HIGHWAY SAFETY IN BLACK/AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITIES:
ISSUES AND STRATEGIES

Project Methodology

This section of the report describes the methodological procedures used to conduct the research and includes three distinct subsections:

• the approach used to select the six research communities;
  
  
• demographic and economic profiles of the six communities; and
  
  
• the field research methodology, including the design and recruiting of the focus groups, the one-on-one discussion process, and other pertinent background information.
  
  

Site Selection Process
The reason for conducting the research in six different communities was to capture the diversity of opinions and perceptions of various market segments within the American Black population. Therefore, the selection of research sites was a very important step in the process. It was important to identify six communities that in combination would provide a diverse but representative sample of economic, demographic, and social environments. In light of this requirement, significant effort was expended to locate an optimal combination of communities.

The site selection process involved five distinct steps:

STEP 1: Identify and classify available community-descriptive data;

STEP 2: Identify data measures (and non quantitative measures) to be considered;

STEP 3: Develop a sampling or optimization methodology to support the selection of the best combination of sites;

STEP 4: Select six sites using the processes and data developed in Steps 1 through 3; and

STEP 5: Manually review the six sites to ensure their reasonable fit with the goals of the research.

Step 1: Identify and Classify Available Data
The study team canvassed a number of data sources to identify measures that could be used to describe local communities. Upon beginning this process, two criteria were defined: the data must be comprehensive and consistently defined across the U.S.

This limited the search to Federal data sources, since the availability and consistency of State, local, and private data sources vary widely. Additionally, data sets varied by geographical level; different data (and less data) were available for cities and Zip Codes, compared to counties and States. Upon considering the amount of data available, along with practical issues such as the population pool needed to recruit for focus groups, it was determined that a county-level geography was most appropriate for the selection process. This geographic criterion offered the best tradeoff between small-area targeting and the size necessary to recruit a sufficient number of focus group participants.

County-level data were gathered from numerous sources, including the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Uniform Crime Reporting System, and private demographic sales organizations. State level data were collected from NHTSA sources.

Step 2: Identify Appropriate Data Measures for Site Selection
After gathering and identifying a large number of available data measures, the study team identified 19 particular measures that, in combination, provide a strong description of a county's particular demographic, economic, and social elements. These 19 measures are listed below.

Step 3: Develop Algorithm to Select Sites
Using a mathematical modeling algorithm that incorporates the 19 data measures, the team set up a series of 22 rules that, if satisfied, would identify the "perfect" combination of counties. The team then developed and implemented a linear programming optimization model to identify the set of counties that came closest to meeting this ideal. For a detailed description of the 22 rules for selecting counties see Appendix A.

Step 4: Implement Optimization Model to Select Sites
The study team developed a linear programming model to optimize the site selection process. The linear programming model converted the rules into mathematical equations and defined an error term to quantify how close a particular combination of six communities came to satisfying all 22 rules.

As an additional factor, each rule was given a different weighting in the model, based on rankings assigned by the study team in consultation with NHTSA staff. Some rules were incontrovertible, such as the rule regarding diversity of community sizes. Other rules were given high importance, such as the rule regarding diversity of the Black proportion of the population and diversity of incomes. Other rules were given low importance, such as the diversity of home ownership rates.

The odds against a particular group of six counties perfectly satisfying all rules were astronomical, so the exercise concentrated on finding the combination that produced the smallest deviation from the theoretically "perfect" combination. Additionally, the mathematical model was so large, and the data sets so numerous, that standard linear programming software could not accommodate the model, so the study team used an iterative approach to eliminate candidate counties until the full model could be run. More information about this process can be obtained by contacting the study team.

Using this system, the study team identified a number of county combinations that came close to satisfying all constraints.

Step 5: Manually Review Identified Sites
The theoretically optimum set of counties, along with backup sites, was submitted to NHTSA headquarters and regional staff for review, and was also reviewed by all members of the study team. The sites were reviewed for any unique situations that might cause the research to be skewed (e.g., strong programs already in place to promote traffic safety issues in the Black community; the presence of unique, high profile institutions such as historically Black colleges or universities; or the presence of other features that would render a community atypical). Adjustments were made as necessary, and backup sites were selected where necessary.

Profiles of Selected Sites

The six sites selected were:

Berkeley County, SC is on the rural outskirts of Charleston, SC, with a population of 142,000, of whom 35,000 are Blacks. While the county is physically large, much of its north and west sections are undeveloped, with most of the population concentrated in the southern half of the county near Charleston and north along Interstate 26 and State Highway 52. The county has below-average income and education levels and above-average growth, with a concentration in manufacturing jobs. Berkeley County was selected because it is a midsized southern community with high growth, high home ownership rates, a manufacturing economy, and low crime rates.

