a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2005 HIGHWAY SAFETY

Further Opportunities 

Exist to Improve Data 

on Crashes Involving 

Commercial Motor 

Vehicles

GAO-06-102
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

November 2005

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Further Opportunities Exist to Improve 

Data on Crashes Involving Commercial 

Motor Vehicles 

Highlights of GAO-06-102, a report to 

congressional committees 

Large trucks make up 3 percent of

the nation’s registered vehicles, but 

they were involved in 11 percent of 

all fatal crashes in 2003. To reduce

the fatality rate, the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) sets national safety goals 

and works in partnership with

states to reach them. Crash data

collected by states and submitted 

to FMCSA is key to these efforts,

and to be fully useful, this data 

must be complete, timely, accurate,

and collected in a consistent 

manner. GAO addressed (1) what 

is known about the quality of 

commercial motor vehicle crash

data, and what states are doing to 

improve it, and (2) the results of

FMCSA’s efforts to help states

make improvements. 

What GAO Recommends

To ensure uniformity in awarding

data improvement funds to states, 

FMCSA should establish specific 

guidelines for assessing and 

awarding state funding requests. 

Also, in order to address limitations 

in its data quality map, FMCSA 

should develop a plan for assessing 

and improving the map’s 

methodology, and it should provide 

a crash specific data rating and

limitations of the map on its Web

site. 

The Department of Transportation

agreed with our findings and 

recommendations in this report. 

Overall, commercial motor vehicle crash data does not yet meet general data

quality standards of completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and consistency. For 

example, FMCSA estimates that nearly one-third of commercial motor vehicle 

crashes that states are required to report to the federal government were not

reported, and those that were reported were not always accurate, timely, or

consistent. States are undertaking four types of activities to improve data

quality, including analyzing existing data to identify problems and develop plans 

for addressing them, reducing backlogs of data that have not been entered into 

state-level databases, developing and implementing electronic data systems, and 

providing training. As a result of these efforts, states have recently improved 

both the timeliness and the number of reportable crashes submitted to FMCSA. 

FMCSA has two main efforts to support states in improving their reporting of 

commercial motor vehicle crash information—a commercial vehicle crash data

improvement program and a data quality rating system—and both appear to be

beneficial. Through the data improvement program, FMCSA has provided nearly

$21 million in discretionary grants to 34 states from 2002 through 2005. These 

grants have ranged from $2,000 to $2 million and have helped states conduct a 

variety of data improvement activities. GAO did not find problems with 

FMCSA’s oversight of the program, but we did note that FMCSA does not have 

formal guidelines for awarding grants to states. As state participation in the

program increases, formal guidelines and systems would likely assist FMCSA in 

prioritizing states’ requests and ensuring consistency in grant awards. 

FMCSA’s second major effort, a tool for rating states’ data quality, has proven to 

be an important tool for states to use in improving their crash data as well. 

These results are presented in a map that rates each state’s data quality as 

“good,” “fair,” or “poor.” According to both FMCSA and state officials, the map 

and the underlying rating system serve as an incentive for states to improve their 

crash data. While the map is useful, GAO identified problems in the 

methodology used for developing ratings. These problems may potentially lead 

to drawing erroneous conclusions about the extent of improvements that have 

been made, and discourage states from continuing to devote attention and 

resources to areas needing improvement.

FMCSA’s June 2005 data quality map showing each state’s overall data quality rating for crash and 

inspection data.

AR

NH ID

UT

MT ME

NE

AL

TN

ND

OK SC

WI

MN

CO

MS

IA

VA MO

IN

LA

SD

KS

GA

TX

NV OH

NM

MD

DE

NJ

MI

MI

NC

FL

IL

AZ

DC

PA

VT

WA

OR

WY

KY WV

AK

HI

NY MA 

RI

CT

CA

State rating

Sources: FMCSA and Map Art.

Good

Fair

Poor

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-102.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine 

Siggerud, (202) 512-6570, 

Siggerudk@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 6

States Continue to Have Problems with CMV Crash Data Quality, but 

Are Pursuing a Variety of Improvement Efforts 10

Data Quality Problems Often Reflect Difficulties in Collection and 

Processing of Crash Reports 11

FMCSA’s Efforts Have Contributed to CMV Data Quality 

Improvements 17

FMCSA’s SaDIP Has Supported State Efforts to Improve Data 

Quality 18

Data Quality Map Has Spurred Improvements, but Limitations Curb 

Map’s Continued Usefulness 23

Conclusions 30

Recommendations for Executive Action 30

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology 32

Appendix II: State Safety Data Quality Map Limitations 34

Completeness: Overall Completeness is Based on Fatal Crashes 

Only 34

Timeliness: Timeliness is Not Based on All Reported Crashes 36

Accuracy: Accuracy is Based on Only One Variable 37

Appendix III: FMCSA Reportable Crash, CMV, and Carrier Identification 

Visor Cards 38

Appendix IV: SaDIP Grant and Cooperative Agreement Distribution by 

State 42

Appendix V: SaDIP Case Study States 44

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowlegdments 58

Tables Table 1: Examples of Problems with Commercial Vehicle Crash 

Data Quality 11

Table 2: Annual Distribution of SaDIP funds 19

Table 3: Comparison of Data Quality Standards and State Safety 

Data Quality Map Measures 26

Table 4: Overall Data Quality Rating 29
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Table 5: State Safety Data Quality Map Measures for CMV

Crashes 34

Table 6: Distribution of SaDIP Grants by State 42

Table 7: Distribution of SaDIP Cooperative Agreements by State 43

Table 8: Georgia SaDIP Funding History 44

Table 9: Georgia Crash Data Quality Statistics (Percentages) 45

Table 10: Minnesota SaDIP Funding History 46

Table 11: Minnesota Crash Data Quality Statistics (Percentages) 47

Table 12: North Carolina SaDIP Funding History 49

Table 13: North Carolina Crash Data Quality Statistics 

(Percentages) 50

Table 14: Ohio SaDIP Funding History 51

Table 15: Ohio Crash Data Quality Statistics (Percentages) 52

Table 16: Oklahoma SaDIP Funding History 53

Table 17: Oklahoma Crash Data Quality Statistics (Percentages) 54

Table 18: Washington SaDIP Funding History 55

Table 19: Washington Crash Data Quality Statistics (Percentages) 56

Figures Figure 1: Criteria for Selecting Truck and Bus Crashes to Report to 

FMCSA 8

Figure 2: State Participation in CMV Crash Data Improvement 

Efforts from Fiscal Year 2002 through Fiscal Year 

2005 14

Figure 3: FMCSA Reportable Crashes 39

Figure 4: Reportable Commercial Motor Vehicle Configurations 

and Cargo Body Type 40

Figure 5: Responsible Carrier and Correct DOT Number 

Identification 41
Contents

Page iii GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Abbreviations

CMV commercial motor vehicle

CVARS Commercial Vehicle Analysis Reporting System

DOT Department of Transportation 

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

GSA General Services Administration

MCMIS Motor Carrier Management Information System

MCSAP Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SaDIP Safety Data Improvement Program

SafeStat Motor Carrier Safety Status Measurement System

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users 

UMTRI University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute

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 1 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

November 18, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Christopher S. Bond 

Chairman 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing

 and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Joe Knollenberg 

Chairman

The Honorable John W. Olver 

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban

 Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives

Large trucks make up only 3 percent of the nation’s registered vehicles, but 

they were involved in 11 percent of all fatal crashes in 2003, the last year for 

which complete data is available. That year, large trucks were involved in 

more than 430,000 crashes, killing approximately 5,000 people.1

 In 1999, 

Congress established the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) within the Department of Transportation2

 and mandated it with 

reducing crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. 

Currently, FMCSA has the goal of reducing commercial motor vehicle crash 

fatalities to 1.65 fatalities per 100 million miles of travel by 2008. As of fiscal 

year 2003, the commercial motor vehicle fatality rate was 2.3 fatalities per 

100 million miles traveled, the lowest recorded since the Department of 

Transportation initiated tracking in 1975—but still 40 percent above the 

2008 goal.

FMCSA works in partnership with states to reach commercial motor 

vehicle safety goals. States are the gatekeepers for the collection and 

1

In 2003, there were also 289 fatal crashes involving buses.

2

FMCSA was formerly a part of the Federal Highway Administration. Its creation as a 

separate entity was pursuant to the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. Pub. L. 

No. 106-159, § 101.
Page 2 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

reporting of commercial motor vehicle crash information. They receive 

crash reports completed by law enforcement personnel in local 

jurisdictions, compile them, and then submit crash reports to FMCSA. At 

the federal level, FMCSA manages a database which provides data that is 

used in rating motor carriers according to various safety indicators. Based 

on this rating, motor carriers are selected for safety inspections and 

reviews as part of FMCSA’s enforcement efforts. While the data collected is 

primarily for federal use, states use the information to assist overall crash 

safety efforts and in setting commercial motor vehicle safety goals for 

themselves. Because the data is used in both federal and state 

decision-making on a variety of safety-related issues, it is important that it 

adequately meets data quality standards. 

To be useful to both federal and state decision-makers, crash data must be 

complete, timely, accurate, and collected in a consistent manner. However, 

there have been concerns about the quality of the information FMCSA and 

the states use to direct their efforts. Beginning with the Motor Carrier 

Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Congress directed the Department of 

Transportation to improve the collection and analysis of data on 

commercial motor vehicle crashes. This resulted in the creation of a 

commercial motor vehicle data improvement program.3

 The program was 

reauthorized in 2005.4

 Since 2002, about $21 million has been awarded to 

states to improve their crash data quality, but data quality problems have 

persisted.5

 In February 2004, the Department of Transportation Inspector 

General released a report discussing limitations of the commercial motor 

vehicle crash data.6

3

In 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-159, § 225, directed the Secretary of Transportation to carry out a 

program, which became known as the Commercial Vehicle Analysis Reporting System 

(CVARS). It is currently known as the Safety Data Improvement Program (SaDIP). 

4

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. No. 109-59.

5

 FMCSA began SaDIP in FY2000, but did not begin awarding funds to states until FY2002. In 

August 2005, Congress, through the reauthorization of surface transportation programs, 

authorized FMCSA’s SaDIP an additional $11 million over the next 4 years. This will be used 

in addition to FMCSA funds to provide assistance to states. 

6

DOT Inspector General, Improvements Needed in the Motor Carrier Safety Status 

Measurement System, MH-2004-034, (Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2004).
Page 3 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

In a Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2005 appropriation for the 

Department of Transportation,7 Congress asked that we review FMCSA’s 

program for helping states improve their commercial motor vehicle crash 

data. The report directed us to describe the benefits obtained through the 

program, identify what can be done to improve the effectiveness of the 

program, and address concerns regarding crash data raised in the February 

2004 Department of Transportation Inspector General’s report. 

Accordingly, this report examines (1) what is known about the quality of 

commercial motor vehicle crash data and what states are doing to improve 

it, and (2) the results of FMCSA’s efforts to facilitate the improvement of 

the quality of commercial motor vehicle crash data sent to the federal 

government. 

To describe the quality of commercial motor vehicle crash data, we 

reviewed a number of sources, including data reported by FMCSA and 

existing studies on the quality of commercial motor vehicle crash data. We 

interviewed officials from FMCSA, contractors that develop FMCSA crash 

data tools, and commercial vehicle industry researchers and public interest 

organizations to gain their perspective on commercial motor vehicle crash 

data quality. To provide information on states’ efforts to improve 

commercial motor vehicle crash data, we reviewed grant documentation 

for 34 states that participated in FMCSA’s Safety Data Improvement 

Program (SaDIP) as of September 2005.8

 We also conducted case studies in 

six states that participated in the program.9

 States were chosen based on a 

wide variety of factors including crash data quality and level of crash 

reporting. Additionally, we conducted phone interviews with states that did 

not participate, or are no longer participating, in the program.10 To provide 

results of FMCSA efforts to facilitate the improvement of commercial 

motor vehicle crash data quality, we conducted interviews with officials 

7

Senate Report 108-342. 

8

The 34 states are Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, 

Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. Participation was voluntary.

9

The six case studies were conducted in Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, and Washington. 

10Telephone interviews were conducted with FMCSA officials from New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, Michigan, and Missouri. We found during our interviews that New Hampshire is still 

participating in the program.
Page 4 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

from FMCSA on the administration and management of the SaDIP 

program. We also analyzed the guidance and support FMCSA provided to 

states and assessed FMCSA’s role in coordinating commercial motor 

vehicle data quality initiatives. We reviewed studies conducted by the 

University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and determined 

that the methodologies used in assessing the quality of the data states 

submit to FMCSA were sound and that the studies provided sufficiently 

reliable results for our purposes. Through site visits, a review of grant 

applications, interviews with relevant stakeholders and experts, and these 

studies, we were able to determine shortcomings in the reliability of 

FMCSA’s commercial motor vehicle crash data. However, we determined 

that the data was sufficiently reliable for the purpose of case study 

selection. Our work was conducted from February 2005 through November 

2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. See appendix I for more details regarding our objectives, scope, 

and methodology.

Results in Brief Overall, commercial motor vehicle crash data does not yet meet general 

data quality standards of completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and 

consistency. For example, according to FMCSA, as of fiscal year 2004 

nearly one-third of commercial motor vehicle crashes that states are 

required to report to the federal government were not reported, and those 

that were reported were not always accurate, timely, or consistent. Data 

quality problems most often stem from errors or omissions either by law 

enforcement officers at the scene of a crash or in the processing of crash 

reports to a state level database. To address data quality problems, a 

number of states are undertaking four major types of data improvement 

activities: 

• Analyzing existing data to identify where problems are and to develop 

plans for addressing them;

• Reducing backlogs of data that have not been entered into state-level 

databases in order to create more complete state crash files, through 

steps such as hiring contract employees;

• Developing and implementing electronic data systems for collecting and 

processing crash information in a more timely, accurate, and consistent 

manner; and
Page 5 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

• Providing training, such as educating law enforcement officers on the 

definitions and criteria for commercial motor vehicle crashes, to create 

more accurate and consistent data.

