint Use by Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 79% 79% 80% 79% 80% The percent of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupants killed and seriously injured in crashes remain essentially unchanged between 2009 and 2013. The percent dropped to 62.2% in 2014. Below is a chart showing the number of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities and serious injuries from 2009-2014 and corresponding percent of unrestrained passenger vehicle occupants. Fatalities/Serious Injuries by Percent of Unrestrained by Year Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Occupant Fatalities 693 634 615 619 579 578 Unbelted Fatalities 425 392 380 396 334 327 % Unrestrained 67.1% 67.7% 68.6% 70.8% 63.4% 62.2% Total Occupant Serious Injuries 5,359 4,994 4,451 4,350 3,925 3,684 Unbelted Serious Injuries 1,730 1,598 1,452 1,449 1,240 1,175 % Unrestrained 35.6% 35.9% 36.5% 37.5% 34.4% 35.1% Page 9 of 117 Missouri’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (Missouri’s Blueprint to Save More Lives) identifies nine strategies having the greatest potential to save more lives and reduce serious injuries. One of the “Necessary Nine” is to increase safety belt use. Aggressive implementation of this strategy and the other eight will lead to more lives being saved. The task force includes safety partners throughout Missouri who will work diligently to develop, implement, enforce and evaluate the comprehensive occupant protection program. The overall outcome is to educate and motivate citizens to buckle up every vehicle occupant in an age appropriate restraint or safety belt on every trip. The program involves a combination of enforcement, public information and education. This two-year comprehensive occupant protection program includes the following components as outlined in NHTSA’s Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs No. 20 – Occupant Protection. I. Program Management The Highway Safety office provides centralized occupant protection planning, implementation, coordination, and program monitoring. The Highway Safety Office will: FY 2015 • Develop a multi-year implementation plan for the Occupant Protection Strategic Plan o The Highway Safety Office Occupant Protection Coordinator in cooperation with the Occupant Protection Subcommittee will develop the implementation plan. The Highway Safety Office, in conjunction with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control – National Center for Injury Prevention and Control hosted a “Motor Vehicle Project Workshop” focusing on seat belt use in Missouri. This workshop served as the Occupant Protection Summit and pulled together several key stakeholders to assist in developing a comprehensive Occupant Protection Plan. The workshop was conducted June 18 – 19, 2014. The Occupant Protection Subcommittee was formed by attendees at this workshop. The Occupant Protection Subcommittee met on December 11, 2014 and March 24, 2015. A majority of these initial meetings were to educate the Committee members on the responsibility of the new Committee, the requirements set Page 10 of 117 forth under MAP-21 for low seatbelt use states, and the need to develop and implement the Occupant Protection Strategic Plan. Subcommittee members will discuss details of the DRAFT Strategic Plan during the next quarterly meetings. A list of Subcommittee members and meeting minutes & agendas are included in Appendix D. o Once the plan is completed, the OP Subcommittee and Coordinator will assume the leadership role in educating the MCRS Executive Committee and the 7 MCRS Regional Coalitions about the elements of the plan. In addition they will seek the Regional Coalitions’ support to assist in implementing the Plan. • Continue to encourage the seven Regional Coalitions for Roadway Safety to expand the integration of occupant protection programs into their overall safety programs. They should implement both enforcement and educational Occupant Protection programs. o Maps of safety belt usage by site as well as regional safety belt use numbers from the 2014 statewide observational survey were provided to the seven Regional Coalitions prior to the 2015 Click It or Ticket Campaign. With the observational survey conducted in four counties per Region, the seven Regions will now have detailed survey data specific to their area to better plan and implement local enforcement and education programs related to safety belt use. • Evaluate the effectiveness of the occupant protection program by o Conducting a Statewide Seat Belt Observational Survey and a Teen Safety Belt Observational Survey o Monitoring the percent of safety belt use by occupants killed in traffic crashes o Monitoring the percent of safety belt use by teens killed in traffic crashes o Monitoring the number of occupant protection citations and warnings. FY 2016 • Implement the multi-year Occupant Protection Strategic Plan Page 11 of 117 o The Highway Safety Office Occupant Protection Coordinator in cooperation with the Occupant Protection Subcommittee will monitor the status of the implementation plan. o The OP Subcommittee and Coordinator will continue to educate the MCRS Executive Committee and the 7 MCRS Regional Coalitions about the elements of the plan. In addition, they will continue to seek the Regional Coalitions support to assist in implementing the Plan. • Continue to encourage the seven Regional Coalitions for Roadway Safety to expand the integration of occupant protection programs into their overall safety programs. They should implement both enforcement and educational Occupant Protection programs. o Updated maps of safety belt usage by site as well as regional safety belt use numbers from the 2015 observational study will continue to be provided to the seven Regional Coalitions prior to the 2016 Click It or Ticket Campaign. The seven Regions will use this detailed survey data specific to their area to better plan and implement local enforcement and education programs related to safety belt use. • Evaluate the effectiveness of the occupant protection program by o Conducting a Statewide Seat Belt Observational Survey and a Teen Safety Belt Observational Survey o Monitoring the percent of safety belt use by occupants killed in traffic crashes o Monitoring the percent of safety belt use by teens killed in traffic crashes o Monitoring the number of occupant protection citations and warnings. FY 2017 • Continue implementation of the multi-year Occupant Protection Strategic Plan o The Highway Safety Office Occupant Protection Coordinator in cooperation with the Occupant Protection Subcommittee will monitor the status of the implementation plan. o The OP Subcommittee and Coordinator will continue to educate the MCRS Executive Committee and the 7 MCRS Regional Page 12 of 117 Coalitions about the elements of the plan. In addition, they will continue to seek the Regional Coalitions support to assist in implementing the Plan. • Continue to encourage the seven Regional Coalitions for Roadway Safety to expand the integration of occupant protection programs into their overall safety programs. They should implement both enforcement and educational Occupant Protection programs. o Updated maps of safety belt usage by site as well as regional safety belt use numbers from the 2016 observational survey will continue to be provided to the seven Regional Coalitions prior to the 2017 Click It or Ticket Campaign. The seven Regions will use this survey data specific to their area to better plan and implement local enforcement and education programs related to safety belt use. • Evaluate the effectiveness of the occupant protection program by o Conducting a Statewide Seat Belt Observational Survey and a Teen Safety Belt Observational Survey o Monitoring the percent of safety belt use by occupants killed in traffic crashes o Monitoring the percent of safety belt use by teens killed in traffic crashes o Monitoring the number of occupant protection citations and warnings. II. Legislation, Regulation, and Policy Efforts continue to enact new laws and strengthen existing occupant protection laws, regulations and policies to increase the use of age appropriate restraints and safety belts. The Highway Safety Office will: FY 2015 • Support efforts to alter legislation that would increase age appropriate restraint use/ safety belt use, i.e. primary enforcement, increase the fine for not wearing a safety belt and local primary safety belt ordinances • Continue to include in our grant application a question regarding the status of the agency’s internal safety belt policy for all personnel • Support and increase awareness about Missouri Department of Transportation’s Guide for Drivers on MoDOT Business official policy that “seat belt use is mandatory for the driver and all passengers” Page 13 of 117 • Monitor the number of primary safety belt local ordinances. As of June, 2014, there are 40 local primary safety belt ordinances. FY 2016 • Support efforts to alter legislation that would increase age appropriate restraint use/ safety belt use, i.e. primary enforcement, increase the fine for not wearing a safety belt and local primary safety belt ordinances • Continue to include in our grant application a question regarding the status of the agency’s internal safety belt policy for all personnel • Support and increase awareness about Missouri Department of Transportation’s Guide for Drivers on MoDOT Business official policy that “seat belt use is mandatory for the driver and all passengers” • If a primary safety belt law has not passed, monitor the number of primary safety belt local ordinances. FY 2017 III. • Support efforts to alter legislation that would increase age appropriate restraint use/ safety belt use, i.e. primary enforcement, increase the fine for not wearing a safety belt and local primary safety belt ordinances • Continue to include in our grant application a question regarding the status of the agency’s internal safety belt policy for all personnel • Support and increase awareness about Missouri Department of Transportation’s Guide for Drivers on MoDOT Business official policy that “seat belt use is mandatory for the driver and all passengers” • If a primary safety belt law has not passed, monitor the number of primary safety belt local ordinances. Enforcement Program A core element of our occupant protection program is strong, sustained enforcement of existing laws coupled with public education. To advance these elements, the Highway Safety Office will: FY 2015 • Support vigorous enforcement of occupant protection laws through special OP funding and incentive programs o Click It or Ticket Mobilization Page 14 of 117 o Four Quarterly Occupant Protection Enforcement initiatives established by Missouri’s Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Advisory Council o National Child Passenger Safety Week • Offering specialized training for law enforcement officers on the technical aspects of child safety seats and corresponding laws, and officer safety and safety belt use • Increase law enforcement officers’ awareness of the occupant protection components of the Graduated Driver License Law and encourage strong enforcement of these laws. • Monitor the number of LE agencies participating in the mobilizations and the number of overtime hours. • Monitor the number of occupant protection citations and warnings. FY 2016 • Support vigorous enforcement of occupant protection laws through special OP funding and incentive programs o Click It or Ticket Mobilization o Four Quarterly Occupant Protection Enforcement initiatives established by Missouri’s Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Advisory Council o National Child Passenger Safety Week • Offering specialized training for law enforcement officers on the technical aspects of child safety seats and the corresponding laws, and officer safety and safety belt use • Increase law enforcement officers’ awareness of the occupant protection components of the Graduated Driver License Law and encourage strong enforcement of these laws. • Monitor the number of LE agencies participating in the mobilizations and the number of overtime hours. • Monitor the number of occupant protection citations and warnings. FY 2017 • Support vigorous enforcement of occupant protection laws through special OP funding and incentive programs Page 15 of 117 o Click It or Ticket Mobilization o Four Quarterly Occupant Protection Enforcement initiatives established by Missouri’s Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Advisory Council o National Child Passenger Safety Week IV. • Offering specialized training for law enforcement officers on the technical aspects of child safety seats and the corresponding laws, and officer safety and safety belt use • Increase law enforcement officers’ awareness of the occupant protection components of the Graduated Driver License Law and encourage strong enforcement of these laws. • Monitor the number of LE agencies participating in the mobilizations and the number of overtime hours. • Monitor the number of occupant protection citations and warnings. Public Information and Education Program To enhance public awareness and knowledge about the value of using safety belts and age-appropriate restraints, the state’s media efforts have been and will continue to be strongly focused towards this effort. The Highway Safety Office will enlist the support of media to implement a well-planned public information program as well as: FY 2015 • Support each OP law enforcement initiative with a corresponding public information campaign designed to increase the public’s awareness of aggressive enforcement during specified periods • Continue to develop specialized messages and educational programs that target low-use populations like teens, pick-up drivers, African American drivers/vehicle occupants and rural populations • Continue to use NHTSA and other State developed OP public information materials to their fullest extent • Publicize results of OP surveys and relevant data through press releases and events • Continue to encourage news media to report belt use and non-use in motor vehicle crashes Page 16 of 117 • Encourage MCRS Regional Coalitions to host media events for Click It or Ticket and National Child Passenger Safety Week • Include Occupant Protection questions on our annual Highway Safety Drivers Survey FY 2016 • Support each OP law enforcement initiative with a corresponding public information campaign designed to increase the public’s awareness of aggressive enforcement during specified periods • Continue to develop specialized messages and educational programs that target low-use populations like teens, pick-up drivers, African American drivers/vehicle occupants and rural populations • Continue to use NHTSA and other State developed OP public information materials to the fullest extent • Publicize results of OP surveys and relevant data through press releases and events • Continue to encourage news media to report belt use and non-use in motor vehicle crashes • Encourage MCRS Regional Coalitions to host media events for Click It or Ticket and National Child Passenger Safety Week • Include Occupant Protection questions on our annual Highway Safety Drivers Survey FY 2017 • Support each OP law enforcement initiative with a corresponding public information campaign designed to increase the public’s awareness of aggressive enforcement during specified periods • Continue to develop specialized messages and educational programs that target low-use populations like teens, pick-up drivers, African American drivers/vehicle occupants and rural populations • Continue to use NHTSA and other State developed OP public information materials to the fullest extent • Publicize results of OP surveys and relevant data through press releases and events • Continue to encourage news media to report belt use and non-use in motor vehicle crashes Page 17 of 117 V. • Encourage MCRS Regional Coalitions to host media events for Click It or Ticket and National Child Passenger Safety Week • Include Occupant Protection questions on our annual Highway Safety Drivers Survey Health/Medical Program Failing to wear a safety belt or use age-appropriate restraints is a major public health issue. Efforts will be made to integrate occupant protection elements into health programs. The Highway Safety Office will: FY 2015 • Continue to utilize health care professionals as speakers at press events, conferences and summits • Continue to support and encourage hospital-based policies on transport of new babies/children in age appropriate restraint systems when leaving the hospital • Continue to support health department’s educational programs to encourage use of age appropriate restraints • Continue to encourage physicians to educate patients, parents, and other care-givers about the need to use age appropriate restraints • Continue to utilize medical expense data to support the positive results of using age appropriate child restraints and safety belts FY 2016 • Continue to utilize health care professionals as speakers at press events, conferences and summits • Continue to support and encourage hospital-based policies on transport of new babies/children in age appropriate restraint systems when leaving the hospital • Continue to support health department’s educational programs to encourage use of age appropriate restraints • Continue to encourage physicians to educate patients, parents, and other care-givers about the need to use age appropriate restraints • Continue to utilize medical expense data to support the positive results of using age appropriate child restraints and safety belts Page 18 of 117 FY 2017 VI. • Continue to utilize health care professionals as speakers at press events, conferences and summits • Continue to support and encourage hospital-based policies on transport of new babies/children in age appropriate restraint systems when leaving the hospital • Continue to support health department’s educational programs to encourage use of age appropriate restraints • Continue to encourage physicians to educate patients, parents, and other care-givers about the need to use age appropriate restraints • Continue to utilize medical expense data to support the positive results of using age appropriate child restraints and safety belts Child Passenger Safety Program Promotion of proper use of age-appropriate child restraints is a key component of the occupant protection program. To help achieve that objective the Highway Safety Office will: FY 2015 • Maintain the state Child Passenger Safety Advisory Committee • Host a Child Passenger Safety Advisory Committee annual meeting to strengthen communication and discuss program direction and recommendations • Increase the number of Child Passenger Safety Technicians and Instructors • Conduct and support child safety seat educational programs and displays (e.g. checkup events, community fairs, presentation for community groups, etc.) • Garner support for National CPS week in September from Regional Coalitions, Safety partners, CPS Advisory Committee, media and other advocates • Support the Buckle Up Missouri CPS Conference in Springfield, Missouri – May of 2015 FY 2016 • Maintain the state Child Passenger Safety Advisory Committee Page 19 of 117 • Host a Child Passenger Safety Advisory Committee annual meeting to strengthen communication and discuss program direction and recommendations • Increase the number of Child Passenger Safety Technicians and Instructors • Conduct and support child safety seat educational programs and displays (e.g. checkup events, community fairs, presentation for community groups, etc.) • Garner support for National CPS week in September from Regional Coalitions, Safety partners, CPS Advisory Committee, media and other advocates FY 2017 VII. • Maintain the state Child Passenger Safety Advisory Committee • Host a Child Passenger Safety Advisory Committee annual meeting to train regional representatives, strengthen communication and discuss program direction and recommendations • Increase the number of Child Passenger Safety Technicians and Instructors • Conduct and support child safety seat educational programs and displays (e.g. checkup events, community fairs, presentation for community groups, etc.) • Garner support for National CPS week in September from Regional Coalitions, Safety partners, CPS Advisory Committee, media and other advocates School-Based Program Efforts will be made to incorporate occupant protection principles into schoolbased curricula and programs. To help accomplish this goal, the Highway Safety Office will: FY 2015 • Continue to encourage the Highway Safety Office and the MCRS Regional Coalitions to support OP school-based programs (e.g. Battle of the Belt, Tween Programs, Buckle Buddy the Buckle Up Dragon) • Continue to support OP programs through the Highway Safety Office and the MCRS Regional Coalitions at school-based health fairs, extra-curricular activities, state championship events, etc. Page 20 of 117 • Continue to support OP activities of the Partners in Prevention. Partners in Prevention are a conglomerate of Universities implementing various prevention programs. • Continue to support the Highway Safety Office high school-based Team Spirit and Team Spirit Reunion programs. These programs develop school-based highway safety action plans which include an occupant protection component. FY 2016 • Continue to encourage the Highway Safety Office and the MCRS Regional Coalitions to support OP school-based programs (e.g. Battle of the Belt, Tween Programs, Buckle Buddy the Buckle Up Dragon) • Continue to support OP programs through the Highway Safety Office and the MCRS Regional Coalitions at school-based health fairs, extra-curricular activities, state championship events, etc. • Continue to support OP activities of the Partners in Prevention. Partners in Prevention are a conglomerate of Universities implementing various prevention programs. • Continue to support the Highway Safety Office high school-based Team Spirit and Team Spirit Reunion programs. These programs develop school-based highway safety action plans which include an occupant protection component. FY 2017 • Continue to encourage the Highway Safety Office and the MCRS Regional Coalitions to support OP school-based programs (e.g. Battle of the Belt, Tween Programs, Buckle Buddy the Buckle Up Dragon) • Continue to support OP programs through the Highway Safety Office and the MCRS Regional Coalitions at school-based health fairs, extra-curricular activities, state championship events, etc. • Continue to support OP activities of the Partners in Prevention. Partners in Prevention are a conglomerate of Universities implementing various prevention programs. • Continue to support the Highway Safety Office high school-based Team Spirit and Team Spirit Reunion programs. These programs develop school-based highway safety action plans which include an occupant protection component. • Implement the new It Only Takes One program involving peer-to-peer highway safety education and includes parent, law enforcement and media components. Page 21 of 117 VIII. Worksite Program Employers should develop strong workplace occupant protection use policies and enforcement strategies. These programs should stress the importance of safety belt use both on and off the job. To advance this program, the Highway Safety Office will: FY 2015 • Partner with the Missouri based Safety Councils to host employer OP educational programs. Topics will include the development of OP policies, enforcement strategies, health care costs, and potential legal ramifications. • Participate as requested in worksite based health fairs and events • Provide OP speakers for worksite based educational programs FY 2016 • Partner with the Missouri based Safety Councils to host employer OP educational programs. Topics will include the development of OP policies, enforcement strategies, health care costs, and potential legal ramifications. • Participate as requested in worksite based health fairs and events • Provide OP speakers for worksite based educational programs FY 2017 IX. • Partner with the Missouri based Safety Councils to host employer OP educational programs. Topics will include the development of OP policies, enforcement strategies, health care costs, and potential legal ramifications. • Participate as requested in worksite based health fairs and events • Provide OP speakers for worksite based educational programs Outreach Program Engaging individuals and organizations outside the traditional highway safety community in occupant protection education is key to advancing the use of safety belts and age-appropriate restraints. These programs not only increase knowledge about occupant protection but stimulate community support. To expand community involvement, the Highway Safety Office will: FY 2015 • Continue to support the seven MCRS Regional Coalitions and their occupant protection initiatives Page 22 of 117 • Utilize the State MCRS Public Information Subcommittee to develop Occupant protection outreach and public information materials for use by the MCRS Regional Coalitions • Develop occupant protection displays for use at the Missouri State Fair and other major community events • Continue to support the use of the nine seat belt convincers at public events throughout the State • Continue to support the use of crashed car/truck displays at public events and parades • Continue to promote the Saved by the Belt survivor program FY 2016 • Continue to support the seven MCRS Regional Coalitions and their occupant protection initiatives • Utilize the State MCRS Public Information Subcommittee to develop Occupant protection outreach and public information materials for use by the MCRS Regional Coalitions • Develop occupant protection displays for use at the Missouri State Fair and other major community events • Continue to support the use of the nine seat belt convincers at public events throughout the State • Continue to support the use of crashed car/truck displays at public events and parades • Continue to promote the Saved by the Belt survivor program FY 2017 • Continue to support the seven MCRS Regional Coalitions and their occupant protection initiatives • Utilize the State MCRS Public Information Subcommittee to develop Occupant protection outreach and public information materials for use by the MCRS Regional Coalitions • Develop occupant protection displays for use at the Missouri State Fair and other major community events • Continue to support the use of the nine seat belt convincers at public events throughout the State Page 23 of 117 X. • Continue to support the use of crashed car/truck displays at public events and parades • Continue to promote the Saved by the Belt survivor program Evaluation Program Several types of evaluations will be used to measure the progress of the occupant protection program strategies. To monitor the progress, the Highway Safety Office will: FY 2015 • Conduct a statewide safety belt observational survey using the new NHTSA approved methodology. This survey will result in safety belt use rates not only for the state but also for the 7 MCRS Regional Coalitions • Conduct a teen safety belt observational survey at 150 high schools throughout MO. This survey will result in safety belt use rates not only for the state but also for the 7 MCRS Regional Coalitions • Conduct a child restraint observational survey at 21 locations in 18 counties at local retail stores • Conduct a Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Belt Driver Survey at 250 locations in 76 Missouri counties. • The following performance measures will be monitored o Number of unrestrained vehicle occupant fatalities and serious injuries o Number of unrestrained vehicle occupant fatal and serious injury crashes o Percent of unbelted drivers killed in crashes o Percent of unbelted teen driver (15-19) killed in crashes o Number of local primary safety belt o Number of occupant protection citations and warnings o Number of LE agencies participating in OP mobilizations o Number of overtime hours spent on OP enforcement FY 2016 • Conduct a statewide safety belt observational survey using the new NHTSA approved methodology. This survey will result in safety belt use rates not only for the state but also for the 7 MCRS Regional Coalitions Page 24 of 117 • Conduct a teen safety belt observational survey at 150 high schools throughout MO. This survey will result in safety belt use rates not only for the state but also for the 7 MCRS Regional Coalitions • Conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness of local primary safety belt ordinances • The following performance measures will be monitored o Number of unrestrained vehicle occupant fatalities and serious injuries o Number of unrestrained vehicle occupant fatal and serious injury crashes o Percent of unbelted drivers killed in crashes o Percent of unbelted teen driver (15-19) killed in crashes o Number of local primary safety belt o Number of occupant protection citations and warnings o Number of LE agencies participating in OP mobilizations o Number of overtime hours spent on OP enforcement FY 2017 • Conduct a statewide safety belt observational survey using the new NHTSA approved methodology. This survey will result in safety belt use rates not only for the state but also for the 7 MCRS Regional Coalitions • Conduct a child restraint observational survey at 21 locations in 18 counties at local retail stores • Conduct a Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Belt Driver Survey at 250 locations in 76 Missouri counties. • Conduct a NHTSA-facilitated Occupant Protection Program Assessment • The following performance measures will be monitored o Number of unrestrained vehicle occupant fatalities and serious injuries o Number of unrestrained vehicle occupant fatal and serious injury crashes o Percent of unbelted drivers killed in crashes o Percent of unbelted teen driver (15-19) killed in crashes o Number of local primary safety belt o Number of occupant protection citations and warnings Page 25 of 117 o Number of LE agencies participating in OP mobilizations o Number of overtime hours spent on OP enforcement Page 26 of 117 ii. Click It or Ticket Mobilization The State of Missouri has utilized the Click It or Ticket mobilization model for the past 13 years. Missouri will continue to use this model for future CIOT mobilizations, including participation in the FY2017 mobilization. The FY 2016 CIOT campaign funded local cities, counties and state patrol law enforcement agencies to conduct safety belt enforcement efforts between May 23 and June 5, 2016. Contract award amounts for enforcement include $125,280.00 to the Missouri State Highway Patrol, $330,501.00 to local cities and counties and $350,000.00 for paid media. Missouri also promoted the 2016 CIOT campaign by issuing pre and post news releases to local media and requiring all participating agencies to notify local media about their participation in the 2016 CIOT campaign and their final results. All enforcement efforts were coupled with an aggressive paid media campaign that began one week prior to the enforcement campaign and ran through the end of the campaign. Following the same plan as FY2016, the FY2017 contract award amounts total $120,000 to the Missouri State Highway Patrol, $232,103 to local cities and counties, and $350,000 for paid media. The FY2017 campaign will run May 22 – June 4, 2017. Missouri averages 171 participating law enforcement agencies for the CIOT national safety belt campaign. In 2017 Missouri plans to have a minimum of 150 police agencies participating in the Click it or Ticket Campaign. Through the work of the new Law Enforcement Liaisons (LEL), we have already added almost twenty new departments to our campaign list, and believe that by next year the number will double. The LEL’s have been working diligently contacting departments and encouraging them to participate in various campaigns. The Highway Safety Office has brought the idea of nighttime enforcement to our grant meetings with the departments and encouraged departments to think outside the box in this area. We have encouraged departments to come up with ideas on how to add nighttime enforcement to their current efforts. We will continue to encourage this at our upcoming meetings as we move forward in the future. As always we will be working with cities to encourage them to pass a primary seat belt ordinance. Currently Missouri has 53 locations covered by a primary seat belt ordinance accounting for approximately 24% of the population of Missouri. Page 27 of 117 Citations/Warnings Issued During the Click It or Ticket Mobilization Safety Belt Campaign* 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year 202 133 193 149 160 Participating Agencies 15,722 6,079 9,011 7,365 7,334 Hours Worked 28,905 18,523 17,195 17,131 14,332 Traffic Stops 21 5 6 3 2 Sobriety Checkpoints 386 147 193 167 239 DWI Arrests Safety Restraint 7,283 5,201 9,074 9,050 7,785 Citations/Warnings Child Passenger 330 164 369 377 132 Citations/Warnings 97 74 85 109 115 Felonies Stolen Vehicles 4 4 4 9 3 Recovered 471 217 242 503 316 Fugitives Apprehended 1,377 850 1,336 1,576 1,271 Suspended Licenses 3,311 2,303 3,149 3,284 2,792 Uninsured Motorists 10,046 6,571 8,754 8,682 8,069 Speeding 307 119 191 213 181 Reckless Driver 176 84 194 170 211 Drugs 11,964 8,199 9,086 9,491 9,355 Other *Source: MoDOT Traffic & Highway Safety Online Mobilization Activity Reporting Website. 2016 campaign results not available at the time this report was created. Page 28 of 117 AGENCIES CONTRACTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 2017 CLICK IT OR TICKET CAMPAIGN Belton Police Dept. Berkeley Police Dept. Bernie Police Dept. Bismark Police Dept. Blue Springs Police Dept. Boliver Police Dept Bonne Terre Police Dept. Boone County Sheriff's Dept. Bowling Green Police Dept Branson Police Dept Breckenridge Hills PD Brentwood Police Dept. Bridgeton Police Dept. Buchanan County Sheriff Butler Police Dept. Byrnes Mill Police Dept. Calverton Park Police Dept. Cape Girardeau County Sheriff's Dept. Cape Girardeau Police Dept. Carl Junction Police Dept. Carterville Police Dept. Charlack Police Dept. Chesterfield Police Dept. Clayton Police Dept. Clever Police Dept. Columbia Police Dept. Cottleville Police Dept. Crystal City Police Dept. DeSoto Police Dept. Dexter Police Dept. Doniphan Police Dept. Edgar Springs Police Dept. Ellisville Police Dept. Ellsinore Police Dept. Elsberry Police Dept. Essex Police Dept. Eureka Police Dept. Fair Grove Police Dept Festus Police Dept. Flordell Hills Police Dept. Fordland Police Dept. Foristell Police Dept. Franklin County Sheriff Fredericktown Police Dept. Gideon Police Dept. Glendale Police Dept. Grandby Police Dept. Grandview Police Dept. Greene County Sheriff Harrisonville Police Dept. Hayti Police Dept. Hazelwood Police Dept. Herculaneum Police Dept. Iberia Police Dept. Independence Police Dept. Jackson County Sheriff Jackson Police Dept. Jefferson City Police Dept. Jefferson County Sheriff Johnson Co. Sheriff's Dept. Jonesburg Police Dept. Joplin Police Dept. Kennett Police Dept. Kimberling City Police Dept. Kirkwood Police Dept. Laddonia Police Dept. Lawrence County Sheriff Leadington Police Dept. Lebanon Police Dept. Licking Police Dept. Lincoln County Sheriff's Dept. Lone Jack Police Dept. Macon County Sheriff Macon Police Dept. Madison County Sheriff Manchester Police Dept. Maries County Sheriff's Dept. Maryland Heights PD Merriam Woods Police Dept. Mexico Police Dept. Moberly Police Dept. Monett Police Dept. Montgomery County Sheriff Morgan County Sheriff Mount Vernon Police Dept. Mountain View Police Dept. New Bloomfield Police Dept. New Franklin Police Dept. New Haven Police Dept. Niangua Police Dept. Nixa Police Dept. Northwoods Police Dept. Oak Grove Police Dept. Odessa Police Dept. O'Fallon Police Dept. Old Monroe Police Dept. Olivette Police Dept. Oronogo Police Dept. Osceola Police Department Page 29 of 117 Overland Police Dept. Ozark Police Dept. Park Hills Police Dept. Parma Police Dept. Pevely Police Dept. Phelps County Sheriff's Dept. Plattsburg Police Dept. Poplar Bluff Police Dept. Potosi Police Dept. Puxico Police Dept. Republic Police Dept. Richland Police Dept. Richmond Police Dept. Rock Hill Police Dept. Rogersville Police Dept. Rolla Police Dept. Savannah Police Dept. Scott City Police Dept. Seneca Police Dept. Silex Police Dept. St. Charles County PD St. Clair County Sheriff St. Clair Police Dept. St. James Police Dept. St. John Police Dept. St. Joseph Police Dept. St. Louis Metro Police Dept. Sugar Creek Police Dept. Sullivan Police Dept. Sweet Springs Police Dept. Trenton Police Dept. Troy Police Dept. Union Police Dept. University City Police Dept. University of Central MO, DPS Van Buren Police Dept. Walnut Grove Police Dept. Warson Woods Police Dept. Washington Police Dept. Webb City Police Dept. Webster Groves Police Dept. Wellsvilel Police Dept. Wentzville Police Dept. Willard Police Dept Winfield Police Dept. Woodson Terrace PD ATCHISON HOLT Missouri Department of Transportation Transportation Planning 1-888-ASK-MODOT WWW.MODOT.ORG Date:02/20/2013 Page 30 of 117 PLATTE BUCHANAN ANDREW NODAWAY MCDONALD NEWTON JASPER BARTON VERNON BATES CASS JACKSON CLAY CLINTON DEKALB GENTRY WORTH DADE CEDAR ST. CLAIR HENRY JOHNSON SALINE STONE GREENE TANEY WEBSTER CAMDEN MILLER OZARK DOUGLAS WRIGHT LACLEDE MONITEAU COOPER PULASKI COLE AUDRAIN HOWELL TEXAS PHELPS MARIES OSAGE DENT OREGON SHANNON LINCOLN RIPLEY CARTER REYNOLDS IRON WASHINGTON ST. LOUIS BUTLER WAYNE MADISON DUNKLIN SCOTT PEMISCOT NEW MADRID STODDARD BOLLINGER CAPE GIRARDEAU PERRY ST. LOUIS CITY STE. GENEVIEVE ST. FRANCOIS JEFFERSON ST. CHARLES MISSISSIPPI 70% of the State's Population FRANKLIN WARREN PIKE CRAWFORD GASCONADE MONTGOMERY RALLS MARION LEWIS CLARK CALLAWAY MONROE SHELBY KNOX SCOTLAND BOONE RANDOLPH MACON ADAIR SCHUYLER HOWARD MORGAN DALLAS CHRISTIAN HICKORY BENTON PETTIS POLK CARROLL CHARITON LINN SULLIVAN PUTNAM ghsmdata01/mapping and customer service/map projects/traffic and highway saftey/missouri_census_70_percent.mxd BARRY GRUNDY LIVINGSTON LAFAYETTE LAWRENCE RAY CALDWELL DAVIESS HARRISON MERCER Traffic and Highway Safety 830 MoDOT Drive P. O. Box 270 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Missouri Department of Transportation Patrick K. McKenna, Director 573.751.4161 Fax: 573.634-5977 1.800-800-2358 April 7, 2016 Dear Chief/Sheriff: The annual Click It or Ticket safety belt campaign is soon approaching and once again the MoDOT Traffic & Highway Safety Division asks for your help in increasing safety belt use in Missouri. Since 2010, 3,665 vehicle occupants have been killed on Missouri’s roadways with 66 percent being unrestrained. Missouri has experienced 249 traffic crash fatalities so far in 2016, with 61 percent of the vehicle occupants being unrestrained. This is a 11 percent increase in fatalities from last year at this time. Please help encourage motorists to buckle up through stepped up enforcement and education during this year’s Click It or Ticket Enforcement Campaign, which runs May 23 – June 5, 2016. Enforcement of the seat belt laws, whether the state’s secondary law or local primary ordinances, is essential in ensuring motorists Arrive Alive at their destinations. Enclosed with this letter are reporting instructions for recording your citation and warning information in the online mobilization reporting system. This is important to complete so the public can be informed of our efforts and for required reporting to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In addition to the reporting instructions, pre & post press releases and safety belt talking points are also included for your use in educating the public and your officers regarding safety belt use in Missouri and the importance of buckling up. More information is available at www.TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov. Thank you in advance for your participation in this year’s Click It or Ticket Campaign. If you have any questions please contact Mike Stapp at (573) 751-0599 or [email protected] Regards, Bill Whitfield Highway Safety Director Enclosures Page 31 of 117 NEWS RELEASE For Release: May 2016 For More Information Contact: (Department Contact and Phone Number) Brake for Seat Belts (Name of Agency) to Participate in Click It or Ticket Enforcement (Name of City or County, State) – [Organization Name] will be joining with statewide law enforcement May 23 – June 5 for an aggressive “Click It or Ticket” mobilization to crack down on Missouri’s seat belt violations. Six out of 10 people killed in Missouri traffic crashes are unbuckled. And even with all the advancements in automobile safety and education on the importance of seat belt use, Missouri’s seat belt use has remained relatively unchanged in the last six years and consistently below the national average. Missouri has a 79 percent seat belt use, which is well below the national average of 87 percent. Teens and pick-up truck drivers are among those least likely to buckle up at 67 and 63 percent. “Every day someone dies in a crash in Missouri because they weren’t buckled up,” said [Local Official, Title]. “We will be pulling out all the stops to ensure motorists are buckling up.” Seat belt use is the single most effective way to protect people and reduce fatalities in motor vehicle crashes. Buckle Up and Arrive Alive. For information on Missouri seatbelt usage, visit www.saveMOlives.com. Page 32 of 117 NEWS RELEASE For Release: June 2016 For More Information Contact: (Department Contact and Phone Number) (Name of Agency) Releases Results of Click It or Ticket Enforcement Motorists Reminded to Buckle Up and Arrive Alive (Name of City or County) – The (Name of Agency) participated in the national Click It or Ticket mobilization conducted May 23 – June 5. During the enforcement effort, officers issued a total of (number) traffic tickets including: (number) seat belt tickets; (number) speeding tickets; (number) driving while intoxicated; and (number) other traffic violations. (Number) felony arrests were made as a result of the crackdown. “Seat belts are your single best defense in a crash,” stated (Name of Chief or Sheriff). “Law enforcement will continue to encourage drivers to make a simple, smart choice to buckle up and Arrive Alive.” Six out of 10 people killed in Missouri traffic crashes are unbuckled. Missouri’s seat belt use has remained relatively unchanged in the last six years. Missouri has a 79 percent seat belt use, which is well below the national average of 87 percent. Teens and pick-up truck drivers are among those least likely to buckle up at 67 and 63 percent. Buckle up and Arrive Alive. For more information on Missouri’s seat belt use, visit www.saveMOlives.com. ### Page 33 of 117 Click It or Ticket 2016 Don’t forget, the annual Click It or Ticket Campaign runs May 23 – June 5, 2016 Please help encourage Missourians to BUCKLE UP during this campaign. Since 2010, 3,021 vehicle occupants killed in Missouri; 1,826 (67%) were not belted! Please report your citation results to Highway Safety’s Mobilization site: 1. Go to the online mobilization reporting site at http://mobilization.rejis.org/ 2. Use the drop down arrows to select the “2016 Click it or Ticket Enforcement” mobilization and select your law enforcement department. 3. Enter your department’s ORI, and enter the password “buckle”. 4. Next, enter all data collected for the campaign, then click “Calc” and “Save”. (Note: “Save” uploads your data to the site. You can then select your entry to print.) Page 34 of 117 Talking Points for Click It or Ticket May/June 2016 General Talking Points Click It or Ticket enforcement will take place May 23 – June 5. This year’s campaign will focus on unbelted drivers and passengers as well as child safety seat violations. Six out of 10 vehicle occupants killed in 2014 Missouri traffic crashes are unrestrained. In 2014, 767 people were killed in traffic crashes on Missouri’s roadways, and 62 percent of the vehicle occupants were not restrained. Even with all the advancements in automobile safety and education on the importance of seat belt use, Missouri’s seat belt use has remained relatively unchanged in the last six years and consistently below the national average. Missouri has a 79 percent seat belt use rate, which is well below the national average of 87 percent (2014 data). Source: 2014 SB Survey Teens and pick-up truck drivers are among those least likely to buckle up at 67 and 64.5 percent respectively. Source: 2014 SB Survey Missouri traffic fatalities have decreased by 39 percent since 2005 saving 3,269 lives. Yet seat belt use in Missouri has shown only slight improvement. 67.8% (7,213) of the vehicle occupants killed in 2005-2014 traffic crashes were unrestrained representing more than 1-1/2 times the amount of lives we have saved with our safety initiatives since 2005. Seat belts reduce the risk of dying in a crash by 45 percent. Missouri Safety Belt Usage Statistics from 2014 SB Survey and CPS survey Missouri’s overall safety belt usage rate is 79 percent, compared to 87 percent nationwide. This includes safety belt use on drivers and front seat passengers of passenger cars, SUVs, vans and pickup trucks. Pickup Trucks Cars Van SUV Teens 64.5 percent 79.4 percent 83.2 percent 83.5 percent 67 percent The 2014 data from 21 survey sites revealed a child safety seat usage rate of 91 percent for children under age four. Page 35 of 117 92 percent of surveyed children under age four were located in the back seat of the vehicle. Missouri’s child safety seat survey revealed that when drivers are not buckled up, 33 percent of children were not restrained either, but when the driver was buckled up, 98 percent of the children were also restrained. Missouri Safety Belt Usage Rates by Year Year Usage Rate Year Usage Rate 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 68% 68% 69% 73% 76% 77% 75% 77% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 76% 77% 76% 79% 79% 80% 79% 80% National Statistics from NHTSA: Too Many Are Not Getting the Message….. Younger motorists – young men in particular – are most at risk. Among teens and young adults, ages 18-34, who were killed in fatal crashes in 2013, 78.5% were NOT buckled up at the time of the crash—the highest percentage of any age group. The number jumps to 81.5% when only men in this age group are included. Pickup truck drivers and passengers are also at risk. In 2013, 81.9% of pickup truck occupants who were killed in traffic crashes were not buckled up at the time of the crashes, compared to 58.6% of passenger car occupants who were killed from not buckling up. Nationally, 62% of the 10,135 passenger vehicle occupants who were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes overnight (6 p.m. to 5:59 a.m.) in 2011 were not wearing their seat belts at the time of the fatal crashes, compared to 43% during the daytime hours. Seat Belts Save Lives! Worn correctly, seat belts reduce the risk of fatal injury by 45 percent for frontseat passenger car occupants — and by 60 percent for pickup truck, SUV and van occupants. In fatal crashes in 2013, 79 percent of passenger vehicle occupants who were thrown from their vehicles were killed. However, less than 1 percent of crash victims who were buckled up were totally ejected from their vehicles, compared Page 36 of 117 to 35 percent of those who were unbuckled. Motorists are 75 percent less likely to be killed in rollover crashes if they are buckled up. Click It or Ticket - Cracking Down on Low Belt Use Enforcement Works — Click It or Ticket has helped increase the observed national belt usage rate which rose to an all-time high of 87 percent in 2014, up from just 58 percent in 1994. Local efforts, national reach — Thousands of state and local law enforcement and highway safety officials across the nation will participate in the national Click It or Ticket enforcement mobilization from May 18 to May 31. Twenty-four hours a day — To convince more nighttime drivers to buckle up, the 2014 mobilization will include round-the-clock enforcement – but especially at night. We can’t stop now -- The national Click It or Ticket mobilization has increased seat belt use and saved lives, but there is still much more to do. Highly visible enforcement and greater public awareness can turn thousands of live lost into many more lives saved! For more information on Missouri seat belt usage, visit www.saveMOlives.com and for more information on the national campaign, visit http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/. Page 37 of 117 iii. Child Restraint Inspection Stations From 2001 to 2009, Missouri saw significant increases in child safety seat use each time the survey was conducted increasing from 64% to 91%. The latest survey conducted in 2014 reported that the usage rate remained unchanged at 91%. See Appendix B for the current survey report. The division plans to conduct child safety seat surveys every other year as funding allows. In 2006, when the Booster Seat bill was passed into law, a great deal of preliminary work needed to take place in order to notify the public about the new law, and to develop/enhance policy regarding the child passenger safety (CPS) program in Missouri, therefore the MO CPS Advisory Committee was formed. At that time, 10 individuals were selected to represent each region of the state. These members were professionals from organizations such as Fire Departments, Health Departments, Safety & Health Councils, Police Departments, Missouri State Highway Patrol, Hospitals, Safety Alliances, Safe Communities, and MoDOT. The State CPS Coordinator at the MoDOT Office of Highway Safety serves as the chairman. Members of the Advisory Committee are charged with the oversight of all aspects of the CPS program including inspection stations. Missouri has an active network of 207 child restraint inspection stations. A copy of the child restraint inspection stations and CPS Technicians/Instructors list and can be found in Appendix A. There continues to be a minimum of at least one currently certified child passenger safety technician available in the designated counties to assist parents/caregivers with the proper procedures to install a child restraint safely. In order to be eligible to receive child safety seats by the Highway Safety Office, inspection stations are required to be listed on the NHTSA website. These inspection stations are located around Missouri in areas that service the majority of the State’s population and are able to show evidence of outreach to underserved areas. Of the 115 counties in Missouri (see separate map in Appendix A), 85 (or 73%) have one or more inspection stations that employ certified CPS technicians during posted working hours. These technicians are certified through NHTSA’s Standardized CPS Course which qualifies them to provide education to parents or caregivers about the safest way for their children to travel. Although the list indicates 30 of the 115 counties do not have an inspection station listed on the NHTSA website, it should be noted that some CPS technicians service other counties surrounding the one in which they are located, which would realistically bring the count up closer to 80% coverage statewide. There are inspection stations in approximately 80% of the locations with median household income levels less than $32,000. Page 38 of 117 In counties without an inspection station, there are technicians who work in hospitals, departments of health, police departments, etc. who are not associated with an inspection station. Many of these technicians provide service to parents/caregivers who seek education on proper use of child safety seats even if they live in another county. A child restraint is not necessarily provided by the inspection station each time. Parents sometimes only need assistance with technique or in making appropriate seat selection for their child. It is estimated that most Missouri inspection stations conduct an average of 300 child safety seat inspections per year. These inspections can be scheduled by parents during organized CPS check-up events or by making an appointment with a certified technician that can be located by accessing the NHTSA website. At the end of each CPS training course supported by the Highway Safety office, instructors give a brief overview of the procedures to become an inspection station. Students are encouraged to talk with their employer/agency about the benefits of becoming an inspection station. The NHTSA form is provided to students so they can complete and submit it to the NHTSA contact. This process has been very successful in past years. Page 39 of 117 Evidence of successful outreach includes the distribution of 1,153 child safety seats ($52,181.90 from Section 405(b) and state road funds) to inspection stations in 2015 to low income families per guidelines set forth by the MO CPS Advisory Committee (a committee that was formed in 2006 as a result of the Booster Seat law that passed). Guidelines established by the Committee spell out the terms and conditions of being eligible to receive child safety seats for low income families. Those guidelines are: 1. The agency must be listed as a NHTSA-approved check site with certified technicians on staff. 2. Child restraints must be distributed to families with an economic need. 3. If a donation is collected, then federal regulations regarding program income will be followed (2 CFR Part 200, Section 200.307) 4. The agency will maintain records of the distribution(s) and donations collected. 5. All collected donations must be used to replace seats in a certified child car seat program. A certified CPS technician/instructor should supervise all child restraint distribution programs and ensure that adequate training based on the NHTSA standardized curriculum is provided to those distributing the selected seats. The certified technician should also ensure that appropriate training is provided to the recipients of the seats. Page 40 of 117 iv. Child Passenger Safety Technicians The CPS Coordinator in Missouri’s Highway Safety Office (HSO) formulates an annual plan to recruit, train and maintain a sufficient number of child passenger safety technicians. As of June, 2016 there were a total of 1,001 currently certified CPS technicians in Missouri. There are 38 certified instructors (a slight increase from last year). A list of these technicians and instructors is downloaded on a monthly basis from the Safe Kids Worldwide website and maintained in the Highway Safety office. This list is also provided to regional contacts for local communication efforts, and any public entity requesting such information. A listing of the CPS technicians and instructors by county can be located in Appendix B. In 2006, the first CPS Summit convened in Missouri. As a result of that Summit, the Missouri CPS Advisory Committee was formed. The 12 members that make up this committee are CPS technicians/instructors who are professionals employed by agencies including hospitals or health care facilities, law enforcement agencies (including the Missouri State Highway Patrol), a safe community organization, a safety and health council, a fire department, health departments, a Safe Kids organization, NHTSA, a safety alliance, and a MoDOT regional office. During an Annual CPS Summit these members meet to receive training, to discuss the next fiscal year budget, assist with the formulation of a state CPS plan, and make recommendations or policy enhancements to existing CPS programs in Missouri. This committee has been a key element in Missouri’s successful CPS program. The state plans to recruit, train and retain nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety Technicians to staff each child inspection station and inspection event located in the state. In an effort to maintain a sufficient number of child passenger safety technicians, between 8 and 12 CPS courses are sponsored by the HSO each year, estimating the certification of more than 200 new technicians annually. This number does not include classes that are sponsored by other agencies/partners not funded by the HSO. During the Annual CPS Summit, members are provided with a state map that indicates the counties that are lacking CPS technician representation. If funding is needed in those counties, financial assistance may be provided to that member (CPS liaison) for training. An effort is made each year to review the map to ensure each county will have at least one technician. The addition of these new technicians each year helps to ensure that Missouri will maintain a consistent number of technicians. In 2002, there were less than 400 certified technicians in Missouri. Due to the efforts of an extraordinary passionate group of safety partners, that number increased to over 1,000 by the end of 2014. It is necessary that at least one certified CPS technician be available at checkup events or inspection stations to provide key information to parents and caregivers about the proper installation of child safety seats. CPS training opportunities are mentioned during grant meetings, regional meetings, and any time program staff members meet with the public and/or safety partners in an effort to promote child passenger safety. A CPS training brochure (see Appendix B) was developed and distributed to the public in an effort to reach potential partners that are interested in enhancing their careers in the field of child passenger safety. The brochure outlines the benefits and registration procedures for attending NHTSA’s Standardized CPS training course. The brochure is available through the online ordering system along with other CPS-related safety materials (see Appendix B). Page 41 of 117 v. High Risk Population During the past three years, 65.6% of vehicle occupants killed in crashes in Missouri were unrestrained. The number of unbelted teens killed in Missouri crashes during the last three years is even higher, at 73.5%. When analyzing only the pick-up truck drivers and passengers, 81.8% of those killed during the last three years were unrestrained. Missouri’s observed safety belt use rate of 80 percent in 2015 is well below the national average of 87 percent in 2014. Missouri conducts both a statewide safety belt use observational survey each year. The Child Safety Seat, Teen and Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety Belt Use Surveys are conducted periodically; all three were conducted in 2014. The Teen Survey was also conducted in 2015. Teen safety belt use is of particular concern, as this group’s safety belt use is 11 percent lower than the overall use rate. Survey Statewide (all users) Teen Child Safety Seat (under 4) Commercial Motor Vehicle Year 2015 2015 2014 2014 Safety Belt Use 80% 69% 91% 81% Countermeasures targeting the high risk populations of teenage drivers, passengers in child safety seats and drivers on rural roadways include: Education • Continue to educate law enforcement about the Graduated Driver License (GDL) statute and the provision that defines safety belt enforcement as a primary violation • Educate GDL recipients and parents about the mandatory safety belt use component of the law • Continue to expand public information and education campaigns to educate the general public and target groups (pick-up truck and teen occupants) about the importance of occupant protection • Expand the availability of driver educational programs for young drivers (classes, webbased, etc.) • Educate young drivers on all aspects of safe driving and rules of the road • Educate parents on the importance of purchasing safety-enhanced vehicles for their young drivers • Educate parents about the availability of in-vehicle driver monitoring devices • Educate parents on the importance of open communication with their young drivers regarding high risk driving behaviors (e.g. distractions, impairment, safety belt use, dealing with passengers, etc.) Page 42 of 117 • • Expand peer-to-peer training on safe driving habits and being a safe/respectful passenger Educate parents, caregivers and grandparents about proper selection and installation of child safety and booster seats. • Recruit and certify more law enforcement officers as Child Passenger Safety technicians • Expand the number of child safety seat inspection stations and certified Child Passenger Safety Technicians. Enforcement • Aggressively enforce the occupant protection component of the GDL law • Encourage law enforcement to enact a zero tolerance policy when enforcing the secondary occupant protection law • Increase the emphasis on special occupant protection mobilizations that include public information campaigns and Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs • Encourage strict enforcement of GDL law (e.g. curfew, safety belt, passenger restrictions) • Expand enforcement targeting young drivers • Encourage strict enforcement of texting law • Expand law enforcement participation in the Youth Seat Belt Enforcement Campaign • Aggressively enforce the child safety seat and booster seat laws Engineering • Increase use of message boards and signs that encourage restraint use Public Policy / Other • Enact a primary safety belt law • Expand the number of local primary safety belt ordinances • Enhance GDL law components to include passenger restrictions, stricter curfews, increased supervised driving hours and restricted cell phone use Emergency Medical Services • Develop a plan to expand the awareness and use of In Case of Emergency (ICE) to encourage people to enter emergency contact information in their mobile phone Projects Targeting Teenage Drivers, Passengers in Child Safety Seats and Drivers on Rural Roadways • Team Spirit – Consisting of two full training programs and four one-day workshops conducted each year potentially reaching 72 high schools statewide. One Reunion conducted each year to renew and reenergize students to continue safety belt and safe driving education. Each high school team provides peer-to-peer education in their school and community consisting of seat belt use and safe driving habits. Page 43 of 117 • • • • • • • It Only Takes One – Annual seat belt competition conducted by high school students consisting of two surprise seat belt surveys, peer-to-peer seat belt education, parent/teen driving contract, law enforcement and media communication, and creation of a public service announcement. Approximately 150 schools participate in the competition each year. Youth Seat Belt Enforcement – Annual law enforcement seat belt campaign utilizing grant funding to encourage law enforcement agencies to conduct high visibility enforcement for two weeks in locations where teens frequently drive. The enforcement campaign is coupled with a media campaign to encourage and educate teens on the importance of safety belt use. Media – Media campaigns and communication efforts are utilized year round through the use of posters, brochures, incentive items, You Tube videos, social media and the SaveMOlives webpage to encourage and educate all age groups and roadway users on the importance of safety belt use. Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety – Coalition efforts in all seven districts target high risk roadway users year round on topics such as seat belt use, texting and driving and underage drinking. Multiple programs and events occur though out the state by many different groups. Alliance Sports Marketing Campaign – Sponsorship with fifteen motor sports venues across the state and three baseball teams. Each venue implemented the Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over and safety belt messages on premium signage, team schedule posters, making public address announcements and t-shirt promotions. Occupant Protection Law Enforcement Grants – Missouri conducts four quarterly occupant protection enforcement campaigns in addition to the annual CIOT campaign Solicitation for quarterly occupant protection campaigns are sent to all law enforcement agencies in the State of Missouri. Participating agencies are requested to post enforcement totals to a Mobilization Reporting web page. During fiscal year 2016 the CIOT quarterly mobilization dates are November 25, 2015, February 19, 2016, March 15-31, 2016, April 14, 2016 and September 18-24, 2016. The March 15-31, campaign will focus on teens and the September 18-24 campaign will focus on child passenger safety; law enforcement agencies receive additional monies for participation in these campaigns. All quarterly campaigns are coupled with an earned media campaign. Media efforts will be strongly focused in the following media markets: St. Louis, Kansas City, Columbia/Jefferson City, Springfield, Joplin and Cape Girardeau. Mobilization dates for FY2017 have not been determined yet but will follow the same calendar as FY2016. Click It or Ticket It Law Enforcement and Media Campaign – The FY2016 campaign runs May 1 – May 31, 2016: o CIOT includes providing funding to local cities, counties and state patrol law enforcement agencies to conduct safety belt enforcement efforts between May 1 and May 31, 2016. Contract award amounts total $121,680 to the Missouri State Page 44 of 117 • • Highway Patrol and $330,000 to local cities and counties. Missouri averages 171 participating law enforcement agencies for the CIOT national safety belt campaign. o Missouri will also promote the 2016 CIOT campaign by issuing news releases to local media and requiring all participating agencies to notify local media about their participation in the 2016 CIOT campaign. All enforcement efforts will be coupled with an aggressive paid media campaign that will begin one week prior to the enforcement campaign and run through May 31, 2016. Paid media contract awards total $350,000 for FY2016. Child Passenger Safety Technicians - The CPS Coordinator in Missouri’s Highway Safety Office formulates an annual plan to recruit, train and maintain a sufficient number of child passenger safety technicians. As of June, 2016, there are a total of 1,001 currently certified CPS technicians in Missouri, 38 of who are certified instructors. Between 8 and 12 CPS Courses are sponsored by the Highway Safety Office each year, estimating the certification of more than 200 new technicians annually. This number does not include classes that are sponsored by other agencies/partners. Child Passenger Safety Brochure - A CPS training brochure was developed and distributed to the public in an effort to reach potential partners that are interested in enhancing their careers in the field of child passenger safety. Page 45 of 117 Appendix A Page 46 of 117 CPS Technicians/Instructors as of June, 2016 First Name Aaron Kevin Bill Brad MICHAEL Cameron Cody Kenny ROBERT BRAD MICHEAL Joe KEN Silas Tyler DENNIS Matt Linda Malinda John Jodi Lawanah Ryan Emily Brandi Sarah Vikki Shannon Susan Jamie Starri Karolyn Ruth Kayla Megan Bridget Jessica Colt Jamie Elizabeth Caitlin Katherine Carolyn Angela Mary HANNAH Sheila Danielle Susan Angie Darla Kimberly Rachel Kamille Katelynn Jessica Jennifer Last Name Pippin Rhodes Adams Apodaca BISHOP East Fuller Lambert LEWIS NEFF ROBINSON Schilling SCOTT Springer Street VANSICKEL Yeggey Hankins Ehrhardt Vernon Elliott Gillette Schudel Stotler Meyer Palmer Prock Hobson White Hillman Reinert Tinkey Barnes Shrewsbury Anliker Berhorst Christian Doman Fessler Frazier Hammond Lammers Love McFarland Meyer OBERLE Robertson Schaefer Spielman Tipton Atkins Dohm Drennan Dy Molitor Nicolaescu Perry Company Name Kirksville Fire Department Individual Kriksvile Fire Dept. Kirksville Fire Dept. KIRKSVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT Kirksville Fire Dept. Kirksville Fire Department Kirksville Fire Department KIRKSVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT KIRKSVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT KIRKSVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT Kirksville Fire & Rescue KIRKSVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT Kirksville Fire Department Kirksville Fire Department KIRKSVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT Kirksville Fire Department Mosaic Life Care Andrew County Health Department N/A Audrain County Health Department Audrain County Health Department Mexico Public Safety Dept Audrain County Health Department Audrain County Health Department Audrain County Health Department Cox Monett Hospital Cox Monett Hospital Cox Monett Hospital Barceda Families Lamar Early Head Start Lamar Early Head Start Bates County Health Center Bates County Health Center WCH Childern's Outpaient Therapy Services MU Children's Therapy Center Jefferson City Fire Department University of Missouri Women's & Children's Hospit Women's and Children's Hospital Katie Lammers, PT Children's Hospital Therapy Center University of Missouri University of Missouri Women's and Children's Hospital MU Women's & Children's Hospital University of Missouri Children's Hospital Children's Hospital Therapy Services University of MO City of Columbia Fire Department University of Missouri Children's Hospital Children's Hospital University of Missouri Health Kamille Dy UMHC Women's and Children's Hospital Children's Therapy Center University Of Missouri Police Department Sheet1 City Kirksville Kirksville Kirksville Kirksville KIRKSVILLE Kirksville Kirksville Kirksville KIRKSVILLE KIRKSVILLE KIRKSVILLE Kirksville KIRKSVILLE Kirksville Kirksville KIRKSVILLE Kirksville Savannah Savannah Fairfax Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexcio Mexico Monett Monett Monett Lamar Lamar Lamar Butler Butler Columbia Ashland columbia Hartsburg Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Page 1 Page 47 of 117 County Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Adair Andrew Andrew Atchison Audrain Audrain Audrain Audrain Audrain Audrain Barry Barry Barry Barton Barton Barton Bates Bates Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Boone Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name NiCole Kristie Jacob Zack Krystalyn Estrella Breanna Kelly Jennifer Shawn Lindsey Lana Janice AMBER Jeremy Michael Kellie Susan Sheldon Stephanie Traci Cindy Glenda Thomas Beverly Stevie Amy Andrea Angela Melinda Clark Dalene Linda Susan Nicholas Nathan Brad William Merit Gene Joe Steve Tammy Arlyne Melissa Eric Stephen RANDY Max Gene MICHAEL Rachel Lynn Judy Christine Ryan Tim Duane Last Name Sadler Wright Angle Craft Davis Maldonado Mather McManus Redman Skoglund Vice Allen Carter DYDELL Eaton George Horton Lober Lyon Malita McChristy Merritt Rodgers Sampson Shinneman Smith Stoner Stoops Watson Wendland Parrott Pyrtle Baker Hertzler Kaufman Kline Lindsay Harris Mcleod Nelson Peeper Sessler Stone Page Stradt Adamczyk Baugh DAVIS Goshen Kerns MASSEY Penny Ware Brock Eddleman Finn Gates Gerke Company Name University of Missouri-Women's and Children's Hosp Women's and Children's Hospital, University of MO Missouri State Highway Patrol City Of St Joseph Police Department Missouri State Highway Patrol Community Action Partnership Of Greater Saint Jose Mosaic Life Care Missouri State Highway Patrol The Missouri Department Of Transportation St. Joseph Safety And Health Council, Inc. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Collision Repair Specialists St Joseph Police Department Mosaic Life Care St Joseph Safety & Health Council, INC. St. Joseph Safety and Health Council City of St Joseph Health Dept. YWCA Lakeside Pediatrics Heartland Regional Medical Center Clark-Sampson Funeral Home Mosaic Life Care City of St. Joseph Health Department Buchanan County Sheriff's Office Missouri Department Of Transportation Collision Repair Specialists Melinda Wendland Missouri State Highway Patrol Butler County Community Resource Council Holts summit fire protection district Callaway County Ambulance District Callaway County Ambulance District Callaway County Ambulance District Callaway County Ambulance District Fulton Fire Department Fulton Fire Department Fulton Fire Department Callaway County Ambulance District Fulton Fire Dept. Callaway County Ambulance District Osage Beach Police Department Camdenton Police Department Jackson Fire Rescue Jackson Fire Rescue Jackson Fire Rescue Jackson Fire Rescue Jackson Fire Rescue JACKSON FIRE RESCUE Cape Girardeau Police Department Cape Girardeau Police Department Carroll County Health Department Cass County Sheriff's Office South Metro Fire Protection District South Metro Fire Protection District Harrisonville Emergency Services City Sheet1 Columbia Columbia St Joseph St Joseph St. Joseph Saint Joseph St. Joseph Country Club Saint Joseph St Joseph Dekalb St. Joseph Saint Joseph ST. JOSEPH St. Joseph Saint Joseph St. Joseph St Joseph St. Joseph Saint Joseph St.Joseph Saint Joseph St. Joseph St. Joseph Saint Joseph Saint Joseph St. Joseph St. Joseph Saint Joseph St. Joseph Poplar Bluff Poplar Bluff Holts summit Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton Osage Beach Camdenton Jackson Jackson JACKSON Jackson Jackson JACKSON Cape Girardeau Cape Girardeau Carrollton Harrisonville Raymore Raymore Harrisonville Page 2 Page 48 of 117 County Boone Boone Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Butler Butler Callaway Callaway Callaway Callaway Callaway Callaway Callaway Callaway Callaway Callaway Callaway Camden Camden Cape Girardeau Cape Girardeau Cape Girardeau Cape Girardeau Cape Girardeau Cape Girardeau Cape Girardeau Cape Girardeau Carroll Cass Cass Cass Cass Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name Jason Jeni Alyssa Chad Eric Ben Atalie Jason Gary Patrick Phillip Michael Brett Jenean Debbie Kathy Judy Abby Staci Christie Renee Chris Brett Connie Lori Steven Bobby Julia Andy Stephanie Sheri Tiffanie Kamera Jeffrey Alyssa Bryan Christina Michael Amy Robert Scott LARRY Ashley Jeffrey Angie Byron Eugene TERRY Joe Ryan Bryan Billy Will Ryan Quentin Kyle Dale Shawn Last Name Honderick Isaacson Jacobson Loehr Myler Barbarick Brown Coppedge Crow Furlong Grabmiller Mclaughlin Palmer Ehlers Hillsman Naylor Poeschl Garton Dabbs Drew Hawkins Somers Booth Crawford Dieckhoff Giacone Higgins Hladky Martens Parr Pratt Bevan Bollinger Garton Howk Kipping Kouzmanoff Logan Looper Looper Pelc RADLEY Starritt Stevens Todd Watkins Williams DICKINSON Alonzo Back Boeckmann Bolden Bradford Carrender Combs Crossman Duemmel Dumsday Company Name South Metro Fire Home South Metro FIre Protection District Harrisonville Emergency Services Cass County Sheriff's Office Peculiar Police Department South Metropolitan Fire District Cass County Sheriff's Office South Metropolitan Fire District Peculiar Police Department Peculiar Police Department South Metro Fire District Cedar County Health Department Cedar County Health Department Chariton County Health Center Chariton County Health Center Christian County Health Department Chrisian County Health Department Cox Health Accident Consultant Kearney Fire and Rescue None North Kansas City School District Early Childhood Kearney Fire and Rescue Kearney Fire & Rescue Protection District Clay County Public Health Center Kearney Fire North Kansas City School District Early Childhood Children's Mercy Hospital Liberty Hospital YMCA Liberty Head Start C enter Kearney Fire & Rescue Protection District Smithville police department Kearney Fire & Rescue Protection District Kearney Fire and Rescue Protection District LIBERTY MO FIRE DEPT. . Smithville Police Department Children's Division, Clay Co. Smithville Area Fire Protection District Kearney Fire & Rescue Protection District ST. LUKES NORTHLAND HOSPITAL Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson city Police Department City Sheet1 Raymore Raymore Pleasant Hill Raymore Harrisonville Harrisonville peculiar Raymore Harrisonville Raymore Peculiar Peculiar Raymore El Dorado Springs Stockton Keyteville Keyteville Ozark Ozark Ozark Nixa Ozark Kearney Kearney Pleasant Valley Kearney Kearney Liberty Kearney Pleasant Valley Kearney Kearney Liberty Kearney Liberty Kearney Liberty Smithville Holt Kearney Kearney LIBERTY Liberty Smithville Liberty Smithville Kearney PLATTSBURG Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Page 3 Page 49 of 117 County Cass Cass Cass Cass Cass Cass Cass Cass Cass Cass Cass Cass Cass Cedar Cedar Chariton Chariton Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clinton Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name Shane Kelly Tom Beth Carl Clint Greg Jake Jordan Chad Jason Scott Bobby Nicholas Lisa Brian Ryan Matt Chris Chris Jon Doug Paul Dave Jason Matt Ian Joel Jason Anthony Michael Dave Alan Scott Josh Jesse Junia Timothy John Evan Rebecca Katelyn Deidra Travis Jon James Dirk Jack Pete Carrie Ben Brandon Larry Ella Amber Stacy Heather Tony Last Name Engelhardt Forck Gann Gerling Haake Hays Heckemeyer Holee Holland James Karr Kempker Kuster LaBoube Layton-Brinker Leivian Lock Luebbert McCray Muenks Pagel Platter Reinsch Ruetz Sederwall Smart Stich Swader Thomas Trapani Vaught Vogel Wekenborg White Young Berendzen Brubaker Bullard Hotz Jennings Lenon Marshall McClendon Milne Moe Noah Protzman Reilly Stoops Wolken Burch McGee Roberts Greenwalt Mason McCullough Silva Blue Company Name Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Na Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Missouri State Highway Patrol Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Police Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Police Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Department Missouri State Highway Patrol Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Dept ARB Milk Hauling Jefferson City Fire Dept Missouri State Highway Patrol Jefferson City Fire Department Missouri Coalition For Roadway Safety Stay at home mom Jefferson City Fire Dept Jefferson City Fire Dept Jefferson City MO Fire Dept Jefferson City Fire Department Jefferson City Fire Dept Jefferson City Fire Dept Mo Department Of Transportation - Highway Safety Boonville Police Department Boonville Police Department Boonville Police Department MOCA Crawford County Head Start Steelville Ambulance District Steelville Ambulance District Missouri Ozarks Community Action Steelville Ambulance District City Sheet1 Jefferson City Jefferson City Centertown Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Russellville Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Centertown Jefferson City Jefferson CIty Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Boonville Boonville Boonville Cuba Steelville Steelville Cuba Steelville Page 4 Page 50 of 117 County Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole Cooper Cooper Cooper Crawford Crawford Crawford Crawford Crawford Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name Karen Lacey Jill Everett Jackie Kristie Regina Kyle Misty David Michelle Kenny Becky Linda Kim Mary Ann Gregory Michael Jonathan Emily Jennifer Donna Steven Jared Lilli Emily Karrie Tabitha Dana Crystal Morgan Robert Kristi Amanda Laura Cristin Roy John Lana Clint Mallorie Ashley Jason Tailor Ann Elizabeth Ashley Victoria Hiedi Amanda Jerry Coleena Melody Daphne Jennifer Chelsea Rozlyn Lori Last Name Sikes Ehrsam Masterson Kelly Nichols Smith Adkison Good Breshears Robertson Shots Fleetwood Crawford Fuller Hughes Stephens Garrett Grissom Bruns Garcia Harriman Hrenak Jasper Sarni Parsons Gockel Redden Aleshire Byerley Collins Conrad Crawford Donovan Doty Glynn Herbort Kirby Lueckenhoff Martin Mason Mendell Norman Pace Schlotzhauer Schroeppel Vandivert Wilson Carnes Earwood Eddington Ellis Fletcher Frazier Greenlee Hill Kaster McTeer Minor Company Name Crawford County Nursing Service/Health Dept. Dade County Health Department Dade County Health Dept Dallas County Sheriff's Office Daviess Co. Health Dept. Daviess Co. Health Dept. Department Of Social Services, Childrens Division Lenox Rural Fire Department Douglas County Health Department Cox Health EMS Douglas County Health Dept Ava Area Ambulance-Cox Health Dunklin County Health Department Dunklin County Health Department Dunklin County Health Department Dunklin County Health Department Washington Police Department Washington Police Department Pacific Fire Prot Dist. Show Me CPR and Personal Safety Mercy Hospital-Washington Boles FPD Steelville Ambulance District Meramec Ambulance District Tri County Health Dept Home Tri-County Health Department Children's Division Coxhealth Mercy Hospital Springfield Cox Health Battlefield Fire Protection District Mercy Children's Hospital- Springfield Mercy Hospital Aurora St. John's Health System - Mercy Springfield Mercy Hospital - Springfield Battlefield Fire Protection District Missouri State Troopers Cox Health Misouri State Troopers Mercy Children's Hospital CoxHealth Missouri State Highway Patrol-Troop D Mercy Kids Hospital Community Partnership Of The Ozarks Mercy Children's Hospital Springfield Cox Health Home Coxhealth Coxhealth Ems COX HEALTH My Happy Place Flea Market & Resale Safe Kids Springfield/Mercy Injury Prev Ctr Springfield Public Schools Parents As Teachers Self-employed Coxhealth Ozarks Technical Community College City Sheet1 Steelville Greenfield Greenfield Buffalo Gallatin Gallatin Gallatin Lenox Ava Ava Ava Ava Kennett Kennett Kennett Kennett Washington Washington Pacific Sullivan Washington Labadie Sullivan Villa Ridge Stanberry Stanberry Stanberry Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Battlefield Springfield Aurora Springfield Springfield Battlefield Springfeild Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Brookline Station Springfield Springfield Springfield REPUBLIC Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Page 5 Page 51 of 117 County Crawford Dade Dade Dallas Daviess Daviess Daviess Dent Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Dunklin Dunklin Dunklin Dunklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Gentry Gentry Gentry Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor First Name Rana Sara Kayleigh Ruth Denise Cheryl Megan Jody Lindsay Sheryl Sarah Delcena Lisa Gary MEGAN Renee Nancy THERESA Jason Christy Paula Chris Shawn Cheri Elizabeth Lucas Kathy Susan Richie Dawn Tommy Jeffery Marlene Sharon Joanna Heather Brianne Michelle Shellie Beau Erin Jeremy Steven Tammy Sheila Tim Jeni Jennifer Lakeisha Kristina patrick Chelsea Kathryn Kyle Andrew Jessica Lauren Paul Last Name Post Rust Stark Stehlin Vaughan West Wood Hadley Ortega Searcy Linthacum Hamilton Eason French PITTS Miller Holtwick BRAWLEY Brumble Robertson Tupper Bell Bice Carda Cauthen Cyr Doss Frazier Hammon Hicks Jones Kinder Lilly Owen Patillo Wood Yardley Armsttrong Arriaga Bailey Bailey Bledsoe Bloch Brizendine Brown Burke Butcher Chinn Davis Duran elson Farago Finlay Green Hall Hamid Hankley Hanna Company Name CoxHealth Mercy Hospital Mercy Injury Prevention Center Springfield Greene County Health Department Mercy Injury Prevention Center No company Grundy County Health Department Grundy County Health Dept. Harrison County Health Department Harrison County Health Department Windsor CPST Henry County Health Center Hickory County Health Department Holt County Health Department Fayette Schools Parents as Teachers City of West Plains Missouri State Highway Patrol Mountain View Elementary City of West Plains Police Department City of West Plains City of West Plains Howell County Health Department Ozarks Medical Center City of West Plains Howell County Health Department Mountain View-Birch Tree R-III School District City of West Plains Howell County Health Department City of West Plains Missouri State Highway Patrol Mercy Hospital Howell County Health Deparment Ozarks Medical Center Howell County Health Department Mercy Hospital Childrens Mercy Hospital Mid-America Head Start Grandview Police Department Childrens Mercy Hospital Raytown EMS Kansas city police department Liberty Public Schools Cerner CJCFPD MFCAA Grain Valley Police Department Swope Health Services Swope Health Central/Pediatrics north kansas city fire dept. Crittenton Children'S Center Gladstone Public Safety Gladstone Public Safety North Kansas City Fire Department Home Raytown EMS Gladstone Public Safety City Sheet1 Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Willard Trenton Trenton Trenton Bethany Bethany Windsor Clinton Hermitage Oregon Fayette West Plains Willow Springs Mountain View West Plains West Plains West Plains West Plains West Plains West Plains West Plains Mountain View West Plains West Plains West Plains Willow Springs Mountain View West Plains West Plains West Plains Mountain View Kansas City Kansas City Grandview Lake Lotawana Raytown Kansas city Kansas City Kansas City Blue Springs Kansas city Grain Valley Kansas City Kansas City north kansas city Kansas City Gladstone Gladstone North Kansas City Kansas City Raytown Gladstone Page 6 Page 52 of 117 County Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Grundy Grundy Grundy Harrison Harrison Henry Henry Hickory Holt Howard Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name Elgie Keri Danny Jessica Courtney Shannon Cheryl Josh GARY Bill Patty LeeAnn Marc Michael Heidi Emily Karla Ethan Danielle Maria Allison Claudia Kyle Jacqueline Whitney Christina Kimshon Jason Andrew Melissa Kristin Cheena Ryan Kyle Amanda Eric Zachary Collin Steve Nancy Ashli Becky Danielle Hannah Jennifer Christopher Lee Greg William Bryan Shellie Shannon Stacey Robert Lisa greg Monica Courtney Last Name Hurd Ingle Jackson Karriman Kisor Larkin Leffler Liesveld LOFTIS Lowe Lucas Marcase Marine McQuillen Miller-Medlin Nannemann Nunez Perkinson Pollock Purtle Purvis Quezada Ralston Ratliff Reed Richardson Ridgell Rivera Roelle Schafer Schlenk Simpson Smith Sole Sommerville Stock Stoneking Stosberg Suthers Thielke Turner Voyles Wallace Warren Welchert Williams Zebel Anderson Anderson Ball Barnett Bernal Billings Blehm Boggess boggs Bomar Borgman Company Name Swope Health Services Children's Division / Jackson County CJCFPD Operation Breakthrough Saint Luke's East City of Grain Valley - Police Department Midwest Foster Care And Adoption North Kansas city fire dept. NKCFD Missouri State Highway Patrol Ymca Of Greater Kansas City Head Start Lee's Summit Police Department CJCFPD North Kansas City School District None Children's Mercy Hospital Children'S Mercy Hospital Gladstone Public Safety Rose Brooks Center Ymca Of Greater Kansas City Head Start Saint Luke's East Children's Mercy Hospital North Kansas city fire dept. Children's Division / Jackson County Children's Division / Jackson County Children's Division / Jackson County Children's Division / Jackson County Gladstone Public Safety Children's Division / Jackson County Jackson County Health Department Gladstone Public Safety MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATRO City of Grain Valley Children's Mercy Hospital Gladstone Public Safety North Kansas City Fire Missouri State Highway Patrol American Medical Response Children's Division / Jackson County Hair Style Children's Division / Jackson County Swope Health Services Raytown EMS Southern Platte Fire Protection District Fire City of Oak Grove Police Department NKCFD St Luke's East Hospital Children's Mercy Hospital Children's Mercy Hospital Kansas City MO Police Department Francis Institute for Child and Youth Development northkansas city fire dept. Children'Ss Mercy Hospital Children's Mercy Hospital - EAST City Sheet1 County Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Blue Springs Jackson Kansas City Jackson Lee's Summit Jackson Grain Valley Jackson Independence Jackson North Kansas city Jackson NKC Jackson Lee's Summit Jackson Raytown Jackson Lee's Summit Jackson Blue springs Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Gladstone Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Lee's Summit Jackson Kansas City Jackson North Kansas city Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Independence Jackson Gladstone Jackson Kansas City Jackson Independence Jackson Gladstone Jackson LEE'S SUMMIT Jackson Grain Valley Jackson Kansas City Jackson Gladstone Jackson North Kasas City Jackson Lee's Summit Jackson Kansas City Jackson Independence Jackson Knasas City Jackson Lee's Summit Jackson Blue Springs Jackson Independence Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Raytown Jackson Kansas City Jackson Oak Grove Jackson NORTH KANSAS CITJackson Lee's Summit Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson north kansas city Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Page 7 Page 53 of 117 Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name Heather Molly Stephen Kelli Sarah Claudia Joseph Stephanie Amy Jennifer Kendra Kyndal Brandi Jonathan Christine Mallory Andrew Francisco Adria Sharon Shantasa Lauren Lynette Esther Elizabeth Kevin Jerry Nichole Britta Monique Andy Bradley Debra Lindsay Brandi Cathy Julie Phyllis Dennis Kim Dwon Krista Blair Rachel Denise Jenny Melissa jason Angie Mark Marion Jackie Jennifer Elizabeth James scott Anyi Erin Last Name Bouldrey Brackeen Bray Brickhouse Brooks Burford Chapman Clark Cogan Conkling Cooper Costello Coyle Cranston Douglas Dresel Dressler Duque Edwards Engelman Fischer Fouts Fowler Francis Fritz Gooch Grubb Gubbins Gustafson Hall Hamil Heath Hoops Houston James Johnson Lang Larimore Leeper LeSage Littlejohn Lopez Marlow Martin McCarter McKee Micus miller Minton Misenhelter Morris Neubauer Novogoratz Pace Payton phillips Pujols Ralovo Company Name Home Sugar Creek Police Department Kansas City Police Department Saint Luke's East Lee's Summit Raytown Emergency Medical Services Children's Mercy Hospital Oak Grove Police Department Children's Mercy Hospital Children's Mercy Hospital East Children's Mercy Hospital Lee's Summit Police Dept. University of Kansas Hospital Children's Mercy Hospital Kansas City MO Police Department Children's Mercy Hospital Children'S Mercy Hospital Riverside Fire Department Kansas City MO Police Department Operation Breakthrough Jackson County Health Department Kansas City MO Police Department Mid America Regional Coalition (MARC) Mid-America Head Start N/A Kansas City Missouri Police Department Kansas City MO Police Department Children's Mercy Hospital Raytown EMS Children's Mercy Hospital Kansas City MO Police Department Blue Springs Police Department Saint Luke's Hospital Children's Mercy Hospital City of Raytown Blue Springs Police Department Children's Mercy Hospital Children's Mercy Hospitals & Clinics NKCFD Raytown EMS Kansas City Police Department Central Patrol Synergy Services YMCA Thomas Roque Head Start Children's Mercy Hospital Children's Mercy Hospital Children's Mercy Hospital Kansas City MO PS Richardson Head start north kansas city fire dept. No company Cerner Corporation Crittenton Children's Center YMCA Thomas Roque Head Start Kansas City MO Police Department north kansas city fire dept. Children's Mercy Hospital PCC Broadway MoDOT City Sheet1 County Lees Summit Jackson Sugar Creek Jackson Kansas City Jackson Lee's Summit Jackson Raytown Jackson Kansas City Jackson Oak Grove Jackson Kansas City Jackson Independence Jackson Kansas City Jackson Lee's Summit Jackson Independence Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Blue Springs Jackson Kansas City Jackson Riverside Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Independence Jackson Kansas City Jackson Blue Springs Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Raytown Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Blue Springs Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Raytown Jackson Blue Springs Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson NORTH KANSAS CITJackson Raytown Jackson Kansas City Jackson Parkville Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson north kansas city Jackson Kansas City Jackson North Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Lee'S Summit Jackson Independence Jackson Kansas City Jackson NORTH KANSAS CITJackson Kansas City Jackson Lee's Summit Jackson Page 8 Page 54 of 117 Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name antonio Jenna Darrel Julia Evan Michael dave Laura Jonathan Beverly Greg Lynsey Anthony Stephen Jessica Amy jason Thomas John Julie Jason Valinda Jennifer Karyn Charee Terry Charles Pat Jason Robert creston Kathleen Mark Amanda Matt Braxton Derrick Ken John Mike Chad Kevin Kim Barbara Brianna Sean James Tresia Renee Kim Serena Ronnie Catherine Jared Jo Karen Jessica Jacob Last Name ramirez Reed Rocker Rotert Scarbo Schneider selleck Shadid Sims Smith Smith Smith Snorgrass Spire Squires Strown taylor Thibault Thurston Tomasic Tyler Vanderdelden Walden Walden-Forrest Walters West Westmoreland Westmoreland Whitney Williams witte Zents Box Clark Fasano Isley Lawerence Lown Miles Mitchell Tandy Theilen Burnett Claxton Garten Higgins Hill Howard Laney Mackney Martinez Metcalf Ramoly Richmond Sitton Suthers Winters Cobb Company Name north kansas city fire dept. Children's Mercy Hospital Kansas City MO Police Department Metro YMCA Head Start Blue Springs Police Kansas City MO Police Department norh kansas city fire dept. Parkville Police Department Blue Springs Police Dept. Safety & Health Council, W. MO and KS Kansas City MO Police Department Children's Mercy Hospital Missouri Department of Transportation Missouri Department Of Transportation YMCA Metro Head Start Center Children'S Mercy Hospital north kansas city fire dept. Central Jackson County Fire Prevention Dist. Raytown EMS Kansas City MO Police Department NKCFD Doxey & Associates LLC Children's Mercy Hospital N/a Children's Mercy Hospital Children's Division / Jackson County Independence Police Department Independence Police Department Southern Platte Fire Protection Southern Platte Fire Protection District North Kansas city fire dept. Safety & Health Council of Western MO & KS Joplin Fire Department Economic Security Corporation Carthage Fire Dept. Carthage Fire Dept. Joplin Fire Deptartment Carthage Fire Dept. Joplin Fire Department Carthage Fire Dept. Carthage Fire Dept. Alliance The Alliance of SWMO The Alliance of SWMO City of Joplin - Joplin Police Dept Redings Mill Fire Department Economic Security The Alliance of SWMO . The Alliance Of Southwest Missouri Redings Mill Fire Department Joplin Police Department Carl Junction Police Dept. The Alliance of SWMO First Steps Early Head Start Of Joplin Mo High Ridge Fire City Sheet1 County NORTH KANSAS CITJackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Blue Springs Jackson Kansas City Jackson north kansas city Jackson Parkville Jackson Blue Springs Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Lee's Summit Jackson Blue Springs Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson north kansas city Jackson Blue Springs Jackson Raytown Jackson Kansas City Jackson NORTH KANSAS CITJackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Lake Waukomis Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson Independence Jackson Independence Jackson Kansas City Jackson Kansas City Jackson NORTH KANSAS CITJackson Kansas City Jackson Joplin Jasper Joplin Jasper Carthage Jasper Carthage Jasper Joplin Jasper Carthage Jasper Joplin Jasper Carthage Jasper Carthage Jasper Joplin Jasper Joplin Jasper Joplin Jasper Joplin Jasper Joplin Jasper Joplin Jasper Joplin Jasper Carthage Jasper Carl Junction Jasper Joplin Jasper Joplin Jasper Joplin Jasper Carl Junction Jasper Joplin Jasper Webb City Jasper Joplin Jasper High Ridge Jefferson Page 9 Page 55 of 117 Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name Zachary Nathan Daniel Adam Mathew Nichole Adam Bev John Roger Donna Kimberly Lisa Gregory Mike Galen Arnold Mason Jacob Caleb Heather Denver Patrick Rylnn Lelani Jeremy Amanda Michael Gerald Melissa Jeremy Anthony Ashley Tammie Tricia Elsie Amanda Amy Lori Greg Michelle Katherine Deborah Sandra Carolyn Kristin Tana Harley Tom Robert Retha Dan Elizabeth Lesa Michael Tracy Lisa Shonna Last Name Cobb Davis Hempen Lambrich Miniea Watson Wymer Barringer-Ruggeri Barton Coleman Cummings Fanter Gore Shuster Toombs Abrams Cerezo Conaway Dagney Hoferman McCoy McLaughlin Paine Paz Puga Reed Richardson Rivera Torres Tucker Woods Zutten Bridwell Crabtree Fleming Hertig Nutter Sides Moots-Clair Probst Davis Johnson Mathews Adams Boland Buford Bradshaw Stice Taylor Ward Williams Mittelberg Knipping Miller Foppe Orvick Sitler Thate Company Name High Ridge Fire High Ridge Fire High Ridge Fire Jefferson County Sheriff's Office High Ridge Fire St Louis Childrens Hospital Cedar Hill Fire Protection District St Johns Mercy Medical Center NICU High Ridge Fire Protection District High Ridge Fire Jefferson County Health Dept. SSM Cardinal Glennon/Kohl's4Kids DeSoto Rural Fire Protection District Cedar Hill Fire Prot. Dist. Jefferson County Sheriff's Office US Air Force US Air Force USAF US Air Force Usaf US Air Force US Air Force US Air Force US Air Force US Air Force USAF Amanda RIchardson US Air Force US Air Force US Air Force US Air Force US Air Force Stay at home mom Johnson County Community Health Services WIC Johnson County Community Health Services 509th Medical Group/SGOW Knox County Health Department Knox County Health Department Adair County Ambulance District Knox County Health Department Lafayette County Health Department Lafayette County Health Department Lawrence County Health Department City of Aurora Fire Dept. MILLER R 2 SCHOOL City of Aurora Fire Dept. Clark Community Mental Health Center Lewis County Health Department Progress West Hospital Missouri Dept. of Transportation MoDot Lincoln County Medical Center Lisa Sitler, Safe Kids Lincoln County Ambulance District City Sheet1 High Ridge High Ridge High Ridge Hillsboro High Ridge High Ridge Cedar Hill High Ridge High Ridge High Ridge Hillsboro House Springs DeSoto Cedar Hill Hillsboro Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Whiteman Afb Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB WARRENSBURG Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Warrensburg Leeton Whiteman AFB Whiteman AFB Warrensburg Edina Baring Edina Baring Edina Bates City Lexington Lexington Mt. Vernon Aurora Miller Aurora Pierce City Monticello Troy Elsberry Troy Troy Hawk Point Troy Page 10 Page 56 of 117 County Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Knox Knox Knox Knox Knox Lafayette Lafayette Lafayette Lawrence Lawrence Lawrence Lawrence Lawrence Lewis Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician First Name Shawna Janet Amber Stacy Rachelle Brent Michelle DeAnna Valerie Sandy Kara Gail Karen Jose Brandy Colleen Sarah Natalie Gina Joni Mark Dave Stephanie Matthew Scott Trena Lesha Debbie MARIA Lindsey Krishele Katherine Vickie Stefanie Christi Amber Vickie Katrina Darci Manuel Carrie Daniel Eric Tabitha Teresa Jessica Wayne Dianna Tessa Jennifer Mabeline Ginny Mary Kimberly Barbara Angelia John Lucas Last Name Shiflett Roush Severa Corbin Wood Bernhardt Hyde Wiggans Van Hoose Caswell Sinclair Barnard Buckman Cardona Smith Spears Wilson Mounce Finney Williams Amsinger Matusik Bird Birdsley Patrick Willoughby Peterson Gilliam BICKELL Janes Ward Hoette Roodhouse Pryor Pipkin Crane Willis Word Brown Garcia Graciano Jobe Smith Frank Nielson Wilson Wilson Schubert Wright Garrison Woods VanAusdall Chappius Martin Miller Schuessler Clarke Fowler Company Name Linn County Health Department Linn County Health Dept Linn County Health Dept Macon County Health Department Macon County Health Department Missouri State Highway Patrol Macon County Health Department Macon County Health Department Marion County Health Department Families and Communities Together (F.A.C.T.) Marion County Health Dept McDonald County Health Department McDonald County Health