null  null
STATE
OF
KANSAS
TRAFFIC RECORDS ASSESSMENT
February 22-26, 2010
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration
Technical Assessment Team
Larry Cook, Ph.D
Larry Holestine
Michael J. McDonald
Langston Spell
John J. Zogby
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................7
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................10
SECTION 1: TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ..............................................11
1-A: Traffic Records Coordinating Committee ........................................................................12
1-B: Strategic Planning .............................................................................................................17
1-C: Data Integration ................................................................................................................22
1-D: Data Uses and Program Management ..............................................................................25
SECTION 2: TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM COMPONENTS .................................................30
2-A: Crash Data Component .....................................................................................................32
2-B: Roadway Data Component ...............................................................................................43
2-C: Driver Data Component ....................................................................................................48
2-D: Vehicle Data Component..................................................................................................53
2-E: Citation/Adjudication Data Component............................................................................58
2-F: Statewide Injury Surveillance System (SWISS) Data Component ...................................66
APPENDIX A: SELECTED REFERENCES...............................................................................77
APPENDIX B: A BBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...........................................................85
TEAM CREDENTIALS ................................................................................................................87
0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), responding to a request by the
Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), Bureau of Transportation Safety and Technology
(BTST), Traffic Safety Section (TSS), assembled a team to conduct a traffic records assessment.
Concurrently the TSS carried out the necessary logistical and administrative steps in preparation
for the onsite assessment. A team of professionals with backgrounds and expertise in the several
component areas of traffic records data systems (crash, driver, vehicle, roadway, citation and
adjudication, and injury surveillance) conducted the assessment February 22 to 26, 2010.
The scope of this assessment covered all of the components of a traffic records system. The
purpose was to determine whether the traffic records system in Kansas is capable of supporting
management’s needs to identify the State’s safety problems, to manage the countermeasures
applied to reduce or eliminate those problems, and to evaluate those programs for their
effectiveness.
Background
A similar assessment was conducted in 2005 that offered a number of recommendations to
improve the State’s traffic records system. The State has made considerable progress since that
time, some of which is briefly acknowledged below.
Crash reporting has improved dramatically since 2005. The Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) has
developed new field data capture software developed as part of the Kansas Law Enforcement
Reporting (KLER) system that has been installed in 52 law enforcement agencies. Thirty-nine
percent of all crash reports are now being electronically submitted to the Kansas Crash and
Analysis Reporting System (KCARS) managed by KDOT. The Kansas Department of Revenue
(KDOR) has begun a modernization project to establish a customer centric driver licensing and
vehicle registration and titling system. This will not only provide more efficient business
processing, but has the promise for better information exchange with other components of the
traffic records system. The State has not implemented a statewide citation data repository as
recommended in 2005; however, a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) initiative,
co-managed by the KHP, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI), and the Office of Judicial
Administration (OJA), is developing e-citation software for law enforcement that has the
possibility for eventually providing the basis for a statewide citation database. Since the last
assessment, the State has formed a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) which is a
well functioning and effective group and manages many of the traffic records initiatives that are
critical to an eventual total traffic records system. The funding and development of the
electronic Kansas Emergency Medicine Information System (KEMIS) is a major step forward
from the old paper based collection system in place at the time of the 2005 Assessment. There
appears to be a strong upper level management interest and involvement in the development of
the State’s traffic records system which has influenced the progress we have seen and
documented in this report.
As noteworthy as these accomplishments are, some issues still remain regarding the ability of the
present traffic records system to support Kansas’ management of its highway safety programs.
These are included in the summary below and the full report that follows.
1
Crash Records System
The official state crash records system, the Kansas Crash and Analysis Reporting System
(KCARS), is maintained by KDOT. The KCARS together with its supporting technology is
designed to receive crash reports both in paper and electronic form.
The Crash component of KLER has allowed the KDOT to phase out the two field data collection
applications that were operating in parallel in 2005. Approximately 13 additional agencies are in
the approval process for electronic submission using KLER.
KDOT in coordination with the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) has finalized
and published the specifications to allow those agencies with non-KLER software to
electronically transfer their records to the KCARS.
However, KDOT has not conducted an inventory to determine the number of agencies using the
non-KLER software. This should be done to develop a strategy for expanding the use of
electronic submission facilities. While the 39 percent electronic submission rate is
commendable, further increase will depend not only on KLER but the willingness to adapt local
agency Records Management Systems (RMSs) supported by third party software for submitting
via the KDOT transmission protocols.
This strategy should include a more robust effort to further electronic capabilities. KDOT needs
to become more proactive by establishing an outreach program to get as many local agencies as
possible to report crash data electronically to KCARS. Further improvement will require
promoting electronic crash report submission regardless of vendor and providing support to those
agencies willing to meet the file transfer specifications.
Citation and Adjudication Records
Traffic violations are filed in state courts (31 district courts) or municipal courts (about 335).
Presently there is no central collection of data from the citations issued and filed or their
dispositions. Consequently there is no citation tracking system as recommended in the 2005
report.
The Office of Judicial Administration (OJA) provides administrative and technical services to
the District Courts, including support of the FullCourt case management system (CMS) in use by
29 of the 31 District Courts. The OJA facilitates the transfer of conviction records to the driver
history records at the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), but does not maintain a central
database, although statistical data are maintained.
The State is developing an e-citation module in the KLER software. The project is under the
oversight of the TRCC and the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) and is carried out by
representatives from the OJA, KHP, and the KDOR. Its purpose is “to provide issuance-toresolution tracking of citations issued throughout the state of Kansas.” The e-citation module
will be installed initially in the KHP and the Sheriff Departments since they both are currently
using the same data capture tool. Some tweaking of the location field on the Sheriffs’ citations
will be required before implementation. The goal is to establish a repository to store data from
2
the citations, but no decision has been made regarding its location. The data will be stored and
available for analysis, and will include data from issuance of the citation through its final
disposition.
Although this initiative will provide the foundation for a statewide database of citations, it will
not be complete until it includes the citations filed in the municipal courts. It is recognized that
the Supreme Court and the OJA have no statutory authority over the municipal courts. However,
the State needs to make an attempt to bring their data into the e-citation system. One way may
be to update local agencies first with the e-citation module that are currently using KLER.
Further, the TRCC should invite some representatives from the municipal courts to assist on this
project.
Without complete data about the processing of citations, the State is unable to evaluate the
effectiveness of its traffic laws; it cannot determine if any cases are pending on offenders in other
courts; and it cannot adequately determine if an individual’s driving record is reflective of
behavior requiring license removal.
Driver and Vehicle Records
The DMV has begun a modernization project to establish a customer centric driver licensing and
vehicle registration and titling system. This will not only provide more efficient business
processing, but has the promise for better information exchange with other components of the
traffic records system.
The improvements already achieved and the emerging new DMV System are impressive and
gratifying to acknowledge. Needed improvements to the character, quality, and completeness of
citation/conviction data provided to the DMV could make the new KDOR system and its
contents a benchmark for excellence in driver and vehicle records system.
Statewide Injury Surveillance System (SWISS) Components
Statewide Kansas has developed or is developing many components of a SWISS. These
components include the Kansas Emergency Medicine Information System (KEMIS) housed at
the Kansas Board of EMS (KBEMS); the Kansas Trauma Registry in the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment (KDHE) Bureau of Local and Rural Health; the Kansas Vital Statistics
database maintained by the KDHE Bureau of Public Health Informatics; and the Kansas hospital
discharge database collected by the Kansas Hospital Association (KHA) and supplied to KDHE
Bureau of Health Promotion.
The components of the SWISS are being used for motor vehicle crash and injury prevention
activities. Linkages have been undertaken between various components of the SWISS but
mainly for quality assurance purposes. SWISS and KLER data have not been linked, thus
leaving decisions regarding highway safety to be made solely from the crash database without
access to the rich information available within the SWISS.
3
Roadway Information
A system for locating crashes on highways owned and maintained by the Kansas Department of
Transportation (KDOT) is currently in place. Crashes are assigned a location reference that
corresponds to a unique point on the State highway system. Crash patterns can be detected and
road sections can be compared to identify potential safety problems. A similar system is not yet
in place for the approximately 130,000 miles of streets and roads not maintained by KDOT. A
network database of these roadways is being developed, but administration of that roadway
information will be a continual challenge as cities continue to develop and add streets.
The issue with both counties and cities is the availability and reliability of data to use in their
problem identification processes. KDOT is in the process of enhancing their crash data system
with a view to make these data available to county and city engineers for use in their safety
program development. The Traffic Engineering Assistance Program can help local jurisdictions
identify and design countermeasures.
Strategic Planning
The Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) initially developed a Traffic Records
Strategic Plan in early 2006. The Plan was scheduled to be updated every 12-18 months. The
most current version of the Plan was last updated in September 2008.
The TRCC meets frequently throughout the year to discuss the Plan’s progress and
implementation and to approve all decisions associated with the Plan. All changes in the Plan
have been reviewed, discussed and approved during TRCC meetings throughout the year. A new
Strategic Plan will be undertaken using the findings of this Assessment as the basis for
identifying deficiencies in the existing traffic records system.
Traffic Records Coordinating Committee
Since the last assessment in 2005, a statewide Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC)
has been established which meets monthly to discuss and plan traffic safety projects including
the allocation of traffic safety funding. An executive steering committee consisting of agency
executives was also established at that time which typically meets annually to review and discuss
any policy level decisions that need to be made.
The TRCC has been formed with a good governance structure (executive level, technical level,
and working groups), has developed a mission statement, has executed Memoranda of
Understanding, and functions according to a set of strategic principles. The TRCC and its
members have remained actively engaged in ensuring the successful implementation of the
Traffic Records Strategic Plan and its associated projects. The TRCC meets frequently
throughout the year to discuss strategic plan progress and implementation and is fully aware and
approves of all decisions associated with the Plan.
It has included representation from most stakeholder agencies including many local safety
groups to include one of the large Metropolitan Planning Organizations, which is not usually
found on many state TRCCs. The only major missing group is the municipal courts. This will
be a significant contributor as the state moves forward with the eCitation initiative.
4
Overall, this is one of the better functioning committees we have encountered. It is apparent that
there is a common commitment to the goals laid out in the Committee’s Strategic Plan. It is the
starting point for many of the State’s traffic records initiatives – we often heard the statement,
“We have discussed that in TRCC.” Many TRCCs often are not involved or even aware of some
of the ongoing initiatives within their respective states. The State of Kansas deserves high praise
indeed!
Following are the major recommendations for improvements to the State’s traffic records
system. The references indicate the sections of the report from which the recommendations are
drawn.
MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Crash Records

Develop a marketing strategy/plan to get KLER crash reporting capability into as many
local agencies as quickly as possible. (Section 2-A)

Consider the development of a minor crash report short form for use by local law
enforcement. (Section 2-A)

Consider developing a secure, web-based, single submission KLER crash report
capability for agencies without technical staff or sufficient technology resources so that
they may move to the KLER electronic format. (Section 2-A)

Conduct an inventory of third party vendor companies and identify the number of local
LEAs supported by these vendor products. (Section 2-A)

Meet with the identified third party vendors to outline a strategy and timeframe to
conform to the NIEM standard for submitting electronically to KCARS. (Section 2-A)
Citation and Adjudication Records

Continue implementation of the Kansas eCitation Program. (Section 2-E)

Include Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) representation on the eCitation
Work Group. Consider housing eCitation data at the future Traffic Record System
Warehouse within the KDOT. (Section 2-E)
Roadway Information

Work with county and city engineers to provide data and safety analysis capabilities.
(Section 2-B)
5
Driver and Vehicle Records

Consider evaluating the completeness, accuracy, and usefulness of the contents of the
driver history records and determines the reasons for and realistic remedies for any
deficiencies found. Publicize the findings to all of the highway and traffic stakeholders.
(Section 2-C)
Injury Surveillance System Components

Promote and expand KEMIS. (Section 2-F)

Incorporate the trauma registry into KIC. (Section 2-F)

Pursue efforts for KDHE to obtain the emergency department database from KHA.
(Section 2-F)

Undertake a data linkage project between SWISS components and KCARS.
(Section 2-F)
Traffic Records Coordinating Committee

Include representation from municipal courts on the Traffic Records Coordinating
Committee. (Section 1-A)
Strategic Planning

Create a fresh Strategic Plan for Traffic Records with the full membership of the TRCC
(Section 1-B)

Establish a forum for discussion of all issues and initiatives to be addressed in the new
Plan (including the findings of this Assessment). (Section 1-B)

Use the NHTSA suggested four box method to set priorities to the initiatives (existing
and new) generated by participants involved in the forum. (Section 1-B)
6
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Traffic Records Assessment Team would like to acknowledge Pete Bodyk, Traffic Safety
Section Manager, KDOT, and John Schneider, KDOT Traffic Safety Section for their support
and able assistance in making this assessment possible.
The team would like to thank Clayton Hatch, team facilitator, for giving a national perspective to
the assessment process and its goals. The team would also like to thank Randy Bolin, Regional
Program Manager, NHTSA and David LaRoche, Safety Traffic Engineer, FHWA for their
contribution. We would also like to thank our Administrative Assistant, Kathy Zogby.
The team would also like to thank the principal participants in the assessment for the time
invested, the information they presented, and their candor in answering the many questions put
forth by the team.
7
List of Presenters
Mike Floberg
Bureau Chief
KDOT
Marcy Ralston
Driver Control DMV
KDOR
Chris Herrick
Director, Planning Development
KDOT
Terry Mitchell
KDOR/Manager
KDOR
Pete Bodyk
Traffic Safety Section Manager
KDOT
Mary Parmentier
KHP Records Manager
KHP
Chris Bortz
Assistant Traffic Safety Manager
KDOT
Herman Jones
KHP Records Custodian
KHP
Ruby Bradley
GAD Unit Manager
KDOT
Joe Moreland
Program Manager
BEMS
Captain Art Wilburn
Public & Government Affairs
KHP
Dan Meyer
Captain
KHP
Zandra Myrick
TRS Administration
KDOT
Barbara Turner
Investigator
KHP
Rex McCommon
Crash Database Manager
KDOT
Ken McGovern
Sheriff
DGCO
Karen Wittman
TSRP
KDOT-AL
Ed Klumpp
Kansas Association
Of Police Chiefs
Leroy Mathis
Senior Supervisor
KCI (Lansing)
Amber Harrington
Lieutenant
KHP
Carmen Alldritt
Director of Vehicles
KDOR
Ed Boring
State Program Manager
FMCSA
8
Dennis Slimmer
Chief, Transportation Planning
KSDOT
Mark Thurman
CIO
KHP
Steven Buckley
State Highway Safety Engineer
KSDOT
Steve Montgomery
CIO
KBI
Shaun Parkman
State Highway Safety Analyst
KSDOT
Melanie Waters
Programs
OJA
Lori Haskett
Director, KDHE Injury Prevention
KDHE
Lisa Wilson
District Court Clerk Specialist
DJA
Joe Moreland
Project Manager
BEMS
Lloyd Swartz
Municipal Court Judge
Topeka
Rosanne Rutkowski, RN
Director, Trauma
KDHE
Gail Lewis
Municipal Court Administrator
City of Topeka
Elizabeth Saadi
Director
KDHE
Roger T. Moore
IT Project Manager
KDOT
Dave Northup
City Traffic Engineer
UG
Daniel Schultz
Research Director
DCCCA/OPOS
Joel Byford
Consultant
KDOT
List of Observers
Randy Bolin
Regional Program Manager
NHTSA Region 7
Linda Voss
City
Topeka
David LaRoche
Safety Traffic Engineer
FHWA
Penny Evans
Miami County Engineer
Miami County
9
INTRODUCTION
A complete traffic records system is necessary for planning (problem identification), operational
management or control, and evaluation of a State’s highway safety activities. Each State, in
cooperation with its political subdivisions, should establish and implement a complete traffic
records system. The statewide program should include, or provide for, information for the entire
State. This type of program is basic to the implementation of all highway safety
countermeasures and is the key ingredient to their effective and efficient management.
As stated in the National Agenda for the Improvement of Highway Safety Information Systems, a
product of the National Safety Council’s Association of Transportation Safety Information
Professionals (formerly the Traffic Records Committee):
“Highway safety information systems provide the information which is critical to
the development of policies and programs that maintain the safety and the
operation of the nation’s roadway transportation network.”
A traffic records system is generally defined as a virtual system of independent real systems
which collectively form the information base for the management of the highway and traffic
safety activities of a State and its local subdivisions.
Assessment Background
The Traffic Records Assessment is a technical assistance tool that the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) offer to State offices of highway safety to
allow management to review the State’s traffic records program. NHTSA has published a
Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory which establishes criteria to guide State
development and use of its highway safety information resources. The Traffic Records
Assessment is a process for giving the State a snapshot of its status relative to that Advisory.
This assessment report documents the State’s traffic records activities as compared to the
provisions in the Advisory, notes a State’s traffic records strengths and accomplishments, and
offers suggestions where improvements can be made.
Report Contents
In this report, the text following the “Advisory” excerpt heading was drawn from the Traffic
Records Program Assessment Advisory. The “Advisory” excerpt portion is in italics to
distinguish it from the “Status and Recommendations” related to that section which immediately
follows. The status and recommendations represent the assessment team’s understanding of the
State’s traffic records system and their suggestions for improvement. The findings are based
entirely on the documents provided prior to and during the assessment, together with the
information gathered through the face-to-face discussions with the listed State officials.
Recommendations for improvements in the State’s records program are based on the assessment
team’s judgment.
10
SECTION 1: TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Advisory Excerpt: Management of a State TRS requires coordination and cooperation. The data that make up a TRS
reside in a variety of operational systems that are created and maintained to meet primary needs in areas other than
highway safety. Ownership of these databases usually resides with multiple agencies, and the collectors and users of the
data span the entire State and beyond.
The development and management of traffic safety programs should be a systematic process with the goal of reducing the
number and severity of traffic crashes. This data-driven process should ensure that all opportunities to improve highway
safety are identified and considered for implementation. Furthermore, the effectiveness of highway safety programs
should be evaluated. These evaluation results should be used to facilitate the implementation of the most effective
highway safety strategies and programs. This process should be achieved through the following initiatives.
11
1-A: Traffic Records Coordinating Committee
Advisory Excerpt: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) 2004 Initiatives to Address Improving
Traffic Safety Data Integrated Project Team report (hereafter referred to as the Data IPT Report) includes guidance on
establishing a successful Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC). The following include recommendations from
the Data IPT Report and additional items of an advisory nature:

Establish a two-tiered TRCC.
There should be an executive and a working-level TRCC. The executive-level TRCC should be composed of agency
directors who set the vision and mission for the working-level TRCC. The Executive TRCC should review and
approve actions proposed by the Working TRCC. The Working TRCC should be composed of representatives for all
stakeholders and have responsibilities, defined by the Executive TRCC, for oversight and coordination of the TRS.
Together, the two tiers of the TRCC should be responsible for developing, maintaining, and tracking
accomplishments related to the State’s Strategic Plan for Traffic Records Improvement.

Ensure Membership is Representative.
TRCCs should be representative of all stakeholders, and each stakeholder representative must have support from
their top management. When departments are considering changes to their systems, all TRCC members should be
notified and departments should consider how to accommodate the needs of all the TRCC agencies.

Authorize Members.
The Working TRCC should have formal standing, recognition, and support of the administrators of participating
agencies. This support will help the TRCC succeed in overcoming the institutional barriers, lack of focus, and lack of
resources that prevent collaboration and progress in integrating highway safety data. The exact role and powers of
the TRCC should be made explicit in its charter. Legislators, the governor, and top management of participating
agencies should give authority to the TRCC members to make policy decisions and commit their agencies’ resources
to solve problems and approve the State’s strategic plan for traffic records. The most important responsibility of the
TRCC should be to provide the leadership necessary to ensure that available funds are sufficient to match stated
needs. Despite challenges stemming from collective decision making by members from different agencies with
competing priorities, TRCC members should speak with “one voice.” The TRCC should have guidelines to determine
who speaks for the TRCC and how its recommendations should be communicated.

Appoint an Administrator/Manager.
A single point of contact for managing a data improvement project is necessary to ensure leadership. The TRCC
should designate a traffic records administrator or manager and provide sufficient time and resources to do the job.
This person should be responsible for coordinating and scheduling the TRCC, in addition to tracking the progress of
implementing the State’s traffic records strategic plan. Uniform criteria should be established for monitoring
progress. NHTSA can facilitate training for the TRCC administrator/manager regarding traffic record systems,
program management, and data analysis.

Schedule Regular Meetings.
The TRCC should establish a schedule of regular meetings, not only to discuss data coordination issues and make
progress on the strategic plan, but also to share success stories to aid in overcoming fears of implementation. The
meetings should take place as required to deal with the State’s traffic records issues and to provide meaningful
coordination among the stakeholders. The TRCC should gain broader support by marketing the benefits of improved
highway safety data. An example to provide data and analytical expertise to local government officials, legislators,
decision makers, community groups, and all other stakeholders. TRCC meetings should include strategy sessions for
such marketing plans.

Oversee Quality Control/Improvement.
The TRCC should have oversight responsibility for quality control and quality improvement programs affecting all
traffic records data. Regularly scheduled presentations of quality control metrics should be part of the TRCC
meeting agenda and the TRCC should promote projects to address the data quality problems that are presented.

Oversee Training for TRS Data Improvement.
The TRCC should have oversight responsibility for encouraging and monitoring the success of training programs
implemented specifically to improve TRS data quality. Regularly scheduled presentations of training needs and
training participation should be part of the TRCC meeting agenda, and the TRCC should promote projects to conduct
training needs assessments and address the identified training needs.
12
1-A: Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Status
Establish a two-tiered TRCC
Since the last assessment in 2005, a statewide Traffic Record Coordinating Committee (TRCC)
has been established which meets monthly to discuss/plan traffic safety projects and allocate
traffic safety funding. An executive steering committee consisting of agency executives was also
established at that time which typically meets annually to review and discuss any policy level
decisions that need to be made.
While there is no statutory mandate for the TRCC within the State, there is a set of strategic
principles the TRCC abides by. These include the following:
Support Ongoing Agency Efforts:

The State will support local agencies in their effective use of resources.

The State will maintain agency and systems autonomy while building on an
integrated information-capture and -sharing approach.
Make Attainable and High Value Improvements:

The State will seek out short-term benefits or improvements to the existing
systems while building a long-term integrated system.

Incremental build and improve traffic safety systems as funding permits.

