United States Government Accountability Office 

GAO Report to Congressional Committees


November 2004 HIGHWAY SAFETY 

Improved Monitoring 

and Oversight of 

Traffic Safety Data 

Program Are Needed 

On page 45, figure 9 was incorrectly displayed in a 

previous Web version of this report. This figure has now 

been corrected. This error will not appear in any printed 

copies of this report. 

GAO-05-24


a
Why GAO Did This Study 

Highlights 

Accountability Integrity Reliability 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-24. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-6570 or 

SiggerudK@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-24, a report to 

congressional committees 

Auto crashes kill or injure millions 

of people each year. Information 

about where and why such crashes 

occur is important in reducing this 

toll, both for identifying particular 

hazards and for planning safety 

efforts at the state and federal 

levels. Differences in the quality of 

state traffic data from state to state, 

however, affect the usability of data 

for these purposes. The National 

Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) 

administers a grant program to help 

states improve the safety data 

systems that collect and analyze 

crash data from police and sheriff’s 

offices and other agencies, and the 

Congress is considering whether to 

reauthorize and expand the 

program. he Senate 

Appropriations Committee directed 

GAO to study state systems and the 

grant program. Accordingly, GAO 

examined (1) the quality of state 

crash information, (2) the activities 

states undertook to improve their 

traffic records systems and any 

progress made, and (3) NHTSA’s 

oversight of the grant program. 

What GAO Recommends 

The Congress may want to consider 

incorporating into legislation a 

requirement that states have their 

traffic safety data systems assessed 

at least every 5 years. rther, we 

are recommending that NHTSA 

improve their management of grant 

documentation as well as 

monitoring and oversight of grant 

funds. The Department of 

Transportation agreed with the 

recommendations in this report. 

T

Fu

November 2004 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

Improved Monitoring and Oversight of 

Traffic Safety Data Program Are Needed 

What GAO Found 

States vary considerably in the extent to which their traffic safety data 

systems meet recommended criteria used by NHTSA to assess the quality of 

crash information. These criteria relate to whether the information is timely, 

consistent, complete, and accurate, as well as to whether it is available to 

users and integrated with other relevant information, such as that in the 

driver history files. GAO reviewed systems in 9 states and found, for 

example, that some states entered crash information into their systems in a 

matter of weeks, while others took a year or more. While some systems were 

better than others, all had opportunities for improvement. 

States reported carrying out a range of activities to improve their traffic 

safety data systems with the grants they received from NHTSA. Relatively 

little is known about the extent to which these activities improved the 

systems, largely because the documents submitted to NHTSA contained little 

or no information about what the activities accomplished. The states GAO 

reviewed used their grant funds for a variety of projects and showed varying 

degrees of progress. These efforts included completing strategic plans, hiring 

consultants, and buying equipment to facilitate data collection. 

NHTSA officials said their oversight of the grant program complied with the 

statutory requirements, but for two main reasons, it does not provide a 

useful picture of what states were accomplishing. First, the agency did not 

provide adequate guidance to ensure that states provided accurate and 

complete data on what they were accomplishing with their grants. Second, it 

did not have an effective process for monitoring progress. The agency has 

begun to take some actions to strengthen oversight of all its grant programs. 

If the Congress decides to reauthorize the program, however, additional 

steps are needed to provide effective oversight of this particular program. 

GAO also noted that in proposing legislation to reauthorize the program, one 

requirement was omitted that may be helpful in assessing progress—the 

requirement for states to have an up-to-date assessment of their traffic data 

systems. 

Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

Example of police car computers used to speed crash information into state traffic data systems. 

United States Government Accountability Office 
Contents


Letter


Results in Brief 


Background 


Quality of Data Systems Varied Greatly, with All States Examined 


Showing a Need for Improvement 

States Carried Out Various Activities Using 411 Grant Funds, but 

Little Is Known about Progress 

NHTSA’s Limited Oversight of the 411 Grant Program Contributed to 

Incomplete Knowledge of How Funds Were Used 

Conclusions 

Matter for Congressional Consideration 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

1 

3 

6 

10 

20 

26 

31 

32 

32 

32 

Appendixes 

Appendix I: 

Appendix II: 

Appendix III: 

Appendix IV: 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Additional Analysis of Data Quality in NHTSA’s State Data 

System 

Variations in Reporting Thresholds Impact the Usefulness of Data in 

the State Data System 

Variations in Reporting Alcohol and Drug Data 

Researchers’ Use of Another Database Omits Data on Nonfatal 

Crashes 

Examples of Federal and Other Efforts at Improving Traffic 

Safety Data 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 


Staff Acknowledgments


34 

37 

37 

39 

45 

47 

48 

48 

48 

Tables Table 1: NHTSA Recommended Criteria for Assessing Quality of 

Crash Information 11 

Table 2: Extent of Data Integration with Crash Files in the 9 

Case-study States 17 

Table 3: Status of States in the 411 Grant Program, 1st and 4th 

Year 19 

Table 4: Examples of Reported Activities Drawn from Available 

Documents of Participating States 21 

Page i GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Contents 

Table 5:	 Comparison of MMUCC Guidelines and Crash Information 

Provided to NHTSA by 5 States Regarding Alcohol- and 

Drug-Impaired Driving 41 

Figures	 Figure 1: 

Figure 2: 

Figure 3: 

Figure 4: 

Figure 5: 

Figure 6: 

Figure 7: 

Figure 8: 

Figure 9: 

Model State Traffic Safety Data System 7


Year of State Traffic Safety Data That Were Used to


Develop 2005 State Highway Safety Plans 12


Extent to Which Vehicle Identification Numbers Were 


Included in Data Reported by 17 States in the SDS 


Program 14


Examples of Reported Activities Drawn from Available 


Documents of Participating States 22


Types of Expenditures under the 411 Grant Program in 8


Case-study States 24


State Criteria for Filing a Police Crash Report for 


Property-Damage-Only Crashes 38


Extent to Which States Collected Information about 


Uninjured Passengers 39


Percentage of Alcohol Test Results That Were Coded as


Missing for 1998 and 2002 44


Percentage of Alcohol Test Results That Were Coded as


Unknown for 1998 and 2002 45


Page ii GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Contents 

Abbreviations 

CODES Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System


DOT Department of Transportation


FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System


FHWA Federal Highway Administration


FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


HSIS Highway Safety Information System


MMUCC Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria


NCSA National Center for Statistics and Analysis


NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


SDS State Data System


TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century


TraCS Traffic and Criminal Software program


TSIMS Transportation Safety Information Management System


VIN vehicle identification number


This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Page 1 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 

A

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

November 4, 2004 

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby 

Chairman 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation/Treasury 

and General Government 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ernest J. Istook 

Chairman 

The Honorable John W. Olver 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation and Treasury, 

and Independent Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Automobile crashes exact an enormous personal and economic toll on this 

country. In 2003, 42,643 people died in automobile crashes in the United 

States, and nearly 2.9 million more were seriously injured. In 2000, the most 

recent year for which cost estimates are available, the economic cost of 

fatalities and injuries from crashes totaled almost $231 billion.1

 Reducing 

this toll requires making informed decisions about safety problems. Traffic 

safety data, which are compiled from police accident reports completed at 

the scene of crashes and assembled largely at the state level, are key to 

making these decisions. The states and the federal government use data 

from state-level crash data systems to make many roadway-related 

spending and policy decisions, ranging from deciding to fix particular 

roadways to launching major national safety campaigns, such as preventing 

alcohol-impaired driving or increasing seat belt use. There is known 

variability in the quality of information in state traffic data systems, and 

these differences impact the usefulness of data for these purposes. 

When the Congress was considering reauthorizing various transit and 

highway programs earlier this year, both the House and Senate proposed 

bills that would have expanded the section “411 grant program,” which was 

1

The cost estimate was reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Page 1 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
initially authorized in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

(TEA-21).

2

 The 411 grant program was designed specifically to help states 

improve their traffic safety data systems and provided states with $36 

million over 6 years.3

 The House and Senate proposals would have 

authorized a similar grant program with a budget authority of up to $270 

million over 6 years.4

 However, an 8-month extension of TEA-21 was 

passed on September 30, 2004, extending current highway and transit 

programs through May 2005 when both bills may be reintroduced. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee Report5 accompanying the 

Department of Transportation Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 (S. 

1589) directed us to conduct a survey of state traffic safety data systems. 

The committee also asked us to report on the extent to which the 411 grant 

program has led to improvements in these systems. The grant program is 

overseen by the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which has established six criteria 

for assessing such systems when states request guidance from NHTSA. 

Four criteria relate to the information itself (timeliness, consistency, 

completeness, and accuracy); two relate to the use of the information 

(accessibility to users and links to other related data). Accordingly, this 

report examines (1) the quality of state crash information; (2) the activities 

states undertook using 411 grant funds to improve their traffic safety data 

systems, and the progress they made using the grant funds; and (3) 

NHTSA’s oversight of the grant program, including what changes in 

oversight, if any, might help encourage states to improve their traffic data 

systems and ensure accountability under a reauthorized program. 

2

Public Law 105-178 was enacted in June 1998. The name “411 grant program” stems from 

the authorizing section of the law. 

3

The 411 grant program was in place from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2004. 

However, grants for the program were distributed to states only through 2002, when the 

grant program funds were fully disbursed. The 411 grant was originally authorized for $32 

million. Surplus funds applied from a grant program that provides funds to states for 

alcohol-impaired driving measures raised the total authorized 411 funds for all 6 years to $36 

million. 

4

The reauthorized program was included in the S. 1072: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004 (SAFETEA) and H.R. 3550: Transportation 

Equity Act - Legacy for Users of 2003 (TEA-LU). 

5

S.R. 108-146, page 76. 

Page 2 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
To provide information on the quality of state crash data and state efforts to 

improve these data, we conducted site visits, analyzed available traffic 

safety data, and reviewed grant documentation. Using several criteria, we 

selected 9 states to visit for detailed reviews and assessed the status of 

their data systems on the basis of NHTSA’s six quality criteria for crash 

information. Eight of these 9 states had participated in the 411 grant 

program.

6

 To identify variations in data structure and quality, we also 

analyzed crash data for 17 states that currently participate in NHTSA’s State 

Data System (SDS) program.

7

 Finally, we reviewed the grant 

documentation submitted by the 48 states that participated in the 411 grant 

program, including grant applications, traffic records assessments, 

strategic plans, progress reports, and highway safety plan annual 

evaluation reports. To provide information about NHTSA’s oversight of the 

program, we interviewed NHTSA officials responsible for oversight and 

administration and reviewed NHTSA guidance and policy. We conducted 

our review from January 2004 through October 2004 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I for 

more details regarding our objectives, scope, and methodology. Because an 

examination of data quality was one of the objectives of this report, we also 

conducted an assessment of data reliability. A more complete discussion of 

data reliability can be found in appendix II. 