Cook County, IL has a Black population of 1.4 million, densely situated in areas ranging from urban to suburban, but primarily metropolitan-based since it is the core county of the Chicago metropolitan area. Overall, Cook County has a racially diverse population. This location offers a diverse range of conditions according to the study team's 17 key measurements, although incomes and educational levels for Blacks in this area generally rank near the national average. There also is a very strong base of Black leadership and community-based activism. Cook County, and Chicago in particular, was selected because of its large, diverse population in a major urban setting with a service economy. One out of every 25 Black people in the U.S. lives in Cook County.

Jackson County, MO is the core county for the Kansas City metropolitan area and is relatively representative of the Black presence in midsized cities. Of the total population of 650,000, approximately 25 percent are Black. The county has a strong lower middle class, with a larger than average proportion of low-income households, but a smaller than average proportion of households below the poverty threshold. The crime rate is particularly high. Blacks are only about half as likely to have a college degree as members of other races in the county, and only about half as likely to have above-average household incomes. Jackson County was selected because it is a good example of a low-income, high-crime, midsized metropolitan core. It is a typical "enclave" or isolated Black community in the western/midwestern U.S.

Middlesex County, NJ is an urban/suburban county with a Black population of approximately 66,000. New Jersey has 10 counties with Black populations within the 48,000 to 103,000 range, many of which are strikingly similar in their demographic and economic profiles. Each of these counties is characterized by above-average income and education levels and offers a diversified economy fueled primarily by manufacturing and service industries. Blacks tend not to be concentrated in urban areas, but are found in enclave communities among a primarily majority population. Middlesex County was selected because it is a high-income exurb of a major northeastern megalopolis with a low proportion of Blacks, yet with few disparities in income and education levels between Blacks and other groups.

Oktibbeha County, MS is a rural area where 14,690 Blacks reside among an overall population of nearly 40,000, in an environment typically known as "small-town America." This site was selected because of the relatively high number of minorities in the area; the general separation from a major metropolitan center; and the interesting mix of factors, including a high crime rate, a large proportion of jobs in the government sector, and a high number of households with children. The county is largely family-oriented, with significant income and education disparities between Blacks and other groups, and a high poverty rate. Because Blacks make up more than one-third of the county population, there is a high probability of strong community vitality, although largely "rural" in style and content. Oktibbeha is roughly prototypical of the rural and small-town counties that are home to approximately 5.8 million Blacks, the majority of whom live in the southern U.S.

Prince George's County, MD is a densely populated urban/suburban area in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Of its 780,000 residents, more than 450,000 are Black, thereby constituting a very concentrated Black community. It is a relatively high-income area, albeit with relatively slow economic growth, and has an above-average concentration of government workers. Blacks in Prince George's County tend to experience fewer disparities in income and education levels relative to other races than is seen in most areas of the country. The county has below-average crime levels and an above-average presence of families with children. Prince George's County was selected because it is a suburb of a large southern metropolitan area, with a high-income, highly concentrated Black population. In addition, Maryland has a standard seat belt law and is close to NHTSA headquarters, which facilitates project monitoring.

Exhibit 3
Black Population by Region and Sample County Statistics

d

Berkeley County, SC Cook County, IL Jackson County, MO Middlesex County, NJ Oktibbeha County, MS Prince George’s County, MD Rural outskirts of Charleston Core county of Chicago Core county of Kansas City Central New Jersey, New York exurb Rural east-central Mississippi Suburb of Washington, D.C. Black Population (1999) 35,132 1,395,700 164,073 66,016 14,690 454,871 Black Population (%) 24.7 26.9 25.1 9.2 36.9 58.2 Type of Black Community: Midsized Southern community, high growth, manufacturing economy, high home ownership rates, low crime rates. Large, diverse population in major urban megalopolis, above average incomes, service economy. Low-income, high-crime core of midsized city. Typical “enclave,” isolated Black urban community in West/Midwest. Exurb of major Northeast megalopolis, low proportion of Black population, high income, few disparities in income and education between Blacks and other groups. Small Southern town with a large Black presence, family-oriented, large income and education disparities between Blacks and other groups, high poverty rate. Suburb of large Southern metro area, high income, concentrated Black population, standard State seat belt law in place.

