Content uploaded by Kathryn S. Quick
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kathryn S. Quick on May 17, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Article
Transportation Research Record
1–10
ÓNational Academy of Sciences:
Transportation Research Board 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0361198119844979
journals.sagepub.com/home/trr
Tribal Transportation Specialists’
Priorities for Reservation Roadway
Safety: Results of a National Survey
Kathryn S. Quick
1
, Adam Larsen
2
, and Guillermo E. Narva
´ez
3
Abstract
The focus of this study is roadway safety in American Indian tribal lands. American Indians’ motor vehicle crash fatality rate is
the highest among all ethnic and racial groups in the United States. Roadway safety in tribal areas, where approximately 656
fatalities occur each year, is an important aspect of this problem. Following a review of crash statistics from recently published
research, we present our empirical analysis of the expressed concerns of roadway safety managers with the most informed,
direct knowledge of reservations and tribal areas. The data source is the 2016 Tribal Transportation Safety Data Survey,
including 151 tribal government and 22 state government respondents. Qualitative methods were used to analyze their per-
ceptions and priorities for roadway safety. We identified: 1) tribes’ and states’ highest priorities for roadway safety in tribal
lands, and 2) their concerns about state government relationships relating to data quality, data sharing, and coordination.
Tribes consistently named four concerns: road quality engineering and repair; reckless driving (speeding, impaired, distracted
driving); seatbelt/car seat use; and pedestrian safety. Tribes and states both expressed a wish to improve their relationships,
particularly relating to data quality and sharing, with both sides identifying the need for tribes to have more resources for data
documentation and analysis. We conclude with recommendations to improve tribal roadway safety plans, strengthen data
quality, create a common framework for identifying roads of interest to tribal governments and communities, and conduct
additional research on pedestrian safety, emergency medical service response, roadway departures, and nonfatal crashes.
What is at Stake for Roadway Safety in
Reservations?
Relatively little prior research has focused on the subject
of this study: roadway safety in American Indian reser-
vations. This is a high-stakes issue for the wellbeing of
American Indian communities. Nationally, motor vehicle
crashes are the leading cause of unintentional injury for
American Indians aged 1 to 44 (1). Their motor vehicle
crash (MVC) fatality rate is higher than for any other
ethnic or racial group in the United States (2).
Furthermore, over the period 1975 to 2002, it increased
by 52.5% at the same time that the nationwide rate for
all groups decreased by 2.2% (3).
Most research on this phenomenon examines sources
of risk at the level of the entire American Indian popula-
tion of the United States, without adequate attention to
heterogeneity within this group and the interacting fea-
tures of specific contexts. In contrast, this research proj-
ect gathers and interprets on-the-ground views about
sources of risk and options to improve roadway safety in
American Indian reservations. There are two reasons for
this focus. First, there is a well-recognized need to reduce
injury crashes in reservations (4) as important places in
their own right. Tribal transportation experts, state and
federal agencies, and a range of policies and programs
have identified this situation as an area of elevated con-
cern and priority. Second, it is important to study reser-
vations to avoid the mistake of conflating American
Indian MVC fatalities with MVC fatalities on reserva-
tions. They are not equivalent, as the following section
will detail. The findings of this report support the view
that improving safety on reservations and other tribal
areas needs continuing attention.
1
Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
MN
2
Office of Tribal Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C.
3
Proxemic Insights, LLC, Saint Paul, MN
Corresponding Author:
Address correspondence to Kathryn S. Quick: ksquick@umn.edu
MVCs in Tribal Areas
Before presenting our qualitative data analysis, we begin
with a review of what recent quantitative data indicates
about these issues. Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS) data for 2010 to 2014 indicate that an average of
535 Native Americans and Alaska Natives lost their lives in
MVCsintheUnitedStateseachyearoverthatperiod(5)
(see Table 1). The risks on reservations are disproportio-
nately high: 27% of reported American Indians’ MVC
fatalities occurred on reservations (5), although only 22%
of people identifying as American Indian and Alaska
Natives lived on tribal lands (6). American Indians comprise
54% of all reported MVC fatalities on reservations, which
numbered 1,439 between 2011 and 2015 (5). Although some
recent research asserts that the MVC situation in tribal
lands is improving because the number of crashes decreased
11% in 2014 from the previous annual average of the 2009
to 2013 period (7), the situation is still very serious.
We note two ways in which the NHTSA analysis is lim-
ited and thus may seriously understate the significance of
roadway safety in American Indian areas. First, fatalities
on reservations are under-reported (8). Second, NHTSA’s
method of focusing on formally recognized tribal lands
understates the MVC impacts in regions where tribal gov-
ernments have jurisdiction. ‘‘Tribal lands,’’ as defined in
some federal laws and typically used in everyday discus-
sion, refers to reservations and other lands in the owner-
ship of the 573 federally recognized tribes. This is a larger
area than the lands in reservations since only 326 of the
573 federally recognized tribes actually have a formal
reservation. Yet it also omits substantial geographic
regions where many American Indians live, such as
Oklahoma tribal statistical areas; Alaskan Native villages
or regional or village corporations as defined or estab-
lished under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act;
and the lands of native Hawaiians or tribes that are not
federally recognized. To complicate things further, the
terms ‘‘tribal lands,’’‘‘Indian Country,’’ and ‘‘reservation’’
are used as if they are interchangeable in some literature,
but they are not equivalent. Tribal lands include lands held
in trust, which may not meet the legal definition of Indian
Country, (as per U.S. Code Title 18 [Crimes and Criminal
Procedure] Section 1151 – Indian country defined).
