Characteristics of State Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) Programs
Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request: Part A
A. Justification – Brief Description of Study
In this study, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will be collecting information on the States’ Law Enforcement Liaisons (LEL) programs. NHTSA distributes tens of millions of dollars each year to the States through State Highway Safety Offices (SHSO) to fund a variety of traffic safety programs and initiatives (e.g., occupant protection campaigns such as “click-it or ticket,” and driving under the influence campaigns such as “drive sober or get pulled over”). “Law Enforcement Liaisons (LEL) serve as vital links and conduits between State Highway Safety Offices (SHSO) and a state’s law enforcement community” (NLELP, 2018). Within the States, LEL support these efforts through interactions with law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and associations. LEL work to increase the number of LEAs and government leaders involved in traffic safety programs. At a minimum, LELs provide program management, technical assistance, training support, and market NHTSA’s traffic safety programs.
NHTSA proposes to collect information from LELs and their State and/or sponsoring agency sponsors, generally the SHSO, to improve NHTSA’s understanding of LEL programs in the United States and to evaluate the programmatic and cost effectiveness of existing LEL approaches. Participation in the study will be voluntary. The LELs and their sponsors will be asked to participate in a one-time, online (website-based) survey designed to identify their program characteristics, costs, and State recommended program practices.
Currently there are 49 State Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) programs. These programs vary with regard to the number of LELs working under a given program (from 1 to 30 LELs per State) with approximately 240 LELs in total across all programs). The various LEL programs are organized in many different ways. Given the variety of LEL network models and the large amount of annual funding allocated to support LEL programs, NHTSA is seeking an assessment of LEL programs across the Nation. Two questionnaires will be used to collect information; one questionnaire will be completed by the LELs (see Appendix A), and a separate questionnaire will be used to collect information from the sponsors of the LELs (see Appendix B). The data elements included in the two surveys were selected to improve NHTSA’s understanding of the various LEL models currently in use across the States. Information gained from the analyses of survey results will help NHTSA determine which characteristics lead to maximum LEL effectiveness and best practices, and will assist in the selection of a few LEL programs for in-depth case studies. Determining best practices should lead to high levels of Law Enforcement Agency participation, increases in citations during grant-funded activities, reductions in traffic fatalities and injuries, and increases in observed seat belt use. This supports NHTSA’s mission to reduce the number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on the Nation's highways.
The following data will be collected: Number of LELs, program structure and organization, job description, program objectives, reporting requirements, performance monitoring practices, program costs, communication networks, reported usefulness of specific program practices, site and conference attendance practices, and public outreach activities. The estimated time to complete the web-based surveys is 45 minutes per respondent. No personally identifiable information will be used in the analyses. The results from the surveys will be reported in aggregate and will not identify individuals.
For this project, the NHTSA will work with the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), a non-profit organization “representing state and territorial highway safety offices that implement federal grant programs to address behavioral highway safety issues” (GHSA, 2018). The NHTSA will also work with the National Law Enforcement Liaison Program (NLELP), which “was created by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) to enhance the work of LELs across the country. This program is funded by NHTSA under a cooperative agreement in recognition of the effectiveness of LEL activities in reducing crashes across the country” (NLELP, 2018).
A.1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any Legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970 (23 U.S.C. 101) to carry out a Congressional mandate to reduce the mounting number of deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on the Nation’s highways. As part of this statutory mandate, NHTSA is authorized to conduct research as a foundation for the development of motor vehicle standards and traffic safety programs.
In support of this mission, NHTSA proposes to collect information from LELs and their State and/or sponsoring agency sponsors to improve NHTSA’s understanding of LEL programs in the United States and to evaluate the programmatic and cost effectiveness of existing LEL approaches. NHTSA distributes tens of millions of dollars each year to the States to fund a variety of traffic safety programs and initiatives (e.g., occupant protection campaigns such as “click-it or ticket,” and driving under the influence campaigns such as “drive sober or get pulled over”). Within the States, LELs support these efforts through interactions with law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and associations. LELs work to increase the number of LEAs and government leaders involved in traffic safety programs. At a minimum, LELs provide program management, technical assistance, training support, and market NHTSA’s traffic safety programs.
Currently there are 49 State Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) programs. These programs vary regarding the number of LELs working under a given program (from 1 to 30 LELs per State) with approximately 240 LELs in total across all programs. The various LEL programs are organized in many different ways. Given the variety of LEL network models and the large amount of annual funding allocated to support LEL programs, NHTSA is seeking an assessment of LEL programs across the Nation. Two surveys will be used to collect information; one survey will be completed by the LELs, and a separate survey will be used to collect information from the sponsors of the LELs. The data elements obtained from the two surveys were selected with the intent of characterizing the various LEL models across the States to assist in the selection of LEL programs for in-depth case study and will be included in analyses to determine which characteristics lead to maximum LEL effectiveness and best practices. Best practices should lead to high levels of Law Enforcement Agency participation, increases in citations during grant-funded activities, reductions in traffic fatalities and injuries, and increases in observed seat belt use. One of the outcomes of the surveys will be a descriptive matrix of programs by organizational type and program features and pros, cons and challenges for various LEL approaches in carrying out the LEL mission.
