AUDIT OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION’S ALCOHOLIMPAIRED DRIVING TRAFFIC SAFETY 

PROGRAM 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Report Number: MH-2007-036 

March 5, 2007 
 

U.S. Department of 

 Memorandum

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General 

Subject: ACTION: Report on the Audit of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 

Alcohol-Impaired Driving Traffic Safety Program 

Report Number: MH-2007-036 

Date: March 5, 2007 

From: Kurt Hyde 

Assistant Inspector General 

 for Surface and Maritime Programs 

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-40 

To: National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 

This report presents the results of our audit of the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s (NHTSA) Alcohol-Impaired Driving Traffic Safety Program. 

NHTSA generally agreed with our report and has identified actions responsive to 

our recommendations. NHTSA stated that reducing alcohol-related fatalities has 

been and remains a top priority of the agency and its work related to the audit has 

already yielded program improvements. 

NHTSA is the lead Federal agency responsible for reducing alcohol-impaired 

driving. We performed this audit at the request of the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations. The Committees expressed concern that despite 

the combined efforts of Federal and state safety officials, no discernible progress 

has been made in reducing alcohol-related traffic crashes and fatalities. 

According to NHTSA statistics, alcohol-related traffic fatalities accounted for 39 

percent (or 16,885) of the 43,443 traffic deaths reported in 2005 in the United 

States. NHTSA’s data indicate that the rate of alcohol-related driving fatalities per 

100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) decreased from 0.63 in 1998 to 0.56 in 

2005.1

 The 2005 alcohol-related fatalities were the lowest since the 16,572 

fatalities reported in 1999—the year with the lowest number of fatalities ever 

reported. Exhibit A lists state reported alcohol impaired driving fatality rates and 

number of fatalities from 1998 to 2005. 

 

1

 Data based on NHTSA’s “Alcohol-Related Fatalities and Fatality Rates by States, 2004-2005,” DOT HS 810 686, 

released December 2006. 
 2

Reducing alcohol-related fatalities is an important aspect in reducing the overall 

number and the rate of highway fatalities.2

 In addition to reducing the number of 

overall highway fatalities, a reduction in alcohol-related crashes would yield 

significant monetary savings, as NHTSA estimates that these crashes cost the 

nation over $100 billion annually3

 in medical, property, and related costs. 

Our audit objectives were to: 

•

•

•

 

compare the scope, direction, resources, and expenditures of programs and 

activities of selected states with the highest and lowest alcohol-related 

fatalities, and identify best practices and challenges; 

determine the Federal resources dedicated to reducing alcohol-related traffic 

fatalities; and 

explore what actions NHTSA could take, particularly regarding improved 

performance measures, to better ensure that funds are targeted towards 

strategies that will have the most impact on reducing alcohol-impaired driving. 

Our audit compared alcohol-impaired driving programs in 10 states—California, 

Texas, New York, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Missouri, Connecticut, South 

Carolina, and New Mexico. We selected these states by dividing all states into 

groups with comparable VMT, then choosing states with high and low alcoholimpaired driving fatality rates within certain groups. For example, from the states 

with the highest VMT, we selected one state with a relatively high alcoholimpaired driving fatality rate—Texas—and one state with a relatively low rate—

California. (Exhibit B provides details on our sample.) 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted 

Government Auditing Standards prescribed by the Comptroller General of the 

United States and we performed such tests as we considered necessary to detect 

fraud, waste, and abuse. 

2

 The Department of Transportation’s overall goal is to reduce the rate of highway fatalities to 1.0 per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled by 2008. According to NHTSA’s “Traffic Safety Fact Sheet 2005, A Compilation of Motor 

Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and General Estimates System,” DOT HS 810 631, 

released January 2007, the nation’s highway fatality rate in 2005 was 1.45 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. 3

 In 2002, NHTSA published a study that determined that alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost the public 

more than $114.3 billion in 2000. This included $51.1 billion in medical, work loss, and related costs and 

$63.2 billion in quality of life losses. 
 3

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

Officials in NHTSA and the 10 states we reviewed attributed success in combating 

alcohol-impaired driving to many factors. They agreed that, while other strategies 

may be important, a successful traffic safety program should include strategies 

focusing on two key elements: (1) sustained enforcement of laws (to include 

highly visible police presence and media efforts) and (2) effective prosecution and 

full application of available sanctions. State officials reported on best practices 

and challenges associated with carrying out these key strategies, and we concluded 

that NHTSA should do more to measure state implementation of these strategies 

so that additional funding for countering alcohol-impaired driving is effectively 

used. 

State officials identified a number of best practices used to implement these 

program strategies. For example, in two states, officials used fines collected from 

alcohol-impaired drivers to provide critical additional funding for local alcoholimpaired driving programs. Also, some states had put into effect Internet-based 

initiatives to help local communities apply for grants to strengthen enforcement 

efforts. 

In addition to the best practices reported, states noted significant challenges that 

needed to be overcome so that the full benefit of the key program strategies could 

be achieved. These challenges included an inability to fund all police patrols 

requested and problems created due to lengthy arrest procedures. Our detailed 

findings provide specifics on state actions employed to counter these challenges. 

Both past and current surface transportation legislation dedicated Federal 

resources to reducing alcohol-related fatalities. Specifically: 

We estimate that all states will expend about $1.1 billion in Federal resources 

by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2009 for alcohol-impaired driving safety 

programs funded through the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA-21). This includes $260 million in expenditures from a grant 

dedicated solely to reducing alcohol-impaired driving, expenditures from 

grants not dedicated solely to reducing alcohol-impaired driving but available 

for these efforts, the expenditures of funds obtained from the transfer of 

Highway Trust funds for alcohol-related programs, and an estimate of 

resources provided but not yet expended. 

•

• The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which reauthorized surface transportation 

programs in August 2005, significantly increased funding for the grant 

program dedicated solely to reducing alcohol-impaired driving. It also 
 4

increased funding for grants that are not dedicated solely to reducing alcoholimpaired driving but which can be used, in part, for these efforts. 

Ensuring the wise use of future funding requires a way of measuring which 

programs have been most effective. Currently, state annual plans and reports 

generally contain performance measures focusing on activities accomplished, such 

as the number of sobriety checkpoints conducted, or on the overall performance 

goal of reducing the alcohol-impaired fatality rate. However, the plans and reports 

do not usually address the overall performance of key strategies such as sustained 

enforcement, in which sobriety checkpoints may be an element supporting this 

strategy. Consequently, we concluded that NHTSA’s ability to fully gauge the 

impact of Federal resources and the effectiveness of state strategies could improve 

if it required the states to include in their annual plans and reports more 

meaningful performance measures linked to the key program strategies. 

The treatment of sustained enforcement in the 10 states we reviewed provides an 

illustration of this situation. Those 10 states recognized the importance of 

sustained enforcement and NHTSA had communicated a quantitative definition 

for sustained enforcement to the states. According to NHTSA, sustained 

enforcement was defined as “at least one enforcement event conducted weekly in 

areas of a state where 60 percent or more of the alcohol-related fatalities 

occurred.” Yet, none of the states included this measure in their annual plans or 

reports provided to NHTSA. The accumulation of data on this measure for all 

states would provide NHTSA and other decision makers with useful information 

on the degree to which Federal resources had led to sustained enforcement, and 

where additional resources would be needed. Regarding effective prosecution, 

NHTSA had not yet established a specific measure, although one state did report 

to a limited extent on improvements in conviction rates for alcohol-impaired 

driving offenses. 

We recognize that the development of such intermediate performance measures, 

which address the degree to which key strategies are being implemented, and the 

accumulation of supporting data, will present significant challenges to NHTSA 

and the states. However, effective performance reporting will help program 

managers target Federal resources to the areas most likely to lead to future 

reductions in alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Our three recommendations to 

NHTSA provide for a phased approach to develop, implement, and assess these 

measures in coordination with the states. See page 15 for a complete list of our 

recommendations. 
 5

SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL RESPONSE 

We provided NHTSA a draft of this report on December 15, 2006. On February 7, 

2007, NHTSA provided us with its formal comments (see page 34). NHTSA 

concurred with two of our three recommendations and proposed an alternative to 

the third recommendation, which we have accepted. Specifically, NHTSA 

concurred with our recommendation that it work in coordination with the states to 

develop intermediate performance measures of key strategies being implemented. 

It noted that this action will allow the states and NHTSA to better determine the 

effectiveness of key strategies and adjust the states’ Highway Safety Plan as 

necessary. NHTSA is planning a project scheduled to begin in 2007, with a 

completion date of no later than 2009, to develop voluntary guidance on a set of 

intermediate performance indicators that could be used by state and local 

governments to measure success in priority program areas, which include impaired 

driving. 