When a broader definition is used, the importance of
transportation safety in tribal areas becomes very clear.
A total of 3,278 fatalities—or 656 per year—were
reported in the 5-year period from 2010 to 2014 in reser-
vations and other tribal areas where tribal governments
have the greatest influence on engineering, enforcement,
emergency medical services (EMS), and education (9).
Explanations for Elevated MVC Fatality
Rates
The NHTSA data analysis indicates that four factors are
most frequently associated with all American Indian
MVC fatalities in the United States: lack of proper seat
belt or child seat restraints (found in 47% of all cases),
alcohol-impaired driving (42%), speeding (33%), and
being a pedestrian (19%) (5). Factors in fatalities for
American Indians nationwide (regardless of location), of
all fatalities in reservations (regardless of race and ethni-
city), and of American Indians specifically in reserva-
tions are similar.
Table 1. American Indian and Reservation Traffic Fatalities in the United States, 2011 to 2015
Number/%
of all American
Indian fatalities
Number/%
of all fatalities
on reservations
Number/%
of all American Indian
fatalities on reservations
All American Indian fatalities (NHTSA [5]) 2,840 na na
100% na na
All fatalities in tribal areas, 2010–2014 (Li and Bhagavathula [7]) 3,278 na na
na na na
All fatalities on reservations (NHTSA [5]) na 1,439 na
na 100% na
American Indian fatalities on reservations (NHTSA [5]) 777 777 777
27% 54% 100%.
Fatality in which vehicle occupant was unrestrained (NHTSA [5]) 1,321 703 415
47% 49% 53%
Alcohol-impaired fatalities, blood alcohol level .08+(NHTSA [5]) 1,200 613 418
42% 43% 54%
Speed-related fatalities (NHTSA [5]) 944 543 309
33% 38% 40%
Pedestrian fatality (NHTSA [5]) 551 197 136
19% 14% 18%
Note: na = not applicable.
2Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Two additional factors of concern do not turn up in
the NHTSA report. The NHTSA report does not analyze
road features such as intersections and roadway depar-
tures, but the Tribal Transportation Safety Management
System Steering Committee’s analysis of 2010 to 2014
FARS data concluded that roadway departure was a fac-
tor in 63% of reported MVC fatalities in Indian areas (9).
The same study identified the availability of public safety
services in reservations as one of seven priority areas (9).
Additional research is needed to identify current reserva-
tion roadway safety trends, and most importantly to
explain them so that the most effective interventions may
be designed and implemented to improve safety and reduce
health disparities. When data collection for this study
began, less than 30 peer-reviewed research papers addressed
excess deaths from MVCs among American Indians. Most
studied the U.S. American Indian population as a whole
rather than reservation environments. These prior studies
provide several types of explanations for the high rates of
American Indian crash fatalities and injuries:
Individual behaviors that contribute to the ele-
vated crash risk, which include driving while
impaired by alcohol or drugs, lower rates of usage
of seat belts and child safety restraints by
American Indians, passengers riding in truck beds,
and traveling at an unsafe speed for the road con-
ditions (2, 3,10).
Engineering- and repair-related road condition fac-
tors, which emphasize inadequacies in traffic con-
trol devices, signage, road and intersection design,
lighting, road surface repair, mowing or plowing
for visibility, and ice or snow removal (1, 10–12).
Systemic issues relating to poverty, isolation, and
institutional capacity, which include unmet health
needs leading to impaired driving or medical
emergencies; aging vehicles or passenger crowding
associated with chronic and systemic poverty in
many reservation communities; limited or delayed
access to adequate emergency medical response;
lax law enforcement failing to discourage reckless
driving; poor road maintenance or enforcement
resulting from gaps or confusing overlaps in road
ownership and legal jurisdiction among multiple
governments (e.g., tribal, county, or state); and
the possibility that prohibiting alcohol sales on
reservations may lead residents to drive longer dis-
tances while impaired (1, 10, 13–16).
Tribal transportation leaders identify capacity
constraints (staffing levels, training or experience,
operational funding) on their ability to produce
and implement safety audits and plans. Previous
studies have found a need to build partnerships
and institutional capacity to enhance knowledge,
tools (e.g., road safety audits), and collaborations
to address tribal transportation safety needs (1,
17–20). In particular, coordination problems
among jurisdictions may impede timely EMS
response, enforcement, road engineering and
maintenance, and record-keeping to identify and
address key roadway safety concerns (21), whereas
productive collaboration is valuable for reducing
motor vehicle fatalities in reservations (22).
However, little empirical research has been done
on tribal governments and inter-jurisdictional
cooperation around any policy concern (23), and
roadway safety is no exception.