Results in Brief	 The 9 state traffic safety data systems we reviewed varied widely in the 

degree to which they met NHTSA’s six recommended quality criteria for 

crash information.8

 None of the state data systems we reviewed appeared 

6

We visited California, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Tennessee, Texas, and 

Utah. Texas did not participate in the grant program. 

7

The State Data System program is a database of state census crash data managed by 

NHTSA and the National Center for Statistics and Analysis. State participation is voluntary, 

with 27 states currently participating. Using data from this program, NHTSA produces its 

most frequently requested publication, the periodic Crash Data Report (most recently 

updated through 1999), and other important traffic safety publications. Our analysis 

included data from 1998 through the most recent year available for California, Florida, 

Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Five of these 17 

states were included in our case-study visits: California, Kentucky, Maryland, Texas, and 

Utah. 

8

NHTSA’s six recommended quality criteria are used by NHTSA to assess state traffic safety 

data systems. The assessments identify needed data system improvements, and it is up to 

states to decide if and how to address the findings and where to focus their efforts. 

Page 3 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
to meet all of the criteria, which affected the usefulness and reliability of 

their data. For example, while NHTSA’s timeliness criteria call for data to 

be available to users preferably within 90 days, the states we visited had 

data available from within 1 month to 18 months. Delayed access to crash 

data diminishes the ability to identify current and emerging roadway 

hazards or other safety problems and to carry out effective planning 

efforts, such as the development of annual state highway safety plans. 

Likewise, while 4 states completed or checked crash report data for 

accuracy by linking the data to information in driver or vehicle licensing 

files, 3 states had no accuracy checks at all. Since crash data are used 

mainly by states for highway safety planning, allocating resources, and 

measuring efforts toward safety goals, the information states collected 

varied—reflecting individual state needs. In addition, some states did not 

collect information such as vehicle identification numbers (VIN), which are 

particularly useful in identifying automobile safety concerns. Variations 

such as these can affect DOT’s ability to make the state-to-state 

comparisons that are necessary to evaluate past safety problems and 

develop future policy. For example, a recent DOT-funded national analysis 

of vehicle braking performance was based on data from only 5 states, 

because only these states had the required information for the analysis. 

States met the requirements of the grant and also undertook a range of 

activities using 411 grant funds. However, our review showed that little is 

known about the progress resulting from these activities. Entering 2002, 

the final year for which funding for the 411 grant program was available, 43 

of the 44 states that received grants reported that the program’s basic 

requirements—an assessment of the current data system, a strategic plan 

for making improvements, and a state-level committee to coordinate the 

effort—were in place.

9

 Both the assessments and the strategic plans 

appeared generally helpful in establishing baselines and priorities for 

improvement. Beyond meeting these basic requirements, states were given 

broad flexibility in implementing activities to improve their traffic data 

systems. Although the funding available under the 411 grant program was 

small in comparison with other federal safety grants, states reported 

pursuing a variety of activities, such as contracting with companies to help 

decrease crash report backlogs, redesigning data forms to better adhere to 

recommended guidelines, and attending traffic records conferences. 

However, the documents that states filed with NHTSA concerning these 

9

A total of 48 states participated in the 411 grant program; however, by 2002, 4 states had 

discontinued. 

Page 4 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
activities provided little or no information on how far these efforts 

progressed or what they accomplished. In the states we visited, officials 

were able to provide examples of how their efforts had improved data 

systems. Some of these states spent nearly their entire grant on a single 

project, such as creating a crash database, while others spread the money 

among multiple activities. In states where the coordinating committee had 

broad representation and the ability to commit financial resources, 

projects more fully addressed the needs of a broad cross-section of users. 

NHTSA conducted limited oversight of the 411 grant program. While the 

grant program’s statutory requirements were not explicit about the scope 

of oversight that NHTSA should have undertaken, NHTSA did not conduct 

adequate oversight among states participating in the program, which 

resulted in a poor and uneven picture of what the states were doing—or 

accomplishing—with their grants. Two key oversight elements were 

missing. First, NHTSA’s regulatory requirements and guidelines required 

states to submit progress reports under the 411 grant program, but were 

unclear about what information states should report to document activities 

and progress made improving traffic data systems. As a result, states were 

not consistent in the scope and detail of the information they reported. 

Second, NHTSA did not have an effective process for monitoring state 

progress. For example, NHTSA was not able to provide us with complete 

grant documentation (grant applications with progress reports, strategic 

plans, and traffic data systems assessments) for about half of the states 

that had participated in the grant program. Hence, NHTSA has limited 

knowledge of the extent to which states improved their traffic data systems 

through reported activities and whether states expended grant monies for 

intended activities. We found, for example, that 2 of the 8 states we visited 

were not accurately reporting on 411-funded activities. NHTSA has planned 

actions to correct some oversight shortcomings across its many grant 

programs, but it is too soon to determine the extent to which these actions 

will help ensure accountability if this grant program is renewed. These 

actions also may not be specific enough to address the weaknesses in this 

one program. In addition, proposed reauthorization bills that included a 

follow-on program for the 411 grant program were considered by the 

Congress in 2004, and these bills included requirements related to 

documenting the use of grant funds and demonstrating measurable 

progress that could result in clearer expectations for state reporting and 

NHTSA oversight. 

This report contains one matter for consideration by the Congress 

concerning a requirement that state traffic safety data systems be assessed 

Page 5 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
at least once every 5 years. States were to have an assessment of their 

traffic data systems within 5 years of participating in the original 411 grant 

program—this was not included in reauthorization proposals. The 

Congress may wish to add this requirement as it considers the legislation. 

We also recommend that, if the Congress reauthorizes the traffic safety 

incentive grant program, the Secretary of Transportation direct NHTSA to 

ensure better accountability and management of grant documentation and 

improved monitoring and oversight of 411 grant funds. 

Background	 Traffic safety data are the primary source of knowledge about crashes and 

how they are related to the traffic safety environment, human behavior, and 

vehicle performance. Most states have developed traffic safety data 

systems and manage these data through the initial reporting of crashes by 

law enforcement officers through data entry and analysis. Figure 1, which 

is based on NHTSA’s Traffic Records Highway Safety Program Advisory10 

depicts a model state traffic safety data system, including the collection 

and submission of data, the processing of these data into state safety data 

systems, and the potential uses for quality crash information. These data 

are often not housed in a single file or on just one computer system; 

however, users should have access to crash information in a useful form 

and of sufficient quality to support the intended use. 

10NHTSA’s Traffic Records Highway Safety Program Advisory establishes criteria to guide state 

development and use of highway safety data. 

Page 6 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Figure 1: Model State Traffic Safety Data System 

Crash reporting forms are 

consistent and include 

suggested elements. Data 

are collected electronically. 

Crash reports are entered 

into local databases and 

submitted to the state traffic 

safety database. Data 

processing is done 

electronically. 

Crash data are 

automatically integrated into 

state databases, including 

those containing roadway, 

driver, and vehicle 

information, and are 

accessible to users. 

Research and program 

development: Identifying safety 

problems and trends at the federal, 

state, and local levels; developing 

the state highway safety plans;a and 

linking crash data to medical 

information to measure crash 

outcomes. 

Program management and 

evaluation: Assessing highway 

safety initiatives and their impacts. 

Policy development: Responding 

to legislative and executive inquiries 

to support informed decision 

making. 

Public information: Reporting 

crash analyses and crash facts and 

providing access to the media, 

advocacy groups, and the general 

public, among others. Information from other traffic records files–driver, vehicle, and 

roadway–is automatically cross-checked with computerized data 

systems from state departments of transportation, motor 

vehicles, and licensing to validate or populate crash records. 

Completeness and 

Accuracy Checks 

Police accident report Local law enforcement 

agency 

State traffic records 

program 

Potential uses for state 

traffic safety data 

Source: GAO analysis based on NHTSA’s Traffic Records Safety Program Advisory and Nova Development Corporation (clip art). 

a

States are required to include highway safety plans in their applications for federal funding of their 

highway safety programs. These plans describe the projects and activities that states plan to 

implement to reach goals identified in their performance plans. 

At the state level, state agencies use traffic safety data to make highway 

safety planning decisions and to evaluate the effectiveness of programs, 

among other uses. In those states where quality crash data on a range of 

crashes are not available, officials use federal data such as that from 

NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) to make programming 

decisions.

11 FARS data, while useful for some purposes, are limited because 

they only include information about fatal crashes, thus preventing decision 

11FARS contains data derived from a census of fatal traffic crashes within the United States 

(including Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico). Fatal crashes are those that involve a motor 

vehicle traveling on a traffic way open to the public and result in the death of a person 

within 30 days of the crash. 

Page 7 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
making based on a range of crash severity or the entirety of a state’s crash 

situation. At the federal level, NHTSA provides guidelines, 

recommendations, and technical assistance to help states improve their 

crash data systems and is responsible for overseeing state highway safety 

programs.

12 Under TEA-21, NHTSA awarded $935.6 million in highway 

safety incentive grants to improve safety. In 2003, NHTSA made improving 

traffic safety data one of the agency’s highest priorities. 

Since the early 1980s, NHTSA has been obtaining crash data files from 

states, which in turn have been deriving the data from police crash reports. 

These statewide crash data files are referred to as the SDS program. 

Participation by states is voluntary, with 27 states currently participating. 

These data include some of the basic information for the analyses and data 

collection programs that support the NHTSA mission of identifying and 

monitoring traffic safety problems. 

One of NHTSA’s grant programs was specifically aimed at improving traffic 

safety data. Administered through its 10 regional offices around the 

country, the program provided about $36 million to states for improving 

their crash data systems. This grant program was authorized under TEA-21 

and was known as the “411 grant program” after the relevant section of the 

U.S. Code.13 NHTSA administers a number of other grant programs besides 

the 411 grant program; however, it was the only incentive grant program 

that was specifically directed at improving state traffic safety data 

systems.14 The grant program required states to establish a foundation for 

improving their traffic safety data systems by first completing three 

activities: 

•	 Establish a coordinating committee of stakeholders to help guide and 

make decisions about traffic safety data: The committee would ideally 

include stakeholders from agencies that manage the various data files 

(e.g., representatives from the state department of transportation 

responsible for roadway information, and from the state department of 

12There are other agencies and associations involved in the improvement of traffic safety 

data, see appendix III for examples. 

13Title 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4. 

14NHTSA’s section 402 grant allows states to use some of their 402 funding to support their 

state or local safety records systems. 

Page 8 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
motor vehicles responsible for the management of vehicle licensing 

information). 

•	 Conduct an assessment of the current system: The assessment would 

evaluate a state’s system by identifying strengths and weaknesses and 

providing a baseline from which the state could develop its strategic 

plan to address data system needs. 