NHTSA also concurred with our recommendation that it periodically assess the 

degree to which states have adopted the recommended performance measures, the 

results from the measures, and the actions needed to assist states in fully 

implementing the use of performance measures. Finally, as an alternative to our 

recommendation that it require states to report on the use of intermediate 

performance measures in state Highway Safety Plans and Annual Evaluation 

reports, NHTSA agreed to recommend and encourage states to use the 

intermediate performance measures after their development. We accept the 

alternative action and consider NHTSA’s comments on our recommendations to 

be responsive. However, we request that NHTSA provide specific milestones for 

completing its planned actions for two of the three recommendations within 

30 calendar days of this final report. Our complete analyses of NHTSA’s 

comments are on pages 16-17 of this report. 

FINDINGS 

Officials Linked Program Success to Sustained Enforcement and 

Effective Prosecution with Sanctions

State officials reported that a great part of past success in countering alcoholimpaired driving depended on two key program elements: (1) sustained 

enforcement of laws (a strategy that includes highly visible police presence and 

media efforts to raise public awareness) and (2) effective prosecution and the full 
 6

application of available sanctions.4 We found that all 10 states we reviewed 

applied these key strategies in varying degrees. State officials reported best 

practices that worked in carrying out these strategies and the challenges to be 

overcome so that the full benefit of the program could be achieved. Although they 

employed other strategies, such as medical and educational strategies, state 

officials used these strategies less frequently. All of these strategies were 

consistent with those advocated by NHTSA. (For a full description of NHTSAadvocated strategies for combating alcohol-impaired driving, see Exhibit C.) 

Sustained Enforcement. All the states we reviewed employed a sustained 

enforcement strategy, which included high visibility enforcement by police 

through sobriety checkpoints or saturation patrols5

 and media efforts to raise 

public awareness. States with low alcohol-related fatality rates reported using an 

array of best practices for achieving a sustained enforcement strategy, such as 

ensuring that enforcement programs were provided steady funding, addressing 

local community needs, or streamlining arrest procedures. Specifically: 

• New York directed over $20 million that was collected annually in impaired 

driving fines and penalties into community alcohol-impaired driving 

enforcement efforts. 

•

•

•

 

California, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio posted Federal grant information 

on-line to assist local communities in applying for alcohol-impaired driving 

enforcement grants. Also, California offered local communities a streamlined 

grant template—making grant applications easier, which encouraged local use 

of high visibility enforcement grants. 

New Jersey and New York reported that their state police ensured statewide 

enforcement by routinely performing traffic enforcement in communities 

where local police lacked resources. 

California, New York, and Ohio reported using task forces to target areas with 

a higher rate of alcohol-impaired driving or underage drinking incidents. 

Connecticut used “flexible” enforcement, which combines state police 

enforcement efforts with local efforts to target areas experiencing a higher rate 

of alcohol-impaired driving. 

4

 We did not review the effectiveness of the specific media being employed nor determine whether the absence or 

presence of certain laws, such as alcohol beverage control and point of sale laws, affected a state’s alcohol-impaired 

driving program. See Exhibit B for more details on scope and methodology. 5

 Saturation patrols are coordinated law enforcement efforts in locations known to have high concentrations of alcoholrelated arrests, crashes, injuries, or fatalities. 
 7

New York reported on actions taken to avoid excessive arrest times, which 

may discourage police from enforcing alcohol-impaired driving offenses and 

take time away from other enforcement efforts. These actions included 

assigning two officers to a patrol car during anticipated high-risk alcoholimpaired driving times and providing the officers with evidentiary equipment 

(such as breathalyzers) necessary to arrest offenders quickly. 

•

• Connecticut reported employing an alcohol testing and processing vehicle at 

enforcement events, such as sobriety checkpoints, which reduced the time that 

officers spent on each arrest. These vehicles provided breathalyzers, video 

equipment, computers, and other equipment on-site to increase the number of 

arrests. 

Table 1, below, provides examples of best practices reported in states with low 

fatality rates. 

Table 1. Best Practices Reported in Low Fatality Rate States for 

Generating Sustained Enforcement

9 NY* encouraged participation by directing $20 million yearly in alcohol-impaired driving fines and 

penalties back to local communities for use on impaired driving enforcement and related equipment. 

NJ* also directed a portion of fines and penalties to local communities. 

9 NY and OH* established traffic-safety organizations to support local efforts throughout the state and 

improve communication: 

 - NY’s STOP DWI program. 

 - OH’s “Safe Communities” program. 

9 NY and NJ state police performed numerous alcohol-impaired driving enforcement activities in areas 

lacking local police resources. 

9 CT* state police used “flexible” enforcement to target risk areas in conjunction with local enforcement 

or on their own. 

9 CA,* CT, NJ, NY, and OH used various data other than fatalities to target enforcement, such as 

increased impaired driving citations or traffic crashes, blood alcohol content (BAC) levels, or citizen 

complaints. 

9 CA, NJ, NY, and OH provided grant information and guidance on-line to assist local communities in 

applying for grants. 

9 CA developed streamlined grant applications for routine high visibility enforcement grants. 

9 CA and NY required reports on county performance establishing greater accountability. 

9 CA used task forces to pool resources for impaired-driving issues. 

9 NY, CT, and CA directed the largest portion of their TEA-21 grant funding toward impaired driving. 

9 CT and NY used standing statewide committees to address traffic safety issues. 

9 NY and OH used traffic safety-related committees or boards at local levels. 

9 NY, CA, and NJ used a regional approach or regional safety zones to monitor local activities. 

9 CT deployed a mobile BAC and impaired driving processing vehicle. 

*NY=New York, OH=Ohio, NJ=New Jersey, CT=Connecticut, CA=California. 

Source: OIG analysis of information from the states reviewed. 
 8

While those states in our review with the higher alcohol-impaired driving fatality 

rates exhibited some of the practices listed above, they generally reported using 

these practices less frequently. For example, although four of the five low fatality 

rate states reported having grant information available on-line, none of the high 

fatality rate states reported having grant information on-line. However, high 

fatality rate states also provided notable practices that benefited their sustained 

enforcement efforts. For example, some used injury severity data and other nonfatality data to identify high risk impaired driving areas, set goals for each locality, 

provided blood alcohol testing equipment throughout the state, and conducted 

independent assessments of highway safety programs to identify weaknesses. 

Although each of the 10 states we reviewed reported some best practices, they also 

reported challenges in carrying out sustained enforcement. For example, some 

states reported: 

an inability to fund all police patrols requested, which produced gaps in 

enforcement or decreased the states’ ability to target areas with a higher 

incidence of alcohol-impaired driving. 

•

•

•

•

legal restrictions on the use of the NHTSA-advocated sobriety checkpoints. 

The restrictions limited the use of this enforcement tool, which, according to 

NHTSA, when combined with news coverage can increase public awareness of 

the consequences of driving while alcohol impaired. 

constraints on state police authority within certain jurisdictions in a state. The 

constraints limited the ability of certain state police departments to provide 

supplemental manpower to local law enforcements. 

lengthy arrest procedures that increased the cost of making arrests, decreased 

the number of offenders arrested during peak alcohol-impaired driving periods, 

and acted as a disincentive for police to make arrests. 

Further details on reported challenges from all 10 states in carrying out sustained 

enforcement are provided in Table 2 on the following page. 
 9

Table 2. Challenges Reported in Generating Sustained Enforcement 

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

Evidentiary requirements of alcohol-impaired driving arrests tied up police officers during high-risk 

impaired driving periods. 

State budget cuts or resource availability limited traffic safety funding choices. 

Eligible local communities did not apply for grants. 

State police were not available to support alcohol-impaired driving programs due to competing 

priorities. A high concentration of rural roads or out-of-state drivers made it harder to enforce 

impaired driving laws. 

State highway safety programs were able to fund only a limited number of grant requests. 

It was difficult to fund high-visibility enforcement when needed to coincide with high-risk driving 

periods. 

Police were unable to perform sobriety checkpoints due to legal restrictions. 

State police had jurisdiction limitations, such as the inability to operate within local communities. 

State and local police forces were understaffed. 

Organizational conflicts or the political climate limited program implementation. 

Insufficient resources were available to routinely use task forces. 

Safety officials were prohibited by state law from lobbying for legislative changes. 

Officials had difficulties getting the type of data needed to better plan and run programs. 

There were too many or unclear national priorities or recommended approaches to choose from. 

Source: OIG analysis of information from the states reviewed. 

Effective Prosecution and Sanctions. All 10 states we reviewed reported 

challenges in ensuring offenders were convicted and sanctions were applied. 

According to NHTSA, one aspect of effective prosecution depends on the 

involvement of well-trained police officers and effective prosecutors. Another 

aspect is the application of sanctions as determined by an adjudicating official. 