In addition, prior research makes clear that data quality
issues are a barrier to traditional data analysis methods for
examining crashes. Under-reporting of MVCs in tribal
lands and affecting American Indians anywhere is a well-
recognized problem (24, 25). Data issues include uneven
crash reporting in reservation lands, failure to relay MVC
deaths to statewide fatality accident reporting systems, and
missing pieces of potentially key information, for example
in relation to intoxication, the behavior of involved pedes-
trians, or street lighting conditions (2, 19,26,27). Even for
reported crashes, only about 90% of the reported crashes
on reservation land include race/ethnicity data (3), and
FARScoderswholackfamiliarity with locations often fail
to classify crash sites as occurring within a reservation (9).
Poor data quality impedes analyzing and addressing the
causes of safety concerns on roadways in reservations.
Explanations for poor data quality include limited human
resources for law enforcement (and thus limited crash
reporting) and crash data analysis in tribal governments,
lack of standardization in crash reporting, and a variety of
boundary issues in relationships between tribal govern-
ments and state governments (24).
Qualitative Research Methodology
Qualitative research methods were used because they are
particularly well-suited to analyzing people’s perceptions,
values, and preferences (28–31), which are especially rele-
vant kinds of data for understanding the behavioral
components of safety, such as how people assess and
respond to risk. Qualitative methods also complement
the studies just described by addressing some gaps or
shortcomings in MVC crash statistics and quantitative
approaches. Although qualitative methods are relatively
rarely used in roadway safety research, they are particu-
larly apt for analyzing organizational processes and
practices, which are important features of the context for
policy and program interventions to address safety. In
addition, expanded methodologies are needed to dis-
cover new sources of data. This study approach
Quick et al 3
generates three advantages: (a) qualitative methods gen-
erate new types of data to address data limitations from
more commonly used geospatial and statistical data; (b)
qualitative data complement and identify gaps in the
quantitative data sets through the addition of local
knowledge of road conditions and other risks; and (c)
qualitative data about different stakeholders’ perspec-
tives on these issues is a good starting point for dialog
and shared problem-solving to improve safety.
The data source for this study is the Tribal
Transportation Safety Data Survey conducted in 2016
(https://survey.max.gov/586164). The survey was done in
fulfillment of the FAST Act, passed in 2015, which man-
dated two studies on tribal transportation: on reserva-
tion roadway safety data quality issues and on the major
causes of roadway safety risk in reservations. The
FHWA’s Tribal Transportation Program developed the
survey with input from the Tribal Transportation Safety
Management System Steering Committee, and then dis-
tributed the survey and collated the data.
The survey was sent to all federally recognized tribal
governments, transportation leaders for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) offices, and safety engineers or tri-
bal liaisons for transportation departments of all U.S.
states where tribes are located. Respondents were asked
to participate through a web-based form, by completing
an email questionnaire, or by providing answers through
a phone call with staff from FHWA’s Tribal
Transportation Program. Tribal and state government
officials were asked to respond to a set of survey ques-
tions about their crash data collection, sharing, and use.
The survey and a subsequent analysis of the results were
presented in two reports to Congress developed by the
Federal Highway Administration (8, 32).
The responses received represented 151 tribal govern-
ments, primarily from tribal police, BIA law enforcement,
and tribal departments of transportation; 45 individuals
from 22 state governments also responded to the survey.
Every respondent was given a choice about whether to
complete each of four separate sections relating to crash
data collection (15 questions), crash data sharing (8 ques-
tions), safety data use (8 questions), and roadway (base
map) data. In addition, all questions were voluntary, and
variable responses were allowed by design because no indi-
vidual from any agency has the knowledge necessary to
answer questions regarding all aspects of safety. (At the
end of the survey, each participant was asked to identify
other individuals who could respond to the sections they
skipped.) If fewer than 12 responses were received for a
question, those data were not analyzed for this report.
Most prior research has relied heavily on quantitative
data and epidemiological analyses of patterns, which
identify key causal explanations for roadway fatalities
and injuries at an aggregate population level for the
entire American Indian and Alaskan Native population
of the United States. This is typical of an emerging
research topic, but presents several limitations (14), most
importantly the great heterogeneity within this group.
Such studies associate ethnicity and crashes without
looking at other features of the context, such as the
affected individuals’ socioeconomic status, educational
level, or access to health care. Collectively, these studies
offer an incomplete view of the dynamics occurring in
specific tribal communities and locations by neglecting
the heterogeneity and specificity of the policy, cultural,
or geospatial features of the problems and potential solu-
tions (2, 26).
Analyzing data from a diversity of perspectives
allowed the authors to triangulate among various inter-
pretations of the roadway safety risks (33, 34). We used
well-established methods for rigor in combining induc-
tive and deductive thematic coding and analysis (35). All
text-based survey responses relevant to a given topic
(e.g., data quality) were tagged (‘‘coded’’) for that topic,
and then all data tagged with that code were examined
to find patterns of convergence and divergence in the
data (31). We identified many of the thematic codes
deductively, meaning that we pre-identified categories to
analyze on the basis of prior discussions with practi-
tioners in the Tribal Transportation Program, literature
review, and the findings of a concurrent study (36). For
example, we started data analysis with codes for engi-
neering issues, enforcement issues, and statements about
the distinctive features of reservations. Conversely, we
inductively identified new themes when we saw a lot of
relevant content in the data, an example being the impor-
tance of coordination among jurisdictions.
