Report to Congressional Requester

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

April 2003 HIGHWAY SAFETY

Better Guidance 

Could Improve 

Oversight of State 

Highway Safety 

Programs 

GAO-03-474 
While the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined since the 1970s, it 

has stayed fairly level since 1995, at about 41,900 per year. Fatality rates per 

miles traveled have also continued to decline, but the bulk of this decline 

occurred between 1982 and 1992. In addition, the number of alcohol-related 

fatalities declined from about 26,000 in 1982 to about 17,400 in 2001. 

However, alcohol-related fatalities rose in 2000 and 2001. 

About $2 billion has been provided over the last 5 years for highway safety 

programs under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. About 

$729 million went to the core highway safety program, Section 402, to carry 

out traffic safety programs designed to influence drivers’ behavior in such 

areas as seat belt use, alcohol-impaired driving, and speeding. About $936 

million went to seven incentive programs designed to encourage state efforts 

to improve seat-belt use, reduce drunk driving, and improve highway safety 

data. About $361 million was transferred from highway construction to 

highway safety programs under provisions that penalized states that had not 

passed repeat offender or open container laws to reduce drunk driving. Of 

the incentive and transfer funds, most were used for behavioral programs, 

but about $395 million was used for highway construction programs. 

Under the performance-based approach, NHTSA provides advice, training 

and technical assistance to the states, which are responsible for setting and 

achieving highway safety goals. NHTSA also provides oversight through 

management reviews and improvement plans intended to help ensure that 

the states are operating within guidelines and achieving the desired results. 

However NHTSA’s regional offices have made inconsistent use of 

management reviews and limited and inconsistent use of improvement plans 

because NHTSA’s guidance to the regional offices does not specify when to 

use them. As a result, NHTSA’s efforts to work with the states may not be 

fully realized. 

Highway Safety Funding to States, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2002 

In 1998, the Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century funded a 

series of highway safety programs. 

These safety programs, 

administered by the National 

Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), increased 

funding to the states to improve 

highway safety through activities 

designed to encourage, among 

other things, the use of seat belts 

and child passenger seats and to 

prevent drinking and driving. The 

states implement these activities 

through a “performance-based” 

approach under which they 

establish highway safety goals and 

initiate projects to help reach those 

goals. NHTSA reviews the goals 

and provides oversight to the state 

highway safety programs. GAO 

was asked to provide trend data on 

highway safety, determine how 

much highway safety funding was 

provided and how the states used 

the funds, and review NHTSA’s 

oversight of highway safety 

programs. 

GAO recommends that NHTSA 

provide more specific written 

guidance to its regional offices on 

when it is appropriate to use 

management reviews and 

improvement plans to assist states 

with their highway safety 

programs. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-474.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Peter Guerrero 

(202) 512-2834. 

Highlights of GAO-03-474, a report to 

Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee 

on Competition, Foreign Commerce, and 

Infrastructure, Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate 

April 2003

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight 

of State Highway Safety Programs
Page i GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Trends in Highway Safety 8

States Used Increased Safety Funding to Support Behavioral and 

Construction Programs 13

NHTSA Makes Inconsistent and Limited Use of Oversight Tools 20

Conclusions 24

Recommendations for Executive Action 25

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 27 

Appendix II Federal Funding for State Behavioral Safety Programs 29 

Appendix III The Transfer Provisions Encourage Changes in State 

Laws 31 

Tables 

Table 1: Highway Safety Incentive Grant Programs 6

Table 2: State Use of Highway Safety Incentive Funds, Fiscal Years 

1998 through 2002 17

Table 3: Changes in State Compliance with Federal Open Container 

and Repeat Offender Requirements 31

Table 4: States’ Compliance with Alcohol Transfer Laws as of 

October 1, 2002 32

Figures 

Figure 1: Rate of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001 3

Figure 2: State and Community Grants Program Funding, Fiscal 

Years 1967 through 2002 5

Figure 3: Number of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001 9

Figure 4: Rate of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001 10

Figure 5: Number of Traffic Crashes, 1988 through 2001 11

Contents 
Page ii GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Figure 6: Number of Alcohol-Related Fatalities, 1982 through 2001 12