The State will strive to keep technical complexity to a minimum.
Provide Operational Value to Data Providers:

Information available to community in near real-time.
The State will focus equally on high-volume and low-volume agencies in order to meet
objectives.
The mission of the TRCC is to improve the quality of life for the traveling public and increase
the level of safety on the roads of the State of Kansas by:

Supporting law enforcement deployment and enforcement emphasis planning;

Identifying and managing high-risk drivers;

Planning traffic safety initiatives and geometric roadway improvements; and

Improving medical response delivery through the improved collection and
management of traffic records information.
13
Ensure Membership is Representative
The TRCC represents the interests of State traffic safety entities to outside organizations.
Traditionally, the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) Traffic Safety Section heads
the TRCC. The leadership is appointed by the director of KDOT.
Members are appointed by their agency directors and typically consist of the Chief Information
Officers for each agency with a traffic safety mission. Each agency only gets one vote on TRCC
decision items.
Representation for both the TRCC and Executive TRCC consists of the following:














Federal and State Representatives
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT)
Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP)
Office of Court Administration (OCA)
Kansas Criminal Justice Information System (KCJIS)
Department of Administration (DofA) & Office of the State CIO
Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR)
Kansas Board of Emergency Medical Services (BEMS)
Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI)
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE)
Kansas Insurance Department (KID)







Local Representatives
Kansas Peace Officers Association (KPOA)
Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police (KACP)
Kansas Sheriff's Association (KSA)
Mid-America Regional Council (MARC)
Johnson County
Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC)
Unfortunately, attendance by department heads at the Executive TRCC is usually delegated
down to department members. However, it was reported that the Executive TRCC is working
effectively.
Authorize Members
The TRCC has the authority and responsibility to review changes to traffic safety systems before
they are implemented. Each participating agency is responsible to identify and note projects they
are undertaking which in any way impact partner agencies or traffic safety as a whole.
14
There are no formal Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) for participation in the committee;
however certain agencies have opted to enter into MOUs for data sharing.
The TRCC is empowered through its charter to meet the requirements for section 408 funding.
Appoint an Administrator/Manager
The TRCC is a self-regulating committee that works independently of any given agency;
however, the KDOT Traffic Safety Section continues to maintain fiscal and governing
responsibility.
There is no officially designated traffic records coordinator. The committee acts as a
community-based traffic records coordinating entity.
Administration of the TRCC is outsourced to a consulting firm that has worked closely with the
group in updating their strategic plan and performance measures.
Schedule Regular Meetings
The TRCC meets monthly, and the executive committee meets annually.
Oversee Quality Control/Improvement
The TRCC receives information about traffic record quality controls. As a part of the annual
performance measurement reporting process, record quality is reviewed by KDOT staff and then
reported to the TRCC. Annually the TRCC sets aside time to review data quality and other
predefined traffic safety performance metrics.
The Kansas Traffic Records System (TRS) Performance Measurement System provides for the
structured and systematic assessment of the TRCC progress in meeting its objectives and goals.
The system describes identified measures and the processes of how performance metrics are
defined, implemented, and used to manage initiatives and projects listed in the Traffic Records
Strategic Plan.
The TRCC has hired vendors to develop the technology required to support real-time and batch
validation of crash information. This technology will first allow KDOT to define the business
rules associated with the data captured on the new crash form and then allow KHP to interact
with the rules as part of the new Kansas Law Enforcement Reporting (KLER) system
application. Once a record has passed validation, the system will package and exchange the
information using an XML transmission protocol.
Oversee Training for Traffic Record Safety Data Improvement
Data entry and data integration training were identified as needs in the strategic plan and are
contained in the plan as projects within their respective strategic initiatives.
Recommendation:
Note: Even though the State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee does not meet all of the
recommendations in the Advisory, it is operating effectively and only one recommendation is
15
suggested.

Include representation from municipal courts on the Traffic Records Coordinating
Committee.
16
1-B: Strategic Planning
Advisory Excerpt: The TRS should operate in a fashion that supports the traffic safety planning process. The planning
process should be driven by a strategic plan that helps State and local data owners identify and support their overall
traffic safety program needs and addresses the changing needs for information over time. Detailed guidance for strategic
planning is included in the NHTSA Strategic Planning Guide and the FHWA Strategic Highway Safety Plan documents.
The strategic plan should address activities such as:

Assign Responsibility for the Strategic Plan.
The strategic plan should be created and approved under the direction of the TRCC. The TRCC should continuously
monitor and update the plan, to address any deficiencies in its highway traffic records system.

Ensure Continuous Planning.
The application of new technology in all data operational phases (i.e., data collection, linkage, processing, retrieval,
and analysis) should be continuously reviewed and assessed. The strategic plan should address the adoption and
integration of new technology as this facilitates improving TRS components.

Move to Sustainable Systems.
The strategic plan should include consideration of the budget for lifecycle maintenance and self-sufficiency to ensure
that the TRS continues to function even in the absence of grant funds.

Meet Local Needs.
The strategic plan should encourage the development of local and statewide data systems that are responsive to the
needs of all stakeholders.

Promote Data Sharing.
The strategic plan should promote identification of data sharing opportunities and the integration among federal,
State, and local data systems. This will help to eliminate duplication of data and data entry, assuring timely,
accurate, and complete traffic safety information.

Promote Data Linkage.
Data should be integrated to provide linkage between components of the TRS. Examples of valuable linkages for
highway and traffic safety decision making include crash data with roadway characteristics, location, and traffic
counts; crash data with driver and vehicle data; and crash data with adjudication data, healthcare treatment and
outcome data (e.g., Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System [CODES]).

Coordinate with Federal Partners.
The strategic plan’s budget-related items should include coordination between the State and the various federal
programs available to fund system improvements. The data collection, management, and analysis items in the
strategic plan should include coordination of the State’s systems with various federal systems (e.g., the Fatality
Analysis Reporting System [FARS], the Problem Driver Pointer System [PDPS] of the National Driver Registry
[NDR], the Motor Carrier Management Information System [MCMIS], and the Commercial Driver License
Information System [CDLIS]).

Incorporate Uniform Data Standards.
The strategic plan should include elements that recognize and schedule incorporation of uniform data elements,
definitions, and design standards in accordance with national standards and guidelines. Current examples of these
standards and guidelines include:

Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC)

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) -D20.1 and ANSI-D16.1

National Governors Association (NGA)

Global Justice XML Data Model (GJXDM)
17

National Center for State Courts, Technology Services, Traffic Court Case Management Systems Functional
Requirement Standards

Guidelines for Impaired Driving Records Information Systems

National Emergency Medical Service Information System (NEMSIS) Data Dictionary.

Plan to Meet Changing Requirements.
To help the State meet future highway safety challenges, the strategic plan should include a periodic review of data
needs at the local, State, and federal levels. It should be updated to include tasks to meet those needs as they are
identified.

Support Strategic Highway Safety Planning and Program Management.
The strategic plan should include elements designed to ensure that the State captures program baseline, performance,
and evaluation data in response to changing traffic safety program initiatives. Additional elements should be present
for establishing and updating countermeasure activities (e.g., crash reduction factors used in project selection and
evaluation).

Strategic Planning of Training and Quality Control.
The strategic plan should incorporate activities for identifying and addressing data quality problems, especially as
these relate to training needs assessments and training implementation.
18
1-B: Strategic Planning Status
The Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) initially developed a Traffic Records
Strategic Plan in early 2006. The Plan was scheduled to be updated every 12-18 months. The
most current version of the Plan was last updated in September 2008. A new Strategic Plan will
be undertaken using the findings of this Assessment as the basis for identifying deficiencies in
the existing traffic records system.
Over the past year, the TRCC and its members have remained actively engaged in ensuring the
successful implementation of the Strategic Plan and its associated projects. The membership was
expanded to include the Kansas Corporation Commission. The TRCC meets frequently
throughout the year to discuss Strategic Plan progress and implementation and to approve all
decisions associated with the plan. All changes in the Plan have been reviewed, discussed and
approved during TRCC meetings throughout the year.
The TRCC has defined a stratagem to provide assurance that all traffic safety stakeholders have a
common vision. The following are the key strategies that define the stratagem:

Define a Conceptual Architecture—establishes key technical and architectural
concepts for the anticipated Traffic Records System (TRS) to bring together the
disparate traffic records data sources throughout the State.

Outline Initiatives and Projects—the initial definition and ongoing management
and oversight of the strategic initiatives and projects the State will undertake.

Define Critical Success Factors—provides a means for objectively monitoring
and measuring improvements to traffic records.

Implement a Cross-Agency Governance Model—provides an organizational
model for the management and governance of the TRS and a Web-based user
interface that will be utilized by authorized personnel to access and search the
TRS.
Assign Responsibility for the Strategic Plan
The TRCC provides the direction, sets priorities and establishes the vision for the Strategic Plan.
The TRCC members are the primary contributors to the review and update of initiatives
contained in the Strategic Plan.
The Plan attempts to address all areas of traffic safety data and automation through organizing
traffic safety initiatives into three categories which include the following initiatives: Data
Capture Improvement; Integration Improvements; and Management Improvement. All
participant agencies are made aware of the Plan’s initiatives. Each time it is updated, member
agencies have the opportunity to provide comments, edits and changes.
19
Although the Strategic Plan was initially developed to address findings in the 2005 Traffic
Records Assessment, in recent years the Plan has been updated in response to ongoing TRCC
self-assessed performance needs.
Ensure Continuous Planning
A separate Traffic Records System (TRS) conceptual architecture document was developed to
address fresh initiatives and migration towards emerging technologies.
A tactical planning section is included in the TRCC Strategic Plan.
Move to Sustainable Systems
Justification for the TRS initiatives included in the Strategic Plan is guided by the long-term
needs of the State. While the TRCC attempts to estimate for and plan for ongoing TRS
maintenance, the Plan does not address funding for long-term maintenance.
Much of the funding surrounding TRS projects in the Plan currently comes from statewide fees
assessed on traffic citations, however, without the federal funding, some of the traffic safety
efforts would need to be reduced or eliminated entirely.
Meet Local Needs
The TRCC includes the traffic safety needs at both the State and local level. Local safety
representatives are included on the Committee and are actively involved in the Plan
development. In fact the TRCC relies heavily on local data input, capture, and integration.
Without local participation in data sharing, the TRS efforts would be severely hindered.
Promote Data Sharing
Data sharing is included and planned for within the Strategic Plan.
Promote Data Linkage
While there is no ongoing method for identifying linkage problems between information
systems, a situational analysis is included in the Plan which identifies the known disparities in
data indexes. The situational analysis reviewed potential data redundancy and found very few
existed. As such, the primary focus of the Plan targets adding data, improving timeliness, and
improving data integration between current data sources.
Coordinate with Federal Partners
The Plan does not assure consideration of new federal information data sources, however known
federal system changes are reviewed by the TRCC to ensure future strategic plans consider
federal needs.
Incorporate Uniform Data Standards
The situational analysis in the Strategic Plan addresses national data standards compliance for
each of the following:

Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC)

National Emergency Medical Service Information System (NEMSIS)

Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)
20


American National Standards Institute (ANSI-D16.1 and ANSI-D20.1)
Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE)
This review in turn triggered strategic initiatives and projects to improve conformance with each
of the above standards in addition to the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM).
Plan to Meet Changing Requirements
The strategic planning processes are designed to be the means by which to review the traffic
records environment and adapt to current needs. While the needs of the private sector are
considered in the Plan, the needs of the public sector are the primary target.
Support Strategic Highway Safety Planning and Program Management
Each of the projects outlined by the Strategic Plan is built according to Project Management
Institute (PMI) standards.
Strategic Planning of Training and Quality Control
Data entry and data integration training were identified as needs in the Strategic Plan and
therefore outlined as projects within their respective strategic initiatives.
The Plan does not include data quality benchmarks; instead the data quality benchmarks have
been embodied in the organization’s performance measures in a different document entirely. As
with the data quality benchmarks, the quality metrics are not included directly in the Plan, and
instead are included in the performance measurement document.
Recommendations:

Create a fresh Strategic Plan for Traffic Records with the full membership of the TRCC

Establish a forum for discussion of all issues and initiatives to be addressed in the new
Plan (including the findings of this Assessment).

Use the NHTSA suggested four box method to set priorities to the initiatives (existing
and new) generated by participants involved in the forum.
21
1-C: Data Integration
Advisory Excerpt: The Data IPT Report recommends that States integrate data and expand their linkage opportunities to
track traffic safety events among data files. Integrated data should enable driver license and vehicle registration files to
be updated with current violations, prevent the wrong driver from being licensed, or keep an unsafe vehicle from being
registered. Integration should ensure that all administrative actions are available at the time of the driver’s sentencing.
Data linkage is an efficient strategy for expanding the data available, while avoiding the expense and delay of new data
collection.
State TRCCs should develop working relationships with the health care community to ensure that the causation, crash,
emergency medical services, hospital, and other injury-related data linked during the event can be merged statewide.
They should also link to other data such as vehicle insurance, death certificates, medical examiner reports, etc., to support
analysis of State-specific public health needs.
Linkage with location-based information such as roadway inventory databases and traffic volume databases at the State
level can help identify the kinds of roadway features that experience problems, allowing States to better address these
needs through their various maintenance and capital improvement programs. Data integration should be addressed
through the following:

Create and Maintain a Traffic Records System Inventory.
The TRS documentation should show the data elements and their definitions and locations within the various
component systems. Ancillary documentation should be available that gives details of the data collection methods,
edit/error checking related to each data element, and any known problems or limitations with use of a particular data
element. The system inventory should be maintained centrally, ideally in a data clearinghouse, and kept up-to-date
through periodic reviews with the custodial agencies. Funding for system development and improvement should
include a review of existing systems’ contents and capabilities.

Support Centralized Access to Linked Data.
The traffic records user community should be able to access the major component data files of the TRS through a
single portal. To support this access, the State should promote an enterprise architecture and database, and develop
a traffic records clearinghouse to serve as the gateway for users. The databases in the clearinghouse should be
linked in ways that support highway safety analysis. At a minimum, this would include linkage by location, involved
persons, and events.

Meet Federal Reporting Requirements.
The TRS, where possible, should link to or provide electronic upload files to federal data systems such as FARS,
MCMIS/SafetyNet, Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), and others.

Support Electronic Data Sharing.
The TRS should support standard methods for transporting data between systems. At a minimum, these should
include a documented file structure and data definitions for information to be transferred to statewide databases.
Standard information transfer formats and protocols, such as XML format and FTP, should be supported.

Adhere to State and Federal Privacy and Security Standards.
The TRS should make linked data as accessible as possible while safeguarding private information in accordance
with State and federal laws. This includes security of information transferred via the Internet or other means.
22
1-C: Data Integration Status
The ultimate goal for any traffic records system is the integration of the various components or
files comprising the system, i.e., crash, roadway, citation, medical/injury, driver and vehicle files
as well as other available data related to public health needs. Ideally, these various files would
be stored together in, for example, a data warehouse. Co-location is not necessary if access to
the files is granted or file transfer is permitted where linking data elements among the files will
provide data analysis capability using a single database of merged data.
The Kansas Crash and Analysis Records System (KCARS) is the State crash repository for all
statewide reportable crashes submitted by all police jurisdictions. This repository holds only
crash reports. There is also a data warehouse that currently contains both the crash file and the
roadway file. This warehouse is apparently intended to be the future repository for all traffic
record system component files on the condition that the issues surrounding the security of the
data are resolved. Although not truly linked by definition, the crash report does contain the
milepoint from the roadway file and GIS data associated with the crash location. This linear
location based reference common to the two files can be the first real step by Kansas towards
integrating the traffic records system components, but there is still work to be done on the
intersection inventory component before its value can be realized. Currently no other files are
integrated with the crash report file or linked by key fields to any other system component.
There are ongoing plans to do so, and the stakeholders are working toward this outcome. File
linkage was a major recommendation from the previous assessment, but a new revision of the
crash report and database upgrade plans for other components like the driver and vehicle files
have delayed any additional file linkage efforts.
Kansas is aware of the various files comprising the traffic records system individually, but there
is no common centralized inventory of the various systems that documents the data elements of
each, their definitions, and their organizational locations.
There is a portal enabling access to the library of crash report PDF images in Filenet for
contributing agencies to obtain a copy of a completed report. Future capabilities through the
same portal will enable access to the crash data file and other merged file sets of the traffic
records system, allow for file query, report generation, Kansas Law Enforcement Reporting
(KLER) system supplemental report submissions, file transfer, and other data management
activities that will ultimately be identified.
Federal reporting requirements are being met in the areas of FARS and MCMIS/SafetyNet, but
this is not accomplished by any linkage among the various files but instead by a concentrated and
dedicated effort to meet these requirements by KDOT and the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP).
Before the various components of the traffic records system can reside in one repository, issues
addressing the safeguarding of private information are challenges that KDOT and the various
future contributing agencies need to address. Today, as separate files, this responsibility lies
with the individual traffic records file custodian and is supported by State statute in most cases.
As for the crash file, KDOT appears to be leery of providing public access to the data as they are
23
concerned about the potential for identity theft and mass marketing efforts resulting from any
public access capability.
Recommendation:

Continue efforts toward integrating the component files of the traffic records system
regardless of where they are physically located.
24
1-D: Data Uses and Program Management
Advisory Excerpt: Data availability and quality directly affect the effectiveness of informed decision making about sound
research, programs, and policies. Accurate, comprehensive, and standardized data should be provided in a timely manner
to allow the agency or decision-making entities at the State or local levels to:

Conduct Problem Identification.
Problem identification is the process of determining the locations and causes of crashes and their outcomes and of
selecting those sites and issues that represent the best opportunity for highway safety improvements. States should be
able to conduct problem identification activities with their traffic records system.

Develop Countermeasure Programs and Program Management Procedures.
States select and evaluate strategies for preventing crashes and improving crash outcomes. This requires that
decision makers can select cost-effective countermeasures and that safety improvement programs and funds should be
managed based on data-driven decision making.

Perform Program Evaluation.
States should be capable of measuring progress in reducing crash frequency and severity. Ideally, the effectiveness of
individual programs and countermeasures should be evaluated and the results used to refine development and
management processes.

Support Safety-Related Policies and Planning.
The States are responsible for developing SHSPs. These data should be available to support this and other policy
and planning efforts such as development of agency-specific traffic safety policies, traffic records strategic planning,
safety conscious planning, and others.

Access Analytic Resources.
Data users, and decision makers in particular, should have access to resources including skilled analytic personnel
and easy to use software tools to support their needs. These tools should be specifically designed to meet needs such
as addressing legislative issues (barriers as well as new initiatives), program and countermeasure development,
management, and evaluation, as well as meeting all reporting requirements.

Provide Public Access to Data.
The TRS should be designed to give the public or general non-government user reasonable access to data files,
analytic results, and resources, but still meet State and federal privacy and security standards.

Promote Data Use and Improvement.
The TRS should be viewed as more than just a collection of data repositories, and rather as a set of processes,
methods, and component systems. Knowledge of how these data should be collected and managed, along with where
the bottlenecks and quality problems arise, is critical to users understanding proper ways to apply the data. This
knowledge should also aid in identifying areas where improvement is possible.
25
1-D: Data Uses and Program Management Status
Conduct Problem Identification
The Traffic Safety Section (TSS) in the Bureau of Transportation Safety and Technology
(BTST) has the direct responsibility for conducting problem identification. The Section Chief
has the support of a staff of Program Managers and Program Consultants and a Traffic Records
System Administrator at the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) headquarters. At
present, a Data Analyst position in TSS is vacant because the analyst is in military service.
There are three Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) personnel who operate from the field. The
LELs are retired enforcement officers who maintain relationships with local enforcement
agencies and personnel.
Any of the TSS program management staff may initiate or assist in a quest for data or
information concerning a problem or potential problem or information to use as a baseline for a
new project. Further, however, the Bureau Chief is an active participant on problem
identification issues and has enabled the Highway Safety Analyst from the Highway Safety Unit
to engage in any and all aspects of analysis and problem searching in the behavioral issues rather
than being constrained to considering engineering issues that are customary in many departments
of transportation.
Reflecting the open access and task-sharing atmosphere of the Bureau, the Director of the
Division of Planning and Development (DPD) maintains involvement with the issues TSS
addresses and has enabled the Accident Manager Analyst to generate data and reports for TSS
and others and, more importantly, to explore problem identification when any data search may
cause a highway safety question to surface. This manager/analyst, in a different Bureau, is
responsible for the accident file and has the most knowledge of that data set that is possible.
The extent of inter-bureau support and involvement enables TSS to compensate for or even
overcome the temporary loss of its data analyst and avoid dependency on contracted services or
the use of universities. Having in-Department resources keeps TSS on top of its responsibilities.
The most recent year’s official crash data are for 2008. All of the 2009 data are also available
for analysis with the caveat that the 2009 file has not been closed and declared official. In fact,
all submissions to date are also available with a stronger caveat.
TSS also supports, under contract, a Kansas Traffic Safety Resource Office (KTSRO) that
operates in conjunction with the DCCCA (Douglas County Citizens Committee on Alcoholism),
providing rehabilitative services and project services, mainly Occupant Protection Surveys in
rural areas. DCCCA contracts with Preusser Research Group for data processing and project
evaluation. KTRSO contract also supports a Traffic Resource Prosecutor. These partners can
also initiate and or provide assistance in problem identification.
Develop Countermeasure Programs and Program Management Procedures
The TSS staff personnel in Topeka manage the countermeasure programs and are supported by
the three LELs who operate from the field. With the close involvement of the engineeringoriented personnel, the problem issues cross-pollinate the countermeasure programs.
26
Current primary focus for TSS is on Drunk Driving and Occupant Protection. Problem
Intersections and Lane Departures are focus areas for BTST that are primary KDOT issues being
addressed.
TSS programs also address the traditional behavioral problem areas: older drivers, under-age
drinking; occupant protection for child passengers; motorcycle safety; and pedestrian safety.
Countermeasures for these problem areas are addressed by projects that are managed by the TSS
staff with the Program Managers and Program Consultants becoming specialists in the issues.
Because of the skills mix in the DPD and the parallel concerns and programs for highway- and
traffic-related countermeasures, the approach to the programs and their management is
coordinated and flexible.
DCCCA conducts occupant protection surveys under contract to TSS. The LELs obtain citation
information from the enforcement agencies, and PRG performs data entry and evaluation.
Perform Program Evaluation
TSS Program Managers and Program Consultants evaluate the projects. The management and
evaluation functions flow together and are subject to the same inter-Bureau treatment. When
information on the results from a program area arises, any of those who extract and analyze data
may become the evaluator per se or the resource for a TSS evaluator.
The evaluations are conducted mostly in-house and in a very timely manner. If correlations with
data sets other than the crash file are required, that information is obtained if it is available. The
Traffic Safety home page on the Internet provides a current and historic count of fatalities,
summaries of those fatal crashes, Facts Sheets, Reports and Studies, and the 2008 Traffic
Accident Fact Book.
The various countermeasure program areas publish brochures and reports, and most of the
resources are PDF files that can be downloaded.
Support Safety-Related Policies and Planning
One of the goals of the traffic records data warehouse is to be the primary source for the
information required to guide the setting of policy by decision makers.
Access Analytical Resources
The Geometric and Accident Data (GAD) unit within the Bureau of Transportation Planning
manages the crash records system (the Kansas Crash & Analysis Reporting System, KCARS).
The KDOT employs a data analyst who works under the supervision of a Highway Safety
Engineer. He uses Microsoft Access©, an Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) compliant tool
to communicate with the KCARS Oracle ODBC and TRS SQL ODBC compliant databases. For
the most part, this data analyst provides the various reports requested from any of the data
contributing agencies as well as any public requests after an Open Records Request (ORR) is
submitted. In addition, the analyst provides reports and ad-hoc results to other state agencies
upon request. This analyst was given rave reviews by his managers for his overall knowledge of
27
the crash data set and his creativity and technical capabilities at addressing every request that he
receives. Unfortunately, KDOT is losing this resource for personal reasons and they hope to hire
a replacement when that vacancy occurs in the coming year. One other data analyst position
exists within KDOT, but the individual who holds that position is deployed in the military, thus
the agency is holding that position for him pending his return without any temporary replacement
for him.
The FARS analyst receives analytical support from the KDOT data analyst upon request. In
addition, other governmental agencies including the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP), local law
enforcement agencies and the general public are all served with this single resource.
Provide Public Access to Data
The GAD Section is the main source for responding to data requests. Data are provided in the
form of tables, crosstabs, graphs, and data extracts. GAD responds to over 500 data requests per
year. An atmosphere which generates such a high demand for crash data is to be commended but
it has also created a major strain on this Section’s resources.
Promote Data Use and Improvement
The crash file manager and data entry personnel identify data quality problems with crash
reports. They then pass this information back to law enforcement in a method that allows them
to understand the problems and the correct way to report the data.
The TSS plans to do statewide training within the next year to educate law enforcement about the
importance of data collection.
The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) also promotes data and stresses the importance of
accurate, complete and timely data. The SHSP states:
Section 408 establishes a new program of incentive grants to encourage States to adopt
and implement effective programs to improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness,
uniformity, integration, and accessibility of safety data, to evaluate the effectiveness of
efforts to make such improvements; to link these data systems with other data systems in the
State; and to improve the compatibility of the State data system with national data systems to
enhance the ability to observe and analyze nationals trends in crash occurrences, rates,
outcomes, and circumstances. Kansas developed a Traffic Records Strategic Plan (TRSP) in
order to take advantage of the Section 408 grants, and it can be found at:
http://www.ksdot.org/burTrafficSaf/TRCC.asp
To further express the importance of data the TRSP Initiative One states:
The first initiative is meant to develop standard forms and electronic specification for all of
the submittal information exchanges. The purpose of these projects is to bring all of the
contributing systems to a baseline starting point, where data content has a high degree of
conformity to national standards and from which data integration can begin to take place.
28
Recommendations:

Research the availability of other analytical resources that may be able to quickly fill the
void of the anticipated departure of the KDOT data analyst.

