Community Needs Assessment — Data Collection Checklist
This template offers a convenient means for aligning elements of your impaired driving logic model and the population you hope to impact with their indicators and measurements used.
Data and Sources to Collect about Consequences and Problem Statements
1) Fatal and Injury Crash Data – National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) NHTSA: this is generally a more reliable indicator of the level and type of impaired driving in your state and community than arrest data, which is dependent on the level of local law enforcement resources to conduct enforcement campaigns. NHTSA sponsors a data resource website called the Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) that has multiple databases that can be searched at the state and county levels. Go to this web address for the site map.
- CrashStats & NCSA Publications
- National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
- FARS Encyclopedia
- State Traffic Safety Info
- Traffic Safety Fact Sheets
- Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report
2) Highway Safety and Crash Data – State Highway Safety Offices – You can also search the databases for information from your state offices of highway safety. They may break information by your county/city. If you don’t find what you need online, contact information is provided on each state office website.
To locate your state’s Highway Safety Office, please refer to this site maintained by the Governor’s Highway Safety Association.
3) Cost of Deaths from Crashes – The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have compiled this information by state.
4) Community-Level Crash Data – local law enforcement, fire department/paramedics, hospitals may share information about days, times of day, times of year and location trends for impaired driving crashes.
5) Local Information about Impaired Drivers* – from local police, probation, court or health/treatment
- Numbers of first-time and repeat offenders
- Demographics about first time and multiple offenders: age, gender, ethnicity, census/tract or other residence information (e.g., city, zip code)
* Note that special care is taken to respect compliance with laws that safeguard individual privacy (e.g. HIPAA laws about medical records). Coalitions should receive information aggregated according by the above categories, so that no specific individuals are identified.
Data and Sources to Collect about Root Causes and Local Conditions
1) Number and Density of Licensed Drinking Establishments – your state alcoholic beverage control board or liquor commission can provide information about the number, type and location of establishments that provide beer, wine and/or distilled spirits for consumption on their premises in your community.
The Department of Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau maintains a list of alcoholic beverage control boards and relevant liquor commissions.
2) Identification of Other Locations Where Drinking/Drug Use Occurs
- Local law enforcement alcohol and drug arrest, incident report and calls for service data
- Key informant interviews
- Focus groups with youth
- Focus groups with neighborhood residents and other adults
3) “Circumstance of Last Use/Drink” self-report surveys – to get further information about settings and circumstances, some law enforcement agencies, DUI/DWI program providers and/or county health offices collect data from people arrested for impaired driving about the last place they drank before driving. Although we know that there is limited accuracy in this kind of self-report, many communities have discovered patterns in the results about locations (licensed alcohol establishments, parks, private parties, etc.) that have helped direct decisions about times and places for sobriety checkpoints, saturation patrols, undercover operations to stop sales to intoxicated patrons and other targeted enforcement efforts.
Model Impaired Driving Records Information Systems – Tying Together Data Systems to Manage Impaired Drivers
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Sample Logic Model: Impaired Driving as the Problem
Problem: Alcohol-impaired driving among young adults
Root Cause: Availability of alcohol
Local Condition: Licensed alcohol establishments (restaurants and bars/taverns) are serving alcohol to intoxicated patrons
|Provide Information||· Create research briefs that demonstrate the link between over-service of alcohol and community problems such as violence, property crime, and impaired driving injuries/fatalities
· Provide information to licensed establishments about the results of surveys of drivers cited for impaired driving who indicate bars/restaurants as their “place of last drink”
· Create a campaign of visible enforcement against sales to intoxicated patrons: use multiple media outlets to gain the attention of establishment owners, managers, servers and bartenders about fines and other consequences associated with violations
|Build Skills||· Provide training for servers and bartenders about:
o Recognizing signs of intoxication
o Methods for “cutting off” service to intoxicated patrons
o Serving practices that prevent intoxication
|Provide Support||· Pay overtime for local law enforcement to conduct undercover operations to enforce laws against sales to intoxicated patrons
· Pay for law enforcement training about protocols for conducting undercover operations on sales to intoxicated patrons and citing violators
|Access / Barriers||· Offer regular training for licensed establishments in convenient locations and times, and in languages appropriate to the population of servers and bartenders (e.g., Spanish, Mandarin)
· Provide training/technical assistance for owners/ managers of licensed establishments to help develop business policies that discourage over-service and provide protocols for employees to follow to handle difficult situations
|Incentives / Disincentives||· Cite and fine servers/bartenders who serve alcohol to intoxicated patrons, as identified through quarterly enforcement operations|
|Physical Design||· Provide signage (placards, coasters, etc.) reminding servers and patrons about laws and house policies prohibiting sales to intoxicated patrons|
|Policies or Regulations||· Local law enforcement and/or state alcohol licensing board policy, identifying sales to intoxicated persons as a priority target and establishing an annual schedule of enforcement operations to deter the illegal behavior|
Sample Impaired Driving Intervention Map #2
Problem: Underage alcohol-impaired driving
Root Cause: Low perception of harm/consequences
Local Condition: Youth ride home from community events with intoxicated adult drivers who do not get cited.
