Task Force Implementation Guidelines for the Development of State and Community Alcohol Highway Safety Programs

NHTSA · 1984 · ROSA P / United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This 1984 document from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provides implementation guidelines for establishing state and community task forces dedicated to reducing alcohol-related highway safety incidents. The research is motivated by the severe human and economic toll of driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) crashes, which accounted for nearly half of all highway deaths in the preceding decade, resulting in approximately 26,000 fatalities and $24 billion in annual costs. The low probability of apprehension for intoxicated drivers (1 in 500 to 1 in 2,000) and the prevalence of drunk driving on weekends further necessitated a coordinated, systems-based approach to replace fragmented, piecemeal efforts. The methodology centers on the "Task Force" model, a structured systems approach designed to integrate public and private sectors. The guidelines detail the procedural framework for creating these task forces, beginning with an executive order issued by the highest local or state official to ensure credibility and authority. Membership selection criteria emphasize community leadership, technical expertise, and representation from diverse stakeholders, including law enforcement, judiciary, health agencies, insurance industries, and citizen advocacy groups. The operational structure relies on specialized committees—such as those for enforcement, adjudication, rehabilitation, and education—supported by dedicated staff to coordinate activities, manage resources, and facilitate intercommittee communication. Key findings and recommendations emphasize that the effectiveness of a task force depends on rigorous organization and continuous evaluation. The document outlines specific investigative procedures for committees, including data collection, public hearings, and needs assessments. It stresses the importance of "management by objectives," where goals are measurable and regularly evaluated to maintain accountability and refine strategies. The guidelines also highlight the necessity of robust public relations, including media campaigns and printed materials, to increase public awareness and perceived risk of apprehension. The final output of the task force is a comprehensive report containing findings and recommendations, which must be followed by a concrete implementation plan to ensure recommendations are translated into actionable programs. The significance of this work lies in its provision of a standardized, replicable framework for combating drunk driving at both state and local levels. By promoting a unified, multi-agency strategy, the guidelines aim to enhance the credibility of recommendations and foster community involvement. The document concludes that ongoing evaluation and coordinated implementation are essential for sustaining long-term reductions in alcohol-related traffic crashes, shifting the focus from isolated interventions to a comprehensive, community-based control system.

Key finding

The document serves as an administrative framework for organizing task forces rather than a research study reporting empirical results on traffic safety outcomes.

Methodology

other

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• dui enforcement

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: policy recommendations, countermeasure evaluation