These state efforts are resulting in some progress. Based on analysis of 

FMCSA data, a great number of crashes are being reported to FMCSA. 

Overall, the total number of commercial motor vehicle crashes being 

reported to FMCSA has increased by 59 percent between fiscal year 2000 

and fiscal year 2004, while the length of time it takes states to report these 

crashes to FMCSA has decreased as well.

FMCSA has two main efforts to support states in improving their reporting 

of commercial motor vehicle crash information—a commercial vehicle 

crash data improvement program and a data quality rating system—and 

both appear to be beneficial. Through the data improvement program, 

FMCSA has provided nearly $21 million in discretionary grants to 34 states 

between 2002 and 2005. These grants have ranged from $2,000 to $2 million 

and have helped states conduct all four data improvement activities 

previously described. The six states in our case studies generally improved 

their data quality, mainly through projects funded in whole or in part 

through the grant program. While we did not find problems with FMCSA’s 

oversight of the program, we did note that FMCSA does not have formal 

guidelines for awarding funds to states. Because these grants are 

discretionary, and because more states are expected to participate in the 

program in the future, having formal guidelines and systems in place would 

likely assist in prioritizing states’ requests and ensuring consistency in 

awarding funds. FMCSA’s second major effort, the State Safety Data Quality 

map, has proven to be an important tool for states to use in improving their 

crash data as well. This map, created by FMCSA and the Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center, is a color-coded display depicting the 

overall data quality for each state in one of three rating categories—“good” 

(green), “fair” (yellow), or “poor” (red). According to both FMCSA and 

state officials, the map and the underlying rating system serve as an 

incentive for states to make improvements to their crash data. Despite the 

map’s utility thus far, we identified potential problems both in the 

methodology used for developing ratings and the risk of drawing erroneous 

conclusions from the map. One example of a problem with the current 

methodology is that the overall ratings combine information about crashes 

with information stemming from FMCSA’s inspections of motor carriers. 

Combining ratings for both crash and inspection data quality tends to make 

it difficult to determine how states are doing specifically with their crash 

data. In addition, some states with a “good” rating in completeness are not 
Page 6 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

reporting all crashes to FMCSA. Rating states as “good” when in fact they 

have problems may discourage states from continuing to devote attention 

and resources to areas needing improvement and possibly misdirect 

program efforts. FMCSA is aware of many of the limitations of the map, but 

has not yet developed and implemented a formal plan to improve it. 

Addressing these limitations will strengthen the data quality map as a tool 

for improving commercial motor vehicle crash data.

To ensure that FMCSA is able to target limited funds as effectively as 

possible, we are recommending that FMCSA create specific guidelines and 

criteria for awarding commercial motor vehicle crash data improvement 

funding. We are also recommending that FMCSA develop a plan to improve 

the data quality map, including assessing the methodology for developing 

ratings, providing results in greater detail, and documenting any limitations 

associated with the map. These enhancements will provide users with a 

more useful tool to view the condition and progress made in states’ 

commercial motor vehicle crash data.

Background FMCSA was established as a separate administration within the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) on January 1, 2000, pursuant to the 

Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. FMCSA issues and enforces 

the federal motor carrier safety regulations that govern many aspects of 

specified commercial trucking and bus operations, including the interstate 

operation and maintenance of commercial motor vehicles (CMV). 

Regulations promulgated by FMCSA specify requirements that must be met 

by drivers of these vehicles. FMCSA conducts compliance reviews11 of 

truck and bus companies, and performs safety audits of new entrants12 into 

the industry. In addition, FMCSA trains inspectors to conduct safety audits, 

while states and local authorities are responsible for conducting the 

inspections and submitting the results to FMCSA.13 This partnership 

between FMCSA and the states annually results in about 3 million truck 

11Compliance reviews are detailed audits of carriers, the results of which sometimes lead to 

enforcement action.

12Safety audits review safety management systems and initial operating performance of new 

motor carriers.

13Roadside inspections are conducted primarily by states. The information from these 

inspections is collected and reported to FMCSA.
Page 7 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

and bus inspections, 7,000 to 13,000 compliance reviews, and more than 

19,000 new-entrant safety audits. 

CMV crash data is key to FMCSA’s efforts. CMV crash data is collected by 

local law enforcement, sent to the state, and then processed and uploaded 

by the state into FMCSA’s data system. FMCSA maintains a database 

management system in each state so they can submit crash reports into 

FMCSA’s central data system, the Motor Carrier Management Information 

System (MCMIS). FMCSA uses the information in its Motor Carrier Safety 

Status Measurement System, also known as SafeStat, to target carriers for 

compliance reviews to ensure that they are following safety regulations.14

SafeStat uses a variety of data to rank carrier safety, but it places the 

heaviest weight on crash data. 

Federal and state data quality guidelines call for CMV crash data to meet 

four basic quality standards:15

• Completeness: To support adequate decision-making for identifying 

problems and developing appropriate countermeasures, data should be 

collected for all reportable CMV crashes in the state, and data on all 

appropriate crash variables such as the carrier’s identification number, 

should be submitted to FMCSA. 

• Timeliness: To make decisions about current safety problems, identify 

trends, or target carriers that pose immediate threats to highway safety, 

CMV crash data should be available for state and federal analytical 

purposes within a useful timeframe. 

• Accuracy: To adequately assess CMV crash problems and target the 

appropriate carriers for enforcement, all data within reportable CMV 

crash records should be accurate and reliable.

14The SafeStat data are also used to target carriers for roadside inspections. 

15Along with definitions developed by FMCSA, the National Governors’ Association also 

provides guidance for submitting complete and accurate data on commercial vehicle 

crashes. In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has provided 

guidance for reporting crash data based on the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria and 

the American National Standard Manual for Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Records.
Page 8 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

• Consistency: To target carriers nationwide and to compare state 

results, CMV crash data should be collected uniformly using the same 

standards and applying the same criteria across jurisdictions.

FMCSA has provided more specific guidelines and criteria for meeting each 

of these standards. On timeliness, for example, FMCSA calls for states to 

submit all CMV crash data to MCMIS within 90 days of when the crash 

occurs. In order to facilitate complete reporting of CMV crashes, FMCSA 

recommends data elements, such as the identity of the carrier, vehicle 

configuration, cargo body type, etc., as the minimum information to be

collected in order to have complete information on CMV crashes.16 FMCSA 

has also created criteria to assist in consistent reporting of crash 

information. These published criteria are used for identifying reportable 

CMV crashes to be submitted to MCMIS (see fig. 1). 

Figure 1: Criteria for Selecting Truck and Bus Crashes to Report to FMCSA

Note: Exceptions include crashes that involve: 1) a personally-owned truck or passenger vehicle 

meant for personal use only as the sole vehicle meeting the criteria above, or 2) a driver with a disease 

condition (e.g., stroke, heart attack, diabetic coma or epileptic seizure) and no other injury or damage 

occurs, or 3) deliberate intent (suicide, self-inflicted injury, homicide, etc.), with no unintentional injury 

or damage. Of the 430,000 CMV crashes that occur each year, about 150,000 meet reporting criteria.

16There are 20 data elements that were originally recommended by the National Governors’ 

Association in 1989 and later adopted by FMCSA in 1992.

Any truck having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds or a gross

combination weight rating over 10,000 pounds used on public highways, or

Any motor vehicle designed to transport more than eight people, including the driver, or

Any vehicle displaying a hazardous materials placard (regardless of weight) 

A fatality: Any person(s) killed in or outside of any vehicle (truck, bus, car, etc.) involved in 

the crash or who dies within 30 days of the crash as a result of an injury sustained in the 

crash; 

An injury: Any person(s) injured as a result of the crash who immediately receives medical 

treatment away from the crash scene; or

A tow-away: Any motor vehicle (truck, bus, car, etc.) disabled as a result of the crash and 

transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other vehicle.

That vehicle is involved in a crash while operating on a roadway customarily 

open to the public, which results in: 

Report a crash to FMCSA if it involves:

Source: FMCSA.

AND
Page 9 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

With the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Congress 

established a program to improve the collection and analysis of CMV crash 

data.17 This resulted in the creation of the Commercial Motor Vehicle 

Analysis Reporting System (CVARS). CVARS, which is now known as 

SaDIP was originally intended to be a standalone data collection system. 

After determining that a separate system would duplicate existing efforts, 

however, FMCSA decided to use SaDIP as a federal funding tool to support 

state efforts to collect and report CMV crash data.18

Besides changes in scope, SaDIP has also changed greatly in how the 

program is administered. Since fiscal year 2001, FMCSA has received 

funding from the Congress to implement this program. As a new agency, 

FMCSA did not have the appropriate contracting infrastructure in place to 

administer the funds. Therefore it transferred funds and the administrative 

duties of the program to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), which awarded several grants to states in fiscal 

year 2002. NHTSA also provided some of the funding to the General 

Services Administration (GSA) to enter into cooperative agreements with 

several states to fund multi-year data improvement projects. In fiscal year 

2003, however, FMCSA assumed responsibility for all oversight of SaDIP 

funding. 

FMCSA provides SaDIP funds to states through two different methods. 

States can receive 1-year grants to fund specific projects, or they can enter 

into multi-year cooperative agreements in order to fund multiple efforts 

that are necessary to identify and reduce data quality problems. States can 

receive both of these types of funds from FMCSA and can apply for grant 

funding multiple times. SaDIP funding is discretionary in nature, allowing 

states to request the amount of funding they need to conduct data 

improvement projects. Since 2002, SaDIP funding has been provided to 34 

states, and as of September 2005, awards ranged from $2,000 to $2 million 

totaling approximately $21 million. (See app. IV for funding distribution by 

state.)

In February 2004, the Department of Transportation Inspector General 

issued a report on SafeStat, the system FMCSA uses to target its 

17Pub. L. No. 106-159, § 225.

18The program was designed to be a system similar to the National Highway Transportation 

Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).
Page 10 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

compliance reviews.19 The report identified a number of problems with 

SafeStat, much of which stemmed from the quality of the crash data being 

used in calculating carrier ratings. The State Safety Data Quality map, 

discussed later in the report, was developed in response to the 

recommendations in the 2004 report.

States Continue to 

Have Problems with 

CMV Crash Data 

Quality, but Are 

Pursuing a Variety of 

Improvement Efforts 

When measured against generally accepted standards for completeness, 

timeliness, accuracy, and consistency, states continue to have challenges 

with the quality of their CMV crash data. Many of these challenges are 

based in the collection and processing of data at the local level, and often 

reflect broader crash data quality problems for all types of vehicle crashes. 

To address remaining limitations, and improve the completeness, 

timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of the data, states are undertaking 

four main types of efforts: analyzing data to identify problem areas, 

eliminating backlogs of data not yet entered, creating electronic systems to 

expedite data entry, and training law enforcement officers in ways to 

improve the data they submit.

Challenges Remain in 

Meeting Data Quality 

Standards 

The completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of CMV crash 

data is currently not meeting generally accepted data quality standards. 

Table 1 provides examples of some of the overall problems we (and others) 

have identified. Appendix V, which contains summaries of the six states we 

visited, provides more specific examples. 

19The SafeStat data are also used by to target carriers for roadside inspections. Department 

of Transportation Inspector General, Improvements Needed in the Motor Carrier Safety 

Status Measurement System, MH-2004-034 (Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2004). 
Page 11 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Table 1: Examples of Problems with Commercial Vehicle Crash Data Quality

a

MCMIS contains information on the safety fitness of commercial motor carriers and hazardous 

material shippers subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and the Hazardous Materials 

Regulations. States upload their crash information to MCMIS via FMCSA’s SafetyNet.

b

Source: FMCSA

c

Source: Analysis of MCMIS data from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2004.

d

Source: Analysis of fiscal year 2004 MCMIS data.

e

Source: Comparison of State Crash Reports with SafetyNet Selection Criteria and Key Data 

Secondary Elements Chart, FMCSA, August 12, 2005.

Data Quality Problems 

Often Reflect 

Difficulties in 

Collection and 

Processing of Crash 

Reports

CMV crash data quality problems often stem from issues that occur when 

data is initially collected at the scene of a crash and later processed 

through the state. We reviewed reports on crash data quality including 

individual state reviews conducted by the University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI).20 We also discussed these 

matters with state officials. We identified two key causes of poor data 

quality: (1) problems in interpreting how to fill out crash reports at the 

scene and (2) crash report processing issues ranging from competing 

priorities at the local level to complex routing of crash reports. 

Completeness As of 2004, FMCSA estimates that about one-third of the reportable CMV crashes are not being submitted to their 

data system—the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS).a

 In addition, FMCSA estimates 20 

percent of nonfatal crashes are not being reported. Further, studies indicate that even those crashes reported to 

MCMIS often have missing data.b

Timeliness The average length of time from when a crash occurs to when the crash data is uploaded to MCMIS is 99 days—9 

days over the required time limit. While this is not far from the goal, there is substantial variation in timeliness 

among states. For example, our analysis of state CMV crash data shows timeliness ranges from 13 days to 339 

days.c

Accuracy FMCSA assesses accuracy by determining the number and percentage of interstate crashes uploaded to MCMIS 

without enough information to determine a carrier’s DOT number (known as a non-match). As of fiscal year 2004, 

15 percent of CMV crash records in MCMIS can not be matched to a carrier’s DOT number.d

Consistency According to an analysis by FMCSA, 33 of 50 states have crash reports that do not adequately follow the criteria for

reporting commercial motor vehicle crashes to FMCSA.e

20FMCSA contracts with the UMTRI to conduct individual state data quality assessments. 