Department McDonald County Health Department MacDonald county Health department MacDonald county Health department Mercer County Health Dept Mercer Co. Health Dept. Mercer County Health Department Lake Ozark Fire Protection Lake Ozark Fire Protection District Miller County Health Center Lake Ozark Fire Protection District Miller County Ambulance District School of the Osage Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Monroe County Health Department Montgomery County Health Dept Montgomery County Health Department Montgomery Co. Health Dept Montogmery County Health Dept. Morgan County Health Center New Madrid County Health Department New Madrid County Human Resources Council Communit New Madrid County Family Resource Center None Newton County Health Department Access Family Care Joplin Fire Department Seneca R7 Schools Tabitha Frank HRMC Maryville Department of Public Safety Maryville Department of Public Safety Osage County Health Department Osage County Health Department Ozark County Health Center Pemiscot County Initiative Network Pemiscot County Initiative Network Perry Co. Ambulance Service Perry Co. Ambulance Service Perry County Health Department Perry County Health Department Sedalia Fire Dept Sedalia Fire Dept City Sheet1 Brookfield Brookfield Brookfield Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Hannibal Hannibal Hannibal Pineville Pineville Pineville Pineville Pineville Pineville Princeton Princeton Princeton Lake Ozark Lake Ozark Tuscumbia Lake Ozark Eldon Lake Ozark Jefferson City Paris Wellsville Montgomery City Montgomery City Montgomery City Montgomery City Versailles New Madrid New Madrid New Madrid New Madrid Seneca Neosho Neosho Neosho Seneca Maryville Maryville Maryville Maryville Linn Linn Gainesville Caruthersville Caruthersville Perryville Perryville Perryville Perryville Sedalia Sedalia Page 11 Page 57 of 117 County Linn Linn Linn Macon Macon Macon Macon Macon Marion Marion Marion McDonald McDonald McDonald McDonald McDonald McDonald Mercer Mercer Mercer Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Moniteau Monroe Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery Morgan New Madrid New Madrid New Madrid New Madrid Newton Newton Newton Newton Newton Nodaway Nodaway Nodaway Nodaway Osage Osage Ozark Pemiscot Pemiscot Perry Perry Perry Perry Pettis Pettis Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name Josh Chase Brooke Tiffany Michele Bill Margaret Justine John Stephanie Maria Holly Lupe Dillion Mike Adam Nancy Jeff Chase Aaron Kenny Chris Ryan Joe Meredith Wayne Jason Kent Joseph Alan Travis Bryan Kyle Ryan John Chad Charles Chris Starlyn Tammy Ryan Geoff George Brandon Brad Clay Shannon Danny Christal CODY Sammie Jean Donna Jennifer Scott Katelyn Michelle Kim Last Name Hedges McChesney Monsees Persinger Potts Twenter Ward Worley Collins Davis Olmedo Pace Warnock Barnes Beucler Birdsong Bobbitt Breen Butler Campbell Chase Covey Day Decker Evans Feeler Goebel Griggs Henry Hill Kissir Lambeth Leivian MacKay Marti Mathis Michaels Recker Reynolds Robison Scholl Stevenson Weiss Williams Woods Allison Coatney Crain Dent FULKERSON Goodson Moran Day Neulinger Parrett Proffitt Chapuis Danback Gamm Company Name Sedalia Fire Dept Sedalia Fire Dept Children'S Therapy Center-Family And Child State Farm Sedalia Fire Dept State Farm Pettis County Health Center Sedalia Police Department Sedalia Police Department Pettis County Health Center Pettis County Health Center Pettis County Health Center City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue St. James Ambulance District City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue St. James Ambulance District City Of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue Phelps County Regional Medical Center St. James Ambulance District City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue City of Rolla Fire & Rescue Meramec Regional Planning Commission Missouri Highway Patrol-Troop I Christal Dent Missouri State Highway Patrol The Community Partnership: Young Parent Program Missouri Ozarks Community Action Head Start Donna Neulinger St. James Ambulance District City of Rolla Fire & Rescue Hannibal Regional Hospital Pike County Health Department City Sheet1 Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Rolla Rolla Rolla St. James Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla St. James Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla St. James Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla St James Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla Rolla St. James Rolla Louisiana Eolia Bowling Green Page 12 Page 58 of 117 County Pettis Pettis Pettis Pettis Pettis Pettis Pettis Pettis Pettis Pettis Pettis Pettis Pettis Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Pike Pike Pike Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Instructor Candidate Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name Robyn Ryan Stephen Michael Rick Kyle Michael Christopher Brandon Jesse Stefany Jason Tricia Scott Kara Katherine Susan Adrian Carol Wanita Sandra Shaina Anthony Jessica Tawana Joel Lori Connie Brent Darrin David Angela Jeffrey Jane Michael Barbara Kevin Steve Scott Jimmy Olaf Robert Audrey Carlos Bryan Jeanie Kari Deanna Amanda Angela Farrel Gary Candace Allie Samantha Jesse Ryan Terry Last Name Orf Burton Harper Macey Scott Snyder Bigus Columbus Detrick Green Oyler Phelps Rothweiler Roy Seedorff Smith Anderson Brantley Cunningham Lister Zanaboni Burtchett Clark Coffelt Harper Hunt Marsh Miles Saba Shiplett Stoke White Bricker Bruns Campbell Cezar Curtis Heath Huntington JAckson Jensen Johnson Lein Meza West Johnson Guffey Breusch Hutson Briegel Clevenger Hall McClain McCollum Warner Woods Busby Caldwell Company Name Pike County Health Department Northland Regional Ambulance District Northland Regional Ambulance District Platte County Sheriff's Department Platte County Sheriff Office Central Platte Fire Department Central Platte Fire Northland Regional Ambulance District Central Platte Fire Edgerton Trimble Fire Prot. Dist. Platte County Health Dept Platte County Sheriff's Office Platte County Health Department Northland Regional Ambulance District Northland Regional Ambulance District Platte County Sheriff's Department Polk County Health Center Bolivar City Fire Department Polk County Health Center Polk County Health Center Polk County Health Center Free Women'S Center Of Pulaski County Ft Leonard Wood Fire Dept Pulaski County Ambulance Distric MOCA head start Fort Leonard Wood Fire Department US Army Pulaski County Health Department Fort Leonard Wood Fire Department Us Army Fort Leonard Wood Fesd Army Fort Leonard Wood Fire Department Fort Leonard Wood Fire Department Army Community Service DES-Fire & Emergency Services Fort Leonard Wood Fire Department Tri-County Fire Protection District FLW Fire Dept FLW Fire Dept Fort Leonard Wood Fire Department Fort Leonard Wood Fire And Emergencey Services Free Women's Center of Pulaski County FLW Fire Dept FLW Fire Dept Putnam County Health Department Putnam County Health Department Randolph County Health Department Central Missouri Community Action RCAD Rcad Ray County Ambulance District Ray County Ambulance District Ray County Ambulance Dist. Po box 514 Richmond MO 64085 Lawson Fire and Rescue Ray County Ambulance District City Sheet1 Bowling Green Platte City Platte City Platte City Platte City Platte City Platte City Platte City Platte City Edgerton Platte City Platte City Platte City Platte City Platte City Platte City Bolivar Bolivar Bolivar Bolivar Bolivar Waynesville Ft Leonard Wood Waynesville Richland Fort Leonard Wood Fort Leonard Wood Crocker Fort Leonard Wood Ft Leonard Wood Fort Leonard Wood Fort Leonard Wood Fort Leonard Wood St Robert Ft. Leonard Wood Richland Fort Leonard Wood Richland FLW FLW Fort Leonard Wood Fort Leonard Wood Waynesville FLW FLW Unionville Unionville Moberly Higbee Lawson Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Lawson Richmond Page 13 Page 59 of 117 County Pike Platte Platte Platte Platte Platte Platte Platte Platte Platte Platte Platte Platte Platte Platte Platte Polk Polk Polk Polk Polk Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Putnam Putnam Randolph Randolph Ray Ray Ray Ray Ray Ray Ray Ray Ray Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name Kimberlee Connie Katelyn Catherine Beth Susan Chelsea Guadalupe Abby Sherry Kelley Stacey Carolyn Amanda Sara Michele Debora Cynthia Jessica Garrett Juston Carol Kyle Jenny Cindy Al Susie Michelle Jennifer Karley Melissa Chris Terry Mark Jane Peggy Todd Mark James Adam Bill Kelly Robb Scot John Stephen Steven Vidal Jamie Thomas Amy Sean Brian Justin David Jason Jake Mike Last Name Shook Pendley Kuenzle Hogan Kraner Williams Hoskins Martinez Oberman Burger Clark Dame Davis Barrick Brower Coombs Coward Halbrook Harkins Henson Wheetley Wickenhauser Gaines McDowell Miller Nothum Ochs Patrick Rellergert Rizzo Cone Turner Isgrig Mattina Adler Bailot Barger Barnhart Bell Benenati Evans Eyermann Farr Gibson Godfrey Guilford Hahn Hernandez Hoisington Huesgen Johnson Johnson Jones Klauman Kupfer Lampe LeSeure Loehrer Company Name Ray County Ambulance District Whole Kids Outreach None Self Susan Williams Marshall Public Schools Marshall Public Schools Grundy County Health Department Scott County Health Dept. Missouri Regional Bootheel Consortium Scott County Health Department Missouri Bootheel Regional Consortium, Inc Shelby County Health Department Michele Coombs St. Louis Children's Hospital St. John's Mercy Medical Center Guggie Daly LLC Lake st louis police department Missour State Highway Patrol St. Charles County Ambulance District Mercy Kids St. John's Mercy Medical Center MSHP Lake Saint Louis Police Department Missouri Baptist Medical Center Mercy Hospital St. Clair County Health Center Farmington Fire Department St. Francois County Ambulance District Farmington Fire Department SLCH Metro West Fire Protection District Pattonville Fire Protection District Metro West Fire Protection District Metro West Fire Protection District Metro West Fire Protection District BJC Metro West Fire Protection District WCFPD Metro West Fire Protection District Stephen Guilford Monarch Fire Protection District Metro West Fire Protection District Metro West Fire Protection District Chesterfield Police Dept MBCH Children & Family Ministries Metro West Fire Protection District P.O. Box 310, Wildwood, Missouri 63040 Justin Klauman Metro West Fire Protection District Fenton Fire District Metro West Fire Protection District Pattonville Fire District City Sheet1 Richmond Ellington O Fallon Dardenne Prairie O Fallon O'Fallon Marshall Marshall Queen City Sikeston Sikeston Sikeston Sikeston Shelbyville Lake St. Louis St. Charles St. Charles Lake St. Louis ST. PETERS Lake st louis Weldon Spring St. Peters St. Peters Cottleville St. Charles St. Louis Lake Saint Louis OFallon Saint Charles St. Charles Osceola Farmington Farmington Farmington Chesterfield Ellisville Grover Bridgeton Grover Grover Wildwood Wildwood Grover Wright City Grover Chesterfield Chesterfield Grover Grover Chesterfield Bridgeton Grover Wildwood Fenton Grover Fenton Grover Bridgeton Page 14 Page 60 of 117 County Ray Reynolds Saint Charles Saint Charles Saint Charles Saint Charles Saline Saline Schuyler Scott Scott Scott Scott Shelby St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Clair St. Francois St. Francois St. Francois St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name Matt Chris Mark Wayne Thomas Debbie Krista Max Kenny Tabitha Matt Phillip Josepf Tony Cara Greg John Eddie Keith Shannon Jeff David Mike Sheila Cheryl Tom Melody Todd Rebecca Anne Phillip Nick Angie Jami Darin Andrew monica Pamela Andy Nancy Brittany Tammy Jonathan Amber Steven Bianca Vanessa PAUL Gillian David Ryan Matt Brad Keanna Michael Cheryl Stephen Tom Last Name Mankus Mccarthy Moore Moore Morrow Neisch Nelson Norris Orr Osiier Phelps Ruffus Ruhl Schrempf Shanholtzer Shelton VonGruben Watkins White Willingham Wingate Wynne Zluhan Allen-Frost Anthonis Bauer Bennett Bujnak Cave Dasal Davis Demere Dillick Dolby Estes Freihoff Glaser Henson Hieken Holzum Kaiser Kohler Loesch Mueller Newcomb Perry Pillarick POWERS Rainey Schmiderer Schneider Seger Shelton Taylor Thiemann Timmerman Tuley Vatterot Company Name Hazelwood Fire Dept. Fenton Fire District Metro West Fire Protection District Ellisville Police Department Robertson Fire Protection District Cardinal Glennon Hospital Monarch Fire Protection District Metro West Fire Protection District Missouri army national guard Metro West Fire Protection District Missouri Department of Transportation Monarch Fire Protection District Fenton Fire Protection District Ranken Jordan Pediatric Rehabilitation Hospital Metro West Fire Protection District Metro West Fire District Missouri Department of Transportation Metro West Fire Protection District Robertson Fire Protection District Metro West Fire District Fenton Fire Protection District Monarch Fire Protection District Eureka Fire Prot Dist Missouri Baptist Children's Home - CFM Metro West Fire Protection District Ranken Jordan - A Pediatric Specialty Hospital Metro West Fire Protection District Ranken Jordan - A Pediatric Specialty Hospital Ranken jordan - A Pediatric Bridge Hospital Missouri Department Of Transportation Monarch Fire Protection District Ranken Jordan Peciatric Specialty Hospital Daddy.Fm Robertson Fire Protection District CGCMC mercy east community BJC Health Systems Metro West Fire Protection District Black Jack Fire Protection District St. Louis Children'S Specialty Care Center Ranken Jordan Specialty Hospital Ranken Jordan - A Pediatric Specialty Hospital Ranken Jordan - A Pediatric Specialty Hospital Metro West Fire District Ranken Jordan - A Pediatric Specialty Hospital Ranken Jordan - A Pediatric Bridge Hospital CITY OF CHESTERFIELD Metro West Fire Protection District Maryland Heights Fire Protection District City of ellisville police department Metro West Fire District Metro West Fire Protection District Ranken Jordan - A Pediatric Bridge Hospital Metro West Fire Protection District Ranken Jordan Florissant Valley Fire Protection District Metro West Fire Protection District City Sheet1 Hazelwood Fenton Grover Ellisville Hazelwood Maryland Heights Eureka Chesterfield Grover Ballwin Grover Chesterfield Chesterfield Fenton Maryland Heights Wildwood Wildwood Chesterfield Grover Hazelwood Wildwood Fenton Chesterfield Eureka Bridgeton Wildwood Maryland Heights Wildwood Maryland Heights Maryland Heights Chesterfield Chesterfield Maryland Heights Chesterfield Hazelwood Florissant wildwood Eureka Chesterfield Florissant Town And Country Maryland Heights Maryland Heights Maryland Heights Wildwood Maryland Heights Maryland Heights CHESTERFIELD Wildwood Maryland Heights Ellisville Wildwood Wildwood Maryland Heights Wildwood Maryland Heights Florissant Wildwood Page 15 Page 61 of 117 County St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician First Name P.O. Angela Robert Jalonda Adam Daniel Tyler Mark Julie Shannon Jennifer Nadja Tyler Steven John James Joe Tim Andrew Steven Melody Diane John Dawn Nicole Brett Jordan Chris Theresa Andrew John Sarah Aaron Thomas Hannah Richard Gabriel John Nathan Brittany Tim Cherie Kristine Shannon Craig Darren Whitney Jill Eric Sara Jared shanta Jason Mandy Scott Scott Jeanette Tina Tim Last Name Walsh Wilhelm Auberry Baumgartner Berni Bone Bryant Cappelletti Carr Cassity Caus Chrestman Clark Craig D'Angelo Danner Davila Deluca Demartino DeWeese DuBois Duffy Easterlin Farris Feldewerth Foy Francis Gelven Graddy Grass Haffner Hasheider Heggemeyer Heimos Helm Helms Herr Higginbotham Hudzinski Hunn Jennison Kempf Klossner Kneale Knight Kohlmeyer Krussel Kuntz Leonhardt-Smith Lickerman lima Lipscomb Lott Manning Marcee Mattingly Mecey Metze Company Name Ellisville Police Dept. Monarch Fire Protection District City of St. Louis Department of Health Mehlville Fire Protection District Kirkwood Fire Department Shrewsbury fire department Affton Fire Protection District St. Louis Children'S Hospital LUME Institute St. Louis Children's Hospital BJC Healthcare Barnes Jewish Hospital Mehlville Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District Olivette fire department Mehlville Fire Protection District Olivette Fire Department Mehlville Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District St. Louis Children's Hospital Community Fire Protection District Shriners Hospital Frontenac Police Department Mehlville Fire Protection District St. Louis Children's Hospital Mehlville Fire Protection District SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center Metro West Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District Mercy Hospital St. Louis Clayton Fire Department Clayton Fire Department St. Louis Children's Hospital City of Frontenac Maplewood Fire Dept. Clayton Fire Department Kirkwood Fire Department Mehlville Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District Clayton Fire Department Mehlville Fire Protection District St. Louis Children's Hospital Mercy Medical Center Maplewood Fire Department Mehlville Fire Protection District Clayton Fire Department Affton Fire Protection Dist. Mehlville Fire Protection District St. Louis Children's Hospital Mehlville Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District City Sheet1 Ellisville Chesterfield St. Louis St. Louis Kirkwood St. Louis Affton St. Louis University City St. Louis Saint Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis Saint Louis St. Louis Overland St. Louis Frontenac St. Louis Saint Louis St. Louis St. Louis Grover St. Louis St. Louis Clayton Clayton St. Louis Frontenac Maplewood Clayton Kirkwood Unviersity City Saint Louis Saint Louis St. Louis St. Louis Clayton St. Louis Saint Louis Kirkwood Maplewood Kirkwood St. Louis saint louis Clayton St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis Page 16 Page 62 of 117 County St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name Brandon Linda Randall Jeremy Alex Mike Patrick Scott Melissa Samual Matt Kevin Ashley Jason Jonathon Brent Stephen Bridget Rita Jon Jeffrey Eric Tom Ashley Linda Brad Jeff Lisa Rob Almir Elizabeth Michael Tyler Elizabeth Beckie Allan Craig Julie Katie Rosalyn Leslye Steve Sue Austin Patrick Abbey Jermyn Nick Kelly Robert Nicole Debbie Patricia Thomas David Mary Edward Stacy Last Name Meyer Montgomery Mott Newton Noguera Norris O'Brien Ohlms Pounds Pyne Runge Saak Schaefer Schenimann Stark Stenslokken Stockwell Stone Taylor Thorp Tobin Traylor Viviano Watt Wenger Wideman Wilkins Wolf Wood Zgalj Anvender Bradley Burns Dannan Dart-Frohock DiRie Eisenbeis Eldridge Exline Fulton Geistmann Gray Hagan Hargraves Howe Iffrig Johnson King Klasek Lawson Lehmkuhl McCabe McGee Mullins Peters Schnetzer Scognamiglio Sedlack Company Name Mehlville Fire Protection District Shriners Hospitals for Children Shrewsbury Fire Department City of Frontenac Mehlville Fire Protection Distric Mehlville Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District Maplewood Fire Department Shriners Hospitals For Children Mehlville Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District Olivette Fire Department Mehlville Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District St. Louis Children's Hospital St. Louis Children's Hospital Mehlville Fire Protection District Clayton Fire Department Mehlville Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District City of St. Louis-Dept. of Health st. Mary's Health center Mehlville Fire Protection District Mehlville Fire Protection District St. Louis Children's Hospital Mehlville Fire Protection District Niebling Auto Body Ssm Cardinal Glennon Children'S Medical Center Kirkwood Fire Department St. Louis Fire Department St Louis Children's Hospital Community Fire Dept. City of Brentwood St.John's Mercy Medical Center BJK People's Health Centers Leslye Molamphy Shrewsbury Fire Department Saint Louis Children's Hospital Safe Seats Save Lives Maplewood Fire Dept. St. Louis Children's Hospital Missouri Department of Transportation Maplewood Fire Department St. Louis Children's Hospital Kirkwood Fire Department St. Louis Children's Hospital Safety Basics LLC -Affton Fire Protection District Community Fire Protection District Parenting Resources Mehlville Fire Protection District Stacy Sedlack City Sheet1 St. Louis St. Louis Shrewsbury Frontenac St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis Maplewood St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis Olivette Saint Louis St. Louis St. Louis Webster Groves St Louis St. Louis Crestwood St. Louis Clayton St. Louis St. Louis SAINT LOUIS St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis Saint Louis Kirkwood St. Louis Saint Louis St. John Brentwood St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis Creve Coeur St Louis Saint Louis Saint Louis Maplewood St. Louis St. Louis Affton St. Louis Kirkwood Saint Louis ST. LOUIS St. Louis Saint Louis Overland St. Louis St. Louis Saint Louis Page 17 Page 63 of 117 County St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician First Name William Dee Caitlyn Andrew Lisa Wendy David Jill Scott Lori Mike Robert Paula Dawn Kendall McKenna Charlotte Joshua Don Cessi Lisa AMY SHAWN Kristi Leslie Steven Delesa Kara Karen Jo Cheryl Kristen Tasha Michael John Joshua Amber Michael Kevin Jesse David Jamie Paul Kelly Crystal Brittaney MARTHA Cadee Robin Amanda Gary Kay Kevin Robert Courtnie Last Name Seeger Stratman Struckhoff Suda Taylor Tunnell Wideman Wiethuchter Willbanks Winkler Zacher BRENNEKE Grass Sevier Shrum Bell Hobbs Benton Donner Pritchert Williams BLAIR DAVIS Kooistra Stricklin Barnett Harrison Miller Moody Sanchez Weston Kitsmiller Triplett Holtmeier Lacaillade Riebe Sulin Combs Hakenewerth McCoy Hoffmann Hoffmann Merrill Sexton-Alfaro Epley Long GEHRKE Howey Coday Crawford Helvey Kincannon Loveland Talburt Glenn Company Name Olivette Fire Department Kirkwood Fire Dept Olivette Fire Department Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center Shriners Hospital for Children-St. Louis Mehlville Fire Protection District St. Louis Children's Hospital Shrewsbury Fire Department SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center Mehlville Fire Protection District ST. FARANCOIS COUNTY AMBULANCE DISTRICT Ste. Genevieve County Health Department Ste. genevieve county Ambulance district Ste Genevieve County Ambulance Stoddard County Public Health Center Stoddard County Public Health Center Dexter Police Department Dexter Police Department Stone County Health Department Stone County Health Department TANEY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT ANY BODYS GARAGE Taney county health dept Taney County Health Dept Cox Health Taney County Health Department Taney County Health Dept Taney County Health Department Taney County Health Department Vernon County Health Department Wright City Fire Protection District Wright City Fire Protection District Wright City Fire Protection District Wright City Fire Protection District Wright City Fire Protection District Wright City Fire Protection District Richwoods Fire Dept, Richwoods School Potosi Fire Protection District Washington County Community Partnership Wayne County Health Center Clearwater Ambulance District Webster County Health Unit WIC Webster County Health Unit Webster County Health Unit Cox Health EMS Logan-Rogersville Fire Protection District Logan-Rogersville Fire Protection District Wright County Health Department City Sheet1 Olivette Kirkwood Olivette St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis Brentwood Shrewsbury St. Louis St. Louis ST. GENEVIEVE Ste. Genevieve Ste. genevieve Ste Genevieve Bloomfield Bloomfield Dexter Dexter Branson West Galena FORSYTH Branson Forsyth Branson Branson Forsyth Branson Forsyth Forsyth Battlefield Nevada Nevada Wright City Wright City Wright City Warrenton Wright City Wright City Wright City Richwoods Richwoods Potosi Potosi Greenville Piedmont Marshfield Rogersville Marshfield Marshfield marshfield Rogersville Rogersville Rogersville Mtn. Grove Page 18 Page 64 of 117 County St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City St. Louis City Ste. Genevieve Ste. Genevieve Ste. Genevieve Ste. Genevieve Stoddard Stoddard Stoddard Stoddard Stone Stone Taney Taney Taney Taney Taney Taney Taney Taney Taney Taney Vernon Vernon Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Washington Washington Washington Washington Wayne Wayne Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Webster Wright Status Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Instructor Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Certified Technician Inspection Station Listing as of June, 2016 Organization Adair County Ambulance Kirksville Fire Department Andrew County Health Department Mexico County Health Department Mexico Public Safety Department Cox Health Monett Barceda Families Bates County Health Center Columbia Fire Department Clark-Sampson Funeral Home Community Action Partnership of Greater Saint Joseph Missouri State Highway Patrol - Troop B MoDOT - St. Joseph St. Joseph Safety and Health Council YWCA Butler County Community Resource Council Callaway County Ambulance District City of Fulton Fire Department Fulton Fire Department Camdenton Police Department Climax Springs R-IV School - Parents as Teachers Lake Ozark Fire Protection District Osage Beach Police Department Cape Girardeau Safe Communities Program Jackson Fire and Rescue Carroll County Health Department Carter County Sheriffs Office Cass County Sheriffs Office Harrisonville Emergency Services Peculiar Police Department South Metro Fire District Cedar County Health Department Cedar County Health Department Chariton County Health Center Christian County Ambulance Christian County Ambulance Gladstone Public Safety FIRE/EMS Kearney Fire and Rescue Protection District Kearney Parents as Teachers Liberty Fire Department Liberty Public School North Kansas City Fire Department Smithville Area Fire Protection District Northland Regional Ambulance Holt Community Fire Protection District Jefferson City Fire Department Missouri State Highway Patrol - GHQ Missouri State Highway Patrol - Troop F MoDOT - Jefferson City Boonville Police Department Crawford County Health Department Steelville Ambulance District Daviess County Health Department Douglas Couty Health Department Dunklin County Health Department Mercy Hospital Washington Contact Last Name Contact First Name Probst Schilling Ehrhardt Meyer Smith Prock Hillman Barnes Atkins Sampson Maldonado Skoglund Allen Lober McChristy Chilton Hertzler Maxwell Nelson Stradt Willoughby Amsinger Page Ware Baugh Brock Jensen Tieman Eric McCavahlin Palmer Ehlers Hillsman Naylor Drew Drew Duddy Looper Crawford Radley Brizendine Leeper Watkins Roy Looper Trapani Reinsch White Wolken Roberts Sikes Blue Nicholas Hodges Waggoner Harriman Kat Joe Malinda Brandi Sgt. Penny Vikki Jamie Ruth Darla TJ Estrella Shawn Lana Sue Traci Dalene Susan Bob Gene Melissa Trena Mark Arlyne Lynn Stephen Judy Carla Kevin Myler Michael Brett Jenean Debbie Kathy Christie Christie Charles Robert Connie Larry Tammy Dennis Byron Scott Robert Anthony Lt. Paul Scott Carrie Larry Karen Tony Jackie Sonya Carol Nicki Page 65 of 117 Street Address City County 606 W Potter 401 N. Franklin Street 106 N. 5th St. 1130 S. Elmwood 300 N. Coal - City Hall 801 S. Lincoln Rd 111 E 11th St 501 N. Orange St. 201 Orr St 120 Ilinois Ave 317 Monterey 3525 N. Belt Highway 3602 N Belt Hwy 118 S. 5th Street 304 N. 8th St. 644 Charles St. 311 Hickman Ave 1201 Westminster Ave. 151 W. Tennyson 437 West US Highway 54 119 Nort Dr. 1767 Bagnell Dam Blvd 1000 City Parkway 40 S. Sprigg Street 503 S. Hope St. 5 N Ely St. 15 Sycamore Street, P.O. Box 817 2501 W. Wall, Suite 100 903 S. Commercial St. 224 S. Main 611 W. Foxwood Drive 1317 MO-32 807 Owen Mill Rd 206 State St. 1750 S 15th Ave 1750 S 15th Street 6569 N. Prospect Avenue 201 E. 6th St. 2215 S. Campus Drive 200 W. Mississippi 9600 NE 79th 1815 Howell St 341 Park Dr 1000 Platte falls Road 260 N. 33 Highway 305 E. Miller St. 1510 E. Elm 2920 N. Shamrock Rd, Box 568 830 MoDOT Drive 401 E. Morgan St. 202 W. Main, PO Box 367 #1 EMS Lane 609 A. South Main 603 NW 12 Ave, Box 940 410 Teaco Road 901 E. 5th Kirksville Kirksville Savannah Mexico Mexico Monett Lamar Bulter Columbia St. Joseph St. Joseph St. Joseph St. Joseph St. Joseph St. Joseph Popular Bluff Fulton Fulton Fulton Camdenton Climax Springs Lake Ozark Osage Beach Cape Girardeau Jackson Carrollton Van Buren Harrisonville Harrisonville Peculiar Raymore Eldorado Springs Stockton Keytesville Ozark Ozark Kansas City Kearney Kearney Liberty Kansas City North Kansas City Smithville Platte City Holt Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Jefferson City Boonville Steelville Steelville Gallatin Ava Kennett Washington Adair Adair Andrew Audrain Audrain Barry Barton Bates Boone Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Buchanan Butler Callaway Callaway Callaway Camden Camden Camden Camden Cape Girardeau Cape Girardeau Carroll Carter Cass Cass Cass Cass Cedar Cedar Chariton Christian Christian Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay, Platte Clinton Cole Cole Cole Cole Cooper Crawford Crawford Daviess Douglas Dunklin Franklin Organization Pacific Fire Protection District Pregnancy Assistance Ctr Tri County Health Dept Battlefield Fire Protection District Cox Health Medical Center South Logan-Rogersville Fire Protection District Mercy Springfield/Safe Kids Springfield Missouri State Highway Patrol - Troop D Ozark Technical Community College Safety Council of the Ozarks Grundy County Health Department Harrison County Health Department Calhoun Early Childhood Center Henry County Health Center West Community Action Agency Head Start Windsor CPS Tech Hickory County Health Department Holt County Health Department Fayette Schools-Parents as Teachers Program Head Start CMCA Howell County Health Department Mercy St. Francis Hospital Missouri State Highway Patrol - Troop G Mountain View-Birch Tree R-III School District Ozarks Medical Center West Plains Fire Department West Plains Police Department Iron County Childrens Division Children's Mercy Hospitals & Clinics Grain Valley Police Department Heather's Seat Check Facility I-70 Auto Service Independence Police Department Jackson County Health Department Lee's Summit Police Department MAST Foundation of Health and Safety Missouri State Highway Patrol - Troop A Oak Grove Police Department Pediactrics Department Swope Health Service Raytown EMS Richard C. Green YMCA Head Start Safety and Health Council of Western Missouri and Kansas Saint Lukes Hospital St. Luke's East, Lee's Summit YMCA Metro Head Start Redings Mill Fire District Safe Kids (Jasper and Newton County) Cedar Hill Fire Protection District High Ridge Fire Protection District Jefferson County Health Department 509 Security Forces Johnson County Community Health Services Laclede County Health Department Lebanon Fire Department Lafayette County Health Department Lawrence County Health Department Lincoln County Ambulance District Contact Last Name Contact First Name Bruns Jonathan Rembusch Jane Parsons Lilli Dickey Tom Martin Lana Talburt Robert Greenlee Daphne Pace Jason Minor Lori Lee Barbie Ortega Lindsay Linthacum Sarah Fusaro Paula French Gary Greenwell Jennifer Eason Lisa Pitts Megan Miller Renee Holtwick Nancy Hutson Amanda Hicks Dawn Lilly Marlene Kinder Jeff Robertson Christy Cauthen Elizabeth Shawn Bice Tupper Paula McClananhan Ashley Larimore Phyllis Larkin Shannon Bouldry Sevart Edwards Engelman Cooper Hulett Stosberg Anderson Duran LeSage Howard Smith Girten Cardos-Attebury Cozart-Dean Metcalf Sitton Shuster Coleman Cummings Reed Davis Smith Jordan Oetting Bradshaw Danback Heather Joe Jim Sharon Kendra Peggy Collin William Kristina Kim Dawnetta Beverly Susie Sara Mona Ronnie Jo Greg Roger Donna Ronal Rhonda Cathy Andy Donna Tana Michelle Page 66 of 117 Street Address 910 West Osage 310 International Ave 302 N Park 4117 W. 2nd 3801 S. National Ave. 3427 S. State Highway 125 1570 W. Battlefield 3131 E. Kearney 10001 E. Chestnut Expwy 1111 US-65 Branch 1716 Lincoln 1700 US-69 409 S. College 306 S. Second St. 1003 E. Clark 421 Olive St. 201 Cedar 108 S. Main 702 Lucky St 103 Furr Street 180 S. Kentucky St 100 W. US Highway 60 Business US 60-63 North 314 N. Elm #9 Parkway Shopping Center 302 US-63 Branch 1912 Holiday Lane 2202 Park Drive, P.O. Box 27 2401 Gillham Road 711 N. Main City Pacific Washington Stanberry Battlefield Springfield Rogersville Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Trenton Bethany Calhoun Clinton Clinton Windsor Hermitage Oregon Fayette Fayette West Plains Mountain View Willow Springs Mountain View West Plains West Plains West Plains Ironton Kansas City Grain Valley County Franklin Franklin Gentry Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Greene Grundy Harrison Henry Henry Henry Henry Hickory Holt Howard Howard Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Howell Iron Jackson Jackson 5621 NE Northgate Crossing 3111 Stadium Dr 223 N. Memorial Dr. 313 S. Liberty St 10 NE Tudor Rd 6750 Eastwood Trafficway 504 SE Blue Parkway 1903 S. Broadway 3801 Blue