Create a public use website with access to the KCARS data for simple queries.

Review the current training for law enforcement on the importance and proper
application of traffic safety data to look for ways to strengthen the message and for more
effective training methods, e.g., video, CD-based, etc.
29
SECTION 2: TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Advisory Excerpt: At the time of passage of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, State centralized TRS generally contained
basic files on crashes, drivers, vehicles, and roadways. Some States added data on traffic safety-related education, either
as a separate file or as a subset of the Driver File. As traffic safety programs matured, many States incorporated EMS
and Citation/Conviction Files for use in safety programs. Additionally, some States and localities maintain a Safety
Management File that consists of summary data from the central files that can be used for problem identification and
safety planning.
As the capabilities of computer hardware and software systems increased and the availability of powerful systems has
expanded to the local level, many States have adopted a more distributed model of data processing. For this reason, the
model of a TRS needs to incorporate a view of information and information flow, as opposed to focusing only on the files
in which that information resides.
Under this more distributed model, it does not matter whether data for a given system component are housed in a single
database on a single computer or spread throughout the State on multiple local systems. What matters is whether the
information is available to users, in a form they can use, and that these data are of sufficient quality to support its
intended uses. Thus, it is important to look at information sources. These information sources have been grouped to form
the major components of a TRS:






Crash Information
Roadway Information
Driver Information
Vehicle Information
Citation/Adjudication Information
Statewide Injury Surveillance Information
Together, these components provide information about places, property, and people involved in crashes and about the
factors that may have contributed to the crash or traffic stop. The system should also contain information that may be
used to judge the relative magnitude of problems identified through analysis of data in the TRS. This includes
demographic data (social statistics about the general population such as geographic area of residence, age, gender,
ethnicity, etc.) to account for differences in exposure (normalization) and data for benefit/cost and cost effectiveness
determinations. Performance level data should be included to support countermeasure management.
A frequently used overview of the contents of a TRS is the Haddon Matrix, named after its developer, William Haddon, the
first NHTSA Administrator. It provides a valuable framework for viewing the primary effects of Human, Vehicle, and
Environmental factors and their influence before, during, and after a crash event. Table 1 is based on the Haddon Matrix.
Table 1: Expanded Haddon Matrix With Example Highway Safety Categories
Human
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Pre-Crash
·
·
·
·
Age
Gender
Experience
Alcohol/Drugs
Physiological Condition
Psychological Condition
Familiarity with Road &
Vehicle
Distraction
Conviction & Crash
History
License Status
Speed
Vehicle
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Crash Avoidance
Vehicle Type
Size & Weight
Safety Condition,
Defects
Brakes
Tires
Vehicle Age
Safety Features
Installed
Registration
Environment
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Crash
· Belt Use
· Human Tolerance
· Crash-Worthiness
· Passenger Restraints
30
Visibility
Weather/Season
Lighting
Divided Highways
Signalization
Geographic Location
Roadway Class, Surface, Cross-Section,
Alignment, etc.
Structures
Traffic Control Devices, Signs, Delineations,
and Markings
Roadside Appurtenances, Buildups,
Driveways, etc.
Volume of Traffic
Work Zone
Animal Range Land & Seasonal Movements
· Guardrails
· Median Barriers
Post-Crash
· Size
· Seating Position
· Helmet Use
· Airbags and Airbag
Shutoff
· Breakaway Posts
· Rumble Strips and Other Safety Devices
· Maintenance Status of Roadway and Devices
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· Post Crash Fires
· Fuel Leakage
· Power Cell
Securement
· Hazardous Materials
· Title
·
·
·
·
·
·
Age
Physical Condition
Insurance Status
Access to Health Care
Driver Control Actions
Court Actions
Probation
Traffic Management
Bystander Care
EMS System
First Responders
Hospital Treatment
Long-Term Rehabilitation
The Haddon Matrix has proven to be a meaningful way to examine primary effects of contributing factors on crash
frequency and severity. It helps decision makers to consider countermeasures designed to address specific contributing
factors. In recent years, with availability of more detailed data analyses, awareness has grown about the interactions
among contributing factors. A good example of such interactions would be weather and drivers’ skill or experience levels.
To make the contribution of interaction effects more obvious, the matrix in Table 2 can be used to supplement the Haddon
Matrix.
Table 1: Examples of the Interactions among Crash Characteristics
Human
Human
Vehicle
· Road Rage
· Ped/Bike Behavior &
Driver Behavior
· Driver Age & Passenger
Age & Number
Vehicle
Environment
· Familiarity with Vehicle &
Training
· License Class & Vehicle
Type
· Rollover Propensity &
Driver Actions
· Vehicle Ergonomics &
Person Size
·
·
·
·
· Vehicle Size Weight
Mismatch
· Under-Ride/Over-Ride
· Shared Roads, No-Zone
· Tire Inflation & Rollover
Propensity
· Rollover Propensity &
Road Configuration
· Roadway Debris & Vehicle
Size Weight
· Vehicle Type & Weather
Conditions
· Vehicle Condition &
Weather Conditions
Crash Avoidance
Vehicle Type
Familiarity with Roadway
Experience with Weather
Conditions
· Congestion Interaction
with Road Type
· Congestion & Vehicle Mix
& Lane Width
· Animal Management
Policies & Roadway
Access & Seasons
Environment
Taken together, these views of traffic safety factors offer a way of thinking about highway safety issues that is both
conceptually robust and practical. For the purposes of this Advisory, the most important aspect of the TRS is that it
supports high-quality decision making to improve highway safety. The remainder of this section of the Advisory presents
details about the various components of the TRS.
31
2-A: Crash Data Component
Advisory Excerpt:
 Description and Contents
The Crash Data Component should document the time, location, environment, and characteristics (e.g., sequence of
events, rollover, etc.) of a crash. Through links to other TRS components, the Crash Data Component should identify
the roadways, vehicles, and people (e.g., drivers, occupants, pedestrians) involved in the crash. These data should
help to document the consequences of the crash (e.g., fatalities, injuries, property damage, and violations charged),
support the analysis of crashes in general, and the analysis of crashes within specific categories defined by:

person characteristics (e.g., age or gender)

location characteristics (e.g., roadway type or specific intersections)

vehicle characteristics (e.g., condition and legal status)

the interaction of various components (e.g., time of day, day of week, weather, driver actions, pedestrian actions,
etc.)
The Crash Data Component of the TRS contains basic information about every reportable (as defined by State
statute) motor vehicle crash on any public roadway in the State.

Applicable Guidelines
Details of various data elements to be collected are described in a number of publications. The MMUCC provides a
guideline for a suggested minimum set of data elements to be collected for each crash. Additional information should
be collected for crashes involving an injury or fatality to meet the tracking and analysis requirements for the State
and other systems (e.g., the FARS, SafetyNet).

Data Dictionary
Crash data should be collected using a uniform crash report form that, where applicable, has been designed and
implemented to support electronic field data collection. Law enforcement personnel should receive adequate training
at the academy and during periodic refreshers, to ensure that they know the purpose and uses for the data as well as
how to complete each field on the form accurately.
Information from the quality control program should be used to develop and improve the content of training. The
training manual on crash reporting should be available to all law enforcement personnel. The instructions in the
manual should match the edit checks that are performed on the crash data prior to its being added to the statewide
crash database. The edit checks should be documented and sufficient to flag common and serious errors in the data.
For example, these errors include missing or out of range values in single fields and logical inconsistencies between
the data recorded in multiple fields (e.g., time of day is midnight and the lighting condition is coded as daylight). All
data element definitions and all system edits should be shared with collectors, managers, and users in the form of a
data dictionary that is consistent with the training manual and the crash report form.

Process Flow
The steps from initial crash event to final entry into the statewide crash data system should be documented in process
flow diagrams. The diagram should be annotated to show the time required to complete each step and to show
alternate flows and timelines depending on whether the reports are submitted in hardcopy or electronically to the
statewide system. The process flow diagram should include procedures for error correction and error handling (i.e.,
returning reports to the originating officer/department, correction, resubmission, etc.). Process flow diagrams
should show all major steps whether accomplished by staff or automated systems and should clearly distinguish
between the two.

Interface with Other Components
The Crash Data Component has interfaces, using common linking variables shown in Table 3, to other TRS
components to support the following functions:
32
- Driver and vehicle data should be used to verify and validate the person and vehicle information during data entry
and to flag records for possible updating in the driver or vehicle files when a discrepancy is identified. Key
variables such as driver license number, vehicle identification number (VIN), license plate number, name, address,
and date of birth should be available to support matching of records among the files. The Driver Data Component
should also enable access to drivers’ histories of crashes and convictions for traffic violations.
- Crash data should be linked to roadway inventory and other roadway characteristics based upon location
information and other automated and manual coding methods. This linkage supports location-based analysis of
crash frequency and severity as well as crash rate calculations based on location-specific traffic counts.
- Law enforcement personnel should be able to link crash, contact, incident, citation, and alcohol/drug test results
through their own department’s records and/or a secure law enforcement information network. For agencies with
computer-aided dispatch and/or a records management system, the crash data should be linked to other data
through incident, dispatch, and/or crash numbers and by names and locations to support analysis at the local level.
- Linkage to injury surveillance data should be possible either directly or through probabilistic linkage in order to
support analysis of crash outcomes and overall costs of treatment. Key variables for direct linkage include names
of injured persons or EMS run report number. Key variables for probabilistic linkage include the crash date and
time, crash location, person characteristics such as date of birth and gender, EMS run report number, and other
particulars of the crash.
Table 3: Common Linking Variables between Crash
And Other Data Components of a Traffic Records System
Incident Number
Crash Linkages to Other Law
Location (street address, description, coordinates, etc.)
Enforcement and Court Files
Personal ID (name, address, DL number, etc.)
-
Location Coding (linear referencing system, reference post,
coordinates, local street codes)
Crash Linkages to Driver and
Vehicle Information
-
Driver License Number
Vehicle Identification Number
Personal Identifiers (name, address, date of birth, etc.)
Crash Linkages to Statewide Injury
Surveillance System Information
-
Personal Identifiers (where allowed by law)
Crash Date, Time, Location
EMS Run Report Number
Unique Patient ID Number
Crash Linkages to Roadway
Information
Furthermore, there should be data transfer and sharing linkages between State and local crash databases. The State
crash data system should support the electronic transfer of crash data from a variety of law enforcement agencies’
(LEAs) records management systems. The State’s crash data system management should publish the specifications
and editing requirements for generating the outputs from the various agency systems that can be processed into the
official State crash data system.

Quality Control Program
The crash data should be timely, accurate, complete, and consistent and these attributes should be tracked based on a
set of established quality control metrics. The overall quality of the information in the Crash Data Component should
be assured based on a formal program of error/edit checking as the data are entered into the statewide system. In
addition, the custodial agency and the TRCC frequently work together to establish and review the sufficiency of the
quality control program and to review the results of the quality control measurements. The crash data managers
should receive periodic data quality reports. There should be procedures for sharing the information with data
collectors through individual and agency-level feedback, as well as training and changes to the crash report
instruction manual, edit checks, and data dictionary. Example measurements are presented in Table 4
33
Table 2: Examples of Quality Control Measurements for Crash Data
-
# days from crash event to receipt for data entry on statewide database
# days for manual data entry
# days for upload of electronic data
Average # of days to enter crashes into the system
Average # of days of backlogged crash reports to be entered
-
% of crashes “locatable” using roadway location coding method
% VINs that are valid (e.g., match to vehicle records that are validated with VIN
checking software)
% of interstate motor carriers “matched” in MCMIS
% crash reports with uncorrected errors
% crash reports returned to local agency for correction
Completeness
-
% LEAs with an unexplained drop in reporting one year to the next
% LEAs with expected number of crashes each month
% FARS/MCMIS match
% FARS/State Crash fatality match
Consistency
-
% time that an unknown code is used in fields with that possible value
% logical error checks that fail
% compliance with MMUCC guidelines
Timeliness
Accuracy
The measures in Table 4 are examples of high-level management indicators of quality. The crash file managers
should have access to a greater number of measures and be prepared to present a standard set of summary measures
to the TRCC on a periodic schedule, such as monthly or quarterly.
34
2-A: Crash Data Component Status
Description and Contents
The official custodian for the crash file in Kansas is the Division of Planning and Development
(DPP) of the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT). The Geometric and Accident Data
(GAD) section is the specific unit within the DPD that manages the crash file. Kansas State
statute Chapter 8, Article 16 requires all crashes that involve a fatality, an injury or property
damage exceeding $1,000 are required to be reported to KDOT on Motor Vehicle Accident
Report, DOT Form No. 850A, Revision 1-2009. There are four additional forms that make up
the entire forms available for any given crash. Investigating agencies are required by the same
statute to submit crash reports to KDOT within 10 days of completing a crash investigation. The
records, about 65,000 annually, are maintained in the Kansas Crash Analysis and Reporting
System (KCARS) ORACLE database. KCARS contains information about every reportable
motor vehicle crash occurring on any Kansas municipal or State maintained roadway in the
State.
Paper forms are still in use and are supplied to local law enforcement by KDOT. An electronic
version, developed for KDOT by the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP), is commonly referred to as
the Kansas Law Enforcement Reporting (KLER) system. The KDOT Form 850A and all
accompanying forms are parts of the KLER suite of forms available in electronic format.
Documents available in KLER were all created by KHP using a form development product. Any
required form used by law enforcement can be created with this form development software.
The KLER crash report was officially released in October 2009 and replaced the previous KDOT
Electronic Accident Data Collection and Reporting (EADCR) application. Since its release in
October 2009, 52 law enforcement agencies out of 402 utilize the electronic version of the KLER
crash report accounting for approximately 39 percent of the total crashes reported to KDOT
annually. Approximately 13 more agencies are awaiting approval to use the electronic form
pending a technical review of the agencies’ capabilities to submit forms electronically. KHP
made presentations to approximately 200 local law enforcement agencies announcing the release
and availability of the KLER crash reporting software. The remaining law enforcement agencies
in Kansas not using KLER submit paper reports. Some agencies use software provided by third
party vendors to electronically create their version of the Form 850A crash report but none of
these agencies is capable of submitting the reports generated from these systems to KDOT
electronically. Therefore, agencies that can create an electronic record outside of KLER still
must print the report and submit the paper copy to KDOT. KDOT is unaware of how many
agencies have third party software but know that there are twelve such third party products in the
State.
Because electronic reports generated outside of KLER must be submitted in paper format,
KDOT is tasked with having to key the report into KLER. This is a waste of the reporting
agency’s front end effort creating the report electronically. KDOT has provided the Information
Exchange Package Documentation (IEPD) to the 12 third party software vendors but none has
yet provided this capability for electronically reporting crashes generated from their software to
KDOT. Because this issue has been lingering for some time and there appears to be no incentive
for the third party vendors to address this yet, one strategy for KDOT may be to seek support
from the agencies served by these vendors to begin using the KLER KHP product in lieu of the
35
crash reporting module provided by their vendor. Usually these products are sold in modules
that are optional additions to Records Management Systems (RMS). While this approach
sometimes pits a State agency in a perceived competition with private industry, it does allow the
agency contracting with the third party to save the money spent on that module yet still get their
crash data back to their RMS. The assessment team was told that two separate files can be
generated by the KLER transmission to KDOT. One can be sent to the submitting agency RMS
and the other to the TRS Index. While this is not one of the current strategies of KDOT to
address the third party vendor issue, it may be worth considering whether there would be any
support from these agencies for such a strategy. The carrot may be that they can also save
money that can be deployed elsewhere, especially in these difficult budgetary times and KDOT
can, with no additional investment, obtain a significant number of additional crash reports
electronically in the format it requires.
The KLER crash report is electronically transferred from the user’s (client) machine to the
Traffic Record System (TRS) Index. KDOT is working with KHP technical staff to utilize the
IEPD developed using the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) XML as the data
transport protocol. KHP has not yet conformed to transmitting using this KDOT preference but
is amenable to working toward doing so. Instead, KHP designed the KLER crash report data to
be stored in a flat file and transmitted to KDOT using a NIEM wrapper. This methodology does
not meet the intent of the IEPD as it only receives the file in a NIEM compliant package instead
of the individual data elements in the NIEM XML format. This causes KDOT technical staff to
extract the payload elements from the wrapper and submit them to the TRS Index for processing
and validation. In other words, this process is not the fluid exchange that it could be if KHP
were to follow the IEPD at the data element level. In defense of the KHP position, KHP
technical staff cite form navigational constraints for not making the KLER software data element
fields NIEM compliant which is understandable; however, KHP has agreed to work towards
engineering the transfer of the data to KHP to be in compliance with the KDOT published NIEM
IEPD.
Linking to other traffic records components is not yet possible. This status remained unchanged
since the last assessment however ongoing plans remain to link the files for integrated analysis.
Local law enforcement expressed concern about the number of fields on the crash report and also
the fact that even minor crashes can result in an eight-to-ten-page printed report. They expressed
a desire to make the process simpler and reduce the number of pages when information is printed
but doesn’t apply to the report they created. They also reported that most local law enforcement
agencies (LEAs) created their own short form report outside of KLER or the paper 850A format
to handle minor, non-reportable crashes.
There is an unknown number of LEAs in Kansas that do not have the technical staff nor the
technology to be able to support the use of the KLER crash report. In some cases, they may be
content to continue indefinitely using the paper crash forms. KDOT would be wise to consider
developing a web-based single submission 850A KLER crash report that these smaller agencies
could use to create and submit electronically. Since the form is already created, it may pay
dividends to KDOT to offer this capability through a web page submission via a secure web site.
This will enable any agency to take advantage of this capability without being required to have a
36
technical staff maintain the KLER application. If these agencies do not yet have at least a
desktop computer at their station, then perhaps some strategies for funding at least one machine
per agency could be considered if KDOT perceives any value to this approach.
Applicable Guidelines
The national guidelines and standards of MMUCC and ANSI D16.1 are used by the Kansas
crash form 850A and all component reports to capture and classify crash data. KDOT adopts a
philosophy to evaluate the guidelines and standards and adopt those that are deemed useful and
reasonable. Compliance to the MMUCC guidelines at the data element level was estimated to be
75 to 80 percent. No compliance at the attribute level was provided. The KDOT crash report
collects and reports the information required for meeting the tracking, analysis, and reporting
requirements of the FARS as well as providing a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) supplement
for all CMV crashes to meet the same requirements for SafetyNet.
The FARS analyst is organizationally placed under KDOT. Fatal crashes are received in paper
and electronic format by the analyst for inclusion in FARS. KDOT places a priority on ensuring
the analyst receives any fatal crash reports as early as possible after receipt by KDOT. The KHP
routinely notifies the FARS analyst via written communication of the occurrence of a fatal crash
when such a crash occurs in any KHP jurisdiction. This early notification provides the FARS
analyst with the required preliminary information for the initial entry of the crash into FAST
FARS. Notification to the FARS analyst when a fatal crash occurs in a local agency jurisdiction
does not always occur. Because of this deficiency in communication, the analyst uses other
resources such as the news media, vital statistics (death certificates), and autopsy reports to
sometimes learn of the occurrence of a fatal crash. For most fatal crashes, the alcohol/drug
toxicology results are generally not initially available and must be reported at a later date. This
data element is aggressively sought by the FARS analyst by automatically generated letters to the
agency of jurisdiction when this data element is missing. In addition, the analyst enlists the help
of the Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) personnel employed by KDOT to pursue any pending
toxicology results or other important missing data element in order to meet the reporting
threshold requirements of the FARS program. Kansas has consistently met these reporting
timelines mandated by the FARS program.
Likewise, the CMV reporting requirements to SafetyNet are being met consistently by Kansas.
Responsibility for SafetyNet reporting falls with the KHP. CMV crashes occurring within the
KHP jurisdiction are handled by the KHP CMV Unit. CMV crashes occurring in other
jurisdictions are usually handled by that particular agency but the KHP will respond and
investigate these non-KHP CMV crashes upon request. Regardless of what agency investigates,
in addition to the regular crash report form 850A, a CMV Truck/Bus Supplement Form #852 is
also prepared and submitted with the regular crash report. Once again, KDOT places a priority
emphasis on ensuring that any CMV crash is provided to the KHP CMV unit as quickly as
possible after receipt. KLER CMV report submissions are received electronically in the TRS
Index and electronically forwarded to KHP for SafetyNet processing. FMCSA’s last report of
January 22, 2010 rated Kansas Good or “green” overall with one Fair or “yellow” rating in the
area of Non-Fatal Crash Completeness. For the last five FMCSA reports Kansas has consistently
been rated Good overall. A further description of the Kansas CMV crash report processing is
explained in the Quality Control area of this section.
37
Data Dictionary
The KDOT crash report is supported by a data dictionary that supports both manual and
electronic field data collection. At least four levels of crash investigation and reporting training
are offered by KHP; basic, advanced, reconstruction, and CMV crash training. KDOT also
supplies in paper and electronic PDF format the Kansas Motor Vehicle Accident Report Coding
Manual to all reporting agencies. In addition to a coding manual, this document is also a
comprehensive training manual. The manual is well documented and thoroughly explains and
provides clear examples for all fields on the available forms.
Process Flow
The work flow for the submission, validation, and retention of crash reports is depicted
exceptionally well in two separate flow chart diagrams supplied to the assessment team by
KDOT. One flow chart describes the paper submission process and the other describes the
electronic submission process. In the paper submission process, paper reports are submitted to
KDOT by mail. Sources of the paper submission are agencies that do not have electronic capture
capability, i.e., laptop computers in their police vehicles or whose business process does not
allow for officers to complete the reports from an office desktop computer at their station. In
addition, agencies that create an electronic report from a third party vendor software solution
must currently print the report and mail a paper copy to KDOT. The electronically generated
non-KLER report cannot yet be electronically transmitted to KDOT because the third party
vendors have not yet engineered their client systems to utilize the Extensible Markup Language
(XML) interface exchange specification published by KDOT based on the National Information
Exchange Model (NIEM). Once paper reports are received by KDOT the reports are reviewed
by the GAD unit of KDOT to make sure the crashes are reportable. Crashes received that do not
involve a death, injury or property damage of $1,000 or more get discarded by KDOT. Reports
containing insufficient data are returned to the reporting agency for completion. Fatality paper
reports are given priority and copies are made and distributed immediately to the FARS analyst
at KDOT and to the KHP if the fatality involved a CMV. The remaining reports are sent to the
Kansas Correctional Institute (KCI) by mail or courier. In a rare and surprisingly successful
partnership, selected medium security KCI inmates operate under the supervision of a
correctional employee supervisor to review the paper reports for missing information, scan the
document creating an electronic image, and assign an accident key or control number to each
report. The entire paper crash report is then keyed into KLER by the inmates. Inmates locate
and obtain GIS data on a map using MapPoint 2010 from the literal description provided by the
officer. Each crash is also located using the State’s milepost linear referencing system (LRS).
Both GIS and milepost data are recorded on a KLER State Use Only (SUO) form.
Once the data entry process is completed, the report is subjected to the automated validation
process of the KLER system. Errors are identified and corrected as appropriate by the inmates.
Once successfully validated, the reports are electronically submitted to the Traffic Records
System (TRS) Index where the completed crash reports are indexed and stored in an SQL
database. A Portable Document Format (PDF) image of the completed crash report is prepared
in the TRS Index as well. This Index acts as a pointer system for future crash report searches of
the KCARS repository as well as the path for the retrieval of a PDF copy of a crash report from
the KDOT Filenet library. From the TRS Index, the reports are transmitted electronically to the
38
KDOT KCARS crash repository Oracle database. CMV crashes are also electronically
transferred to the KHP Commercial Motor Vehicle Unit and the PDF generated for each report
by the Index is electronically transferred to the KDOT Filenet library for permanent storage. The
Filenet library contains only the PDF generated images for all crash reports submitted to
KCARS.
The electronic data process flow follows the same procedure as outlined above with two
exceptions all manual processes are now automated, and each crash is still manually located.
Electronic submissions from the reporting agencies are received by the TRS Index and submitted
to the validation process. Reports are electronically sent to KCI from the Index for location
based information only, and once obtained the reports are returned from KCI electronically to the
TRS Index and distributed electronically to the KCARS Oracle database and the Filenet image
library. CMV crashes are electronically sent to the KHP CMV Unit for SafetyNet processing.
Interface with Other Components
The roadway file and the crash file can be linked to provide an interface between the two. When
an extract or a copy of the crash file is requested, then the extract can be provided in any format
but are commonly provided in .csv, .xls, and .txt file formats.
Quality Control Program
The combined KDOT-KCI quality control program is one of the most commendable efforts the
assessment team has encountered. The validation process is self-contained within the KLER
system and a manual exists documenting and explaining the validation edits provided by the
software. The instructions in the manual match the edit checks that are performed on the crash
report data prior to the data being added to the KCARS.
Manual reports undergo the normal agency level review process. Both report formats are
received daily by the KDOT. Manual reports are sent in by each agency and received on average
eight days from the date of the crash. Electronic reports created by KLER are submitted
immediately upon completion one report at a time. There is no batch processing of electronic
reports. Manual reports reach the KCARS database normally the same day they are received and
on average are entered within ten days from the date of the crash. By all accounts, crash reports
are received timely from the contributors.
Because of the thoroughness of the electronic submission validation process, crash reports
submitted through KLER have a high degree of accuracy and completeness. KDOT offered no
metrics on these two attributes but they were very confident that the strength of the validation
process yielded a very low percentage of errors when submitted through KLER. Even when
paper reports that actually may contain errors or be missing information are received by KDOT
the errors are captured routinely by the validation process and missing information is identified,
obtained, and included during the data entry/validation procedure of KLER. Any manual reports
that are received with insufficient information are returned to the submitting agency to be
completed properly. Because of this process, a very high percentage of crashes are complete and
accurate when uploaded to KCARS. KDOT would be wise however to keep metrics on the
accuracy and completeness of paper crash reports upon receipt prior to being subjected to the
validation process. There was no evidence of KDOT providing any feedback to submitting
39
agencies evaluating their reports for data quality or completeness. Without this in place it is
difficult to correct user deficiencies and when not done, KDOT reinforces the belief that careless
data entry will be caught 100 percent of the time by the validation of the KLER system.
Furthermore, paper reports are only returned to the contributing agency when sufficient
information is not present in the report. In all other cases, missing information is entered and
erroneous data entry corrected by KCI inmates using the KLER data entry and validation
process.
One problem area mentioned concerned obtaining pending or missing information from the
original report for Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) or other toxicology results. When the
results of BAC tests are finally reported to the investigating officer by the Kansas Bureau of
Investigation (KBI) there is no mechanism to monitor that this information is even needed. If the
crash resulted in a fatality then the FARS analyst is persistent in acquiring this information. If
the crash was not a fatality, then there needs to be a similar proactive effort to ensure this
information is obtained and reported thus making the crash report complete.
Another area of concern identified was that there is no procedure in place to ensure reports
returned to the submitting agency are actually returned to KDOT for eventual input into the
KCARS database. Reports received with insufficient information are returned to the submitting
agency by KDOT. A log of what was returned needs to be kept and follow up made within a
reasonable time to ensure that those returned reports are actually received by KDOT.
The SafetyNet quality control process is very comprehensive. CMV crashes are validated by the
KLER system first and then again for uploading to SafetyNet. Completed CMV crashes are
received by the KHP CMV Unit electronically from the TRS Index where SafetyNet analysts do
an “eyes on” check for completeness. A small percentage of CMV crashes with missing
information arrive at the KHP CMV Unit and these missing fields are completed by the
SafetyNet analysts. The CMV crash report and form 852 Truck/Bus Supplement are submitted
electronically to SafetyNet and validated during the submission process. Kansas continues to do
well with their SafetyNet rating from the Motor Carrier Management Information System
(MCMIS).
Kansas DOT provided the following metrics for their crash report quality control program:
Timeliness
Accuracy
-
# days from crash event to receipt for data entry on statewide database= 8 days
# days for manual data entry= 1-10 days
# days for upload of electronic data= immediate
% reports entered into the system within 30 days of the crash= 75% or less
% of reports aged more than 60 days= 10% or less
-
% of crashes “locatable” using roadway location coding method= 100% of
State Highway System Crashes, >99% of other roadways with
Latitude/Longitude coordinates
% VINs that are valid (e.g., match to vehicle record and decode) = no response
% of interstate motor carriers “matched” in MCMIS= no response
% crash reports with 1 or more uncorrected “fatal” errors= no response
-
40
Completeness
-
Consistency
-
% crash reports with 2 or more uncorrected “serious, non-fatal” errors= no
response
% crash reports with 5 or more uncorrected “minor” errors= no response
% LEAs with >10% unexplained drop in reporting one year to the next= no
response
% LEAs within 5% of “expected” number of crashes each month= no response
% FARS/MCMIS match= no response
% time that an unknown code is used in fields with that possible value= no
response
% logical error checks that fail= no response
% compliance with MMUCC guidelines= no response
Recommendations:

Develop a marketing strategy/plan to get KLER crash reporting capability into as many
local agencies as quickly as possible.

Create a tracking mechanism in KLER for returned reports to ensure they get returned
and included in the KCARS database.

Consider the development of a minor crash report short form for use by local law
enforcement.

Investigate how the forms builder package may be able to print single pages on demand.

Consider developing a secure, web-based, single submission KLER crash report
capability for agencies without technical staff or sufficient technology resources so that
they may move to the KLER electronic format.

Conduct an inventory of third party vendor companies and identify the number of local
LEAs supported by these vendor products.

Meet with the identified third party vendors to outline a strategy and timeframe to
conform to the NIEM standard for submitting electronically to KCARS.

Create a tracking mechanism for identifying missing critical BAC information so it can
be reported to KCARS as soon as possible.

Continue to pursue strategies to develop linked data sets among the traffic records system
component files.

Develop a periodic report to local law enforcement summarizing the error rate and level
of completeness for initial crash report submissions to KCARS in an effort to improve
reporting.
41
2-B: Roadway Data Component
Advisory Excerpt:
 Description and Contents.
Roadway information includes roadway location, identification, and classification, as well as a description of a
road’s total physical characteristics and usage. These attributes should be tied to a location reference system.
Linked safety and roadway information are valuable components that support a State’s construction and maintenance
program development. This roadway information should be available for all public roadways, including local roads.
The State Department of Transportation (DOT) typically has custodial responsibility for the Roadway Data
Component. This component should include various enterprise-related files such as:

-
Roadway Inventories
Pavement
Bridges
Intersections

Roadside Appurtenances
- Traffic Control Devices (TCD)
- Guard Rails
- Barriers

Traffic
- Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
- Travel by Vehicle Type

Other
- Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
- Location Reference System (LRS)
- Project Inventories

Applicable Guidelines
The major guideline that pertains to the Roadway Data Component is the HPMS. This provides guidance to the
States on standards for sample data collection and reporting for traffic volume counts, inventory, capacity, delay, and
pavement management data elements. Guidelines and tools that address roadway data, as well as identifying which
of these are expected to have the greatest correlation with crash incidences, should be considered part of this
advisory. Examples of these resources are the Highway Safety Manual, Safety Analyst, and the Interactive Highway
Safety Design Model. In addition, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) is developing a series of guides for its Strategic Highway Safety Plan. This multi-year cooperative effort
includes guidelines relevant to several TRS components.

Data Dictionary
Roadway information should be available for all public roads in the State whether under State or local jurisdiction.
The contents of the Roadway Data Component should be well documented, including data definitions for each field,
edit checks, and data collection guidelines that match the data definitions. Procedures for collection of traffic data
and calculation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) should be documented as well.

Process Flow
The steps from initial event to final entry onto the statewide roadway data system should be documented in process
flow diagrams for each file that are part of the Roadway Data Component. The diagrams should be annotated to
show the time required to complete each step and to show alternate flows and timelines depending on whether data
are submitted in hardcopy or electronically to the statewide system. The process flow diagram should include
processes for error correction and error handling (i.e., returning reports to the original source for correction,
resubmission, etc.). Process flow diagrams should show all major steps whether accomplished by staff or with
automated systems and clearly distinguish between the two.
42

Interface with Other Traffic Records System Components
A location reference system should be used to link the various components of roadway information as well as other
TRS information sources, especially crash information, for analytical purposes. Compatible location coding
methodologies should apply to all roadways, whether State or locally maintained. When using a GIS, translations
should be automatic between legacy location codes and geographic coordinates. This process should be well
established and documented. Compatible levels of resolution for location coding for crashes and various roadway
characteristics should support meaningful analysis of these data.

Quality Control Program
The roadway data should be timely, accurate, complete, and consistent and these attributes should be tracked based
on a set of established quality control metrics. The overall quality of the roadway data should be assured based on a
formal program of error and edit checking as the data are entered into the statewide system and procedures should
be in place for addressing the detected errors. In addition, the custodial agency and the TRCC should frequently
work together to establish and review the sufficiency of the quality control program and to review the results of the
quality control measurements. The roadway data managers should receive periodic data quality reports. There
should be procedures in place for sharing the information with data collectors through individual and agency-level
feedback, as well as training and changes to the applicable instruction manuals, edit checks, and roadway data
dictionary. Audits and validation checks should be conducted as part of the quality control program to assure the
accuracy of specific critical data elements. Example measurements are shown in Table 5.
Timeliness
Table 3: Examples of Quality Control Measurements for Roadway Data
% of traffic counts conducted each year
# days from crash event to location coding of crashes
# days from construction completion to roadway file update
Accuracy
-
% of crashes locatable using roadway location coding method
% errors found during data audits of critical data elements
Completeness
-
% traffic data based on actual counts no more than 3 years old
% public roadways listed in the inventory
The measures in Table 5 are examples of high-level management indicators of quality. The managers of individual
roadway files should have access to a greater number of measures. The custodial agency should be prepared to
present a standard set of summary measures to the TRCC monthly or quarterly.
43
2-B: Roadway Data Component Status
Description and Contents
CANSYS is the Kansas Department of Transportation’s (KDOT) central repository of geometric
road and bridge data for the State road system. The main purpose of CANSYS is to serve as a
central repository of geometric road, bridge, and railroad inventory information and to produce
required federal reports. CANSYS provides answers to questions posed by the Legislature,
KDOT management, FHWA, other users within KDOT, other State agencies, and requests from
outside agencies. CANSYS also serves as the primary database for the KDOT Bureau of Traffic
Engineering’s access permit data and provides supporting data for several other KDOT
applications. CANSYS is an Oracle spatially enabled database that contains network and road
inventory data consisting of 120 unique elements.
The local public road data inventory is maintained in two separate databases.: Non-State Urban
and Non-State Rural. Both are maintained in CANSYS. However, the number of data elements
and level of detail are not as complete as that maintained for State-system roads. Some
metropolitan areas maintain road and street data. The capital improvement projects they develop
are submitted to the KDOT for inclusion in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) and the data from these projects are entered into the Non-State Urban file of CANSYS.
The total public road mileage by system is: State Highway System - 10,606;
Non-State Corporate Roads - 15,735, and Non-State non-Corporate Roads - 114,268 for a total
public road mileage of 140,609.
CANSYS maintains four Location Reference Systems (LRS) methods; the two most commonly
used are State Route Milepoint and County Route Milepoint.
Hourly traffic counts are obtained through 103 permanent counters throughout the State. Traffic
counts are collected for the 13 vehicle types requested by FHWA at 12 permanent counter
locations and 24-hour portable counters at 250 sites annually. The State highway system
(Interstate, US and Kansas numbered routes) are counted on a two-year cycle. Counts are
collected on rural major collectors and urban collectors on a three-year cycle. Rural minor
collectors are counted on a six-year cycle and local roads are sampled every nine years.
Total and fatal crash rates are two of the factors used in the priority formula in project selection
for the STIP. The Bureau of Transportation Safety and Technology leverages two federal aid
categories to fund safety improvement projects, the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) and the Safety Set Aside for safety projects.
A system for locating crashes on highways owned and maintained by KDOT is currently in
place. Crashes are assigned a location reference that corresponds to a unique point on the State
highway system. Crash patterns can be detected and road sections can be compared to identify
potential safety problems. But a similar system is not yet in place for the approximately 130,000
miles of streets and roads not maintained by KDOT. A network database of these roadways is
being developed, but administration of that roadway information will be a continual challenge as
cities continue to develop and add streets.
44
Another challenge will be tying the crashes to points on the network. New crashes can be given
a reference point, but to go back into history and locate crashes will require the locator to know
every past name for the local street or road, and also any changes to its alignment. The process
of getting the needed training and equipment to all local agencies will take considerable time,
and will also require maintenance. These challenges must be overcome, however, for the State
to have a comprehensive picture of crash history, and to be able to evaluate countermeasures
installed “off-system”.
Only 23 of the 105 counties have county engineers. The sophistication of the crash record
systems maintained at the county level varies, but usually is not more than a pin map. Counties
would like to access KDOT data and not maintain their own system.
Cities have the same varying levels of sophistication and expertise. The major metropolitan
areas have professional engineering staff and the analytic ability to use roadway and crash data
to determine problem locations and develop countermeasures. For example Miami County is
currently managing a High Risk Rural Roads project in cooperation with KDOT.
The issue with both counties and cities is the availability and reliability of data to use in their
problem identification processes. KDOT is in the process of enhancing their crash data system
with a view to make these data available to county and city engineers for use in their safety
program development. The Traffic Engineering Assistance Program can help local jurisdictions
identify and design countermeasures.
Applicable Guidelines
A major guideline for roadway data is the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).
The HPMS data are used extensively in the analysis of highway system condition, performance,
and investment needs that make up the biennial Condition and Performance Reports to Congress.
For the most part, KDOT conforms to the provisions of this guideline.
Another guideline is the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE). The goal of MIRE is
to define critical safety data inventory elements—those elements needed by State and local
agencies to conduct their internal analyses, and those elements required by existing safety
analysis tools and resources. KDOT staff is aware of MIRE and intends to implement changes
where feasible when the MIRE guideline is published.
MIRE complements the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) which is the major
guideline for crash data elements. MMUCC provides a data set for describing crashes of motor
vehicles in transport that will generate the information necessary to improve highway safety
within each State and nationally. A subset of roadway data elements is part of MMUCC.
Kansas’ crash file is about 75 percent compliant with the MMUCC guideline.
45
Data Dictionary
An extensive data dictionary exists for both roadway and crash data systems. The documents
include data definitions, edit checks, and data collection guidelines.
Process Flow
Process flow diagrams are available for the various roadway files displaying automated and
manual processes.
Interface with Other Traffic Records System Components
The various roadway files reside in CANSYS and are able to be linked through the LRS. Road
features are also linked to crash data through the LRS. KDOT has developed an Enhanced
Priority Formula System (EPFS) which merges road and crash data to calculate rates that are
used to select road segments for study of potential countermeasures.
Quality Control Program
Annually network maintenance is performed based on construction plans and resolutions.
Inventory data are collected from multiple sources and entered into the system. These sources
include construction plans, annual traffic data from Traffic and Field Operations, pavement
condition data from Materials and Research, and speed limit and boundary data from resolutions.
Additional information is derived from videolog footage.
Following are quality metrics provided by KDOT for the roadway data inventory file.
Quality Control Measurements for Roadway Data
Timeliness
50% of traffic counts conducted each year
30 days from crash event to location coding of crashes
365 days from construction completion to roadway file update
Consistency
130 (CANSYS) data elements consistent with historic data definitions
Completeness
50% (State System) traffic data based on actual counts no more than 3 years old
6.6% (State System) public roadways listed in the inventory
Accuracy
100% of crashes locatable using roadway location coding method
<1% errors found during data audits of critical data elements
Accessibility
130 road files accessible to safety stakeholders
Data Integration #of other traffic records component files l inked to road files
Recommendation:

Work with county and city engineers to provide data and safety analysis capabilities.
46
2-C: Driver Data Component
Advisory Excerpt:
 Description and Contents
Driver information should include data about the State's population of licensed drivers, as well as data about
convicted traffic violators who are not licensed in that State. Information about persons licensed by the State should
include: personal identification, driver license number, type of license, license status, driver restrictions, convictions
for traffic violations in this State and the history of convictions for critical violations in prior States, crash history
whether or not cited for a violation, driver improvement or control actions, and driver education data.
Custodial responsibility for the Driver Data Component usually resides in a State Department or Division of Motor
Vehicles. Some commercial vehicle operator-related functions may be handled separately from the primary custodial
responsibility for driver data. The structure of driver databases should be typically oriented to individual customers.

Applicable Guidelines
The ANSI D-20 standard should be used to develop data definitions for traffic records-related information in the
driver and vehicle files. Driver information should be maintained to accommodate information obtained through
interaction with the NDR via the PDPS and the CDLIS. This enables the State to maintain complete driving histories
and prevent drivers from circumventing driver control actions and obtaining multiple licenses. Data exchange for
PDPS and CDLIS should be accomplished using the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
(AAMVA) Code Dictionary. Security and personal information verification should be in accordance with the
provisions of the Real ID act.

Data Dictionary
At a minimum, driver information should be available for all licensed drivers in the State and for all drivers convicted
of a serious traffic violation (regardless of where or whether the person is licensed). The contents of the driver data
files should be well documented with data definitions for each field, and where applicable, edit checks and data
collection guidelines that match the data definitions. Procedures for collecting, reporting and posting of license,
conviction, and license sanction information should be documented.

Process Flow
The steps, from initial event (licensure, traffic violation, etc.) to final entry onto the statewide driver and vehicle data
files, should be documented in process flow diagrams for each file that is part of the Driver Data Component. The
diagram should be annotated to show the time required to complete each step and to show alternate flows and
timelines depending on whether the data are submitted in hardcopy or electronically to the statewide system. The
process flow diagram should include processes for error correction and error handling (i.e., returning reports to the
original source for correction, resubmission, etc.). The process flow should also document the timing, conditions,
and procedures for purging records from the driver files. Process flow diagrams should show all major steps
whether accomplished by staff or automated systems and clearly distinguish between the two. The steps also should
be documented in those States that have administrative authority to suspend licenses based on a DUI arrest
independent of the judicial processing of those cases.

