2017 HSP.indd - Missouri Department of Transportation

2017 HSP.indd - Missouri Department of Transportation
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,