Ineffective prosecution and the failure to apply sanctions against those convicted 

of alcohol-impaired driving were perceived by officials as weakening the success 

of enforcement efforts. For example, 

in one state, a safety official expressed concern that judges imposed court 

supervision against guilty parties instead of fines or penalties, which lessened 

the effect enforcement could have as a deterrent. The lack of strict 

enforcement sent a message to drivers that an arrest would have limited 

consequences. 

•

• officials in three states reported having difficulty preventing individuals from 

driving with a revoked or suspended license and identifying repeat offenders. 

To address these challenges, states took actions aimed at improving prosecutions 

and the application of sanctions. Specifically, they: 
 10

provided prosecutors training or guidance material to reduce the likelihood of 

plea-bargaining to lesser offenses and to decrease the number of cases 

dismissed based on technicalities. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

educated judges on alcohol-impaired driving laws to ensure sanction-related 

laws are correctly applied. 

tried cases in courts specializing in alcohol-impaired driving cases to ensure 

that repeat offenders were provided more intensive attention to correct their 

identified behavior. For example, Orange County, California, obtained Federal 

funding from TEA-21 to establish a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) court 

that includes the monitoring of treatment being given to DUI court participants 

and other initiatives aimed at reducing repeat offenders. 

established a prosecutor liaison, who was responsible for addressing questions 

from local prosecutors throughout the state with regard to alcohol-impaired 

driving laws and case adjudication. 

Other Strategies. We found that under TEA-21 the 10 states also applied medical 

and educational strategies. However, in contrast to the key strategies of sustained 

enforcement and effective prosecutions with full application of sanctions, the 

states reported on these strategies less frequently. 

According to NHTSA, medical strategies include medical screening, which 

consists of a primary or emergency room physician conducting short interviews 

with patients to screen for alcohol problems and to discuss the adverse effects of 

alcohol abuse and possible treatments. One state reported that it was actively 

exploring the implementation of medical screening in emergency rooms. 

Additional medical strategies advocated by NHTSA included offender treatment 

and rehabilitation. 

In the area of educational initiatives, each of the 10 states reported providing some 

form of educational program on alcohol abuse at elementary schools, secondary 

schools, or colleges. The schools, however, used various types of programs and 

methods. Examples provided by state highway safety officials included: 

eliciting state police officers to make presentations to elementary and 

secondary school students with the aid of videos and educational materials, to 

illustrate the effects of alcohol-impaired driving; 

holding mock alcohol-impaired driving trials at schools or having students 

witness actual court proceedings; 
 11

having convicted offenders, victims of alcohol crashes, or surviving family 

members of crash victims address students; 

•

•

•

•

disseminating educational materials at public forums, such as shopping malls, 

or events such as fairs or sporting events, where youth gather;

conducting information sessions on college campuses to promote social events 

that do not involve alcohol; and 

providing educational material to organizations at elementary schools, 

secondary schools, and colleges that request assistance. 

State Officials Reported Benefits From TEA-21 Funding 

We estimated that during the initial authorization of TEA-21, from FY 1998 

through FY 2003, and subsequent TEA-21 reauthorizations for FYs 2004 and 

2005, states expended approximately $753 million in TEA-21 resources on 

alcohol-impaired driving programs. On a per state basis, the amount of 

cumulative TEA-21 expenditures in this 8-year period ranged from $850,000 to 

$86 million. Further, based on past expenditure data, we estimated that states will 

spend an additional $349 million of TEA-21 resources on alcohol-impaired 

driving programs by 2009. These resources were previously allocated but remain 

available to states under Federal appropriation law. Exhibit D provides further 

details on Federal funding for alcohol-impaired programs, including information 

on specific state expenditures. 

The full impact that TEA-21 has had on alcohol-impaired driving programs is 

difficult to measure because of the range of factors contributing to alcoholimpaired driving and the number of government programs involved. Specifically, 

alcohol-impaired driving is a multifaceted problem influenced by demographic, 

cultural, and attitudinal differences. Another factor making it difficult to measure 

the effectiveness of TEA-21 resources is the variation in state funds directed at the 

problem. Additionally, other traffic safety initiatives, such as increasing seat-belt 

use, affect survivability in alcohol-related traffic crashes, reducing the number of 

alcohol-related fatalities. 

In discussing the impact TEA-21 resources had on their states, officials at three 

states cited their programs’ heavy reliance on TEA-21 resources to conduct 

alcohol-impaired driving programs, and two states reported having significant 

additional resources available for this effort generated from fines and penalties. 

Officials in all states we reviewed reported that the resources provided under 

TEA-21 have benefited their efforts to some extent. Specifically, states reported 

using the funds for (1) overtime pay for police carrying out enforcement efforts, 

(2) media spots to coincide with sustained enforcement campaigns conducted by 
 12

the states, and (3) training for judges and prosecutors to ensure that sanctions were 

appropriately applied to first-time and repeat offenders. 

In their comments on the benefits derived from TEA-21 funding, state officials 

also reported that the traffic safety programs they proposed to NHTSA at the 

beginning of certain fiscal years were curtailed or deferred to subsequent years 

because Federal resources were not available as planned. As a result, anticipated 

benefits from the funding were delayed. A reason cited for non-availability of 

funds was delays in the Federal and state appropriation processes, which 

sometimes prevented funds from being available until late in a fiscal year. 

NHTSA and state officials cited this timing problem as part of the reason some 

states carried forward substantial amounts of unexpended Federal funds from year 

to year. For example in our $349 million estimate of future TEA-21 expenditures 

by states, approximately $61 million resulted from Section 410 Alcohol-Impaired 

Driving Countermeasures grants being carried forward from previous years. This 

amount equated to about 23 percent of the total resources provided to the states 

under Section 410 during TEA-21. 

Better Performance Measures are Needed to Fully Gauge the Impact 

That Future Federal Resources Will Have on State Programs 

NHTSA’s ability to fully gauge the impact of Federal resources and the 

effectiveness of state strategies to counter alcohol-impaired driving could improve 

if states included in their annual plans and reports more meaningful performance 

measures linked to key program strategies, such as sustained enforcement. Under 

the requirements in place under TEA-21 and extended under SAFETEA-LU, all 

states must submit to NHTSA their annual Highway Safety Plans. Each plan must 

identify the proposed alcohol-impaired driving initiatives and other safety 

initiatives funded through Federal resources. SAFETEA-LU also requires that 

each state submit to NHTSA at the end of each fiscal year an Annual Evaluation 

Report to show a state’s progress in meeting safety goals. 

Our review of state plans and reports found that the states generally included 

overall performance goal measures and activity measures, but the plans and 

reports did not include measures showing the degree to which the states were 

carrying out key strategies. Specifically, the Highway Safety Plans and Annual 

Evaluation Reports for the 10 states we reviewed included overall performance 

goal measures such as reducing the number of impaired drivers under the age of 

21 involved in injury crashes and reducing the alcohol-impaired fatality rate in the 

state. The plans also included activity measures such as the number of saturation 

patrols and/or sobriety checkpoints conducted by the state. However, the 

Highway Safety Plans or Annual Evaluation Reports generally did not include 

performance measures for assessing a state’s implementation of key strategies. 
 13

For example, no state plans or reports included a measure addressing the degree to 

which the state had carried out a sustained enforcement strategy. 

The state plans and reports did not include a performance measure for sustained 

enforcement even though NHTSA provided the states in 2003 with a definition for 

sustained enforcement that could be used as a performance measure. NHTSA 

defined sustained enforcement as at least one enforcement event, such as a 

sobriety checkpoint or a saturation patrol, conducted weekly in areas of the state 

where 60 percent or more of fatalities occur. 

Such intermediate performance measures, which address the degree to which key 

strategies are being implemented, have been recognized by NHTSA as a useful 

and distinct measure in addition to overall performance goal measures and activity 

measures. NHTSA has established these intermediate performance measures in 

other areas such as seat belt use and acknowledged the need for better intermediate 

performance measures related to the key strategies we identified in our report. 

It will be particularly important under SAFETEA-LU for NHTSA to be able to 

gauge states’ performance regarding sustained enforcement because, as a 

condition for certain highway safety grants, the reauthorization act requires new 

assurances that states will support sustained enforcement of impaired driving laws. 

The development and implementation of more meaningful intermediate 

performance measures would provide NHTSA the data it needs to determine the 

degree to which states are adopting the sustained enforcement measure supported 

in SAFETEA-LU as well as other strategies, including effective prosecution and 

sanctions, which are recognized by the states and NHTSA.6

 

Regarding effective prosecution, NHTSA had not established a specific gauge to 

measure the states’ success and neither had 9 of the 10 states we reviewed. 

However, 1 of the 10 states we reviewed did include limited data on conviction 

rates under grants designed to increase the number of successful convictions. 