Interface with Other Traffic Records System Components
The Driver Data Component should have interfaces (using common linking variables shown in Table 6) to other TRS
components such that the following functions can be supported:
- Driver component data should be used to verify/validate the person information during data entry in the crash data
system and to flag records for possible updating in the driver or vehicle files when a discrepancy is identified. Key
variables such as driver license number, name, address, and date of birth should be available to support matching
of records among the files. Social Security Numbers should be validated for interstate records exchange.
- Driver and vehicle owner addresses are useful for geographic analyses in conjunction with crash and roadway
data components. Linkage in these cases should be based on conversions of addresses to location codes and/or
geographic coordinates in order to match the location coding method used in the roadway data component and in
the GIS.
- Links between driver convictions and citation/adjudication histories are useful in citation tracking, as well as in
systems for tracking specific types of violators (DUI [Driving Under the Influence] tracking systems, for example).
Even if a citation tracking system is lacking, there is value in being able to link to data from enforcement or court
47
records on the initial charges in traffic cases. These linkages should be based usually on driver name and driver
license number but other identifiers may be used as well. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) is looking
for these identifiers in addition to methods to improve data sharing. “NCSC offers solutions that enhance court
operations with the latest technology; collects and interprets the latest data on court operations nationwide; and
provides information on proven best practices for improving court operations.” (http://www.ncsconline.org/)
- Linkage to injury surveillance data should be possible either directly or through probabilistic linkage in order to
support analysis of crash outcomes and crash risk associated with specific driver characteristics (e.g., the driver’s
history of violations or crash involvement). Key variables should include names, date of birth, dates, times, and
locations of crashes and citations.
Table 6: Common Linking Variables between Driver And Other Data Components of a Traffic Records System

Driver Linkages to Other Law
Enforcement & Court Files
-
Citation Number & Case Number
Location (street address, description, coordinates, etc.)
Personal ID (name, address, DL number, date of birth, etc.)
Driver Linkages to Roadway
Information
-
Driver Addresses (location code, coordinates)
Driver Linkages to Crash
Information
-
Driver License Number
Personal Identifiers (name, address, date of birth, etc.)
Driver Linkages to Statewide Injury
Surveillance System Information
-
Personal Identifiers (where allowed by law)
Crash Date, Time, Location
Quality Control Program
The driver data should be timely, accurate, complete, and consistent and these attributes should be tracked based on
a set of established quality control metrics. The overall quality of the information in the Driver Data Component
should be assured based on a formal program of error/edit checking as data are entered into the statewide system
and procedures should be in place for addressing the detected errors. In addition, the custodial agency (or agencies)
and the TRCC should work together frequently to establish and review the sufficiency of the quality control program
and to review the results of the quality control measurements. The driver data managers should receive periodic data
quality reports. There should be procedures in place for sharing the information with data collectors through
individual and agency-level feedback, as well as through training and changes to the applicable instruction manuals,
edit checks, and the driver and vehicle data dictionaries. Audits and validation checks to assure the accuracy of
specific critical data elements should be conducted as part of the formal quality control program. Example
measurements are presented in Table 7.
Timeliness
Table 3: Examples of Quality Control Measurements for Driver Data
Average time to post driver licenses
Average time to post convictions after receipt at DMV
Average time to forward dispositions from court to DMV
Accuracy
-
% of duplicate records for individuals
% “errors” found during data audits of critical data elements
Completeness
-
% drivers records checked for drivers moving into the State
% of driver records transferred from prior State
Consistency
-
% of SSN verified online
% of immigration documents verified online
% violations reported from other States added to driver history
The measures in Table 7 are examples of high-level management indicators of quality. The managers of individual
driver files should have access to a greater number of measures. The custodial agency should be prepared to present
a standard set of summary measures to the TRCC monthly or quarterly.
48
2-C: Driver Data Component Status
DESCRIPTION AND CONTENTS
The Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR), Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), maintains the
driver file. At the time of the Traffic Records Assessment of 2005, the file software and system
was antiquated, and now KDOR is in the initial stages of a complete overhaul of the system for
drivers and vehicles. The DMV Modernization Project began its design sessions on January 26,
2010 working on the Titles and Registration with a target implementation date of July 5, 2011.
The project will be based upon the MVS 3M Solution, an off-the-shelf product of 3M. “The
Project Management Office oversees the 3 separate “teams” that make up the project within the
Kansas Department of Revenue: The Organizational Development Team, Business Analyst
Team, and Technology Team. The project also includes the outside vendors 3M and Accenture.”
The Driver system target time for implementation is December, 2011—a shorter timeframe in a
sense because the driver portion of the system will have been established in this customer-based,
integrated approach.
The basic processes will use the current organizations: 34 DMV offices in the more populous
counties, and 76 county treasurer offices providing DMV services. Both headquarters DMV
personnel and both types of field personnel are involved in the development of the new system.
It has recently been named simply the DMV System.
For the system development, and to an extent an aspect of training, operating personnel will help
define the processes and will prototype the operations of the system. Following is an excerpt
from the DMV Modernization Project web site:
“DMVM Project Team Training (presented by 3M) is a demonstration of the "off the shelf" 3M system software.
The purpose of the Project Team Training is to give participants a clear view of the capabilities of the current off the
shelf system and prepare them for Conference Room Pilots, which are line item reviews of the system requirements.
The next step in the process is to determine what additional functionality is needed to fulfill KDOR system
requirements. These trainings began in Oct. and will conclude in early 2010 with the Driver's Training and CRP.
“DMVM Project End User Training (presented by DMVM Project Training team and county staff) will be
actual "hands on" training on the newly developed KDOR DMVM system. It will consist of instructor led classroom
training (sitting at a computer, led by a DMVM trainer, and working through KDOR business process scenarios),
computer based training and "hands on" practice time within a sand box training environment. This training will
occur between Jan. 2011 and Dec. 2011.”
“The DMV Modernization Project Training Team … will make sure all users of the new DMV
System are properly trained before the system is implemented. Even though design of the new
DMV System isn’t complete, the training team has already begun laying the groundwork for
system training sessions. The training schedule is so aggressive that the training team must make
sure every end user has a certain baseline level of computer knowledge before the actual system
training begins in January of 2011.”
KDOR began making preparations for the modernization project and undertook a file clean-up
process. The file contained 2.1 million records in 2005. Now a recent count is slightly over 1.9
million regular license records and slightly more than 135,000 CDL records. KDOR has had
49
facial recognition software since 2004, but in preparation for the modernization and facing the
climate of Real ID, a major fraud prevention/reduction effort was undertaken during which many
fraudulent records (multiples of the same person using variant identifications) were detected and
eliminated. Establishing a requirement for proof of lawful presence has created a new climate of
Secure Identification Management.
Other significant changes are the implementation of a Graduated Driver License (1/1/2010) and a
new requirement for court convictions to be submitted electronically to the DMV. About 80
percent of convictions are now being received electronically. Also, the SAVE file is now being
checked in additional to the SSOLV. As reported before, driver histories from previous states are
maintained.
The character of conviction reports coming into the DMV is unchanged from the descriptions
presented in the 2005 Traffic Records Assessment. Only moving violations are entered as
convictions on the driver record. However, an original offense for a moving violation may be
amended to a non-moving violation that would not become an entry in the driver file. The DMV
cannot record what it does not receive and cannot compensate for the inability to determine what
happens to any citation or any “conviction” that become shielded from the driver histories.
Courts requesting certified driver records wait now two to three weeks to obtain them on paper.
It was reported that an electronic certified driver record would be strongly preferred, and there
appeared to be no resistance to the upgrade.
The file is not basically used for statistical reports, but annual summaries and annual ACCESS
files are provided to the Kansas Department of Transportation for use in normalizing crash data.
APPLICABLE GUIDELINES
The DMV uses the ACD Code Dictionary and the BRB Publications MVR Book/Decoder Digest
if necessary.
DATA DICTIONARY
There is no current data dictionary. The new DMV System will establish a data dictionary and
define the edit checks in the system.
PROCESS FLOW
The process flow diagrams exist now for Electronic Submission of Convictions only.
INTERFACE WITH OTHER TRAFFIC RECORDS SYSTEM COMPONENTS
The current system does not interface with other components of the traffic records system.
QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
There are now some minor edit checks on the data entry programs for manual processing:
informal and manual monthly quality checks. They are used for training and instruction
manuals.
50
Quality Control Measurements for Driver Data
Submitted prior to the 2010 Assessment
Timeliness
– Average time from accepted application to create driver record = _____
– Average time to mail license to driver from time of application = _____
– Average time to post convictions after receipt at DMV = __10 days_or less__
– Average time from court disposition to receipt at the DMV = _10 days or
less____
Accuracy
– % of duplicate records for individuals requiring correction = _____
– Frequency of audits to assure data validity = _____
– % of errors found during audits of critical data elements = _____
– % of records checked for drivers moving into the State = _____
Completeness – % of driver records requested from prior State = _____
– % of driver records received from prior State = _____
Consistency
– % of SSN verified online = _____
– % of immigration documents verified online = _____
– % non-CDL violations reported from other states added to driver history = Not
tracked____
Recommendations:
Note: The improvements already achieved and the emerging new DMV System is impressive
and gratifying to acknowledge. Needed improvements to character, quality, and completeness of
citation/conviction data provided to the DMV could make the new KDOR system and its
contents a benchmark for excellence in driver and vehicle records system.

Include a provision to generate electronic certified driver records in the new DMV
System.

Consider evaluating the completeness, accuracy, and usefulness of the contents of the
driver history records and determines the reasons for and realistic remedies for any
deficiencies found. Publicize the findings to all of the highway and traffic stakeholders.
51
2-D: Vehicle Data Component
Advisory Excerpt:
 Description and Contents
Vehicle information includes information on the identification and ownership of vehicles registered in the State. Data
should be available regarding vehicle make, model, year of manufacture, body type, and vehicle history (including
odometer readings) in order to produce the information needed to support analysis of vehicle-related factors that may
contribute to a State’s crash experience. Such analyses would be necessarily restricted to crashes involving in-State
registered vehicles only.
Custodial responsibility for the vehicle data usually resides in a State Department or Division of Motor Vehicles.
Some commercial vehicle -related functions may be handled separately from the primary custodial responsibility for
all other vehicle data. The structure of vehicle databases is typically oriented to individual “customers.”

Applicable Guidelines
Title and registration information, including stolen and salvage indicators, should be available and shared with other
States. The National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) facilitates such exchanges. In addition, some
States empower auto dealers to transact vehicle registrations and title applications following the Business Partner
Electronic Vehicle Registration (BPEVR) guidelines from AAMVA. The International Registration Plan (IRP), a
reciprocity agreement among U.S States and Canadian provinces, administers the registration processes for
interstate commercial vehicles.

Data Dictionary
Vehicle information should be available for all vehicles registered in the State. The contents of the Vehicle Data
Component’s files should be well documented, including data definitions for each field, and where applicable, edit
checks and data collection guidelines that match the data definitions. Procedures for collection, reporting and
posting of registration, title, and title brand information should be documented.

Process Flow
The steps from initial event (registration, title, etc.) to final entry onto the statewide vehicle data files should be
documented in process flow diagrams for each file that is part of this component. The diagram should be annotated
to show the time required to complete each step and to show alternate flows and timelines depending on whether the
data are submitted in hardcopy or electronically to the statewide system. The process flow diagram should include
processes for error correction and error handling (i.e., returning reports to the original source for correction,
resubmission, etc.). The process flow should also document the timing, conditions, and procedures for purging
records from the vehicle files. Process flow diagrams should show all major steps whether accomplished by staff or
automated systems and should clearly distinguish between the two.

Interface with Other Traffic Records System Components
The Vehicle Data Component has interfaces (using common linking variables shown in Table 8) to other TRS
components such that the following functions should be supported:
- Vehicle data should be used to verify/validate the vehicle information during data entry in the crash data system,
and to flag records for possible updating in the vehicle files when a discrepancy is identified. Key variables such
as VIN, license plate number, names, and addresses should be available to support matching of records among the
files.
- Vehicle owner addresses are useful in geographic analyses in conjunction with crash and roadway data. Linkage
in these cases should be based on conversions of addresses to location codes and/or geographic coordinates in
order to match the location coding method used in the Roadway Data Component and in the GIS.
- As with crash data, linkage to injury surveillance data should be possible either directly or through probabilistic
linkage in order to support analysis of crash outcomes and crash risk associated with specific driver
characteristics (e.g., the driver’s history of violations or crash involvement). Key variables should include names
and dates, date of birth, times, and locations of crashes.
52
Table 8: Common Linking Variables between Vehicle
And Other Data Components of a Traffic Records System
Vehicle Linkages to Other Law
Location (street address, description, coordinates, etc.)
Enforcement & Court Files
Personal ID (name, address, DL number, etc.)

Vehicle Linkages to Roadway
Information
-
Owner Addresses (location code, coordinates)
Vehicle Linkages to Crash
Information
-
Vehicle Identification Number
Personal Identifiers (name, address, date of birth, etc.)
Vehicle Linkages to Statewide Injury
Surveillance System Information
-
Personal Identifiers (where allowed by law)
Crash Date, Time, Location
Quality Control Program
The vehicle data should be timely, accurate, complete, and consistent and these attributes should be tracked based on
a set of established quality control metrics. The overall quality of the vehicle data should be assured based on a
formal program of error/edit checking as the data are entered into the statewide system and procedures should be in
place for addressing the detected errors. In addition, the custodial agency (or agencies) and the TRCC should work
together frequently to establish and review the sufficiency of the quality control program and to review the results of
the quality control measurements. The vehicle data managers should receive periodic data quality reports. There
should be procedures in place for sharing the information with data collectors through individual and agency-level
feedback, as well as training and changes to the applicable instruction manuals, edit checks, and the driver and
vehicle data dictionaries. Audits and validation checks should be conducted to assure the accuracy of specific
critical data elements as part of the formal Quality Control Program. Example measurements are presented in
Table 9.
Timeliness
Table 9:
Examples of Quality Control Measurements for Vehicle Data
Average time for DMV to post title transactions
% title transactions posted within a day of receipt
Accuracy
-
% of duplicate records for individuals
% errors found during data audits of critical data elements
% VINs successfully validated with VIN checking software
Completeness
-
% of records with complete owner name and address
The measures in Table 9 are examples of high-level management indicators of quality. The managers of individual
vehicle files should have access to a greater number of measures. The custodial agency should be prepared to
present a standard set of summary measures to the TRCC monthly or quarterly.
53
2-D: Vehicle Data Component Status
The vehicle file is undergoing a complete revision and will be integrated with the driver file.
The following paragraphs down to the next heading are italicized and taken from the driver
section, 2-C, because the same information applies to both files.
The Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR), Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), maintains the
driver file. At the time of the Traffic Records Assessment of 2005, the file software and system
was antiquated, and now KDOR is in the initial stages of complete overhaul of the system for
drivers and vehicles. The DMV Modernization Project began its design sessions on January 26,
2010 working on the Titles and Registration with a target implementation date of July 5, 2011.
The project will be based upon the MVS 3M Solution, an off-the-shelf product of 3M. “The
Project Management Office oversees the 3 separate “teams” that make up the project within the
Kansas Department of Revenue: The Organizational Development Team, Business Analyst
Team, and Technology Team. The project also includes the outside vendors 3M and Accenture.”
The Driver system target time for implementation is December, 2011—a shorter timeframe in a
sense because the driver portion of the system will have been established in this customer-based,
integrated approach.
The basic processes will use the current organizations: 34 DMV offices in the more populous
counties, and 76 county treasurer offices providing DMV services. Both headquarters DMV
personnel and both types of field personnel are involved in the development of the new system. It
has recently been named simply the DMV System.
For the system development, and to an extent an aspect of training, operating personnel will help
define the processes and will prototype the operations of the system. Following is an excerpt
from the DMV Modernization Project web site:
“DMVM Project Team Training (presented by 3M) is a demonstration of the "off the shelf" 3M system software.
The purpose of the Project Team Training is to give participants a clear view of the capabilities of the current off
the shelf system and prepare them for Conference Room Pilots, which are line item reviews of the system
requirements. The next step in the process is to determine what additional functionality is needed to fulfill KDOR
system requirements. These trainings began in Oct. and will conclude in early 2010 with the Driver's Training and
CRP.
“DMVM Project End User Training (presented by DMVM Project Training team and county staff) will be
actual "hands on" training on the newly developed KDOR DMVM system. It will consist of instructor led classroom
training (sitting at a computer, led by a DMVM trainer, and working through KDOR business process scenarios),
computer based training and "hands on" practice time within a sand box training environment. This training will
occur between Jan. 2011 and Dec. 2011.”
Description and Contents
Titles and registrations are processed through the same facilities as the driver license functions
and remain essentially as they were in 2005. However, names used for vehicle transactions
follow the requirements of the driver file and benefit from the fraud prevention and reduction
procedures used now. Driver license numbers are also being captured for vehicle transactions
and become essential features to enable the unification of the customer-based information.
54
Another significant upgrade is the use of a bar code and patch code on title applications and
placement of a 2D bar code on certificates of title. The registration application and the
registration documents now have a bar code. These enhancements benefit the KDOR and the
enforcement community. VINA is used for VIN accuracy. The DMV also licenses and monitors
vehicle dealers and issues temporary permits, including oversize/overweight permits.
Odometer readings are captured at the time of application for an original title, a duplicate, or a
secured title. Stolen vehicle notices from vehicle owners initiate placement of a flag on a vehicle
record. Unless a notice of recovery is received from the owner (as appropriate), the flag remains
until some transfer transaction is attempted. The result is extra work for the owner and the DMV
in such a situation; it may be avoidable by changing the practice.
Kansas will participate in the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) with
the implementation of the new DMV System.
The following description was provided for vehicle brands and salvage vehicles: “Vehicles are
branded as salvage, rebuilt salvage, non-highway, formerly non-highway and non-repairable.
All brands can be declared by the vehicle owner. Vehicles designated as salvage by an insurance
company as a result of a claim must be disclosed to the division within 30 days of designation.
Once a vehicle is branded it will remain that way until it reaches antique status. Only if the
declaration is claimed to be in error may it be removed. Each situation is handled on a one by
one case.”
Requests for records are processed within the constraints of the Driver Privacy Protection Act
(DPPA). The file is primarily used for maintaining the information necessary for the vehicle
registration and title functions. Summaries are provided to the Kansas Department of
Transportation periodically and upon request.
Data Dictionary
There are table descriptions for many of the functions but no actual data dictionary. A data
dictionary defining each field and its edits will be developed for the new DMV System.
Reference materials now available are the NADA books, online resources, State Statutes and
Regulations, and a Training manual. Individual supervisors and team leaders provide training,
and extensive training will be included in the implementation of the new DMV System.
Process Flow
Process flow diagrams will be developed for the new system.
Interface with Other Traffic Records System Components
There is no current interface with other components of the traffic records system as there will be
in the future.
Quality Control Program
Vehicle registration data are updated nightly and edits are performed nightly.
55
Quality Control Measurements for Vehicle Data
(Submitted prior to the 2010 Assessment)
Timeliness
– Average time to post registrations = __Same day___
– Average time to process title documents = __W/out lien-2 days after
received by T&R; with liens, currently 10 weeks___
– Average time to produce completed titles = _35 days from date of purchase,
depending on date of application____
– % title brands posted with 24 hours of receipt = _____
– % registrations and title brands posted within 24 hours = _____
Accuracy
– % of duplicate records for individuals = __NA___
– % “errors” found during data audits of critical data elements = __10%___
– % VINs successfully validated with VIN checking software = __100% for
VINs covered by system___
Completeness – % of records with complete owner name and address = _____
Recommendation:

Explore with the Kansas Highway Patrol and the Kansas Bureau of Investigation the
most useful way to treat stolen vehicle flags being placed on vehicle records as reported
by vehicle owners (including deferring that information to enforcement only).
56
2-E: Citation/Adjudication Data Component
Advisory Excerpt:
 Description and Contents
Information, which identifies arrest and adjudication activity of the State, should be available, including information
that tracks a citation from the time of its distribution to a law enforcement officer, through its issuance to an offender,
its disposition, and the posting of conviction in the driver history database. Case management systems, law
enforcement records systems, and DMV driver history systems should share information to support:
 citation tracking
 case tracking
 disposition reporting
 specialized tracking systems for specific types of violators (e.g., DUI tracking systems)
Information should be available to identify the type of violation, location, date and time, the enforcement agency,
court of jurisdiction, and final disposition. Similar information for warnings and other motor vehicle incidents that
would reflect enforcement activity are also useful for highway safety purposes and should be available at the local
level.
The information should be used in determining the level of enforcement activity in the State, for accounting and
controlling of citation forms, and for detailed monitoring of court activity regarding the disposition of traffic cases.
Custodial responsibility for the multiple systems that make up the Citation/ Adjudication Data Component should be
shared among local and State agencies, with law enforcement, courts, and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
sharing responsibility for some files (e.g., portions of the citation tracking system). State-level agencies should have
responsibility for managing the law enforcement information network (e.g., a criminal justice information agency),
for coordinating and promoting court case management technology (e.g., an administrative arm of the State Supreme
Court), and for assuring that convictions are forwarded to the DMV and actually posted to the drivers’ histories (e.g.,
the court records custodian and the DMV).

Applicable Guidelines
Data definitions should meet the standards for national law enforcement and court systems. Applicable guidelines
are defined for law enforcement data in:
 National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
 Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
 National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
 National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS)
 Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN)
 Traffic Court Case Management Systems Functional Requirement Standards
Applicable guidelines should be defined for court records in the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), and jointly
for courts and law enforcement in the GJXDM (with specific Traffic Processing Standards created through a national
committee). Tracking systems for citations (i.e., a citation tracking system) and for specific classes of violators (e.g.,
a DUI tracking system) should meet the specifications for such systems published by NHTSA.

Data Dictionary
The citation/adjudication data files should be well documented, including data definitions for each field and where
applicable, edit checks and data collection guidelines that match the data definitions. Procedures for collection,
reporting and posting of license, registration, conviction, and title brand information should be documented.
57
Law enforcement personnel should receive adequate training at the academy and during periodic refreshers to ensure
they know the purpose and uses for the data. Training also should ensure that officers know how to access
information on violators and process citations and arrests properly. The training manual should be available to all
law enforcement personnel and the instructions should match, as appropriate, the edit checks that are performed on
the data prior to its being added to the local records management system and statewide databases. The edit checks
should be documented and both common and serious errors in the data should be flagged, including missing or outof-range values and logical inconsistencies. The data element definitions and system edits should be shared with all
collectors, managers, and users in the form of a data dictionary that is consistent with the training manual and the
crash report form. Court case management systems and tracking systems (citation tracking and DUI tracking) should
be well documented to include definitions of all data elements and corresponding edit checks to ensure accuracy.