The assessments focused on the completeness of the data but also reviewed some accuracy 

and timeliness issues. To date, they have completed assessments of the following eight 

states: California (2005), Florida (2004), Illinois (2005), Michigan (2004), Missouri (2004), 

New Jersey (2005), North Carolina (2005), and Ohio (2003). UMTRI assessed 2003 data for 

all states except for Ohio, which used 2000 data and Missouri which used 2001 data.
Page 12 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Misinterpretation of Criteria 

and Definitions by Officers 

Filling Out Crash Reports

According to studies and our discussions with state officials, data collected 

at the scene of a crash can be flawed because of law enforcement 

misinterpretation of reporting criteria and definitions.21 Misinterpretation 

can occur for several reasons, such as infrequent opportunities for officers 

to receive training on filling out crash reports or unfamiliarity resulting 

from infrequent occurrences of CMV crashes in an officer’s jurisdiction. 

Below are common problems with properly reporting CMV crashes: 22

Identifying reportable crashes. While crashes that result in a fatality are 

easily identifiable as a reportable crashes, tow-away or injury crashes are 

more difficult to identify. For example, UMTRI’s review of eight states 

showed that five of those states experienced problems with reporting 

crashes that did not involve a fatality. According to UMTRI, this is likely 

due to a lack of understanding of criteria for reporting CMV crashes to 

FMCSA (see fig. 1).

Identifying reportable commercial motor vehicles. FMCSA is 

responsible for enforcing safety regulations for interstate carriers, but 

collects crash information on a variety of CMVs that meet certain criteria. 

According to UMTRI reports, states had problems identifying smaller 

trucks and they were less likely to be reported because law enforcement 

officials are less likely to recognize them as qualifying CMVs. Further, law 

enforcement officials may be confused about reporting interstate and 

intrastate carriers to FMCSA. UMTRI’s review of 8 states showed that five 

of the states encountered problems in identifying appropriate vehicle type 

for reporting to FMCSA (see fig. 1).

Crash Report Processing 

Issues

Several other issues relate to the processing of crash reports. These tend to 

fall into the following three main categories: 

Competing priorities at the officer level. Data collection is 

complicated because at the scene of a crash, an officer’s first priority is to 

21Appendix III provides detailed information on what is a “reportable crash” and what is a 

“reportable commercial motor vehicle.”

22While FMCSA regulates interstate motor carriers (i.e., carriers operating across states), 

information on crashes involving both interstate or intrastate (i.e., carriers operating only 

within a state) should be submitted to FMCSA. CMVs that are being used only for private 

use and are involved in a crash do not need to be submitted to FMCSA.
Page 13 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

ensure the safety of those involved; data collection is often a lesser 

concern. Only after the situation has been stabilized can the officer fill out 

the crash report. Competing priorities can make it difficult for law 

enforcement to adequately complete a crash report. According to a report 

by NHTSA, crash reporting is often a low priority when traffic safety data is 

not perceived as relevant to the work of law enforcement. This was 

confirmed in states we visited. For example, one state official with whom 

we spoke said that submitting crash data is often dependent on how much 

priority the local police chief places on data quality. 

Manual crash report forms. Typically, law enforcement officers 

complete handwritten crash reports, which are then manually submitted 

for data processing at a local or state agency. According to an FMCSA 

official, nearly all states use manual crash reporting forms to some extent. 

Completing crash reports by hand and manually processing the information 

has the potential to lead to errors in the data. Data quality may be further 

compromised by the use of a supplemental CMV crash report. States may 

have a general crash report for use in all crashes and a supplemental CMV 

crash report to be completed if a CMV is involved. For example, four of the 

six case study states we reviewed used a supplemental form to report a 

CMV accident. When data has to be captured in a separate form, law 

enforcement officers may not always complete the form, and sometimes it 

may be separated from the original crash report or even lost. UMTRI found 

in one state that use of the supplemental crash report may be leading to 

CMV crashes not being submitted to FMCSA. 

Complex processing. Even with a correctly completed crash report that 

is properly identified as a CMV crash, states may have a complicated 

process in place to route CMV crash data to FMCSA and this may 

contribute to lengthy delays. UMTRI state assessments found that 

processing issues in some states led to delays and resulted in incomplete 

submission of crash data. One official told us that all law enforcement 

agencies in his state send crash reports to the state patrol office where the 

report is scanned into electronic format. The electronic version of the 

report is then sent to the state department of transportation where 

additional location data is entered into the report. From here, the report 

enters the state database and then is periodically uploaded to FMCSA. This 

process can take significant time, especially when the original crash report 

is missing information. 
Page 14 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

States Are Pursuing a 

Variety of Efforts to Address 

Data Quality Issues

States are undertaking a variety of projects in order to improve the 

completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of CMV crash data. 

These projects encompass four general types of efforts: research and 

analysis, reduction of reporting backlogs, electronic processing of crash 

records, and training. Figure 2 shows state participation in each of these 

four efforts. These projects directly affect the completeness, timeliness, 

accuracy, and consistency of the states’ CMV crash data. 

Figure 2: State Participation in CMV Crash Data Improvement Efforts from Fiscal 

Year 2002 through Fiscal Year 2005 

Note: Data available for the 34 states that have participated in FMCSA’s data improvement program. 

Several states are participating in more than one effort. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

 Training

Electronic records

Backlog

Data analysis

Source: GAO analysis of FMCSA data.

Number of states
Page 15 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Data Analysis to Identify 

Problems

Eleven of the 34 states have research projects to evaluate crash data 

collection and reporting practices.23 Assessing data collection and 

reporting processes allows states to determine how well their data meet 

each of the data quality standards of completeness, timeliness, accuracy, 

and consistency, providing them with a useful tool for determining where 

they are going to concentrate their improvement efforts. 

Out of 34 states for which we have data, 11 have conducted research to 

identify data problems. During our case studies, we found examples of 

states conducting data analysis to identify their CMV crash data collection 

and reporting problems. (See app. V for more information on our case 

study states.) For example, one state conducted an analysis in order to 

determine why approximately half of the eligible crashes in the state crash 

file were not being reported to FMCSA. The analysis found that the state’s 

crash file was not in the correct format to be correctly transferred to 

FMCSA. In addition, frequent errors in the state or zip code fields, and 

incomplete or inaccurate data, were leading to problems. A federally 

funded study of the state’s crash data found approximately 50 percent of 

the state’s crash reports for one year (2003) were not reported to the 

federal crash file due to problems at the state level coding and preparing 

crash data for transfer to FMCSA. Another state conducted a traffic records 

assessment that found the major deficiency in the state’s crash file was the 

lack of timely data. It also identified the lack of effective quality controls 

during data entry and non-reporting of eligible crashes as deficiencies. 

Following the state’s assessment, researchers made recommendations to 

help the state prioritize projects, including planning for the eventual 

implementation of electronic crash data collection. 

Reduction of Crash 

Database Backlogs

Fourteen of the 34 states have projects to reduce the backlog of crash 

reports that need to be entered into state crash files. In most states, until 

crashes are included in the state file, they are not reported to FMCSA. 

Hence, backlog reduction is essential for creating a complete state crash 

file, and with providing FMCSA with complete data about CMV crashes. A 

complete data file is critical for performing crash and trend analysis, for 

making informed policy decisions, and for gaining a better understanding 

of CMV safety issues. 

23Additional research and analysis is also being conducted by other public and private 

research entities.
Page 16 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Of the 34 states for which we have data, 14 are participating in backlog 

reduction projects, including four of our six case study states. In these four 

states, temporary employees were hired to eliminate data backlogs. For 

example, in one state, contract employees were working to reduce a 

backlog of 600,000 crash reports. Data entry work began in July 2004 and 

state officials expect it to be completed by September 2005. Another state 

used temporary employees to eliminate a backlog of approximately 2 

million crash records. This effort began in 2002, and as of June 2005, the 

data backlog has been completely eliminated and the state is now 

processing crash reports within 3 days of receipt. 

Using Electronic Systems to 

Expedite CMV Crash Data

Twenty-seven of the 34 states have projects to collect or input CMV crash 

data through electronic systems. Electronic reporting allows for more 

accurate and timely transfer of crash data to state and federal crash files. 

Electronic transfer of crash data can reduce duplication and data entry 

error, because paper-based data collection systems are subject to human 

error and time delays. While these projects enhance the quality of CMV 

crash data, often they are large in scope and require law enforcement 

agencies to purchase hardware. Uniform electronic crash reporting 

systems are heavily dependent on acceptance from all stakeholders and 

often some jurisdictions may already have their own systems.

Of the 34 states for which we have data, 27 are participating in electronic 

crash record projects, including all six of the case study states. For 

example, one state has developed software that facilitates a nightly transfer 

of CMV crash records from the Division of Driver and Vehicle Services to 

the state patrol agency. The state patrol agency then submits the crash 

reports to FMCSA. The state is also working to provide computer hardware 

and Internet access so that state patrol officers can complete crash reports 

online. Another state is developing electronic crash reporting capabilities 

using handheld computers, which will eliminate handwritten crash reports, 

and the need to manually enter crash report data into an electronic system. 

Improving Law 

Enforcement Training 

States are providing training to law enforcement officers in CMV crash data 

collection. Training for law enforcement officers on how to correctly 

identify a CMV and how to accurately complete a police accident report 

can help to improve the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of CMV 

crash data since many of the mistakes in reporting are made at the crash
Page 17 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

site.24 Training is also an opportunity to highlight the link between data 

collection and its end use in planning and prevention. 

Seventeen of the 34 states have projects aimed at providing law 

enforcement training initiatives, and all six of our case study states had 

some form of CMV training. In addition, all case study states we visited 

recognized problems with the quality of CMV crash data resulting from 

issues at the collection point. For example, one state provides on-going 

CMV training to teach officers to properly identify and report commercial 

vehicle crashes. This state also tries to show law enforcement officers how 

the data is used in planning and prevention in order to show the 

significance of good data. However, state officials told us that there has not 

been a lot of participation in the training from local law enforcement 

agencies. Another state is planning to develop a training video and visor 

cards25 for statewide dissemination. The visor cards will assist officers in 

CMV identification and provide information that will help police properly 

complete all the necessary crash reporting documentation. 

These state efforts are resulting in some progress. An analysis of FMCSA 

data shows that a greater number of crashes are being reported to FMCSA 

since 2000. Overall the total number of commercial motor vehicle crashes 

being reported to FMCSA has increased by 59 percent between fiscal year 

2000 and fiscal year 2004, while the length of time it takes states to report 

these crashes to FMCSA has decreased as well.

FMCSA’s Efforts Have 

Contributed to CMV 

Data Quality 

Improvements

FMCSA’s efforts appear to improve CMV crash data quality and have had a 

positive impact on state crash data. Specifically two efforts, the Safety Data 

Improvement Program (SaDIP) and the State Safety Data Quality map, 

have contributed to the changes. SaDIP funding has allowed states to 

improve data completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and consistency by 

supporting the implementation of new activities or increasing the scope 

and timeliness of existing projects. While FMCSA has provided adequate 

24FMCSA provides training classes for collecting and coding state crash data to 

representatives of the enforcement community in a growing number of states. In addition 

FMCSA has developed and maintained customized large truck crash data collection training 

materials for each state, including train-the-trainer visuals and student workbook materials, 

to enable the states to carry the training forward to officers throughout their state and to 

incorporate the training into their academies.

25These are information cards that can be attached to a law enforcement officer’s sun visor. 
Page 18 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

administration and oversight of SaDIP, the management of the program 

with regard to awarding grants raises some concerns. There are no formal 

guidelines in place for awarding funding to the states, and while this has 

not yet presented a problem, it may in the future. Funding continues to be 

made available, and more states continue to request funds for new projects. 

The State Safety Data Quality map is an evaluation tool that provides 

ratings for states’ crash and inspection data quality, and displays the ratings 

so that a state’s performance relative to other states is apparent. The map, 

which is publicized on FMCSA’s Analysis and Information (A&I) Online 

Web site, allows state officials and the public to view the status of states’

CMV crash and inspection data quality.26 The map is being used as an 

indicator of states’ progress in improving the completeness, timeliness, and 

accuracy27 of crash data and by virtue of its public nature it is an incentive 

for states to improve their crash information. However, the methodology 

used for the ratings has limitations that may hinder the map’s effectiveness 

in monitoring the status of CMV crash data quality. 

FMCSA’s SaDIP Has 

Supported State 

Efforts to Improve 

Data Quality

As of July 2005, FMCSA had provided about $21 million to 34 states in order 

to assist in improving the quality of CMV crash data.28 Several states have 

received funding more than once, and in fiscal year 2005, FMCSA made 

available to states almost twice the amount of money than it had at the 

beginning of the program ($3.9 million in fiscal year 2000 versus $7.3 

million in fiscal year 2005). Additionally, recently passed transportation 

legislation authorizes a total of $11 million to be used for SaDIP funding for

26The A&I Online website, developed and maintained by FMCSA Analysis Division provides 

useful motor carrier safety information and analysis over the Internet. The Web site 

increases FMCSA’s effectiveness in carrying out its programs and provides the motor carrier 

industry and the public with information to make safety-minded decisions. The website is a 

valuable information resource to FMCSA in promoting motor carrier safety and is widely 

used by FMCSA and state field staff in their preparation for and in conducting on-site motor 

carrier safety audits.

27The data quality map includes an overriding indicator of crash consistency of a state’s 

non-fatal crash data submitted to FMCSA, however, it is not measuring the consistency of 

data; rather it is another indicator of completeness.

28These data are current as of September 2005. In addition to funds provided directly to 

states, FMCSA provided $1,200,000 to contractors to assist states in improving data quality, 

bringing the total amount spent on state data improvement efforts to $21,891,394.
Page 19 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

fiscal years 2006-2009.29 The states that have participated in SaDIP account 

for about two-thirds of all CMV crashes occurring between April 1, 2004, 

and March 31, 2005, reported to FMCSA’s MCMIS database, and 70 percent 

of the 2003 fatalities reported to MCMIS. FMCSA’s goal is to provide 

funding for projects that will have the largest impact on improving state 

data describing CMV crashes. FMCSA also encourages states that are 

participating in data improvement projects that are already funded to apply 

for SaDIP funds in order to provide additional assistance to these larger 

efforts. (See table 2 for the annual distribution of SaDIP funds and app. IV 

for fund distribution by state.)