parkway 10020 E. 66th Terr. 10301 E. 350 Highway 5829 Troost Avenue 4401 Wornall Road 100 N.E. St. Luke's Blvd 3827 Troost 344 Redings Mill Road 1027 S. Main, Suite 7 6766 Cedar Hill Rd 2842 High Ridge 405 Main Street 1031 Vanderberg Ave, Ste 502B 429 Burkarth Rd. 405 Harwood Ave. 405 N. Adams 547 South MO- 13 Branch 105 W. North Street 1392 S. 3rd Street Lees Summit Kansas City Independence Independence Lee's Summit Kansas City Lee's Summit Oak Grove Kansas City Raytown Raytown Kansas City Kansas City Lee's Summit Kansas City Joplin Joplin Cedar Hill High Ridge Hillsboro Whiteman AFB Warrensburg Lebanon Lebanon Lexington Mt. Vernon Troy Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson Jasper Jasper Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Johnson Johnson Laclede Laclede Lafayette Lawrence Lincoln Organization Lincoln County Health Department Tri County Sports Center Linn County Health Department Macon County Health Department Families and Communities Together (FACT) Anderson Early Head Start McDonald County Health Department Mercer County Health Department Miller County Ambulance District Miller County Health Center School of the Osage Parents as Teachers Charleston Parents As Teachers Mississippi County Caring Community Monroe County Health Department Montgomery County Health Department Morgan County Health Department New Madrid County Family Resource Center Newton County Health Department Osage County Health Department Ozark County Health Department Pemiscot County Intiative Network Perry County Ambulance Service Perry County Health Department Margaret Ward State Farm Agent Pettis County Health Department Sedalia Fire Department Sedalia Police Department City of Rolla Fire and Rescue City of Rolla Fire and Rescue Station 2 Phelps County Regional Medical Center St. James Ambulance District Pike County Health Department Platte County Health Department Platte County Sheriff's Office Citizens Memorial Hospital District Polk County Health Department Fort Leonard Wood Fire Department Pulaski County Health Department Tri-County Fire Protection District Putnam County Health Department Ralls County Health Department Randolph County Health Department Ray County Ambulance District Whole Kids Outreach Marshall Public Shools Parents as Teachers Missouri Bootheel Regional Consortium, Inc Scott County Ambulance District Scott County Health Department Sikeston Bullpup Safety Checkpoint c/o Sikeston Kindergarent Center Shelby County Health Department Missouri State Highway Patrol - Troop C Progress West Hospital St. Charles County Ambulance District St. Clair County Health Center Bonne Terre Fire Department St. Francois County Ambulance District St. Genevieve County Ambulance Service St. Genevieve County Memorial Hospital Contact Last Name Contact First Name Sitler Lisa Sitler Lisa Dowell Sharon Corbin Stacy Caswell Sandy Tresia Howard Behm Paige Joni Williams Maeder Mark Nelson Derek Willoughby Trena Story Andrea Atkins Katrina Rebecca Dowell Hoette Kathie Vaughn Ashleigh Kirby Revonda Garcia Manny Long Susan Garrison Jenni Pyette Vicki Chappius Mary Miller Barbara Margaret Ward Wiley Holly Tweeter Bill Collins Rodney Goebel Jason Manley Lynette Parrett Gamm Rothweiler Smith Albright Zanaboni Jensen McClendon Campbell Johnson Reed Crowley Essig Pendley Hoskins Wood Scudder Dame Jennifer Kim Tricia Katherine Joannah Sandra Olaf Patty Michael Jeanie Tina Deanna Jessica Connie Chelsea Katrina Amber Stacey Barrick Nothum Safety Stop Kyle Cone Watson Isgrig Shrum Flieg Amanda Al Gaines Melissa Brian TJ Kendall Julie Page 67 of 117 Street Address 5 Health Department Drive 41 College Campus Dr 635 S. Main 503 US-63 #4 Melgrove Lane 712 MO-59 500 Olin Street 305 W. Main St. 1304 S. Aurora St. 2125 Highway 25 1501 School Road 604 S. Thorn St. 603 Garfield 310 N. Market St 400 Salisbury Street 104 W. Lafayette 420 Virginia Ave. 812 W. Harmony 205 N. Main Street 370 3rd St. 711 West 3rd Street 434 N. West St. 406 N. Spring St., Suite 1 1710 W. Main St 911 E. 16th 600 S. Hancock Ave. 201 West 2nd 1490 MO BB 400 W. 4th St. 1000 W. 10th Street 201 N. Louise 5 East Church St 1201 East St. 415 3rd Street, Suite 10 1500 N. Oakland Ave. 1317 W. Broadway St. 625 Colorado Ave. 101 12th Street 111 W. Washington St. 103 N. 18th Street, PO 354 405 W. 1st Street 423 E Logan 10625 Lee Holt Rd 62143 Hwy 21 860 W. Vest 903 S. Kingshighway 202 Lillian Dr. 102 Grove Estates Ct. 1310 E. Salcedo Rd. 700 E. Main 891 Technology 2 Progress Point Parkway 4169 Old Mill Parkway 530 Arduser Dr 520 N. Division St. 820 Electric Street 3 Basler Dr. Hwy. 61 & 32 City Troy Moscow Mills Brookfield Macon Hannibal Anderson Pineville Princeton Eldon Tuscumbia Lake Ozark Charleston East Prairie Paris Montgomery City Versailles New Madrid Neosho Linn Gainesville Caruthersville Perryville Perryville Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Sedalia Rolla Rolla Rolla St. James Bowling Green Parkville Platte City Bolivar Bolivar Fort Leonard Wood Crocker Richland Unionville New London Moberly Richmond Ellington Marshall Sikeston Sikeston Sikeston Sikeston Shelbyville St. Charles O'Fallon St. Peters Osceola Bonne Terre Farmington St. Genevieve St. Genevieve County Lincoln Lincoln Linn Macon Marion McDonald McDonald Mercer Miller Miller Miller Mississippi Misssissippi Monroe Montgomery Morgan New Madrid Newton Osage Ozark Pemiscot Perry Perry Pettis Pettis Pettis Pettis Phelps Phelps Phelps Phelps Pike Platte Platte Polk Polk Pulaski Pulaski Pulaski Putnam Ralls Randolph Ray Reynolds Saline Scott Scott Scott Scott Shelby St. Charles St. Charles St. Charles St. Clair St. Francois St. Francois St. Genevieve St. Genevieve Donna Organization Ste. Genevieve County Health Department Affton Fire Protection District Central County Fire & Rescue Chesterfield Police Department City of Berkeley Fire Department City of Clayton Fire Department Fenton Fire District Florissant Valley Fire Protection District Hazelwood Fire Department Kirkwood Fire Department Magic House, St. Louis Children's Hopsital Maryland Heights Fire District Mehville Fire Protection District MoDOT - Chesterfield Ranken Jordan- A Pediatric Specialty Hospital Safety Basics LLC Mobile Fitting Station SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital Mobile Van at St. Mary's Health Center SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center Mobile Van at West County EMS/Fire St. Louis Children's Hospital Catholic Charities Community Servies - Midtown Center Community Fire Protection District SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital Mobile Van at St. Clare Health Center Luv-N-Tots, Inc Stoddard County Public Health Center Stone County Health Department A Family's Place Chiropractic Skaggs Regional Medical Center Taney County Health Department - Branson Taney County Health Department - Forsyth Wright City Fire Protection District Richwood Fire Protection District Washington County Community Partnership Clearwater Ambulance District Wayne County Health Center Wright County Health Department SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital at DePaul Hospital Contact Last Name Contact First Name Grass Paula Bryant Mark Barter Mike Powers Paul Cooper Yolonda Hasheider Aaron Cooper Joel Tuley Stephen Getz Randy Stratman Dee Safety Stop Schmiderer David Marcee Scott Ruffus Phil Kohler Tammy Fanter Fanter Safety Stop Thomas Peters Fanter Rodgers Sexton King Rayle Hamilton Miller Moody Riebe Hoffmann Sexton-Alfaro Lyscas Epley Glenn Fanter Kim Kim Tierra David Kim Peg Amanda Kim Jim Leanna Kara Karen Joshua Jamie Kelly Christopher Crystal Courtnie Kim Page 68 of 117 Street Address 115 Basler Dr. 9282 Gravois Road 1 Temberbrook Dr 690 Chesterfield Parkway West 8401 Airport Rd. 10 N. Bemiston 845 Gregory Lane 1910 Shackelford 6800 Howdershell Rd 11804 Big Bend 516 S. Kirkwood 2600 Schuetz Road 11020 Mueller Rd. 1590 Woodlake Dr. 11365 Dorsett Road 9058 Watson Rd. Suite B 6400 Clayton Rd. (Behind the building) 13790 Mancheter Rd. One Children's Place 1202 S. Boyle 9411 Marlowe 1015 Bowles Ave 401 E. Shawnee MO-25 109 E. 4th, P.O. 125 2404 MO-248 251 Skaggs Rd 320 Rinehart Road 15479 US Highway 160, Box 369 396 West North Second St 10015 Turtle Rd 212 E. Jefferson St. 117 W. Fir St. #B Highway 67 North, PO Box 259 602 E State St. City St. Genevieve St. Louis St. Peters Chesterfield Berkeley Clayton Fenton Florissant Hazelwood Kirkwood St. Louis Maryland Heights St. Louis Chesterfield Maryland Heights St. Louis St. Louis Ballwin St. Louis St. Louis Overland Fenton Bloomfield Bloomfield Galena Branson Branson Branson Forsyth Wright City Richwoods Potosi Piedmont Greenville Mountain Grove County St. Genevieve St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis St.Louis St.Louis St.Louis Stoddard Stoddard Stone Taney Taney Taney Taney Warren Washington Washington Wayne Wayne Wright Appendix B Page 69 of 117 MISSOURI Occupant Protection Program Assessment March 31 – April 4, 2014 ASSESSMENT TEAM MEMBERS Susan Bryant Cathy Gillen Lori Haskett Mark Solomon Tom Woodward Page 70 of 117 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 1A. STRENGTHS 1B. CHALLENGES 1C. RECOMMENDATIONS 2. LEGISLATION/REGULATION AND POLICY 2A. STRENGTHS 2B. CHALLENGES 2C. RECOMMENDATIONS 3. LAW ENFORCEMENT 3A. STRENGTHS 3B. CHALLENGES 3C. RECOMMENDATIONS 4. OCCUPANT PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN 4A. STRENGTHS 4B. CHALLENGES 4C. RECOMMENDATIONS 5. OUTREACH PROGRAM 5A. STRENGTHS 5B. CHALLENGES 5C. RECOMMENDATIONS 6. COMMUNICATION 6A. STRENGTHS 6B. CHALLENGES 6C. RECOMMENDATIONS 7. EVALUATION 7A. STRENGTHS 7B. CHALLENGES 7C. RECOMMENDATIONS ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT TEAM CREDENTIALS Page 71 of 117 Page No. 3 4 6 8 10 12 12 12 14 14 17 18 20 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 28 29 29 30 30 31 32 33 33 35 35 37 38 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The assessment team would like to acknowledge and thank the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Traffic and Highway Safety Division’s Office of Highway Safety (OHS) Director Leanna Depue and Program Administrator Bill Whitfield for their support, level of effort, and commitment to occupant protection in Missouri. Special thanks goes to Occupant Protection Coordinator Scott Jones for his exemplary support in developing the assessment agenda, administering the questionnaires, compiling briefing materials, and providing logistical support to the team. The team would also like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety, staff representatives from OHS, MoDOT, the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP), local law enforcement (Boone County Sheriff’s Office, Creve Coeur Police Department, Joplin Police Department, Kansas City Metro Police Department, St. Louis County Police Department and Willow Springs Police Department), Lincoln County Health Department, Missouri Safety Center, Missouri Safe Kids, ThinkFirst Missouri and others, many of whom volunteered their time to share their knowledge and expertise during the assessment. Thanks to everyone committed to Saving Mo Lives on Missouri roadways. This assessment could not have been conducted without the guidance and involvement from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s regional and headquarters staff: Susan DeCourcy, Janice Hartwill-Miller, Amy Schick and Laura Dunn; and support from their supervisors, Region 7 Administrator Chris Murphy and Occupant Protection Division Chief Maria Vegega. Special thanks also goes to Laura Nichols, who served as the administrative consultant for this assessment. Notes: The information included in this document has been collected from a variety of sources including interviews, official documents, websites, and other materials. Sources may not be consistent. Some copyrighted material has been used under the “Fair Use” Doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute. Page 72 of 117 ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND The purpose of the Occupant Protection Program Assessment is to provide the State of Missouri with a comprehensive review of its occupant protection program by identifying strengths, accomplishments, and challenges. In addition to using data and other resources, this report provides valuable insights for occupant protection program planning. The assessment process provides a systematic approach for measuring progress by following the format of the Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs, Guideline No. 20, Occupant Protection (November 2006). These guidelines offer direction to states in formulating their plans for highway safety efforts that are supported with 23 U.S.C. Section 402 (State and Community Highway Safety), 23 U.S.C. Section 405(b) (Occupant Protection) and other grant funds. The guidelines provide a framework for developing a balanced highway safety program and serve as a tool with which states can assess the effectiveness of their own programs. All states, in cooperation with their political subdivisions, should have a comprehensive occupant protection program that educates and motivates its citizens to use available motor vehicle occupant protection systems. A combination of use requirements, aggressive enforcement, public information, education, and incentives is necessary to achieve lasting increases in occupant protection usage, which will prevent fatalities and decrease the number and severity of injuries. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) staff facilitated the Occupant Protection Program Assessment. Working with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Traffic and Highway Safety Division’s Office of Highway Safety (OHS), NHTSA recommended a team of five individuals with proven expertise in various aspects of occupant protection program development, implementation, and evaluation. Efforts were made to select a team that reflected the needs and interests expressed by OHS. The assessment consisted of a thorough review of state-provided occupant protection program briefing materials and interviews with state and community-level program directors, coordinators, advocates, law enforcement personnel, and OHS staff. The conclusions drawn by the assessment team were based primarily upon the facts and information provided in the briefing materials and by the various experts who made presentations to the team. Following completion of the interviews on Wednesday, April 2, 2014, the team convened to review and analyze the information presented. On Friday, April 4, 2014, the team briefed OHS and other invited guests on its findings and discussed major points and recommendations. The assessment team noted that many occupant protection and general traffic safety activities are conducted throughout Missouri. It is not the intent of this report to thoroughly document all of these successes, nor to give credit to the large number of individuals at all levels who are dedicated to traffic safety. By its very nature, the report focuses on areas where further improvements can be made. Please consider this report as constructive criticism. It is an attempt to provide assistance at all levels for improvement, which is consistent with the overall goals of assessments. Page 73 of 117 This report is a consensus report. The recommendations provided are based on the unique characteristics of Missouri and what the assessment team members believe Missouri, its political subdivisions, and partners can do to improve the reach and effectiveness of the occupant protection program. Missouri conducted a NHTSA occupant protection assessment in 2009. In addition to utilizing this current assessment report for occupant protection planning, the team strongly encourages OHS to continue using the 2009 assessment recommendations. Some recommendations from the previous assessment are now reinforced in this document to highlight their importance and reinforce that their implementation is key to improving Missouri's occupant protection program. This Occupant Protection Program Assessment Report is not a NHTSA document and it belongs to OHS. Missouri is strongly encouraged to use the assessment report as the basis for making program improvements, assessing legislative priorities, providing additional training opportunities, evaluating funding priorities, and shaping future strategic highway safety plans. Page 74 of 117 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The state of Missouri, in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), initiated an Occupant Protection Program Assessment. During the February 14, 2014 pre-assessment conference call, the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Traffic and Highway Safety Division’s Office of Highway Safety (OHS) asked the team of independent experts to identify practical strategies that a secondary enforcement law state can utilize to increase overall seat belt usage, strategies to increase teen seat belt use, and innovative enforcement approaches. Particular attention was given to these areas. Recommendations from this assessment are intended to guide OHS toward improvements in program management; regulations, legislation and policy; law enforcement; communication; occupant protection for children; outreach; and data and evaluation. OHS, the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety, and other dedicated partners are committed to improving highway safety. By 2016, Missouri is committed to having 700 or fewer traffic fatalities on its roadways. OHS guides Missouri’s overall highway safety program, identifies the most critical statewide traffic safety needs, awards and monitors highway safety grants, and coordinates high visibility enforcement mobilizations such as Click It or Ticket/Click It for Life. OHS takes a thorough approach in assessing the state’s occupant protection challenges that run the gamut, from decreasing the overall number of crashes (fatal, injury and property damage only) to reducing unrestrained fatality crashes and increasing observed seat belt use rates. OHS relies heavily on performance management and observational surveys to assess program efficacy. Since 2005, Missouri has seen a 40 percent reduction in motor vehicle fatalities. In 2013, 757 people were killed in traffic crashes, the lowest number since 1945. Despite this noteworthy progress, Missouri has struggled to see meaningful increases in its seat belt use rate over the past ten years, ranging from 76 percent in 2004 to 80.1 percent in 2013. Missouri’s teen seat belt usage rate stands at 67 percent. In 2013, sixty-three percent of all vehicle occupants fatally injured were unbelted and nearly 8 out of 10 vehicle occupants age 15-25 died unrestrained. With 33,000 miles of state-owned and maintained roadways, Missouri’s state road system is the 7th largest in the country. Roughly 75 percent of fatalities occur on the major state-owned roads. The “off (county/city) system” consists of 96,000 road miles. Similar to national trends, Missouri seat belt use compliance in rural areas is generally lower than more populated areas. Young men, pickup truck drivers and minorities are also less likely to buckle up. Missouri, known as the "Show-Me State”, has highly varied geography and is the 21st largest and the 18th most populous of the 50 United States. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, more than six million people live in Missouri with over half of Missourians residing within the St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas. Page 75 of 117 Recently, MoDOT underwent significant staffing reductions. OHS was not immune to these reductions. Despite the staffing downsize, OHS manages more than 400 contracts with a $3.4 million contracted budget in FY 2014 for occupant protection. The state of Missouri has a secondary enforcement seat belt law for adults in the front seat of passenger vehicles. There is no seat belt law for adult rear seat occupants. With little political will at the state level, largely due to freedom of choice concerns, Missouri’s prospect of upgrading to primary enforcement at the current time is bleak. To Missouri’s credit, the state leads the way in enacting local primary enforcement seat belt law ordinances. Currently 21 percent of Missouri’s population is covered by 39 local primary belt ordinances. This offers a unique opportunity to mitigate secondary law enforcement challenges and reduce serious injuries and fatalities on Missouri’s roadways. While there are a number of dedicated CPS professionals in Missouri, opportunity exists to better reach children between the ages of 8 and 18. With 114 counties and more than 600 law enforcement agencies in the state, OHS has three staff liaisons that work to recruit and maintain enforcement agencies to participate in year round and/or mini-grant opportunities. Given the diversity of Missouri’s police departments, ranging from larger metropolitan departments which are very traffic-minded to smaller sheriffs’ offices that opt not to enforce traffic safety, opportunity exists to educate more law enforcement personnel on the importance of buckling up. Further opportunity exists to refine the target audiences and educate minority and higher-risk groups through traditional and non-traditional communication mediums. Despite Missouri’s many challenges, OHS staff and those interviewed as part of this assessment are dedicated to improving highway safety for all Missourians. Each person brings his or her own unique expertise and experience that should be leveraged to the fullest capacity. Using occupant protection is the single most effective habit Missourians can do to protect themselves in a crash and Arrive Alive. Based on the fundamental elements of the Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs for Occupant Protection, this assessment report identifies Missouri’s strengths and challenges and provides recommendations for the major occupant protection program areas. Page 76 of 117 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS (Note: Key Recommendations are BOLDED in each individual section) • Task regional coalitions and the Occupant Protection Subcommittee of the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety with the creation, development, and implementation of new initiatives in occupant protection. • Develop the will for political change through grassroots community advocacy, leveraging influential organizations, and generating visible public and private support. • Establish a Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) program. The position(s) should be staffed by former law enforcement personnel who have the ability to garner the support of law enforcement executives to work toward the highway safety goals of OHS. The LELs should also be able to coordinate and facilitate training programs to better inform the law enforcement community about highway safety concerns, practices and procedures. • Enforcement of occupant protection laws needs to be emphasized on a year-round basis. Law enforcement agencies should make enforcement of these laws a priority of their patrol personnel on a daily basis. • Conduct a Child Occupant Protection Observational Survey for the entire 0 to 18 year old spectrum for a baseline. • Conduct an annual Child Passenger Safety (CPS) conference/summit to update technicians, provide opportunities for re-certification and CEUs, and foster networking opportunities. • Explore alternative funding sources to purchase child safety seats for distribution programs. • Establish strong partnerships with organizations such as the statewide Parent Teacher Association (PTA) or local PTAs and the state or local chapters of American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) to distribute occupant protection education materials to parents. • Establish new partnerships with large employers in the state to distribute occupant protection safety education materials. Provide large employers with model seat belt use policies to implement for employees. • Create partnerships and implement occupant protection programs with faith-based organizations. • Use surveys/questionnaires to track message retention and behavior changes after public information and education campaigns are conducted. Page 77 of 117 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) • Use evidence-based research to raise support among the general population, legislators and other community leaders for primary enforcement laws. • Evaluate the effectiveness of local primary ordinances across the state of Missouri. • Do more in-depth analyses of unbelted fatalities and disabling injury crashes occurring at nighttime. • Ensure that evaluation results are an integral part of program planning and problem identification. Evaluate the effectiveness of all current occupant protection programs including inputs and results. Page 78 of 117 1. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT GUIDELINE: Each state should have centralized program planning, implementation and coordination to achieve and sustain high rates of seat belt use. Evaluation is also important for determining progress and ultimate success of occupant protection programs. • • • • Provide leadership, training and technical assistance to other State agencies and local occupant protection programs and projects; Establish and convene an occupant protection advisory task force or coalition to organize and generate broad-based support for programs. The coalition should include agencies and organizations that are representative of the State’s demographic composition and critical to the implementation of occupant protection initiatives; Integrate occupant protection programs into community/corridor traffic safety and other injury prevention programs; and Evaluate the effectiveness of the State’s occupant protection program. 1A. STRENGTHS • The Missouri Occupant Protection Program is administered by the Office of Highway Safety (OHS) in the Traffic and Highway Safety Division of the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) with highly experienced and dedicated traffic safety professionals. • The Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety (MCRS) serves as the state traffic safety coalition for goal-setting, planning, and coordination. The MCRS is composed of an executive committee, ten state-level subcommittees, and seven regional coalitions. • Regional coalitions are composed of a variety of traffic safety professionals, volunteers, and advocates. Participants report that satisfaction in and effectiveness of the coalitions are high to very high. • The Executive Committee of the MCRS provides the leadership for Missouri’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), entitled Missouri’s Blueprint to Save More Lives. • The SHSP identifies the vision, mission, and goal for traffic safety in Missouri: Vision: Continuously Moving Missouri toward Zero Deaths Goal: 700 or Fewer Fatalities by 2016 Mission: To make travel on Missouri’s roadways safer through a partnership of committed local, state, federal, public and private organizations. • “Increasing Safety Belt Use” is among the nine strategies in the SHSP to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. The SHSP also incorporates “Unrestrained Drivers and Occupants” as Page 79 of 117 a focus area. A comprehensive core of strategies for this focus area includes education, enforcement, engineering, and public policy. • Six identified and measurable performance measures are tracked to determine the progress of occupant protection programs. • The State has selected a goal to increase statewide seat belt usage by two percentage points annually such that an 87 percent rate is achieved by 2015. • OHS includes a designated Occupant Protection Coordinator. The Coordinator is an experienced grant manager and traffic safety leader. • The Executive Committee of the MCRS approved the establishment of a statewide Occupant Protection Subcommittee. The subcommittee will be chaired by the State Occupant Protection Coordinator within OHS. It is planned to be implemented by July 1, 2014. • In FY 2014, OHS planned to develop a multi-year strategic plan for occupant protection in conjunction with an Occupant Protection Summit. The goal is to complete this plan by July 1, 2014. • OHS is working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to support the strategic planning process. CDC is interviewing various persons in the state, to be followed by a workshop, and concluding with a report with recommendations and results. • According to the 2014 Highway Safety Program Cost Summary (June 2013), a significant amount of funds has been planned to support occupant protection efforts. These include, but aren’t limited to: 2014 Planned Occupant Protection Funds Federal Fund Source Amount State/local Section 402 (OP) $ 870,149 MAP-21 (Section 405b) $ 900,000 $ 225,000 Section 2011 $ 504,462 $ 264,500 TOTAL $ 2,274,611 $ 489,500 [These amounts do not include, for example, Community Traffic Safety projects ($208,130), Safe Communities projects ($179,287), and Child Restraint projects ($80,000).] • Additional resources are available to local projects through the regional MCRS coalitions. The regional coalitions develop traffic safety plans and manage state funds for projects to implement those plans. These projects for enforcement, public information and education supplement and support state programs and campaigns. • The state occupant protection program takes a comprehensive approach that combines program management, legislative and policy efforts, law enforcement, public information and education, child passenger safety, and program evaluation. Page 80 of 117 • Based on crash data and observational surveys, identified primary target groups for occupant protection include teens, rural drivers and passengers, young males, and pickup truck drivers. • In support of the grant application process, OHS conducts regional workshops for existing and potential grantees. Packets and information that include instructions and traffic crash data are provided to attendees. • OHS developed and implemented a grants management system that now provides web-based processes for grant application submissions, contract development, enforcement reporting, and vouchering. Users consider this system to be easy to use and helpful. Additional components are in development for reporting and training. • Project selection is based on multiple factors to help determine the potential for project success. Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices (NHTSA) serves as a reference document for project development and selection. • Project ideas come from a variety of sources such as sharing with other states, research reports, and meetings and events such as the national Lifesavers traffic safety conference. • Consolidation of the administration of Click It or Ticket mini-grants with the Missouri Safety Center eases the time spent on basic grant management tasks by OHS staff for this program while maintaining quality control and oversight. 1B. CHALLENGES • In 2012, OHS was reduced by six full time employees (FTEs) as part of an overall 19 percent staff reduction for MoDOT. • The designated occupant protection coordinator does not spend 100 percent of staff time on occupant protection but also carries significant responsibility in law enforcement coordination and grant management. • The designated child passenger safety coordinator spends up to 20 percent of time on activities other than occupant protection. • Successful projects have operated in pockets of the State for several years but have not expanded statewide. These projects, such as Battle of the Belts in various high schools, are time and personnel intensive. With limited staff at the state and regional level, it is difficult to grow these types of programs. • Due to programming constraints, it is difficult to create, develop, and implement new initiatives that could energize the public and the highway safety community. Page 81 of 117 • While there are numerous meetings and traffic safety conferences, there has not been a state conference that focuses specifically and solely on occupant protection programs and issues. • Different funding streams result in multiple applications and grants to the same grantee. Grant program complexity may mean additional staff time for all involved. 