Process Flow
The processing of traffic violations, citations, arrests, and court cases should be documented in a series of flow
diagrams showing the typical procedures and their average time to completion for each step. The administrative
handling of payment in lieu of court appearance should be shown separately from those violations that are not
handled administratively. The processes for detecting drugs or collecting blood alcohol concentration (BAC) values
through various methods (breath test, blood or urine tests) should also be documented. The processes for tracking
DUI cases in a DUI tracking system should also be included in the set of process flow diagrams. Processes for paper
and electronic filing and reporting should be shown separately. Process flow diagrams should show all major steps
whether accomplished by staff or automated systems and clearly distinguish between the two.

Interface with other traffic records system components
NCIC, GJXDM, NIBRS, LEIN, and NLETS guidelines all define methods and data standards for information transfer
and sharing at the State and national level. Typically, there are State-level equivalents of the various networks and
standards governing the sharing of law enforcement and court-related data. For the purposes of safety analysis at a
State and local level, linkage between the Citation/Adjudication Data Component and other components of the TRS is
important because it is useful for analyzing the geographic distribution of traffic violations and incidents, as well as
monitoring the effectiveness of countermeasures that involve enforcement or court processes. It also enables the
creation and updating of adverse driver histories for the purpose of driver control. Key linkages within the TRS for
citation/adjudication information are listed in Table 10.
Table 10:
Common Linking Variables between Citation/Adjudication and
Other Data Components of a Traffic Records System
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Record Number
Citation/Adjudication Linkages to
Citation/Arrest/Incident Number, Court Case Number
Other Law Enforcement Files and
Location (street address, description, coordinates, etc.)
Tracking Systems
Personal ID (name, address, DL number, etc.)

Citation/Adjudication Linkages to
Driver/Vehicle Files
-
Driver and Owner Names, Driver License Number
Driver & Owner Addresses (location code, coordinates)
Vehicle Plate Number, VIN
Citation/Adjudication Linkages to
Statewide Injury Surveillance System
Information
-
Personal Identifiers (where allowed by law)
Crash-Related Citation/Arrest Date, Time, Location
Quality Control Program
The citation/adjudication data should be timely, accurate, complete, and consistent and these attributes should be
tracked based on a set of established quality control metrics. The overall quality of the citation/adjudication data
should be assured based on a formal program of error/edit checking as the data are entered into the statewide
system, and procedures should be in place for addressing the detected errors. In addition, the custodial agency
(agencies) and the TRCC should frequently work together to establish and review the sufficiency of the quality control
program and to review the results of the quality control measurements. The data managers receive regular, periodic
data quality reports. There should be procedures in place for sharing the information with data collectors through
individual and agency-level feedback as well as training and changes to the applicable instruction manuals, edit
checks, and the driver and vehicle data dictionaries. Audits and validation checks should be conducted to assure the
accuracy of specific critical data elements as part of the formal Quality Control Program. Example measurements
are presented in Table 11.
58
Table 11:
Examples of Quality Control Measurements for Citation/Adjudication Data
Timeliness
-
Average time for citations to be sent from LEAs to courts
Average time for convictions to be sent to DMV
Accuracy
-
% errors found during data audits of critical data elements
% violations narratives that match the proper State statute
Completeness
-
% of cases with both original charges and dispositions in citation tracking system
Consistency
-
% traffic citations statewide written on a single uniform citation
The measures in Table 11 are examples of high-level management indicators of quality. The managers of individual
citation/adjudication files should have access to a greater number of measures. The custodial agency should be
prepared to present a standard set of summary measures to the TRCC monthly or quarterly.
59
2-E: Citation/Adjudication Data Component Status
Description and Contents
Kansas does not require law enforcement officers to use a standardized citation form to
document violations. Each law enforcement agency is using its own form to collect information
that is necessary to address local needs.
Oversight for the content of the citation form is the responsibility of the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV). State statute requires law enforcement agencies to submit their citation form
to the DMV for approval. The information collected on the various citation forms includes; type
of violation, location, date and time, and the enforcement agency.
There is no statewide citation tracking system containing information about enforcement and
adjudication of all citations issued by all enforcement agencies. This lack of information
prevents the State from evaluating and determining the effectiveness of enforcement
countermeasures.
Some law enforcement agencies have various procedures in place to account for citations in their
agencies, but there is no citation tracking from the point of issuance to disposition and posting on
the driver history file.
There are statistics from the courts that identify traffic caseload filings by county and district
courts for the State. Total District Court traffic case filings for the year ending June 30, 2009
was 201,510. The total traffic case filings for municipal courts for the same period were
413,439.
The Office of Judicial Administration (OJA) provides administrative oversight for all District
Courts within Kansas. Violations of Kansas’s Traffic Code are adjudicated by the District
Courts. Municipal traffic ordinance violations are adjudicated in municipal courts. Most
municipal traffic ordinance violations can be converted to State Statute cites, but there are
concerns about converting some municipal code violations such as “Inattentive Driving” and
“Yellow Light Running.” There are 105 District Courts and approximately 330 Municipal
Courts.
Twenty-nine of the thirty-one judicial districts and many of the municipal courts utilize the
FullCourt Case Management System (CMS) software. There is a pass-through portal for citation
and disposition data at the OJA. District Courts send data electronically to the portal for routing
daily to the KDOR for download onto the driver file. Driver Control does not accept all
convictions; only reportable offenses set by Driver Control are accepted through the electronic
submission. District Court data are also directly routed to the DMV in matters that impact the
suspension of drivers' licenses. The two judicial districts that do not use FullCourt are
responsible for writing programs that permit the data transfer in a manner that allows integration
of the information with that of the other 29 judicial districts. A portion of case filing fees are
deposited into a technology fund that pays the maintenance costs for the FullCourt software.
60
Each of the 16 court case management systems used by municipal courts, other than FullCourt,
contains complete information about enforcement actions and dispositions that is useful in
evaluating and determining the effectiveness of local countermeasures. Electronic copies of all
municipal court convictions are forwarded by the courts to the KDOR and are electronically
entered onto the driver file.
The Kansas appellate courts utilize a CMS developed by OJA. Costs of this system are also
funded by the technology fund.
In May 2009, Chief Justice Robert Davis appointed a committee to make recommendations to
the Kansas Supreme Court regarding the development of an Electronic Filing System (EFS) for
Kansas Courts. This project concerns criminal case filing. These cases are much larger and
more intricate than normal traffic violations. The Supreme Court does not expect
implementation of a statewide program in the immediate future but felt it was important that they
begin looking at implementation of electronic filing of criminal cases in the Kansas Courts.
The committee is to make recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding policy decisions
that would be necessitated should a statewide electronic filing system be implemented in Kansas.
The committee has been divided into three subcommittees to address policy and procedure,
finance, and technology. Unfortunately, the Traffic Safety Section has been unaware of these
committees.
The KHP has developed a new offline data capture system, the Kansas Law Enforcement
Reporting (KLER) system, which provides KHP and local law enforcement with the ability to
electronically capture critical records data using existing mobile laptop computers in patrol cars.
KLER is in use by 52 law enforcement agencies including the KHP. KLER has the capability to
prepare various enforcement reports at crash scenes and during traffic stops, including crash
forms from KDOT, incident forms from KBI, insurance forms from KDOR, and eventually a
new statewide minimum-uniform-content traffic eCitation. All the forms are planned to be in a
single software suite (KLER).
Over the past two years both the Kansas Criminal Justice Information System (KCJIS)
Committee and the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) have identified and
included a tactical project for planning and implementing a new eCitation system. This project
was approved by the KCJIS Committee and the TRCC in November 2008 and is being funded
via the State Traffic Records Enhancement Fund.
Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives: The goal of the eCitation program is to develop and
implement an interconnected set of systems through which traffic citation data can be collected
and distributed quickly, effectively, and at cost savings over the current manual system. By use of
a uniform and consistent system throughout the state by both state and local agencies, the
accessibility, timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of the vital information disseminated will
be significantly enhanced. The Plan’s objectives are:
Educating Kansas on other State eCitation programs and their architecture, software and
technologies.
61
Documenting the requirements of the State eCitation system based on interviews with
State and local personnel.
Developing a vision and design for the implementation of a system for the State of
Kansas that incorporates the technologies and work already in process by affected
agencies.
Developing and approving a plan for implementing the strategies and achieving the
desired vision over the next few years.
Ensuring compatibility with current KCJIS and TRCC technologies and plans.
Promoting a common understanding of the direction and vision for eCitation among
management and executive personnel.
eCitation Project Organization: The eCitation Project organization structure has been set up to
leverage the individuals and leadership already included in both KCJIS and the TRCC. The
structure includes both a Work Group and a Steering Committee. The project is lead by a Work
Group with representatives from KCJIS, TRCC, KHP, KBI, OJA and local law enforcement.
This group meets every other week and provides review and guidance on the deliverables for the
project and assists in identifying and coordinating input by local agencies.
The project intends to utilize the TRCC with additional ad hoc members as a Steering Committee
to receive broad input into the vision and the plan for a statewide eCitation system. Meetings of
the Steering Committee are tentatively planned to coincide with the monthly TRCC meetings on
the 3rd Thursday of the month.
eCitation XML Schema Definition: The TRCC has developed two draft XML Information
Exchange Process Descriptions (IEPDs) for exchanging data between law enforcement systems
and State repositories following the standards and conventions defined in the National
Information Exchange Model (NIEM). The two draft IEPDs created by the TRCC are the Crash
Report and the Citation Report and are available online at www.kansastrs.org. The use of
national standards increases data compatibility and conformity with other states and the federal
government. More information can be found at www.niem.gov.
State impact: Many of the projects identified in the Traffic Records Strategic Plan lead to the
development or improvement of statewide systems and repositories, which will be available for
use by most Kansas law enforcement agencies and organizations. No agency has yet expressed
an interest in housing the eCitation warehouse. More information on the eCitation Project can be
found at the project library at: www.kansastrs.org/citation.aspx
Currently, there is no statewide citation information system to identify the type of violation,
location, date and time, the enforcement agency, court of jurisdiction, and final disposition.
Similar information for warnings and other motor vehicle incidents that would reflect
enforcement activity are also critical for highway safety purposes and should be available.
62
This information could be used in determining the level of enforcement activity in the State, for
accounting and controlling of citations, and for detailed monitoring of court activity regarding
the disposition of traffic cases and should be considered an integral part of any planning for the
development of the eCitation system.
The Traffic Record Enhancement Fund (TREF) will supply some funding for this and other
projects. The fines for traffic infractions are set uniformly by the Kansas Legislature. All traffic
fines collected by district (county) courts are remitted to the State treasury and a percentage are
remitted to certain enhancement funds such as traffic records. No enhancement funds come from
the municipal courts.
The DMV Modernization Project, which is a complete overhaul of the current DMV system, will
process the information on a “near-live” server, to give law enforcement the most current
information available on drivers and vehicles during traffic stops.
Applicable Guidelines
The KDOR requires that data captured on the different citations be consistent with national
guidelines, and dispositions recorded on the drivers’ history files use appropriate AAMVA ACD
codes for sharing of violation information among jurisdictions.
Data Dictionary
There is a data dictionary for all of the required fields on all citations in the State.
Process Flow
Many citation process flow charts were provided to the assessment team by law enforcement
agencies, but they applied only to their departments and local courts.
Interface with other traffic record system components
There is no interface between any of the case management files at the courts and other
components of the traffic records system except the driver history files at DMV.
Future electronic citation development could collect data from the driver license and vehicle
registration through use of bar-code readers. Bar codes are being placed on the State’s driver
licenses and vehicle registrations. There is a statewide Geographical Information System (GIS)
in Lawrence at Kansas University; use of this location data could improve data linkage between
citations and crashes and other traffic records data containing location information.
Quality Control Program
The following quality control chart was provided by the Topeka Municipal Court.
Unfortunately, these measurements are only estimates instead of systematically generated quality
control measurements. There were no quality control measures supplied by the State. The
overall quality of the citation/adjudication data should be assured based on a formal program of
error/edit checking as the data are entered into a statewide system, and procedures should be in
place for addressing the detected errors.
63
Quality Control Measurements for Citation/Adjudication Data
Timeliness
– Average time citations sent from LEA to courts = _5 to 7 days____
– Average time convictions sent to DMV from courts = currently done weekly
Accuracy
– % “errors” found during data audits of critical data elements = __5%___
– % violations narratives that match the proper State statute = __N/A___
Completeness
– % of cases with both original charges and dispositions in citation tracking
system = _100%
Consistency
– % traffic citations statewide written on a uniform citation = _unknown____
NOTE: within our court some come through on private complaint form.
Recommendations:

Continue implementation of the Kansas eCitation Program.

Include Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) representation on the eCitation
Work Group. Consider housing eCitation data at the future Traffic Record System
Warehouse within the KDOT.

Design data retrieval and statistical reporting capabilities in the Citation project.

Expand the citation project scope to include a statewide citation data repository.

Seek legislation requiring municipal traffic codes to match State Statute and the State fine
schedule. Consider legislation that would collect monies from all traffic convictions to
be placed in a State maintained municipal traffic record enhancement fund.

Develop a quality control program that systematically generates data quality
measurements for the recommended statewide citation data repository.
64
2-F: Statewide Injury Surveillance System (SWISS) Data Component
Advisory Excerpt:
 Description and Contents
With the growing interest in injury control programs within the traffic safety, public health, and enforcement
communities, there are a number of local, State, and federal initiatives that drive the development of a SWISS. These
systems typically incorporate pre-hospital (EMS), trauma, emergency department (ED), hospital in-patient/discharge,
rehabilitation and morbidity databases to track injury causes, magnitude, costs, and outcomes. Often, these systems
rely upon other components of the TRS to provide information on injury mechanisms or events (e.g., traffic crash
reports). The custodial responsibility for various files within the SWISS typically is distributed among several
agencies and/or offices within a State Department of Health.
This system should allow the documentation of information that tracks magnitude, severity, and types of injuries
sustained by persons in motor vehicle related crashes. Although traffic crashes cause only a portion of the injuries
within any population, they often represent one of the more significant causes of injuries in terms of frequency and
cost to the community. The SWISS should support integration of the injury data with police reported traffic crashes
and make this information available for analysis to support research, public policy, and decision making.
The use of these data should be supported through the provision of technical resources to analyze and interpret these
data in terms of both the traditional traffic safety data relationships and the specific data relationships unique to the
health care community. In turn, the use of the SWISS should be integrated into the injury control programs within
traffic safety, and other safety-related programs at the State and local levels.

Applicable Guidelines
NHTSA has produced the National Emergency Medical Service Information System (NEMSIS) to serve as a guideline
for a uniform pre-hospital dataset. It applies to all EMS runs, not just those related to traffic crashes. The American
College of Surgeons (ACS) certifies trauma centers and provides guidelines for trauma registry databases and for a
National Trauma Databank. Emergency Department and in-patient data guidelines (UB-92) are available from the
US Department of Health and Human Services. The National Center for Health Statistics, within the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC), sets ICD-9 codes and E-codes for injury morbidity/mortality. These codes are updated as
needed and the ICD-10 codes are expected by the fall of 2007. The CDC also sets standards for reporting to their
injury database and for use of the Public Health Information Network for data sharing.

Data Dictionary
The contents of the SWISS Data Component’s files should be well documented to include data definitions for each
field, and where applicable, edit checks and data collection guidelines that match the data definitions. Procedures
should be documented in instruction manuals for collection, reporting, and posting of EMS run data on a uniform run
report, uniform data in various hospital and trauma databases, and for tracking morbidity and mortality for each
system.
Training should include (where applicable) data collection, data entry, use of various injury coding systems (ICD and
E-codes) as well as injury and trauma severity scoring systems such as the Injury Severity Score (ISS), Revised
Trauma Score (RTS), and Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) scales.

Process Flow
The information and processes involved in transport and treatment of victims of crash-related injuries should be
documented in a series of flow diagrams showing the typical data collection and management processes and their
average time to completion for each step in the data flow process. Processes for paper and electronic filing and
reporting should be shown separately. Process flow diagrams should show all major steps whether accomplished by
staff or automated systems and clearly distinguish between the two.

Interface with other Traffic Records System Components
Data transfer and sharing between local systems and the SWISS should be governed by data definitions, quality
control requirements, and data transfer protocols defined by the custodial agencies. Transfer and sharing between
SWISS files and the relevant national databases are governed by the data definitions, quality control requirements,
and data transfer protocols for those systems (e.g., National Trauma Database).
65
The CODES project is the primary example of data sharing and integration between SWISS and the other components
of a TRS. It can take the form of direct linkage using personal identifiers or probabilistic linkage using other data
elements such as incident time, date, date of birth, and locations, responding officer/agency, and others. Key linkages
within the TRS for SWISS information are listed in Table 12.
Table 12: Common Linking Variables between SWISS
And Other Data Components of a Traffic Records System
Patient name
Linkages Internal to the SWISS data
Patient ID number
on injury and healthcare
EMS run report number
treatments/outcomes
Social Security Number