Results: Tribal Governments’ Highest Areas
of Concern
There are 573 federally recognized tribes in the continen-
tal United States and Alaska (37). Their reservations are
diverse in relation to features that are expected to influ-
ence roadway safety, such as their terrain, resources,
inter-connection with other transportation networks,
weather conditions, and size. In Alaska, for example,
tribes do not have reservations, and roadways are not
viable means for transportation for much of the year, so
native community leaders often need to remind national
policy makers of the importance of airstrips and other
non-road infrastructure to connect them with cities and
services (38). Despite the great cultural, geographic, and
institutional diversity among tribes and their reserva-
tions, however, the survey found several strong conver-
gences in areas of concerns, opportunities, and needs.
The first question was open-ended: What are your pri-
mary concerns related to transportation safety for your
4Transportation Research Record 00(0)
tribe? These responses are telling because they were what
tribal government representatives identified in their own
terms as their top-of-mind concerns regarding roadway
safety. Figure 1 is a word cloud representing the fre-
quency of issues named by survey respondents from tri-
bal governments. To create it, the researchers read all
responses to this open-ended question and simplified like
terms into common terms. For example, responses refer-
encing drunk driving, impairment, drinking and driving,
impaired driving, drugged driving, DUI, and DWI were
all categorized as ‘‘impaired driving.’’
In a subsequent question, respondents were asked to
select their top concerns from a menu of the key road-
way safety risks for American Indians and Alaska
Natives and for reservation environments. The selection
options were predetermined by a group of tribal trans-
portation safety leaders and scholars and practitioners
with whom FHWA consulted. Respondents were asked
to select their top three concerns; some selected more or
less than three, so each individual respondent’s selected
concerns were re-weighted to amount to a total of three
points per respondent. The cumulative total of all
weighted responses (ranked by frequency in Figure 2) are
consistent with the top four factors identified in the
NHTSA analysis of the 2011 to 2015 FARS data on all
American Indian MVC fatalities (5): namely lack of
proper seatbelt or car seat use, impairment, speeding,
and being a pedestrian (Table 1).
Tribal leaders’ initial, open-ended responses and their
selection of top priorities from the pre-set menu align
closely. This is positive because it suggests that the previ-
ously existing understandings expressed by policy leaders
and found in the research literature do closely parallel
the perceptions of transportation safety leaders with the
most intimate knowledge of the conditions in their reser-
vations. From these two ways of asking the question,
several high-priority areas emerged with a high level of
consistency: road engineering and repair (road design,
maintenance, signage, and lighting), driver behavior
(impaired driving, speeding, and distracted driving), vul-
nerable roadway users (pedestrians, cyclists, children),
and restraint use (seatbelt or car seat) (Table 2).
Results: Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination
Issues
State governments participated in a national survey
about tribal transportation that was issued at the same
time. Altogether, there were 45 respondents from 22
states, almost exclusively from state transportation agen-
cies (not, for example, from health or law enforcement
agencies). The focus of the survey of states was commu-
nication with tribes, state–tribal crash data sharing, and
coordination of assistance available to tribes for data
Figure 1. Word cloud of frequency of tribal governments’
self-identified roadway safety priorities.
Figure 2. Ranking of tribal governments’ concerns from a menu
of roadway safety issues.
Quick et al 5
analysis and safety improvements. To be clear, the states
were not asked the question that tribes answered about
the highest priority roadway safety concerns in reserva-
tions. Thus, the useful insights to be gleaned from the
data from the state government respondents relate to
processes and quality of relationships between state and
tribal governments generally, as well as to issues of data
quality and data sharing in particular.
State Reports of their Processes and Relationships for
Working with Tribes
Approximately half of the state respondents (49%) have
a standard method or process for state agency/tribal
interactions. The most common structure described by
states was having a designated tribal liaison between the
state transportation agency and tribes. When asked,
‘‘Please rate the government-to-government relationship
and communication between your state agency and the
majority of tribes in your state,’’ the mean response was
a 3.3 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being most positive.
Analysis of the responses to open-ended questions in the
survey reveals that the attention to tribal land concerns
seems to be passive. Several respondents provided
responses similar to the following comments:
Yes, we provide data or guidance, or cooperate on a project
when asked, just like with any other jurisdiction.
The tribes can always ask for data, guidance, or partnership
and we will respond.
Generally, the states do not make a point of using the
data to assess or inform needs and policy development
for tribal areas, except as included in statewide assess-
ments. Most do not routinely share data back with
tribes, although most respondents indicated that this
Table 2. Highest Roadway Safety Priorities Identified By Tribal Governments in National Survey (Number in Parentheses is Number of
Respondents Naming the Issue)
Area of concern
Tribal government responses to open-ended
question about priority concerns
Tribal governments’ prioritization of
predetermined options
Consistently very high priorities
Road quality (engineering
and repair)
Road maintenance and repair (34)
Roadway engineering (27)
Signage (15)
Lighting (9)
Dust control (5)
1st most frequently selected as top priority:
Road infrastructure (curves, ditches, surface
conditions, lighting)
3rd most frequent: Road maintenance problems
Driver behavior Impaired driving (23)
Speeding (19)
Distracted driving (7)
Unlicensed driving (7)
Need more driver safety education (5)
1st most frequent: Speeding or reckless driving,
impaired driving, or distracted driving
Vulnerable roadway users Pedestrians (23)
Bicyclists (8)
Children traveling to school (5)
All-terrain vehicle users (5)
Child seat use (8)
4th most frequent: Inadequate pedestrian
facilities
Restraint use (seatbelts,
car seats)
Seatbelt use, adult or child (22)
Child seat use (8)
3rd most frequent: Seatbelt use and/or child
seats not properly used
High priorities
Inter-jurisdictional
coordination (tribal,
federal, state, local
governments)
Data consistency and sharing (20)
Other coordination issues: competing and
misaligned priorities, challenges to
sovereignty, conflicts or overlaps in
enforcement; and communication (12)
Not frequently selected as a top priority
Law enforcement Lack of complete safety laws, laws not being
enforced, or inadequate resources for law
enforcement activities (15)
5th most frequent top prior
Inconsistently or infrequently named priorities
Resource constraints General budget shortfalls (8)
Inadequate maintenance equipment and law
enforcement resources (10)
Not applicable. This was not one of the pre-set
options provided for selection.
Emergency response Poor response time or quality (8) Not frequently selected as top priority
Other Animals on road (1)
Dust control (1)
Traffic congestion or volume (2)
Occasionally selected: Animals on road; Drivers
not familiar with reservation conditions; Old
or poorly maintained vehicles; Long travel
distances; or Traffic congestion
6Transportation Research Record 00(0)
could be requested. Only 40% of respondents indicated
that their state does any specific crash data analysis to
evaluate tribal areas. In part, this may be because the
data are too sparse to be very illuminating; as one state
respondent explained: ‘‘So few reports are submitted it’s
hard to do any analysis. If more were submitted [we]
would be happy to do this.’’
Poor Recognition of Tribes’ Special Status
Frequently, the responding state government representa-
tives did not seem to recognize the special status of tribes.
One quarter of state respondents made statements to the
effect of working with tribes ‘‘like any other local unit of
government.’’ Here are two such statements, from state
engineering departments in two different states:
We accept and have funded HSIP improvements for local
jurisdictions within the state. Tribal entities would/have
received the same support.
We consider the tribal government just like a county or city
government and will help them with the HSIP process and
solutions.
These statements are positive in the sense that they
express a desire to provide resources to tribes to support
them. However, given the sovereign status of tribes (39),
it is inappropriate to equate tribes with local govern-
ments, especially given the nested hierarchy of
authority—with state government being more senior—
implied by the local–state relationship comparison. In
one promising recent development, the State of
California has introduced a tribal set-aside in its
Highway Safety Improvement Program (40), and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation leads training
for all state agencies on tribal sovereignty (36).
Other state respondents were well aware of tribal
sovereignty. Several brought it up while responding to an
open-ended question about ‘‘barriers that prevent tribal
law enforcement from sharing their crash data with the
state.’’ Some state respondents expressed their opinion
that tribes do not want to share data to ‘‘protect data sen-
sitive to the tribes,’’ so that states manage data to main-
tain boundaries and confidentiality ‘‘due to tribal
sovereignty concerns.’’ Several expressed that they do not
want to have their state make decisions about actions to
take (issuing tickets, revoking licenses) on licenses issued
by tribal governments because of sovereignty concerns.
We do not have enough data to conclude why there is
inadequate recognition of tribes’ special status.
Responses implied that there are a variety of underlying
reasons, including that state governments are ignorant of
sovereignty or that they are nervous about misinterpret-
ing it and overstepping their roles.
Tribe-State Data Sharing and Quality
From the state side, despite the anxieties just stated in
relation to respecting boundaries on data confidentiality,
respondents expressed a desire to build capacity for bet-
ter data collection, data management, and data sharing.
One respondent used the optional space for extra com-
ments at the end of the survey to emphasize arguments
for better information exchange:
This is a very big need for our tribal agencies and our colla-
boration and information sharing. I have worked to gain
this information for over 14 years with little success. This
survey gives me hope that changes could occur to improve
our crash data collection and analysis with our tribal part-
ners. They want to do this but have been limited by the
BIA. Regular communication with our tribal agencies is key
to continuing our improvements within the tribal nations
areas.
States’ assessment was that sharing of crash data is
generally poor, although at least half of the state respon-
dents asserted that they have communicated with tribes
about the benefits of mutually sharing crash data. Some
explained the failure to communicate with arguments
that tribes are ‘‘not interested in sharing crash data,’’ or
‘‘do not collect crash data that is usable,’’ or have data
that is ‘‘not fully accurate.’’
Others attributed data sharing issues not to a lack of
will, but rather to limited capacity. Some stated that many
of the same tribes who do not have usable data are in
favor of collecting and sharing it but are ‘‘hampered with
no equipment and limited staff.’’ Another elaborated:
Based upon comments shared from tribal officials, it was
noted that the one major barrier to improving tribal crash
data sharing is the lack of funding to enable tribal law
enforcement agencies to increase their staffing and hard-
ware/equipment capacity to carry out use of the software
and data sharing/analysis processes.