•	 Develop a strategic plan that prioritizes traffic safety data system 

needs and identifies goals: The strategic plan is to provide the “map” 

specifying which activities should be implemented in order to achieve 

these goals. As with the assessment, the focal point for developing the 

strategic plan, if a state did not already have one, would be the 

coordinating committee. 

The level of funding available to a state was dependent on whether states 

had already put these requirements in place. Additionally, states were 

required to contribute matching funds of between 25 and 75 percent, 

depending on the year of the grant.15 Three types of grants were awarded: 

•	 A state received a start-up grant if it had none of the three requirements 

in place. This was a one-time grant of $25,000. 

•	 A state received an initiation grant if it had established a coordinating 

committee, had completed or updated an assessment within the 

previous 5 years, and had begun to develop a strategic plan. This grant 

was a one-time grant of $125,000, if funds were available. 

•	 A state received an implementation grant if it had all three 

requirements in place and was positioned to make specific 

improvements as indicated in its strategic plan. This grant was at least 

$250,000 in the first year and $225,000 in subsequent years, if funds were 

available.16 

15In the 1st and 2nd fiscal years, the federal share of the costs shall not exceed 75 percent. In 

the 3rd and 4th fiscal years, the federal share of the costs shall not exceed 50 percent. In the 

5th and 6th fiscal years, the federal share of the costs shall not exceed 25 percent. 

16Although states were required to meet basic requirements, they were not required to 

submit individual projects for approval. 

Page 9 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
The Congress has extended TEA-21 until May 2005, and new House and 

Senate bills will likely be introduced during the next congressional session. 

The most recent House and Senate bills under consideration,17 which were 

not passed in the 2004 session, included proposals to reauthorize the 411 

grant program in a similar, but not identical, form to the original program. 

The proposals included funding up to $270 million, which is over six times 

the original funding amount. They also included (1) additional 

requirements for documentation from states describing how grant funds 

would be used to address needs and goals in state strategic plans and (2) a 

requirement that states demonstrate measurable progress toward 

achieving their goals. The proposals, however, did not include one of the 

original program requirements—that states have an assessment of their 

traffic safety data systems that is no more than 5 years old when they 

applied for the grant. 

Quality of Data 

Systems Varied 

Greatly, with All States 

Examined Showing a 

Need for Improvement 

The 9 states we examined in detail varied considerably in the extent to 

which their traffic safety data systems met NHTSA’s recommended criteria 

for the quality of crash information. NHTSA’s six criteria (shown in table 1 

below, along with an explanation of each criterion’s significance) appear in 

the agency’s Traffic Records Highway Safety Program Advisory, the guide 

used by NHTSA when it carries out traffic records assessments at the 

request of state officials. These assessments are a technical assistance tool 

offered to state officials to document state traffic safety data activities, 

note strengths and accomplishments, and offer suggestions for 

improvement. In addition, NHTSA released the report Initiatives to 

Address Improvement of Traffic Safety Data in July 2004, which 

emphasized these data quality criteria and provided recommendations to 

states. We examined all six criteria for the 9 case-study states, and our 

review of 17 states that participated in NHTSA’s SDS program provided 

additional information for three of these six criteria.

18 None of the 9 states 

in our case-study review met all six criteria, and most had opportunities for 

improvement in many of the criteria. The sections below discuss each 

criterion. 

17H.R. 3550 and S. 1072. 

18We looked at data from 17 states participating in NHTSA’s SDS program to provide 

additional information about three criteria: consistency, completeness, and accuracy. 

Page 10 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Table 1: NHTSA Recommended Criteria for Assessing Quality of Crash Information 

Criteria Significance 

Timeliness 

Crash information should be available for analytical purposes within Timely crash data allow for the use of up-to-date information to 

a useful time frame for identifying crash problems within a state— identify safety problems, for policy making, and for resource 

preferably within 90 days of a crash. allocation, among other uses. 

Consistency 

Crash information should be consistent among reporting Uniform data within a state allow for the timely merging of data sets 

jurisdictions within a state. It should also be consistent with and the identification of traffic safety problems as they arise. In 

nationally accepted and published guidelines and standards, such addition, states benefit by being able to compare their results 

as the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria. nationally and with one another to identify traffic safety problems 

and manage and monitor progress toward fixing them. Finally, 

consistent state standards for determining which crashes to report 

allow for national comparisons. 

Completeness 

Data should be collected for all reportable crashes in the state and Adherence to state reporting requirements permits evaluation of the 

on all appropriate crash variables.	 effectiveness of countermeasures initiated by the state. Complete 

data also generate a picture of safety performance useful for states 

to qualify for highway safety incentive funding. 

Accuracy 

Quality control methods should be employed to ensure accurate Comprehensive information is necessary to understand what 

and reliable crash information for both individual crashes and makes a difference and what has a direct impact on reducing 

aggregate crash information. deaths, injuries, injury severity, and costs. 

Accessibility 

Crash information should be readily and easily accessible to the Accessible data enable the use of data to identify safety problems 

principal users of such data. This applies both to direct access of and for resource allocation, the quick evaluation of recent traffic 

crash information from the appropriate crash databases and to safety initiatives, the use of data for reporting requirements, and the 

standard reports generated from crash data. ability to respond to inquiries and requests from state legislative 

and executive branches, among others. 

Data integration 

Crash information should be capable of linking to other information Links make it possible to evaluate the relationship between specific 

sources. Such linking could be accomplished through the use of roadway, crash, vehicle, and human factors at the time of a crash. 

common identifiers or probabilistic data-matching methods. They also permit these factors to be linked to health outcome data 

to determine their association with specific medical and financial 

consequences, which facilitates choosing safety priorities that have 

the most impact on reducing death and disability. 

Source: GAO analysis based on NHTSA’s Traffic Records Highway Safety Program Advisory. 

Timeliness: In Some States, Data processing time frames ranged widely in the 9 states we visited. Three 

Available Data Were Several of the 9 states met NHTSA’s 90-day timeliness criterion for having useful 

Years Old data available. Data processing times for the 9 states ranged from less than 

1 month in 2 states to 18 months or more in 2 others. For example, to 

develop their 2005 highway safety plans during 2004, 4 of the 9 states used 

Page 11 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
data from 2000, 2001, or 2002, and the remaining 5 states used 2003 data. 

(See fig. 2.) 

Figure 2: Year of State Traffic Safety Data That Were Used to Develop 2005 State 

Highway Safety Plans 

2001 

2003 

2002 

2000 

1 state 

1 state 

2 statesa 

5 statesb 

Source: GAO presentation of information provided by the case-study states. 

a

One state received an extension on the due date of its safety plan to allow for additional processing of 

2002 data. Without this extension, planning would have been done using 2001 crash information. 

b

One state used preliminary 2003 data because data entry of location information had not been 

completed. 

For 6 of the 9 states, three factors accounted for their not meeting the 

timeliness criterion: slow data entry, data integration delays, and lengthy 

data edits. As a result, the state safety plans are unable to take recent crash 

trends into account in these states. Generally, those states submitting data 

electronically from local law enforcement agencies to the state traffic 

safety data system had much faster entry of crash information into 

Page 12 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
centralized databases.19 In contrast, states that processed reports manually 

by keying in information from paper forms at the state level had longer data 

entry time frames. The availability of data was also sometimes delayed by 

inefficient data completion processes.20 In states where this is not done 

automatically, crash data and location information are often manually 

entered into the traffic safety data system. In addition, checks for accuracy 

also delayed data availability. For example, 1 of the states that had to use 

data from 2000 to develop its highway safety plan, had used electronic 

methods to enter more recent data, but detailed edit checks delayed the 

data’s release considerably. 

Consistency: Data Were Not 

Consistent Across States, 

Even for Basic Information 

Seven of the 9 states we visited had crash forms that could be used to 

collect data across all jurisdictions within the state, helping to ensure that 

data collected within the state are consistent. However, no state had forms 

that met all of the consistency criteria recommended in the Model 

Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) guidelines that were 

developed collaboratively by state and federal authorities. These guidelines 

provide a recommended minimum set of data elements to be collected for 

each crash, including a definition, attributes, and the rationale for 

collecting each element. While variation in the crash data collected by 

states can be attributed to varying information needs, guidelines help to 

improve the reliability of information collected and also assist in state-tostate comparisons and national analyses. The variation between states can 

be seen among the 17 states we analyzed that contribute to NHTSA’s SDS 

program.

21 For example, the MMUCC guidelines recommend reporting on 

whether alcohol was a factor in the crash by indicating the presence or 

19Law enforcement officers in several states use computer programs to aid in the collection 

of crash information. One such program available to states is the Traffic and Criminal 

Software (TraCS) program, which was developed with federal assistance in Iowa. The TraCS 

program allows officers to enter crash information into local databases before it is 

transmitted to the central state traffic records database. Initial data entry can be completed 

either using computers in officer vehicles or using paper forms that are later keyed into the 

local computer system once an officer returns to his or her agency. In addition to facilitating 

the entry of data directly into the state database via electronic submission, the TraCS 

program maintains a local database of crash information and provides the local law 

enforcement agency with tools to do simple analysis of this information. 

20Data completion may involve pulling in additional information from other state agencies, 

such as inputting the crash location from state department of transportation files. 

21Appendix II contains additional analysis related to the consistency and completeness of 

data for these 17 states. 

Page 13 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
absence of an alcohol test, the type of test administered, and the test 

results. However, several of the states collected information on impaired 

driving without specifying the presence of an alcohol test, the test type, or 

the test result; thereby making it difficult to determine whether alcohol-use 

contributed to the crash. In addition, the states were not uniform in 

collecting and reporting the VIN, another element recommended in the 

MMUCC. A VIN is a unique alphanumeric identifier that is applied to each 

vehicle by the manufacturer. The VIN allows for an effective evaluation of 

vehicle design characteristics such as occupant protection systems. As 

figure 3 shows, data about VINs were not available for all 17 states in 

crashes for any year between 1998 and 2002. For example, although every 

state had submitted crash data for 1998 and 1999, crash data for 6 of the 17 

states did not include VINs. 

Figure 3: Extent to Which Vehicle Identification Numbers Were Included in Data 

Reported by 17 States in the SDS Program 

N/A N/A N/A 

N/A N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

California 

Florida 

Illinois 

Kansas 

Indiana 

Kentucky 

Maryland 

Michigan 

Missouri 

New Mexico 

North Carolina 

Ohio 

Pennsylvania 

Texas 

Utah 

South Carolina 

Virginia 

Data available without VIN 

Data availabe with VIN 

N/A Data not available for this year 

Source: NHTSA/NCSA. 

Page 14 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
The lack of consistency limits the use of state crash data for most 

nationwide analyses. For example, in a recent National Center for Statistics 

and Analysis (NCSA)22 Research Note on child safety campaigns, only 3 

states met the criteria to be included in the analysis, not nearly enough data 

to statistically represent the nation. The criteria necessary for inclusion in 

the report included collecting data on all vehicle occupants, including 

uninjured occupants, and VINs for the relevant years (1995-2001). If state 

systems matched the MMUCC, they would include this information. 