1C. RECOMMENDATIONS • Incorporate recommendations from this assessment and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initiative in developing the State’s comprehensive occupant protection strategic plan. • Conduct a functional job analysis for an occupant protection coordinator to determine what tasks are essential to Office of Highway Safety (OHS); contract, grant, or transfer functions to create a full-time occupant protection coordinator position within OHS. • Expand identified, successful projects statewide. • Task regional coalitions and the Occupant Protection Subcommittee of the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety with the creation, development, and implementation of new initiatives in occupant protection. • Conduct a state conference for current and new partners in occupant protection; use this conference to gain renewed commitment to occupant protection programs and policies. • Continue to simplify and streamline grant management processes. • Continue development and increase use of the online grants management system. Page 82 of 117 2. LEGISLATION/REGULATION AND POLICY GUIDELINE: Each state should enact and vigorously enforce primary enforcement occupant protection use laws. Each state should develop public information programs to provide clear guidance to the motoring public concerning motor vehicle occupant protection systems. This legal framework should include: • Legislation permitting primary enforcement that requires all motor vehicle occupants to use systems provided by the vehicle manufacturer; • Legislation permitting primary enforcement that requires that children birth to 16 years old (or the State’s driving age) be properly restrained in an appropriate child restraint system (i.e., certified by the manufacturer to meet all applicable Federal safety standards) or seat belt; • Legislation permitting primary enforcement that requires children under 13 years old to be properly restrained in the rear seat (unless all available rear seats are occupied by younger children); • Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) laws that include three stages of licensure, and that place restrictions and sanctions on high-risk driving situations for novice drivers (i.e., nighttime driving restrictions, passenger restrictions, zero tolerance, required seat belt use); • Regulations requiring employees and contractors at all levels of government to wear seat belts when traveling on official business; • Official policies requiring that organizations receiving Federal highway safety program grant funds develop and enforce an employee seat belt use policy; and Outreach to state insurance commissioners to encourage them to persuade insurers to offer incentives to policyholders who use seat belts and child restraints. Insurance commissioners are likely to have significant influence with insurers that write policies in 2A. STRENGTHS • Missouri was among the first states to adopt a seat belt law, implementing secondary enforcement legislation in 1985. • There are committed, dedicated and persistent safety advocates in the State, including the top leadership of the Missouri Department of Transportation, who continue to promote occupant protection and support policy initiatives. For example, the former president of the St. Louis Area Police Chiefs Association was instrumental in obtaining a primary enforcement ordinance for the city of Creve Coeur. • Thirty-eight cities and one county have passed local ordinances which permit traditional (i.e., primary) enforcement. These ordinances cover over 1 million people, 21 percent of Page 83 of 117 Missouri’s population. The safety advantages and cost savings of implementing primary enforcement have been persuasive in the passage of these ordinances. • Factual information regarding state law and the potential of primary enforcement and a higher fine is provided to the public and to state legislators. • Significant planning documents, such as Missouri’s Blueprint to Save More Lives, have reiterated the safety community’s commitment to upgrade state and local requirements by designating key strategies to: • • enact a primary safety belt law. expand the number of local primary safety belt ordinances. • Occupant protection legislation covers all drivers and front seat passengers (Section 307.178 RSMo), persons less than eighteen years of age operating or riding in a truck (Section 307.178 RSMo), and a child less than sixteen years of age (Section 307.179 RSMo). • Under designated circumstances, failure to wear a safety belt may be admitted in a case to mitigate damages. • The State’s child passenger safety law (Section 307.179 RSMo) requires use of an appropriate child passenger safety system which meets federal standards for: • • Children less than four years of age, regardless of weight, and Children weighing less than 40 pounds, regardless of age. • Section 307.179 RSMo requires use of an appropriate restraint system or booster seat which meets federal standards for children at least four years of age but less than eight years of age who also weigh at least 40 pounds but less than 80 pounds and who are also less than four feet nine inches tall. • Section 307.179 RSMo requires use of a vehicle safety belt or appropriate booster seat which meets federal standards for children at least 80 pounds or more than four feet nine inches tall. • Violation of subsections of Section 307.179 RSMo for children less than or equal to 80 pounds or less than or equal to four feet nine inches tall may result in a fine of up to $50 plus court costs. • Lincoln County, Missouri, has an ordinance prohibiting the sale of used car seats. This is the only ordinance of its kind in the country. • The Highway and Transportation Commission is charged with implementing a program to educate and ensure compliance with the State’s occupant protection laws. Page 84 of 117 • Missouri law (Section 304.665 RSMo) prohibits a person under 18 years old from riding in the unenclosed bed of a truck with a licensed gross weight of less than 12,000 pounds. • Under Missouri’s graduated driver licensing (GDL) provisions (Section 302.178 RSMo): • • • An intermediate driver’s license requires that the driver and all passengers wear seat belts at all times. Some limited restrictions are made on permissible nighttime driving. An intermediate driver’s license holder is prohibited from driving between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. unless accompanied by a legally-designated individual unless the travel is to or from school or educational program or activity, a regular place of employment or in emergency situations as defined by regulation. (See also “Challenges” below.) For the first six months of an intermediate driver’s license, there may be only one passenger under the age of 19 who is not a member of the holder’s immediate family. After the first six months, there may be no more than three passengers under 19 years of age who are not members of the holder’s immediate family. • State of Missouri Administrative Policy (SP-4, Revised May 15, 2008) requires that all occupants of state vehicles or private vehicles operated on state business “shall use safety restraints where equipped”. • According to the Missouri Department of Transportation Employee Handbook (September 2013), employees are required to use seat belts when driving or riding in a department vehicle. • The Office of Highway Safety (OHS) requires all grantees to have an employee seat belt policy. • Research specific to Missouri - Evaluation of a County Enforcement Program with a Primary Seat Belt Ordinance: St. Louis County, Missouri (NHTSA 2010) and Estimated Minimum Savings to the Medicaid Budget in Missouri by Implementing a Primary Seat Belt Law (NHTSA 2007) - has documented the advantages of primary enforcement in lives saved, injuries prevented, and cost savings. • Federal commercial motor vehicle regulation (§392.16: Use of seat belts) requires that a commercial motor vehicle which has a seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seat shall not be driven unless the driver has properly restrained himself/herself with the seat belt assembly. This regulation is supported by the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Program which provides funds for inspection, enforcement, and education. • OHS is developing the Primary Safety Belt Ordinance Toolkit to assist local governments in adopting primary seat belt ordinances. The toolkit includes a model primary seat belt ordinance, crash data, maps, and seat belt survey results. Page 85 of 117 2B. CHALLENGES • Since first passed in 1985, Missouri has been unable to upgrade its seat belt law to allow for standard enforcement. Therefore, despite the fact that failure to wear a seat belt is illegal, law enforcement is unable to appropriately and adequately enforce the law. • The political climate and belief in the primacy of personal freedom have not been conducive to passing upgrades to the State’s occupant protection laws. According to the Highway Drivers Survey (Missouri Department of Transportation 2012), about half of respondents wish to keep the seat belt law as secondary (51 percent) and prefer to keep the penalty as is (52.9 percent). • There has not been sufficient, influential support from certain individual leaders, such as some state and local elected officials and powerful professional and business organizations, to achieve legislative change. • Missouri’s occupant protection legislation does not meet the following requirements of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) Section 405(b) grant program and increase occupant protection: • • The State must provide for imposition of a fine of not less than $25 per unrestrained occupant. Missouri’s seat belt law (Section 307.178 RSMo) provides for a fine not to exceed $10. Section 307.179 (2) (4) RSMo, requiring use of a seat belt or booster seat for children at least 80 pounds or more than four feet nine inches tall, also provides for a fine not to exceed $10. A $10 fine is the lowest in the country and is generally considered insufficient to influence those who fail to wear a seat belt. There must be no gaps in coverage in the State occupant protection laws. Missouri law does not cover back seat occupants in passenger vehicles 16 years or older. Pickup truck drivers and passengers 18 years of age or older are also exempt. • Under Section 307.178 RSMo, no court costs may be imposed for failure to use a seat belt. • No points on a person’s driver license may be assessed for violating the seat belt law. • Charges for violation of Section 307.178 (1), (2), or (3) shall be dismissed or withdrawn if the driver, prior to or at hearing, provides satisfactory evidence of acquisition of child passenger restraint system or child booster seat. It is unknown as to what is required to show “satisfactory evidence of acquisition”. Correct installation is not required and may not be expected. • Several exemptions in Missouri law (Section 304.665 RSMo) allow passengers under 18 years old to ride in the unenclosed bed of a pickup truck under certain circumstances. Exemptions include, but are not limited to: Page 86 of 117 • • • roads that are not part of the state or federal highway system or within the corporate limits of any city; if there is any means to prevent or secure a passenger from being thrown, falling or jumping from the truck; and if the truck is being operated solely for the purposes of participating in a special event and there is a lack of available seating. A “special event” is “a specific social activity of a definable duration which is participated in by the person riding in the unenclosed bed”. • The State’s Graduated Drivers License (GDL) provisions do not appear to meet the requirements to qualify Missouri for the State GDL Grant Program (Section 1200.26) of MAP-21. For example, the Interim Final Rule (IFR) imposes a restriction on nighttime driving between 10 p.m. through 5 a.m. when intermediate drivers are most at risk. While the IFR allows exceptions in the case of emergency, it does not permit other exceptions during the restricted driving hours. Missouri provisions do not meet these specifics as noted above. • Provisions for a temporary instruction permit prior to an intermediate driver’s license (Section 302.130 RSMo) do not include any passenger restrictions or nighttime driving restrictions or incorporate seat belt use requirements. • Driver education, other than behind-the-wheel instruction, is not required to obtain a driver license in Missouri. • A local seat belt ordinance with primary enforcement has been challenged in court. A circuit court upheld the validity and constitutionality of the ordinance. However, the decision of the circuit court has been appealed. At the time of this assessment, a decision on the appeal had not been made. 2C. RECOMMENDATIONS • Develop the will for political change through grassroots community advocacy, leveraging influential organizations, and generating visible public and private support. • Provide for standard primary enforcement statewide for all occupant protection laws. • Increase the fine for occupant protection laws that currently allow for a maximum $10 fine to a minimum of $25. • Ensure there are no age gaps in the State’s occupant protection laws. • Allow court costs to be imposed for violations of the State’s occupant protection laws. • Attach points to a driver license for violation of occupant protection laws. Page 87 of 117 • Reduce the number of exemptions that allow young passengers to ride in the open bed of a pickup truck. • Determine whether child passenger violations are waived on the presentation of a purchase receipt or car seat; encourage judges and prosecutors to work toward requiring a child passenger safety technician’s determination of an appropriate child restraint properly installed prior to waiver of a fine. • Upgrade graduated driver licensing requirements to comply with the State Graduated Driver Licensing Grant Program (MAP 21), including a restriction on nighttime driving between 10 p.m. through 5 a.m. for intermediate drivers. • Require in-class driver education to qualify for a driver license for those under the age of 18. • Distribute a Primary Safety Belt Ordinance Toolkit to assist local governments considering a primary ordinance. Page 88 of 117 3. LAW ENFORCEMENT GUIDELINE: Each State should conduct frequent, high-visibility law enforcement efforts, coupled with communication strategies, to increase seat belt and child safety seat use. Essential components of a law enforcement program should include: • Written, enforced seat belt use policies for law enforcement agencies with sanctions for noncompliance to protect law enforcement officers from harm and for officers to serve as role models for the motoring public; • Vigorous enforcement of seat belt and child safety seat laws, including citations and warnings; • Accurate reporting of occupant protection system information on police accident report forms, including seat belt and child safety seat use or non-use, restraint type, and airbag presence and deployment; • Communication campaigns to inform the public about occupant protection laws and related enforcement activities; • Routine monitoring of citation rates for non-use of seat belts and child safety seats; • Use of National Child Passenger Safety Certification (basic and in-service) for law enforcement officers; • Utilization of Law Enforcement Liaisons (LELs), for activities such as promotion of national and local mobilizations and increasing law enforcement participation in such mobilizations and collaboration with local chapters of police groups and associations that represent diverse groups (e.g., NOBLE, HAPCOA) to gain support for enforcement efforts. 3A. STRENGTHS • The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Traffic and Highway Safety Division’s Office of Highway Safety (OHS) requires all law enforcement agencies applying for grant funds to have a seat belt use policy within their agencies. There is a specific block on the electronic application for funds that must be marked in the affirmative indicating such a seat belt use policy exists. • There is strong law enforcement participation during national and state occupant protection mobilizations, i.e. Click It or Ticket and Youth Safety Belt Enforcement Campaign. • Crash trend updates are regularly distributed throughout the state by OHS. • Electronic crash reporting provides a means for near real-time crash data and the ability to more quickly identify problem areas. • Law enforcement agencies are permitted to conduct vehicle equipment and licensing checkpoints during which enforcement of occupant protection laws may take place. Page 89 of 117 • The Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) has a zero tolerance policy toward occupant protection enforcement which requires troopers to cite violators of the state’s occupant protection laws when a traffic stop is made upon other probable cause. • Seat Belt Convincers and rollover simulators are available for demonstrations through the MSHP and some local agencies. • There are 39 jurisdictions within Missouri that have adopted local ordinances that enable their law enforcement officers to enforce seat belt violations as a primary offense. • MoDOT provides signs to local jurisdictions that have adopted primary seat belt enforcement ordinances to help advertise that seat belt violations may be enforced as a primary offense. • OHS has an online reporting system for law enforcement agencies to report their activities during occupant protection mobilizations. • Many law enforcement agencies participate in one of the seven regional roadway safety coalitions. • OHS holds an annual Highway Safety Conference for law enforcement officers that includes educational sessions on occupant protection. • Electronic ticketing (e-ticketing) is available to many law enforcement officers which enables them to more efficiently issue citations for multiple violations. • Law enforcement agencies throughout the State work closely with one another and the MSHP. • Funding for law enforcement is available through both OHS and the Missouri Roadway Safety Coalition. 3B. CHALLENGES • OHS does not have a Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) program. Existing staff must undertake the role of liaison in addition to their administrative and programmatic responsibilities. This limits the frequency with which they can interact with and assist those law enforcement agencies who may be struggling in achieving advances in occupant protection usage rates. Personnel with a law enforcement background would garner greater cooperation and more participation from law enforcement partners. • There appears to be a lack of year-round enforcement of occupant protection laws outside of enforcement waves where grant funding is available to pay for overtime. Page 90 of 117 • In law enforcement agencies with specialty traffic enforcement units, most enforcement for occupant protection violations comes from the few officers assigned to those units rather than from the vastly larger number of personnel assigned to uniformed and other patrol functions. • While most, if not all, law enforcement agencies have written policies requiring their personnel to use seat belts when operating department vehicles, there are still officers who do not regularly wear their seat belts while on duty and their departments do not fully enforce department regulations requiring usage. • Confusion exists among law enforcement personnel regarding child passenger safety laws. This likely contributes to some reluctance in taking enforcement action. • There appears to be no clear plan for nighttime enforcement of occupant protection laws. • Enforcement data appears to be collected for only that enforcement conducted on OHS funded overtime or during OHS enforcement campaigns. 3C. RECOMMENDATIONS • Establish a Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) program. The position(s) should be staffed by former law enforcement personnel who have the ability to garner the support of law enforcement executives to work toward the highway safety goals of OHS. The LELs should also be able to coordinate and facilitate training programs to better inform the law enforcement community about highway safety concerns, practices and procedures. • Enforcement of occupant protection laws needs to be emphasized on a year-round basis. Law enforcement agencies should make enforcement of these laws a priority of their patrol personnel on a daily basis. • Develop short roll-call type training that may be presented in person or by video that includes messaging on the importance of occupant protection enforcement and information on the occupant protection laws. This training should also include information on effective enforcement techniques including those that can be used for nighttime enforcement. • Emphasize consistent year-round enforcement of Missouri’s seat belt and child restraint laws. • Collect all occupant protection enforcement data, not just for that performed during enforcement waves or on OHS-funded overtime. • Implement a nighttime occupant protection enforcement strategy. Page 91 of 117 4. OCCUPANT PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN GUIDELINE: Each State should enact occupant protection laws that require the correct restraint of all children, in all seating positions and in every vehicle. Regulations and policies should exist that provide clear guidance to the motoring public concerning occupant protection for children. Each State should require that children birth to 16 years old (or the State’s driving age) be properly restrained in the appropriate child restraint system or seat belt. Gaps in State child passenger safety and seat belt laws should be closed to ensure that all children are covered in all seating positions, with requirements for age-appropriate child restraint use. Key provisions of the law should include: driver responsibility for ensuring that children are properly restrained; proper restraint of children under 13 years of age in the rear seat (unless all available rear seats are occupied by younger children); a ban of passengers from the cargo areas of light trucks; and a limit on the number of passengers based on the number of available seat belts in the vehicle. To achieve these objectives, State occupant protection programs for children should: • Collect and analyze key data elements in order to evaluate the program progress; • Assure that adequate and accurate training is provided to the professionals who deliver and enforce the occupant protection programs for parents and caregivers; • Assure that the capability exists to train and retain nationally certified child passenger safety technicians to address attrition of trainers or changing public demographics; • Promote the use of child restraints and assure that a plan has been developed to provide an adequate number of inspection stations and clinics, which meet minimum quality criteria; • Maintain a strong law enforcement program that includes vigorous enforcement of the child occupant protection laws; • Enlist the support of the media to increase public awareness about child occupant protection laws and the use of child restraints. Strong efforts should be made to reach underserved populations; • Assure that the child occupant protection programs at the local level are periodically assessed and that programs are designed to meet the unique demographic needs of the community; • Establish the infrastructure to systematically coordinate the array of child occupant protection program components; • Encourage law enforcement participation in the National Child Passenger Safety Certification (basic and in-service) training for law enforcement officers. 4A. STRENGTHS • Missouri has a primary child restraint law for children under age eight and a seat belt law for children and teens ages 8 to 18. (Missouri has a secondary seat belt law for all drivers, a primary child restraint law for children under age eight and the Graduated Driver’s License Law requires all 16-18 year old drivers and their passengers to wear a seat belt). Page 92 of 117 • The State continues to support Child Passenger Safety (CPS) training using the current National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standardized curriculum. • Eight to twelve CPS Technician classes are sponsored by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Traffic and Highway Safety Division’s Office of Highway Safety (OHS) each year. Other partners are leveraging funding to support additional CPS Technician classes in the State. • A CPS observational survey is scheduled to be conducted this year. • A teen observational seat belt survey is conducted annually at 150 high schools across the state. • There are 198 inspection stations within the State where families can have their child safety seats inspected by certified CPS technicians. • There are child safety seats available for distribution/education/installation in the State. • The State currently has 970 certified CPS technicians, 38 CPS instructors and one instructor candidate. • In 2013, the State had a CPS technician re-certification rate of 58.0 percent. Nationally, the re-certification rate was 58.5 percent. • The State re-certification rate for the first three months of 2014 is 71.7 percent. Nationally, the re-certification rate is 54.4 percent for the same time period. • The Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) has a certified CPS instructor in each troop location and is able to assist counties where no inspection station or other technician exists. The MSHP instructors assist with training as needed. Local programs have access to rollover simulators and convincers through the seven MSHP districts. • A ten person volunteer CPS Advisory Committee assists OHS with CPS programs across the State. • A Kids N Motion Update is provided to all instructors in the State each time it is updated. • Recognizing that it is sometimes difficult for law enforcement to attend a CPS Certification course, the law enforcement basic awareness courses are offered Statewide. 4B. CHALLENGES • A CPS Technician or Instructor Technical Update is not available statewide nor is a CPS Update provided to the CPS Advisory Committee. There are few opportunities for CPS Technicians to earn CEUs within the State. Page 93 of 117 • Funds for child occupant protection training and equipment may at some time in the near future (2015) be reduced significantly. The 2011(d) funding is no longer available. However, funding will continue (maintenance of effort) with MAP21 funding through 2015. • There does not appear to be a coordinated, consistent, and statewide effort to reach children between the ages of 8 and 14. • Children are often the best advocates for occupant protection in family vehicles. However, there appear to be limited statewide programs to develop children as advocates. • It is unknown whether hospitals in the State have written CPS discharge policies. • There is little evidence of consistent enforcement of CPS laws. • Team Spirit is celebrating their 20th anniversary this year but has not been rigorously evaluated. 4C. RECOMMENDATIONS • Conduct a Child Occupant Protection Observational Survey for the entire 0 to 18 year old spectrum for a baseline. • Conduct an annual Child Passenger Safety (CPS) conference/summit to update technicians, provide opportunities for re-certification and CEUs, and foster networking opportunities. • Include appropriate CPS messaging for children up to 18 years old in paid and earned media, with special emphasis on pre-teens and booster seat aged children. • Develop standardized language so that advocates in the State can convey the urgency of using booster seats until the adult seat belt fits properly. • Explore alternative funding sources to purchase child safety seats for distribution programs. • Provide hospitals with model discharge policies and strongly encourage them to develop and implement a written discharge policy on how they will inform parents of the requirements of CPS laws. A model policy will be available on the National Child Passenger Safety Board website. • Encourage law enforcement to aggressively enforce CPS laws. • Conduct an evaluation of the impact of the Team Spirit program on traffic safety. Page 94 of 117 5. OUTREACH PROGRAM GUIDELINE: Each state should encourage extensive statewide and community involvement in occupant protection education by involving individuals and organizations outside the traditional highway safety community. Representation from health, business, education, and diverse cultures of the community are encouraged, among others. Community involvement broadens public support for the state’s programs and can increase a state’s ability to deliver highway safety education programs. To encourage statewide and community involvement, States should: • Establish a coalition or task force of individuals and organizations to actively promote use of occupant protection systems; • Create an effective communications network among coalition members to keep members informed about issues; • Provide culturally relevant materials and resources necessary to conduct occupant protection education programs, especially directed toward young people, in local settings; • Provide materials and resources necessary to conduct occupant protection education programs, especially directed toward specific cultural or otherwise diverse populations represented in the State and in its political subdivisions. States should undertake a variety of outreach programs to achieve statewide and community involvement in occupant protection education, as described below. Programs should include outreach to diverse populations, health and medical communities, schools and employers. a. Diverse Populations Each State should work closely with individuals and organizations that represent the various ethnic and cultural populations reflected in State demographics. Individuals from these groups might not be reached through traditional communication markets. Community leaders and representatives from the various ethnic and cultural groups and organizations will help States to increase the use of child safety seats and seat belts. The State should: • Evaluate the need for, and provide, if necessary, materials and resources in multiple languages; • Collect and analyze data on fatalities and injuries in diverse communities; • Ensure representation of diverse groups on State occupant protection coalitions and other work groups; • Provide guidance to grantees on conducting outreach in diverse communities; • Utilize leaders from diverse communities as spokespeople to promote seat belt use and child safety seat; • Conduct outreach efforts to diverse organizations and populations during law enforcement mobilization periods. Page 95 of 117 b. Health and Medical Communities Each State should integrate occupant protection into health programs. The failure of drivers and passengers to use occupant protection systems is a major public health problem that must be recognized by the medical and health care communities. The SHSO, the State Health Department and other State or local medical organizations should collaborate in developing programs that: • Integrate occupant protection into professional health training curricula and comprehensive public health planning; • Promote occupant protection systems as a health promotion/injury prevention measure; • Require public health and medical personnel to use available motor vehicle occupant protection systems during work hours; • Provide technical assistance and education about the importance of motor vehicle occupant protection to primary caregivers (e.g., doctors, nurses, clinic staff); • Include questions about seat belt use in health risk appraisals; • Utilize health care providers as visible public spokespeople for seat belt and child safety seat use; • Provide information about the availability of child safety seats at, and integrate child safety seat inspections into, maternity hospitals and other prenatal and natal care centers; • Collect, analyze and publicize data on additional injuries and medical expenses resulting from non-use of occupant protection devices. c. Schools Each State should encourage local school boards and educators to incorporate occupant protection education into school curricula. The SHSO in cooperation with the State Department of Education should: • Ensure that highway safety and traffic-related injury control, in general, and occupant protection, in particular, are included in the State-approved K-12 health and safety education curricula and textbooks; • Establish and enforce written policies requiring that school employees use seat belts when operating a motor vehicle on the job; and • Encourage active promotion of regular seat belt use through classroom and extracurricular activities as well as in school-based health clinics; and • Work with School Resource Officers (SROs) to promote seat belt use among high school students; • Establish and enforce written school policies that require students driving to and from school to wear seat belts. Violation of these policies should result in revocation of parking or other campus privileges for a stated period of time. Page 96 of 117 d. Employers Each State and local subdivision should encourage all employers to require seat belt use on the job as a condition of employment. Private sector employers should follow the lead of Federal and State government employers and comply with Executive Order 13043, “Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States” as well as all applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Regulations or Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations requiring private business employees to use seat belts on the job. All employers should: • Establish and enforce a seat belt use policy with sanctions for non-use; • Conduct occupant protection education programs for employees on their seat belt use policies and the safety benefits of motor vehicle occupant protection devices. 