|Provide Information||· Provide information to law enforcement about conducting low staffing sobriety checkpoints, coordinating with times and locations of community events that sell alcohol
· Create a campaign of visible enforcement of impaired driving: use multiple media formats and outlets to gain the attention of event organizers and attendees, both youth and adult about fines and other consequences associated with violations
|Build Skill||· Provide training for event alcohol servers about:
o Recognizing signs of intoxication
o Methods for “cutting off” service to intoxicated patrons
o Serving practices that prevent intoxication
|Provide Support||· Pay overtime for local law enforcement to conduct surveillance to enforce laws against sales to intoxicated patrons at large community events
· Provide volunteer assistance to law enforcement at roadside sobriety checkpoints
|Access / Barriers||· Offer multiple training opportunities for community event servers at convenient locations and times
· Work with local chambers of commerce, volunteer centers or other local organizations who provide volunteer alcohol servers for the event to establish protocols for refusing service and seeking help when a customer becomes difficult
|Incentives / Disincentives||· Cite and fine event volunteers/staff who serve alcohol to intoxicated patrons, as identified through quarterly enforcement operations
· Local law enforcement agency(ies) conduct saturation patrols coinciding with large community events and cite impaired drivers
|Physical Design||· Establish sobriety checkpoints in visible locations near community events before, during and after the event to deter and enforce impaired driving violations|
|Policies or Regulations||· Community event policies that establish protocols for alcohol servers in refusing service to intoxicated customers and outlines consequences for individuals and groups who fail to comply.|
The Problem of Impaired Driving
Berning, A., Compton, R., & Wochinger, K. (2015, February). Results of the 2013-2014 National Roadside Survey of alcohol and drug use by drivers. (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 812 118). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Berning, A., & Smither, D.D. (2014). Understanding the limitations of drug test information, reporting, and testing practices in fatal crashes. (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. DOT HS 812 072). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Compton, R.P. & Berning, A. (2015, February). Drug and alcohol crash risk. (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note, Report No. DOT HS 812 117). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
DuPont, R.L., Logan, B.K., Shea, C.L., Talpins, S.K., & Voas, R.B. (2011). Drugged driving research: a white paper. National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Fell, J.C., McKnight, A.S., & Auld-Owens, A. (2013). Increasing impaired driving enforcement visibility: Six case studies. (Report No. DOT HS 811 716). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Jones, C.G., Swift, W., Donnelly, N.J., & Weatherburn, D.J. (2007). Correlates of driving under the influence of cannabis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 88(1), 83-86.
Lacey, J.H., Kelley-Baker, T., Romano, E., Brainard, K., Ramirez, A. (2012). Results of the 2012 California Roadside Survey of Nighttime Weekend Drivers’ Alcohol and Drug Use. Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute of Research and Evaluation
Maxwell, J.C. (2012). Drunk versus drugged: How different are the drivers?. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 121(1), 68-72.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2014, December). Alcohol-impaired driving: 2013 data. (Traffic Safety Facts. DOT HS 812 102). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
National Transportation Safety Board. (2011). Fatalities.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2008). A Summary Report of Six Demonstration Projects to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among 21- to 34-Year-Old Drivers. DOT HS 810912.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010). Alcohol and Highway Safety: Special Report on Race/Ethnicity and Impaired Driving. DOT HS 811 336.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2009). Drug-Impaired Driving: Understanding the Problem & Ways to Reduce It. DOT HS 811 268.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2011). Drug Testing and Drug-Involved Driving of Fatally Injured Drivers in the United States: 2005-2009.