Table 2: Annual Distribution of SaDIP funds

Source: FMCSA.

Note: These data are current as of September 2005. In addition to funds provided directly to states, 

FMCSA provided $1,200,000 to contractors to assist states in improving data quality, bringing the total 

amount spent on state data improvement efforts to $21,891,394.

SaDIP has Yielded Several 

Positive Results

States have used the SaDIP funds to conduct a variety of projects, including 

those discussed earlier in this report. These funds have benefited states in 

several different ways, including increased focus on CMV data quality and 

advancement and expansion of ongoing broader data quality projects. 

SaDIP increased national attention to the problems associated with the 

quality of CMV crash data reported to the federal government. Several state 

officials we interviewed stated that they have noticed an increase in the 

29FMCSA's Office of Information Management plans on requesting funds in line with 

SAFETEA-LU to include $2 million in grant funds for FY2006, and $3 million for 

FY2007-2009, as provided for in SAFETEA-LU for a total of $11 million.

Fiscal year Funds budgeted for SaDIP Funds awarded to states

2000 $3,865,000 $0

2001 2,748,000 0

2002 5,462,614 5,207,014

2003 4,967,500 854,732

2004 4,913,990 5,449,467

2005 7,340,800 9,180,181

Total $29,297,904 $20,691,394
Page 20 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

amount of focus given to CMV crash data issues. For example, 

presentations made by FMCSA at several national conferences and 

workshops have highlighted the importance of data quality, and informed 

states of the various types of assistance, such as training and funding, that 

are available to them. During our case studies, we were told the following:

• One state official said that by providing funds to be used for specific 

purposes, SaDIP had the effect of focusing attention on data quality 

improvement. SaDIP has sustained a high level of interest in data quality 

and has been a catalyst to improving traffic records coordination across 

state agencies. 

• Another state official said SaDIP helped to improve communication 

between the state patrol and the state’s department of vehicle services. 

Because grants were provided to both agencies, analysts at the agencies 

are working together and have a better understanding of each other’s 

data needs and share access to their respective databases. 

In half of our case study states, SaDIP has also allowed states to expedite 

data improvement projects that were already planned for implementation. 

• One state official told us that the state had been considering a plan to 

improve traffic safety data, including CMV crash data, and SaDIP funds 

provided it with the means to implement this plan. The long-term 

funding provided by the SaDIP cooperative agreement to support a full 

time employee was also a crucial element in gaining support from state 

decision-makers. 

• One state official said the SaDIP grant made it significantly easier to 

prioritize and expedite a data project that the state was already 

considering implementing. The additional funding allowed the state to 

specifically address CMV crash data and use other funding to continue 

to address broader crash data issues. 

Finally, SaDIP has allowed states to increase the scope of ongoing projects 

or develop new initiatives. Two of our six case study states have used 

SaDIP funds in addition to other resources to develop comprehensive and 

long-term data quality initiatives to address the completeness, timeliness, 

accuracy, and consistency of the CMV crash data they report to FMCSA. 

• Officials in one state told us that SaDIP funding supports elements of 

the state’s electronic traffic information processing initiative. SaDIP 
Page 21 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

funding has allowed the state to resolve a considerable backlog in crash 

records, creating a more complete crash file, and work has begun to 

develop a new electronic crash report that will be used—first by the 

state police—and then by local law enforcement in the rest of the state. 

Without resolution of this backlog, the state was unable to fully 

implement the CMV data component of its electronic traffic information 

processing initiative. Doing this allowed the state to have more timely, 

accurate, and consistent crash data. 

• SaDIP funding has helped another state develop an electronic crash 

report and traffic records system. As previously stated, this will allow 

the state to have more timely, accurate, and consistent crash data. The 

state’s goal is to develop the new system by 2008 and the state is 

evaluating and using multiple sources of funding to achieve this goal. 

Early in the process, the state made a strategic decision to target all 

crash data, not just commercial vehicle data. While the state uses SaDIP 

to develop electronic crash reporting software, SaDIP funding has also 

been leveraged to help the state accomplish its data quality 

improvement goals more quickly. For example, the new crash reporting 

capabilities developed through the SaDIP grant allow for much better 

crash analysis and targeting of safety efforts along major commercial 

vehicle corridors in the state. 

FMCSA Has Made 

Improvements in the 

Administration of SaDIP; 

However, Management of 

Grant Awards Raises 

Concerns

SaDIP has evolved over time and FMCSA has made several efforts to 

improve the administration of the program. For example, beginning in 

fiscal year 2006, FMCSA will be implementing a new application package 

for states to use in applying for SaDIP. While SaDIP had some preexisting 

application requirements for states, this application package provides a 

uniform application for states to use, and it is the first time states are going 

to be required to submit quantifiable project objectives and program 

measures. This will allow FMCSA to begin to measure the effectiveness of 

state improvement efforts. Additionally, SaDIP will be posted on 

Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) in 2006.30 This federal website provides 

a single source for grant applicants to electronically find and apply for 

federal funds. FMCSA will also be updating its State Program Manager’s 

30The creation of this Web site (http://www.grants.gov) is part of the federal government’s 

grants streamlining initiative. The initiative is the government-wide set of organizations and 

activities responsible for implementing the Federal Financial Assistance Management 

Improvement Act of 1999. Pub. L. No. 106-107, §113.
Page 22 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

manual to include guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of state 

program managers in administering SaDIP. Finally, FMCSA will be issuing 

funds at designated times during the year. Currently, funds are awarded to 

states on a rolling basis, but beginning with the implementation of the new 

application package the funds will be awarded on specific dates to all 

applicants. This is expected to improve the program’s organization and 

FMCSA’s ability to keep track of grant progress as the number of program 

participants increases. Throughout these administrative changes, FMCSA 

has maintained sufficient oversight of the states participating in SaDIP. 

FMCSA has contracted with a company that is responsible for monitoring 

SaDIP participant states, and ensuring that they are submitting quarterly 

progress reports containing sufficient detail to FMCSA. This contractor 

also has regular conversations with the FMCSA Division Administrators in 

the SaDIP states, and it maintains copies of SaDIP-related paperwork. 

While these efforts are positive steps, we have concerns with FMCSA’s lack 

of guidelines for awarding funds to states. FMCSA has not yet established 

formal guidelines for determining how much money a state should receive, 

or if the state should receive the funds in the form of a grant or a 

cooperative agreement. Since the beginning of the program, funds awarded 

to states have ranged from $2,000 to $2 million for projects ranging from 

specific activities to broader efforts that span three or more years. (See 

app. IV for funds awarded by state.) These awards have taken the form of 

both grants and cooperative agreements between the state and the federal 

government. Currently these decisions are made on a state-by-state basis, 

informally by a small review panel. The state’s application, data quality 

history, discussions with the state’s FMCSA division administrator, and any 

other relevant and available data on the state are consulted when making 

funding awards.

While the absence of guidelines has not proven to be problematic to date, 

having formal guidelines will better ensure consistency and discipline in 

managing the grant program among states, particularly as states’ needs 

become more targeted or more states decide to participate in the program. 

It will also add integrity to the grant management system and assist in 

providing better administration and oversight of SaDIP projects. For 

example, such guidelines would likely allow FMCSA to better assess and 

prioritize states’ funding requests, including more formally considering 

whether proposed activities adequately address problems states identify in 

the proposal, whether the amount of funding requested is appropriate for 

the proposed activities, and whether multiple-year versus one-year funding 

is appropriate. Further, formal guidelines would provide a more structured 
Page 23 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

framework to evaluate the effectiveness of different SaDIP project 

activities and assist in guiding future state improvement efforts.

Data Quality Map Has 

Spurred 

Improvements, but 

Limitations Curb Map’s 

Continued Usefulness

The State Safety Data Quality map has encouraged states to improve their 

CMV data quality, but limitations exist that may hinder the map’s usefulness 

as a tool for monitoring and measuring CMV crash data quality. The State 

Safety Data Quality map was created by FMCSA and the Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center principally to provide context for both 

crash and inspection data used in the SafeStat system; however, it has

evolved into a tool to evaluate state-reported crash and inspection data.31 It 

is based on a system that rates crash and inspection data 

quality—completeness, timeliness, and accuracy—as “good,” “fair,” or 

“poor.”32 The map has proven to be a major incentive for states to initiate 

CMV crash data improvements, for gaining support in implementing these 

improvements, and as a tool to monitor CMV crash data quality. However, 

we have identified some important limitations that can affect the data 

quality map’s future usefulness. 

The State Safety Data 

Quality Map is an Incentive 

for States to Make CMV 

Crash Data Improvements 

Since the State Safety Data Quality map is accessible by the public and 

presents data quality ratings in a simplified form, the map is a motivator for 

states to improve their CMV crash data. According to officials at FMCSA, 

they said the map has been very influential in encouraging states to 

improve their CMV crash data. Corroboratory comments came from the 

state level, where many of the officials in case study states provided 

anecdotes of how the data quality map served as an impetus for initiating 

improvements and gaining support.33 Here are examples of how the map 

31Crash data includes information about CMV crashes as reported by the states. Inspection 

data is submitted by the states to FMCSA and includes information collected through 

roadside inspections. Crash data is assessed for completeness, timeliness, and accuracy. 

Inspection data is only assessed for timeliness and accuracy.

32The map’s methodology includes a “Crash Consistency Overriding Indicator.” A state is 

flagged if it submits less than 50 percent of the average number of reported non-fatal crash 

records for the current year based on the previous three-year average of non-fatal crash 

records. 

33This is based on our six case study visits to states that are currently participating in SaDIP 

and telephone interviews with state officials that had previously participated or had not 

participated in SaDIP.
Page 24 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

assisted states in initiating or expediting improvements in CMV crash 

information.

• One state includes the data quality map ratings in weekly status reports 

to agency heads and in reports to the governor. An official in this state 

said that once the data quality map was shown to the governor, it raised 

the importance of improving CMV crash data. This state now posts the 

data quality map on state agency Web sites and uses it as a tool to 

compare its data quality efforts to the rest of the nation. 

• One state official told us that when agency leaders understand that their 

state has a “poor” rating, they are likely to make data improvement a 

priority and focus attention and resources on the issue. 

• Another official said that the map helped officials to “see the light.” In 

this state, the data quality map helped initiate a process that led to 

improved communication and coordination for data quality at the 

highest levels for all safety and security projects within the state. 

The Data Quality Map is 

Important in Addressing 

Data Quality

FMCSA and states we reviewed use the State Safety Data Quality map to 

measure states’ CMV data quality and progress being made in their data 

improvement efforts. Our review indicated that although the map was 

created as a tool for providing context to FMCSA’s SafeStat system, both 

FMCSA and the states were using it specifically for monitoring the status of 

CMV crash data quality. State officials were also using it to identify data 

quality problems and assist states in targeting state improvement efforts. 

Here are examples from the states we contacted:

• In one state an official reported that it was very helpful for law 

enforcement officials and department heads to instantly recognize their 

state’s data quality status on the map. 

• In another state, officials said they knew they had a data quality 

problem, but were unable to identify the specific issue. The data quality 

map indicated that the state’s accuracy was poor, and the problem was 

specifically with matching carriers in the state database with crashes in 

MCMIS. 

• In another state, officials said the data quality map focused attention on 

the state’s data quality spending and results, and it helped state officials 

re-prioritize spending. 
Page 25 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Both FMCSA and state officials in many of the states we spoke with 

recognized the map as an important tool in measuring progress in their 

crash data improvement efforts. Further, FMCSA officials said the map was 

used as an assessment of a state’s success in the SaDIP program. While 

officials also said they reviewed data in the MCMIS system to monitor state 

progress, an important measure of success in the program was a state’s 

status in the State Safety Data Quality map and the underlying CMV crash 

measures. 

The State Safety Data 

Quality Map Has Limitations 

that May Affect its 

Effectiveness as a Tool for 

Monitoring and Measuring 

CMV Crash Data Quality

Given the importance that FMCSA and the states attach to the data quality 

map, it appears to be a good first step in monitoring states’ data quality. 

However, we found limitations with many features of the map that diminish 

its usefulness as an effective tool for specifically monitoring and measuring 

state progress in their improvement efforts. Specifically, we identified 

several limitations with the methodology used to develop the data quality 

map’s ratings, as well as with the measures themselves that should be 

addressed. Below are some of the key limitations. A more detailed 

discussion of limitations is located in appendix II.

• The data quality map measures used to calculate the completeness, 

timeliness, and accuracy of CMV crash data falls short of providing a 

complete measure of CMV crash data quality. While each data quality 

measure has some limitations, one key measure—completeness—has a 

number of difficulties. Most importantly, the completeness measure is 

limited in the data it is assessing. The completeness measure only 

evaluates fatal CMV crashes, which represents about 3 percent of all 

reportable CMV crashes.34 In addition, the completeness measure does 

not assess the completeness of the information contained within the 

crash report. 

The completeness measure’s methodology relies solely on comparing CMV 

fatal crash data in MCMIS to data states submit to the Fatality Analysis

34Of the 436,000 police-reported crashes involving large trucks in 2003, about 150,000 were 

required to be reported to FMCSA and of these, 4,289 resulted in at least one fatality. 
Page 26 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Reporting System (FARS).35 This particular approach provides additional 

limitations to the completeness measure. First, there are some definitional 

differences between FARS and MCMIS data that can account for about 4 

percent of the crash records. Secondly, FARS data is not timely. For 

example, the June 2005 map relies on 2003 FARS data; thus the 

completeness measure does not reflect the current status of CMV crash 

data. In addition, since FARS data is only released once a year, quarterly 

issuances of the map do not necessarily reflect changes in the number of 

fatal crashes. Table 3 below describes in more detail the limitations for 

each crash data quality measure.

Table 3: Comparison of Data Quality Standards and State Safety Data Quality Map Measures

35NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis created and developed the Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Fatality information derived from FARS includes motor 

vehicle traffic crashes that result in the death of an occupant of a vehicle or a nonmotorist 

within 30 days of the crash. FARS contains data on all fatal traffic crashes within the 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Each state employs a federal analyst who 

conducts a number of quality control procedures to ensure correct information about the 

fatality crash. A final FARS file is completed once a year. 