5A. STRENGTHS • A large number of energetic and dedicated partners promote highway safety across the State. • The Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety (MCRS) includes a diverse group of partners in all areas across the State. • The MCRS operates a well-crafted website, www.SaveMOLives.com, that includes a variety of current, comprehensive, and useful information. • The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) staff frequently shares relevant safety information on its Facebook page to its large following of almost 25,000 fans. • Battle of the Belt is a popular high school program throughout many areas of the State. • The Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) employs a large, active team of 13 public information officers (PIOs) across the state. This team of PIOs is extremely engaged in occupant protection efforts. • The MSHP creates its own highway safety programs and materials such as videos and graphics. The PIOs regularly share this information with all interested parties across the state. • The MSHP’s website offers a variety of highway safety information. • There are several strong sports marketing partnerships with teams such as the University of Missouri and the St. Louis Cardinals. These partnerships allow for educating fans through a variety of mediums including radio, billboards, television, stadium banners, etc. Page 97 of 117 5B. CHALLENGES • There are not many programs to reach younger audiences that have outgrown a booster seat but aren’t yet driving age. • There is limited emphasis on outreach programs to minority populations with low occupant protection usage. • There are few examples of partnerships and programs with employers to promote occupant protection. • Currently, no teen safety education campaigns/materials or programs are geared toward parents. 5C. RECOMMENDATIONS • Work with partners to implement/fund tween programs that are already in place such as the Safe Kids “Countdown 2: Drive” program. • Build partnerships with minority organizations such as the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, NAACP, etc. to help create and disseminate appropriate occupant protection messages. (Reference: “Closing the Circle: A Multi-Cultural Primer for State Highway Safety Offices” on the Governor’s Highway Safety Association website.) • Implement a traffic safety program that students and their parents are required to attend before they are eligible to receive their high school parking permit. • Establish strong partnerships with organizations such as the statewide Parent Teacher Association (PTA) or local PTAs and the state or local chapters of American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) to distribute occupant protection education materials to parents. • Establish new partnerships with large employers in the state to distribute occupant protection safety education materials. Provide large employers with model seat belt use policies to implement for employees. • Create partnerships and implement occupant protection programs with faith-based organizations. Page 98 of 117 6. COMMUNICATION GUIDELINE: As part of each State's communication program, the State should enlist the support of a variety of media, including mass media, to improve public awareness and knowledge and to support enforcement efforts to about seat belts, air bags, and child safety seats. To sustain or increase rates of seat belt and child safety seat use, a well-organized effectively managed communication program should: • Identify specific audiences (e.g., low belt use, high-risk motorists) and develop messages appropriate for these audiences; • Address the enforcement of the State's seat belt and child passenger safety laws; the safety benefits of regular, correct seat belt (both manual and automatic) and child safety seat use; and the additional protection provided by air bags; • Continue programs and activities to increase the use of booster seats by children who have outgrown their toddler seats but who are still too small to safely use the adult seat belts; • Capitalize on special events, such as nationally recognized safety and injury prevention weeks and local enforcement campaigns; • Provide materials and media campaigns in more than one language as necessary; • Use national themes and materials; • Participate in national programs to increase seat belt and child safety seat use and use law enforcement as the State’s contribution to obtaining national public awareness through concentrated, simultaneous activity; • Utilize paid media, as appropriate; • Publicize seat belt use surveys and other relevant statistics; • Encourage news media to report seat belt use and non-use in motor vehicle crashes; • Involve media representatives in planning and disseminating communication campaigns; • Encourage private sector groups to incorporate seat belt use messages into their media campaigns; • Utilize and involve all media outlets: television, radio, print, signs, billboards, theaters, sports events, health fairs; • Evaluate all communication campaign efforts. 6A. STRENGTHS • The Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety (MCRS) has a strong and active Public Information Subcommittee and each local coalition is supported by a Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Public Information Officer (PIO). • MoDOT employs a dedicated and engaged Community Relations Specialist who works closely with the Office of Highway Safety (OHS). Page 99 of 117 • There is a good working relationship between the MoDOT Community Relations Specialist and MoDOT’s advertising firm, True Media. • The State supplies their advertising firm with timely, relevant data which they use to create their media buy plans. • Several specific occupant protection media campaigns are conducted such as Child Passenger Safety Week, Click It or Ticket, and the Youth Seatbelt Awareness Campaign. • A wide variety of creative paid media is being utilized to target young males such as advertisements on Pandora, outdoor advertising at gas stations on video pump tops and pump top banner ads, and digital advertising on traditionally male oriented websites such as ESPN.com. • True Media reports that their paid advertising campaigns generate large numbers of impressions. • The Missouri Department of Revenue hosts a website, “Parent/Guardian Role in MO Graduated Driver License (GDL) Law”, that includes rights and responsibilities and a parent/teen driving agreement. 6B. CHALLENGES • The Office of Highway Safety (OHS) does not employ a dedicated full-time Public Information Officer (PIO). • The regional Coalition PIOs are employees of MoDOT and also work on other MoDOT issues such as construction projects and funding issues and as a result aren’t focused solely on traffic safety. • The State has a large demographic area to cover including two major media markets with a limited amount of paid advertising dollars available. • There appears to be very little, if any, evaluations conducted after media campaigns that measure both message retention and behavior change. • Few media materials/campaigns are available to specifically inform parents of teen drivers about the primary seat belt provisions that are a part of the State’s graduated driver licensing (GDL) law. • No media materials/campaigns are available to specifically target minority populations. Page 100 of 117 6C. RECOMMENDATIONS • Assign at least one full-time employee to the Office of Highway Safety to be the designated Public Information Officer. • Create a variety of materials for Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety (MCRS) members and other traffic safety partners that include culturally sensitive messaging for minority populations. • Create advertising and other media materials to target both parents and teens that educate them about the primary seat belt provisions as part of the State’s graduated driver license (GDL) law. • Use surveys/questionnaires to track message retention and behavior changes after public information and education campaigns are conducted. • Use evidence-based research to raise support among the general population, legislators and other community leaders for primary enforcement laws. • Include booster seat education in key messages to children between ages five and eight and their caregivers. Page 101 of 117 7. EVALUATION GUIDELINE: Each State should access and analyze reliable data sources for problem identification and program planning. Each State should conduct several different types of evaluation to effectively measure progress and to plan and implement new program strategies. Program management should: • Conduct and publicize at least one statewide observational survey of seat belt and child safety seat use annually, making every effort to ensure that it meets current, applicable Federal guidelines; • Maintain trend data on child safety seat use, seat belt use and air bag deployment in fatal crashes; • Identify high-risk populations through observational usage surveys and crash statistics; • Conduct and publicize statewide surveys of public knowledge and attitudes about occupant protection laws and systems; • Obtain monthly or quarterly data from law enforcement agencies on the number of seat belt and child passenger safety citations and convictions; • Evaluate the use of program resources and the effectiveness of existing general communication as well as special/high-risk population education programs; • Obtain data on morbidity, as well as the estimated cost of crashes, and determine the relation of injury to seat belt use and non-use; • Ensure that evaluation results are an integral part of new program planning and problem identification. 7A. STRENGTHS • The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Traffic and Highway Safety Division’s Office of Highway Safety (OHS) uses a variety of data sources for problem identification, setting goals, program evaluation, and measuring progress. • The Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) is the central traffic crash data collection agency for the state of Missouri. All local law enforcement agencies throughout the state provide MSHP copies of their crash reports. All of the crash reports received, along with crashes reported by MSHP, are tabulated and analyzed by MSHP. • Missouri updated the Uniform Crash Report in 2012. Missouri revised crash report elements using Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) data elements and has also signed a Memo of Agreement with NHTSA to adopt and use National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) data elements. • Missouri has a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) that meets monthly. TRCC is working with custodial agencies to develop and maintain a comprehensive traffic records system. Page 102 of 117 • Missouri crash data are available using the online Statewide Traffic Accident Records System (STARS) maintained by MSHP. • Local law enforcement agencies are encouraged to report crash data electronically using the Law Enforcement Traffic System (LETS) software. LETS provides an avenue for uploading local crash data into STARS, eliminating manual data entry, reducing wait time for usable electronic crash data, and decreasing data entry errors. OHS offers local law enforcement agencies LETS software for free in an attempt to increase electronic crash reporting. • MSHP publishes unbelted fatal and disabling injury crash rankings for cities, counties, and unincorporated areas in the state. • OHS and the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety (MCRS) regional coalitions take into account problem crash locations when distributing occupant protection grants. • OHS shares counts of unbelted occupant fatalities with the MCRS regional coalitions every Monday. The coalitions disseminate that information regularly among their local traffic safety partners. • OHS sets performance goals in their Highway Safety Plan based on raw number counts of occupants involved in crashes and observed occupant restraint use. OHS has identified priority target groups for occupant protection enforcement efforts based on the crash data. These include teens, rural occupants, young males, and pickup truck drivers. • OHS routinely uses observational surveys to determine daytime seat belt use. Observational surveys of seat belt use are recurrently conducted by the Missouri Safety Center (MSC), University of Central Missouri. The observational surveys that MSC conducts include: • • • statewide daytime seat belt use among front seat occupants that meet federal register guidelines and are approved by NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics & Analysis (NCSA). annual survey of high school teen seat belt use. biennial survey of commercial motor vehicle driver seat belt use. • OHS tracks enforcement activities among its law enforcement agency grantees. Grantees report using a web-based electronic reporting system. Law enforcement grantees report detailed information on hours worked and provide counts of citations, warnings and arrests, and earned media information. • Heartland Market Research LLC conducts an annual telephone survey of Missouri drivers. The survey has been conducted each of the last four years (2010-2013). The survey results provide information on trends in exposure to occupant protection enforcement messages, perceived risk of receiving a ticket for non-compliance with the adult seat belt law, and attitudes about primary enforcement seat belt laws. Page 103 of 117 7B. CHALLENGES • OHS does not require all occupant protection grantees to consistently measure activities and report outcomes of their program efforts. While there is reasonable tracking of law enforcement program efforts focused on occupant protection, other projects do not appear to be monitored and evaluated closely. • Little is known concerning the amount of occupant protection enforcement taking place outside of occupant protection mobilization periods. • There is currently a one-year time lag in the completeness of the STARS crash data files. • Children, approximately age 4 to 14, are not identified or left out of the seat belt observational surveys, making it difficult to evaluate effectiveness of programs targeting occupants in that age range. • OHS has indicated that occupant protection at nighttime is a priority area, but there is little evidence that information or occupant protection programs in Missouri are focused on improving seat belt use at nighttime. • Traffic safety partners use results of observational surveys to identify and target low belt use locations; however, these observational surveys are not designed to provide reliable estimates of belt use at the local level. 7C. RECOMMENDATIONS • Encourage local agencies to use Law Enforcement Traffic System (LETS) or other similar systems that upload crash data to Statewide Traffic Accident Records System (STARS). • Reduce average time for crash report entry into STARS. • Provide assistance to local law enforcement agencies that may face technological challenges to coming onboard with electronic submission of crash reports. • Evaluate the effectiveness of local primary ordinances across the state of Missouri. • Develop a nighttime seat belt observational survey. • Demonstrate and evaluate a nighttime seat belt enforcement program in primary law locations. • Do more in-depth analyses of unbelted fatalities and disabling injury crashes occurring at nighttime. Page 104 of 117 • Restart the child restraint observational survey last conducted in 2009 and conduct it at least biennially. • Conduct an observational survey that captures children ages 4 to 14. • Include race/ethnicity, in so far as possible, into observational surveys. • Ensure that evaluation results are an integral part of program planning and problem identification. Evaluate the effectiveness of all current occupant protection programs including inputs and results. Page 105 of 117 ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE Monday, March 31, 2014 8:00 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:30 9:30 - 10:15 10:15 - 10:30 Break 10:30 - 11:15 11:15 - 12:00 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 1:45 1:45 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:15 3:15 - 3:30 Break 3:30 - 4:15 4:15 - 5:00 Tuesday, April 1, 2014 8:00 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:30 9:30 - 10:15 10:15 - 10:30 Break 10:30 - 11:15 11:15 - 12:00 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 1:45 1:45 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:15 3:15 - 3:30 Break 3:30 - 4:15 4:15 - 5:00 Wednesday, April 2, 2014 8:00 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:30 9:30-10:15 10:15 - 10:30 Break 10:30 - 11:15 11:15 - 12:00 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 1:45 1:45 - 5:00 Thursday, April 3, 2014 8:00 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:15 Break 10:15 - 12:00 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 3:00 3:00 - 3:15 Break 3:15 - 5:00 Friday, April 4, 2014 8:00-9:00 Leanna Depue and Bill Whitfield Scott Jones Officer Karl Streckfuss Carrie Wolken Pam Hoelscher Kelly Jackson and Emily Ann Brown LE Team (Scott, Jeremy, Marcus) Michelle Gibler Joe Rickman (Conf Call) John Miller Sgt. Paul Hornung Cpt Tim Hull Teresa Krenning Gena Spence Dianna Johnson Chris Luebbert Praveena Ambati Chris Luebbert Russ Dunwiddie Ron Beck Chief Dan Dunn Sgt. Brian Leer Lisa Sitler Donna Greenwell and Steve Peek Sgt. Rusty Rives and Lt. Darren Gallup Sharee Galnore Team Report Writing Team Report Writing (all day) Report Out Page 106 of 117 ASSESSMENT TEAM CREDENTIALS Page 107 of 117 Susan N. Bryant, M.A., M.B.A. 831 Clark Street Iowa City, IA 52240 [email protected] Susan (Sue) Bryant is currently a consultant for a small firm of which she is the principal. After almost thirty years of state employment, she retired as the director of the public transportation division of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The public transportation division had 180 employees and an approximately $150 million budget of federal and state grant programs for rural and small urban transportation systems, the state’s medical transportation program, and public transportation planning. Prior to becoming division director, she served for over ten years as the director of the Texas traffic safety program. During her career with TxDOT, she held the position of state traffic safety director, assistant to the deputy director for field operations, and highway safety planner and traffic safety program manager. She served as secretary and member of the board of the National Association of Governors’ Highway Safety Representatives (now Governors Highway Safety Association) and member of the law enforcement committee for the Transportation Research Board. She facilitated the strategic planning process for the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and completed a “How to Manual” for occupant protection for children for GHSA. She headed a project in Texas to conduct community assessments and develop local strategic plans for underage drinking prevention. In addition, she served as community liaison for the Travis County Alliance for a Safe Community, an underage drinking prevention coalition based in Austin. She has served on highway safety program assessment teams for Alaska, California, Colorado (2), Florida (2), Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine (2), Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana (3), Missouri (2), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. She served on the team to update the impaired driving assessment tool and was also on the team to develop assessment team training. She is currently project director for a leadership in impaired driving project for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. For seven years, she served as a member and then chair of the City of Rollingwood, Texas, Planning and Zoning Commission. She served as chair of the City’s Utility Commission and as director with the Rollingwood Community Development Corporation. She now serves as President of the Johnson County (Iowa) Dog Park Action Committee, a 501c3 corporation. She has taught high school and adults, consulted for the media in major television markets, and taught management to state and local officials. She has been named to “Who’s Who of American Women,” has received the national Award for Public Service from the U.S. Department of Transportation, and is a twotime recipient of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) President’s Modal Award for Highway Safety. She is also a graduate of Leadership Texas. A Phi Beta Kappa graduate with Highest Honors in English from the University of Iowa, she holds a master’s degree in communication from the University of Iowa and a master’s degree in business administration from the University of Texas at Austin. Page 108 of 117 Cathy L. Gillen Principal, The Gillen Group (443) 463-4449; [email protected] Practice Focus Cathy Gillen is a Washington, DC based public affairs transportation consultant with more than 23 years-experience in the highway safety arena. She brings non-profits, NGOs, businesses and government together to create highway safety programs that save lives and prevent injuries on the nation’s highways. As a former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) official with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), she is proficient in behavorial safety issues including impaired driving, occupant protection, distracted driving and teen and older driving. Having served as the Managing Director of the Roadway Safety Foundation she is also an expert on the engineering issues that affect roadway safety. Her relationships with key safety organizations, government agencies including NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and transportation reporters allow her to meet both private and public sector needs. Clients Since 2005, Gillen’s clients have included AAA, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (AAAFTS), AARP, The American Highway Users Alliance (Highway Users), the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS), Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), National Organizations for Youth Safety (NOYS), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Mitsubishi Motors North America, Make Roads Safe, the Roadway Safety Foundation (RSF), the Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Missouri Department of Transportation and many others. Significant Accomplishments Led a team of PR professionals to conduct one national and 23 local press conferences in state capitols across the country to announce a Ford Motor Company safety campaign. As part of the “Boost America!” campaign, Ford donated 1 million child booster seats to low-income families through a partnership with the United Way. The local press events included speakers such as local Governors Highway Safety representatives, Governors, state legislators, parents and automobile dealers. Gillen arranged all press outreach for the events and also served as a spokesperson for the campaign. Managed press relations and media outreach for the National Traffic Signal Report Card project for the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The goal of the FHWAfunded campaign was to raise awareness through the media of the importance traffic signals play in moving traffic safely and efficiently across the United States. Gillen secured national and local press coverage in such media outlets as NBC Nightly News, MSNBC and CBS Network Radio. Created a safety coalition and campaign in South Carolina known as Recognize, React, Recover to address the importance of using rumble strips to prevent run-off-the-road crashes, particularly on rural roads. The campaign brought together the state department of transportation, public safety agencies, law enforcement agencies, victims of car crashes and private-sector businesses to create an educational DVD and brochure, hold a partner luncheon and a news conference to launch the campaign. Press coverage of the campaign was widespread and the DVD and brochure have been distributed to more than 5,000 safety partners across the country. Page 109 of 117 Held 15 child passenger safety inspection stations for Mitsubishi’s child passenger safety program known as Kids Safety First in September 2010, Summer 2011 and Fall of 2012. Gillen managed all logistics for the events which were held at Mitsubishi dealerships in major media outlets such as Miami, Chicago and Kansas City. In addition to managing all logistics for the events, she conducted media outreach for the events including press conferences with speakers from NHTSA and GHSA. She also managed a partnership with a major child safety seat manufacturer who provided free child safety seats for the events. Client Benefits Gillen began her career in 1992 in the press office of the Maryland State Highway Administration in Baltimore, MD. She then went on to public affairs positions with the Governors Highway Safety Association, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. She then worked for a DC-based Strategic Communications firm where she headed up the Ford Motor Company account and managed other transportation safety accounts before starting her own practice in 2005. Other Activities Gillen is a current board member of the Washington Regional Alcohol Program (WRAP); leads the National Safety Council’s Maryland Safe Teen Driving Coalition; is the Maryland Representative for the National Association of Women Highway Safety Leaders (NAWHSL); and is a member of the Road Gang and the Washington Automotive Press Association (WAPA). Communications Gillen has conducted dozens of media interviews, and given dozens of presentations on issues such as impaired driving and roadway safety, to highway safety groups and other organizations across the country. Distinctions Gillen has received the NHTSA Administrator’s Award for Excellence and The Century Council’s Kevin Quinlan Traffic Safety Leader Award. She holds a bachelors of science from the University of Maryland in Journalism with a specialization in public relations and a master’s degree in Publications Design from the University of Baltimore. Cathy Gillen, Principal, The Gillen Group (443) 463-4449 • Fax (410) 547-1799 [email protected] Page 110 of 117 Lori K. Haskett 500 SW Danbury Lane Topeka, KS 66606 785-272-3787 [email protected] Employment History: August 2002 to Present Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Health Promotion Director, Injury Prevention and Disability Programs Responsibilities include developing policy for state programs, recruiting and maintaining public/private partnerships, fiscal management, development of grant applications, grants management, staffing assignments and budget development. October 1999 to August 2002 Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS) Kansas NETS Coordinator Responsibilities included: set-up and management of the KS NETS office. Coordinator is responsible for communications, administrative/marketing support and project management for association traffic safety programs and services within Kansas. March 1999 to October 1999 AAA Kansas Coordinator of Public Relations and Promotions Responsibilities included: media relations, Show Your Card & Save program, Four Diamond Award presentations, editor of office newsletter March 1998 to March 1999 Olsten Staffing Services Personnel Supervisor Responsibilities included: interviewing, placing employees in temporary, temporary to permanent, and permanent employment. Supervising productivity, working with collections, assisting with PeopleSoft payroll, workers compensation, and unemployment. March 1991 to March 1998 AAA Kansas Customer Service Representative Promoted to Auto Travel Manager June 1994 AAA National Certified Trainer, Heathrow, FL Oversaw Auto Travel operations in the six Kansas offices as the State Auto Travel Manager. Responsibilities included: recruiting, training, scheduling, ordering supplies for the department, and making hotel and car reservations for members. Page 111 of 117 Education: Bachelor of Arts, Speech Communications, Washburn University, 1994 Hayden High School Grants Administration Experience: Fire Injury Prevention Project Grant, CDC, 2002 – 2011 Core Injury Prevention and Control Project, CDC, 2002 – Present Sexual Violence Prevention and Education Program, CDC, 2002 – Present Emergency Medical Services for Children, HRSA, 2003 – Present State Implementation Projects for Preventing Secondary Conditions and Promoting the Health of People with Disabilities, CDC, 2005 – 2012 Education, Training and Enhanced Services to End Violence Against and Abuse of Women with Disabilities, DOJ, 2002 – 2004 and 2006 - 2011 Network of Employers for Traffic Safety Program, KS Dept. of Transportation, 1999 - 2002 Affiliations: Consumer Product Safety Commission – Kansas Designee – 2009 - Present Safe States Alliance Executive Committee – 2008- Present President – 2011to 2013 Past – President - Currently Longaberger Consultant – 1995 to Present Kansas Public Health Association Member – 2002 - Present Certified Child Passenger Safety (CPS) Technician - Instructor 2000 – 2011 Certified Child Passenger Safety (CPS) Technician 2011 - Present Safe Kids Kansas Coalition CPS Chairperson – 2000 to 2009 National Child Passenger Safety Board Member – 2006 - 2008 Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry, member, 2000 – 2002 ABWA – Career Chapter – 1999 United Way Loaned Executive – 1999 Society of Human Resource Management – 1998, 1999 Page 112 of 117 MARK SOLOMON Preusser Research Group, Inc. 1104 Van Buren Avenue Oxford, MS 38655 Tel: 662-236-9288 Fax: 662-236-9390 [email protected] Mark (Mark) Solomon is currently Vice President of Preusser Research Group (PRG). PRG is a full service research firm specializing in transportation, highway safety, and issues related to drug and alcohol abuse. PRG has offices in Trumbull, CT and Oxford, MS. Mark has worked at PRG for 20 years. He directs overall operations in PRG’s Oxford, Mississippi office. Mr. Solomon has successfully managed a large number of highway safety projects during his time at PRG. The list of clients he has worked with includes, but is not limited to, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association (FMCSA), AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the National Safety Council (NSC). Over the past 20 years, Mark has completed work in every NHTSA Region and worked with nearly every highway safety office in the United States. Mark’s research and evaluation work has appeared in over 70 research reports and journal articles. He also serves as a reviewer for the Transportation Safety Board’s Occupant Protection Committee. Mark is currently working on projects to improve seat belt use at daytime and nighttime, evaluating efforts to reduce distracted driving, and currently serves as the evaluation manager for NHTSA’s More Cops More Stops high visibility enforcement program in Tennessee and Oklahoma. Before joining PRG, Mr. Solomon was an analyst with the Florida Department of Highway Safety where he provided analytical support to the Governor's Office and the Legislature, as well as state and local agencies. Mark earned an undergraduate degree at Millsaps College and a Master of Science degree from Mississippi State University. Page 113 of 117 Thomas H. Woodward 7606 McClellan Ave. Boonsboro, Maryland 21713 PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND Thomas H. Woodward retired from the Maryland State Police on July 1, 2013 after a 36 year career as a law enforcement officer in Maryland: eight years with the Frederick City Police and 28 years with the Maryland State Police. At the time of his retirement he was the Commander of the Hagerstown Barrack. As Commander, Tom is credited with being the first to implement the Data Driven Approach to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) within the Maryland State Police. He also brought increased media attention to highway safety initiatives and enforcement actions of troopers within Washington County, MD. Prior to transferring to the Hagerstown Barrack, Tom served in the Chemical Test for Alcohol Unit for eleven years, six of those as the Commander. In this position he was responsible for the training of all breath test operators, acquisition and maintenance of all breath testing instrumentation, training of sobriety checkpoint managers, Standardized Field Sobriety Testing instruction and oversight of the state’s Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) Program. He has served as an adjunct representative for the Office of Government Affairs, reviewing legislation, recommending departmental positions and testimony, and testifying before the State Legislature on many highway safety issues. He has served on the staff of the Chief of Field Operations Bureau, and as the Executive Officer for the Commander of the Transportation Safety Division. He administered highway safety grants of the Maryland State Police Field Operations Bureau for two years and supervised the Maryland Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for two years. Mr. Woodward has been a Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) Instructor and DRE Instructor for over 20 years. He also instructs the NHTSA SFST and DRE Instructor Development training. He served as the State Coordinator of the DRE program for 10 years. Since retirement Mr. Woodward has served on several state occupant protection assessment boards, evaluating the effectiveness of occupant programs and identifying areas for improvement. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Mr. Woodward received a Bachelors Degree in Organizational Leadership and Development from Wheeling Jesuit University in May 2005. He is also a graduate of the Northwestern University School Police Staff and Command. ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION - International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) - IACP Drug Recognition Expert Section - Officer 2006-2009 - Chair - 2009 - Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) – Maryland Operations Council Page 114 of 117 Appendix C Page 115 of 117 Co-Chairs: Phyllis Larimore, Co-Chair Children’s Mercy Hospital 2401 Gillham Rd. Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: 816-234-1607 Fax: 816-983-6838 [email protected] Sgt. Deborah Randol, Co-Chair Kansas City Police Department 9701 Marion Park Dr. Kansas City, MO 64137 Phone: 816-482-8183 Fax: 816-482-8179 [email protected] Members: Marjorie Cole Dept. of Health and Senior Services 912 Wildwood Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: 314-434-4615 [email protected] Katherine Crockett Dept. of Health and Senior Services 912 Wildwood Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: 573-522-1526 [email protected] Scott Jones MoDOT Traffic and Highway Safety P. O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: 573-522-1341 Fax: 573-634-5977 [email protected] Captain Paul Kerperin Missouri State Highway Patrol 1510 E. Elm St. Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone: 573-751-3313 [email protected] Teresa Krenning MoDOT St. Louis District 1590 Woodlake Dr. Chesterfield, MO 63017 Phone: 314-275-1534 [email protected] Sgt. Brian Leer Boone County Sheriff’s Office 2121 County Drive Columbia, MO 65202 Phone: 573-875-1111, ext. 6428 [email protected] Lesha Peterson Dept. of Health and Senior Services 912 Wildwood Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: 573-522-2820 [email protected] Lt. Brian Daniel Missouri State Highway Patrol 1510 East Elm St. Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone: 573-526-6145 Fax: 573-526-6223 [email protected] Sgt. Doug Ruediger Jefferson City Police Department 410 Monroe St. Jefferson City, MO 65101 Phone: 573-634-6400 [email protected] Courtnie Glenn Wright County Health Department 300 S. Main, Suite C Hartville, MO 65667 Phone: 417-926-0009 ext. 5 [email protected] Gena Spence Missouri Safety Center Humphreys Building, Suite 201 Warrensburg, MO 64093 Phone: 660-543-4391 [email protected] Dianna Johnson MoDOT Central District P. O. Box 718 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: 573-522-1061 [email protected] Kayleigh Stark Mercy Injury Prevention Center 1570 W. Battlefield, Suite 100 Springfield, MO 65807 Phone: 417-820-9285 [email protected] Page 116 of 117 Kevin Theilen Safe Kids Jasper/Newton County nd 2914 E. 32 St., Suite 102 Joplin, MO 65804 Phone: 417-782-9899 [email protected] Regina Weir Safe Kids Metro KC 6400 Prospect #216 Kansas City, MO 64132 Phone: 816-283-6242 [email protected] Bill Whitfield MoDOT Traffic and Highway Safety P. O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: 573-751-5417 Fax: 573-634-5977 [email protected] Sheri Williams Dept. of Health and Senior Services 912 Wildwood Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: 573-441-6245 [email protected] Carrie Wolken MoDOT Traffic and Highway Safety P. O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: 573-751-5420 Fax: 573-634-5977 [email protected] Page 117 of 117 MISSOURI Section 405(c) State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grant 23 CFR 1300.22 9b)(1) FAST ACT, Section 405(c) State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Appendix D Part 2 State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grant Introduction: The purpose of this grant is to support State’s efforts to improve data systems needed to assist in identifying priorities for Federal, State, and local highway traffic safety programs. The grant assists in linking intrastate data systems, and to improve the compatibility and interoperability of these data systems and the data systems of other States for highway safety purposes. This grant provides additional funding for Missouri which allows us to enhance our ability to analyze national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and circumstances. 2 of 179 1A Creation of TRCC MISSOURI COALITION FOR ROADWAY SAFETY MEETING TITLE: MCRS Executive Committee DATE: June 21, 2007 TIME: 10:00 a.m. - noon LOCATION: Missouri State Highway Patrol, 1510 East Elm St., Jefferson City MEMBERS (an X indicates the member was in attendance) Leanna Depue, Chairperson, MoDOT Highway Safety Melissa Black, MoDOT System Management Joseph Boyd, FMCSA Ron Breau, MO Motor Carriers Terry Butler, Missouri Safety Center Randy Cornell, Contract Freighters, Inc. Romell Cooks, NHTSA J.R. “Buddy” Davis, LETSAC Susan deCourcy, NHTSA Dale Findlay, Missouri Safety Council Mell Henderson, MARC Sandy Hentges, MoDOT System Management Don Hillis, MoDOT System Management Brad Jones, Missouri State Highway Patrol James Keathley, Missouri State Highway Patrol Kevin Keith, MoDOT Gary Lowe, Missouri Safety Center Allen Masuda, FHWA Nancy McAnaugh, DHSS Mike Right, AAA Angie Rolufs, University of Missouri-Rolla Trish Vincent, DOR Bill Whitfield, MoDOT Highway Safety Division Jim Wild, E-W Gateway Council of Governments Others present: Michael Briggs, MARC Bill Coleman, FMCSA Don Neumann, FHWA Stephen Risse, MARC Kathy Shikles, MoDOT Highway Safety AGENDA TOPICS: Welcome and Introductions Review Subcommittee Status 2008 Blueprint Conference Update on Motorcycle Safety Task Force 2007 Blueprint Funding Process to Update Missouri’s Blueprint for Safer Roadways Suspended, Revoked and Unlicensed Task Force Subcommittee Reports KEY POINTS: Welcome and Introductions Leanna Depue welcomed all present. 2007 Blueprint Funding Two million dollars will be given again this year to be used for Blueprint efforts. The Executive Committee received two requests for funding. The DWI Subcommittee requested approximately $75,000 for conducting an administrative review of the breath alcohol ignition interlock program. We’ve also had requests for additional training for first responders on the safest way to respond to crashes involving hybrid electric vehicles and vehicles with advanced airbag systems. After discussion, a motion made by Dale Findlay and seconded by Trish Vincent passed dividing the two million dollars up as follows: • $800,000 – Implementation funds to the regions • $200,000 – Executive Committee (funding for administrative review of the breath alcohol ignition interlock program and hybrid electric vehicles and vehicles with advanced airbag systems.) • $600,000 – Statewide Public Information initiatives • $400,000 – Public Information funds to the regions 3 of 179 Review of Subcommittee Status • Commercial Motor Vehicle – Active. Randy Cornell of Joplin in chairperson. They need to come up with bulleted subcommittee responsibilities. • Impaired Driving Subcommittee (formerly DWI Subcommittee) – Active. Membership may need to be expanded. A motion was made by Trish Vincent and seconded by Dale Findlay to change the name of the DWI Subcommittee to Impaired Driving Subcommittee. Motion passed. • Enforcement Subcommittee – Active. Bill Whitfield is currently chairperson but has accepted another position at Highway Safety. Will need to find replacement. • Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (formerly Evaluation Subcommittee) – Active. It was proposed that the Evaluation Subcommittee and the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee be combined and their focus be expanded. Leanna talked with Randy Silvey and Brad Jones about this. Ron Breau made a motion and Trish Vincent seconded that the Evaluation Subcommittee be renamed to Traffic Records Coordinating Subcommittee and that they be charged with developing a plan for improvement of record keeping systems in the state of Missouri. Motion approved. • Judicial Subcommittee – Inactive. Trish Vincent made a motion, which was seconded by Allen Masuda to eliminate this subcommittee and transfer tasks to other subcommittees. Motion approved. The Enforcement Subcommittee will get the responsibility of reviewing case law end provide updates as appropriate and monitor sentencing trends and issues. The Impaired Driving Subcommittee will get the responsibility of tracking the expansion and activities of DWI courts and assisting with the promotion of court monitoring. • Legislative Subcommittee – Active • Public Information Subcommittee – Active • Roadway Infrastructure Subcommittee – Active. Angela Rolufs of University of Missouri-Rolla is chairperson. They need to come up with bulleted subcommittee responsibilities. • Strategic Planning and Implementation Subcommittee – Active Process to Update Blueprint The current Blueprint was completed in November 2004. We need to begin the process of updating the Blueprint. The Public Information Subcommittee wants to be heavily involved. Leanna requested working with the regional coalitions to hold open forums in each of the regions to get input on the Blueprint prior to revising it. Michael Briggs also suggested working with the MPOs and Regional Councils. Leanna suggested asking the regional coalitions to schedule them this fall. Leanna will try to attend all of them but would like members of the Executive Committee to try to attend at least one of them. Michael Briggs made a motion and Ron Breau seconded that we ask the regions to hold forums or a public type meeting to support the concept or get input to updating the Blueprint. Motion approved. 2008 Blueprint Conference Dale Findlay made a motion and Bill Coleman seconded that we host a 2008 Blueprint Conference. Motion passed. We need to form a working group to address the development of the 2008 Blueprint Conference. Don Neumann agreed to lead the charge and Trish Vincent said she would assist. Suspended, Revoked and Unlicensed Task Force Trish Vincent said that last year Sen. Stouffer introduced legislation regarding driving while suspended and revoked. Another state uses a different color of license plates to make it easier for law enforcement to identify DWI offenders. This could be expanded to suspended and revoked drivers. The Department of Revenue is trying to find a tool to assist law enforcement to keep these drivers off the road. Trish said they could possibly make the plate start with a specific letter. Dale Findlay made a motion and Ron Breau seconded that we form a task force to look at suspended and revoked drivers. Motion approved. Trish Vincent agreed to take the lead and put together a task force to address this issue. Bill Whitfield suggested that someone from the Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Advisory Council, Missouri Police Chiefs Association, and Missouri Sheriffs Association be included on this task force. Trish said they need some legal counsel on the task force as well. Motorcycle Safety Task Force The Motorcycle Safety Task Force has met and put together a proposal for expenditures of 2010 fund. They were allocated $100,000. Terry Butler reported on how the money will be spent. Operation STOP Operation STOP is a virtual web based memorial for Missouri people who have died in crashes. This website was created to give Missouri teenagers a place to learn from the mistakes or misfortunes of other teens. An individual developed this 4 of 179 website. They manage the deaths that are reported to the Highway Patrol. We need to investigate this website further before linking it to our site. The website is http://www.operationstop.com. Resource Guide on Highway Safety Training Terry Butler agreed to chair a working group to look at potential development of a resource guide for highway safety training in the state. Angie Rolufs agreed to assist. Subcommittee Reports Enforcement Subcommittee – Bill Whitfield Waiting for numbers on the Click It or Ticket, Pickup Truck and youth initiative. Click It or Ticket focused in 20 counties. We contracted with 120 agencies and the Missouri State Highway Patrol. Bill said they met with the agencies personally for the Click It and Ticket and Pickup Truck projects. Earned media events were scheduled along with paid media. The law enforcement participation was up from last year. We rolled out a new reporting web based system. By the next meeting, Bill will be able to report the seat belt usage rate. Bill Whitifeld is the new MCSAP program assistance coordinator. We need to look at getting another chairperson for the Enforcement Subcommittee. Legislative Subcommittee – Dale Findlay Even though primary seat belt legislation did not pass this year, Dale thanked everyone for working so hard. Dale hoped there was no discouragement. Dale is not sure who’ll be our sponsor next year. They’ll be meeting to look at the primary seat belt issue again to come up with recommendations for next year. We saved the motorcycle helmet law and motor vehicle inspection program. Legislation was passed that contains an emergency clause on the provisions regarding the use a nonalcoholic antiseptic for cleansing the skin prior to drawing blood for determining alcohol content of the blood. Public Information Subcommittee – Melissa Black Child Passenger Safety • National Child Passenger Safety Week was February 11-17 • Used radio, TV, pump toppers, posters • Materials all online • Press event around the state • Child Passenger Safety week is being moved to September Never Made It Teen Safety Belt Campaign • Radio, TV, Internet, Theaters • February 19 – March 12 • Materials all online • March 1 – 16 enforcement efforts Work Zone Safety Awareness • April 2-6 Work zone Awareness • Radio, TV, Billboards • Press event Primary Safety Belt • Helped with rallies, materials, press materials, etc. Buckle Up in Your Truck Campaign • April 29 – May 12 • TV, radio, materials all online • Hangtags • Press events around the state – shared event with Kansas in May at Ford Plant and shared some media as well (also District 6) Click It or Ticket 5 of 179 • • • • May 13 – June 2 TV, radio, materials all online, added additional funds from 07 budget to strengthen this effort Seat belt survey was June 4 Press events around the state Battle of the Belt • Sent reminders to schools for upcoming contest, which was changed to run September 6 – December 31 to give them more flexibility • Added the private schools, along with public • Already have some of the funding for prizes from Shelter • Added the video content element to the competition – so this will be an additional prize Budget • Tallied final 07 budget • Planned for 08 spending • Asked regions for the 07 reports by July 1, 08 plans by August 1 Updating Marketing Plan • Currently resend or put on the Web soon Ad Agency RFP • New agency chosen through OA, will be announced soon, any state agency Coming Up • Impaired Driving Crackdown – August 15 through September 3 • “Never Made It” campaign will run Sept. 07 through Oct. 07 • Impaired Driving campaign will run November 07 through December 07 • “Operation Safe Teen” may possibly be moved to April 08 Website Update Boost and Buckle T-shirts – State Fair and Child Passenger Safety Week in September. Each district will get some T-shirts. Trish said daycares would be a good place. T-shirts came from another funding source because we passed the law. Infrastructure Subcommittee - Angie Rolufs Working on the following: • Roadway Safety Audit - interested in putting back in state. Big push in LTAP community. Simple brochure of what is a roadway safety audit and why do we want to have it in our community. • Roundabout Awareness - Working with Brian and giving pitch on roundabouts for RPCs. MoDOT has some brochures. • LTAP - working with District 10 on pilot training on EMS and guard cable • Working on LED traffic lighting – saves money and easier to see. Working with Springfield and Rolla on putting those in place. Commercial Motor Vehicle Subcommittee – Ron Breau • Had an organizational session. • Obtained data from Brian on CMV and accidents to start reviewing. • Randy Cornell is thinking of having a conference call meeting next week. Other issues: Allen Masuda suggested having future Executive Committee meetings in a location that is capable of connecting by telephone for those who cannot attend. 6 of 179 MEMORANDUM Missouri Department of Transportation Highway Safety Division 2211 St. Mary’s Blvd., P. O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (573) 751-4161 or (800) 800-BELT Fax (573) 634-5977 State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grant Section 408 State of Missouri TO: Romell Cooks, Regional Administrator Region 7, NHTSA FROM: Pete Rahn, Director and Governor’s Representative Missouri Department of Transportation SUBJECT: Grant Application – Section 408 DATE: I certify that: The State of Missouri has established a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) and that the Committee has oversight responsibility for the implementation of the State of Missouri’s Traffic Records Strategic Plan. The Committee’s membership list is included within this application. A copy of the State of Missouri’s multiyear highway safety data and traffic records Strategic Plan is included. The State of Missouri has adopted and is using the MMUCC data elements. The State has also signed a Memo of Agreement with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to adopt and use NEMSIS data elements. The State of Missouri will make available or submit to NHTSA its Strategic Plan and documentation of the TRCC’s membership, organization, and authority. The State of Missouri will use Section 408 funds only to evaluate, improve, and link its highway safety data and traffic records system in accordance with eligible use detailed in 23 U.S.C. 408. Section 408 funds received by the State of Missouri will be administered in accordance with 49 CFR Part 18. 7 of 179 The State of Missouri will maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources for highway safety data programs at or above the average level of such expenditures maintained by the State in FY 2003 and FY 2004. Our mission is to provide a world-class transportation experience that delights our customers and promotes a prosperous Missouri. 8 of 179 1B Meeting Schedule and All Reports and Other Documents Promulgated by TRCC Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Meeting Schedule July 21, 2016 August 18, 2016 September 15, 2016 October 20, 2016 November 17, 2016 January 19, 2017 February 16, 2017 March 16, 2017 April 20, 2017 May 18, 2017 June 15, 2017 9 of 179 State of Missouri Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Meeting July 23, 2015 Missouri State Highway Patrol General Headquarters Building Jefferson City, MO AGENDA Welcome Project Reports • • • • • DOR OSCA MSHP MODOT DHSS Budget Report FY15 Final Obligated – $1,013,984.47 FY15 – Amount Spent as of 7/23/2015 = $511,449.46 FY15 Percent of budget spent = 50% Vendors (Jeremy) – Brazos (Cape Girardeau & Sikeston), Rejis (Nixa and Lee’s Summit), ITI Training Local Information Discussion – Buy America, Rejis (Mobile Ticketing) – JIS interface, FY15 Assessment, LETS rewrite, ITI, Platte County, Franklin County, Marshal PD Adjourn 10 of 179 State of Missouri Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Meeting July 23, 2015 Missouri State Highway Patrol General Headquarters Building Jefferson City, MO MEETING MINUTES Welcome • • The meeting began at 9:00 am. Minutes approved TRCC FY16 Application Review • • • • • DOR – January 1, 2016 new charge codes will be in place OSCA – Criminal history will still accept both charge codes; records of conviction piece for show me courts is making good progress. OSCA is currently meeting with municipal courts at the regional and local level. MSHP – Crash reporting for local agencies are half way through December and Patrol through March – April 2015. Lexis Nexis and ITI both are working on electronic interface. There was some miscommunication between CMV and Traffic Records with the new staff coming on board which caused the delay in some crash reports being submitted timely although we believe we have that fixed now. MODOT – grant contract meeting are next month. DHSS – Chris Phelps will be attending the NEMSIS conference this month to gather new ideas. Training – Municipal courts have training this week. Discussion – ITI is testing their submissions to STARS with the Poplar Bluff Police Department. Sikeston DPS has implemented their e-citation program and based off the first week citation data they can already see a decrease in the time roadside. We discussed the possibility of showing the CMV video at the highway safety contract meetings. We discussed contacting St. Louis Metro about their CMV crash review process. Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 10:15 am. 11 of 179 12 of 179 State of Missouri Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Meeting August 20, 2015 Missouri State Highway Patrol General Headquarters Building Jefferson City, MO AGENDA Welcome Project Reports • • • • • DOR OSCA MSHP MODOT DHSS Budget Report FY15 Final Obligated – $1,013,984.47 FY15 – Amount Spent as of 8/20/2015 = $565,595.31 FY15 Percent of budget spent = 56% Vendors (Jeremy) – Brazos (Cape Girardeau & Sikeston), Rejis (Nixa and Lee’s Summit), ITI, Lexis Nexis, Niche Training Local Information Discussion – Buy America, Rejis (Mobile Ticketing) – JIS interface, FY15 Assessment, LETS rewrite, Marshal PD Adjourn 13 of 179 State of Missouri Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Meeting August 20, 2015 Missouri State Highway Patrol General Headquarters Building Jefferson City, MO MEETING MINUTES Welcome • • The meeting began at 9:00 am. Minutes approved Project Reports • • • • • DOR – No Report OSCA – Pine Lawn will be on JIS as of October 1, 2015. We are currently testing Show ME Courts and making revisions. OSCA is contacting local municipal courts to determine testing sites. MSHP – Crash reporting for local agencies through January and Patrol through May 2015. We are currently experiencing some changes in personnel and are working to rehire. We spoke with the supervisor that processes local reports for the ITI interface and received positive feedback about Poplar Bluff’s reports. MODOT – Announced the grant award workshops will be next week. DHSS – We are preparing to write the data dictionary to transition from 2.0 to 3.0 data. We are currently putting together a committee to steer the transition. Training – STARS training is scheduled for Troop C Discussion – ITI, Buy America, Mobile Ticketing, FY15 Assessment, LETS rewrite, and Marshall PD. Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 10:15 am. 14 of 179 15 of 179 State of Missouri Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Meeting October 14, 2015 Missouri State Highway Patrol General Headquarters Building Jefferson City, MO AGENDA Welcome Traffic Records Assessment Kick Off • • • • • DOR- Discussed traffic records assessment OSCA- Discussed traffic records assessment MSHP- Not Present MODOT- Discussed traffic records assessment DHSS- Not Present 16 of 179 State of Missouri Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Meeting October 14, 2015 Missouri State Highway Patrol General Headquarters Building Jefferson City, MO MEETING MINUTES Welcome • • The meeting began at 9:00 am. Minutes approved Traffic Records Assessment Kick-Off • • • • • DOR OSCA MSHP MODOT DHSS Discussed the procedure for the assessment, assessment questions, and how to operate the assessment system. 17 of 179 18 of 179 State of Missouri Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Meeting November 17, 2015 Missouri State Highway Patrol General Headquarters Building Jefferson City, MO AGENDA Welcome Project Reports • • • • • DOR OSCA MSHP MODOT DHSS Budget Report FY15 Final Expenditures – FY16 – Amount Spent as of 11/17/2015 = FY15 Percent of budget spent = % FY15 Percent of budget spent = % Vendors (Jeremy) – Brazos (Cape Girardeau & Sikeston), Rejis (Nixa and Lee’s Summit), ITI, Lexis Nexis, Niche Training Local Information Discussion – FY16 Assessment, Rejis (Mobile Ticketing) – JIS interface, FY15 Assessment, LETS rewrite Adjourn 19 of 179 State of Missouri Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Meeting November 17, 2015 Missouri State Highway Patrol General Headquarters Building Jefferson City, MO MEETING MINUTES Welcome • • The meeting began at 9:00 am. Minutes approved Project Reports • • • • • DOR – No Report OSCA – Working with municipal courts to report electronically to JIS, hired IT coordinator for accounting piece of Show Me Courts. MSHP – Patrol crash records are current through August 15 and local reports are in April. We are still working on our web service and with Lexis Nexis and ITI. MODOT – We want to preview a proposed TRCC project that will be a upgrade to crash analytics. DHSS – We have been working on assessment questions with data integration Training – Rejis conducted training with St. Louis County PD. Discussion – ITI, Rejis Mobile Ticketing, JIS Interface (piloted in two cities Sedalia and St. Charles County ordinance court)LETS rewrite, and Marshall PD. STARS – FARS – grant.net knowledge transfer necessary Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 10:15 am. 20 of 179 21 of 179 1C TRCC Membership and the Organization and Function of TRCC Chair of the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Captain Paul Kerperin – Crash System Director, Traffic Records Division 1510 East Elm Street Missouri State Highway Patrol Jefferson City, MO 65102-0568 (573) 526-6123 Traffic Records Coordinator Jeremy L. Hodges – Roadway System Commercial Motor Vehicle Program Manager MODOT, Traffic & Highway Safety Division 573-751-5419 573-634-5977 FAX [email protected] Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Members: Aaron Bartlett, AICP – Local User Bicycle/Pedestrian & Safety Programs Manager Mid-America Regional Council | 600 Broadway, Suite 200 | Kansas City, MO 64105 816.474.4240 | fax 816.421.7758 Larry Benz – Local User Cole County 573-636-3614 [email protected] Brad Brester – Driver System Department of Revenue Driver License Bureau Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone - (573)526-3656 Email - [email protected] Website - Administrative Office of the Courts Doug Buschjost, PMP – Citation/ Adjudication System Projects and Grants Manager Office of Administrator Office of State Courts Administrator PO Box 104480 Jefferson City, MO 65110 (573) 751-4377 Fax (573) 522-6937 [email protected] 22 of 179 Jeff Halloran – Federal Partner National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 901 Locust Street, Room 466 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (816) 329-3901 Fax: (816) 329-3910 [email protected] Russell Dunwiddie – Crash System Missouri State Highway Patrol Traffic Records Division Telephone (573) 751-3012 FAX (573) 751-9921 E-Mail: [email protected] Terry Ellsworth – Injury Surveillance System EMS Inpector II 573-751-6369 [email protected] Steven Hoskins – Vehicle System Administrator, Motor Vehicle Bureau Missouri Department of Revenue (573) 751-1030 [email protected] Susan Glass - Traffic Resource Prosecutor – Citation/ Adjudication System Missouri Office of Prosecution Services [email protected] 573.751.1629 www.mops.mo.gov Jim Hubbell – Local User Transportation Planner Mid-America Regional Council 600 Broadway, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64105-1659 816.701.8319 voice 816.421.7758 fax Tina Jones – Citation/ Adjudication System Manager, Support Services Court Business Services Division Office of State Courts Administrator Phone: 573-526-8875 Fax: 573-522-5961 [email protected] 23 of 179 Melissa Kampeter – Citation/ Adjudication System Grants Coordinator Administrative Services Division Office of State Courts Administrator (573) 522-6773 [email protected] Mandy Kliethermes – Roadway System Intermediate System Management Specialist MoDOT, Traffic & Highway Safety Division (573) 751-5434 Office (573) 634-5977 Fax [email protected] Chris Luebbert – Federal Partner State Programs FMCSA, MO Division 3219 Emerald Ln, Jefferson City, MO 65109 (573) 636-1029 - work (573) 212-7930 - cell [email protected] John P. Miller, P.E. – Roadway System Traffic Safety Engineer MoDOT 1320 Creek Trail Drive Jefferson City, MO 65109 573-526-1759 Chris W. Phelps EMT-P – Injury Surveillance System EMS Inspector I MO Dept. of Health and Senior Services Bureau of Emergency Medical Services 3418 Knipp, Suite F Jefferson City, MO 65109 573-526-3511 (Work) 573-751-6348 (Fax) [email protected] Christina Predmore, - Vehicle System Manager, Quality Assurance Missouri Department of Revenue Motor Vehicle Bureau PO Box 703 Jefferson City, MO 65105-0703 Telephone 573-751-8749 [email protected] 24 of 179 Tracy Robertson – Driver System Manager Driver License Bureau Department of Revenue (573) 526-2555 [email protected] Heidi Schallberg – Local User Mid-America Regional Council 816-701-8315 [email protected] Richard Stone – Local User City of Columbia 573-874-7643 [email protected] Sergeant Scott Roach – Local User Supervisor, Highway Safety Unit St. Louis County Police Department 7900 Forsyth Blvd, Clayton, MO 63105 314-750-5032 (office) 314-576-1051 (fax) [email protected] Myrna Tucker – Roadway System Transportation Planning 105 West Capitol Avenue Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: (573) 526-5478 Fax: (573) 526-8052 [email protected] Bill Whitfield – Roadway System Highway Safety Director Missouri Department of Transportation 573-751-5417 [email protected] Captain Don Frizzell – Local User Special Operations Unit Lee's Summit Police Department 10 NE Tudor Road Lee's Summit, MO 64086 816.969.1728 816.969.1634 fax [email protected] 25 of 179 Brent Forgey – Local User Dare Officer Nixa Police Department P.O. Box 395 715 W. Center Circle St. Nixa, Mo 65714-7001 [email protected] Capt. Mike Williams – Local User Sikeston Department of Public Safety 573-620-6588 [email protected] 26 of 179 1D Missouri State Traffic Records Coordinator Jeremy L. Hodges Commercial Motor Vehicle Program Manager MODOT, Traffic & Highway Safety Division 573-751-5419 573-634-5977 FAX [email protected] 27 of 179 2. State of Missouri Strategic Plan For the Improvement of The State Traffic Information System By The Missouri Traffic Records Coordinating Committee 2017 28 of 179 <Page Left Blank> 29 of 179 Table of Contents Page Vision Statement ………………………………………………………… 4 Goal & Objectives ………………………………………………………… 5 Traffic Records Coordinating Committee ………………………………… 6 TRCC Plan Approvals MO Department of Health and Senior Services 8 MO Department of Transportation 9 MO Office of State Court Administrator 10 MO Department of Revenue 11 MO State Highway Patrol 12 Memos of Understanding ………………………………………………… 13 Authority and Structure of the TRCC …………………………………… 28 Statement of TRCC Operation and Function ………………………………… 30 Executive Summary ……………………………………………………… 31 FY 2017 Budget Request ………………………………………………… 38 Crash System …………………………………………………………… 46 Crash System Measurements ……………………………………… 47 Crash System Projects …………………………………………… 50 FY16 Interim Progress Report…………………………………… 68 2016 Traffic Records Assessment Recommendations …………… 83 Vehicle System …………………………………………………………… 84 30 of 179 2016 Traffic Records Assessment Recommendations ……………. Driver System …………………………………………………………… 86 87 2016 Traffic Records Assessment Recommendations ……………. 89 Roadway System…………………………………………………………... 90 2016 Traffic Records Assessment Recommendations …………… 92 Citation / Adjudication ……………………………………………………. 93 Citation/Adjudication System Measurements …..……………….. 94 Citation/Adjudication System Projects ……………………………. 96 FY16 Interim Progress Report…………………………………… 116 2016 Traffic Records Assessment Recommendations …………… 128 EMS / Injury Surveillance ………………………………………………… 129 EMS / Injury System Measurements …..…………………………. 130 EMS / Injury System Projects ……………………………………... 132 2016 Traffic Records Assessment Recommendations …………… 137 Traffic Records Assessment Introduction………………………………… 138 Traffic Records Assessment Status Report………………………… 31 of 179 139 Vision Statement Missouri is building a comprehensive traffic records system, with maximal use of automated field data collection software, error correction at the point of collection, electronic data sharing between the field and central databases,