South Carolina’s 2004 Annual Evaluation Report contained detailed information 

about grants awarded to state police, counties, and cities, including prosecution 

data. For example, the report showed that a grant awarded with a goal of 

increasing alcohol-impaired driving conviction rates by 5 percent led to a 

30-percent increase in the conviction rate for that area. While other performance 

measures addressing this area, such as the percentage of judges and prosecutors 

exposed to educational programs, might also be meaningful, South Carolina’s 

limited efforts indicate the feasibility of using intermediate performance measures 

related to effective prosecution. 

 

6

 For a discussion of NHTSA-advocated strategies, see Exhibit C. 
 14

Table 3, below, illustrates the benefits of reporting on intermediate performance 

goals and measures for the key strategies identified in our report and the resulting 

benefits obtained from having such data available across the states. The table 

includes elements of the sustained enforcement definition that NHTSA has set 

forth. However, we recognize that NHTSA might develop alternative measures in 

this area and others after consultation with the states. 

Table 3. Examples of Potential Intermediate Performance 

Goals and Measures 

Strategy 

Potential Intermediate 

Performance Goals and 

Measures 

Potential Benefits for NHTSA if States Used 

Such Measures 

Sustained 

Enforcement 

Accomplish sustained 

enforcement at a set percentage* 

of at-risk areas in the state. 

NHTSA could better determine the degree to which 

states were carrying out SAFETEA-LU required 

assurances to pursue this strategy. 

NHTSA could better determine whether emphasis 

on sustained enforcement had an impact on alcoholrelated fatalities and injuries in at-risk areas. 

Prosecution 

and Sanctions 

Achieve a set percentage* of 

successful convictions for 

alcohol-impaired driving 

offenses. 

NHTSA could better determine whether specialized 

training programs for prosecutors had an impact on 

conviction rates. 

NHTSA could better determine the impact of 

structural changes, such as the establishment of 

courts specializing in alcohol-impaired driving cases. 

Source: OIG 

*Percentage to be determined by NHTSA and the states. 

The Federal regulations, issued by NHTSA, place the responsibility on each state 

to develop performance measures, and NHTSA stated that under the regulations it 

could not compel states to use specific measures. Further, NHTSA officials were 

concerned that changing these rules and requiring specific intermediate 

performance measures could result in the withholding of state funding if a state 

failed to comply with the rules. Withholding funds could thereby reduce the level 

of state safety activities. NHTSA was also concerned that states would have 

difficulty consistently collecting the needed data for performance measures related 

to alcohol-impaired programs. 

We are not proposing the establishment of mandatory performance measures and 

goals for the states that are tied to financial penalties. This would constitute a 

significant change to the current rules that neither NHTSA nor the states are likely 

to support. Additionally, we are not suggesting that states be compelled to adopt 

potentially costly data reporting systems that may be counterproductive to the 

progress states are achieving designing their own safety plans. 
 15

However, in our view, NHTSA could take a number of feasible steps to lead states 

to provide better information on the degree to which the key strategies NHTSA 

and the states have identified are being carried out. 

First, instead of compelling states to adopt any specific performance measure, 

NHTSA could, over time, work with the states to develop intermediate 

performance measures that are feasible and meaningful. 

•

•

•

Second, NHTSA could require states to report on the use of the measures 

developed within the now publicly available Highway Safety Plans and Annual 

Evaluation Reports. Such reporting requirements would be similar to the 

requirement that states report to NHTSA on the problem identification process 

they follow in their traffic safety efforts. 

Finally, once measures are developed, NHTSA could assist states in 

overcoming difficulties in using the measures and in obtaining the data needed 

to report on measures, by periodically reviewing state progress in this area and 

identifying impediments to state implementation. 

These actions, over time, would provide states with better tools to judge their 

performance and provide for an easier comparison of practices across states. 

Taking these actions would also enhance public accountability for programs to 

counter alcohol-impaired driving by providing information on the degree to which 

key strategies are being carried out by the states as they expend the resources 

provided in SAFETEA-LU. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that the NHTSA Administrator: 

1. In coordination with the states, develop intermediate performance measures 

to use in carrying out the key strategies identified by NHTSA and the states 

for countering alcohol-impaired driving. 

2. Require that each state report in its Highway Safety Plan and Annual 

Evaluation Report the degree to which the intermediate performance 

measures developed for key strategies to counter alcohol-impaired driving 

are being implemented and the state’s results for each measure. 

3. Periodically assess the degree to which states have adopted the 

recommended intermediate performance measures, the results from the 

measures, and actions needed to assist states in fully implementing the use 

of the performance measures. 
 16

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

We provided NHTSA a draft of this report on December 15, 2006. On February 7, 

2007, NHTSA provided us with formal comments on our draft report. A complete 

copy of the comments is in the Appendix. In its comments, NHTSA reported 

working closely with states to implement proven evidence-based impaired driving 

strategies that will decrease fatalities and injuries. NHTSA noted that 

performance measures evaluating the progress of these strategies have focused on 

activities accomplished and outcome measures. NHTSA also observed that while 

these measures evaluate overall success, they do not indicate the degree to which 

key strategies are being implemented. NHTSA further stated its work related to 

this audit has already yielded improvements in the Alcohol-Impaired Driving 

Traffic Safety Programs. 

NHTSA identified planned actions that were responsive to our three 

recommendations. NHTSA concurred with recommendations 1 and 3 and put 

forth an alternative action for recommendation 2, which we have accepted. 

Although NHTSA provided its written perspective on these recommendations, it 

did not provide specific milestones for completing planned actions for two of the 

three recommendations, and thus we are requesting that it do so. 

NHTSA’s specific comments on the recommendations and OIG response to the 

comments are summarized below. 

NHTSA Comments. For recommendation 1, NHTSA concurred and stated that a 

project scheduled to begin in 2007, with a completion date of no later than 2009, 

will develop voluntary guidance on a set of intermediate performance indicators 

that could be used by state and local governments to measure success in priority 

program areas, which include impaired driving. NHTSA commented that 

evaluations using intermediate performance measures will allow the states and 

NHTSA to better determine the effectiveness of key strategies and adjust states’ 

Highway Safety Plans. 

OIG Response. We consider NHTSA’s comments on recommendation 1 to be 

responsive. 

NHTSA Comments. For recommendation 2, which recommended that NHTSA 

require each state to report in its Highway Safety Plan and Annual Evaluation 

Report the degree to which the intermediate performance measures are being used, 

NHTSA put forth an alternative action. NHTSA stated that after intermediate 

performance measures are developed, it will recommend and encourage each state 
 17

to use the intermediate performance measures in their respective Highway Safety 

Plans. If the states use the Plan, they will report on their use in the Annual Report. 

OIG Response. We accept NHTSA’s alternative action. The actions proposed in 

response to this recommendation in combination with the actions planned in 

response to recommendation 3 will provide for NHTSA’s review and oversight of 

each state’s efforts to develop intermediate performance measures. Moreover, the 

availability of each state’s Highway Safety Plan and Annual Report on the 

NHTSA website will meet the intent of the recommendation by providing 

information on which performance measures a state is using. However, we 

request that NHTSA provide a specific milestone date for providing a 

recommendation to the states on the use of intermediate performance measures. 

NHTSA Comments. For recommendation 3, which recommended that NHTSA 

periodically assess the degree to which the states have adopted the recommended 

measures, NHTSA concurred and agreed to incorporate into the regional staff 

reviews of state Highway Safety Plans and Annual Reports an assessment of 

progress on adoption, use, and results of intermediate impaired driving 

performance measures. Once a state has fully adopted the use of intermediate 

impaired driving performance measures, a formal assessment of the state’s system 

for establishing measures and evaluating progress will be conducted every 3 years. 

OIG Response. We consider NHTSA’s comments on recommendation 3 to be 

responsive. However, we request that NHTSA provide specific milestone dates on 

when it will modify the guidance for regional staff reviews on each state’s 

Highway Safety Plan and Annual Report and the guidance for the triennial 

management reviews and special reviews. The modifications will incorporate the 

agreed-to assessments related to intermediate performance measures. 

ACTIONS REQUIRED 

NHTSA’s planned actions to address the three recommendations are considered 

responsive, but we request that NHTSA provide specific milestone dates for 

planned actions on two of the recommendations. We request that NHTSA provide 

this information in a written response within 30 calendar days of this final report. 

In accordance with Department of Transportation Order 8000.1C, the OIG will 

track each recommendation until final action is completed. 

We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of representatives from NHTSA, the 

states, and the organizations visited and contacted during this audit. If you have 

any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 366-5630 or 

Joe Comé, the Program Director, at (202) 366-0377. 