- Phillips, D.P., Sousa, A.L.R., & Moshfegh, R.T. (2014). Official blame for drivers with very low blood alcohol content: there is no safe combination of drinking and driving. Injury Prevention.
- Romano, E., Torres-Saavedra, P., Voas, R.B., & Lacey, J.H. (2014). Drugs and alcohol: Their relative crash risk. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75(1), 56.
- Voas, R.B., Lacey, J.H., Jones, K., Scherer, M., & Compton, R. (2013). Drinking drivers and drug use on weekend nights in the United States. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 130(1), 215-221.
- Cavanaugh, M.R., & Franklin, T.W. (2012). Do DWI courts work? an empirical evaluation of a Texas DWI court. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 51, 257-274.
- Fell, J.C., Tippetts, A.S., & Langston, E.A. (2011). An evaluation of three Georgia DUI courts. (DOT HS 811 450). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
- Hiller, M., Saum, C., Taylor, L., Watson, C., Hayes, W., & Samuelson, B. (2009). Waukesha Alcohol Treatment Court (WATC): Process and Outcomes. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.
- Taylor, E., Carey, S.M., Zold-Kilbourn, P., Fuller, B.E., & Kissick, K. (2008). Michigan DUI Courts Outcome Evaluation. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
- Elder, R.W., Voas, R., Beirness, D., Shults, R.A., Sleet, D.A., Nichols, J.L.,…Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2011). Effectiveness of ignition interlocks for preventing alcohol-impaired driving and alcohol-related crashes: a Community Guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 40, 362–376.
- Magnusson, P., Jakobsson, L., & Hultman, S. (2011). Alcohol interlock systems in Sweden: 10 years of systematic work. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 40, 378–9.
- Roth, R., Voas, R., & Marques, P. (2007). Mandating interlocks for fully revoked offenders: the New Mexico experience. Traffic Injury Prevention, 8, 20-25.
- Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2011). Recommendations on the effectiveness of ignition interlocks for preventing alcohol-impaired driving and alcohol-related crashes. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 40, 377.
Mass Media Campaigns
- Elder, R.W., Shults, R.A., Sleet D.A., Nichols, J.L., Thompson, R.S., Rajab, W., & Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2004). Effectiveness of mass media campaigns for reducing drinking and driving and alcohol-involved crashes: a systematic review. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 27, 57-65.
- Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2004). Recommendation for use of mass media campaigns to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 27, 66.
- Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2005). Motor vehicle occupant injury. In : Zaza, S., Briss, P.A., & Harris, K.W., eds. The Guide to Community Preventive Services: What Works to Promote Health? Atlanta (GA): Oxford University Press: 329-384.
Publicized Sobriety Checkpoint Programs
- Bergen, G., Pitan, A., Qu, S., Shults, R.A., Chattopadhyay, S.K., Elder, R.W.,… Community Preventive Services Task Force. (2014). Publicized sobriety checkpoint programs: a Community Guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 46, 529-539.
- Community Preventive Services Task Force. (2014). Publicized sobriety checkpoint programs to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. Recommendation of the Community Preventive Services Task Force. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 46, 540-541.
- Nunn, S., & Newby, W. (2011). The geography of deterrence: exploring the small area effects of sobriety checkpoints on alcohol-impaired collision rates within a city. Evaluation Review, 35, 354-378.
Screening, Brief Intervention, & Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)
- Higgins-Biddle, J., & Dilonardo, J. (2013). Alcohol and highway safety: Screening and brief intervention for alcohol problems as a community approach to improving traffic safety. (DOT HS 811 836). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
- Whitlock, E.P., Polen, M.R., Green, C.A., Orleans, T., & Klein, J. (2004). Behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce risky/harmful alcohol use by adults: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Anals of Internal Medicine, 140, 557-568.
- Voas, R.B., Fell, J.C., McKnight, S.A., & Sweedler, B. M.
(2004). Controlling impaired driving through vehicle programs: an overview. Traffic Injury Prevention, 5, 292-298.