Similarly, only 5 states qualified for use in a NCSA analysis of braking 

performance as part of the New Car Assessment Program because only 

these states collected VINs and had the necessary variables for the years 

involved in the study. 

There is evidence that as states redesign their crash forms, they are 

following the MMUCC guidelines more closely. Remaining differences from 

the suggested guidelines often reflect the needs of individual states. Among 

the 9 states we visited, 5 had redesigned their crash forms since 1997. All 5 

used the guidelines as a baseline, although each of them tailored the form 

to a degree. One state, for example, collected no data about the use of seat 

belts for uninjured passengers, while another chose to collect additional 

state-specific attributes, such as describing snow conditions (e.g., blowing 

or drifting). Among the remaining 4 states we visited, 2 states are currently 

using the MMUCC guidelines to redesign their forms. 

Completeness: Gaps Existed 

in the Completeness of 

Reporting 

One factor affecting the degree of completeness is state reporting 

thresholds—that is, standards that local jurisdictions use to determine 

whether crash data should be reported for a particular crash. These 

thresholds include such things as the presence of fatalities or injuries or the 

extent of property damage. Although all 9 of the states we visited had 

reporting thresholds that included fatalities and injuries, the thresholds for 

property damage varied widely. For example, some states set the property 

damage threshold at $1,000, while 1 state did not require reporting of 

property-damage-only crashes. In addition, it was not possible to determine 

the extent that all reportable crashes had been included in the traffic safety 

data system. Officer discretion may play a role. For example, capturing 

complete documentation of a crash event is often a low priority when 

traffic safety data are not perceived as relevant to the work of the law 

22NCSA is an office within NHTSA and is responsible for providing a wide range of analytical 

and statistical support to NHTSA and the highway safety community at-large. 

Page 15 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
enforcement officer or other public safety provider. In 1 state, for example, 

the police department of a major metropolitan area only reported crashes 

involving severe injuries or fatalities, although the state’s reporting 

threshold included damage of $1,000 or more. 

Variation in thresholds among states is not the only factor that affects the 

completeness of crash data. For the crash information that does make it 

into the state database, there are often gaps in the data, as we learned from 

evaluating the records of 17 states participating in NHTSA’s SDS program. 

For 5 of these states, we analyzed data coded “unknown” and “missing” for 

24 data elements. The percentage of data coded as unknown or missing 

was frequent for several key data elements, such as the VIN; the results of 

alcohol or drug testing; and the use of seat belts, child car seats, and other 

restraint devices. For example, the percentage of data coded as unknown 

or missing for the use of seat belts and other restraints ranged between 1.5 

and 54.8 percent for 4 of the 5 states. Such data can be inherently difficult 

to collect.

23 For example, when officers arrive at the scene of a crash, 

drivers and passengers may already be outside their vehicles, making it 

impossible to know if they were wearing seat belts. Asked if they were 

wearing a seat belt, those involved in the crash may not tell the truth, 

especially if the state has a law mandating seat belt use. 

Accuracy: States Varied 

Greatly in the Extent of 

Checks for Data Accuracy 

Six of the 9 states we visited made use of quality control methods to help 

ensure that individual reports were accurate when they were submitted to 

the traffic safety data system. Of these 6 states, for example, 4 linked crash 

reports to other traffic safety data, including driver or vehicle files, to verify 

or populate information on crash reporting forms. Table 2 contains 

examples of other tools and checks that the states used to help ensure 

accuracy. 

23In addition to data collection difficulties, the data entry policies of the states varied. For 

example, some states code occupant protection system use correctly for injured passengers, 

but as “unknown” for uninjured persons. Similarly, the practice by some states of coding the 

lack of an alcohol test as “.00” rather than “missing” can lead to difficulty in obtaining proper 

information. 

Page 16 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Table 2: Examples of Tools and Processes That Were Used to Ensure the Accuracy 

of Individual Crash Reports in 6 Case-study States 

On-scene data verification tools Postcrash reporting accuracy checks 

• Drop-down menus to complete crash • Automatic validity checks included in 

reports electronic data submission 

• Scannable bar codes on driver licenses or • Links to driver, vehicle, or roadway files to 

vehicle registrations validate or populate crash reports using 

• Wireless connections to vehicle or driver common identifiers, such as license plate 

files numbers, driver names, or location 

• Global positioning system location identifiers 

equipment 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by states. 

Four of the 9 states did quality checks at the aggregate level—that is, when 

crash reports are analyzed in batches to identify abnormalities in reporting 

that may not be apparent looking at individual reports. Of these 4 states, for 

example, 1 had staff analyze the reports to identify invalid entries and data 

miscodings, while another conducted edit checks each year to check for 

invalid vehicle types or other problems. Such aggregate-level analysis can 

be useful to identify systematic problems in data collection that may lead to 

erroneous investigation or false conclusions, such as when officers report 

one type of collision as another. For instance, officers in 1 state were found 

to be characterizing some car-into-tree crashes as head-on collisions. Once 

identified, such data collection problems can often be resolved through 

officer training. 

To test data accuracy, we analyzed crash data submitted by the 17 states to 

NHTSA and found relatively few instances of data that had been coded as 

“invalid”—generally 3 percent or less. Data classified as invalid were most 

often for elements more likely to be transposed or miscopied, such as VINs. 

However, because we could not observe crash-scene reporting and did not 

examine or verify information on source documents (such as police 

accident reports), we cannot assume that the other 97 percent of data were 

accurately reported and entered correctly. Invalid data entries are a good 

starting point for measuring the accuracy of a data system, but they are 

only one indication of the accuracy of state traffic safety data. 

Accessibility: Crash Data All 9 states produced crash information summaries, although some were 

Were Accessible to Users in based on data that were several years old—a factor that limited their 

Varying Ways usefulness. In addition, 8 states provided law enforcement agencies or 

Page 17 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
other authorized users with access to crash information within 6 months of 

crashes. Such access was often via the Internet, and data analysis tools 

were typically limited to a certain number of preestablished data reports. 

Thus, any in-depth analysis was limited to the tools available online. Three 

states had analysts available to provide information or complete data 

queries upon request. In another state, which had the capability to conduct 

data collection electronically, local law enforcement agencies had access to 

analysis tools to use with their own data. 

If users wanted direct access to completed data for more detailed analysis, 

they often had to wait somewhat longer, given the need for additional data 

entry or the completion of accuracy checks. In 1 state, for example, there 

was a 2- to 3-month delay due to the transfer of preliminary crash data from 

the state police database to the state department of transportation where 

location information was added to complete the data. 

Data Integration: Only 1 

State Integrated Traffic 

Safety Information with All 

Databases 

Only 1 of the 9 states integrated the full array of potential databases—that 

is, linked the crash file with all five of the files typically or potentially 

available in various state agencies: driver, vehicle, roadway, 

citation/conviction, and medical outcome. All 9 of the states we visited 

integrated crash information with roadway files to some degree, but only a 

few integrated these data with driver or vehicle licensing files, or with the 

conviction files housed in state court systems. (See table 3.) In addition, 7 

of the 9 states participated in NHTSA’s Crash Outcome Data Evaluation 

System (CODES) program,24 which links crash data with medical 

information such as emergency and hospital discharge data, trauma 

registries, and death certificates. 

24The CODES program is funded by NHTSA and links existing statewide traffic safety data 

with injury outcome, hospital discharge, and other injury-related data. The linked data are 

used to support highway safety decision making at the local, state, and national levels to 

reduce deaths, nonfatal injuries, and health care costs resulting from motor vehicle crashes. 

Page 18 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Table 3: Extent of Data Integration with Crash Files in the 9 Case-study States 

Type of file Reported state links with crash data 

Driver Three states reported having direct links between the crash database and 

licensing	 driver records. Another state reported that the state department of public 

safety pulled relevant information directly from crash reports, including 

insurance information. 

Vehicle 

licensing 

Two states reported links with the vehicle file. Each of these transfers was 

done on at least a weekly basis. 

Roadway	 All 9 of the states reported integrating crash data with roadway 

information, although in 3 states, the integration was done by the state 

department of transportation with the creation of a new database 

involving additional data entry or file manipulation. 

Citation/ Two states reported linking citation information with conviction data from 

Conviction	 the state court databases. Another state noted that 20 percent of citation 

information was submitted to the department of public safety. 

Medical Seven states were involved in the CODES program, which links crash 

outcome 	 data with medical files, such as emergency medical service, hospital 

in/outpatient, and death certificate information. Six of these states carried 

out data integration using probabilistic linkages, and the 7th was 

preparing to do so. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by the case-study states. 

Technological challenges and the lack of coordination among state 

agencies often posed hurdles to the integration of state data. In 1 state, for 

example, crash files were sent from the central traffic records database 

kept by the state department of safety to the state department of 

transportation for manual entry of location information from the roadway 

file. Once the state department of transportation completed these records, 

however, there was no mechanism to export that information back into the 

central database. Also, in some states data integration was limited because 

data were not processed with integration in mind. In 1 state, for example, 

state department of transportation officials noted that the new crash 

system had been developed for state police use, and that efforts were still 

under way to develop an interface to bring crash data into the department’s 

system. In contrast, a state official in another state noted that the housing 

of several agencies involved in the traffic safety data system—including 

those responsible for the driver, vehicle, and roadway files—in the state 

department of transportation had facilitated the direct sharing of 

information and the full integration of data. 

Page 19 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
NHTSA Continues to 

Emphasize Quality Criteria 

In support of these quality criteria and improved traffic safety data 

systems, NHTSA released a report in July 2004 detailing steps that could be 

taken by federal and state stakeholders to improve traffic safety data. The 

report, Initiatives to Address Improvement of Traffic Safety Data, was 

issued by NHTSA and drafted by an Integrated Project Team that included 

representatives from NHTSA, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the 

Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration. The report articulates the direction and steps needed for 

traffic safety data to be improved and made more useful to data users. It 

makes a number of recommendations under five areas, including 

improving coordination and leadership, improving data quality and 

availability, encouraging states to move to electronic data capture and 

processing, creating greater uniformity in data elements, and facilitating 

data use and access. Along with these recommendations, the report also 

outlines initiatives that NHTSA and other stakeholders should implement. 

For example, under the area of data quality and availability, the report 

indicates that states—under the guidance of their coordinating 

committees—should encourage compliance by law enforcement with state 

regulations for obtaining blood-alcohol concentration and drug use 

information and should also strive to capture exact crash locations (using 

latitude and longitude measures) in their traffic safety data systems. 