# 
 18

EXHIBIT A. STATE ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING FATALTITY 

RATES AND NUMBER OF FATALITIES DURING TEA-21 

Table 4. State Alcohol Impaired Driving Fatality Rates* 

(Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled) 

During TEA-21 (Calendar Years 1998 – 2005) 

State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Alabama 0.80 0.83 0.75 0.66 0.71 0.71 0.73 0.71

Alaska 0.69 0.88 1.21 1.00 0.76 0.75 0.62 0.70

Arizona 0.98 0.90 0.95 0.98 0.94 0.87 0.78 0.82

Arkansas 0.76 0.72 0.76 0.66 0.80 0.82 0.83 0.73

California 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.50 0.51 0.50 0.51 0.52

Colorado 0.62 0.56 0.64 0.76 0.72 0.58 0.58 0.51

Connecticut 0.49 0.45 0.52 0.52 0.46 0.44 0.41 0.38

Delaware 0.57 0.50 0.74 0.77 0.56 0.67 0.55 0.69

D.C. 0.94 0.66 0.57 0.91 0.68 0.98 0.51 0.70

Florida 0.76 0.80 0.85 0.75 0.72 0.69 0.63 0.73

Georgia 0.55 0.53 0.56 0.52 0.49 0.44 0.47 0.48

Hawaii 0.74 0.54 0.64 0.68 0.53 0.76 0.66 0.70

Idaho 0.74 0.74 0.88 0.65 0.64 0.74 0.63 0.60

Illinois 0.61 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.62 0.60 0.56 0.54

Indiana 0.59 0.55 0.43 0.45 0.36 0.36 0.42 0.45

Iowa 0.56 0.58 0.47 0.51 0.44 0.47 0.35 0.38

Kansas 0.61 0.70 0.57 0.69 0.80 0.69 0.48 0.51

Kentucky 0.68 0.65 0.60 0.54 0.64 0.59 0.65 0.66

Louisiana 1.10 1.08 1.11 1.03 0.99 0.93 0.95 0.88

Maine 0.41 0.42 0.36 0.45 0.34 0.50 0.47 0.40

Maryland 0.46 0.44 0.48 0.54 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.42

Massachusetts 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.31

Michigan 0.59 0.59 0.54 0.53 0.49 0.48 0.42 0.40

Minnesota 0.57 0.40 0.49 0.42 0.47 0.48 0.34 0.35

Mississippi 1.04 1.05 1.08 0.77 0.92 0.86 0.89 0.88

Missouri 0.79 0.66 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.72 0.67 0.75

Montana 1.10 1.11 1.18 1.04 1.21 1.17 0.94 1.11

Nebraska 0.68 0.70 0.58 0.52 0.63 0.64 0.48 0.47

Nevada 1.07 0.88 0.79 0.73 0.92 0.93 0.76 0.77

New Hampshire 0.54 0.55 0.41 0.54 0.40 0.39 0.44 0.45

New Jersey 0.41 0.43 0.48 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.37 0.36

New Mexico 0.88 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.96 0.90 0.89 0.79

New York** 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.39 0.36 0.40 0.43 0.38

North Carolina 0.68 0.65 0.69 0.59 0.64 0.56 0.57 0.54

North Dakota 0.63 0.80 0.57 0.73 0.67 0.71 0.51 0.77

Ohio 0.51 0.51 0.53 0.57 0.52 0.43 0.44 0.46

Oklahoma 0.64 0.61 0.53 0.62 0.55 0.57 0.61 0.60

Exhibit A. State Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatality Rates and Number 

of Fatalities During TEA-21 
 19

Table 4 (Continued). State Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatality Rates* 

(Fatalities Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled) 

During TEA-21 (Calendar Years 1998 – 2005) 

State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Oregon 0.70 0.50 0.55 0.54 0.52 0.59 0.57 0.50

Pennsylvania 0.64 0.61 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.58 0.57 0.59

Rhode Island 0.45 0.43 0.49 0.60 0.56 0.71 0.51 0.52

South Carolina 0.87 0.89 1.05 1.25 1.16 1.02 0.93 0.94

South Dakota 0.84 0.80 0.98 1.00 1.08 1.14 0.94 0.95

Tennessee 0.82 0.80 0.82 0.79 0.71 0.64 0.76 0.66

Texas 0.85 0.81 0.84 0.84 0.82 0.79 0.74 0.67

Utah 0.31 0.41 0.47 0.30 0.29 0.20 0.30 0.15

Vermont 0.61 0.53 0.47 0.43 0.34 0.35 0.41 0.38

Virginia 0.49 0.46 0.48 0.46 0.49 0.48 0.46 0.43

Washington 0.60 0.52 0.54 0.52 0.55 0.47 0.44 0.53

West Virginia 0.80 0.78 0.94 0.69 0.89 0.74 0.70 0.61

Wisconsin 0.54 0.54 0.61 0.64 0.61 0.65 0.59 0.61

Wyoming 0.88 0.91 0.61 0.95 0.74 0.68 0.64 0.72

Source: NHTSA 

*Fatality rates presented are based on traffic crashes that resulted in fatalities where at least one driver, 

motorcycle operator, pedestrian, or pedalcyclist involved had a BAC of .01 grams per deciliter or above. 

**According to NHTSA, 2005 rates for New York are based on 2004 VMT and are subject to change.

Table 5. State Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities* 

During TEA-21 (Calendar Years 1998 – 2005) 

State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Alabama 442 465 426 374 410 414 432 423

Alaska 31 40 56 47 37 37 31 35

Arizona 444 424 469 487 489 471 446 492

Arkansas 216 212 223 195 241 252 264 233

California 1,367 1,397 1,450 1,552 1,628 1,629 1,667 1,719

Colorado 244 229 268 328 314 252 265 244

Connecticut 144 136 161 161 144 137 131 120

Delaware 47 42 61 66 50 61 51 66

D.C. 31 23 20 34 24 35 19 26

Florida 1,039 1,139 1,277 1,281 1,279 1,287 1,224 1,471

Georgia 528 524 585 558 533 483 536 545

Hawaii 59 44 55 59 47 71 64 71

Exhibit A. State Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatality Rates and Number 

of Fatalities During TEA-21 
 20

Table 5 (Continued). State Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities* 

During TEA-21 (Calendar Years 1998 – 2005) 

State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Idaho 100 104 119 91 91 106 93 89

Illinois 619 646 628 623 653 637 613 580

Indiana 405 384 303 320 262 261 304 320

Iowa 163 169 139 152 137 145 111 118

Kansas 165 193 161 193 227 199 139 151

Kentucky 306 300 280 251 302 277 307 313

Louisiana 443 445 454 444 427 410 424 394

Maine 55 60 51 65 50 75 70 59

Maryland 223 215 240 282 276 287 286 235

Massachusetts 184 195 216 228 224 215 207 171

Michigan 552 565 528 520 494 485 431 421

Minnesota 285 206 258 225 256 266 191 201

Mississippi 356 367 385 277 335 321 352 371

Missouri 513 438 516 520 518 493 460 515

Montana 105 109 117 104 126 127 105 124

Nebraska 120 126 104 94 117 121 92 91

Nevada 176 153 140 133 165 180 154 159

New Hampshire 63 66 49 67 50 51 59 60

New Jersey 267 283 322 285 281 279 270 263

New Mexico 196 206 213 216 219 206 213 189

New York 451 483 476 505 482 540 594 524

North Carolina 581 573 614 536 592 528 549 549

North Dakota 46 58 41 53 49 53 39 58

Ohio 531 535 562 608 558 466 492 505

Oklahoma 268 258 229 270 251 260 282 283

Oregon 233 172 186 187 180 207 204 177

Pennsylvania 642 618 647 646 649 621 616 636

Rhode Island 36 36 41 48 46 59 43 43

South Carolina 372 391 480 582 549 490 463 464

South Dakota 68 66 83 85 92 97 83 80

Tennessee 513 515 542 533 485 443 542 464

Texas 1,745 1,700 1,841 1,807 1,810 1,771 1,704 1,569

Utah 65 90 107 70 71 47 75 37

Vermont 40 35 32 34 27 29 32 29

Virginia 359 337 360 339 379 367 363 347

Washington 313 274 286 281 299 261 247 294

West Virginia 150 149 181 136 179 148 142 126

Wisconsin 304 310 350 366 360 388 358 369

Wyoming 71 71 49 82 67 63 59 65

Source: NHTSA 

*Fatalities presented are based on crashes that resulted in fatalities where at least one driver, motorcycle 

operator, pedestrian, or pedalcyclist involved had a BAC of .01 grams per deciliter or above.

Exhibit A. State Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatality Rates and Number 

of Fatalities During TEA-21 
 21

EXHIBIT B. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

Objectives and Scope 

The audit was conducted from January 2005 through August 2006 in response to a 

request from the Fiscal Year 2005 House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations. Our audit objectives were to (1) compare the scope, direction, 

resources, and expenditures of programs and activities of selected states with the 

highest and lowest alcohol-related fatalities and identify best practices and 

challenges; (2) determine the Federal resources dedicated to reducing alcoholrelated traffic fatalities; and (3) explore what actions NHTSA could take, 

particularly regarding improved performance measures, to better ensure that funds 

are targeted towards strategies that will have the most impact on reducing alcoholimpaired driving. 

