Steps and Checklist
Steps for Implementing an IDTS
This section outlines the recommended steps for implementing an IDTS, using best practices from the 2025 Impaired Driving Tracking System Final Report. While the steps follow a logical sequence, states may adjust the order based on their needs. However, certain steps must be completed before others to ensure an effective implementation of the system. Dependencies between steps are noted to provide flexibility in implementation while maintaining the integrity of the process.
1. Establish leadership and obtain buy-in
Implementing an IDTS requires strong leadership and support from a diverse group of stakeholders. Early engagement is critical, particularly for primary stakeholders that will help develop and operate the system. While the specific primary stakeholders may vary by state, they typically include:
- Law enforcement agencies
- Driver’s licensing agencies
- Criminal justice representatives, courts and district attorneys
- Treatment courts, if applicable
- Crime labs and healthcare offices as needed
- State information technology system leaders
- State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee
- State Highway Safety Office
Secondary stakeholders, such as policy makers and advocacy groups, play a key role in building public and legislative support for IDTS implementation.
To maintain project management, states should consider the following actions:
Ideally as a subcommittee of the state’s TRCC, to create a unified approach among stakeholders and oversee implementation. The committee should work closely with the state’s TRCC (see note below on the function of a TRCC) to use existing resources, expertise and identify, and interagency coordination mechanism. Identify and recruit primary stakeholders outlined in the Benefits section of this guide. Secondary stakeholders may be engaged at this stage or incorporated later in the process. See a sample charter (PDF) for guidance on structuring roles, responsibilities, and objectives to support effective collaboration and implementation.
States may consider designating this role to the State Highway Safety Office, given its role in coordinating traffic safety programs and access to related data systems. However, other agencies with the appropriate authority and capacity may also serve as the lead. The lead agency coordinates stakeholder engagement, manages project timelines, and ensures adherence to system requirements. A separate agency may host and maintain the IDTS, depending on the state’s governance structure and technical capacity. The lead agency could help identify and secure funding by applying for state and federal grants to support system development and implementation. States may explore federal funding opportunities such as NHTSA’s Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program and Section 405 National Priority Safety Programs. The Barriers and Solutions section of this guide provides further details on federal- and state-level funding options to support IDTS implementation.
Challenges that may prevent full buy-in include data privacy concerns, resource constraints and limited staff availability to engage in system development and maintenance. The IDTS committee lead should consider engaging with desired partner agencies to understand their concerns and explore solutions.
Engage any primary stakeholders not yet involved and communicate the importance of the IDTS to the public, advocacy groups and policymakers. As the plan evolves, it should incorporate insights from other steps, such as the cost-benefit analysis, to strengthen stakeholder engagement. The final outreach plan will play a key role in securing legislative support, as outlined in Step 6.
Best practice based on discussions with states’ IDTS stakeholders:
Multi-state systems may be beneficial for states with frequent border travel, enhancing the ability to track impaired driving offenses accurately. The IDTS committee may want to engage and partner with border states early.
2. Develop stakeholder roles and responsibilities
The IDTS committee should define the roles and responsibilities of each participating agency to support system development and long-term sustainability. While some agencies may define their roles and responsibilities before all stakeholders are engaged, securing full participation first from all stakeholders often strengthens coordination and role clarity. To guide this process, the IDTS committee set up in Step 1 should:
The committee should determine which agency will manage and maintain the central IDTS database. This agency will oversee data security, user access, and compliance with state and federal data-sharing regulations. It may be a state law enforcement agency, DMV, or other designated entity with the necessary infrastructure and authority. For example, hosts identified by states in the 2025 Impaired Driving Tracking System Final Report included DMVs, independent counsels, justice systems and law enforcement agencies. NHTSA’s Guidelines for Impaired Driving Records Information Systems suggests other agencies or groups such as State Highway Safety Offices, universities, legislative research divisions or criminal justice organizations could also serve as repository hosts.
To function effectively, an IDTS must integrate with existing systems that track impaired driving cases. As previously stated, these systems often include law enforcement databases, court case management systems, driver’s license records and public safety networks. From discussions with the seven states and D.C. that participated in the Impaired Driving Tracking System Final Report, a key challenge of implementing an IDTS was ensuring compatibility and interoperability between agencies. Some states found outdated or siloed systems prevented a seamless data exchange. To address this, the IDTS committee should work closely with state IT leaders and data governance officials to:
- Assess existing infrastructure to determine whether agencies can share and access data efficiently.