Data quality standard 

State Safety Data Quality Map 

measure Limitations

Completeness All reportable CMV crashes in the 

state and data on all appropriate 

crash variables are submitted to 

FMCSA.

FMCSA recommends 20 CMV crash 

data variables that should be 

reported on.a

Percentage of Fatal Crash 

Records Reported

Compares the number of large 

trucks in crashes involving a 

fatality in MCMIS versus those in 

the FARS.b

Includes only reported, fatal crashes; 

reflects only about 3 percent of all CMV 

crashes required to be reported to 

FMCSA. 

Bases completeness on FARS data, 

though some differences exist in state 

definitions of a CMV fatal crash and 

may result in an inflated or deflated 

rating.

Does not represent current status of 

completeness.

Does not measure the completeness of 

CMV information within a crash report 

(missing variables).
Page 27 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Source: FMCSA and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Data Quality Standards are based on GAO’s review of data quality 

guidelines from a variety of sources including FMCSA, NHTSA, and Data Nexus Inc., and includes references to the Model Minimum 

Uniform Crash Criteria, National Governors’ Association Elements and Criteria, and the American National Standard Manual for 

Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Records. 

a

In 1992, FMCSA adopted the National Governors’ Association (NGA) recommended data elements, 

requiring these data to be collected and reported on motor carrier crashes. 

b

FMCSA created an “Crash Consistency Overriding Indicator” to indicate consistency in reporting of 

non-fatal CMV crashes. The indicator flags states that may be experiencing major problems in 

reporting crash data. The Crash Consistency Overriding Indicator is the percentage of state-reported 

non-fatal crashes as compared to a three-year average of reported non-fatal crashes. States that have 

reported fewer than 50 percent of non-fatal crash records for the current year based on the previous 

three-year average of non-fatal crash records are flagged and receive a rating of “poor” regardless of 

their ratings in any of the other data quality indicators. This indicator is also limited because it only 

identifies extreme cases of under-reporting and does not assess if there is a substantial increase in 

reported non-fatal crash records.

c Includes both interstate carriers (those carriers that operate between states) and intrastate carriers 

(carriers that operate only within one state) though FMCSA is only responsible for regulating interstate 

carriers. 

d

FMCSA’s MCMIS currently does not have the ability to track the original upload date when a crash 

record is edited or changed. Therefore, records that are changed after the original upload are not used 

in the calculation for timeliness. For additional information see appendix II.

Timeliness All reportable CMV crash records 

are available for state and federal 

analytical purposes in a useful 

timeframe.

FMCSA recommends that CMV 

crash data be reported within 90 

days of the crash occurrence. 

Percentage of Crash Records 

Reported within 90 Days

The percentage of State-reported 

fatal and non-fatal crash records 

reported within 90 days in the 

MCMIS database for carriers over 

a 12-month time period.c

Only reflects records that are uploaded 

into MCMIS and have not been 

changed or edited.d

Backlogs of crash reports, once 

entered, can negatively affect 

timeliness rating.

Accuracy All data within reportable CMV crash 

records are accurate and reliable.

Percentage of Matched Crash 

Records

The percentage of State-reported 

fatal and non-fatal crash records 

in the MCMIS database for 

interstate carriers and intrastate 

hazardous material carriers over a 

12-month time period that were 

matched to a motor carrier in 

MCMIS.

Only measures accuracy of one 

variable (identity of the motor 

carrier—the U.S. DOT number); 

neglects to measure the accuracy for 

other recommended variables. 

Consistency Crash data should be collected 

uniformly. Officials should use the 

same standards and apply the same 

criteria uniformly across 

jurisdictions.

FMCSA provides guidelines and 

criteria for reporting CMV crashes.

None N/A

(Continued From Previous Page)

Data quality standard 

State Safety Data Quality Map 

measure Limitations
Page 28 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

• The data quality map is limited in its ability to meaningfully monitor and 

track CMV crash data quality over time. Since the State Safety Data 

Quality map was first issued, a large majority of states have been rated 

as “good” or “fair” for the completeness, timeliness, and accuracy 

measures. Since the first issuance of the map, over 90 percent of the 

states have been rated “good” or “fair” for completeness, and about 

three quarters of the states have been rated “good” or “fair” for crash 

timeliness and crash accuracy. However, our review shows that states 

need to continue to make improvements. In addition, since the majority 

of states are rated as “good” or “fair” in measures, it is also difficult to 

measure any progress made because many states have already reached 

the highest rating. For example, as of the June 2005 data quality map, 41 

states were rated “good” in crash completeness. Because these states 

have already reached the highest rating for this measure, it may prevent 

measuring any subsequent progress in this data quality standard.

There are other problems with using the data quality map to track trends. 

Based on our review, a state’s rating can temporarily decline for a variety of 

reasons—even for implementing improvements. Hence, for that period of 

time, the data quality map is not accurately reflecting a state’s true data 

quality status. Officials in one state told us that the state was implementing 

a new electronic system which in the long term would improve its data 

quality greatly. However, current CMV crash reporting was slowed during 

implementation, and the state’s rating went down from “fair” to “poor.” 

• The data quality map’s ratings for overall data quality combine data from 

crashes with data from FMCSA’s inspections, making it difficult for map 

users to obtain an overall picture based solely on crash data. For the 

overall data quality rating, individual crash measures for completeness, 

timeliness, and accuracy are combined with inspection measures for 

timeliness and accuracy. For each of the five individual crash and 

inspection measures a state will receive a rating of “good,” “fair,” or 

“poor.”36 A state’s overall rating depends on how well the state did 

across all five measures (see table 4). 

36They are also assessed on whether a state’s reporting meets a minimum threshold based on 

past reporting (i.e., the “Crash Consistency Overriding Indicator”). 
Page 29 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Table 4: Overall Data Quality Rating

Source: FMCSA.

Currently, users can only view CMV crash data quality by individual 

measures (completeness, timeliness, and accuracy). Separating the 

inspection data and presenting a specific overall CMV crash data quality 

rating (a combined rating composed of completeness, timeliness, and 

accuracy for crash data only) would enhance a state’s ability to understand 

its crash data status and to monitor progress in improving the information. 

• While the State Safety Data Quality map provides a description of the 

methodology used, it does not identify limitations to the methodology. 

While many of these limitations to the map are acknowledged by 

FMCSA, they are not publicly displayed on the State Safety Data Quality 

map Web site. The absence of this information limits users’ 

understanding of the map’s data and increases the potential for 

incorrect deductions and improper map-based decisions. 

FMCSA officials are aware of many of the limitations that we have 

identified and we recognize their efforts to improve the State Safety Data 

Quality map to date. However, they do not have a formal plan in place to 

implement improvements. Further, it is important to acknowledge these 

issues so that users understand the limitations of the data quality map as a 

tool. During our review we learned that not only was the data quality map 

consulted in awarding SaDIP funds, it was also consulted when awarding 

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) High Priority funds.37

Rating Thresholds for overall data quality rating

Good No “poor” and a minimum of one “good” in a crash or inspection measure

Fair Maximum of one “poor” in a crash or inspection measure

Poor Two or more “poor” ratings in crash or inspection measures or a red flag in 

the Crash Consistency Overriding Indicator 

37MCSAP high priority funds are funds provided to states and local governments to carry out 

activities and projects that directly support the MCSAP, including supporting, enriching, or 

evaluating state commercial motor vehicle safety programs. These funds are allocated at the 

discretion of FMCSA. States apply for funding and are awarded funds in an 80/20 split with 

the state (80 percent of funding is provided via federal sources and states are required to 

provide the other 20 percent of the funds) except if the funds are used for education and 

outreach activities. Currently if a state is rated as “poor” in its crash data quality and it 

applies for High Priority funding, the state is required to use its High Priority funding for 

crash data improvements.
Page 30 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Further, according to officials at FMCSA and Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center, there has been some discussion of expanding the usage of 

the map in the future for CMV crash data efforts. As the data quality map 

gains wider use, it will become even more important that these limitations 

are addressed.

Conclusions The grant program and FMCSA’s collaborative efforts with states have had 

a positive impact on improving the quality of states’ crash data, therefore 

ultimately enhancing the ability of both federal and state governments to 

make highway planning and safety enforcement decisions. While states 

have made progress in improving the quality of this data—in terms of 

timeliness, completeness, accuracy, and consistency—much remains to be 

done. With additional funding through the reauthorization of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users and as states refine and target areas needing further improvement 

with respect to their crash data, it is expected that additional states will 

participate in the program. FMCSA will need a more formal framework to 

better ensure that the decision-making process for awarding funds to 

SaDIP program applicants is conducted uniformly.

FMCSA’s efforts to improve the quality of commercial motor vehicle crash 

data have brought considerable attention to the issues associated with poor 

commercial motor vehicle crash data. Providing states with funding to 

improve their CMV data quality and publicizing a rating through a data 

quality map are incentives that work in tandem to maximize states’ efforts. 

It is clear that states pay attention to their ratings of “good,” “fair,” or “poor” 

on the data quality map. However, the limitations we identified highlight 

some important concerns with the data quality map’s ability to measure 

progress and accurately portray states’ commercial motor vehicle crash 

data quality. As FMCSA continues to make improvements, it will be 

important for these ratings to become more precise, so that FMCSA and the 

states can obtain the clearest picture possible of the progress being made. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the 

Administrator of FMCSA do the following:

• Establish specific guidelines for assessing state proposals for SaDIP 

grants in order to better assess and prioritize states’ funding requests 

and provide uniformity in awarding funds.
Page 31 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

• Increase the State Safety Data Quality map’s usefulness as a tool for 

monitoring and measuring commercial motor vehicle crash data by 

ensuring that it adequately reflects the condition of the states’ 

commercial motor vehicle crash data and continues to motivate states 

in their improvement efforts. Specifically, FMCSA should develop a plan 

for assessing and improving the data quality map’s methodology. In 

addition, FMCSA should display an overall crash data rating separately 

from the inspection rating, and provide information on the limitations of 

the State Safety Data Quality map and the underlying ratings on 

FMCSA’s Analysis and Information (A&I) Online Web site.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

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

its review and comment. The department agreed with our findings and 

recommendations in this report. Department officials provided some 

technical comments and some minor additions to provide more detail on 

FMCSA’s training efforts. 

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 has any questions about this report, please call me at 

(202) 512-6570. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations 

and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key 

contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Katherine Siggerud

Director, Physical Infrastructure
Page 32 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

Congress asked us to review the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration’s (FMCSA) program for helping states improve their 

commercial motor vehicle crash data. As part of this review, we were asked 

to describe the benefits obtained through the program, identify what can be 

done to improve the effectiveness of the program, and address concerns 

regarding crash data raised in a February 2004 Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Inspector General’s report. The specific objectives of 

this report were to explain (1) what is known about the quality of 

commercial motor vehicle crash data and what states are doing to improve 

it, and (2) the results of FMCSA’s efforts to facilitate the improvement of 

the quality of commercial motor vehicle crash data sent to the federal 

government.

To provide information on the quality of states’ commercial motor vehicle 

(CMV) crash data and efforts to improve it, we reviewed grant applications 

and project information from 39 states. Of these 39 states, 34 participated 

in the Safety Data Improvement Program (SaDIP) and 5 states either chose 

not to participate in the program or their proposals were not accepted. We 

also conducted site visits to six of these states--Georgia, Minnesota, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Washington. We chose our case study states 

based on a variety of criteria, including participation in the SaDIP grant 

program, the type of agencies with which the state works under SaDIP, the 

number of CMV crashes in the state, the number of reported CMV crash 

fatalities, and data quality map ratings. To help ensure that our states 

reflected a variety of experiences, we chose states that had different 

combinations of these criteria. To understand the insights and experiences 

of states that no longer participated—or had never participated—in SaDIP, 

we also interviewed officials in Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, and 

New Jersey.1 While the results from the case studies and interviews cannot 

be projected to the universe of states, they are nonetheless useful in 

illustrating the uniqueness and variation of CMV crash data systems and the 

challenges states face in improving them. During our case study visits we 

met and discussed the status of state crash data systems with a variety of 

traffic safety data officials.2 The discussions included gathering information 

1

New Hampshire was intended to represent a state that no longer participated in SaDIP; 

however, we learned during our interview that the original grant expiration date had 

recently been extended to 2006.

2

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

committees, the governor’s highway safety offices, departments of public safety, 

departments of transportation, and departments of motor vehicles. 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology

Page 33 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

on FMCSA’s data quality criteria3 but also included, for those participating 

in the program, state objectives and progress made with SaDIP funds. For 

additional perspective, we also interviewed key experts from organizations 

responsible for the development of crash data systems and models used by 

FMCSA, carrier industry officials, and public interest organizations. Finally, 

we conducted a literature review of studies published by the University of 

Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). The Institute plans 

to conduct studies in all states to determine where problems are occurring 

in the collection of CMV crash data and in the reporting of this data to 

FMCSA. As of September 2005, studies had been conducted in eight states. 

We reviewed the studies and determined the methodologies used in 

determining whether Motor Carrier Management Information System 

(MCMIS) and state CMV crash data were sound. We reviewed the studies 

conducted by UMTRI and determined that the methodologies used in 

assessing the quality of the data states submit to FMCSA were sound and 

that the studies provided sufficiently reliable results for our purposes. 

Through site visits, a review of grant applications, interviews with relevant 

stakeholders/experts, and these studies, we were able to determine 

shortcomings in the reliability of FMCSA’s CMV crash data. However, we 

determined that the data was sufficiently reliable for our purpose of case 

study selection.