Figure 7: Rate of Alcohol-Related Fatalities, 1982 through 2001 13

Figure 8: NHTSA Highway Safety Funding to States, Fiscal Years 

1998 through 2002 14

Figure 9: Uses of State and Community Grants Funds, Fiscal Years 

1998 through 2002 16

Figure 10: State Allocations of Transfer Funds, Fiscal Years 2001 

and 2002 18

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. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product. 
Page 1 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

April 21, 2003 

The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan 

Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Competition, 

 Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

United States Senate 

Dear Senator Dorgan: 

Over the last 25 years, more than 1.2 million people have died as a result of 

traffic crashes in the United States. Since 1982, about 40 percent of traffic 

deaths were from alcohol-related crashes. In addition, traffic crashes are 

the leading cause of death for people aged 4 through 33. In 2000 alone, the 

economic cost of fatalities and injuries from crashes totaled almost $231 

billion, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

To improve safety on the nation’s highways, the Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178, 1998) authorized a number of highway 

safety programs. Specifically, the act reauthorized the core federally 

funded highway safety program, Section 402 State and Community Grant 

Program. This program, authorized in 1966, uses a formula based on 

population and road mileage to make grants available for each state to 

carry out traffic safety programs designed to influence drivers’ behavior, 

commonly called behavioral safety programs. In addition, the act 

authorized seven other grant programs that provide incentive funding to 

encourage safety through the use of seat belts and child passenger seats 

and through efforts to prevent drinking and driving. Finally, a 1998 

amendment to the act established two new penalty requirements to reduce 

the number of alcohol-related fatalities associated with repeat drunkdriving offenders and open alcoholic beverage containers in motor 

vehicles. Beginning in 2000, states that failed to adopt these requirements 

were penalized by having a portion of their federal highway construction 

funds transferred to highway safety programs. The National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration oversees the states’ highway safety 

programs; and, in 1998, it adopted a performance-based approach to 

oversight, under which the states set their own highway safety goals and 

targets and the agency’s 10 regional offices provide assistance to and 

oversight of the states to help them reach those goals. 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

You asked us to (1) provide information on trends in highway safety and 

how alcohol contributes to these statistics, (2) provide information on 

how much funding the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

made available to the states for highway safety programs and how states 

have used these funds, and (3) review the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s oversight of the states’ highway safety programs. 

To analyze highway fatality statistics, we used data from 1975 through 

2001, the most recent year for which data are available from the agency’s 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System, the national database on fatal traffic 

accidents. In addition, for information on crashes and alcohol-related 

fatalities, we used data that started to be collected in 1988 and 1982, 

respectively. To provide information on available funding and its uses, we 

obtained and analyzed data from the agency and visited six states that 

accounted for a large amount (about 40 percent) of the funds transferred 

under the penalty provisions (California, Georgia, Missouri, New York, 

Ohio and Texas). We also used these states and visited the agency’s six 

regional offices that are responsible for them, to review the agency’s 

oversight of states’ programs. We also interviewed representatives of the 

Governors Highway Safety Association and other highway safety 

organizations to obtain their perspective on safety issues and program 

oversight. Appendix I provides additional details on our scope and 

methodology. 