- Develop standardized data-sharing protocols, including formal memoranda of understanding to ensure secure, timely information exchange across all entities.
- Identify potential barriers, such as system incompatibility, privacy concerns, or legislative restrictions, and work with stakeholders to resolve them.
Clearly defining stakeholder roles and responsibilities ensures accountability and smooth implementation of the system. While these roles may vary by state, the IDTS committee members should have well-defined duties based on their agency’s functions, and a clear understanding of the time commitment required for their participation.
Best practice based on discussions with states’ IDTS stakeholders:
Partner collaboration is a key component in the most successful systems. Tracking systems should have extensive collaboration across a variety of entities. These partnerships are formalized via an MOU outlining the responsibilities of each partner agency. Partnerships should not stop at the agreement. Partners should have regular meetings about data quality, methods to improve the system and other issues related to maintaining an effective IDTS. Partners should also provide regular updates to the state’s TRCC. See sample MOU (PDF), which—although not specifically designed for an IDTS—demonstrates how two state departments can establish a formal data-sharing partnership.
3. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis
A cost-benefit analysis helps states evaluate the financial and operational implications of implementing an IDTS. This process involves comparing the costs of investment, such as system upgrades, staff training and ongoing maintenance. Benefits include improved data accuracy, streamlined enforcement, improved decision-making capabilities and enhanced public safety. States may also assess whether to modify an existing data system or develop a new one by weighing the costs and benefits of each option. This analysis is important for implementing Steps 4 and 5, where states will assess their current data systems and develop a conceptual model for IDTS implementation. Additionally, documenting projected costs and benefits will support legislative and funding discussions in Steps 6 and 7. While states may choose to quantify intangible benefits of the IDTS to directly compare the costs to the benefits, they can also present a list of expected costs and benefits to strengthen their case for funding and legislative support. To assist with this process, cost-benefit analysis templates, such as those available through Smartsheet, can help evaluate existing systems and develop a conceptual model for IDTS implementation.
For cost-benefit analysis, states should consider the following steps:
This includes hardware, software, staffing costs, as well as intangible costs related to legislative initiatives or policy changes. Because this step relies on a clear understanding of existing infrastructure, it is closely tied to Step 4a, where states assess current data systems.
States may begin this step earlier in the process, as highlighting potential benefits can help establish buy-in among key stakeholders. These benefits should be refined throughout system development. The Benefits section of this guide outlines general IDTS benefits, but states may need to tailor them by considering:
- New policies that could be more effectively tracked through the system.
- Impaired driving recidivism trends, including how rates have changed over time.
- Compelling case examples, such as crashes that an IDTS might have helped prevent.
- System gaps reported by law enforcement, courts, and DMVs that the IDTS could address.
Customizing these benefits will strengthen the case for implementation and show how an IDTS can enhance public safety, improve data-driven decision making, and support long-term enforcement efforts.
4. Assess current systems
A thorough assessment of existing systems helps states determine the data elements, sharing mechanisms and processes already in place and gaps to address. Common gaps include inconsistencies in data collection across agencies, delays in reporting and the lack of integration of all forms of sentencing outcomes (e.g., treatment programs). NHTSA’s Guidelines for Impaired Driving Records Information Systems may be a useful resource for identifying gaps and assessing system readiness. States can complete this assessment by:
This step is dependent on Step 1a, as securing buy-in and participation from all primary stakeholders is necessary to conduct a comprehensive system assessment.
Law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, licensing agencies and other key stakeholders should assess their hardware, software, and networking capabilities to determine compatibility with an IDTS. A state’s IT leadership should be involved in this step to ensure the system can meet both current and future needs, with a primary focus on data-sharing capabilities.
The IDTS may involve a centralized database, data integration procedures, or a distributed system with secure access gateways. This decision should be based on the findings from the technological infrastructure assessment, outlined above, as well as the cost-benefit analysis in Step 3. Factors influencing this decision may include:
- The cost of building a new system versus retrofitting an existing one.
- The existing system’s ability to meet both current and future needs, including ease of use, integration capabilities and sustainability.