The audit covered the period of FY 1998 through FY 2005, the same period in 

which TEA-21 was applicable. We conducted this performance audit in 

accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards prescribed 

by the Comptroller General of the United States and we performed such tests as 

we considered necessary to detect fraud, waste, and abuse. 

We did not undertake an announced audit objective to determine the defining 

characteristics that constitute alcohol-related crashes. In follow-up meetings with 

congressional staff, a joint decision was made not to pursue this objective because 

our preliminary audit results found that the states reviewed were reporting alcoholrelated fatalities consistent with the definition of an impaired driving fatality set 

forth in NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). FARS defines an 

alcohol-related driving fatality as an “active” participant—driver, pedestrian, or 

cyclist—with a BAC level of 0.01 or higher, who was involved in a traffic 

accident. 

As a result of our follow-up meetings with congressional staff, we also added an 

objective to the audit to explore what actions NHTSA could take to better ensure 

funds are targeted towards strategies that would have the most impact on reducing 

alcohol-related driving fatalities. After our preliminary audit work was completed, 

this objective was narrowed to focus on improving the use of performance 

measures for key strategies reported by states because we found that the data 

NHTSA needed to gauge the effectiveness of these strategies was limited. 

Further, we agreed to limit the scope of the requested review only to those 

resources associated with TEA-21 programs. Data limitations prevented us from 

obtaining data needed to review state and other Federal agency resources. 

Exhibit B. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 
 22

We did not examine the quality of the FARS data, given other recent audit work 

done by the Government Accountability Office, as discussed in the November 

2004 report, GAO-05-24, “Highway Safety—Improved Monitoring and Oversight 

of Traffic Safety Data Program Are Needed.” Further, we did not examine 

NHTSA’s practice of statistically imputing FARS alcohol-related fatality data in 

cases in which states did not provide sufficient data. In these instances, NHTSA 

used a statistical model based on other crash information that the states provided 

(for example, time of crash and police-reported alcohol involvement) to determine 

whether alcohol was involved. Although we did not assess the imputation of 

FARS alcohol-related fatality data, NHTSA has released detailed information on 

the effectiveness of the method and on the confidence interval and standard error 

associated with the estimate. 

We did not review or comment on the effectiveness or adequacy of specific laws, 

methods, media employed, or program strategies advocated by states, NHTSA, 

other Federal agencies or professional, community, and industry organizations. 

Instead, we developed a pattern of state trends based on the states’ approaches on 

handling the problem of alcohol-impaired driving and how they enforced existing 

alcohol-impaired driving laws. Our audit did not specifically look at other state 

traffic safety programs that affect the success of the states’ alcohol-impaired 

driving program, such as efforts at controlling speeding, increasing seat-belt 

usage, and making roadways safer. These programs, according to NHTSA, affect 

the survivability of individuals involved in alcohol-related traffic crashes. 

Methodology 

To compare the scope, direction, resources, and expenditures of programs and 

activities of states with high and low alcohol-related fatalities, we conducted audit 

work at 10 states: California, Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, 

New Mexico, New York, Texas, and South Carolina. We selected these states to 

obtain information from across a range of programs and to meet the congressional 

direction to review states with high and low fatality rates. 

To determine the amount of TEA-21 resources the states expended on alcoholimpaired driving programs, we reviewed data from the NHTSA Grant Tracking 

System and the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Fiscal Management 

Information System. Additionally, we analyzed state Highway Safety Plans; 

Annual Evaluation Reports; grant data, when available; and NHTSA-published 

information on alcohol-impaired driving programs. We then compared the 

information we obtained among the 10 states to the alcohol-impaired driving 

strategies and countermeasures advocated by NHTSA and other Federal agencies, 

such as the Centers for Disease Control, National Transportation Safety Board, 

and the Department of Justice. 

Exhibit B. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 
 23

Our estimate for the total Federal resources that all states will expend for alcoholimpaired driving safety programs funded through TEA-21 was derived by adding 

reported expenditures in NHTSA's Grants Tracking System through FY 2005 to 

our estimate of future expenditures for alcohol-impaired driving. To calculate the 

future estimate of expenditures, we assumed that for the Section 410 grant 

program, which by law must be expended on alcohol-impaired programs, 

100 percent of any unexpended resources would be expended on alcohol-impaired 

programs by the end of FY 2009, when they would expire under Federal 

appropriations law. For other grant programs, which allow the state to spend all or 

a portion of the grant on non-alcohol-related programs, we applied the historical 

percentage of funds expended on alcohol-impaired driving programs for the 

respective grants to any unexpended amount remaining. For example, if alcoholrelated expenditures were historically 60 percent of a specific grant, we applied 

60 percent to any unexpended amounts. 

We interviewed NHTSA and FHWA Headquarters staff members who were 

responsible for recording grants. We also interviewed NHTSA regional office 

personnel responsible for the state impaired driving programs in the states 

selected. Finally, we interviewed a cross-section of the various professional, 

community, and industry organizations with an interest in alcohol-impaired 

driving safety. 

State Selection. Our specific methodology for selecting the 10 states reviewed 

involved dividing all 50 states and the District of Columbia into groups with 

comparable VMT and choosing states with high and low alcohol-impaired driving 

fatality rates within selected groups.7

 For example, from the states with the 

highest VMT, we selected one with a relatively high rate—Texas—and one with a 

relatively low rate—California. Our methodology provided eight states in our 

sample for review—four with relatively higher fatality rates and four with 

relatively lower fatality rates. We increased our sample to 10 states by 

judgmentally selecting New York because of its relatively low fatality rate for a 

large VMT state and New Mexico because of its relatively high alcohol-related 

fatalities among states with fewer than 25,000 million VMT. Table 6 on the 

following page shows the states selected and their alcohol-impaired driving 

fatality rates. 

 

7

 According to NHTSA, a direct comparison of states is difficult because of the many factors that can affect a state 

safety program, such as rural and urban differences, relevant state laws, traffic patterns, and use of public 

transportation. We used VMT as a basis of sample selection because it approximates states’ road use and is the basis 

of the alcohol-fatality rate NHTSA uses to judge state traffic safety program success. 

Exhibit B. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 
 24

Table 6. State Selected Based on National Alcohol-Impaired Driving 

Fatality Rates and VMT

State Selected

2003 

VMT 

(in millions)

2003 

Alcohol 

Impaired 

Fatalities 

Relative 

Alcohol 

Driving 

Fatality Rate 

2003 

Alcohol Fatality 

Rate (fatalities per 

100 million VMT) 

California 323,592 1,629 Lower* 0.50 

Texas 223,418 1,771 Higher 0.79 

New York 135,047 540 Lower 0.40 

Ohio 108,938 466 Lower 0.43 

Illinois 106,536 637 Higher 0.60 

New Jersey 69,778 279 Lower 0.40 

Missouri 68,163 493 Higher 0.72 

Connecticut 31,432 137 Lower 0.44 

South Carolina 48,120 490 Higher 1.02 

New Mexico 22,844 206 Higher 0.90 

Source: NHTSA and OIG 

*Lower means the state had a relatively low fatality rate in comparison with the other states with similar VMT. 

When we selected our sample states, 2003 was the latest year in which alcoholrelated fatality data were available. The number of state fatalities and the state 

fatality rate fluctuate yearly and thus the 2003 rate may not reflect how a state is 

now performing. 

Data and Limitations. In many instances we relied on publicly reported data 

and information from NHTSA, such as the number of alcohol-related driving 

fatalities and fatality rates, and state reported data and information. We did not 

perform tests of the reliability or accuracy of the systems used to generate the data 

nor the specific statistical techniques used. We did verify that the 10 states we 

reviewed reported fatalities consistent with the criteria NHTSA established. 

When identifying Federal resources expended on alcohol-impaired driving 

programs, we relied on NHTSA and FHWA’s financial systems. The FHWA 

system could identify only the amount expended on impaired driving at a 

summary level. For example, for Section 163 grants, the systems showed only 

whether the expenditure was incurred for a behavioral traffic safety activity in 

general or a hazard elimination project. According to NHTSA and FHWA, more 

detailed expenditure data were not required for these financial systems because 

other internal controls are in place to ensure that funds are expended correctly. 

Specifically, state safety offices are required to have a grant review process in 

place to review and document all grants submitted by local communities and 

payments are subject to the review of regional offices. To obtain an exact figure 

Exhibit B. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 
 25

of alcohol-impaired driving expenditures, an audit of the expenditures of all 50 

states and the District of Columbia would have to be performed. Because NHTSA 

and FHWA do not require this level of detail for the FHWA system, and because 

gathering such information would be time-consuming for the states, we did not 

request this information from states. 