To provide results of FMCSA’s efforts to facilitate the improvement of the 

state CMV crash data quality, we conducted interviews with officials from 

participating states and from FMCSA concerning the administration and 

management of SaDIP. We also analyzed the guidance and support provided 

by FMCSA to states for CMV data improvement efforts and assessed 

FMCSA’s role in coordinating CMV data quality initiatives. In addition, we 

reviewed FMCSA’s State Safety Data Quality map and assessed the 

methodology used by FMCSA in evaluating states’ crash data quality. We 

interviewed officials and key experts at FMCSA and the Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center responsible for developing and managing 

the data quality map. We also interviewed state officials from states 

participating—and not participating—in the SaDIP program to find out 

their views on the data quality map and its use as a monitoring tool for CMV 

crash data improvements.

We conducted our review from February 2005 through November 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

3

FMCSA’s data quality criteria include completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and consistency.
Page 34 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Appendix II

State Safety Data Quality Map Limitations ApendxiI

This appendix explains, in greater detail than the body of our report, the 

concerns we (and others) have raised about the limitations in the 

methodology FMCSA uses to develop ratings for the State Safety Data 

Quality map. The measures FMCSA employs to measure the completeness, 

timeliness, and accuracy of CMV crash data quality are limited, and do not 

provide comprehensive measurements of these attributes as established by 

the general data standards discussed in the body of this report. As a result, 

the ability to draw conclusions about the actual quality of a state’s data is 

limited. 

The definitions FMCSA uses for each of the crash measures are shown in 

table 5, together with the criteria that constitute a rating of “good,” fair,” or 

“poor.” In the sections that follow we explain the limitations associated 

with each measure, followed by other limitations that stem from the 

current methodology.

Table 5: State Safety Data Quality Map Measures for CMV Crashes 

Source: FMCSA.

Completeness: Overall 

Completeness is Based 

on Fatal Crashes Only

A key limitation in FMCSA’s measure of crash data completeness is the 

inability to evaluate completeness against nonfatal CMV crashes. Currently, 

the total number of nonfatal crashes occurring on a state-by-state basis is

Data quality 

standard Measure Criteria

Completeness The measure compares CMV fatality data in 

the MCMIS database against those in the 

Fatality Analysis and Reporting System 

(FARS). The FARS data is available through 

2003.

Good = match to FARS is greater than or equal to 90 percent

Fair = match to FARS is between 80 and 89 percent 

Poor = match to FARS is below 80 percent

Timeliness This measure reflects the percentage of 

state-reported crash records uploaded to the 

MCMIS database within the 90-day standard.

Good = the percentage of reported records within 90 days is 

greater than or equal to 85 percent

Fair = the percentage of reported records within 90 days is 

between 60-84 percent

Poor = the percentage of reported records is less than 60 

percent

Accuracy This measure reflects the percentage of 

state-reported crash records (fatal and nonfatal) that were matched to a motor carrier in 

MCMIS over a 12-month period. 

Good = the percentage of matched records is greater than or 

equal to 95 percent

Fair = the percentage of matched records is between 85 and 94 

percent

Poor = the percentage of matched records is below 85 percent
Appendix II

State Safety Data Quality Map Limitations

Page 35 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

unknown; no baseline exists against which to measure these records.1 

Consequently, FMCSA is limited to measuring crash data completeness 

with fatal CMV crashes, which is approximately 3 percent of all CMV 

crashes.2

Even within this narrowed dataset, the use of FARS3

 as the basis of 

comparison poses other limitations:

• There are notable differences in definitions used in the two 

databases. Most importantly, MCMIS can be subject to individual state 

definitions that may differ from FARS. According to officials at the Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center, the range of these state-driven 

definitional differences is unknown. However, based on anecdotal 

evidence received from states and reported by Volpe, these differences 

can vary by state and can account for about 4 percent of crash records.4

Some examples are below:

• A crash fatality resulting from the private use of a large truck may not 

meet the criteria as a reportable crash for MCMIS, but it is 

considered a large truck crash fatality by FARS. 

• MCMIS defines a large truck as any truck greater than a 10,000 gross 

vehicle weight rating. Many states do not collect the gross vehicle 

weight rating of vehicles and instead define a large truck based on an 

older FMCSA reporting criterion of greater than six tires or another 

definition of their choosing. As such, counts of large trucks derived 

from state crash databases (and reported to FARS) may be 

inconsistent with counts of vehicles that were reported to MCMIS.5

1

FMCSA is currently engaged in two efforts to assess baselines for non-fatal crashes in 

individual states. One effort is being conducted by Data Nexus and another is being 

conducted through the UMTRI assessments mentioned earlier in the report. 

2

Of the 436,000 police-reported crashes involving large trucks in 2003, about 150,000 were 

required to be reported to FMCSA and of these, 4,289 resulted in at least one fatality. 

3

FARS is a database of all fatal vehicle crashes maintained by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration.

4

Also, according to Volpe, one state official estimated that definitional differences account 

for about 10 percent of fatal CMV crashes in their state. 

5

Recently, FMCSA distributed visor cards to state officials that provide illustrations of 

FMCSA reportable CMVs. See appendix III for copies of these cards.
Appendix II

State Safety Data Quality Map Limitations

Page 36 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

The effect of these definitional differences is evident when comparing 

MCMIS fatal CMV crashes to FARS data—the state’s index on completeness 

for crash data rises above 100 percent. The extent to which this occurs is 

substantial: in our analysis of the June 2005 issuance of the map, 24 of 51 

states (47 percent) had a completeness measure of greater than 100 

percent.6

• FARS data is not current. FARS is released once per year, detailing 

the prior calendar year’s crash statistics. The lag between the most 

recently available FARS data and the most recent map issuance can be 

considerable. For example, the 2004 FARS annual report is not 

scheduled to be released until fall 2005 and as a result, the baseline for 

completeness data in the June 2005 map is based upon 2003 crash data. 

Timeliness: Timeliness 

is Not Based on All 

Reported Crashes

The timeliness measure currently relies on a subset of records states 

submit to MCMIS. Any record that has been edited or changed since it was 

originally entered into MCMIS is not included in the calculations.7

 If a 

record is edited, the initial upload date is replaced with the date it was 

updated. Because FMCSA’s timeliness rating is based on the percentage of 

crash reports uploaded within 90 days of the crash, and edited records no 

longer reflect their initial upload date, they cannot be used in the timeliness 

calculation without distorting a state’s rating. The consequence, however, 

is that timeliness is not measured against the entire universe of crashes in 

MCMIS—the more records a state edits, the fewer records its timeliness 

rating represents. FMCSA has acknowledged this problem with the edited 

records and is taking steps to resolve it.

Another limitation with this measure is that efforts to reduce backlogs of 

crash records—a positive effort—can have a negative effect on the 

timeliness rating. If a state submits a backlog of reports from CMV crashes 

that occurred more than 90 days previously, and the crash took place 

during the period of time which the FMCSA rating covers, then the state’s 

timeliness rating will be negatively affected. Conversely, if a state has a 

large backlog, its current timeliness rating may not be a meaningful 

6

This includes the District of Columbia.

7

Editing might be needed, for example, if activity at the state level discloses errors or 

incomplete information in the record as originally submitted to MCMIS.
Appendix II

State Safety Data Quality Map Limitations

Page 37 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

representation of timeliness because the methodology has no way to 

capture those records that are accruing in the backlog. 

Accuracy: Accuracy is 

Based on Only One 

Variable

The measure for accuracy on the data quality map is based only on a match 

of a CMV crash report in MCMIS, against a registered carrier in MCMIS. The 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) assigns each interstate motor 

carrier a unique identifier number—the DOT number. For this measure, 

accuracy is evaluated primarily based on the degree to which a carrier’s 

DOT number is the same as identified for a crash in MCMIS.8

 Therefore, a 

crash report with a missing or invalid DOT number may be considered 

inaccurate, even if the rest of the information on the report provides 

accurate information on the crash. Currently, the data quality map does not 

assess the accuracy of any other data elements; however, FMCSA has been 

working with states to improve their collection of CMV crash information. 

For example, recently FMCSA distributed visor cards to state officials that 

explain how to determine who the carrier is, and where the correct 

carrier’s DOT number can be found. See appendix III for copies of these 

cards.

8

In general, if a crash report is missing a DOT number, FMCSA attempts to use other 

identifiers in the report to match it to a registered carrier, but officials told us that this has 

been met with limited success.
Page 38 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Appendix III

FMCSA Reportable Crash, CMV, and Carrier 

Identification Visor Cards ApendxiI

The following are copies of visor identification cards that FMCSA created 

as educational tools for law enforcement officers. The cards can be placed 

in officer’s sun visor and referenced to determine whether a CMV crash 

should be reported, for identifying a vehicle as a CMV, and for identifying 

the correct carrier involved in the crash. FMCSA provided these to states to 

distribute to enforcement officers with the intention they will increase the 

officers’ ability to properly identify a CMV and a reportable CMV crash. 
Appendix III

FMCSA Reportable Crash, CMV, and Carrier 

Identification Visor Cards

Page 39 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Figure 3: FMCSA Reportable Crashes

Truck and Bu s Cra s h e s

Any truck that has a gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of more than 

10,000 pounds or a gross

combination weight rating (GCWR) 

of more than 10,000 pounds used 

on public highways

Any motor vehicle with seating to 

transport nine (9) or more people, 

including the driver's seat

 www.fmcsa.dot.gov

 U.S. Department of Transportation

Any motor vehicle displaying a

hazardous materials placard 

(regardless of weight)

REPORT A TRAFFIC CRASH IF IT INVOLVES...

INCLUDED: EXCLUDED:

... AND RESULTS IN

Truck and Bus Crashes Reportable to FMCSA

OR

OR

OR

OR

Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration

A fatality: any person(s) killed in or 

outside of any vehicle (truck, bus, 

car, etc.) involved in the crash or 

who dies within 30 days of the crash 

as a result of an injury sustained in 

the crash

An injury: any person(s) injured as a

result of the crash who immediately 

receives medical treatment away from 

the crash scene

A tow-away: any motor vehicle (truck, 

bus, car, etc.) disabled as a result of 

the crash and transported away from 

the scene by a tow truck or other 

vehicle

Revised 06/05

Crashes involving commercial motor vehicles and some non-commercial motor vehicles must be reported on a state’s crash report 

and to the FMCSA. A commercial motor vehicle is any motor vehicle that is used on a trafficway for the transportation of goods, 

property, or people in interstate or intrastate commerce.

Here are some examples of commercial and non-commercial operations that, 

when involved in a crash, should be included if they meet the criteria on the 

front of this card.

Here are some examples of non-commercial operations that, when involved in 

a crash, should not be included.

Examples:

1. A trucking company or individual owner/operator hauling the goods of a

business for a fee.

2. A manufacturing company hauling its own products to retail stores, or a retail 

store delivering products to its buyers.

3. A farm hauling its produce to market.

4. A motorcoach, airport shuttle, or hotel-owned shuttle bus or limousine 

service transporting passengers.

5. A government-owned truck or bus.

6. A school bus transporting students to/from school or school-related activities.

7. A rented or leased truck used to transport either commercial or personal 

goods.

8. A truck or truck tractor owned and operated for commerce being used for a

personal trip or to transport personal goods.

Examples:

1. A non-commercial horse owner transporting hay bales from his pasture on one 

side of the road to his stables on the other side of the road in a truck with a

GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

2. A homeowner carrying recyclables to a drop-off point in a personally owned 

pickup truck with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. 

3. A family of 10 persons taking a trip in the family's 12-person van.

4. A personally owned pickup truck hauling a boat, horse or utility trailer with a

GCWR greater than 10,000 pounds not operating in commerce or as part of a

business.

5. A family operating a personally owned and registered recreational vehicle or 

motor home.

Source: FMCSA.
Appendix III

FMCSA Reportable Crash, CMV, and Carrier 

Identification Visor Cards

Page 40 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Figure 4: Reportable Commercial Motor Vehicle Configurations and Cargo Body Type

Bus (9-15 Seats, Including Driver)

Single-Unit (2 Axles, 6 Tires)

Single-Unit (3 or More Axles)

Bus (16 or More Seats, Including Driver)

Bus (9-15 Seats, Including Driver)

Van/Enclosed Box

Cargo Tank

Flat Bed

Bus (16 or More Seats, Including Driver)

Dump

Garbage/Refuse

Grain, Chips, Gravel

Auto Transporter

Pole

Log

Intermodal Chassis

Vehicle Towing Motor Vehicle

No Cargo Body

Concrete Mixer

Truck Tractor (Bobtail)

Truck Tractor/Double (Two Trailers)

Truck Tractor/Triple (Three Trailers)

Tractor/Semi Trailer (One Trailer)

Truck/Trailer (Single-Unit Truck Pulling a Trailer)

 www.fmcsa.dot.gov

 U.S. Department of Transportation

Vehicle Configuration Vehicle Configuration

Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration

 www.fmcsa.dot.gov

Federal Motor Carrier U.S. Department of Transportation Safety Administration

Revised 06/05

Cargo Body Type

Source: FMCSA.
Appendix III

FMCSA Reportable Crash, CMV, and Carrier 

Identification Visor Cards

Page 41 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Figure 5: Responsible Carrier and Correct DOT Number Identification

 www.fmcsa.dot.gov

Federal Motor Carrier U.S. Department of Transportation

Safety Administration

 www.fmcsa.dot.gov

Federal Motor Carrier U.S. Department of Transportation Safety Administration

Lease Agreement Driver Log

Revised 06/05

SIDE OF THE VEHICLE

In most cases, this is 

good for name and 

number. Look for a 

number preceded by 

the letters: USDOT. 

DON’T STOP

...keep on looking...

The information on the side 

of the truck may not be the 

U.S. DOT number, name, or 

address of the responsible 

motor carrier.

DRIVER INTERVIEW

1.Is the vehicle leased or 

rented?

2.Who is the motor carrier 

responsible for this load?

3.Who is directing and 

controlling the movement of 

this vehicle?

4.Where is the motor carrier’s 

principal place of business?

SHIPPING

PAPERS provide the 

name of the motor carrier 

responsible for the load, 

but not the carrier’s U.S. 

DOT number.

DRIVER’S LOG 

contains the name of the 

motor carrier and the 

city and State for the 

carrier’s principal place 

of business.

LEASE AGREEMENT 

identifies the name of 

the lessee and their 

U.S. DOT number.

NOTE: VEHICLE REGISTRATION

Generally good for identifying owner or registrant. 

CAREFUL: This may not be the responsible carrier! 

FMCSA WEB SITE: http://safer.fmcsa.dot.gov/CompanySnapshot.aspx is an 

excellent source for verifying a motor carrier’s U.S. DOT number, legal name, “doing business as” 

name, physical address, and phone number.

John Smith is the motor carrier,

because he is the entity that has agreed

to carry this particular load.

EXAMPLE 3: John Smith, driving his truck tractor, leases his services to 

Polyester Chemical Company. Polyester directs Smith to deliver a semitrailer from New York to St. Louis. 

Who is the Motor Carrier:

A. John Smith?

B. Polyester?

EXAMPLE 4: John Smith is driving a tractor/semi-trailer owned and 

operated by ABC Trucking.

Who is the Motor Carrier:

A. John Smith?

B. ABC Trucking?

EXAMPLE 5: John Smith is driving a tractor owned by ABC Trucking, 

which has been leased to XYZ Trucking. XYZ uses the tractor to pull XYZ 

trailers in its regular shipping service.

EXAMPLE 1: John Smith owns his own truck tractor, operating under 

John Smith Trucking. He contracts with White Manufacturing to take one 

of its trailers loaded with its goods from New York to Los Angeles.

Who is the Motor Carrier:

A. John Smith?

B. White Manufacturing?

EXAMPLE 2: John Smith, driving his truck tractor, utilizes a cargo broker, 

K&S Trucking, to obtain goods from Intermodal Inc. shipping company for 

his return trip back to New York. 

Who is the Motor Carrier:

A. John Smith?

B. K&S Trucking?

C. Intermodal Inc.?

John Smith is the motor carrier,

because K&S transferred the

responsibility of the load to John Smith.

The lease agreement between Polyester

and Mr. Smith makes Polyester the

motor carrier responsible for the load.

ABC Trucking is the motor carrier.

John Smith is just a driver for ABC

Trucking.

Who is the Motor Carrier:

A. John Smith?

B. ABC Trucking?

C. XYZ Trucking?

In this case XYZ is the motor carrier,

because XYZ is directing the carrying

of the load. 

SHIPPING PAPERS

Sources: FMCSA; GAO.

How to Find the Responsible Carrier and Correct U.S. Dot Number How Do I Find This? 

How to Find the Responsible Carrier and Correct U.S. Dot Number How Do I Find This? 
Page 42 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Appendix IV

SaDIP Grant and Cooperative Agreement 

Distribution by State ApendxiIV

Table 6: Distribution of SaDIP Grants by State

Source: FMCSA.

Note: This data is current as of September 2005. 

State FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Total

Alaska $198,000 0 0 $218,626 $416,626

California 0 $100,000 0 100,000

Connecticut 234,056 0 0 0 234,056

Georgia 269,820 0 409,000 553,733 1,232,553

Indiana 179,321 242,423 0 0 421,744

Kansas 0 0 0 373,436 373,436

Kentucky 199,000 0 0 0 199,000

Maryland 145,600 0 0 0 145,600

Massachusetts 100,000 249,972 0 0 349,972

Michigan 0 115,845 0 0 115,845

Minnesota 363,000 0 620,000 0 983,000

Montana 0 0 0 328,564 328,564

Nebraska 0 0 2,000 3,342 $5,342

Nevada 427,443 0 0 350,000 777,443

New Hampshire 0 98,068 0 0 98,068

New Mexico 0 0 0 250,000 250,000

New York 0 0 300,000 0 300,000

North Carolina 0 0 193,350 0 193,350

Oklahoma 0 0 131,111 0 131,111

Pennsylvania 0 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000

Rhode Island 25,000 0 26,000 0 51,000

South Carolina 350,000 0 0 0 350,000

South Dakota 270,000 0 0 0 270,000

Tennessee 0 0 436,027 149,334 585,361

Texas 0 148,424 533,611 0 682,035

Utah 0 0 433,500 128,853 562,353

Vermont 0 0 0 134,000 134,000

Washington 0 0 803,935 0 803,935

West Virginia 157,500 0 0 603,943 761,443

Total $2,918,740 $854,732 $3,988,534 $5,093,831 $12,855,837
Appendix IV

SaDIP Grant and Cooperative Agreement 

Distribution by State

Page 43 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Table 7: Distribution of SaDIP Cooperative Agreements by State

Source: FMCSA. 

Note: This data is as of September 2005. 

State FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Total

Colorado 0 0 0 $1,460,000 $1,460,000

Georgia 0 0 0 612,051 612,051

Iowa $728,065 0 0 226,400 954,465

Louisiana 829,625 0 0 569,000 1,398,625

Ohio 406,330 0 $91,000 224,400 721,730

Oklahoma 0 0 1,150,390 0 1,150,390

Tennessee 281,954 0 219,543 426,382 927,879

Vermont 0 0 0 136,500 136,500

Virginia 42,300 0 0 431,617 473,917

Total $2,288,274 $0 $1,460,933 $4,086,350 $7,835,557
Page 44 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States ApendxiV

As part of our work, we conducted six case studies to examine how states 

are working to improve commercial motor vehicle crash data. Our visits to 

the six states yielded additional information about crash data quality 

improvement activities, the nature of their efforts, and the extent of 

progress made. States were chosen on a wide variety of factors, including 

crash data quality and participation in the SaDIP program. 

Georgia Georgia received a total of $1,844,604 between 2002 and 2005 (see table 8) 

to conduct crash data improvement projects. During this period, Georgia 

made significant improvement in its crash data quality, despite undergoing 

a major state government reorganization process. 

Table 8: Georgia SaDIP Funding History

Source: FMCSA.

SaDIP Projects Georgia received its first SaDIP grant from the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), and this grant was used to accomplish 

several projects, including: (1) hiring temporary employees to extract CMV 

crash reports from backlogged paper copies and microfilm them; (2) 

precoding the paper crash reports in preparation for their entry into the 

state repository system; (3) renting a mobile trailer to house temp 

employees; (4) developing a system to electronically transfer crash data 

from the state repository to the national database; (5) adding edit checks to 

the state crash database; (6) purchasing a new microfilm scanner/reader; 

and, (7) hiring a contractor to update the state’s crash report manual. 

Progress on these projects was reported quarterly to NHTSA.

Georgia received two additional grants after FMCSA became the lead 

agency for the SaDIP program. The first grant was used to maintain the 

temporary employees. Additionally, these funds were used to hire a 

statistician as a SaDIP advocate. This grant allowed Georgia to eliminate its 

Award year Funds awarded Agency Award type

2005 $612,051 FMCSA Cooperative 

agreement

2005 $553,733 FMCSA Grant

2004 $409,000 FMCSA Grant

2002 $269,820 NHTSA Grant
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 45 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

reporting backlog from 2003 to the present. The second grant that Georgia 

received was used to fund its electronic crash records system. This system 

will electronically transfer crash records from local jurisdictions to the 

state repository system. This project has been put on hold following a state 

government reorganization. 

Crash Data 

Collection/Reporting Issues

Georgia historically has had the worst CMV crash data quality rating in the 

nation (see crash data quality statistics, table 9). This is due to the fact that 

until recently, Georgia was not submitting crash data to FMCSA. Georgia’s 

current overall rating is “good,” and it is rated “good” for completeness and 

“fair” for timeliness and accuracy. For all other rating periods prior to 

March 2004, Georgia had an overall rating of “poor.” This improvement in 

its data quality is due in large part to the SaDIP program. Georgia’s nonreporting was due to a technical problem, but the state was able to correct 

it in a timely manner because of the SaDIP funding it received. 

Table 9: Georgia Crash Data Quality Statistics (Percentages)

Source: FMCSA.

SaDIP funds are the only federal funds currently being used to address data 

quality improvement in Georgia. Because the state’s data quality was so 

poor, both FMCSA and the Federal Highway Administration indicated they 

would withhold federal funding unless Georgia improved its reporting. It 

was at this point that Georgia applied for SaDIP, and began focusing on its 

data quality. As of July 1, 2005, Georgia began a major state government 

reorganization process, and officials were unsure of how this would affect 

the quality of its crash data because all collection and reporting functions 

are moving to new departments. Officials expect to see a decrease in the 

state’s rating during the transition period, but do not expect long-term 

problems.

March

2004

June

2004

September

2004

December

2004

March

2005

June

2005

Completeness 117 115 95 95 95 95

Timeliness 6 8 27 48 65 80

Accuracy 84 82 82 83 94 93
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 46 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

State/Federal Coordination 

Issues

State and federal coordination on issues related to traffic safety data has 

not always been effective in Georgia. Between 1998 and 2002, Georgia had 

only submitted 250 fatal CMV crash records to FMCSA, yet between 2002 

through 2003 Georgia submitted 410 CMV fatalities to FARS. Georgia’s 

Department of Public Safety, the agency responsible for crash reporting, 

did not have a functional computer system to upload the state’s crash file to 

FMCSA. The problem was discovered in 2002 and FMCSA offered 

assistance to fix the problem, but the Department of Public Safety did not 

accept the offer. FMCSA then threatened to withhold Georgia’s highway 

safety funds until the data issues were resolved; at this point the 

Department of Public Safety applied for—and received—SaDIP funding, 

and began work to resolve the crash data problems. 

Data Quality Map Georgia officials stated that the data quality map provided an incentive for 

the state to make data quality improvements in order to raise its rating from 

“poor” to “good.” State and federal officials acknowledge that the map is 

one indication of the progress the state has made in improving its CMV data 

quality. 

Georgia officials never disagreed with their state’s rating on the data quality 

map. However, officials felt that the map did not recognize improvements 

that were taking place within the state to improve crash data. The state 

plans to continue to make improvements to the crash records system even 

after the state reaches the “good” rating. 

Minnesota Minnesota received a total of $983,000 in 2002 and 2004 (see table 10) to 

conduct crash data improvement projects. During this period, Minnesota 

received safety data improvement grants from NHTSA and FMCSA. 

Table 10: Minnesota SaDIP Funding History

Source: FMCSA.

Award year Funds awarded Agency Award type

2004 $370,000 FMCSA Grant

2004 $250,000 FMCSA Grant

2002 $363,000 NHTSA Grant
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 47 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

SaDIP Projects Minnesota received its first SaDIP grant while NHTSA was administering 

the program. This grant went to the Department of Public Safety, Office of 

Traffic Safety—the agency that receives NHTSA highway safety funds. The 

grant was used to fund two projects, including an electronic post-crash 

inspection form (Minnesota conducts in-depth post-crash inspections for 

crashes involving CMVs), and to purchase software that will allow for 

electronic transfer of CMV crash records between Driver and Vehicle 

Services and the state patrol (both agencies within the Department of 

Public Safety). In Minnesota, Driver and Vehicle Services collects crash 

reports from law enforcement agencies, and the state patrol is the office in 

charge of reporting crashes to FMCSA. 

The Minnesota state patrol received subsequent funding after FMCSA 

became the lead agency on the SaDIP program. These funds have been 

used to provide computer hardware so that state patrol officers can access 

the Internet and submit their crash reports electronically through an online 

form. The second component of the grant is to provide ongoing CMV crash 

training to law enforcement officers throughout the state. This training will 

focus on correctly identifying CMVs and teaching officers why CMV crash 

data is important, and what it is used for at the state and national levels.

Crash Data 

Collection/Reporting Issues

Before SaDIP funds were received, the Minnesota state patrol had limited 

access to Driver and Vehicle Services records. As a result, the state patrol 

was only able to report crashes to FMCSA that were investigated by their 

officers or were sent directly to the state patrol by local jurisdictions. Now 

all CMV records that are available at the Driver and Vehicle Services are 

reported to FMCSA (see crash data quality statistics, table 11).

Table 11: Minnesota Crash Data Quality Statistics (Percentages)

Source: FMCSA.

March

2004

June

2004

September

2004

December

2004

March

2005

June

2005

Completeness 117 117 116 123 121 121

Timeliness 72 59 58 50 67 81

Accuracy 78 74 82 86 91 93
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 48 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

The State of Minnesota encountered difficulty receiving crash reports from 

local law enforcement agencies. In addition, law enforcement officers 

incorrectly identified CMVs on crash reports. If law enforcement officers 

do not correctly identify the vehicle involved in the crash as a CMV, then 

the crash may not be extracted from the state crash file for submission to 

FMCSA.

State/Federal Coordination 

Issues

Minnesota officials said that the state now has a crash data users group as a 

subsection of its Traffic Records Coordinating Committee. This group 

allows all users of crash data to discuss their data needs and limitations, 

and provides a forum for making collaborative recommendations regarding 

crash data improvements. 

Minnesota officials and the FMCSA Division Administrator work very 

closely with each other to monitor and improve CMV crash data quality. 

Neither of these groups feels that the FMCSA data quality rating map is an 

accurate portrayal of a state’s data quality. For example, Minnesota’s rating 

decreased due to the fact that it was implementing its electronic data 

transfer software, and during that period crash records were not reported 

to FMCSA in a timely fashion. The map showed the state’s rating as “poor” 

during this period, which did not reflect the fact that the state was making 

strides in improving its data quality. 

Minnesota uses several sources of funding to improve its overall crash data 

and CMV crash data. In addition to FMCSA funding, NHTSA and state funds 

have been used to improve the state’s data quality.

Data Quality Map Minnesota crash data has gone from an overall “fair” rating to “poor” to its 

current rating as “good.” The drop in the state’s rating was actually a result 

of the state not being able to report crashes during the implementation of 

SaDIP-funded improvement projects. After the electronic systems were 

fully implemented, the state’s rating improved to “good” for completeness, 

and “fair” for timeliness and accuracy.