To better understand a state’s traffic records system, including impaired driving crash data, the State Highway Safety Office may request a free Traffic Records Assessment from NHTSA by sending a formal request to their NHTSA Regional Office. A Traffic Records Assessment is an independent review and evaluation of a state’s traffic records system that covers: the collection, management, and analysis of the six core data systems' nine modules:
- TRCC management
- Traffic records strategic planning
- Crash data system
- Driver data system
- Vehicle data system
- Roadway data system
- Citation and adjudication data systems
- Injury surveillance data systems (including EMS, trauma registry, emergency department, hospital discharge, vital statistics, and rehabilitation data systems)
- Data use and integration
States may request a targeted Traffic Records Assessment to review only the data systems used for IDTS—for example, the citation and adjudication data system and the driver data system. An annual Traffic Records Assessment was previously required by statute. While it is no longer required, a state may still request this review, which results in a set of recommendations for improvement.
NHTSA’s Traffic Records GO Team program can also provide states with tailored technical assistance and training to improve traffic records systems through small teams of subject matter experts. States can request help addressing specific issues identified in their traffic records assessments or strategic plans, including targeted problem-solving or technical training. Relevant past projects include assistance with data integration, improving data quality and strategic planning.
Tip: Assess whether these data sources can be integrated into the IDTS
- Court case management and driver history files – identifies drivers with past impaired-driving-related convictions and pending cases.
- Citation tracking systems – provides traffic-related citations data.
- Alcohol and drug test results, crash records and location data – supports statistics on impaired driving crashes; location data aids in pinpointing problem areas.
- Corrections/probation data and treatment data – provides insight into offenders’ substance abuse history and treatment outcomes.
- Injury surveillance records – provides injury and treatment data resulting from a range of motor vehicle-related events, including traffic crashes, non-traffic crashes (e.g., in driveways or parking lots), and non-crash incidents involving motor vehicles.
- Data analysis systems – facilitates the comprehensive analysis of linked data to enhance decision making related to traffic safety and law enforcement.
5. Develop a conceptual model
A conceptual model provides a structured framework for implementing an IDTS by integrating any existing systems and defining key processes. Since some states may repurpose existing systems, a full inventory of current infrastructure and identified gaps is essential for determining how to efficiently reuse existing components into the new system. NHTSA’s Guidelines for Impaired Driving Records Information Systems outline essential system components that improve functionality and efficiency of an IDTS. These guidelines suggest incorporating drop-down menus for data entry to reduce errors and improve consistency. This feature will help with bar code or magnetic strip scanning to auto-populate relevant information, manual update capabilities for select fields that may not be current, and built-in audit functions to enhance data accuracy and oversight.
States should consider:
The IDTS committee and state IT leadership should evaluate existing technical infrastructure to determine whether current systems can be adapted or if new infrastructure is needed. This assessment should consider long-term maintenance, security and scalability to ensure the system remains effective over time.
Each participating agency can define its available resources, staffing, and funding for system implementation and maintenance. While initial discussions may begin earlier, final commitments depend on completing Step 4a, which assesses technological infrastructure.
A well-defined critical path helps ensure seamless coordination among all primary stakeholders. For an example of how a state has structured its impaired driving system processes, see the California DUI Management Information System Report (PDF), specifically the flowchart on page 2.
Best practice based on discussions with states’ IDTS stakeholders:
Including data on alternative sentencing in an IDTS helps states track outcomes and assess program effectiveness, particularly in states where such options are commonly used instead of traditional adjudication. Capturing these data provides valuable insights into conviction rates, compliance trends and overall system effectiveness.
6. Obtain legislative support
The ability to implement IDTS improvements can be hampered by complex impaired driving laws, tiered blood alcohol concentration systems and varying court jurisdictions for different levels of offenses. Addressing these challenges may require legislative action to establish standardized policies, improve data reporting mandates and secure dedicated funding. As previously stated, legislative support is critical in establishing a functional IDTS. States may consider engaging legislators early in the process to build support, address potential legal barriers and ensure the system aligns with statewide priorities. State legislators can also provide input on system design, funding mechanisms and regulatory frameworks to promote system sustainability. For example, the District of Columbia Code § 22–42A establishes a council to coordinate impaired driving activities and oversee the District’s IDTS, while Missouri House Bill 1695 (PDF) outlines laws related to impaired driving and the use of Missouri’s IDTS.