The number of traffic fatalities has declined since the 1970s. Specifically, 

traffic fatalities dropped from a high of about 51,100 in 1979 to a low of 

about 39,300 in 1992. Since 1995, fatalities have been fairly constant with a 

slight increase, averaging about 41,900 per year. The slowing in the decline 

in fatalities-–as measured by the number of fatalities per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled—is shown in figure 1. Similarly, the number of 

alcohol-related fatalities declined from about 26,200 in 1982, when the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began tracking them, to 

about 17,400 in 2001. However, since 1992, declines in the number of 

alcohol-related fatalities have slowed, and these fatalities have also 

increased in 2000 and 2001. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Figure 1: Rate of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001 

About $2.0 billion has been provided to the states under the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended, for (1) the 

core Section 402 State and Community Safety Grants program, (2) seven 

incentive programs, and (3) two penalty transfer programs for fiscal years 

1998 through 2002. About $729 million of these funds supported the 

Section 402 program and were used for behavioral highway safety 

programs that addressed problems such as seat-belt use, alcohol-impaired 

driving, and speeding. The seven incentive programs accounted for about 

$936 million. Five of these incentive programs required all of their funds to 

be used for behavioral highway safety programs, and two of the incentive 

programs allowed their funds to be used for either highway safety 

programs or highway construction projects. Finally, in fiscal years 2001 

and 2002, about $361 million was transferred to safety programs from the 

states’ Federal-Aid Highway construction account in 34 states that did not 

meet federal requirements related to open container and repeat offender 

laws. The states that were subject to the transfer penalties could use these 

funds for either alcohol-related programs or for highway safety 

construction—specifically, for projects to eliminate roadway hazards. 

These states chose to allocate about 69 percent of the transfer funds to 

highway safety construction. 

Under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s performancebased oversight approach, each state sets its own safety performance 

goals and develops an annual safety plan that describes projects designed 

to achieve the goals. The agency’s 10 regional offices review the annual 

plans and provide technical assistance, advice, and comments. The 
Page 4 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

regional offices can also conduct management reviews of state highway 

safety programs. Management reviews generally involve sending a team to 

a state to review its performance, examine its projects, and determine that 

it is using funds in accordance with requirements. While the management 

reviews often identify problems with states’ highway safety programs that 

need correction, we found that the regional offices were inconsistent in 

conducting these reviews. This variation in the use of management 

reviews occurs because the agency’s guidance is not specific on when the 

reviews should be conducted. As a result, some regional offices conduct 

reviews every other year, while others conduct them only when requested 

by a state. In addition, when a state fails to make progress toward its 

highway safety performance goals, the agency requires the development 

and implementation of an improvement plan that identifies programs and 

activities the state and regional offices will undertake to address program 

weaknesses. We found that the regional offices have made limited and 

inconsistent use of improvement plans. For example, some states did not 

have improvement plans, even though their alcohol-related fatality rates 

have increased or their seat-belt use rates have declined. The National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not established clear criteria 

for using improvement plans. 

We are recommending that the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration provide more specific written guidance to the regional 

offices on when it is appropriate to use management reviews and 

improvement plans to assist states in their safety programs. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration agreed with our recommendation and stated that it had 

begun the process to develop this guidance. 

The behavioral safety programs authorized by the Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) attempt to improve highway safety by 

reducing the frequency and seriousness of crashes and by mitigating the 

consequences of crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), within the Department of Transportation, 

provides oversight of state highway safety programs. 

The Section 402 State and Community Grants program is the core safety 

grants program that was authorized in 1966. It is highly flexible, allowing 

the states to use funds for a wide variety of highway safety projects, 

including projects to reduce alcohol-impaired driving, increase seat-belt 

use, develop regional traffic safety initiatives, improve traffic records and 

Background 

Core Safety Program 
Page 5 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

safety data, and improve pedestrian safety, among other projects. As 

shown in figure 2, the funding for this program reached a high of over $450 

million in 1978, in 2002 dollars. Since 1991, program funding has remained 

relatively stable at about $150 million a year, in 2002 dollars. 

Figure 2: State and Community Grants Program Funding, Fiscal Years 1967 through 

2002 

Besides reauthorizing the Section 402 program, TEA-21 authorized seven 

new incentive grant programs that provide funds to encourage states to 

increase seat-belt use, reduce alcohol-impaired driving, and improve 

highway safety data. States must meet certain requirements to qualify for 

these incentive grants and generally must apply for them. Table 1 provides 

information on the seven safety incentive grant programs. 