Summary of Key Insights
Many of our results confirm previous research. There is
value in testing prior findings through the data sources
introduced here, particularly to the extent that qualita-
tive data provides new perspectives (33). Given the previ-
ously documented issues with the quality of MVC data
from reservations, it is particularly important to collect
data from people with the most intimate knowledge of
reservation conditions, to round out the picture with bet-
ter information. Moreover, we find high convergence
among respondents, which is an important condition for
rigor in presenting findings from qualitative studies (34).
Analysis of ranking information from the tribes,
responses to open-ended questions asked of the tribes
Quick et al 7
and states, and previously published literature leads us
to the following six key insights:
1. Confirmation of the priority of road quality engi-
neering and repair as an extremely high-priority
concern among tribes nationwide. This affirms the
continuing importance of federal and state pro-
grams to fund roadway infrastructure improve-
ments and repair in American Indian reservations.
2. Confirmation of the priority of driver behavior
and education. Reckless driving (speeding,
impaired driving, and distracted driving) was the
single most frequently raised concern among tribal
government respondents, closely followed by seat-
belt and child car seat use (third most frequent).
3. Confirmation of the priority of improving data
quality. In the opening pages we summarized
numerous previous studies that identified data
quality concerns, and a 2014 NCHRP study rec-
ommended numerous steps to improve tribal crash
reporting (24). Our study finds that states and
tribes share a desire to improve connections for
data sharing to support analysis and problem-sol-
ving, and furthermore that both tribes and states
agree that tribes need more resources to have the
capacity to document, share, and analyze data.
4. Emerging concern about vulnerable road users,
especially pedestrian safety. The Tribal
Transportation Safety Management System
Steering Committee’s Tribal Transportation
Strategic Safety Plan identified pedestrian safety as
one of seven priority areas (9). There has been rela-
tively little previously published research to indi-
cate that this is a high priority in reservations, but
it was by far the most prominent concern of parti-
cipants in a recent study of four Minnesota reser-
vations (36). In our study, ‘‘Inadequate pedestrian
facilities’’ was the fourth most frequently identified
concern among tribal government respondents.
5. Emerging concern about gaps in tribe-state inter-
jurisdictional relationships. The quality of rela-
tionships among different functional areas (e.g.,
engineering, enforcement, education, EMS) and
among different units of government (e.g., tribe,
state, and county) is critically important for
addressing roadway safety concerns in tribal
areas (41). Our study found that tribal govern-
ments both find these relationships important
and experience serious gaps and barriers in these
relationships. We also found that state respon-
dents are open to improving these relationships
(although we hesitate to interpret this as a finding
applicable to all states because of the selection
bias of those who chose to respond to a survey on
this topic). We also found that numerous state
respondents do not understand tribes’ special sta-
tus in that they often describe them as if they were
local governments rather than sovereign nations.
6. Emerging concern about EMS response, includ-
ing ambulance services and medical treatment for
crash victims. Improving EMS response to
crashes was identified as one of seven priority
areas in the Tribal Transportation Strategic
Safety Plan (9) and as one of five emphasis areas
in the subsequent FHWA report to Congress:
Options for Improving Transportation Safety in
Tribal Areas (32). The California Tribal Road
Safety Data Project has gathered data to suggest
EMS response is a concern (25), but relatively lit-
tle work has been done on this topic, which there-
fore seems to merit additional study. In our
study, among the 150 tribal government respon-
dents, 18% identified ‘‘slow emergency response
time’’ as one of their top three concerns.
Next Steps
Placing the findings of this study in the content of previ-
ous research and current practice, we recommend the fol-
lowing next steps:
1. Tribal governments are developing safety plans.
Development and continual update of tribal
transportation safety plans should continue, dri-
ven by the best data available and input from a
diverse array of stakeholders (enforcement, engi-
neering, education, EMS, and tribal leadership).
Where data quality is an issue, we recommend
that tribes consider formal procedures for con-
ducting systemic studies and evaluating counter-
measures. We also recommend that tribes review
the priorities listed above to determine whether
they should assess these topics in their reserva-
tions and address them in their safety plans.
2. Concerns about data quality are longstanding and
widespread. We recommend further work on data
quality improvement, particularly through deploy-
ment of the NCHRP Guide to Effective Tribal
Crash Reporting (24) and additional resource allo-
cations for tribes for data documentation, sharing,
and analysis. We also recommend that states and
tribes review the findings of this study to help
identify and address some barriers to data sharing.
3. The lack of a consistent definition of ‘‘tribal
lands,’’ discussed in the opening paragraphs of this
paper, has real consequences for recognizing the
full nature and extent of safety issues and for coor-
dinating action. We recommend a discussion
8Transportation Research Record 00(0)
among tribal governments, other transportation
safety professionals, and scholars to generate some
shared guidelines for identifying the areas of inter-
est (and subsequently then the roads of interest) to
tribal governments and American Indian or
Alaskan Native communities.
4. The combination of the needs documented
through this study and documented issues with
data quality lead us to recommend that states
reconsider how they allocate state safety funds to
tribes. Having tribes and local public agencies
compete may not be appropriate both because of
tribes’ special status and because of data gaps
(e.g., unreported MVCs, failure to categorize
MVCs as occurring on reservations, etc.)