States Carried Out 

Various Activities 

Using 411 Grant Funds, 

but Little Is Known 

about Progress 

States reported carrying out a range of activities with funding made 

available under the 411 grant program. However, relatively little is known 

about the extent to which they made progress in improving their traffic 

safety data systems for the years of the grant. When applying for follow-on 

grants, states were required to report to NHTSA’s regional offices on the 

progress they were making in improving their traffic safety data systems 

during the prior year. However, the required documents filed with NHTSA 

yielded little or no information on what states had achieved. We were able 

to discern from the 8 states we reviewed in detail that those states had 

indeed used their grants for a variety of projects and showed varying 

degrees of progress.

25 Regardless of whether states concentrated their 

grant funds on one project or funded a number of activities, the level of 

progress was influenced by the effectiveness of state coordinating 

committees. 

25Texas, our 9th case-study state, did not participate in the grant program. 

Page 20 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Most States Received 

Grants for 4 Years and 

Initiated State Data 

Improvements 

Forty-eight states applied for and received grant awards under the 411 

grant program. As table 4 shows, most states (29) began their participation 

at the implementation grant level—that is, most of them already had the 

three basic requirements in place, including a coordinating committee, an 

assessment of their data system, and a strategic plan for improvement. 

Those states receiving start-up or initiation grants were expected to put the 

three requirements in place before beginning specific data-related 

improvement projects. By the 4th year of the grant, 44 states were still 

participating, and all but 1 was at the implementation grant level. The 4 

states that were no longer participating by the 4th year reported that they 

discontinued participation mainly because they could not meet grant 

requirements. 

Table 4: Status of States in the 411 Grant Program, 1st and 4th Year 

1st year of grant (1999) 4th year of grant (2002) 

Number of Number of 

Type of grant states states Size of grants a Size of grants 

Start-up 7 $25,000 0 N/A 

Initiation 11 63,100 1 $124,524 

Implementation 29 126,260 43 224,151 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by NHTSA. 

Note: The program was not funded for the final 2 years of TEA-21. 

a

A total of 48 states participated in the grant program between 1999 and 2002; 47 began in 1999, and 

1 state began in 2000. 

All three basic program requirements were useful to states to initiate or 

develop improvements in their traffic safety data systems. By meeting 

these grant requirements, states were able to “jump start” their efforts and 

raise the importance of improving state traffic safety data systems. The 

assessments, which were required to be conducted within 5 years of the 

initial grant application, provided benchmarks and status reports to 

NHTSA and state officials and included information on how well state 

systems fared in regard to NHTSA’s six recommended quality criteria. 

Officials with whom we spoke generally agreed that these assessments 

were excellent tools for systematically identifying needed state 

improvements. Similarly, strategic plans generally appeared to be based on 

the state assessment findings and helped states identify and prioritize their 

future efforts. The establishment of the traffic records coordinating 

Page 21 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
committees to guide these efforts was also key to initiating improvements, 

since traffic safety data systems involve many departments and their 

cooperation is essential in developing and implementing improvements to a 

state traffic safety data system. 

Progress Reports Were 

Limited and Difficult to 

Assess 

Documentation of state progress was limited and of little use in assessing 

the effect of traffic safety data improvement efforts. To qualify for grants 

beyond the first year, each state had to (1) certify that it had an active 

coordinating committee and (2) provide documentation of its efforts 

through updated strategic plans, separate progress reports, or highway 

safety annual evaluation reports. We reviewed these documents when 

available and found that they contained a variety of activities, ranging from 

completing the basic requirements (such as conducting assessments and 

developing strategic plans) to identifying specific projects (such as 

outsourcing data entry services and redesigning crash forms). Figure 4 lists 

examples of these types of reported activities. 

Figure 4: Examples of Reported Activities Drawn from Available Documents of 

Participating States 

Publishing annual reports. 

Contracting with a private data entry firm. 

Transferring data entry and imaging functions to prison rehabilitative industries. 

Redeveloping the statewide crash form to better adhere to recommended national standards. 

Traveling to national and regional traffic record forums. 

Hiring a traffic records coordinator. 

Examining best practices in other states. 

Source: GAO presentation of information provided by NHTSA. 

The grant documentation NHTSA received provided few details on the 

quality of the state efforts.

26 For example, although states certified the 

existence of a coordinating committee, they were not required to report on 

what the committee did or how well it functioned. Also, while states for the 

most part identified efforts to improve their data systems, we found it 

26Documentation included grant applications and progress reports, strategic plans, and 

traffic records assessments. 

Page 22 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
difficult to assess their progress because the reports lacked sufficient 

detail. For example: 

•	 One state reported using grant funds on alcohol testing devices to 

collect more alcohol impairment data on drivers. However, the progress 

reports did not indicate who received these devices and how data 

collection was improved. 

•	 One state used funds to hire data entry staff to reduce the backlog of old 

crash reports. However, the state provided no indication of whether the 

increase in staff had reduced the backlog and how any reduction in the 

backlog could be sustained in the longer term. 

•	 One state reported using funds on multimillion dollar information 

technology projects, but it is unclear how the grant funds were used in 

these projects. 

Case-study States 

Conducted a Variety of 

Activities Ranging from One 

Specific Project to a Variety 

of Activities 

Our visits to 8 of the states that participated in the 411 grant program 

yielded additional information and documentation about their grant 

activities, the nature of their efforts, and the extent of progress made. 

These states expended funds on a variety of activities, ranging from 

completing the basic requirements of assessments and strategic plans to 

implementing specific projects. As figure 5 shows, in the aggregate, these 

activities translated into two main types of expenditures—equipment, such 

as computer hardware and software, and consultant services, such as 

technical assistance in designing new data systems. 

Page 23 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Figure 5: Types of Expenditures under the 411 Grant Program in 8 Case-study 

States 

13% 

5% 

37% 

36% 

5% 

1% 

Subgrants 

1% 

Travel 

3% 

Training forums 

Grant requirements 

Other 

Operating costs 

Equipment (hardware/software) 

Consultant/Professional services 

Source: GAO analysis of 411 grant expenses reported by 8 case-study states. 

The 8 states either concentrated funding on one large project or used 

funding on a variety of activities, including data entry, salaries, training, and 

travel. Four of the 8 states focused on a single project related to improving 

their data systems mainly by enhancing electronic reporting. One state 

reengineered its files to better integrate them with other data systems; 1 

piloted an electronic crash data collection tool; and the remaining 2 created 

new electronic data systems, which were upgrades from their previous 

manual systems. These states also improved the tools used by law 

enforcement officers to input data into their crash systems, such as 

software for mapping and graphing traffic crashes or laptop computers for 

patrol cars so that law enforcement officers could collect and transmit 

crash data electronically to statewide repositories. 

The remaining 4 states used funding on multiple activities, such as 

obtaining technical support, adding capability for more data entry, or 

attending conferences. Some also conducted pilot projects. For example, 1 

state created a project that enabled electronic uploads of traffic citation 

Page 24 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
data from local agencies to the state department of motor vehicles. 

According to state officials, this project helped considerably with both 

timeliness and completeness in the uploading of conviction information to 

driver files. In another example, the state used funding to pilot a project to 

capture data about crashes electronically. 

States made improvements under both the single- and multiple-project 

approaches. One state that focused on a single project, for example, 

developed a new statewide electronic crash system that officials said had 

improved data timeliness and completeness. Similarly, of the states that 

spread funding among multiple activities, 1 state used funding for a data 

project on driver convictions—paying for traffic records staff’s salaries and 

hiring consultants to map crashes to identify roadway issues. As a result, 

the quality and completeness of crash data improved overall, according to a 

state official. 

One factor that affected state progress was the relative effectiveness of the 

state’s coordinating committee. In those states, where the state 

coordinating committee did not actively engage all stakeholders or where 

its level of authority was limited, projects did not fully address system 

needs. For example, 1 state established a coordinating committee that 

included few stakeholders outside the state police, and this committee 

decided to concentrate funding on a new electronic crash data system. The 

new system, acknowledged by many stakeholders as improving the 

timeliness and completeness of crash data, resulted in a useful resource 

allocation and crash-reporting tool for the state police to allocate resources 

and report on crashes. According to officials at the state department of 

transportation, however, improvements in the crash information did not 

effectively serve to facilitate the state’s use of crash data to identify unsafe 

roadways because the state department of transportation was not fully 

engaged in the coordinating committee’s process. 

Similarly, in another state, the coordinating committee lacked the authority 

needed to fully implement its efforts. The coordinating committee created 

two subcommittees—a technical committee and an executive committee. 

While the executive committee was made up of higher level managers from 

various agencies, the coordinating committee did not have the legislative 

authority to compel agencies to participate in the process or to even use 

the newly created statewide crash data system. To date, the state does not 

have all key stakeholders participating in the process and is continuing to 

have difficulty persuading the largest municipality in the state to use the 

newly developed statewide electronic reporting system. As a result, the 

Page 25 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
municipality continues to lag behind other communities in having its crash 

information entered into the state crash system. In contrast, another state’s 

coordinating committee had the authority to approve or reject proposals 

for data system improvements as well as funding. This state was able to 

complete several agreed-upon projects, including implementing an 

electronic driver citation program, which improved the completeness and 

timeliness of the state crash data. 

NHTSA’s Limited 

Oversight of the 411 

Grant Program 

Contributed to 

Incomplete Knowledge 

of How Funds Were 

Used 

NHTSA did not adopt adequate regulations or guidelines to ensure states 

receiving 411 grants submitted accurate and complete information on 

progress they were making to improve their traffic safety data systems. In 

addition, the agency did not have an effective process for monitoring 

progress and ensuring that grant monies were being spent as intended. We 

found some examples where states did not report their progress accurately. 

NHTSA, while beginning to take some actions to strengthen program 

oversight, must be more proactive in developing an effective means of 

holding states accountable under this program. 

Regulatory Requirements 

and Guidance for 411 

Program Activities Were Not 

Specific 

In our previous discussion about activities being carried out under the 

grant program, we described how state documentation of progress often 

contained too little detail to determine anything about the progress being 

made as a result of activities being funded with program grants. Reasons 

for this lack of information, in our view, were NHTSA’s limited regulatory 

requirements and inconsistent guidance about what information states 

should submit. 

Regulations for the 411 grant program required states to submit an updated 

strategic plan or a progress report, but did not specify how progress should 

be reported. Further, NHTSA’s regulations required states to report on 

progress as part of their 411 grant application, which in effect meant that 

states did not have to report specifically on 411 activities after fiscal year 

2001. According to NHTSA regulations, states were to include information 

on progress through their highway safety plans and annual evaluation 

reports after fiscal year 2001, which are part of the reporting for all of 

NHTSA’s highway safety grants. However, our analysis of these documents 

found that they lacked the detail needed to adequately assess state 

activities undertaken with 411 funds. Further, while NHTSA officials told us 

they also informally obtained information about progress after fiscal year 

2001, the available information about what the activities actually 

Page 26 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
accomplished was limited. Limitations in the information regarding states 

activities were particularly significant given that states spent most of their 

grant funds after fiscal year 2001. 

