To help jurisdictions measure factors central to the effectiveness of the impaired driving system.
To enable jurisdictions to gain insight and understanding into how and why progress was, or was not, being achieved in reducing impaired driving incidents.
To inform decisionmakers about strategies to address system gaps impeding progress.
Why should jurisdictions use the DWI Dashboard?
It underscores the importance of concerted and coordinated efforts on the part of political leaders, government officials across different systems, external stakeholders and grassroots organizations.
The outcomes of the tool should help all practitioners develop and employ priorities, strategies and activities across the DWI system and at an agency level.
It makes it possible to identify critical but subtle gaps in DWI system processes.
The Dashboard can help to identify potential gaps before they fully emerge and help jurisdictions anticipate what strategies may be needed in the long-term to avoid problems.
What stakeholder organizations may be able to provide useful information to complete the DWI Dashboard?
highway safety offices;
law enforcement agencies;
correctional and community supervision services;
assessment and treatment;
grassroots/advocacy organizations; and,
driver licensing agencies.
Who can use the DWI Dashboard?
Ideally, the chair of a state DWI Task Force or Committee, in cooperation with the Impaired Driving Coordinator of the State Highway Safety Office, is best positioned to lead and coordinate the use of the Dashboard. Such leaders can identify the individuals who are best able to complete applicable sections of the Dashboard. Individuals who can use the DWI Dashboard may include, but are not limited to:
DWI task forces or committee members;
highway safety office personnel;
criminal justice practitioners;
treatment professionals; and,
When should the DWI Dashboard be used?
The DWI Dashboard was designed to be applied biennially, annually, or on a continuous basis in accordance with the individual needs of jurisdictions.
As familiarity with the tool increases, or as situations change, the Dashboard can be adapted for use on a more continuous basis to help monitor progress and inform decision-making.
How is the DWI Dashboard structured?
The structure enables jurisdictions to first identify whether there are general gaps in the DWI system associated with fundamental issues related to the delivery of DWI countermeasures that require further investigation. Based on this general identification, jurisdictions can then better pinpoint where and why these issues are occurring, as well as evaluate which issues are more practical and feasible to tackle.
The Dashboard is based upon a two-tiered structure of questions.
First tier represents more general state-level measures designed merely to gauge whether an issue requires closer examination.
Second tier represents agency-level measures acknowledging differences across agencies with respect to a topic. The objective of Tier 2 questions is to determine where and why a gap in the DWI system is occurring.
What factors does the Dashboard reference to measure countermeasures or practices and any existing barriers or gaps?
Traditional indicators of impaired driving such as fatalities, injuries, arrests, and convictions in the past three years.
Leadership by governments, politicians and agencies.
Resources allocated to DWI initiatives including funding, staffing, training and equipment.
Data collected regarding DWI and its availability, accessibility and use to inform decision-making.
Communication and information-sharing within and across agencies and practitioners to share and exchange knowledge, information and experience.
Practitioner education, training, experience and staff turnover.
Education and prevention efforts for the general public and specifically for persons under age 21 and younger combined with prevailing local attitudes in urban and rural areas.
Environmental and contextual issues pertaining to the presence and enforcement of alcohol ordinances, the role of rural jurisdictions in DWI initiatives, discussions, and partnerships with tribal entities on DWI issues, and the availability of alternative transportation options across the jurisdiction.
Total costs to DWI offenders in terms of programmatic and licensing fees and costs, recent trends in relation to costs, and the extent to which offenders complete the re-licensing process.