5. To investigate emerging concerns about roadway
safety in tribal areas, we recommend that existing
data be reexamined or new data sources be devel-
oped, using qualitative as well as quantitative
methods. This is particularly true in four areas.
The first two are priorities identified in prior stud-
ies and confirmed by the respondents to our sur-
vey, namely: a) pedestrian safety and b) EMS
response. In addition, we recommend further
study of c) roadway departures, which the Tribal
Transportation Safety Management System
Steering Committee identified as a factor in 63%
of MVC fatalities in tribal areas (9), and d) nonfa-
tal crashes, to better understand the transporta-
tion safety risks facing tribal areas. In all of these
areas, we recommend further study to discern pat-
terns and identify any key areas of concern relat-
ing to the incidence, causes, and consequences of
these roadway safety issues in reservations.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the individuals who responded to the
survey. We appreciate the generosity of the Tribal
Transportation Safety Management System Steering
Committee in sharing their knowledge and time in helping to
develop the scope of the study, proposing questions for the sur-
vey, and encouraging potential survey respondents to partici-
pate. The study would not have been possible without FHWA
resources—particularly management time and software—to
develop the survey, collate the data, and write up the two
reports to Congress (8, 32). The authors thank an anonymous,
external peer reviewer for helpful comments on a preliminary
version of some of this data analysis, which was part of a
related report (36) and eight reviewers who provided useful sug-
gestions and critiques on the original submission of this manu-
script. Three University of Minnesota graduate students were
involved: Brynn Saunders and Sara Dufour assisted with the
literature review and Ben Gronowski helped with copy editing.
Quick and Narva
´ez applied part of FHWA UTC grant
DTRT13-G-UTC35 toward data analysis and writing time.
Author Contributions
The authors confirm contributions to the paper as follows:
study conception and design: AL, KQ, GN; data collection:
AL; analysis and interpretation of survey results: KQ; draft
manuscript preparation and coordination of revisions: KQ. All
authors reviewed the results, participated in revising the paper,
and approved the final version of the manuscript.
References
1. Raynault, E., B. Crowe, and C. N. Ngo. Selected Exam-
ples of Tribal Road Safety Audits (RSAs) in The United
States. Presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the Transpor-
tation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.
2. Pollack, K. M., S. Frattaroli, J. L. Young, G. Dana-Sacco,
and A. C. Gielen. Motor Vehicle Deaths among American
Indian and Alaska Native Populations. Epidemiologic
Reviews, Vol. 34, 2012, pp. 73–88.
3. Poindexter, K. Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes on Indian
Reservations 1975-2002. DOT HS 809 727. NHTSA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 2004.
4. Shinstine, D., and K. Ksaibati. Indian Reservation Safety
Improvement Program: A Methodology and Case Study.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, 2013. 2364: 80–89.
5. National Highway Traffic Safety Agency. Native American
Traffic Safety Facts, Based upon FARS 2011-2015 Data.
https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/NA_report/NA_Report.htm. Accessed
December 9, 2017.
6. Norris, T., P. L. Vines, and E. M. Hoeffel. The American
Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010. US Depart-
ment of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administra-
tion, U.S. Census Bureau, 2012.
7. Li, Y., and T. Bhagavathula. Data Book for the Indian
Nations. Volume 1: Total Fatalities (2009-2014). NHTSA,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 2016.
8. Report to Congress: Tribal Governments and Transportation
Safety Data. https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ttp/safety/
safety-reports.htm. Office of Tribal Transportation, Fed-
eral Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, 2017.
9. Tribal Transportation Safety Management System Steering
Committee. National Tribal Transportation Safety Plan,
2017. http://www.TribalSafety.org/SMS/Reports.
10. Grossman, D. C., J. R. Sugarman, C. Fox, and J. Moran.
Motor-Vehicle Crash-Injury Risk Factors among Ameri-
can Indians. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, No.
3, 1997, pp. 313–319.
11. Michalek, A. M., M. C. Mahoney, G. Buck, and R. Sny-
der. Mortality Patterns among the Young of a Northeast-
ern American Indian Cohort. Public Health Reports in
Brief, Vol. 108, No. 3, 1993, pp. 403–407.
12. LaValley, J., C. S. Crandall, L. Banks, D. P. Sklar, and L.
Boodlal. Rural and Urban Fatal Pedestrian Crashes among
United States American Indian and Alaskan Natives.
Annual Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement
of Automotive Medicine, Vol. 47, 2003, pp. 127–143.
13. Gallaher, M. M., D. W. Fleming, L. R. Berger, and C. M.
Sewell. Pedestrian and Hypothermia Deaths among Native
Quick et al 9
Americans in New Mexico. Journal of the American Medi-
cal Association, Vol. 267, No. 10, 1993, pp. 1345–1348.
14. Andrew, M. M., and S. A. Krouse. Research on Excess
Deaths among American Indians and Alaska Natives: A
Critical Review. Journal of Cultural Diversity, Vol. 2, No.
1, 1995, pp. 8–15.
15. Phelan, K. J., J. Khoury, D. C. Grossman, D. Hu, L. J.
Wallace, N. Bill, and H. Kalkwarf. Pediatric Motor Vehi-
cle Related Injuries in the Navajo Nation: The Impact of
the 1988 Child Occupant Restraint Laws. Injury Preven-
tion, Vol. 8, 2002, pp. 216–220.
16. Johnson, S., C. Kao, and C. C. Korenbrot. Disparities in
Deaths for American Indian and Alaska Natives who Use
Tribal Health Programs. California Tribal Epidemiology
Center: American Indian Health in California Report Series,
Vol. 1, 2006, pp. 1–38.
17. Fleming, S., and C. Strong. Tribal Transportation and
Safety Improvement Project: A Road to Improved Living -
Needs Assessment Survey. Western Transportation Insti-
tute, Bozeman, Mont., 2000.
18. Zaloshnja, E., T. R. Miller, M. S. Galbraith, B. A. Lawr-
ence, L. M. DeBruyn, N. Bill, K. R. Hicks, M. Keiffer, and
R. Perkins. Reducing Injuries among Native Americans:
Five Cost-Outcome Analyses. Accident Analysis and Pre-
vention, Vol. 35, 2003, pp. 630–639.
19. Bailey, L., and D. Huft. Improving Crash Reporting: Study
of Crash Reporting Practice on Nine Indian Reservations.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, 2008. 2078: 72–79.
20. Sequist, T. D., T. Cullen, and K. J. Acton. Indian Health
Service Innovations Have Helped Reduce Health Dispari-
ties Affecting American Indian and Alaska Native People.
Health Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 10, 2011, pp. 1965–1973.
21. Fleisher, A., M. L. Wier, and M. Hunter. A Vision for
Transportation Safety: Framework for Identifying Best
Practice Strategies to Advance Vision Zero. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2016. 2582: 72–86.
22. Letourneau, R. J., and C. E. Crump. Tribal Motor Vehicle
Injury Prevention: Best Practices Guide. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga., 2016.
23. Ronquillo, J. C. American Indian Tribal Governance and
Management: Public Administration Promise or Pretense?
Public Administration Review, Vol. 71, No. 2, 2011,
pp. 285–292.
24. Noyce, D. A., Z. Li, K. Chesnik, A. Macy, and X. Qin.
NCHRP Report 788: Guide for Effective Tribal Crash
Reporting. National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C., 2014.
25. Ragland, D. SafeTREC California Tribal Road Safety Data
Project. Presented at 94th Annual Meeting of the Transpor-
tation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
26. Romano, E., J. C. Fell, and R. B. Voas. The Role of Race
and Ethnicity on the Effect of Graduated Driver Licensing
Laws in the United States. Annual Proceedings of the Asso-
ciation for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Vol.
55, 2011, pp. 51–61.
27. Banerji, A., and Inuit and Me
´tis Health Committee. Pre-
venting Unintentional Injuries in Indigenous Children and
Youth in Canada. Paediatrics and Child Health, Vol. 17,
No. 7, 2012, p. 393.
28. Agar, M. H. The Professional Stranger: An Informal Intro-
duction to Ethnography. Academic Press, San Diego, Calif.,
1980.
29. Bernard, H. R. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualita-
tive and Quantitative Approaches, 6th ed. Rowman and Lit-
tlefield, London, 2018.
30. Feldman, M. S. Strategies for Interpreting Qualitative Data.
SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif., 1995.
31. Hennink, M., I. Hutter, and A. Bailey. Qualitative Research
Methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif.,
2010.
32. Report to Congress: Options for Improving Transportation
Safety in Tribal Areas. Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation. https://flh.fhwa.dot.
gov/programs/ttp/safety/safety-reports.htm. Accessed Jan-
uary 22, 2018
33. Jick, T. D. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods:
Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 24, No. 4, 1979, pp. 602–611.
34. Altheide, D. L., and J. M. Johnson. Criteria for Assessing
Interpretive Validity in Qualitative Research. In Handbook
of Qualitative Research (N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lindon,
eds.), SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1994,
pp. 485–499.
35. Fereday, J., and E. Muir-Cochrane. Demonstrating Rigor
Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive
and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. Interna-
tional Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006,
pp. 80–92.
36. Quick, K. S., and G. E. Narva
´ez. Understanding Roadway
Safety in American Indian Reservations: Perceptions and
Management of Risk by Community, Tribal Governments,
and Other Safety Leaders. Roadway Safety Institute, Uni-
versity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 2018.
37. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indian Entities Recognized and
Eligible to Receive Services from the United States Bureau
of Indian Affairs. Code of Federal Regulations, 2018,
pp. 4235–4241.
38. US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Oversight Hearing
to Receive Testimony on Tribal Transportation: Pathways to
Infrastructure and Economic Development in Indian Coun-
try. 2014.
39. Anderson, R. T., B. R. Berger, S. Krakoff, and P. P.
Frickey. American Indian Law: Cases and Commentary.
3rd ed. West Academic, St Paul, Minn., 2015.
40. Caltrans Division of Local Assistance. HSIP Cycle 9 Call
for Projects. dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/HSIP/apply_
nowHSIP.htm. Accessed April 30, 2018.
41. Terrill, T. T., and K. Ksaibati. Investigating Challenges
Affecting the 4Es of Transportation Safety on the Fort
Peck Reservation. Presented at 96th Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
2017.
The Standing Committee on Native American Transportation
Issues (ABE80) peer-reviewed this paper (19-03726).
10 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
