1. Sarah Weissman Pascual Traffic Records Team, NHTSA
The State of the States’ Crash Data - How States Align to the MMUCC 5th Edition
Sarah Weissman Pascual Traffic Records Team, NHTSA
Traffic Records Forum
August 2018

2. From the Beginning Problem Solution2
From the Beginning
Problem
The Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 4th Edition had no implementation guidance. States implemented MMUCC differently (combining or deleting attributes) and claiming “compliance”.
Solution
Develop a standardized and quantifiable way to determine States’ alignment to MMUCC

3. Developing the Mapping Rules3
Developing the Mapping Rules
Update MMUCC Mapping Rules
NHTSA & GHSA Publish MMUCC 5th Edition
MMUCC 4th Ed. mapping tested in 8 States
“Additional Considerations” developed
NHTSA & GHSA publish MMUCC Mapping Rules
GHSA Facilitates States’ Review
St Louis TRF Presentation
Pilot Tested in NJ & UT
NHTSA & GHSA Draft PAR to MMUCC Mapping Rules
September July July 2017

4. Goals of the Mapping to MMUCC Project4
Goals of the Mapping to MMUCC Project
Establishes a baseline for understanding the States’ crash data capabilities;
Identify the data elements and attributes that are problematic for States;
Inform States how they align to MMUCC and detail opportunities for improvement;
Inform future editions of MMUCC by understanding potential impacts changes might have on the States.

5. Police Instruction Manual Integration Element Attributes5
Mapping to MMUCC Methodology
Mapping
Crash Data Dictionary
Crash Report Form
Police Instruction Manual
Crash DB Schema
Integration Element Attributes
Collect State documentation
Build State crash database structure in TRIPRS
Map State crash structure to MMUCC following MMUCC Mapping Rules
Provide draft mapping
Host report out webinar, get clarifications and answer questions
Finalize mapping report and submit to State

6. Mapping to MMUCC Example6
Mapping to MMUCC Example
For simplicity, assume this Test State DB does not allow more than one (1) selection.

7. Mapping to MMUCC 7 MMUCC Mapping Notes
01 and 02 cannot be mapped because the State combines these attributes. This is considered a one to many issue and is not allowed. If coded without explanation, there’s no way to consistently determine that a combination attribute is one selection or another.
03 and 04 cannot be mapped for the same reason.
05 is mapped by combining Test State attributes 3 and 8. This is considered a many to one mapping and IS allowed. Because the Test State is collecting more detailed information that does not overlap with other MMUCC attributes, we can confidently combine these two discreet attributes to make one MMUCC attribute 05.
06 cannot be mapped because Test State does not collect that information.
07, 08, 09, and 10 are all direct mappings because the Test State collects this information and we have determined that the definitions align.
98 cannot be mapped because the meaning of the MMUCC attribute Other and the Test State Other are not the same here. To map to Other, States must map to all other non-Other attributes. See M5 rule #11 and example on pages
99 cannot be mapped because Test State does not collect that information.

8. Mapping to MMUCC Actual Mapping Calculation:8
Mapping to MMUCC
Actual
Mapping Calculation:
𝑀𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒= 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑝 𝑡𝑜 𝑀𝑀𝑈𝐶𝐶 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑀𝑈𝐶𝐶 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 ∗100
C11 = 5 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑝 2 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑠∗(12 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡) ∗ 100 = 20.83
**Elements are NOT weighted. They all have equal value when computing mapping scores.**
MMUCC Mapping Notes
For the purposes of this example, we assume that MMUCC only allows 1 attribute to be selected.
We also know – for this example – that Test State does NOT allow multiple selections, limiting LEOs to one (1) selection.
Therefore, Test State successfully maps to 5 attributes, which yields a mapping score of
ALT EXAMPLE:
HOWEVER, we know that MMUCC actually allows 2 attributes to be selected, thereby doubling the number of possible attributes.
Therefore, Test State successfully maps to 5 attributes, which yields a mapping score of

9. Aggregate MMUCC mapping results
Mapping Data
Aggregate MMUCC mapping results

10. Number of Data Elements10
115 MMUCC Data Elements Mapped
Section of MMUCC
Number of Data Elements
Crash 27
Vehicle 24
Person
Roadway 16
Fatal 3
Large Vehicle and Hazardous Material 11
Non-Motorist 6
Dynamic 1

17. National Scores for Fatal Section17
National Scores for Fatal Section
Out of a total of 100 points for each data element
“Attempted Avoidance Maneuver”
“Alcohol Test Type and Results”
“Drug Test Type and Results”
FARS requires these elements which are not commonly included as part of a State’s coded crash database. This shows a potential for data quality improvement by encouraging States to collect traditionally crash report coded data required for FARS. (Add into Fatal section)

21. Common Issues Encountered21
Common Issues Encountered
Documentation troubles
Outdated
Incomplete
Missing
System Discrepancies
Problem of State SMEs holding much of the information without a means to share it readily with others or outsiders.
States still focusing heavily on crash report form with less attention to database aspects and how LE burdens can be reduced with data integration…even in States that are going near 100% electronic.
Less understanding about the intricacies of crash data than expected. Several State SMEs/crash data gurus/etc. insisting their elements/attributes the same when in fact they were collected at a different level.
Crash report updated without the State crash database also being updated to match or vice versa
Element ‘Level’ Variance
States collecting elements as a higher level than stipulated in the MMUCC standard (e.g. collecting vehicle or person-level elements at the crash level instead)

22. Bringing it all together
NEXT STEPS
Bringing it all together

23. NOW Current Use of MMUCC Mapping Data23
NOW
Current Use of MMUCC Mapping Data
Examine States alignment to FHWA’s Serious Injury Requirement Per MAP-21, by April 15, 2019, States are required to adopt the “(A) Suspected Serious Injury” definition and attribute from MMUCC 4th Edition KABCO:
4 States are ready
11 States are almost ready – they require a minor change to their attributes
34 States are NOT ready
Inform future MMUCC standards by understanding how proposed changes will effect States ability to collect data
The data tells us:
The States are generally NOT ready for the new regulation deadline;
States are SLOW to adopt new elements.
Proposal:
Perhaps NHTSA could consider a 5-year schedule whereby MMUCC and FARS make their changes in collaboration with each other?

24. LATER Possible Uses for the Data and Next Steps24
LATER
Possible Uses for the Data and Next Steps
Examine how States’ alignment to MMUCC effects the quality of NHTSA data; check for correlation between alignment to MMUCC attributes and missing data in FARS and CRSS.
Review States’ crash DB structures for patterns – what is and is not available (external to MMUCC), what are common variances from the standard?
Examining States’ use of §405(c) funds and alignment to MMUCC.
Commit resources to Update the MMUCC Mapping results annually to capture changes States make to their crash data.

25. “ “ QUESTIONS? Sarah Weissman Pascual
Everyone
Sarah Weissman Pascual
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration