This Impaired Driving Tracking System guide provides a structured framework to help key stakeholders, such as State Highway Safety Offices, law enforcement agencies, and policymakers, understand the benefits of developing and implementing such a system. This guide also offers a checklist to assess states’ readiness and practical steps for implementation. 

The Steps and Checklist section of this guide presents a phased roadmap that walks states through the development of an IDTS, from securing stakeholder buy-in to system deployment and long-term maintenance. However, states may encounter barriers that hinder implementation, including stakeholder accountability, data management challenges, a lack of funding, and quality control issues. Addressing these challenges requires proactive planning and strategic solutions to ensure system sustainability and effectiveness, as outlined in the Barriers and Solutions section.

Key strategies to help address these barriers include establishing ongoing training programs to mitigate staff turnover, creating a central coordinating entity to streamline data integration and oversight, securing dedicated funding sources to support long-term system maintenance, and transitioning to electronic data submission to improve accuracy and efficiency. These recommended solutions can help states build a resilient and adaptable IDTS that effectively tracks and manages impaired driving offenses.  

To support implementation, states can leverage existing resources, including NHTSA’s Guidelines for Impaired Driving Records Information Systems, which outline best practices for system design, data integration and reporting standards, and lessons learned from other states. States can further enhance their ability to overcome barriers by establishing ongoing training programs, a central coordinating entity and dedicated funding sources.

Trends in impaired driving highlight the urgency of adopting stronger tracking and prevention mechanisms. Alcohol-impaired driving accounts for nearly one-third of all traffic fatalities. In 2022, 13,500 people were killed in crashes involving at least one alcohol-impaired driver with a blood alcohol concentration over .08 g/dL. Additionally in thousands of injuries and substantial financial burdens due to healthcare, legal, and property damage costs. To address this challenge more effectively, it is essential for states to implement comprehensive systems that track impaired driving incidents and provide actionable data to improve evaluations of enforcement and prevention strategies. Tracking impaired driving offenses is crucial to identifying repeat offenders, ensuring appropriate sentencing, and evaluating the effectiveness of policies aimed at reducing recidivism. Recidivism in this context refers to individuals who are arrested, sanctioned or convicted for impaired driving and later reoffend.

An IDTS allows a state to: 

• Track impaired driving offenders from arrest through disposition.
• Show impaired driving trends over time by integrating and analyzing crash, citation, and adjudication data.
• Support evaluation of countermeasure effectiveness by enabling States to examine whether changes in impaired driving outcomes align with implemented programs or policies.
• Store up-to-date and accurate information to allow law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, departments of motor vehicles and other key stakeholders to ensure the appropriate charges and sanctions are administered.
• Reduce administrative costs for the system stakeholders and increase system efficiencies. 

An IDTS enables real-time data-sharing among relevant agencies and ensures timely updates of citations, sanctions and prohibitions. Real-time updates ultimately help prevent repeat offenders from driving without statutorily required licensing sanctions by making sure agencies and the courts have an offender’s complete driving record when making decisions. Such a system helps states find weaknesses in their impaired driving processes, assess the scope of impaired driving and allocate resources more effectively.

Research

To gain acceptance of IDTSs among states, the researchers assessed the status and characteristics of programs in California, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia to examine their approaches to establishing and maintaining their systems. The selection aimed to capture insights on each state’s system status, key partners, data linkages, costs, methods for obtaining buy-in, system maintenance, reporting structures, challenges and lessons learned.

The detailed background on the research, findings, and recommendations related to impaired-driving tracking is available in the 2025 Impaired Driving Tracking System Final Report.

Three states — Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin — were chosen based on their past participation in NHTSA’s Model Impaired Driving Records Information System demonstration project, which documented how states could further improve and integrate existing data systems. The remaining four states and Washington, DC, were chosen because they have a functional system that tracks impaired driving. 

Based on a review of the states’ systems of operation and discussions with key stakeholders, three approaches to tracking impaired driving offenses were identified:  

• States With Unified and Standalone Systems: These states have independent systems specifically designed to track impaired driving offenders from arrest through adjudication. They operate their systems separately from other information systems.
• States With Impaired Driving Tracking Systems as a Component of Larger Systems: These states and the District of Columbia integrate impaired driving tracking within their existing information system architecture rather than having a separate system. This approach leverages existing infrastructure to manage impaired driving data.
• States With Decentralized Tracking Systems: These states have fragmented systems where impaired driving data is tracked through several, unconnected systems. This decentralized approach often requires additional coordination from various stakeholders to compile comprehensive data. 

The 2025 Impaired Driving Tracking System Final Report and the Guide for Implementing an Impaired Driving Tracking System build on NHTSA’s 2002 Model Impaired Driving Records Information System demonstration project. This foundational effort led to the release of several NHTSA reports offering guidance to states on implementing IDTSs.

Purpose of the Guide

This guide aims to equip stakeholders with the tools necessary to successfully plan, implement and sustain IDTSs in their own jurisdictions. 

Note: The term “impaired driving” is used interchangeably throughout this guide with “driving under the influence (DUI)” and “driving while impaired/intoxicated (DWI).”  

The purpose of this guide is to: 

1. Explain the Benefits of an IDTS: An IDTS offers several advantages, including improving data accuracy, enhancing enforcement and deterrence efforts, and supporting public safety campaigns. More information is available in the Benefits section.
2. Provide a Roadmap for Implementing an IDTS: From planning and procurement to deployment and maintenance, implementing an IDTS involves several critical steps. This guide outlines a structured process for stakeholders to follow. The Steps and Checklist section includes a checklist to ensure all necessary components are addressed during implementation.
3. Find Potential Barriers and Solutions: Every state or jurisdiction may face unique challenges when adopting an IDTS. These issues could include legal, technical, operational, or financial barriers. The Barriers and Solutions section addresses common obstacles and provides potential solutions to help overcome them.

This guide focuses only on tracking alcohol-impaired driving, and not on drug-impaired driving at this time, due to the current complexities associated with drug testing. Unlike testing for alcohol, which requires a single standardized test to measure impairment, drug testing involves assessing hundreds of different substances, each with varying effects, detection windows and testing protocols. These challenges make it difficult to systematically collect and integrate drug-impaired driving data within IDTS.

The recommended steps in this guide acknowledge IDTS implementation can vary significantly between states. While some states have implemented certain components of an IDTS, only a few have fully integrated critical data elements from law enforcement, drivers’ licensing agencies and the courts. Therefore, the guidance is grounded in a review of existing systems, which can be found in the companion 2025 Impaired Driving Tracking System Final Report, to determine what each state needs to complete and implement an IDTS. States that have not yet made efforts to integrate their traffic records can review their independent systems to develop a plan for integration. This guide includes a checklist for states just beginning the process to assess their readiness to implement an IDTS. In addition to this guide, states may reference NHTSA’s Guidelines for Impaired Driving Records Information Systems, which focuses on system design features, data standards, and technical implementation considerations. While the 2006 guidelines offer detailed descriptions of data elements, system architecture, and integration expectations, this guide offers a structured pathway from assessing existing conditions to planning, implementing, and sustaining an operational IDTS—drawing on lessons from states at varying implementation stages. 

Notes

This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. If trade or manufacturers’ names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. 

This research report represents work performed under 23 U.S.C. § 403. Costs paid in the course of this work may not be allowable costs using NHTSA Section 402 or Section 405 highway safety grant funds.

Suggested APA Format Citation:

Okyere, D. K., Dexter, C., Galadima, E., Elqutob, K., & Murdoch, J. (2026, February). Guide for implementing an impaired driving tracking system. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
 

The guide was published in 2026.