Linkages between SWISS data and
Crash Data
-
Personal Identifiers: Name, address, date of birth (direct linkage)
CODES linking variables (probabilistic linkage)
EMS run report number
Crash Report Number
Linkages between SWISS data and
other (non-Crash) components of the
traffic records system
-
Name & SSN linked to driver file (direct linkage)
Location/address
Event & treatment date and time
Quality Control Program
The SWISS data should be timely, accurate, complete, and consistent and these attributes should be tracked based on
a set of established quality control metrics. The overall quality of the information in the SWISS Data Component
should be assured based on a formal program of error/edit checking as the data are entered into the statewide system
and procedures should be in place for addressing the detected errors. In addition, the custodial agency (or agencies)
and the TRCC should work together frequently to establish and review the sufficiency of the quality control program
and to review the results of the quality control measurements. The data managers should receive periodic data
quality reports. There should be procedures in place for sharing the information with data collectors through
individual and agency-level feedback, as well as to provide modifications to applicable training and instruction
manuals, edit checks, and the SWISS data dictionaries. Audits and validation checks to assure the accuracy of
specific critical data elements should be conducted as part of the formal Quality Control Program. Example
measurements are presented in Table 13.
Timeliness
-
Accuracy
Completeness
Consistency
Table 13: Examples of Quality Control Measurements
for the Statewide Injury Surveillance System
Average time for EMS run reports to be sent to governing agency
% EMS run repots sent to governing agency in the prescribed time
Average time from treatment & discharge from ED to record availability in the ED
discharge database
Average time from patient discharge to record availability in the hospital discharge
database
Average time from date of incident to record appearing in the trauma registry
# days from death to appearance of record on mortality database
-
% EMS run locations that match statewide location coding
% correct ICD-9 and E-codes
% “errors” found during data audits of critical data elements in EMS, ED, trauma
registry, hospital discharge, & mortality databases
-
% of traffic crash-related EMS runs in the EMS database
% of ED visits for crash-related injuries recorded in ED discharge database.
% of trauma cases represented in the trauma registry
% of SCI/TBI cases represented in the SCI/TBI registries
-
% correct ICD-9 and E-codes (see also accuracy)
CODES match rate (where applicable)
% crash-related deaths with motor vehicle crash in cause of death field on death
certificate
66
The measures in Table 13 are examples of high-level management indicators of quality. The managers of individual
medical data files should have access to a greater number of measures. The custodial agencies should be prepared to
present standard sets of summary measures to the TRCC monthly or quarterly.
67
2-F: Statewide Injury Surveillance System (SWISS) Data Component
There are several key components of a statewide injury surveillance system (SWISS) including
emergency medical services (EMS), acute care, trauma and rehabilitation facilities, and vital
records. Oversight for these entities’ activities may be governed by local, State, and regional
authorities. Collection of data from these entities provides a wealth of patient care routing,
intervention, and prevention information that can be used to evaluate current treatment
modalities and injury prevention activities.
Integrating the SWISS with State traffic records system components has the ability to benefit
both entities. Motor vehicle crash data can supply many of the pre-event and event information
for the Haddon Matrix for use in planning injury prevention programs initiated by the public
health professionals. Alternatively, providing traffic safety specialists with medical outcomes
for motor vehicle crashes enables them to augment their understanding of crash severity beyond
the typical five-point scale captured on most crash reports.
Description and Contents
Kansas has developed or is developing many components of a SWISS. These components
include the Kansas Emergency Medicine Information System (KEMIS) housed at the Kansas
Board of EMS (KEBMS); the Kansas Trauma Registry in the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE) Bureau of Local and Rural Health; the Kansas Vital Statistics database
maintained by the KDHE Bureau of Public Health Informatics; and the Kansas hospital
discharge database collected by the Kansas Hospital Association (KHA) and supplied to KDHE
Bureau of Health Promotion.
Kansas Emergency Medicine Services Information System (KEMIS)
Applicable Guideline
KBEMS licenses 174 agencies and around 10,500 providers at the first responder, EMT, EMT-I,
EMT-D, and MICT levels. KSA 65-6153(b) states that ambulance service operators, “shall
collect and report,” data to KBEMS.
KBEMS has contracted with ImageTrend to develop and maintain KEMIS. Currently 43
agencies submit data to KEMIS with plans to add an additional 45 agencies by the end of the
year. While representing roughly half of the agencies it is thought that KEMIS will capture over
85 percent of all EMS runs in Kansas.
Data Dictionary
There is neither a uniform statewide EMS run report nor data dictionary. However, the KEMIS
database is NEMSIS compliant and collects 192 of the NEMSIS data elements. Agencies
approved to submit data to KEMIS do so by using a NEMSIS compliant ImageTrend product or
directly entering data into the KEMIS website. Plans are in place to allow agencies with
NEMSIS compliant data collection products to export data into KEMIS. By limiting
submissions to only agencies with NEMSIS compliant products data uniformity between
agencies is ensured.
68
Quality Control
A total of 72 business rules are incorporated into KEMIS and the user is supplied with a validity
score while entering data. KBEMS has the ability to reject data based on low validity scores.
Currently data are not rejected due to missing information but training is ongoing to reduce the
large number of missing, unknown, and not applicable answers. KBEMS is working with
ImageTrend to develop a duplicate record identification tool. Data quality reports are made
available to submitting agencies via KEMIS. ImageTrend handles training of new agencies
reporting to KEMIS. The following measures were also submitted in response to the assessment.
Timeliness
Accuracy
% EMS reports sent to governing agency within 10 days of
incident
Approx 3%
% EMS run reports sent to governing agency within 30 days
Approx 3%
Mean # days from incident to data availability on statewide system
Unknown
% EMS run locations that match statewide location coding
Unknown
% ”missing” found during data audits of critical data elements
Unknown
Completeness % of EMS agencies contributing to the statewide database
Consistency % of records on EMS database that are NEMSIS compliant
25%
>90% silver
if unknown,
other and
NA are
included
Process Flow
Data are collected by individual EMTs and are submitted to KEMIS in one of the three manners
listed above (direct entry into KEMIS website, ImageTrend program, or eventually by extract
from another NEMSIS compliant vendor). If the data have passed the validity checks during
data entry they are immediately available to the KEMIS manager. Reporting tools exist within
KEMIS allowing agencies to run standardized and ad hoc reports. At the current time statewide
injury reports do not include KEMIS data. Data are currently not available to the public, but
plans are in place to include KEMIS in the planned traffic records system warehouse being
developed by the TRCC. KBEMS is finalizing a data sharing agreement with the NEMSIS
Technical Assistance Center (TAC) to submit data to NEMSIS. Sample extracts have been
tested and approved by NEMSIS TAC and submission is expected to go smoothly once the
agreement is finalized.
Interface with other Traffic Records System Components
Plans and funding are in place to incorporate KEMIS with both trauma registry and hospital data.
A hospital bridge has been developed by ImageTrend which allows staff at the receiving facility
to view the ePCR (electronic patient care record). With the assistance of TRCC funding, the
vendors for KEMIS (ImageTrend) and the Kansas Trauma Registry (Digital Innovation) are
developing a means for trauma registrars at each hospital to identify and link information from
the ePCR to the EMS data elements in the trauma registry. Emergency department and hospital
discharge disposition will be added to KEMIS as part of this data exchange.
69
Emergency Department Database
KDHE is discussing the potential for receiving emergency department data from KHA. Staff is
hopeful that counts of injuries by mechanism and intent will be made available, but currently
record level data are unavailable to the traffic safety and injury prevention communities.
Hospital Discharge Database
Applicable Guidelines
KSA 75-7405 provides statutory responsibility for the Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA)
to gather, analyze and distribute a wide range of health-related data about Kansas. Through a
contract with KHPA and KHA, the KDHE receives the hospital discharge data set. Data contain
information on approximately 360,000 discharges each year. Federal, Veteran’s Administration,
and State hospitals are excluded from the database.
Data Dictionary
Elements contained in the hospital database are typical of hospital billing records except that
patient names and hospital-billed charges are not available.
Quality Control
Data are gathered by KHA from each of the Kansas community hospitals and sent to a contractor
(HEIDI) for processing and cleaning. In addition to validation and quality checks employed by
HEIDI, KDHE performs further edit and consistency analyses. The following measures were
also submitted in response to the assessment.
Timeliness
Accuracy
Number of days from hospital/ED discharge until data is entered
into database
unknown
Number of days from end of quarter/year until data is available
for analysis on a State level.
unknown
% ”missing” found during data audits of critical data elements
Unknown
% of hospitals participating in statewide database
Completeness % of injury related discharges containing a valid E-Code
100%
92%
Process Flow
Data are coded at each of the community hospitals and submitted to KHA. Data are then
processed by HEIDI and returned to KHA. KDHE receives quarterly batch files from KHA.
There is typically an 18 month delay between when the discharge occurs and the data are
available to KDHE staff. This results in a roughly two-year delay for the annual file to be
generated and ready for use.
Injury records are incorporated into the Integrated Core Injury Prevention and Control (ICIPC)
Program which supports the planning, implementation and integration of comprehensive injury
prevention and control activities with basic injury surveillance. Data are used to generate annual
billed injury indicators submitted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
70
Injury related discharges are also incorporated into Kansas Information for Communities (KIC)
website where users may generate crosstabs of counts of discharge diagnoses but not mechanism
of injury. Data are also included in a number of statewide injury related reports including the
Kansas Health Statistics Reports. Additionally, staff at KDHE will run queries and produce data
tables if requested by the public or outside agencies, such as KDOT. Research databases can be
obtained upon the completion of a data use agreement.
Interface with other Traffic Records System Components
The hospital discharge database is not directly integrated with other traffic records components.
However, KDHE and KDOT staff reported working closely to compare results between the two
databases ensuring consistent numbers are presented to the public. Direct or probabilistic
linkage of the hospital discharge database to other databases has not been attempted due to the
lack of name information. Additionally, the lack of hospital-billed charges information has
limited its attractiveness to the traffic safety community.
Kansas Trauma Registry
Applicable Guidelines
In 1999 the Kansas legislature passed legislation (KSA 75-5663 to 75-670) establishing an
Advisory Committee on Trauma (ACT) and designated KDHE as the administering agency for a
State trauma program. The goal of the trauma system is to ensure each patient is properly triaged
and matched to the hospital with the most appropriate resources as quickly as possible.
The Kansas Trauma Program designates trauma centers at Levels I, II, and III. The feasibility of
designating Level IV trauma centers is being explored. Kansas has three Level I, two Level II,
and two Level III trauma centers. All hospitals which treat patients meeting registry case criteria
submit patient level data to the trauma registry. Agreements are in place with hospitals in
Missouri to identify injured patients transported out of State.
Data Dictionary
The Kansas Trauma Registry data dictionary is based on the National Trauma Data Standard
(NTDS) and is available online. A few modifications have been incorporated to support State
specific needs. Of the more than 300 data elements, about 100 are required to be submitted
quarterly. Hospital-billed charges information is available from some but not all hospitals.
The Kansas Trauma Registry no longer submits data to the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB)
as the NTDB encourages individual hospitals to submit data, and the Kansas trauma centers are
doing so. Through regional and statewide trauma meetings, the Kansas Trauma Program
conducts trainings and promotes the use of the trauma registry data.
71
Quality Control
All but one trauma center uses Digital Innovation’s Collector® for data collection. Smaller
hospitals submit data through a website. Quality control checks and edits are built into both
Collector and the website. Additional data verification procedures are performed once the data
are compiled at KDHE. The amount of EMS related elements that are submitted has been
steadily improving through education and presentations given at regional trauma meetings.
Some efforts to identify transferred patients have been undertaken but staff would like a more
rigorous process. Comparisons between the trauma registry and the hospital discharge database
have not been made. The following measures were also submitted in response to the assessment.
Timeliness
Accuracy
Number of days from trauma center discharge until data is
entered into database
Facilities are
required to
report
quarterly
Number of days from end of quarter/year until data is available
for analysis on a State level.
90
% ”missing” found during data audits of critical data elements
<10%
Completeness % of discharges containing a valid E-Code
99.7%
Process Flow
All hospitals treating patients meeting registry criteria are required to submit data quarterly. The
standalone product and website allow hospitals to submit data more regularly and many do so.
Once data have been entered into the trauma registry they are available for analysis. Frequent
reports are created on both a regional and statewide basis. Topics have included falls, ATVs,
and teen drivers. The trauma program also produces a quarterly newsletter and annual report. A
fulltime epidemiologist and a database manager are on staff at the trauma program that can run
queries and fulfill data requests. Since the trauma registry is still in its infancy a research
database has not been made available.
Interface with other Traffic Records System Components
The Kansas Trauma Registry is not directly integrated with other traffic components.
Preliminary studies have been conducted with the death certificate database to determine the
completeness of the trauma registry. With the aid of the TRCC, a project is underway for trauma
registrars and records management personnel at each hospital to access the ePCR for patients
transported to the hospital by EMS, allowing for automatic completion of the EMS data elements
within the trauma registry.
Death Certificate Database
Applicable Guidelines
The Kansas Office of Vital Statistics receives and preserves vital records for events (births,
deaths, marriages, and divorces) which occur in Kansas. The Office maintains more than 10
million records, adding approximately 100,000 new records annually; approximately 28,000 of
these records are for deaths. Each year about 1,600 Kansans die from injury.
72
Data Dictionary
Death certificate data are coded according to national guidelines set by the National Centers for
Health Statistics (NCHS). Cause-of-death information is classified in accordance with the ICD10 standard.
Process Flow
Kansas has an electronic system for handling death certificates. Hospitals and funeral homes
submit death information through an electronic registration system to KDHE. Data are used in
numerous public health and injury control activities. Data are available in the KIC and can be
queried by mechanism of injury. Injury mortality information is also included in statewide
injury reports such as the Kansas Injury PREVENTION PROGRAM Data Book. Data can be
requested from KDHE in the form of tables, graphs, or data set pending data use agreement
approval. Regular comparisons are made between FARS and vital statistics to ensure the
completeness of both databases.
Quality Control
Several quality control measures are in place at KDHE to ensure the accuracy of mortality data.
A number of these take place via the software during the data entry process. Further checks are
employed at KDHE once the data arrive. Additionally, KDHE employees a nosologist and
junior nosologist to review cause of death information. The following measures were also
submitted in response to the assessment.
Timeliness
Accuracy
Number of days from death discharge until data is entered into
database (see footnote 1)
<5 days
Number of days from end of quarter/year until data is available
for analysis on a state level. (see footnote 2)
<10 days
% ”missing” found during data audits of critical data elements
0%
Completeness % of injury related fatalities containing a valid E-Code
100%
Footnote 1 Fact of death is reported electronically within less than 5 days. Cause of death information may be a
little longer to arrive until all physicians are online.
Footnote 2 The vital events reporting period by law runs for a period of six months after the end of the event
calendar year. With QI/QA activities performed on an ongoing basis, the Bureau of Public Health Informatics is
able to prepare a statistical file in less than one week after the closing of the reporting year. A research history file
(deidentified) is available shortly thereafter.
Interface with other Traffic Records System Components
KDHE has performed internal studies comparing the death certificate database and the trauma
registry; however, the death information is not directly integrated with other traffic records
components.
73
Integration of the SWISS with Motor Vehicle Crash Information
The components of the SWISS in Kansas have been active in the motor vehicle crash prevention
arena. Information from the hospital discharge database, the trauma registry, and the death
certificates database were all used in support of the recent graduated drivers license (GDL)
legislation. Information from these components has also been used to study a number of other
injury related topics. It appears that these databases are analyzed and queried independently and
are not integrated. The trauma registry has made comparisons with the death certificate database
to verify completeness and is developing the technology to link with KEMIS to populate EMS
related information; these appear to be more of a quality assurance process and not necessarily a
traffic safety or injury prevention activity. Integration of the databases for analysis purposes has
the ability to provide a full picture of all patient activity from the scene of the injury to ultimate
discharge from the hospital or the patient’s death.
While databases in the SWISS have been used to study motor vehicle crashes and to provide
information to FARS they are not integrated in a meaningful fashion with the motor vehicle
crash database. However, as the following table demonstrates, the probabilistic linkage of these
databases may be feasible.
Crash
KEMIS
First Name
Last Name
Date of Birth
Date of Crash
First Name
Last Name
Date of Birth
Date of Call
Time of Crash
Time of Call
Hospital
Transported To
Hospital
Transported To
Hospital
Discharge
Date of Birth
Date of
Admission
Hospital
Identifier
Trauma
Registry
Date of Birth
Date of
Admission
Time of
Admission
Hospital
Identifier
Death
Certificates
First Name
Last Name
Date of Birth
Date of
Injury/Death
Time of
Injury/Death
Location of
Death
A linked database will provide all the information to complete the injury pyramid and supply
traffic safety engineers and researchers with a more complete description of injuries sustained
from motor vehicle crashes. This information can be used to inform decisions regarding targeted
enforcement campaigns and roadway design issues. Similarly, SWISS data linked to motor
vehicle crash information can provide public health researchers access to valuable event
information missing in many hospital based registries. Roadway and traffic volume information
also provide the opportunity to create rates that are potentially more meaningful than those based
on population numbers alone.
Recommendations:

Promote and expand KEMIS.

Enact business rules to reduce the number of missing, unknown, and not applicable
answers in KEMIS.
74

Continue with plans to integrate KEMIS and the trauma registry.

Develop plans and processes for a public release KEMIS database once the system is
more mature.

Undertake an analysis of the hospital discharge database to estimate the completeness of
the trauma registry.

Incorporate the trauma registry into KIC.

Create an analysis database for the trauma registry.

Pursue efforts for KDHE to obtain the emergency department database from KHA.

Create the ability within WIC to tabulate hospital discharges by intent and mechanism of
injury.

Obtain billed hospital charges for the hospital discharge database.

Seek membership from the Core Injury Prevention and Control Program on the TRCC.