Study outcomes will be used to inform funding agencies and LEL programs about LEL best practices and what is required to maintain maximum LEL program effectiveness. The information will support States and other agencies and organizations in their efforts to reduce and prevent injuries among the motoring public through the use of traffic safety programs promoted by the LELs.
Under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Subsection 402(c), it states that the Secretary, acting through the NHTSA Administrator, shall establish a cooperative program to research and evaluate State highway safety countermeasures. MAP-21 provides that this new cooperative research and evaluation program is to be administered by NHTSA and jointly managed by NHTSA and the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). NHTSA has asked the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) for assistance in establishing and managing this new cooperative program, the National Cooperative Research and Evaluation Program (NCREP). NHTSA has entered into a separate cooperative agreement with GHSA to support their participation. This project is being conducted under the NCREP.
Title 23, United States Code, Chapter 4, Section 403 authorizes the NHTSA to conduct research and development activities, including demonstration projects and the collection and analysis of highway and motor vehicle safety data and related information needed to carry out this section, with respect to all aspects of highway and traffic safety systems and conditions relating to - vehicle, highway, driver, passenger, motorcyclist, bicyclist, and pedestrian characteristics; accident causation and investigations; and human behavioral factors and their effect on highway and traffic safety, including distracted driving. [See 23 U.S.C. 403(b)(1)(A)(i), 23 U.S.C. 403(b)(1)(A)(ii), 23 U.S.C. 403(b)(1)(B)(iii)].
A.2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.
NHTSA’s contractor (TransAnalytics, LLC), in collaboration with the NHTSA and the Governor’s Highway Safety Association (GHSA), has designed two survey instruments to collect information on LEL programs (see Appendix A and Appendix B). This is a new information collection. The results of these surveys will provide information on the various ways LEL programs are organized and the ways LELs promote and support traffic safety efforts, as well as the way LELs and their sponsors (State Highway Safety Offices and other agencies) interact in carrying out their missions (see Appendix C and Appendix D). This information will help NHTSA better understand the roles of LELs and the challenges and issues they experience, so that the NHTSA and the GHSA can better assist LELs in carrying out their mission and it will help the States improve their LEL programs though the best practices guidelines produced from this study.
This is a census of current LEL programs. To obtain a comprehensive understanding of LEL programs and experiences, NHTSA and GHSA are asking for the participation of all 240 LELs and the 49 State sponsors of LELs in this survey.
TransAnalytics will collect and de-identify the survey data. TransAnalytics and NHTSA will have access to the survey data. NHTSA and GHSA will never have access to the any links between the names, addresses or any other information that personally identifies the respondents and their responses to survey questions.
NHTSA will disseminate the information collected to State and local highway safety authorities, who will use it to improve their LEL programs in support of their traffic safety missions. NHTSA reports are available to the public on our web site.
A.3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other information technology. Also describe any considerations of using information technology to reduce burden.
The Governor’s Highway Safety Administration will mail a letter to candidate participants to inform them of the survey, and request their participation. TransAnalytics, through the web developer, will follow up a week later with an email that provides the web link, a user name, and password for accessing the survey. Both surveys will be administered using a web-based survey format. The survey will be limited in length to approximately 45 minutes, per respondent. Unique passwords will be created for each respondent. Only website visitors possessing valid credentials will be allowed to access the survey. An introduction page will explain the purpose of the survey, and instructions will be provided describing how to respond to questions and how to navigate to earlier questions. Most questions require selecting among close-ended response choices to reduce response burden.
The site will be made lean to reduce transmission and increase the responsiveness of the survey across pages, especially for those with low bandwidth Internet connections. Page elements will be reused, CSS code will be minified, and images will be scaled or compressed to reduce the size of each page served. The site will make use of minimal transition screens, and consolidate questions into a single section where feasible. The site will use visual cues and a consistent layout that provides an easy-to-follow work flow. These characteristics will also serve to reduce response burden.
The survey will be presented to the respondent in a multi-step form with “Next” and “Previous” buttons, as well as a progress bar at the top of the page. On the bottom of each page will be a button allowing the user to save the survey as a draft to complete at a later time. During the transition between pages, by clicking the “Next/Previous” buttons, a draft will be saved automatically. This will enable the respondent to log in at a later time to complete the survey.
Respondent login statistics and statistics on completed or partially completed surveys will be available via the back end. These can be generated weekly. The system will maintain a list of completed surveys, identified by their associated PIN. In this manner, these respondents may be excluded from subsequent contact waves. Collected data will be store in a MySQL database. Data may be aggregated into views, or exported to a format as requested by NHTSA at the time of data delivery to NHTSA.
Note – TransAnalytics will de-identify survey responses to ensure the data is anonymous. All reporting of findings will be done in the aggregate.
A.4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.
There is no other information available describing the sought-after characteristics of all LEL programs in the United States. This is a new collection of information that doesn’t exist elsewhere.
A.5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe the methods used to minimize burden.
Survey information for this study will only be collected from individuals involved with State LEL programs. There is no burden on small businesses for this information. This data collection is being conducted at the request of the GHSA, whose members sponsor State LEL programs. All respondents will be able to complete the surveys during work hours; thus, they will be compensated for their time and efforts in completing the surveys.
A.6. Describe the consequences to Federal Program or policy activities if the collection is not collected or collected less frequently.
Given the variety of LEL network models and the large amount of annual funding allocated to support LEL programs, GHSA (and NHTSA) are seeking to improve their understanding of LEL program structures, operations, costs, and effectiveness, to inform any changes that may be required to maximize and maintain LEL program effectiveness. Without this information, programs will run and be managed as they have been in the past in each individual State, lacking knowledge of what LEL practices are most effective in improving traffic safety.
A.7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with the guidelines set forth in 5 CFR 1320.6.
There are no special circumstances that would cause this collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
A.8. Provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views.
Federal Register Notice
NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register with a 60-day public comment period to announce this proposed information collection on July 25, 2017 (Vol.82, No. 141, Pages 34570-34571). No comments were entered into the NHTSA docket in response to the 60-day Federal Register Notice.
NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register on March 9, 2018 (Vol.83, No. 47, Pages 10547-10548) with a 30-day public comment period to announce forwarding of the information collection request to OMB for approval.
A.9. Explain any decisions to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.
No payment or gift will be provided to respondents. As this is a survey related to their LEL work and requested by LEL sponsors, respondents will be allowed to complete the surveys while at work.
A.10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents.
All published results will provide only summary statistics that cannot be used to identify any individual or individual’s responses. The survey introduction includes the following text:
“TransAnalytics and NHTSA will have access to the survey data, but NHTSA and GHSA will never have access to your name, address or any other information that personally identifies you.” The survey introduction will include the following information:
There are no right or wrong answers.
Your responses will be treated in a secure and confidential manner.
Survey reports will present all findings as a whole, so individual responses cannot be identified.
You might be uncomfortable answering some of these questions.
Your participation in this survey is voluntary. You may skip any questions that you do not want to answer or stop answering at any point.
If you have questions about the study please call the TransAnalytics Principal Investigator.
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, please call the toll-free number for the Advarra Institutional Review Board.”
Following OMB approval and prior to recruiting respondents, TransAnalytics will submit an application which contains the study protocol and the two surveys, to Advarra IRB (previously Chesapeake Institutional Review Board), and obtain IRB approval to ensure fair and ethical treatment of the human subjects in this research.
A.11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
No questions commonly considered private or sensitive in nature will be asked as part of this study. The questionnaire asks questions about LEL program activities. The survey data collection does not contain questions related to matters that are commonly considered sensitive or private. The survey is anonymous, so there is no risk of repercussion for respondents.
A.12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information on the respondents.
Participants will be asked to complete a single on-line Web-based questionnaire. LELs will complete one survey targeting their LEL program experiences, and LEL supervisors from sponsor organizations will complete one survey targeting their experiences from the perspective of their role.
There survey will use an established survey contact protocol meeting AAPOR standards that is designed to maximize the response rate (See Part B 2.1). This protocol will require some burden on respondents in the form of time to open and read the initial contact letter and the emails, and for the last contact, respond to a phone call. To reduce burden, once a respondent has completed the survey they will be removed from the contact list and not burdened with further follow-up. We estimate 3 minutes per respondent to open and read the initial contact letter, 3 minutes to read the initial email with the survey instructions and questionnaire links, 1 minute each for the 2 reminder emails, and approximately 5 minutes for the final contact phone call reminder. Assuming a final response rate of 84%, similar to our survey of law enforcement agencies in our Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) survey, and with a similar response pattern (Miller, et al, 2016), we estimate the total contact burden to be 2,238 minutes or 37.3 hours. The estimated burden from survey contacts is described in Table 1 (below).