NHTSA regional offices supplemented the regulatory requirements with 

their own guidance to states, but the guidance varied greatly from region to 

region. Some of the regional offices said that their contact with states 

about these requirements was informal, and that their primary contact with 

states (1) was over the telephone or by e-mail and (2) was generally in 

regards to technical assistance, such as training or referring states to 

existing guidelines. Other regional office staff said they had additional 

contact with states through participation in meetings of state coordinating 

committees, where they were able to provide additional assistance. 

However, we found this participation occurred most often for states in 

proximity to NHTSA regional offices. Few regional offices provided written 

guidance to states with specific direction on what to include in their 

progress reports. For the regions that did so, the requested information 

included documentation indicating how states intended to use the current 

year grant funds, a list of projects implemented in the past fiscal year, a 

brief description of activities completed, an account of problems 

encountered, and the status of allocated funds. 

Without consistent and clear requirements and guidance on the content of 

progress reports, states were left to their own devices. We found that even 

in regions where NHTSA officials outlined the information that should be 

included in the progress reports, states did not necessarily provide the level 

of information needed for NHTSA to adequately track state progress. For 

example, in 1 region, states were to provide NHTSA with documentation 

that included a list of projects and a description of progress made. 

However, 1 state in that region did not provide the list of completed 

projects; it only provided a brief description of projects completed during 1 

of the 4 years of the grant. 

We also found a wide variation in how states reported their activities. For 

example: 

•	 Some states provided brief descriptions of the activities completed or 

under way, while others did not. 

•	 States that provided brief descriptions of their activities did not always 

include the same information. For example, some states indicated how 

they were intending to use the current grant funds but did not list 

Page 27 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
projects implemented in the past year. Some states did not indicate the 

status of their allocated funds for ongoing activities. 

•	 None of the states in our review indicated problems that were 

encountered in implementing projects or activities. 

Monitoring of State 

Progress and Activities Was 

Lacking 

Under the 411 grant program, NHTSA’s oversight process for monitoring 

state progress and ensuring that funds were spent in line with program 

intent was limited. In fact, NHTSA was unable to provide copies of many of 

the documents that states were required to submit to qualify for the 411 

grant program. We requested these documents beginning in February 2004, 

and NHTSA was only able to provide us with complete documentation for 

half of the states participating in the program.27 

When we visited 8 states that participated in the program, we were able to 

compare expenditure reports obtained from the states with activities that 

were reported to NHTSA. We found instances in which documentation of 

state reported activities provided by NHTSA did not match information 

provided directly to us by the states. 

•	 In documentation submitted to NHTSA, 1 state reported using grant 

funds on alcohol breath test devices. However, documents available at 

the state level indicate that nearly all of the funds were expended on a 

single project to redevelop a crash data system. Officials we spoke with 

also indicated that the money had gone for redeveloping the data 

system. 

•	 In a report to NHTSA, 1 state we visited had reported undertaking four 

projects, but we found that two of them were actually funded by a 

different federal grant. 

The degree to which NHTSA monitored state 411-funded activities was 

difficult to determine. NHTSA officials told us that they were not required 

to review state 411-funded activities in detail. A few regional office officials 

27We received complete documentation (grant applications, state assessments, and strategic 

plans) for 24 of the 48 states that participated in the program from 1999 through 2002. Our 

discussions with NHTSA staff showed there was some confusion between NHTSA 

headquarters staff and the regional office staff regarding where the 411 grant program 

documents were being held and who was responsible for managing them. 

Page 28 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
told us that they verified state reported activities by linking them to 

objectives identified in state strategic plans; however, no documentation of 

these reviews was provided. 

Recent Steps Were 

Announced for Improving 

Oversight, but Impact on the 

411 Program Is Unclear 

NHTSA has taken several steps to improve its oversight and assist states in 

improving their traffic safety data systems; however, more efforts are 

needed. As we were completing our work, NHTSA released a report, 

Initiatives to Address Improvement of Traffic Safety Data, that provides 

the status of data systems in five areas, including coordination and 

leadership, improving data quality and availability, encouraging states to 

move to electronic capture and processing, creating greater uniformity in 

data elements, and facilitating data use and access. It also provides 

recommendations and initiatives in support of NHTSA’s efforts to improve 

state traffic safety data systems. Although the report outlines (1) steps to 

be taken, (2) stakeholder responsibilities for each recommendation, and 

(3) the general outcomes expected, the extent to which actions will occur 

as a result of the report is unclear. The report is limited to a description of 

conditions and needs for traffic safety data improvements and does not 

include an implementation plan with milestones or timelines. The report 

acknowledges that due to limited funding, NHTSA will focus primarily on 

recommendations that are feasible given current resources. According to 

NHTSA, the report was issued as a fact-finding status report and, therefore, 

no timelines or milestones were included. However, beginning October 

2004, a newly created National Traffic Records Coordinating Committee is 

developing an implementation plan for the goals identified in the report. 

NHTSA also recently enhanced its oversight tools for all safety grants. It 

has mandated management reviews every 3 years and also expanded its 

existing regional planning documents for the areas of occupant protection 

and impaired driving, with three additional areas, including traffic safety 

data.

28 The first of these regional action plans aimed at data improvements 

are being initiated fiscal year 2005 and include goals, objectives, and 

milestones. Mandating management reviews that encompass the broad 

array of grant programs every 3 years is an improvement over the 

inconsistent application of these reviews in the past. Also, by establishing 

28Regional action plans identify, among other things, program goals, performance measures, 

and specific tasks and strategies for the upcoming year. The plan for traffic safety data 

systems will also include one or two vital improvements needed in each state’s traffic 

records system, such as improving information on blood-alcohol concentration testing. 

Page 29 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
traffic safety data improvements as part of the regional action plans, 

NHTSA will have more uniform tracking of state data improvements and 

also better information on state progress. While these newly initiated 

efforts are positive steps to improving oversight, it is too soon to tell how 

effective they will be for monitoring and ensuring accountability under the 

411 grant program, should the Congress chose to reauthorize it. 

Language in 

Reauthorization Bills Also 

Enhances Oversight, but 

Omits One Key Step 

NHTSA’s oversight of the 411 grant program may be strengthened under 

reauthorized legislation. Proposed reauthorization bills that were 

considered by the Congress in 2004 included additional requirements that 

states (1) demonstrate measurable progress toward achieving goals in their 

strategic plans and (2) specify how they will use grant funds. These 

additional provisions would be important steps in addressing the too-vague 

reporting requirements of the current program and would be helpful in 

addressing congressional and other inquiries about what the program is 

accomplishing. 

As the previous proposed bills were drafted, however, they omitted one 

requirement that will be important in tracking state progress—the 

requirement for a state to have an assessment of its traffic safety data 

system no more than 5 years prior to participating in the 411 grant program. 

Assessments are used mainly to establish the status of state efforts, but 

state and NHTSA officials suggest that updated assessments could also 

help in tracking state progress. During our review, we found some 

assessments submitted by states that were nearly 10 years old. We also 

found that assessments based on recent information reflected the dynamic 

and often-changing reality of state systems. For example, 1 of our casestudy states had recently conducted an assessment in 2002. When we 

compared the information we had collected during our site visit, we found 

much of the information from our visit reflected in the assessment. 

Updating these assessments at least every 5 years would allow NHTSA to 

track state progress. According to NHTSA officials, these assessments 

were valuable starting points in helping states take stock of the strengths 

and weaknesses of their entire systems. Updated assessments would take 

into account changes made as a result of the new 411 grant program and 

other efforts to improve the system since previous assessments were 

conducted. 

Page 30 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Conclusions	 The states and the federal government base significant roadway-related 

spending and policy decisions on traffic safety data, ranging from deciding 

to repair particular roadways to launching major safety campaigns. The 

quality of such decisions is tied to the quality of these data. Our review 

indicates that there were opportunities for states to improve crash data. 

However, because NHTSA exercised limited oversight over the 411 grant 

program, it is difficult to say what the program as a whole specifically 

accomplished or whether there was a general improvement in the quality of 

these data over the program’s duration. Nevertheless, information we 

obtained from the 8 states we visited suggests the premise that the 411 

program did help states improve their traffic safety data systems. Based on 

our work in these 8 states, we believe that states undertook important 

improvements in their data systems with the federal grant funds. The 

potential reauthorization of the grant program and NHTSA’s recent study of 

state safety data provide an opportunity to include assurances that states 

use these grants on effective and worthy projects. Furthermore, the 

reauthorization may provide greater funding and, therefore, greater 

opportunity for states to improve their traffic safety data systems. 

However, a larger program would come with a greater expectation 

regarding what states will accomplish as well as with a need to effectively 

track the progress states are making. 

NHTSA’s inability to provide key grant documentation and its deficiencies 

in monitoring state progress with 411 grant funds could be minimized if 

NHTSA (1) better managed grant documents, (2) had clearer requirements 

and guidance for the grant program, and (3) had an effective oversight 

process in place to monitor activities and progress. Requiring more specific 

information on the improvements states are making in their data systems 

would begin to address the problems we identified with regard to 

inadequate reporting on the program. If the program is reauthorized, 

NHTSA should develop an oversight process that does a better job of (1) 

tracking state activities to their strategic plans and assessments, (2) 

providing information about progress made in improving safety data, and 

(3) ensuring that NHTSA can adequately manage the documentation it is 

requiring. In addition, if NHTSA develops a plan to implement the 

recommendations in its recent Integrated Project Team report on traffic 

safety data systems, it could incorporate these recommendations through 

improved oversight efforts. 

Finally, one requirement present in the earlier program—up-to-date 

assessments of state traffic safety data systems—was not included in 

Page 31 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
recent proposals to reauthorize the 411 grant program. These assessments 

proved a valuable tool to states in developing and updating their strategic 

plans and activities for the 411 grant program. They also provide NHTSA 

with valuable information, including the current status of state traffic 

safety data systems organized by NHTSA’s own recommended quality 

criteria. 

Matter for In considering the reauthorization of the traffic safety incentive grant 

program, the Congress should consider including the requirement that Congressional states have their traffic safety data system assessed or an update of the 

Consideration assessment conducted at least every 5 years. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

If the Congress reauthorizes the traffic safety data incentive grant during 

the next session, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation 

direct the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

to do the following: 

•	 Ensure better accountability and better reporting for the grant program 

by outlining a process for regional offices to manage and archive grant 

documents. 

•	 Establish a formal process for monitoring and overseeing 411-funded 

state activities. Specifically, the process should provide guidance for 

submitting consistent and complete annual reporting on progress for as 

long as funds are being expended. These progress reports should, at a 

minimum, include the status of allocated funds, documentation 

indicating how states intend to use the current year grant funds, a list of 

projects implemented in the past fiscal year, brief descriptions of 

activities completed, and any problems encountered. 