Exhibit B. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 
 26

EXHIBIT C. NHTSA-ADVOCATED STRATEGIES DURING TEA-21 

During TEA-21, NHTSA-advocated alcohol-impaired driving strategies were 

outlined in several traffic safety bulletins, research and demonstrative project 

reports, congressional testimony, grant guidelines, and other reports. In addition, 

NHTSA advocated the need for a comprehensive approach to traffic safety, 

especially in the area of increasing seat-belt use, to increase the survivability of 

vehicle occupants in an alcohol-related traffic crash. Throughout TEA-21, 

NHTSA provided states with Section 402 Formula Grant “uniform grant 

guidelines” as a framework for state alcohol-impaired driving programs that 

centered on: program management, prevention, deterrence, drivers licensing, 

treatment, and rehabilitation. Within this framework, NHTSA recommended that 

states adopt a mix of laws, strategies, and practices (see Table 7). 

Table 7. NHTSA-Recommended Laws, Strategies, and Practices to 

Increase Traffic Safety 

Program 

Management Deterrence Prevention Treatment and Rehabilitation 

- Program planning 

- Program control 

- State and local 

 task forces and safe 

 community programs 

- Data and records 

- Evaluation 

- Funding 

- Laws 

- Public information 

 and education 

- Enforcement 

- Prosecution 

- Adjudication 

- Public information 

 and education for 

 prevention 

- School programs 

- Employer programs 

- Responsible alcohol 

 service 

- Transportation 

 alternatives 

- Diagnosis and 

 screening 

- Treatment and 

 rehabilitation 

Source: NHTSA 

In December 2003, NHTSA issued Initiatives to Address Impaired Driving, which 

provided initiatives for states to adopt in their alcohol-impaired driving programs. 

The initiatives were identified in two major categories, “Countermeasure Needs” 

and “Infrastructure Needs,” as listed in Table 8 on the following page. 

Exhibit C. NHTSA-Advocated Strategies During TEA-21 
 27

Table 8. NHTSA’s Initiatives to Address Impaired Driving 

Countermeasure Needs Infrastructure Needs 

- High visibility law enforcement. 

- Specialized DWI courts. 

- DWI prosecutors. 

- Increased efficiency and offender processing. 

- Strong alcohol beverage control and enforcement. 

- Alternative sanctions/limitations on pre-conviction 

 diversion program. 

- Promote statewide self-sufficiency. 

- Increase post-crash BAC testing. 

- Implement NHTSA’s model impaired driving 

 records system. 

- Establish state DWI task forces or similar 

 institutional bodies. 

- Enact comprehensive state legislation. 

Source: NHTSA 

NHTSA followed this initiative with another in July 2004, The Nation’s New 

Strategy to Stop Impaired Driving, which identified three new priorities on which 

states should focus their impaired-driving programs: high visibility enforcement, 

support for prosecutors and DWI courts, and screening and brief intervention of 

patients with alcohol problems. 

Exhibit C. NHTSA-Advocated Strategies During TEA-21 
 28

EXHIBIT D. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON FEDERAL 

RESOURCES DEVOTED TO ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED PROGRAMS 

In 1998, Congress passed TEA21 to provide states with grants 

that support traffic behavioral 

safety programs, such as 

reducing speeding, increasing 

seat-belt usage, and reducing the 

number of alcohol-impaired 

driving related fatalities. 

Further, in 2000, two penalty 

transfer programs were created. 

They were created to “penalize” 

states for not having strict 

sanctions against repeat alcoholimpaired drivers and for failing 

to establish laws discouraging 

open alcohol containers in 

vehicles. Table 9 provides a list 

of the TEA-21 grants and 

penalty transfers that were 

available to the states. Except 

for Section 410 grants, all the 

grants and transfers could be used for any safety purpose in addition to alcoholimpaired driving. For example, a grant or transfer could be used in the elimination 

of highway hazards, such as widening lanes or adding rumble strips on highways 

Under TEA-21, states that did not have specified sanctions against repeat alcoholimpaired drivers were required to transfer a percentage of their Federal-Aid 

Highway Program funds to either an alcohol-impaired driving program or a 

highway hazard elimination project, such as building road rumble strips. 

Table 10 on the following page shows estimated expenditures for alcohol 

programs; other traffic safety initiatives, such as seat belt programs; and the 

highway hazard elimination programs. Further, from FY 1998 through FY 2005, 

states expended approximately $753 million in TEA-21 resources on alcoholimpaired driving programs. Based on past expenditure data, we estimate that 

states will spend an additional $349 million of TEA-21 resources on alcoholimpaired driving programs by 2009. These funds were allocated to the states 

throughout TEA-21, but at the time of our audit had not yet been expended. 

Table 9. TEA-21 Alcohol Grants 

and Penalty Transfers Available to the 

States 

Section 402 -

State and Community

Highway Safety Formula

Support state overall efforts 

to reduce traffic crashes, 

injuries, and deaths. 

S Encourage use of innovative 

alcohol-impaired driving 

countermeasures and 

related projects. 

ection 410 -

Alcohol-Impaired Driving

Countermeasures

Encourage adoption of .08 

BAC level as the impaireddriving legal threshold. 

Section 163.08 -

BAC Incentives

Section 164 -

Repeat Offender Law

Penalty Transfer

Encourage adoption of 

stricter penalties for 

impaired-driving repeat 

offenders. 

Section 154 -

Open Container Law

Penalty Transfer

Encourage adoption of laws 

aimed at reducing driving 

with open alcohol 

containers. 

Source: NHTSA

Exhibit D. Additional Information on Federal Resources Devoted to 

Alcohol-impaired Programs 
 29

Table 10. TEA-21 Expenditures on Safety Programs 

(FY 1998—FY 2005) 

($ in millions)

TEA-21 Grants and

Penalty Transfers

Alcohol

Programs

Other

Traffic Safety

Highway

Hazard

Projects

402 Formula Grants $167.3 $936.0 N/A 

163 .08 BAC Incentives* 145.4 N/A $219.9 

163 SES Initiatives 3.0 N/A N/A 

410 Impaired Driving 199.0 N/A N/A 

154 Open Container

Penalty Transfer

99.2 N/A 153.7 

164 Repeat Offender

Penalty Transfer

118.8 N/A 255.9 

157 Seat Belt Incentive** 20.2 221.2 N/A 

Total*** $752.9 $1,157.2 $629.4 

Source: NHTSA, FHWA, and OIG 

*As discussed in Exhibit B, we were unable to determine the precise amount states expended 

from Section 163 grants on alcohol-impaired driving because FHWA, the agency responsible for 

financial control of Section 163 grants, identified those grant expenditures as either behavioral 

safety or highway hazard elimination. To provide a conservative estimate, we included all 

behavioral safety related amounts in our alcohol programs expenditure estimate. Therefore, 

actual alcohol-impaired driving expenditures by states may be less. 

**Section 157 Seatbelt Incentive Grants were provided to states to increase seatbelt usage. 

Criteria for using the grants were the same as for Section 402 formula grants. 

***We rounded each category of grants and penalty transfers to the nearest tenth. As a result, 

rounding differences are present in the totals. 

Cumulative state TEA-21 alcohol-impaired driving expenditures from FY 1998 

through FY 2005 ranged from $850,000 to $86 million per state. Table 11 on the 

following page provides a breakdown of state expenditures by alcohol programs, 

other traffic safety, and highway hazard elimination projects. 