Table 1. Estimated Burden for Survey Respondent Contacts
Contact Stage |
% of Respondents Contacted |
n |
Minutes Required per Respondent |
Total Burden Minutes |
Advance invitation letter (US Mail) |
100% |
289 |
3 |
867 |
Initial email with survey link, User ID & PW |
100% |
289 |
3 |
867 |
Follow-up – 1st email reminder |
62% |
179 |
1 |
179 |
Follow-up – 2nd email reminder |
33% |
95 |
1 |
95 |
Follow-up – phone call reminder |
16% |
46 |
5 |
230 |
Total Contact Burden |
|
|
|
2,238
(37.3 hours)
|
Based on our cognitive testing and beta testing of the web-based questionnaires, we estimate the questionnaires will take an average of 45 minutes to complete, resulting in a burden of 216.75 hours for the 289 participants (289 respondents x 45 minutes = 13,005 minutes or 216.75 hours) for the completion of all questionnaires.
Based on the above calculations, the total annual burden hours for this project will be 254.05 hours. These totals are also displayed in Table 2, below.
Table 2. Estimated Total Burden.
Task |
Estimated Burden per Response |
Frequency of Response |
Number of Respondents |
Total Burden Hours |
Contact Burden |
(see Table 1) |
(see Table 1) |
(see Table 1) |
37.3 |
LEL Questionnaire |
45 minutes |
1 response |
240 |
180 |
SHSO Questionnaire |
45 minutes |
1 response |
49 |
36.75 |
Total Burden |
|
|
289 |
254.05 hours |
Participation in this study is voluntary, and there are no costs to respondents beyond the time spent completing the questionnaire. Given the survey will be taken during work hours; there will be no monetary costs to respondents.
However, the cost to respondents could be computed in terms of their hourly wage. Based on mean per capita wage for all occupations, the maximum total input cost, if all respondents completed questionnaires while on the job, is estimated as follows:
$24.34 per hour1 x 254.05 hours = $6,183.58
A.13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost to the respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information.
There are no record keeping costs to the respondents, and there is no preparation of data required or expected of respondents. Respondents will be advised that they will be able to complete the survey during their LEL or sponsor work time, thus there are no lost opportunity costs.
This is one-time data collection and there will be no recurrence. The total cost to the Federal Government for this study is $322,650.09 over 42 months, which amounts to an annual cost of approximately $92,185.74 per year for 3.5 years. This cost includes participant recruitment, data collection, data analysis, report writing, and other project planning and administrative costs.
This is a new information collection. NHTSA has not previously conducted this survey, which results in a program change of an increase to NHTSA’s overall burden hour by 216.75 hours. This study of LEL programs is being conducted in response to the request of the States and the GHSA through the Congressionally-mandated National Cooperative Research and Evaluation Program (NCREP) under which NHTSA and the GHSA work with the States to identify potential highway safety research or evaluation topics believed to be important for informing State policy, planning, and programmatic activities.
A.16. For collection of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication.
Reports and summary sheets will be published at the end of the study. Reported information will be aggregated to a level at which no individual can be identified. A technical report, printed by NHTSA, will be disseminated to the GHSA, State, local, and national traffic safety officials. Reports and results will also be disseminated to advocacy and other groups interested in LEL programs and traffic safety, as briefings and presentations at traffic safety meetings, and to the research community through presentations at research conferences and journal publications.
The data summaries will be largely descriptive as the majority of questions were designed to characterize LEL program organization and practices, and will require only characterization of responses by frequencies and percentages of respondents. Descriptive statistics including measures of central tendency and variance (means and standard deviations) will be provided where appropriate (e.g., counts of LEAs recruited, number of hours worked per week, etc.). Such data will be displayed using frequency histograms and other graphical representations of the distribution of responses across items with a fixed number of categorical or discrete choices, ranging from ‘yes-no’ items to items with numerous response categories.
For responses to items using rating scales (e.g., the effectiveness of varying modes of communication with prospective LEA grantees, usefulness of NHTSA communications materials, etc.), which are assumed to have interval properties, inferential statistical tests may be performed to identify where significant differences exist as a function of respondent characteristics of interest (e.g., law enforcement liaison personnel who serve in a full-time versus a part-time capacity). Inferential tests may also be applied to examine the reliability of differences as a function of respondent characteristics of interest for items with quantitative responses (e.g., In a typical month, how many in-person LEA site visits do you make?). Qualitative data will undergo content analysis.
A.17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
NHTSA will display the expiration date for OMB approval.
A.18. Explain each exception to the certification statement
identified in Item 19, “Certification for Paperwork Reduction
Act Submissions” of the OMB Form 83-I
No exceptions to the certification statement are made.
References
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018). May 2017 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates - United States. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000.
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). (2018). https://www.ghsa.org/about
Miller, R. J., Osberg, J. S., Retting, R., Ballou, M., & Atkins, R. (2016, May). System analysis of automated speed enforcement (Report No. DOT HS 812 257). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (OMB Control No. 2127-0676)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2018). https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/statutory-authorities
National Law Enforcement Liaison Program (NLELP). (2018). https://www.ghsa.org/resources/partner-initiatives/NLELP
1 Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018). May 2017 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates - United States. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000.
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| Author | Jessica Cicchino |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-20 |