Incentive Grant Programs 
Page 6 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Table 1: Highway Safety Incentive Grant Programs 

Incentive 

category Title of incentive Description of incentive 

Section 157 Safety Incentive 

Grants for the Use of Seat 

Belts 

Creates incentive grants to states to improve seat-belt use rates. A state may use 

these funds for any highway safety or construction program. The act authorized 

$500 million over 5 years. 

Section 157 Safety Innovative 

Grants for Increasing SeatBelt Use Rates 

Provides that unallocated Section 157 incentive funds be allocated to states to 

carry out innovative projects to improve seat-belt use. 

Section 405 Occupant 

Protection Incentive Grant 

Creates an incentive grant program to increase seat belt and child safety-seat use. 

A state may use these funds only to implement occupant protection programs. The 

act authorized $68 million over 5 years. 

Seat Belt/ 

Occupant 

Protection 

Incentives 

Section 2003(b) Child 

Passenger Protection 

Education Grants 

Creates a program designed to prevent deaths and injuries to children, educate 

the public on child restraints, and train safety personnel on child restraint use. The 

act authorized $15 million over 2 years for Section 2003(b). However, the 

Congress appropriated funds to support the program for 2 additional years. 

Section 163 Safety Incentives 

to Prevent the Operation of 

Motor Vehicles by Intoxicated 

Persons 

Provides grants to states that have enacted and are enforcing laws stating that a 

person with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or higher while operating 

a motor vehicle has committed a per se driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) offense. A 

state may use these funds for any highway safety or construction program. The act 

provides $500 million over 6 years for the program. 

Alcohol 

Incentives 

Section 410 Alcohol Impaired 

Driving Countermeasures 

Revised an existing incentive program and provides grants to states that adopt or 

demonstrate specified programs, or to states that meet performance criteria 

showing reductions in fatalities involving impaired drivers. The act provides $219.5 

million over 6 years, which are to be used for impaired driving programs. 

Data Incentives Section 411 State Highway 

Safety Data Improvements 

Provides incentive grants to states to improve the timeliness, accuracy, 

completeness, uniformity and accessibility of highway safety data. The act 

provides $32 million over 4 years. 

Source: GAO. 

To encourage states to enact stronger safety laws, TEA-21, as amended 

through the TEA-21 Restoration Act, established penalties for states that 

fail to enact laws implementing two new requirements set forth in the act. 

Under Section 154, a state must have a law prohibiting the possession of 

any open alcoholic beverage container, or consumption of any alcoholic 

beverage, in the passenger compartment of any motor vehicle on a public 

highway or right of way. Under Section 164, a state must have a repeat 

intoxicated driver law that provides for, among other things, a 1-year 

license suspension for the second offense; the impoundment, 

immobilization, or installation of an ignition interlock on all the offender’s 

vehicles; an assessment of the individual’s degree of alcohol abuse and 

appropriate treatment; and specified minimum jail or community service 

sentences. States that do not meet either the open container or the repeat 

offender requirement will have a percentage of funds transferred from 

their Federal-Aid Highway program to their Section 402 State and 

Community Grants program. States may use the transferred funds for 

alcohol-related behavioral programs, such as information programs 

Penalty Transfer Programs 
Page 7 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

designed to reduce drunk driving, or they may allocate funds back to the 

Federal-Aid Highway program where they are to be used for highway 

construction projects that address safety concerns, which could include 

almost any kind of unsafe road or bridge condition. Every year NHTSA’s 

Chief Counsel assesses the states to determine which states are in 

compliance with the open container and repeat offender requirements. 