Exhibit D. Additional Information on Federal Resources Devoted to 

Alcohol-impaired Programs 
 30

Exhibit D. Additional Information on Federal Resources Devoted to 

Alcohol-impaired Programs 

Table 11. Total TEA-21 Alcohol-Impaired Driving Grants and Penalty Transfer Funds 

Expended by States 

(FY 1998—FY 2005) 

($ in millions) 

State

Alcohol

Programs*

Other

Traffic

Safety

Highway

Hazard

Projects

State

Alcohol

Programs*

Other

Traffic

Safety

Highway

Hazard

Projects

Alabama $12.1 $18.2 $5.0 Montana 13.3 5.2 10.8 

Alaska 5.5 4.9 12.6 Nebraska 7.9 7.8 3.1 

Arizona 13.9 13.0 0.1 Nevada 3.0 9.2 0 

Arkansas 11.6 10.1 7.3 New Hampshire 1.9 4.9 2.2 

California** 86.3 169.9 86.0 New Jersey** 5.9 30.8 0.2 

Colorado 7.7 15.4 18.2 New Mexico** 7.1 14.1 11.7 

Connecticut** 23.4 11.7 1.8 New York** 10.2 83.2 33.0 

Delaware 5.0 4.5 5.3 North Carolina 27.2 37.2 6.3 

D.C. 5.1 4.9 0.4 North Dakota 3.4 7.5 13.8 

Florida 53.3 37.8 5.6 Ohio** 18.0 47.1 51.1 

Georgia 21.3 34.2 10.5 Oklahoma 6.4 16.3 3.0 

Hawaii 6.0 4.7 1.4 Oregon 17.6 19.6 10.2 

Idaho 5.1 5.7 2.9 Pennsylvania 22.2 35.3 0 

Illinois** 45.3 42.9 25.3 Rhode Island 2.7 3.8 4.1 

Indiana 20.1 25.6 18.9 South Carolina** 10.9 13.9 10.8 

Iowa 14.5 12.5 0 South Dakota 0.8 8.6 17.1 

Kansas 6.9 11.9 7.0 Tennessee 31.5 22.3 10.0 

Kentucky 7.1 14.2 6.9 Texas** 30.6 84.4 65.7 

Louisiana 6.4 16.4 28.7 Utah 5.3 10.5 4.8 

Maine 2.9 4.2 1.9 Vermont 6.1 5.2 4.3 

Maryland 4.7 30.5 13.2 Virginia 32.8 26.1 11.9 

Massachusetts 11.1 19.8 3.7 Washington 14.5 28.0 8.3 

Michigan 15.5 34.6 2.3 West Virginia 2.8 7.3 5.6 

Minnesota 27.4 21.8 4.6 Wisconsin 12.6 19.6 5.2 

Mississippi 12.7 12.3 3.2 Wyoming 3.4 4.2 29.5 

Missouri** 24.0 23.4 34.4 Total*** $752.9 $1,157.2 $629.4 

Source: NHTSA, FHWA and OIG 

*As discussed in Exhibit B, we were unable to determine the precise amount states expended from Section 163 grants on alcoholimpaired driving because FHWA, the agency responsible for financial control of Section 163 grants, identified only those grant 

expenditures as either behavioral safety or highway hazard elimination. To provide a conservative estimate, we included all behavioral 

safety related amounts in our alcohol programs expenditure estimate. Therefore, actual alcohol-impaired driving expenditures by states 

may be less. 

**State selected for our 10 state comparisons. 

***We rounded each state to the nearest tenth. As a result rounding differences are present if state totals are added together and 

compared with the totals presented in Table 10. 
 31

EXHIBIT E. ACTIVITIES VISITED OR CONTACTED 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Traffic Injury Control 

Office of Impaired Driving Program 

Office of Strategic and Program Planning 

NHTSA Regional Offices: 

Central 

Eastern 

Great Lakes 

New England 

South Central 

Southeast 

Western 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Safety Programs 

Office of Highway Policy Information 

Travel Monitoring and Surveys Division 

National Transportation Safety Board 

Safety Advocacy Division 

State Highway Safety Office and State Police 

California Office of Traffic Safety 

California Highway Patrol 

Connecticut Highway Safety Office 

Connecticut Department of Public Safety 

New Jersey Division of Highway Safety 

New Jersey State Police 

New York Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee 

New York State Police 

Ohio Governor’s Highway Safety Office 

Ohio State Highway Patrol 

Illinois Division of Traffic Safety 

Illinois State Police 

Exhibit E. Activities Visited or Contacted 
 32

State Highway Safety Office and State Police (cont.) 

Missouri Department of Transportation Division of Highway Safety 

Missouri State Highway Patrol 

New Mexico Traffic Safety Bureau 

New Mexico Department of Public Safety 

South Carolina Office of Highway Safety 

South Carolina Highway Patrol 

Texas Department of Transportation Traffic Safety Office 

Texas Department of Public Safety 

Other Organizations Contacted 

American Beverage Institute 

Governors Highway Safety Association 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

International Association of Chiefs of Police 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving 

National Sheriffs’ Association 

The Century Council 

Exhibit E. Activities Visited or Contacted 
 33

EXHIBIT F. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT 

Name Title 

Joe Comé Program Director 

Paulette Heggins-Carter Supervisory Auditor 

David Pouliott Senior Auditor 

Carl Christian Senior Analyst 

Alvin Schenkelberg Senior Auditor 

Jovanny Roque Analyst 

Harriet E. Lambert Writer-Editor

Amy Berks Associate Counsel 

Exhibit F. Major Contributors to This Report 
 34

APPENDIX. AGENCY COMMENTS 

Memorandum

 U.S. Department 

 of Transportation 

 National Highway 

 Traffic Safety 

 Administration 

Subject: Response to Draft Report on Audit of the Date: 

Alcohol-Impaired Driving Traffic Safety 

Programs (05M3002M000) 

From: Nicole R. Nason 

Administrator 

Reply to: Becky Batts 

OIG 

X3-0331 

To: Kurt Hyde 

Assistant Inspector General 

 for Surface and Maritime Programs 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report and for the effort expended by your 

staff in developing the findings and recommendations. We think that our work related to this 

audit has already yielded improvements in the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Traffic Safety Programs 

and we look forward to taking additional steps that you have identified. 

We concur with the findings and recommendations of the report. Attached are our detailed 

responses to each recommendation and clarifying comments on the report itself. 

Attachments 

Appendix. Agency Comments 
 35

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

RESPONSE ON OIG REPORT 

TITLE: Audit of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Alcohol Impaired 

Driving Traffic Safety Program. PROJECT NUMBER: 05M3002M000, 

December 2006. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION POSITION 

Reducing alcohol related fatalities has been and remains a top priority for the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Alcohol-related traffic fatalities accounted for 39 percent 

(16,885) of reported traffic deaths in 2005, representing an average of one alcohol related fatality 

every 31 minutes. Although there has been a 0.2 percent reduction from 2004 and a five percent 

reduction from 1995, alcohol-related fatalities constitute almost 40% of traffic deaths. 

NHTSA works closely with States to help them utilize highway safety funds to implement proven 

evidence-based impaired driving strategies that will decrease fatalities and injuries. Performance 

measures that evaluate progress of theses strategies have focused on activities accomplished or 

outcome measures such as total fatalities and a ratio of fatalities to total number of miles driven. 

While these measures evaluate overall success, they do not indicate the degree to which key 

strategies are being implemented. 

Recommendation I: In coordination with the States, develop intermediate performance measures 

to use in carrying out the key strategies identified by NHTSA and the States for countering 

alcohol-impaired driving. 

Response: NHTSA concurs with this response. Intermediary evaluation will allow States and 

NHTSA to better determine effectiveness of key strategies and make adjustments to the Highway 

Safety Plan, if necessary. 

NHTSA is planning a demonstration project to develop voluntary guidance on a set of intermediate 

performance indicators that could be used by State and local governments to measure success in 

priority program areas, which include impaired driving. The development of these measures will 

be accomplished through a cooperative process involving NHTSA and State highway safety 

offices. The demonstration project is scheduled to be awarded in 2007, with a completion date of 

no later than 2009. 

NHTSA has used intermediate performance measures to assess impaired driving activities in 

specific grant programs and research and development activities. For example, NHTSA has 

already adopted several intermediate performance measures under the Alcohol Impaired Driving 

Prevention Program at 23 U.S.C. § 410- the result of statutory changes made by SAFETEA-LU. 

Recommendation II: Require that each State report in its Highway Safety Plan and Annual 

Evaluation report the degree to which the intermediate performance measures developed for key 

Appendix. Agency Comments 
 36

strategies to counter alcohol-impaired driving are being implemented and the State’s results for 

each measure. 

Response: After development of intermediate performance measures, NHTSA will recommend 

and encourage States to use these measures in their Highway Safety Plan and, if used, report on 

their use and results in the Annual Report. 

The final rule for 23 CFR Part 1200.33, Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Programs, 

requires each State to submit an annual report that describes States progress in meeting its highway 

safety goals, using performance measures identified in the Performance Plan. 

NHTSA staff will provide technical assistance and guidance to States as needed during 

Management and Special Management Reviews, during the highway safety planning process, and 

during review of completed Highway Safety Plans and Annual Reports. This will be included as a 

task in Regional Action Plans. 

Recommendation III: Periodically assess the degree to which States have adopted the 

recommended performance measures, the results from the measures, and actions needed to assist 

states in fully implementing the use of performance measures. 

Response: NHTSA concurs with this recommendation. Regional NHTSA staff review and 

provide written feedback to States on each Highway Safety Plan and Annual Report. Staff will 

incorporate into the reviews an assessment of progress on adoption, use, and results of 

intermediate impaired driving performance measures. Once a State has fully adopted use of 

intermediate impaired driving performance measures, a formal assessment of the States system for 

establishing measures and evaluating progress will be conducted once every three years during the 

management review and during any special management reviews or impaired driving technical 

program assessments. 

 

Appendix. Agency Comments