Officials in Minnesota recognize that the map is an effective tool for getting 

the attention of decision-makers. While the map may not be an accurate 

assessment of the state’s current data quality, both state and federal 

officials recognize that it does help to spotlight Minnesota’s data quality 

status. Federal and state officials use the data quality map as a measure of 

the state’s progress in improving data quality. State officials also use the 
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 49 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

map as an indicator of the success of the state’s SaDIP project. Finally, 

officials in Minnesota said that the data quality map has been used to 

identify data quality problems in the state, including timeliness and 

accuracy, and to create projects to improve those measures. 

North Carolina North Carolina received a total of $193,350 in 2004 (see table 12) to conduct 

crash data improvement projects. While North Carolina has excellent crash 

data reporting at the state level, North Carolina continues to have 

complications reporting that data to FMCSA. North Carolina is a priority 

state for FMCSA given the fact that it is one of the top five states for 

commercial motor vehicle accidents in the nation. 

Table 12: North Carolina SaDIP Funding History

Source: FMCSA.

SaDIP Projects North Carolina is using its SaDIP grant to conduct two projects. First, the 

state conducted an analysis to determine what differences existed between 

the state data file and the federal crash file, and to try to determine why 

these differences were occurring. The completed analysis did not appear to 

fully address North Carolina’s biggest problem, which is the data transfer 

between the two files.

North Carolina is also using SaDIP to update a backlog it has in entering 

crash reports into the state data file by providing overtime pay to 

employees.

Crash Data 

Collection/Reporting Issues

Historically, North Carolina has had poor CMV crash data (see table 13). 

North Carolina is also one of FMCSA’s priority states because of the large 

amount of crashes that take place in the state. It was rated as having “poor” 

data for each period since FMCSA began rating states. 

Award year Funds awarded Agency Award type

2004 $193,350 FMCSA Grant
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 50 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Table 13: North Carolina Crash Data Quality Statistics (Percentages)

Source: FMCSA.

North Carolina is unique in that it does not have a problem receiving crash 

reports from localities across the state. In other states, this is the biggest 

problem contributing to the states’ data quality issues.1

 In North Carolina 

the problem is getting records from the state crash file into the FMCSA data 

systems. FMCSA officials worked extensively with North Carolina to fix 

the file compatibility issues that are creating the problem exporting the 

data to FMCSA, but North Carolina has failed to correct its information 

technology problems. According to state officials, the biggest issue in 

North Carolina is backlog. Even if the state corrects its backlog, the state’s 

data rating will not improve because the records are not transferring 

correctly into the federal database. Additionally, North Carolina does not 

require certain elements to be captured on its crash report or in its state 

database that are required in the federal database. Specifically, North 

Carolina does not require that motor carrier DOT numbers are collected, 

which may contribute to the state’s “poor” accuracy rating.

While North Carolina has very good data at the state level, the state’s 

largest problem is reporting that data to the federal database. It appears 

that North Carolina’s SaDIP projects are not focusing on this issue.

State/Federal Coordination 

Issues

North Carolina coordination between state agencies involved in CMV crash 

data has not always been effective. A major reorganization of the state’s 

highway safety agency contributed to this lack of coordination, but the 

state is working to improve cooperation among these agencies with regards 

to traffic records. The largest factor contributing to North Carolina’s poor 

crash data quality appears to be a lack of understanding by some state 

officials regarding how to convert a crash data file to the correct format in 

March

2004

June

2004

September

2004

December

2004

March

2005

June

2005

Completeness 82 82 77 77 77 77

Timeliness 0 100 0 0 1 2

Accuracy 81 100 81 80 80 81

1

Additionally, an FMCSA official told us that this problem is unique to North Carolina.
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 51 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

order to submit it to FMCSA. The SaDIP grant has provided the state the 

opportunity to review its crash data problems, a project that the state 

would not have conducted otherwise. The state is also using its own funds 

to implement an electronic crash reporting system in order to get crash 

data into the state data file more quickly.

Data Quality Map State and federal officials in North Carolina use the data quality map to 

measure the progress the state is making with its SaDIP grant and with data 

improvements overall. 

North Carolina state officials use the map as an incentive for implementing 

data improvements and they appear motivated to change North Carolina’s 

rating for the better. The map has also been used in North Carolina to 

identify data quality problems and target improvement efforts, although 

more still needs to be done. 

Both federal and state officials expect to continue to make improvements 

to the state’s traffic records infrastructure after the state achieves the 

highest data rating. 

Ohio Ohio received a total of $721,730 between 2002 and 2005 (see table 14) to 

conduct crash data improvement projects. Ohio has been very proactive in 

addressing traffic safety data concerns and the state has paid particular 

attention to using crash data for planning. 

Table 14: Ohio SaDIP Funding History

Source: FMCSA.

Award year Funds awarded Agency Award type

2005 $224,400 FMCSA Cooperative 

agreement

2004 $91,000 FMCSA Cooperative 

agreement

2002 $406,330 NHTSA/FMCSA Cooperative 

agreement
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 52 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

SaDIP Projects Ohio was one of the first 5 pilot states to participate in the SaDIP program. 

It received funds through a cooperative agreement with the General 

Services Administration (GSA) and NHTSA. Through this agreement, the 

state created electronic crash reporting capabilities, purchased handheld 

devices, modified crash reporting software, and is providing training to law 

enforcement officers to help them properly identify CMV crashes.

Until recently, when FMCSA gained authority for the SaDIP cooperative 

agreements, Ohio had not submitted any progress reports to NHTSA on the 

status of these projects.

Crash Data 

Collection/Reporting Issues

Ohio has a “fair” overall data rating, with “good” ratings for completeness 

and accuracy, but a “poor” rating for timeliness (see crash data quality 

statistics, table 15). Ohio has been very aware of the importance of CMV 

crash data and state officials have been working to improve it for a long 

time, even before the SaDIP program.

Table 15: Ohio Crash Data Quality Statistics (Percentages)

Source: FMCSA.

The state of Ohio has over 1,000 local law enforcement jurisdictions that 

are responsible for reporting CMV accidents. Both large and small 

jurisdictions are likely responsible for Ohio’s “poor” crash data timeliness 

rating. The state has reduced the time lag in receiving crash reports from 

local jurisdictions from 62 days in 2004 to 30 days in 2005. 

State/Federal Coordination 

Issues

Ohio state agencies involved in the collection and reporting of CMV crash 

data appear coordinated with each other, and have an active Traffic 

Records Coordinating Committee, which includes participation by FMCSA 

division officials. Ohio uses multiple sources of funding to address data 

March

2004

June

2004

September

2004

December

2004

March

2005

June

2005

Completeness 95 95 95 95 95 95

Timeliness 15 17 11 23 40 46

Accuracy 84 97 97 98 98 98
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 53 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

quality issues, including state funds, and the state is proactive in data 

improvement projects. 

Data Quality Map State and federal officials said that the map provided one gauge of Ohio’s 

data quality, but they felt the map would be more useful if it were updated 

more often. The map has brought more attention to data quality issues in 

Ohio and is included in reports to state leaders. 

State and federal officials in Ohio said that data quality improvements 

would still be a top priority regardless of the data quality map. Ohio 

officials also stated that the inaccuracies in the map had a big effect on 

staff morale. Local officials said they are working hard to improve their 

state’s data quality, but the map does not accurately capture that 

improvement. State officials recognize the map provides a major incentive 

for implementing data quality improvements and maintaining the state’s 

standing as a leader in traffic data quality. 

Oklahoma Oklahoma received a total of $1,281,501 in 2004 (see table 16) to conduct 

crash data improvement projects. Oklahoma’s traffic records coordinating 

committee has taken the lead in the coordination of crash data projects in 

the state. 

Table 16: Oklahoma SaDIP Funding History

Source: FMCSA.

SaDIP Projects Oklahoma began participation in the SaDIP program in July 2004 when it 

received a grant to purchase computer equipment, and then entered into a 

four year cooperative agreement with FMCSA in December 2004 to support 

its long term data quality improvement plans. This includes conducting a 

traffic records assessment, hiring a SaDIP coordinator, funding data entry 

for the record backlog, revising the state’s crash report, and initiating a 

mobile data collection pilot project.

Award year Funds awarded Agency Award type

2004 $1,150,390 FMCSA Cooperative agreement

2004 $131,111 FMCSA Grant
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 54 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Oklahoma officials said that the projects that are taking place using SaDIP 

funds would not have been funded otherwise. The SaDIP grant and longterm cooperative agreement have allowed the state to focus on CMV data 

and to begin to make data-driven decisions in its highway safety planning.

Crash Collection/Reporting 

Issues

Until recently Oklahoma had a nine month crash report backlog to be 

entered into the state system (see crash data quality statistics, table 17). 

The backlog was primarily due to insufficient state resources. Overtime 

hours funded by SaDIP has helped to alleviate this backlog. 

Table 17: Oklahoma Crash Data Quality Statistics (Percentages)

Source: FMCSA.

State/Federal Coordination 

Issues

Oklahoma has been working with the GSA to receive payments on its 

cooperative agreement, and officials said that this has caused the state 

some confusion. 

Oklahoma’s crash data divisions are housed in the state’s Department of 

Public Safety and Department of Transportation. While crash records staff 

in both agencies work closely together to make sure that the state’s crash 

file is complete, Oklahoma officials were unaware of the value of CMV 

crash data at the national level, or of the criteria that FMCSA uses to rate 

CMV crash data.

Oklahoma is using funds from several sources to improve its entire crash 

data system, including funds provided by NHTSA and the Federal Highway 

Administration. SaDIP funds are the only funds that the state is using 

specifically for CMV data improvements. 

March

2004

June

2004

September

2004

December

2004

March

2005

June

2005

Completeness 104 104 102 102 101 101

Timeliness 93 92 93 92 90 83

Accuracy 84 86 87 86 86 84
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 55 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Data Quality Map While high-ranking officials in Oklahoma’s Department of Public Safety and 

the Highway Patrol are familiar with the data quality map, state officials 

involved with the SaDIP program were less familiar. We found that state 

officials involved with the SaDIP program had a detailed understanding of 

their state’s data quality, but had not used the data quality map as an 

indicator of progress for the SaDIP cooperative agreement.

Oklahoma officials stated that they would undertake their data 

improvement program regardless of whether or not the state was ranked 

“good.” State officials, for example, recognized that more improvements 

could be made in the state’s timeliness measure even though the state had a 

“good” rating in this category. 

Washington Washington received a total of $803,935 in 2004 (see table 18) to conduct 

crash data improvement projects. The state’s traffic records coordinating 

committee is leading an electronic information processing initiative 

designed to reduce crash reporting inefficiencies and help the state meet 

national traffic safety goals. 

Table 18: Washington SaDIP Funding History

Source: FMCSA.

SaDIP Projects SaDIP is primarily being used to implement an electronic data feed 

between the Washington Department of Transportation and the state 

patrol. This will allow records to be submitted instantly to the state patrol 

when they are entered into the state department of transportation 

database. It will also make records searchable so that eligible CMV crashes 

that are misidentified and not sent to the state patrol can be identified as 

CMV crashes, improving the completeness of the state’s CMV crash data.

SaDIP is also being used to eliminate a six-month backlog of crash reports 

that need to be entered into the state’s database housed at the Washington 

Award year Funds awarded Agency Award type

2004 $188,460 FMCSA Grant

2004 $615,475 FMCSA Grant
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 56 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Department of Transportation. Until reports are entered into the state 

Department of Transportation system, they cannot be transferred to the 

state patrol electronically, nor can those reports incorrectly identified as 

non-CMV crashes be easily identified. Until this takes place, Department of 

Transportation employees identify CMV reports among all crash reports 

and provide the state patrol with paper copies of the reports.

Crash Collection/Reporting 

Issues

The largest problem that Washington State has with its crash data is 

receiving the entire crash report, including supplemental form, from the 

law enforcement offices that generate them (see crash data quality 

statistics, table 19).

Table 19: Washington Crash Data Quality Statistics (Percentages)

Source: FMCSA.

Washington State also has a problem with incorrect identification of CMVs 

on police accident reports. If police do not correctly identify the vehicle 

involved in the crash as a CMV, then it may not get extracted from the state 

crash file for submission to FMCSA.

State/Federal Coordination 

Issues

Washington State has very good cooperation among state agencies involved 

in crash data collection and reporting. The state also has a good working 

relationship with its FMCSA division office. It also uses FMCSA and state 

funds to address data quality issues, making decisions on how to use these 

funds effectively through an active Traffic Records Coordinating 

Committee.

While SaDIP initiatives in Washington State are a topic of discussion at the 

Traffic Records Coordinating Committee meetings, the committee 

coordinator was not specifically aware of FMCSA’s grant-making process 

and how those grants are accessed and then allocated by the state. 

Whereas NHTSA funds are accessed via the Traffic Records Coordinating 

March

2004

June

2004

September

2004

December

2004

March

2005

June

2005

Completeness 96 96 103 103 108 108

Timeliness 99 98 98 99 99 99

Accuracy 95 96 96 97 97 97
Appendix V

SaDIP Case Study States

Page 57 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Committee forum, FMCSA funds are processed within the Washington 

State Patrol’s Commercial Vehicle Division. To date there has been no 

problem targeting safety data funding to immediate priorities as identified 

by the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee, but this is an area that may 

need to be addressed in the future. 

Data Quality Map Washington State officials recognize that the data quality map is an 

important indicator of the state’s progress in improving its crash records 

system. According to state officials, the data quality map has been used to 

measure the progress of the state’s data quality improvements in general. 

State officials also indicated that they would continue to make 

improvements to their traffic records systems regardless of the state’s data 

quality rating. Specifically, the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee is 

helping to coordinate the state’s electronic reporting system. 

Even though the state has consistently ranked “good” on the map since its 

inception, state officials report that the map has been helpful for 

identifying areas where the state can make data quality improvements. 
Page 58 GAO-06-102 Highway Safety

Appendix VI

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact Katherine Siggerud (202) 512-6570 or siggerudk@gao.gov

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Randall Williamson, Assistant 

Director; Tida Barakat; Jonathan Carver; Bert Japikse; Sara Ann 

Moessbauer; Fred Swenson; Sharon Silas; and Stan Stenersen made key 

contributions to this report.

(542054)
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 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

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, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548