Full profiles of each selected county are presented in the following table:

Exhibit 4
Sample County Profiles

County Profiles	Berkeley County, SC	Cook County, IL	Jackson County, MO	Middlesex County, NJ	Oktibbeha County, MS	Prince George’s County, MD
Residents ages 25 or older with college degree (2000) (%)	22.83 Well below average	33.40 Above average	30.09 Below average	36.89 Well above average	44.31 Top tier	35.61 Well above average
Median income (all residents) (2000) ($)	38,046 Below average	47,283 Well above average	38,357 Below average	64,179 Top tier	29,498 Bottom tier	58,535 Top tier
Population in any minority group (1999) (%)	27.9 Above average	32.2 Above average	27.0 Below average	20.3 Well below average	40.6 Well above average	63.3 Top tier
Overall population (1999)	142,300 Well below average	5,192,326 Top tier	654,484 Above average	717,949 Above average	39,765 Bottom tier	781,781 Well above average
Population change (1990–1999) (%)	10.6 Well above average	1.7 Well below average	3.4 Below average	6.9 Above average	3.6 Below average	8.2 Above average
Black population (1999)	35,132 Well below average	1,395,700 Top tier	164,073 Above average	66,016 Below average	14,690 Bottom tier	454,871 Well above average
Change in Black population (1990–1999) (%)	12.8 Above average	5.1 Well below average	20.4 Well above average	18.2 Above average	11.4 Below average	22.8 Well above average
Black population (1999) (%)	24.7 Above average	26.9 Above average	25.1 Above average	9.2 Bottom tier	36.9 Well above average	58.2 Top tier
Jobs in service sector (1998) (%)	20.69 Bottom tier	35.11 Well above average	32.52 Above average	31.75 Below average	17.79 Bottom tier	30.60 Below average
Jobs in manufacturing sector (1998) (%)	18.07 Top tier	13.08 Above average	9.86 Below average	14.20 Well above average	11.95 Above average	3.29 Bottom tier
Jobs in military sector (1998) (%)	1.91 Top tier	0.37 Bottom tier	0.68 Above average	0.40 Bottom tier	1.30 Well above average	2.39 Top tier
Jobs in government sector (nonmilitary) (1998) (%)	16.32 Well above average	10.37 Well below average	12.77 Above average	11.08 Below average	38.35 Top tier	19.49 Top tier
Employment Growth (1989–1998) (%)	23.35 Well above average	5.77 Well below average	6.33 Well below average	11.73 Below average	17.97 Above average	7. 28 Below average
Total reported crimes per 10,000 residents (1997)	72.5 Well below average	111.5 Below average	209.4 Top tier	68.8 Bottom tier	120.7 Above average	97.2 Below average
Ratio of Blacks with college degrees to other races with college degrees (1990)	0.604 Above average	0.559 Below average	0.582 Above average	0.822 Top tier	0.266 Bottom tier	0.729 Well above average
Ratio of households with incomes of $35,000 or more - Black versus all other (1990)	0.509 Below average	0.580 Above average	0.555 Below average	0.849 Top tier	0.379 Bottom tier	0.900 Top tier
Proportion of all households below the poverty line (1996) (%)	14.1 Below average	14.7 Below average	14.9 Below average	5.8 Bottom tier	23.4 Top tier	8.1 Bottom tier
Black households with children (1990) (%)	48.56 Top tier	37.89 Well below average	39.74 Below average	39.16 Below average	49.28 Top tier	42.07 Above average
Housing units occupied by owners (1990) (%)	66.36 Well above average	53.16 Well below average	56.32 Below average	65.88 Well above average	56.71 Below average	57.67 Below average
Geographic region (as defined by U.S. Bureau of the Census)*	South	Midwest	Midwest	Northeast	South	South
Seat belt law in place	Secondary	Secondary	Secondary	Standard	Secondary	Standard
Crash fatality rate per 10,000 residents (State) (1999)	2.741 Top tier	1.200 Well below average	2.001 Well above average	0.893 Bottom tier	3.348 Top tier	1.141 Well below average

*Note: No counties were selected from the Western region because fewer than 10 percent of the population is Black.

Field Research Methodology
Upon selection of the sites and approval from both NHTSA headquarters and the relevant NHTSA regional offices, the field research began. The field research had two phases: one-on-one discussions with key individuals in each community, and focus groups in each community. The general process for conducting this research is presented in the following pages. The process is presented in approximate chronological order, although in many cases independent steps were conducted simultaneously.

Phase 1: One-on-one discussions with key individuals.

Step 1A: Identify categories of individuals who serve the community.

The study team, in cooperation with NHTSA staff, prepared lists of types of individuals or occupations who serve the Black community or participate in traffic safety efforts. The final list of discussion candidates included leaders in the following general categories:

• education;
  
  
• faith-based organizations;
  
  
• health care;
  
  
• traffic safety;
  
  
• media;
  
  
• law enforcement; and
  
  
• politics.
  

Within each category, subcategories were also identified.

Step 1B: Identify specific individuals in the six target communities.

Upon identifying the discussion candidate categories and finalizing the selection of sites, the study team investigated each community to identify a list of approximately 10 people who might have valuable insights into the research topic.

Step 1C: Prepare discussion guide.

The study team prepared a content guide for use as a template for discussions. A separate but similar guide was created for each type of community leader or key individual to ensure that pertinent topics were covered. A draft guide was submitted to NHTSA for review and NHTSA comments were discussed and addressed to produce the final guide. See Appendix B for the One-on-One Discussion Guide Template.

Step 1D: Schedule meetings.

Each individual on the list produced during Step 1B was contacted by the study team, informed about the study and the study goals, and asked to participate in a discussion.

Step 1E: Conduct meetings.

Discussions were conducted onsite in each community by study team members; telephone discussions were also conducted in instances where the study team's travel schedule did not coincide with a local leader's availability.

As a means of ensuring proper coverage of the topic and the target community, every person who participated in one-on-one discussions was also asked to provide the names of other leaders or key individuals in the community. This assured the study team that key individuals were being recognized and canvassed.

During the travel to these meetings, certain logistical issues were also addressed when planning the upcoming focus groups. These tasks included checking potential focus group facilities, making contact with advertising media (for recruiting), and other specific tasks.

Phase 2: Conduct focus groups with the public.

Step 2A: Identify target groups.

The study team conducted eight focus groups in each study site, which afforded some selectivity in segmenting focus groups. The team considered two types of segmentation, behavioral or demographic, and with input from NHTSA staff elected to conduct demographic segmentations. Segmentations were therefore conducted by age and gender.

Based on project priorities, crash statistics and other research, the eight population segments selected for focus groups were as follows:

• parents with children under the age of 4;
  
  
• seniors (60-79 years old);
  
  
• female teens (16-19 years old);
  
  
• male teens (16-19 years old);
  
  
• female young adults (20-27 years old);
  
  
• male young adults (20-27 years old);
  
  
• female adults (28-44 years old); and
  
  
• male adults (28-44 years old).
  
  

Step 2B: Design focus group moderator's guide.

As with the one-on-one discussion guide, the study team created a draft focus group moderator's guide, which was finalized with the assistance and cooperation of NHTSA staff. (See Appendix C for the Focus Group Moderator's Guide.) The guide was designed for a 2-hour focus group, with additional topics included in the event that a group ran short on time.

The focus group guide was highly consistent across groups but minor differences were included for specific groups. The parents group, in particular, was offered a more indepth discussion of child safety seats and booster seats, while teenagers were asked a question about learning to drive. In each group the moderator had latitude to stray from the guide in the event that an unexpected topic of interest was raised by the group.

Prior to conducting the focus groups, moderators met for an orientation session where issues relevant to the overall operation of the focus groups were discussed, including onsite preparations preceding the focus groups. A logistical checklist, described in Step 2E, was provided to each moderator to ensure smooth setup and execution of the groups.

Step 2C: Set up focus group logistics.

The study team located sites for focus group facilities, and made arrangements for refreshments, travel, props, and other items needed to conduct the groups. The team also set up a toll-free telephone number so potential participants could call in to register or ask questions.

Facility selection was determined based on the following factors:

• location;
  
  
• access to public transportation;
  
  
• size and accommodations;
  
  
• accessibility for the handicapped;
  
  
• availability; and
  
  
• cost.
  
  

Formal focus group facilities were generally neither available nor necessary, therefore focus groups were often held in community centers or other locations known to local residents. The focus group locations were:

Berkley County, SC	Moncks Corner AME Church, Moncks Corner Moncks Corner Baptist Church, Moncks Corner Cross Community Center, Cross
Cook County, IL	Sinai Community Center, Chicago Chicago Urban League, Chicago
Jackson County, MO	Bruce Watkins Cultural Heritage Center, Kansas City Kansas City Urban League, Kansas City
Middlesex County, NJ	Job Corps of Edison Tiny Tots Day Care Center (affiliated with Ebenezer Baptist Church), New Brunswick
Oktibbeha County, MS	Brickfire Project Community Center, Starkville Peter's Rock Temple Church of God, Starkville
Prince George's County, MD	Bowie State University, Bowie Olchak Market Research, Greenbelt Prince George's Community College, Largo

In Prince George's County, a formal focus group facility was used for selected focus groups to allow NHTSA staff to observe the groups.

Step 2D: Recruit focus group participants.

Focus group participants were recruited in one of two ways: (1) through announcements placed in key Black newspapers, distribution of flyers, and radio public service announcements (PSAs) in the designated communities; and (2) telephone recruitment using random resident listings.

Standardized notices containing information on the study, focus group composition, a deadline for responses, and contact information, including a toll-free number, were strategically placed in predominantly Black print and media outlets in the six sites. Individual flyers containing the same information were also widely distributed throughout the communities. In addition, team members worked directly with community organizations and institutions to identify focus group participants. These entities included churches, youth organizations, service providers, universities, and local branches of national Black organizations (NAACP and urban leagues).

After a potential candidate called the toll-free number, a study team member asked each person a series of questions from a screener designed by the team. Team members screened candidates and assigned successful candidates to one of the eight designated groups. The team sought to recruit 10 to 12 participants for each focus group so that an average of eight to 10 individuals would be available for each session (given the possibility of "no shows"). While driving status was not used as a criterion for inclusion or exclusion in the focus groups, the following items were used to screen participants (see Appendix D):

• age;
  
  
• gender;
  
  
• geographic representation (residence in the county was required); and
  
  
• availability during identified dates and times.
  
  

Step 2E: Prepare and execute onsite task list and equipment checklist.

Study team members developed a schedule for conducting focus groups, which followed a proposed 5-day timeline at each site. One day was designated for onsite arrival and preparation, and 4 days were allotted to conduct eight focus groups (two groups per evening) and to prepare summary reports of each session. These checklists ensured that the focus groups were conducted consistently and without error across all sites (see Appendix E for the Moderator's Checklist).

The guide included, but was not limited to, the following information:

• an overview of the initiative, its purpose, and objectives;
  
  
• roles and responsibilities of the moderator;
  
  
• outline of the process, timeframe, etc.;
  
  
• materials and equipment to be used while conducting the focus group;
  
  
• questions and topics to be covered during the focus group;
  
  
• tips and techniques for handling certain situations;
  
  
• arrangements for site locations, such as recording equipment; and
  
  
• descriptions of types of field notes to be generated by the moderator.
  
  

Step 2F: Conduct focus groups.

A total of eight 2-hour focus groups were conducted in each community, with two sessions held each evening (6-8 p.m. and 8-10 p.m.). For each session, focus group participants were asked to register (by providing name and contact information on a log sheet) and were given a tent card to display their name. Each participant was then given three items, which they read and completed prior to the beginning of the focus group:

• A brief statement of questions and answers to read at their leisure, which answered some of the more common questions about the focus group, its purpose, and its processes.
  
  
• A form that asked their opinions about seat belt laws, standard seat belt laws, and what they believe their likelihood of being ticketed would be if they did not wear their seat belt. These questions were discussed in depth during the focus groups.
  
  
• A list of perceived driving risks. Participants were asked to rank the risks in terms of their danger to the community, in preparation for discussion during the focus group.
  

The above documents were presented to participants prior to the initiation of the focus group to conserve time in the group and to allow participants as much time as possible to complete the survey and the ranking exercise.

The moderator opened each session with introductions and a brief review of the study and focus group process. The moderator also explained the audio recording and note taking process to the participants. Using the approved Focus Group Guide, the moderator initiated the focus group process. Focus group participants received refreshments, plus $35 in cash upon completion of the focus group as compensation for their time.

At the completion of each focus group, the moderator team (comprised of one moderator and one note-taker) prepared a site summary report which included a demographic breakdown of participants by session; a review of the entire process, including procedures that worked and those that might need to be modified; and a preliminary summary of the findings. In order to conserve project resources, verbatim transcripts of the focus groups were not prepared. The data from the site reports was analyzed and key findings, patterns, and trends are presented in Chapter III.

² Standard seat belt laws allow law enforcement officers to pull over drivers for seat belt violations even if no other violations are observed. Secondary seat belt laws allow law enforcement officers to address seat belt violations only if the driver has been stopped for another offense.