•	 Establish a formal process for ensuring that assessments, strategic 

plans, and progress reports contain the level of detail needed to 

adequately assess progress and are appropriately linked to each other. 

Agency Comments and 	 We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for 

its review and comment. Generally, the department agreed with the Our Evaluation	 recommendations in this report. Department officials provided a number of 

technical comments and clarifications, which we incorporated as 

Page 32 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
appropriate to ensure the accuracy of our report. These officials raised two 

additional points that bear further comment. First, officials voiced concern 

regarding the use of data quality criteria from NHTSA’s Traffic Records 

Highway Safety Program Advisory to review the quality of data or the 

performance of states. The department emphasized that these criteria are 

voluntary and states are not required to meet them; therefore, states should 

not be judged against them. We acknowledge that these criteria are 

voluntary and clarified the report to emphasize this point more fully. 

However, we used the criteria as a framework for providing information on 

the status of state systems and view this analysis as appropriate since these 

criteria are used by NHTSA in conducting assessments of state traffic 

safety data systems. Second, department officials noted that their oversight 

of the 411 grant program was in accordance with the statutory 

requirements. Although we recognize that there were minimal 

requirements for the 411 grant program specifically, we believe the 

department should carry out more extensive oversight activities so that 

NHTSA can monitor the progress states are making to improve their traffic 

safety data systems and better ensure that states are spending the grant 

monies as intended. 

We will send copies of this report to the interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and other interested parties. 

We will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at 

(202) 512-6570. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Katherine Siggerud 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 33 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology


The objectives in this report were to identify (1) the quality of state crash 

information; (2) the activities states undertook using 411 grant funds to 

improve their traffic safety data systems, and progress made using the data 

improvement grants; and (3) the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s (NHTSA) oversight of the grant program, including what 

changes in oversight, if any, might help encourage states to improve traffic 

safety data systems and ensure accountability under a reauthorized 

program. To address these objectives, we conducted case-study visits to 9 

states, analyzed state crash data, interviewed key experts, reviewed 411 

grant program documentation, and interviewed NHTSA officials regarding 

their oversight and guidance to states in improving their traffic safety data 

systems. 

To provide information on the quality of state crash data and state efforts to 

improve these data, we conducted site visits to 9 states, including 

California, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Tennessee, Texas, 

and Utah. The case-study states were chosen on the basis of a variety of 

criteria, including population, fatality rates, participation in the 411 grant 

program, the level of funding received through the program, and 

participation in the State Data System (SDS) program and the Crash 

Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES). We adopted a case-study 

methodology for two reasons. First, we were unable to determine the 

status of state systems from our review of 411 documents. Second, while 

the results of the case studies cannot be projected to the universe of states, 

the case studies were useful in illustrating the uniqueness and variation of 

state traffic safety data systems and the challenges states face in improving 

them. During our case-study visits, we met and discussed the status of state 

traffic data systems with a variety of traffic safety data officials.

1

 These 

discussions included gathering information on NHTSA’s criteria, state 

objectives, and the progress made with 411 grant funds.2

 In addition to 

these case-study visits, we analyzed data for 17 states that currently 

participate in NHTSA’s SDS program to identify variations in data structure 

and quality. We selected a number of elements to assess the quality of data 

as they related to completeness, consistency, and accuracy for 5 of the 17 

1

These officials, in general, included representatives from the state traffic coordinating 

committee, the governor’s highway safety office, the department of public safety, the 

department of transportation, the department of motor vehicles, the department of health, 

and stakeholders from the medical or injury prevention sector. 

2

NHTSA’s recommended criteria includes timeliness, completeness, consistency, accuracy, 

accessibility, and data integration. 

Page 34 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix I


Objectives, Scope, and Methodology


states that were part of the SDS program and also part of our case-study 

visits. We based the analysis on data and computer programs provided by 

NHTSA. We reviewed the programs for errors and determined that they 

were sufficiently accurate for our purposes. (See app. II.) Finally, we 

interviewed key experts who use traffic safety data, including consultants, 

highway safety organizations, and researchers. 

In order to describe the activities that states undertook to improve their 

traffic safety data systems and the progress made under the data 

improvement grant, we reviewed 411 grant documentation for all 48 

participating states, including 8 of our 9 case-study states.

3

 Our review 

included examining required documents states submitted to NHTSA, 

including their assessments, strategic plans, and grant applications and 

progress reports. We obtained these documents from NHTSA regional 

offices. For the case-study states, we also obtained additional 

documentation, including 411 grant expenditure information, in order to 

(1) describe state activities and progress made and (2) compare actual 

expenditures with the activities states reported to NHTSA. 

To review NHTSA’s oversight of the 411 grant program, we interviewed 

NHTSA officials responsible for oversight and administration of the 

program. Our interviews were conducted with NHTSA program staff at 

headquarters and in all 10 NHTSA regional offices. We also discussed 

program oversight with state officials in 8 of our 9 case-study states. We 

reviewed NHTSA guidance and policy, including regulations for the 411 

grant program and rules issued by NHTSA for the program. We also 

reviewed previous House and Senate bills that were introduced 

reauthorizing the 411 grant program.

4

 Finally, in order to understand 

NHTSA’s broader role in oversight, we spoke with NHTSA staff and 

reviewed NHTSA’s response to our recommendations that it improve its 

oversight. 

We conducted our review from January 2004 through October 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Because an examination of data quality was one of the objectives of this 

3

Texas did not participate in the 411 grant program. 

4

On September 30, 2004, while we were completing our review, current highway and transit 

programs in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) were extended to 

May 2005. 

Page 35 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix I


Objectives, Scope, and Methodology


report, we also conducted an assessment of data reliability. Appendix II 

contains a more complete discussion of data reliability. 

Page 36 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix II 

Additional Analysis of Data Quality in 

NHTSA’s State Data System 

As part of our work, we examined data quality for 17 states that participate 

in NHTSA’s SDS program. The body of our report presents several 

examples of the kinds of limitations we found; this appendix contains 

additional examples. The examples discussed below relate to two of 

NHTSA’s quality criteria—data consistency and data completeness. 

Variations in Reporting 

Thresholds Impact the 

Usefulness of Data in 

the State Data System 

The extent to which a state captures information about various data 

elements has much to do with the standards or thresholds it sets for what 

should be reported in crash reports. NHTSA’s Model Minimum Uniform 

Crash Criteria (MMUCC) recommends that every state have reporting 

thresholds that include all crashes involving death, personal injury, or 

property damage of $1,000 or more; that reports be computerized 

statewide; and that information be reported for all persons (injured and 

uninjured) involved in the crash. 

We found these thresholds differed from state to state. Two thresholds, in 

particular, create variation in the data: (1) criteria for whether a crash 

report must be filed and (2) criteria for whether to report information 

about uninjured occupants. 

Determining Which Crashes The states varied greatly in their policies on when a police report must be 

Require a Crash Report	 filed. Fourteen of the 17 states set a property damage threshold, but the 

threshold varied from less than $500 to as much as $1,000 (see fig. 6). 

Among the other 3 states, 1 left the reporting of property-damage-only 

crashes to the officer’s discretion, and 2 stipulated that no report is to be 

filed unless at least one vehicle has to be towed from the scene. Thus, a 

crash involving $900 of damage to an untowed vehicle would be reported in 

some states but not in others. 

Page 37 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix II


Additional Analysis of Data Quality in


NHTSA’s State Data System


Figure 6: State Criteria for Filing a Police Crash Report for Property-Damage-Only 

Crashes 

Number of states 

10 

8 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

5 

1 

2 

1 

<$500 $500 $750 ­

$1,000 

Officer 

discretion 

Minimum 

one 

vehicle 

towed 

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA/NCSA data. 

Reporting Information 

about Uninjured Passengers 

Similarly, some states did not collect information about uninjured 

passengers involved in crashes. (See fig. 7.) While all 17 states collected 

information about uninjured drivers (such as whether he or she was 

wearing a seat belt), 5 did not collect such information about uninjured 

passengers. Such information could potentially be important, for example, 

in assessing the degree to which seat belt use helped prevent injuries from 

occurring. Even for states that collected information about uninjured 

passengers, the information may be incomplete. NHTSA officials said they 

thought that in these states, some officers left seat belt information blank 

or coded it as “unknown,” either because reporting officers did not know 

the information or because collecting it was too time-consuming. 

Page 38 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix II


Additional Analysis of Data Quality in


NHTSA’s State Data System


Figure 7: Extent to Which States Collected Information about Uninjured Passengers 

States reporting 

Variations in Reporting 


Alcohol and Drug Data 


5 

12 

Alcohol and drug data also showed state-to-state differences, both in 

consistency and completeness. Alcohol and drug data are important in 

addressing a major safety issue—impaired driving. In 2000, crashes in 

which drivers had blood-alcohol levels above .08 (.08 recently became the 

threshold for being legally impaired in all 50 states) accounted for an 

estimated 2 million crashes that killed nearly 14,000 people and injured 

nearly 470,000 others. Alcohol-related crashes in the United States that year 

cost an estimated $114.3 billion.1 

To assess the quality of these data in the SDS program, we selected 5 states 

for detailed review. The states, chosen because they were also visited as 

part of our case studies, were California, Kentucky, Maryland, Texas, and 

Utah—although they are not identified by name in the results below. We 

looked at the degree to which they conform to guidelines recommended in 

the MMUCC with regard to the consistency and completeness of their data. 

1

Estimated costs include $51.0 billion in monetary costs and an estimated $63.2 billion in 

quality of life losses. 

States not reporting 

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA/NCSA data. 

Page 39 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix II


Additional Analysis of Data Quality in


NHTSA’s State Data System


Consistency of Traffic 

Safety Data 

Information collected about alcohol- and drug-impaired driving varied from 

state to state and was not consistent with MMUCC guidelines. Table 5 

provides examples of this variation by comparing crash information 

submitted by states with the recommended guidelines. The table shows 

MMUCC’s recommended guidelines for four elements—two elements each 

for alcohol and drugs. One element relates to whether the officer suspects 

alcohol or drug use, and the other to an actual test for alcohol or drugs. All 

5 states collected some type of information on suspected alcohol or drug 

use, but each state differed from the others to some degree. Three states, 

for example, collected this information as part of a broader element that 

includes suspected alcohol and drug use as one attribute in a list of causes 

that might have contributed to the crash. For alcohol and drug testing, 1 

state did not report such testing at all, and the 4 others differed both from 

each other and from MMUCC guidelines. 

Page 40 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix II


Additional Analysis of Data Quality in


NHTSA’s State Data System


Table 5: Comparison of MMUCC Guidelines and Crash Information Provided to NHTSA by 5 States Regarding Alcohol- and DrugImpaired Driving 

Crash information that 5 states collected (variable name and definition) 

Recommended 


MMUCC element 


(variable name


and definition) State A State B State C State D State E 


Law Enforcement Driver/Pedestrian Suspected Driver/Pedestrian Contributing 

Suspects Drinking: Drinking: Condition: Factor 2: 

Alcohol Use: 

Indicates whether Indicates if the driver Indicates the condition of Describes the 

Driver or drinking impaired the of the vehicle was each driver/pedestrian at driver's actions as 

nonmotorist ability of the driver, suspected of the time of the crash. the second 

involved in the pedestrian, or bicyclist. drinking. contributing factor 

crash suspected Attributes include “had in the crash. 

by law Attributes include “not Attributes include been drinking” and “had 

enforcement to stated” and “had been “yes” and “no.” been using drugs.” Attributes include 

have used alcohol. drinking, under “under the 

influence.” influence of 

alcohol” and 

“under the 

influence of drugs.” 

Contributing 

Circumstance: 

Describes first 

actions taken by the 

driver that 

contributed to the 

crash. 

Attributes include 

“Had been drinking” 

and “Under the 

influence of drugs.” 

Alcohol Test: 

Indication of the 

presence of 

alcohol by test, 

test type (blood, 

breath, etc.), and 

test results. 

None	 Alcohol/Drug, 

Alcohol Test 

Results, and 

Alcohol Test Type: 

Alcohol/Drug: 

Indicates if the driver 

was tested for 

alcohol, drugs, or 

both. 

Alcohol Test Results: 

Indicates the results 

of the alcohol/drug 

test. 

Alcohol Test Type: 

Indicates the alcohol 

test type 

administered to the 

driver. 

Alcohol/Drug Use and 

Alcohol Test Results: 

Alcohol/Drug Use: 

Indicates the presence 

and the contribution of 

controlled substances. 

Alcohol Test Results: 

Indicates the results of 

the alcohol test. Coded 

for drivers, pedestrians, 

and bicyclists. 

Alcohol/Drug 

Analysis 

Test and 

Alcohol/Drug 

Test Results: 

Alcohol/Drug 

Analysis Test: 

Indicates the type 

of specimen taken 

for an alcohol 

and/or drug 

analysis test. 

Coded for drivers, 

pedestrians, and 

bicyclists. 

Alcohol/Drug Test 

Results: Describes 

the results of 

alcohol and/or 

drug test. Coded 

for drivers, 

pedestrians, and 

bicyclists. 

Alcohol Test 

Results and 

Alcohol Test Type: 

Alcohol Test 

Results: Indicates 

the results of an 

alcohol test. Coded 

for drivers, 

pedestrians, and 

bicyclists. 

Alcohol Test Type: 

Describes how the 

alcohol test was 

administered. 

Coded for drivers, 

pedestrians, and 

bicyclists. 

Page 41 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix II


Additional Analysis of Data Quality in


NHTSA’s State Data System


(Continued From Previous Page) 

Crash information that 5 states collected (variable name and definition) 

Recommended 


MMUCC element 


(variable name


and definition) State A State B State C State D State E 


Law Enforcement Driver/Pedestrian Human Factors 1 – Driver/Pedestrian Contributing 

Suspects Drug Condition: 3: Condition: Factor 2: 

Use: 

Identifies a physical Indicates up to three Indicates the condition of Describes the 

Driver or condition of the driver, factors by humans each driver/pedestrian at driver's actions as 

nonmotorist pedestrian, or bicyclist that contributed to the time of the crash. the second 

involved in the that may have been a the crash. contributing factor 

crash suspected factor in the crash. Attributes include “had in the crash. 

by law Attributes include “if been drinking” and “had 

enforcement to Attributes include “under the officer suspects been using drugs.” Attributes include 

have used drugs. the influence of drugs” drug involvement in “under the 

and “other physical the crash.” influence of 

impairment.” alcohol” and 

“under the 

influence of drugs.” 

Contributing 

Circumstance: 

Describes first 

actions taken by the 

driver who 

contributed to the 

crash. 

Attributes include 

“had been drinking” 

and “under the 

influence of drugs.” 

Drug Test: 

Indication of the 

presence of drug 

test, test type, and 

test results. 

Excludes drugs 

administered 

postcrash. 

None	 Alcohol/Drug and 

Alcohol Test 

Results: 

Alcohol/Drug: 

Indicates if the driver 

was tested for 

alcohol, drugs, or 

both. 

Alcohol Test Results: 

Indicates the results 

of the alcohol/drug 

test. 

Alcohol/Drug Use: 	 Alcohol/Drug 

Analysis Test 

Indicates the presence and Alcohol/Drug 

and contribution of Test Results: 

controlled substances. 

Alcohol/Drug 

Analysis Test: 

Indicates the type 

of specimen taken 

for an alcohol 

and/or drug 

analysis test. 

Coded for drivers, 

pedestrians, and 

bicyclists. 

Alcohol/Drug Test 

Results: Describes 

the results of 

alcohol and/or 

drug test. Coded 

for drivers, 

pedestrians, and 

bicyclists. 

Alcohol Test 

Results and 

Alcohol Test Type: 

Alcohol Test Type: 

Indicates the results 

of a drug scan. 

Coded for drivers, 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists. 

Alcohol Test 

Results: Includes 

positive and 

negative results of 

drug scan. 

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA/NCSA data. 

Note: State A uploads alcohol test result data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System at a later 

date. 

Page 42 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix II


Additional Analysis of Data Quality in


NHTSA’s State Data System


Completeness of Traffic 

Safety Data 

To determine the completeness of state data files regarding impaired 

driving, we looked at alcohol test result data that were coded as “missing” 

or “unknown.” Figures 8 and 9 show the results for the first and last years 

we reviewed. The percentage of data recorded as missing varied from 0 

percent to more than 12 percent, while the percentage of data recorded as 

unknown varied from 0 percent to more than 6 percent.

2 In addition, the 2 

states with the most data in these two categories were almost mirror 

images of each other: that is, state D showed no data as missing but had the 

highest percentage of data classified as unknown, while state E showed 

virtually no data as unknown but had the highest percentage of data 

classified as missing. These variations could reflect differences in how 

states classify and record information. For example, NHTSA officials said 

some states may code an alcohol test result that comes back indicating no 

alcohol in the driver’s blood stream as missing or unknown, rather than 

“negative” or “.00.” 

2

While these percentages seem low, the actual number of crashes represented is sizable. For 

all 4 states, the number of total crashes represented ranged from 97,000 to 599,000. The 

number of crashes with missing or unknown data for alcohol test results ranged from in the 

hundreds to in the thousands. 

Page 43 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix II


Additional Analysis of Data Quality in


NHTSA’s State Data System


Figure 8: Percentage of Alcohol Test Results That Were Coded as Missing for 1998 ­

and 2002­

Percentage of alcohol test results coded as missing 

14­

12.3% 

12­

10­

8­

6­

4­

2­

0 

State A State B State C State D State E 

10.7% 

0.2% 

0.7% 0.3% 0% 0% 

1998


2002


Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA/NCSA data.


Note: State A did not provide alcohol test results to NHTSA during the period under investigation. 

Page 44 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix II


Additional Analysis of Data Quality in


NHTSA’s State Data System


Figure 9: Percentage of Alcohol Test Results That Were Coded as Unknown for 1998 

and 2002 

Percentage of alcohol test results coded as unknown 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6.7% 

6 

4 

2 

0 

4.9% 

1.1% 

0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 

Because the alcohol and drug data in SDS are subject to so many problems 

with completeness and consistency, many researchers and state policy 

makers use alcohol and drug data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS) database instead. This database, which is also administered 

by NHTSA, contains information on crashes involving fatalities that occur 

within 30 days of the crash. FARS is generally seen as a reliable data 

source, with quality control measures and personnel that do as much 

follow-up as possible to fill in data gaps by contacting hospitals, medical 

offices, and coroners’ offices to obtain accurate and complete information. 

However, FARS contains information only on fatal crashes—about 1 

percent of all crashes. Thus, while the FARS data may be more complete 

and consistent for those crashes that are included, the vast majority of 

State A State B State C State D State E 

1998 

2002 

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA/NCSA data. 

Note: State A did not provide alcohol test results to NHTSA during the period under investigation. 

Researchers’ Use of 

Another Database 

Omits Data on Nonfatal 

Crashes 

Page 45 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix II


Additional Analysis of Data Quality in


NHTSA’s State Data System


alcohol- and drug-related crashes are not included. Further, NHTSA 

imputes some of the alcohol information because even with follow-up there 

are often gaps in data.3 

3

Imputation is a statistical inference method used to estimate alcohol rates. 

Page 46 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix III 

Examples of Federal and Other Efforts at 

Improving Traffic Safety Data 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

The Commercial Vehicle Analysis and Reporting Systems is a cooperative effort between 

NHTSA and FMCSA to improve collection of bus and truck data. Its aim is to improve the 

national data system for all crashes involving commercial motor vehicles and to develop a 

national analytical data system similar to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System for commercial 

vehicles. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

The Highway Safety Information System (HSIS) is a 9-state database that contains crash, 

roadway inventory, and traffic volume data. Under contract with FHWA, the University of North 

Carolina Highway Safety Research Center and LENDIS Corporation operate the system. The 

HSIS uses state highway data for the study of highway safety. The system is able to analyze a 

large number of safety problems, ranging from more basic "problem identification" issues to 

identify the size and extent of a safety problem to modeling efforts that attempt to predict future 

accidents from roadway characteristics and traffic factors. 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

The Transportation Safety Information Management System (TSIMS) is a joint application 

development project sponsored by AASHTO to enable states to link crash data with associated 

driver, vehicle, injury, commercial carrier, and roadway characteristics. TSIMS is an enterprise 

safety data warehouse that will extend and enhance the safety analysis capabilities of current 

state crash records information systems by integrating crash data with other safety-related 

information currently maintained by each state. 

Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals (ATSIP) 

ATSIP aims to improve traffic safety data systems by (1) providing a forum on these systems for 

state and local system managers, including the collectors and users of traffic safety data; (2) 

developing, improving, and evaluating these systems; (3) encouraging the use of improved 

techniques and innovative procedures in the collection, storage, and uses of traffic safety data; 

and (4) serving as a forum for the discussion of traffic safety data programs. 

Sources: AASHTO, ATSIP, and FHWA. 

Page 47 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
Appendix IV 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments


GAO Contacts	 Katherine Siggerud (202) 512-6570 

Randall Williamson (206) 287-4860 

Staff 	 In addition to those individuals named above, Nora Grip, Brandon Haller, 

Molly Laster, Dominic Nadarski, Beverly Ross, Sharon Silas, Stan Acknowledgments Stenersen, and Stacey Thompson made key contributions to this report. 

(542032) Page 48 GAO-05-24 Highway Safety 
GAO’s Mission	 The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts GAO Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

Order by Mail or Phone	 The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone:	 Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

To Report Fraud, Contact:


Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm


E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Congressional	 Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548 

Public Affairs	 Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548