Undertake a data linkage project between SWISS components and KCARS.
75
APPENDFIX A
SELECTED REFERENCES
AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Dec. 2004. American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials. 20 Mar. 2006 <http://safety.transportation.org/doc/SafetyStrategicHighwaySafetyPlan.pdf>.
Administrative Ruling #119. n.d. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/adminrule.pdf>.
Anti Car Theft Improvements Act of 1996. 3 Jan. 1996. American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/Documents/vehAntiCarTheftImprovAct1996.pdf>.
Bahar, G., M. Masliah, C. Mollett, and B. Persaud. Integrated Safety Management Process
(NCHRP Synthesis 501). 2003. Transportation Research Board. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_501.pdf>.
Branding Best Practices. Sep. 2002. American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/Documents/vehBrandingBestPractices.pdf>.
Business Partner Electronic Vehicle Registration. n.d. American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/vehicles/veh_AutoSystBPEVROverview.asp>.
Conference Proceedings on Intersection Safety: Achieving Solutions through Partnerships. The
Toolbox on Intersection Safety and Design: Data Collection and Analysis for Improved
Operations. March 2004. Irvine, California.
Council, F. Report to the Committee for Review of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration Truck Crash Causation Study. 4 Sep. 2003. Transportation Research
Board. 17 Mar. 2006 <http://trb.org/publications/reports/tccs_sept_2003.pdf>.
Data Element Dictionary for Traffic Records Systems (ANSI D20-2003). Apr. 2003. American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/Documents/std2003_ANSI_DICTIONARY_FINAL.pdf>.
Defining Compacts: Jurisdictional Agreements. 28 Oct. 2004. American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/drivers/mnu_drvCompacts.asp>.
DeLucia, B.H., and R.A. Scopatz. NCHRP Synthesis 350: Crash Records Systems: A Synthesis
of Highway Practice. Jan. 2006. Transportation Research Board. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_syn_350.pdf>.
76
Depue, L. Safety Management Systems (NCHRP Synthesis 322). 2003. Transportation
Research Board. 17 Mar. 2006 <http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_syn_322.pdf>.
DL/ID Card Design Specifications. 26 Sep. 2003. American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/IDSecurity/idsCardDesignSpecifications_UID7.asp>.
DL/ID Security Framework. Feb. 2004. American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/Documents/idsAAMVASecurityFramework_Feb2004.pdf>.
DL/ID Standard. 6 Jun. 2005. American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. 20 Mar.
2006 <http://www.aamva.org/standards/stdAAMVADLIdStandard2000.asp>.
Driver Record Information Verification System (DRIVerS). 24 Jan. 2006. American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/drivers/drv_AutomatedSystemsDRIVerS.asp>.
DUI Tracking System Pilot Program, Federal Register (Volume 69, Number 116). June 17,
2004. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20041800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/
pdf/04-13611.pdf>.
Fekpe, E.S., T. Windholz, K. Beard, and K. Novak. Quality and Accuracy of Positional Data in
Transportation (NCHRP Report 506). 2003. Transportation Research Board. 20 Mar.
2006 <http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_506.pdf>.
Finison, K.S. Standardized Reporting Using CODES (Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System).
Apr. 2000. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/CODES/809-048.pdf>.
Gabler, H.C., D.J. Gabauer, H.L. Newell, and M.E. O’Neill. Use of Event Data Recorder (EDR)
Technology for Highway Crash Data Analysis (NCHRP 17-24). Dec. 2004.
Transportation Research Board. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_w75.pdf>.
GIS in Transportation. n.d. Federal Highway Administration. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/fhwaEfforts.asp>.
Global Justice XML Data Model (Global JXDM). n.d. U.S. Department of Justice. 20 Mar.
2006 <http://it.ojp.gov/jxdm>.
Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan (NCHRP 1718(3)). 21 Feb. 2006. Transportation Research Board. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+17-18(3)>.
77
Highway Safety: Improved Monitoring and Oversight of Traffic Safety Data Program Are
Needed. Nov. 2004. Government Accountability Office. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0524.pdf>.
Highway Safety Improvement Program. 13 Dec. 2005. Federal Highway Administration. 17
Mar. 2006 <http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/state_program/hsip/index.htm>.
Highway Safety Manual. n.d. Transportation Resource Board. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/>.
Index to HSIS Summary Reports. 8 Aug. 2001. Federal Highway Administration. 17 Mar.
2006 <http://www.hsisinfo.org/pdf/sum.htm>.
Initiatives to Address Improvement of Traffic Safety Data. Jul. 2004. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/crash/crashstatistics/trafficsafetydata_IPT_Report.htm
>.
Intelligent Transportation Systems of America. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.itsa.org/what_is_its/c8/What_is_ITS.html>.
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model. n.d. Federal Highway Administration. 17 Mar.
2006 <http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/ihsdm/ihsdm.htm>.
International Registration Plan (IRP). Sep. 1973. American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/IRP/documents/pub_ThePlan.pdf>.
International Registration Plan (IRP). n.d. American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators. 20 Mar. 2006 <http://www.aamva.org/irp>.
Johnson, S.W., and J. Walker. n.d. The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES),
Report DOT HS 808 338. Jan. 1996. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
20 Mar. 2006
<http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/CODES/codestch.pdf>.
Justice Standards Clearinghouse for Information Sharing. n.d. U.S. Department of Justice. 17
Mar. 2006 <http://it.ojp.gov/jsr/public/index.jsp>.
Large Truck Crash Causation Study Interim Report. Sep. 2002. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. 17 Mar. 2006 <http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/809-527.pdf>.
Lerner, N., R. Llaneras, A. Smiley, and F. Hanscom. Comprehensive Human Factors Guidelines
for Road Systems (NCHRP Web-Only Document 70 (Project 17-18(08))). Mar. 2005.
78
Transportation Research Board. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_w70.pdf>.
Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, Sixth Edition (ANSI D16.1-1996).
28 Oct. 1996. National Safety Council. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.nsc.org/public/mem/ansid16_1.pdf>.
MMUCC Guideline: 2nd Edition. 2003. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 17
Mar. 2006 <http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd30/NCSA/MMUCC/2003/MMUCC_02.pdf>.
Model Kit Car and Street Rod Definitions and Procedures. 2005. American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/documents/nwspolicybookandappendices.pdf?ct=all&qu=model
%20kit%20car%20and%20street%20rod%20&st=r&action=search>.
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC): Second Edition. 2003. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. 20 Mar. 2006 <http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd30/NCSA/MMUCC/2003/MMUCC_02.pdf>.
Motor Carrier Management Information System Crash Report Data Elements and Their
Definitions. n.d. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://mcmiscatalog.fmcsa.dot.gov/beta/Catalogs&Documentation/documentation/Cras
hes/crash3.asp>.
National Agenda for the Improvement of Highway Safety Information Systems. n.d.
Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals. 23 Mar 2006
<http://www.atsip.org/images/uploads/National_Agenda.pdf>
National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM). 20 Mar. 2006 <http://www.natm.com>.
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) On-line. n.d. U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.cpsc.gov/library/neiss.html>.
National EMS Information System Fact Sheet. 2004. National EMS Information
System. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.nemsis.org/media/pdf/NEMSIS%20Fact%20Sheet%206-2005.pdf>.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Information Systems Strategic
Planning Process – A Guide for States. March 2006. <http://www.nhtsatsis.net/planning/>
National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Implementation Program. 15 July 2005.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/nibrs.htm>
79
National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS). 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.nlets.org/general.html>.
National Model: Statewide Application of Data Collection and Management Technology to
Improve Highway Safety (Report FHWA-RD-99-140). 1999. Federal Highway
Administration. 20 Mar. 2006 <http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/national>.
National Motor Vehicle Title Information System, State Batch Procedures Manual 2004. Aug.
2004. American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://aamva.net/Documents/vehNMVTISBatchStateProceduresManual_2004.pdf>.
NCSC - Helping Courts Anticipate Change and Better Serve the Public. 14 Mar 2006. National
Center for State Courts. 23 Mar 2006 <http://www.ncsconline.org/>.
NEMSIS NHTSA Version 2.2 Data Dictionary. 2005. National EMS Information System. 17
Mar. 2006
<http://www.nemsis.org/media/pdf/NEMSIS%20Version%202.2%20Data%20Dictionary
%20Final.pdf>.
NMVTIS Pilot. 25 Apr. 2002. American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. 17
Mar. 2006 <http://www.aamva.org/vehicles/veh_AutoSystNMVTISPilot.asp>.
NMVTIS Titling of Stolen Cars. n.d. American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/vehicles/veh_AutoSystNMVTISStolenCarTitles.asp>.
NMVTIS Vehicle Fraud. n.d. American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. 20 Mar.
2006 <http://www.aamva.org/vehicles/veh_AutoSystNMVTISVehFraud.asp>.
Operating Authority Classifications. 19 Mar. 2002. Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/espa%C3%B1ol/english/pdfs/part_365.htm>.
Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM). n.d. Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration. 20 Mar. 2006 <http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/factsresearch/facts-figures/analysis-statistics/prism.htm>.
Personal Identification - AAMVA International Specification - DL/ID Card Design.
Mar. 2005. American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/Documents/std2005DL-IDCardSpecV2FINAL.pdf>.
Pfefer, R.C., T.R. Neuman, and R.A. Raub. Improved Safety Information to Support Highway
Design (NCHRP Report 430). 1999. Transportation Research Board. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+17-12>.
80
Pfefer, R.C., R.A. Raub, and R.E. Lucke. Highway Safety Data: Costs, Quality, and Strategies
for Improvement, Final Report (FHWA-RD-96-192). Jan. 1988. Federal Highway
Administration. 20 Mar. 2006 <http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/6000/6700/6773/673.pdf>.
Policy on Manufacturers Certificate of Origin (MCO). 2002. American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/Documents/nws2002PolicyBookAppendices.pdf#page=11>.
Policy on Vehicle Titling/Certificate of Origin. 2002. American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/Documents/nws2002PolicyBookAppendices.pdf>.
Redding, R.L. Federal Government Reviews Anti-Car Theft Act. Nov. 1999. Automotive
Service Association. 20 Mar. 2006 <http://www.asashop.org/autoinc/nov99/legis.htm>.
Registration Reciprocity Agreement between the Signatory Jurisdictions. n.d. American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/Documents/mcs_AAMVARegistrationReciprocityAgreement.pd
f>.
Research Project #9: Explore Options for Using Technology in Data Collection. Safety Data
Action Plan. n.d. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.bts.gov/publications/safety_data_action_plan/project_09.htm>.
SafetyAnalyst. n.d. Federal Highway Administration. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.safetyanalyst.org/>.
Safety and Fitness Electronic Records System. n.d. Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. 20 Mar. 2006 <http://safer.fmcsa.dot.gov>.
“Safety in Numbers: Using Statistics to Make the Transportation System Safer.” Safety Data
Action Plan. 13 Sep. 2000. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.bts.gov/publications/safety_data_action_plan/entire.pdf>.
“Safety Management Systems: Good Practices for Development and Implementation.” Safety
by Design. 20 May 1996. Federal Highway Administration. 17 March 2006
<http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/state_program/safety_manage/docs/sm_best.pdf>.
Scopatz, R.A., C.E. Hatch, B.H. DeLucia, K.A. Tays. Unlicensed to Kill: The Sequel. Jan.
2003. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/UnlicensedToKill2.pdf>.
Social Security Online Verification (SSOLV). 25 Jun. 2002. American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/drivers/drv_AutomatedSystemsSSOLV.asp>.
81
State CMV "Cab Card" Samples. 19 Feb. 2004. American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators. 20 Mar. 2006 <http://www.aamva.org/irp/jurisinfo/jur_CabCards.asp>.
State Data System Crash Data Report: 1990 – 1999. Jul. 2002. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. 17 Mar. 2006 <http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/809_301/809_301.pdf>.
State Laws Regarding Proof of Financial Responsibility. n.d. Insurance Information Institute.
20 Mar. 2006 <http://www.iii.org/individuals/auto/a/stateautolaws>.
State Legislative Fact Sheet. n.d. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 20 Mar.
2006 <http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/13qp/facts/factzero.html>
Strategic Highway Safety Plans: A Champion’s Guide to Saving Lives. 14 Oct. 2005. Federal
Highway Administration. 13 Dec. 2005
<http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/shsppreview.htm>
Taking a Bite Out of Crime. Station Reporter Online. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://home.istar.ca/~rdalfers/STORY1H.html>.
TIRF DWI System Improvements. n.d. Traffic Injury Research Foundation. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.trafficinjuryresearch.com/dwi_systemimprovements/workgroup_systemimp
rovements.cfm>.
Traffic Records: A Highway Safety Program Advisory. Dec. 2004. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. 20 Mar. 2006 <http://www.nhtsatsis.net/trd/pdfs/AdvisoryJune12003Version.pdf>.
Traffic Safety Information Systems in Europe and Australia. Oct. 2004. Federal Highway
Administration. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/tsis_04010/2004TSISReportWeb.pdf>.
Trauma System Agenda for the Future. Oct. 2002. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ems/TRAUMA_SYSTEM/index.htm>.
Vehicle Manufacturer Information. n.d. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 20
Mar. 2006
<http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.2c1aef50b138a23d76c1f41046108a0c
>.
Vehicle Registration Reciprocity Agreement. n.d. American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/Documents/mcs_AAMVARegistrationReciprocityAgreement.pd
f>.
82
Vehicle (Title) Brands Best Practices. Sep. 2002. American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.aamva.org/Documents/vehBrandingBestPractices.pdf>.
Vehicle Types. 14 Oct. 2003. Federal Highway Administration. 20 Mar. 2006
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/vehclass.htm>.
Walton, C.M. and B.L. Mallory, et al. Strategic Highway Research Program (Special Report
260). 2001. Transportation Research Board. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://trb.org/trb/publications/sr/sr260.pdf>.
Wilson, E., and M.E. Lipinski. Road Safety Audits (NCHRP Synthesis 336). 2004.
Transportation Research Board. 17 Mar. 2006
<http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_syn_336.pdf>.
Working Group on DWI System Improvements. n.d. Traffic Injury Research
Foundation. 17 Mar. 2006 <http://www.tirf.org>.
83
APPENDIX B
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AAAM
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine
AAMVA
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
AASHTO
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACS
American College of Surgeons
AIS
Abbreviated Injury Score
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
ATSIP
Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals
BAC
Blood Alcohol Concentration
BPEVR
Business Partner Electronic Vehicle Registration
CDC
Center for Disease Control
CDLIS
Commercial Driver License Information System
CODES
Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System
DMV
Department of Motor Vehicles
DOT
Department of Transportation
DUI
Driving Under the Influence
ED
Emergency Department
EMS
Emergency Medical Service
FARS
Fatality Analysis Reporting System
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
GES
General Estimates System
GIS
Geographic Information System
GJXDM
Global Justice XML Data Model
GPS
Global Positioning System
HPMS
Highway Performance Monitoring System
ICD
Injury Coding System
IRP
International Registration Plan
ISS
Injury Surveillance Score
LEIN
Law Enforcement Information Network
84
MCMIS
Motor Carrier Management Information System
MMUCC
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria
NCIC
National Crime Information Center
NCSC
National Center for State Courts
NDR
National Driver Registry
NEMSIS
National Emergency Medical Service Information System
NGA
National Governor’s Association
NHTSA
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIBRS
National Incident-Based Reporting System
NLETS
National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System
NMVTIS
National Motor Vehicle Title Information System
PDPS
Problem Driver Pointer System
RTS
Revised Trauma Score
SHSP
Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SWISS
Statewide Injury Surveillance System
TCD
Traffic Control Devices
TRCC
Traffic Records Coordinating Committee
TRS
Traffic Records System
UCR
Uniform Crime Reporting
VIN
Vehicle Identification Number
VMT
Vehicle Miles Traveled
85
TEAM CREDENTIALS
LAWRENCE J. COOK, Ph.D.
189 W 1050 N
Layton, Utah 84041
Work: (801) 585 – 9760
Fax: (801) 581 – 8686
E-mail: [email protected]
EDUCATION
06/93 Bachelor of Science, University of Utah, Mathematics
06/96 Masters of Statistics, Department of Mathematics; University of Utah
06/98 Johns Hopkins University, Summer Institute, Principles and Practice of Injury Prevention
05/08 PhD Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Utah State University
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
03/02 – Present
Research Center
Director of Motor Vehicle Research Intermountain Injury Control
01/96 – Present Statistician, Intermountain Injury Control Research Center;
University of Utah, Department of Pediatrics
09/03 – Present Graduate Teaching Assistant, Utah State University, Department of
Mathematics and Statistics
08/94 – 12/00
Associate Instructor, University of Utah, Department of Mathematics
Instructor for Introductory Probability and Statistics Course
08/93 – 07/95
SAS Lab Instructor, University of Utah, Department of Mathematics
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND ACTIVITIES
2004 – 2005
Program Chair, American Public Health Association Injury Control and
Emergency Health Services Section.
2005 – Present Section Councilor, American Public Health Association Injury Control and
Emergency Health Services Section
2007 – Present Board Member, Association of Traffic Safety Information Professional
2005 – Present Data Committee Member, American Public Health Association Injury Control
and Emergency Health Services Section
86
1999 – Present Member American Public Health Association
2005 – Present Member American Statistical Association
2001 – Present Data Advisory Board, Utah’s Health: An Annual Review
1996 – Present Coalition for Utah Traffic Safety
PUBLICATIONS
Bissonette, J.A. Kassar, C., Cook, L.J., An assessment of costs associated with deer-vehicle
collisions: Human death and injury, vehicle damage, and deer loss. Human Wildlife Conflicts. In
Press.
Markenson D, Tunik M, Cooper A, Olson LM, Cook L, Matza-Haughton H, et al. A national
assessment of knowledge, attitudes, and confidence of prehospital providers in the assessment
and management of child maltreatment. Pediatrics 2006. 119(1): e103-e108.
Zhu, M., Cummings P., Chu H., Cook, L.J., Association of rear seat safety belt use with death in
a traffic crash: a matched cohort study., Inj Prev, 2007 13(3): 183-5.
Donaldson AE, Cook LJ, Hutchings CA, Dean JM. Crossing county lines: the impact of crash
location and driver's residence on motor vehicle crash fatality. . Accid Anal Prev, 2006 38(4):
p 723-7.
Zhu, M., Hardman, S.B., Cook, L.J., Backseat safety belt use and crash outcome. J Safety Res,
2005. 36(5): p. 505-7.
Cook, L.J., Knight, S., Olson, L.M., A comparison of aggressive and DUI crashes. J Safety Res,
2005. 36(5): p. 491-3.
Hyde, L.K., Cook, L.J., Knight, S., Olson, L.M., Graduated driver licensing in Utah: is it
effective? Ann Emerg Med, 2005. 45(2): p. 147-54.
Mann, N.C., Knight, S., Olson, L.M., Cook, L.J., Underestimating injury mortality using
statewide databases. J Trauma, 2005. 58(1): p. 162-7.
Cochran A, Mann NC, Dean JM, Cook LJ, Barton RG. Resource utilization and its management
in splenic trauma. The American Journal of Surgery, 2004 187(6): 713-719.
Cook LJ, Knight S, Junkins EP, Mann CL, Dean JM, Olson LM. Repeat patients to the
emergency department in a statewide database. Academic Emergency Medicine, 2004 11(3):
256-263.
Smith R, Cook LJ, Olson LM, Reading JC, Dean JM: Trends of behavioral risk factors in motor
vehicle crashes in Utah, 1992 – 1996. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2004; 36(2): 249 – 255.
87
Vernon DD, Cook LJ, Peterson KJ, Dean JM: Effect of repeal of the national maximum speed
limit law on occurrence of crashes, injury crashes, and fatal crashes on Utah highways. Accident
Analysis and Prevention. 2004; 36(2): 223-229
Knight S, Cook LJ, Olson LM. The fast and the fatal: Street racing fatal crashes in the United
States. Injury Prevention, 2004 10(1): 53-55
Knight S, Olson LM, Cook LJ, Mann NC, Corneli HM, Dean JM. Against all advice: an analysis
of refusals of care. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 2003; 42(5):689-696.
Hyde LK, Cook LJ, Olson LM, Weiss HB, Dean JM. Effect of motor vehicle crashes on adverse
fetal outcomes. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 102, No. 2, August 2003.
Vernon DD, Diller EM, Cook LJ, Reading JC, Suruda AJ, Dean JM: Evaluating the Crash and
Citation Rates of Utah Drivers Licensed with Medical Conditions, 1992 – 1996. Accident
Analysis and Prevention.2002; 34(2):237 - 46.
Skokan EG, Olson LM, Cook LJ, Corneli HM. Snowmobile Injuries in Utah. Academic
Emergency Medicne. 2001 Dec;8(12):1173-7.
Cvijanovich NZ, Cook LJ, Mann NC, Dean JM. Pediatric All-Terrain Vehicle Injuries.
Pediatrics. 2001 Sep;108(3):631-5.
Cook LJ, Olson LM, Dean JM. Probabilistic Record Linkage: Relationships between File Sizes,
Identifiers, and Match Weights. Methods of Information in Medicine, 2001 Jul;40(3):196-203.
Dean JM, Vernon DD, Cook LJ, Nechodom PJ, Reading JC, Suruda A. Probabilistic Linkage of
Computerized Ambulance and Inpatient Hospital Discharge Records: A Potential Tool for
Evaluation of Emergency Medical Services. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 2001
Jun;37(6):616-26.
Vernon DD, Diller E, Cook LJ, Reading J, Dean JM. Further Analysis of Drivers Licensed with
Medical Conditions in Utah. National Highway Traffic Association. 2001 Mar; Report No. DOT
HS 809 211.
Cvijanovich NZ, Cook LJ, Mann NC, Dean JM, Graduated Driver Licensing Restrictions.
Pediatrics. 2001 Apr;107(4):632-7.
Knight S, Cook LJ, Nechodom PJ, Olson LM, Reading JC, Dean JM. Shoulder belts in motor
vehicle crashes: a statewide analysis of restraint efficacy. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
2001 Jan;33(1): 65-71.
Corneli HM, Cook LJ, Dean JM. Adults and Children in severe motor vehicle crashes: A
Matched-Pairs Study. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 2000 Oct;36(4):340-5.
Cook LJ, Knight S, Olson LM, Nechodom PJ, Dean JM. Crash Characteristics and Medical
Outcomes of Older Drivers in Motor Vehicle Crashes in Utah, 1992 – 1995. Annals of
Emergency Medicine 2000 June;35(6):585-591.
88
Berg M, Cook LJ, Corneli H, Vernon D, Dean JM. Effect of Seating Position and Restraint Use
on Injuries to Children in Motor Vehicle Crashes. Pediatrics 2000 Apr;105(4):831-835.
Suruda AJ, Vernon DD, Reading J, Cook LJ, Nechodom PJ, Leonard D, Dean JM. Pre-Hospital
Emergency Medical Services: A Population-Based Study of Pediatric Utilization. Injury
Prevention 1999 Dec;5(4):294-297.
Cvijanovich NZ, Cook LJ, Nechodom PJ, Dean JM. A Population-Based Study of Teenage
Drivers: 1992-1996. 43rd Annual Proceedings Association for the Advancement of Automotive
Medicine 1999 Sept;175-186.
Leonard DR, Suruda AJ, Cook LJ, Reading J, Mobasher H, Dean JM. Distinctive Emergency
Department Usage for Injury for Worker’s Compensation Cases in Utah in 1996. Journal of
Occupational Medicine 1999 Aug;41(8):686-692.
Diller EM, Cook LJ, Leonard DR, Dean M, Reading JM, Vernon DD. Evaluating Drivers
Licensed with Medical Conditions Licensed with Medical Conditions in Utah, 1992 – 1996.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1999 June;Report No. DOT HS 809 023.
89
LARRY C. HOLESTINE, MAJOR (Retired)
28660 Sunup Circle
Elizabeth, CO 80107
(303) 646-4877
E-mail: [email protected]
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Law Enforcement Liaison, NHTSA Region VIII

Commander, District III Colorado State Patrol, Retired

Director of Public Safety Services, Data Nexus, Inc.

Coordinator/Instructor, Colorado Law Enforcement Training Academy and Colorado
State Patrol Academy

Instructor, Colorado Institute of Law Enforcement Training, Colorado State University

Law Enforcement Experience - 30 years
ORGANIZATIONS/AFFILIATIONS

Member, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Law
Enforcement Committee

Chair, Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals, National Safety
Council

Member, ANSI D-16 Committee on Motor Vehicle Accident Classification

Member, MMUCC Committee on Motor Vehicle Accident Crash Criteria

Steering Committee and Chair of Law Enforcement Section, Colorado Safety
Management System

Member, Colorado State Traffic Records Advisory Committee

Member, National Agenda Committee for Highway Information Systems

USDOT, NHTSA, Traffic Records Assessment Team Member: Arizona (3 times),
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas (4 times), Kentucky, Louisiana
(2 times), Massachusetts (2 times), Mississippi, Missouri (2 times), Montana, Nebraska,
New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota (3 times), Ohio (2 times), Oregon (2 times),
South Carolina, South Dakota (2 times), Tennessee (2 times), Wisconsin, Wyoming
(3 times), the Menominee Indian Nation and San Carlos Indian Nation.

USDOT, NHTSA, Impaired Driving Assessment Team Member: Alaska, California,
Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Vermont.
90
MICHAEL J. MCDONALD
165 Brick Store Landing Road
Smyrna, DE 19977
(302) 659-2301
E-mail: [email protected]
After earning an Associates Degree from the University of Delaware, Mike joined the Delaware
State Police on September 8, 1978. During his career, Mike was assigned to a number of
operational divisions within the state police. His most notable assignment was as a charter
member of the Fatal Accident Investigation and Reconstruction Team known as F.A.I.R. His
responsibilities included investigating all fatal motor vehicle accidents and personal injury
accidents having the likelihood of becoming a fatality. During the six years he spent with the
F.A.I.R. team, Mike was recognized as an expert witness in accident reconstruction. Mike has
testified in all levels of the courts in Delaware including federal court. In 1984, Mike earned his
Bachelor of Science Degree from the University of Delaware in Business Administration with a
concentration in Operations Management. Mike was promoted to sergeant out of the F.A.I.R.
team in 1988 and assigned to the patrol division.
In 1990 Mike was selected to attend the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Academy in
Quantico, VA and graduated from the 164th National Academy class. This school provides
leadership training and is one of the most renowned and respected advance command schools in
the nation. Mike held administrative positions from 1990 until 1992 when he was promoted to
Captain and assigned as a Troop Commander. Mike was assigned to the Executive Staff in
February 1993. Later that same year, he was promoted to the rank of Major and permanently
assigned to Headquarters to manage the Division’s budget and the Information Technology
Section. In 1998, he was selected as a recipient of the Exceptional Performance award, and is
credited even today with developing the Division’s original and continuing vision for
information technology and its business process reengineering model. Mike held this position
until his retirement from active service in July 1999 when he accepted a civilian position with the
agency as the Director Information Technology.
In addition to his duties with the Division, Mike also represents the State Police on a variety of
boards and committees at the local and national level most notably as the CJIS Systems Officer
for Delaware for the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the International
Justice and Public Safety Information Sharing Network (Nlets). He is the northeast regional
working group representative for Delaware to the FBI’s shared management model of NCIC and
a member of the FBI's Advisory Policy Board; the group that advises the Director of the FBI
regarding changes in the NCIC system. He is also the past Chairman of the Finance and
Management Committee for Nlets. Mike is Chairman of the Delaware Justice Information
System (DELJIS); the Board of Managers who oversee criminal justice information within the
state.
91
LANGSTON A. (LANG) SPELL
1883 Tower Lakes Blvd.
Lake Wales, FL 33859-4807
E-mail: [email protected]
Independent Consultant
Professional Experience
Mr. Spell entered his professional career in traffic records systems and data exchange over 50
years ago. He is nationally recognized for his work in development of traffic records systems,
especially interchange (NDR and CDL) of information amongst various users and the
development and promulgation of data standards in information processing.
He served as a member of D16.1 committee. He developed the AAMVA Violations Exchange
Code or “ANSI” code (predecessor of the AAMVAnet Code Dictionary or ACD which he also
co-developed) while employed with AAMVA and later served as the Accident (Crash)
Subcommittee Chairman for the ANSI D-20 Standard, A States Model Motorist Data Base,
while employed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
While employed with NHTSA he created the original reporting forms and file structure for the
Fatality Analysis File which was renamed in 1975 as the Fatal Accident Reporting System
(FARS) and later renamed again, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). He and his
staff conducted the training for all of the original analysts.
As an independent consultant, he conducted the NHTSA Uniform Traffic Ticket Study to
determine the extent and details of emerging Citation Tracking Systems. He conducted all aspects
of the study including on-site State visits and assessments to determine the extent of control being
exercised in citation issuance, processing of conviction information through the courts, and
recording conviction dispositions in driver history files.
In the private sector, he developed numerous Crash Report forms, instruction manuals for crash
reporting, data input procedures, all edits to assure data quality, and reporting and analysis
procedures for problem identification. He also developed the EMS Run Report for Kentucky.
He designed the graphical user interface for the Highway Traffic Records Information System
for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and provided training in the use of the
system to the district offices of VDOT.
He was involved in the design and developmental efforts for the Commercial Driver Licensing
Information System (CDLIS) and its AAMVAnet environment and was a member of the
AAMVAnet “Tiger Team” that made the assessments of selected states to become pilots and
eventual founding states in the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System. His
background, experience and interested cover the entire spectrum of traffic records systems.
92
History
1992 – “present”
Independent Consultant (now essentially retired)
1977 – 1992
Senior Traffic Records Analyst
National ConServ, Inc.
(but 1980 to 1983: Independent Consultant)
1974 – 1977
Vice President GENASYS (Systems Division)
(now Keane, Inc.)
1968 – 1974
Chief, Information Systems, NHTSA,
US Department of Transportation
1966 – 1968
Director of Data Systems for the AAMVA
1958 – 1966
Staff Specialist in MVRs (driver histories) for Retail Credit Co.
(now Equifax) Atlanta, GA
Memberships in Professional Associations (former)

Traffic Records Committee, Transportation Research Board

American National Standards Institute, D-16, D-20, and X3L8 Committees

Executive Board, Traffic Records Committee, National Safety Council

Society of Automotive Engineers Committee on Standardization of Vehicle Identification
Numbers
Education
Boston University ......................................................................................................... S.T.B., 1956
Duke University........................................................................................................................................A.B., 1953
93
JOHN J. ZOGBY, PRESIDENT
Transportation Safety Management Systems
1227 North High Street
Duncannon, PA 17020
Voice: (717) 834-5363
Email: [email protected]
Summary of Experience
Mr. Zogby has over 40 years experience in highway safety engineering and management and
motor vehicle and driver licensing administration.
Mr. Zogby's transportation career began in the Bureau of Traffic Engineering in the
Pennsylvania Department of Highways, where he was responsible for statewide application of
highway signs and markings. He was instrumental in developing the State’s first automated
accident record system in 1966. In the late 1960’s, he helped initiate and was project director for
the statewide safety improvement program and the State’s in-depth accident investigation
function.
Mr. Zogby worked in the private sector in traffic safety research for several years before
returning to public service as the Director of the Bureau of Accident Analysis in the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. He was appointed Deputy Secretary of
Transportation for Safety Administration in February of 1979, a position he held for 13 years,
until his retirement from public service in December 1991.
Since his retirement from State government, Mr. Zogby has been engaged as a consultant on
management and policy issues for federal, State and local government agencies in the area of
transportation safety and motor vehicle/driver licensing services.
Professional and Business Experience
Subcontract with GeoDecisions Consulting on a Safety Analysis Management System (SAMS)
for the state of Mississippi.
Subcontract with iTRANS Consulting Inc. on NCHRP project 17-18 (05), Integrated
Management Process to Reduce Highway Injuries and Fatalities Statewide for the Transportation
Research Board.
Contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide AASHTO Strategic Highway
Safety Plan - Case Studies (17-18(06)) for the Transportation Research Board.
Subcontractor with ISG, a systems integration consulting company, conducting a reengineering
contract with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in the area of motor vehicle
processes.
Subcontractor with the Pennsylvania State University to research the impact of an education
94
provision in State law governing novice drivers.
Conducted a three-week course on safety management for the Ministry of Communications in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Subcontractor with a Moroccan Engineering firm to develop a national highway safety plan for
the Country of Morocco.
Completed a study for the State of Mississippi, Department of Public Safety, to develop a
Strategic Plan for Highway Safety Information.
Contracted by the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carrier Safety, to help in
the final implementation phase of the Commercial Driver License (CDL) program.
Consulted with several States in assessing their Traffic Records capabilities to address highway
safety program management needs. In addition, completed Traffic Records Assessments for
three Indian Nations in Arizona.
Project director and principal instructor for a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) contract
to develop, implement, and instruct a training program for the Highway Safety Management
System.
Professional Societies and National Committees
Member Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
Member Emeritus of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee on Transportation
Safety Management.
Member of the Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals.
Past President of the Mid-Atlantic Section of ITE.
Past Chair of the National Safety Council’s Traffic Records Committee.
Past President of Region 1 of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
Chaired the Governing Board of the International Registration Plan.
Chaired a subcommittee of the NGA Working Group on State Motor Carrier Taxation and
Regulation.
Completed six-year tenure as Chair of the TRB committee on Planning and Administration for
Transportation Safety.
95
Community
President, Duncannon Area Revitalization, Inc.
Pastoral Associate, St. Bernadette Church, Duncannon, PA
Education
B.S., Economics, Villanova University
MPA, Penn State University
96
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement