Regular training ensures new and existing personnel understand their roles and responsibilities in maintaining the IDTS. As part of ongoing awareness efforts, states are to ensure meticulous documentation of system functions, workflows, and data standards to support continuity and reduce disruptions due to staff turnover. Continuous education also promotes consistent and informed data entry and reporting. Stakeholders in Nebraska, for example, emphasized the need for recurring training and retraining to improve system understanding, data entry accuracy and validation efforts.

States can establish a structured process for regularly evaluating and improving the tracking systems to maintain data integrity and accountability. Ongoing evaluation should involve soliciting user feedback, monitoring system performance and adjusting protocols as needed to enhance efficiency. Stakeholders across several participating states highlighted the importance of continuously assessing data quality, identifying missing or incomplete records and implementing measures to improve accuracy. Providing targeted training for law enforcement officers and prosecutors on data entry standards would enhance data consistency and system reliability. States may refer to the Traffic Records Data Quality Management Guide: Update to the Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems to develop meaningful and quantifiable performance measures for tracking progress and outcomes.

A central entity can improve data flow, accuracy and interoperability by ensuring data collection, reporting and integration remain consistent across agencies. Missouri’s Show-Me Courts system is an example of how a unified case management platform for courts improves case tracking and minimizes errors. For details on structuring a coordinating body, see Step 1 in the Steps and Checklist section of this guide.

Legislative mandates can ensure consistent and standardized data reporting across agencies. California’s recommended reporting framework includes coordinating with related agencies, obtaining DMV approval for reporting designs and developing sample reports. Additional steps involve tracking impaired driving cases through the DMV, gathering subject data, analyzing recidivism and producing statistical reports for continuous system assessment. For further discussion on statutory and regulatory considerations, refer to Step 6 in the Steps and Checklist section of this guide.

Connecting impaired driving tracking systems with other relevant databases, such as DMV records, probation systems and other court case management platforms, enhances data consistency and accessibility. Iowa’s Justice Data Warehouse, a central repository of criminal and juvenile justice data, provides an example of how multi-agency integration can support better data tracking. This system is used by various agencies, including the Iowa Judicial Branch, Department of Public Safety, Department of Corrections, Department of Transportation, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Natural Resources, Health and Human Services and the state public defender.

Instead of developing entirely new systems, states can enhance existing platforms to reduce costs and implementation time. Stakeholders from Utah emphasized the effectiveness of their existing communication system for data sharing and recommended leveraging it rather than creating a new platform. For additional guidance on leveraging existing resources, refer to Step 4 in the Steps and Checklist section of this guide.

Establishing a reliable funding source is critical to sustaining an IDTS. Funding supports system infrastructure, data entry personnel and ongoing maintenance to ensure efficiency and long-term viability. States may obtain funding through participating agencies, fees and fines, or a combination of both. The funding structure often depends on how the IDTS is hosted and managed:  

• In D.C., the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council serves as a third-party host for IDTS data, agencies such as the DMV, law enforcement and courts contribute data to the system without incurring additional costs, as the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council oversees coordination and evaluation. This model is established under the District of Columbia Code § 22-42A, which outlines the Council’s authority and role in managing IDTS.  
• Similarly, some agencies share data without additional costs through formal agreements, such as the sample MOU (PDF) that outlines roles, responsibilities, and data-sharing protocols. This agreement allowed for data exchange without requiring significant infrastructure changes or evaluation costs. While this MOU is not specific to IDTS, it serves as an example of how state agencies can formalize data-sharing agreements to facilitate collaboration without immediate financial burdens. However, for an IDTS, agencies may need to merge datasets, upgrade infrastructure, or implement data evaluation processes, all of which could introduce additional costs that should be accounted for in long-term planning.
• In contrast, California’s DMV hosts its IDTS, requiring additional resources to prepare annual impaired driving reports for the legislature, increasing operational costs.  
• Collaborating with neighboring states can reduce costs by sharing resources, integrating data and leveraging economies of scale. Advocacy groups can also play a role in securing funding and raising awareness of the importance of IDTSs.

The federal government offers several funding opportunities to support states in enhancing impaired driving data systems. Potential federal funding sources include:  

• NHTSA Section 402 Highway Safety Grant Program. For details on the Section 402 Annual Grant, including funding eligibility and requirements, visit § 1300.13 Special funding conditions for Section 402 grants.  
• NHTSA Section 405(c) State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants. For details on Section 405(c) grants, including funding eligibility and requirements, visit § 1300.22 State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants.
• NHTSA Section 405(d) Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants. For details on Section 405(d) grants, including funding eligibility and requirements, visit § 1300.23 Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants.
• NHTSA Section 154 and Section 164 Transfer Funds. For details on eligible uses of Section 154 or Section 164 Transfer Funds, visit 23 U.S.C. § 154(c)(2)(A)(i) and 23 U.S.C. § 164(c)(2)(A)(i).
• For more information about these grant programs, please reach out to your NHTSA Regional Office.
• While federal grants can help launch or enhance an IDTS, they are not a long-term funding solution. States should consider developing sustainable funding strategies to maintain their systems beyond the initial grant period.

States can implement continuous data monitoring to track changes in impaired driving laws and ensure accurate, up-to-date data collection. Regular audits and validation checks help maintain data integrity and system effectiveness, even when impaired driving arrest trends fluctuate. For example, stakeholders in California emphasized the need to close tracking gaps, such as monitoring alternative sentencing programs and verifying offender compliance with sentencing requirements. Addressing these gaps ensures that impaired driving data remains comprehensive and actionable for enforcement and policy decisions.

Transitioning from manual or paper-based reporting to electronic submissions improves efficiency, accuracy and accessibility. Electronic systems streamline data-sharing, minimize reporting delays and reduce human errors. For example, Iowa’s system allows real-time data collection from law enforcement at crash scenes, providing instant electronic access to driver license history, vehicle registration status, criminal records and warrants. Implementing electronic submissions would also facilitate seamless data sharing across agencies, ensuring timely access to citation data, court adjudications, and reports from probation, treatment, or correctional programs.