To receive legislative support, states can:
This step depends on assessing any current systems (Step 4) and developing a conceptual model (Step 5) to determine specific legislative needs.
Use the outreach plan developed starting in Step 1.
Legislators may need guidance on the importance of passing laws that establish minimum requirements, regulate statewide standards and allocate state funding. Public and advocacy group engagement can further bolster legislative support. This step depends on identifying necessary statutory, regulatory and procedural changes.
Many states handle alternative sentencing and case dismissals inconsistently, leading to gaps in impaired driving offender tracking. Legislative action can ensure alcohol treatment programs, community service, plea bargains and charge reductions are consistently recorded in an IDTS, ensuring they count as a first-time offense when applicable. States can avoid expunging impaired driving charges to maintain compliance with NHTSA best practices and ensure effective tracking of repeat offenders. This step depends on developing a critical path (Step 5) and assessing any current system (Step 4).
Best practice based on discussions with states’ IDTS stakeholders:
A statutory framework ensures consistent and reliable information, as voluntary systems may receive less consistent data. Laws may be necessary to ensure admissibility of records in court as evidence of prior offenses and can be a source of data privacy mandates, which may also help overcome data agreement challenges with hesitant partners. Laws can also provide overall support for IDTS maintenance.
7. Develop a long-range plan
Without a long-range, structured plan, states may struggle to maintain their systems, as seen with several states that participated in the Model Impaired Driving Records Information Systems demonstration project, many of which no longer have active integrated data systems. The following steps can help states avoid common pitfalls and ensure their IDTSs remain functional, up-to-date, and financially sustainable.
While short-term funding may be available through federal grants identified in Step 1, states will need sustainable funding mechanisms to maintain their systems. Legislative support is often necessary to allocate state funds or integrate funding into existing budgets. The Barriers and Solutions section of this guide discusses funding options in greater detail. This step depends on completing a cost-benefit analysis and obtaining legislative support.
Establishing clear and formal agreements among agencies ensures continued data sharing, system use, and compliance with state and federal reporting requirements. This step builds on the conceptual model developed in Step 5.
An IDTS requires ongoing updates to stay aligned with evolving legal, technological, and operational needs. The IDTS committee can develop a maintenance plan that defines who is responsible for system oversight, updates, and technical support. This plan should also account for future enhancements, cybersecurity measures and potential system expansions. This step depends on identifying an IDTS lead (Step 1a) and repository host (Step 2b).
Partnering with other states can reduce costs, improve data consistency, and enhance cross-state tracking of impaired driving offenders. States may explore shared infrastructure models, data integration opportunities, or multi-state funding pools to lower costs and increase efficiency. This collaboration can begin early in the planning phase, as it may impact cost-benefit analysis and system design decisions.
Best practice based on discussions with states’ IDTS stakeholders:
A central coordinating entity and dedicated personnel are essential for ensuring data validity—for example, checking for anomalies, missing information, and inconsistencies. Dedicated personnel can also oversee system maintenance and agency-specific IDTS data and ensure compatibility with the larger IDTS during upgrades. Dedicated personnel should not be limited to the central coordinating agency. To interface with the coordinating agency, agencies should have dedicated staff who collaborate on data validity and maintenance.
Ongoing training for staff will ensure that stakeholders have the capacity to train new staff on their IDTS.
8. Develop and implement a statewide electronic data submission system or use existing software
States can adopt a unified statewide electronic data submission system or develop an interface that integrates existing software to streamline IDTS implementation. The most effective approach depends on system compatibility, cost considerations, and agency infrastructure. If integration is feasible, it may be a more cost-effective solution than replacing existing systems. Once a state selects the best approach, it can proceed with full IDTS development. This stage builds on all prior steps and requires a clear system architecture. To ensure a functional and integrated system, states can:
A consistent identifier—such as a driver’s license number, EMS UUID (as referenced in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria [MMUCC] 6th Edition), or other agency-assigned code— help ensures that all records related to an individual (e.g., crash reports, licensing history, impaired driving offenses, and court outcomes) are accurately connected across systems. This approach enhances data integration, reduces duplication, and supports more accurate tracking of impaired driving offenders.
A data-sharing agreement should outline user roles, authentication measures and data protection protocols to maintain system integrity.
Establishing uniform data entry processes across all participating agencies enhances data consistency, reduces errors and simplifies cross-agency reporting. This includes standardized terminology, reporting templates and classification methods for impaired driving offenses. States may refer to national standards such as:
- MMUCC 6th Edition (including Chapter 10: Traffic Records Data Integration) for crash data elements and guidance on data integration.
- The ANSI D16.1 Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, which provides definitions and classifications used by all states and federal agencies.
- The AAMVA D20: Data Element Dictionary for Traffic Records Systems, which outlines standard data elements for vehicle registration, driver licensing, and citation systems.
See other examples from Driving While Intoxicated Tracking Systems. Volume 1: Design and Operation (PDF), including Table 1 (p. 2-7), which outlines data types, and Table 2 (p. 3-11), which shows how data are initiated and received across agencies. These examples also align data with critical path phases and identify potential source and recipient agencies.
A well-designed user interface allows each stakeholder to access the data relevant to their role. Such systems should prioritize ease of navigation, real-time updates and role-based access controls to enhance usability. Chapter 11 of the MMUCC 6th Edition provides guidance on designing user-centered crash reporting systems, which may inform interface development. For example, California’s Post-Conviction Sanction Effectiveness Dashboard illustrates how dashboard tools can support ongoing monitoring and evaluation of impaired driving interventions.
Best practice based on discussions with states’ IDTS stakeholders:
Streamlining law enforcement data collection and integration. Several law enforcement agencies use the Traffic and Criminal Software electronic data collection system, originally developed by the Iowa Department of Transportation (Note: TraCS is one example of a forms management system; inclusion does not imply endorsement by NHTSA or the U.S. Department of Transportation). TraCS collects and manages data related to impaired driving cases, including charging documents, implied consent forms and drug recognition evaluation forms. Read more at: https://iowadot.gov/tracs.
Nebraska utilizes TraCS as a statewide forms management system, allowing law enforcement officers to electronically collect and submit citations, driver details, vehicle information and offense violations. Once an officer completes a citation, the data is automatically transmitted to a centralized server and exported in an XML format. This information is then integrated into Nebraska’s Criminal Justice Information System and distributed to courts, prosecutors’ offices and other state agencies, enhancing data accessibility and enforcement coordination.
9. Pilot test the IDTS
Before statewide implementation, pilot-testing the IDTS allows states to identify and resolve any early issues, ensuring smooth functionality across all agencies. This stage builds on all prior steps and provides an opportunity to refine data integration, user workflows and system performance before full-scale deployment. A pilot test can reveal:
- Data integration issues that may affect the system’s ability to link impaired driving records across agencies.
- User interface challenges for law enforcement, courts or licensing agencies that affect ease of use.
- Technical issues such as data transmission delays, system bugs or security vulnerabilities.
To conduct an effective pilot, states can:
States can choose a jurisdiction where law enforcement, courts and licensing agencies are already engaged with data sharing efforts or are willing to actively take part in the pilot. These stakeholders can enter data to track impaired drivers through the system and assess real-world usability. The states can also involve technical staff from the start to ensure that system functionality, data flows and integration points are thoroughly tested.
Users taking part in the pilot testing should consider documenting challenges, bugs and system inefficiencies as they arise. Regular feedback sessions will help pinpoint necessary adjustments to workflows, system navigation and data processing.
States should consider addressing identified challenges and barriers before statewide rollout to prevent widespread disruptions and ensure long-term system efficiency.
Implementation Chart
The graphic below provides a visual list of steps that states can use to track their progress toward implementing their IDTSs. The process chart illustrates the dependencies between the steps.
Note: Orange boxes and arrows represent dependencies.
1. Establish leadership and obtain buy-in
- a. Form an IDTS Committee.
- b. Identify and recruit primary stakeholders.
- c. Designate a single lead agency.
- d. Identify and address any barriers to participation.
2. Develop stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities
- a. Identify a repository host.
- b. Establish a mechanism for working with the state’s IT offices.
- c. Identify member contributions.
3. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis
- a. Identify tangible costs (hardware, software, staff) and intangible costs (legislative initiatives).
- b. Identify benefits to the state, stakeholders, and the public.
4. Assess the current system
- a. Take stock of the data collected from each agency and associated policies.
- b. Evaluate the current technological infrastructure of primary stakeholders.
- c. Decide whether to use current infrastructure or develop new infrastructure.
5. Develop a Conceptual Model
- a. Outline the resources required, including hardware/software requirements and operational/procedural changes.
- b. Establish what resources each agency stakeholder is willing to provide.
- c. Develop a critical path with step-by-step procedures related to impaired offenses from citation through adjudication.
6. Obtain Legislative Support
- a. Identify necessary statutory, regulatory, and procedural changes.
- b. Formulate an outreach plan to explain the importance to the public, advocacy groups, and policy makers.
- c. Engage in advocacy to pass laws mandating minimum requirements, regulating statewide standards, and allocating state funding or permitting the use of user fees as needed to ensure consistency throughout the state.
- d. Standardize DWI pre-trial intervention/diversion programs; acceptance into a pre-trial intervention/diversion program for DWI should be sufficient to consider the event a first-time DUI; expungement should also be counted as a first-time DUI.
7. Develop a long-range plan
- a. Secure long-term funding.
- b. Formalize interagency agreements.
- c. Plan for system maintenance and upgrades.
- d. Collaborate with other states where applicable for economies of scale and data sharing.
8. Develop and adopt a statewide e-citation system OR create an interface that integrates currently used software
- a. Establish a unique personal identifier to link information.
- b. Establish protocols for authorizing system users and procedures to protect privacy and data security.
- c. Standardize processes/procedures, including forms, data elements, and terminology, utilizing national standards where appropriate.
- d. Develop a user interface that meets the needs of each stakeholder so that relevant information is easily accessible.
9. Pilot-test IDTS
- a. Select a county to pilot the IDTS.
- b. Collect feedback and identify areas for improvement.
- c. Adjust the system according to feedback.
States’ Readiness for Implementing IDTS
This section outlines a detailed checklist for states to use in assessing their readiness to implement an IDTS.
Each state is unique and should orient its activities based on its local contexts and needs. Given this, states should perform a self-assessment to determine how best to pursue the recommended practices included in this guide. Before conducting the assessment, states are encouraged to develop a strategic plan that outlines goals, stakeholder roles, and system requirements. This planning process can help guide the self-assessment and inform priorities for implementation.
The self-assessment below was developed using the best practices outlined in the previous section. A state consistently responding “Yes” to the checklist items indicates strong alignment with the best practices and readiness to implement an effective IDTS. Consistently responding “No” highlights the gaps and challenges a state needs to address before implementing an effective IDTS. Responses of “Partially” indicate the state has some foundational elements in place and requires further development in specific areas. This checklist is meant to be a starting point for states and is not necessarily an exhaustive list.
Self-Assessment Checklist for Implementing an IDTS
- Does your tracking system have buy-in from law enforcement?
- Does your tracking system have buy-in from prosecutors?
- Does your tracking system have buy-in from courts?
- Does your tracking system have buy-in from licensing agencies?
- Does your tracking system have buy-in from your state legislators?
- Does your tracking system have buy-in from advocacy groups?
- Have partner agencies formalized roles and responsibilities using an MOU?
- Does your tracking system have a short-term funding solution?
- Does your tracking system have a long-term funding solution?
- Is there funding to cover staff dedicated to data entry, processing and system maintenance?
- Is there funding to cover future system updates and improvements?
- Does your state require mandatory participation in the tracking system?
- Has your state established a minimum timeframe for reporting data?
- Does your state allocate funding or allow user fees to fund the tracking system?
- Has your state standardized how reductions in charges and expungements are handled for impaired driving offenses, ensuring that they still count as a first-time offense in the tracking system?
- Does your tracking system have a unique personal identifier?
- Do you have protocols for data security and privacy?
- Do you have standardized data elements, forms and terminology across all partner agencies, utilizing national standards where appropriate?
- Do agencies have to double-enter data? Or are records automatically sent to the tracking system as personnel complete their normal recordkeeping duties?
- Are alternative sentencing programs (such as drug or alcohol treatment or rehabilitation, DUI schools, community service, dismissals, a reduction to lesser charges, or plea bargains) included in your data?
- Can all stakeholders easily access the data they need?
- Can your tracking system interface with other states’ DUI data?
- Can your tracking system build customizable reports?