NHTSA oversees the state highway safety programs through its 10 regional 

offices, which administer the grants to the states. The regions’ emphasis is 

on providing the states with technical assistance. NHTSA regions also 

provide training programs for state safety officials and work with the 

states to encourage them to participate in programs that have been shown 

to be successful, such as “Click-It-or-Ticket” seat-belt use programs and 

increased enforcement. According to NHTSA officials, this has resulted in 

improvement in the area of seat-belt use. However, the regions do not 

require the states to adopt particular programs.1

In 1998, NHTSA adopted a “performance-based” approach to its oversight 

of highway safety programs. Under this approach, a state develops an 

annual performance plan that establishes traffic safety goals and 

performance measures. In addition, the performance plan must describe 

the process the state used to identify problems, establish goals, and select 

projects. Based on the performance plan, the state prepares an annual 

highway safety plan, which identifies projects to be funded that address 

the state’s goals. In addition, at the end of the year, the state is required to 

prepare an annual report that describes (1) the state’s progress in meeting 

its highway safety goals, using the measures identified in its performance 

plan and (2) the contribution of funded projects to meeting the state’s 

highway safety goals. Under the performance-based approach, NHTSA 

does not approve the state’s highway safety plan or projects. Instead, it 

focuses on whether the state is achieving the goals it set for itself in its 

plans. However, if the state is not making progress toward meeting its 

goals, NHTSA regulations state that the NHTSA region and the state 

should develop an improvement plan to address the shortcomings. 

 1

Click-It-or-Ticket is a highway safety program that uses increased enforcement along with 

a media campaign to encourage seat-belt use. 

NHTSA’s Oversight of State 

Highway Safety Programs 
Page 8 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

In addition to NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

another Department of Transportation agency, funds and oversees 

projects designed to improve safety. For example, FHWA’s Hazard 

Elimination program provides funds for construction-related safety 

improvements on any public road, public surface transportation facility, or 

publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, including such 

items as traffic signals, sight distance improvements, pavement and 

shoulder widening, and guardrail and barrier improvements. States that 

are subject to the penalty transfer requirements may choose to use some 

or all of those funds for safety construction projects under the Hazard 

Elimination program. 

The number of traffic fatalities has declined since the 1970s. Specifically, 

annual traffic fatalities have gone from a high of 51,093 in 1979 to a low of 

39,250 in 1992.2

 Since 1995, the number of annual fatalities has increased, 

averaging about 41,900. (See fig. 3.)3

 2

Traffic Safety Facts 2001, NHTSA. December 2002. These are the most recent available 

data. 

3

In commenting on a draft of this report, NHTSA officials noted that between 1997 and 2001 

motorcycle fatalities increased by 1,065, which contributed to the overall increase in 

highway fatalities. 

Other Highway Safety 

Construction Funding 

Trends in Highway 

Safety 
Page 9 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Figure 3: Number of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001 

From 1975 through 2001, traffic fatality rates—fatalities per 100 million 

miles traveled—dropped by more than half; but since 1992, the rate of 

decline has slowed.4 In 1979, the nationwide fatality rate peaked at 3.3 

deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). By 1992, the fatality 

rate had declined to 1.8 deaths per 100 million VMT. Subsequently, fatality 

rates continued to decline, but at a slower pace, reaching 1.5 deaths per 

100 million VMT in 2001. (See fig. 4.) 

 4

Fatality rates, which are generally reported as the number of deaths per 100 million VMT, 

provide a consistent measure of highway fatalities and are appropriate for making year-toyear comparisons. The primary source of uncertainty in estimating fatality rates is the 

number of vehicle miles traveled. These data are subject to sampling errors whose 

magnitude depends on how well 4,000 continuous traffic-counting locations represent 

nationwide traffic rates. The data are also subject to estimating differences between the 

states, though FHWA works to minimize such differences. 
Page 10 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Figure 4: Rate of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001 

From 1988, when NHTSA began collecting these data, through 2001, trends 

in the number of highway crashes generally parallel trends in the number 

of highway fatalities—declining until 1992, then rising somewhat. 

Throughout this period, according to NHTSA’s data, the annual number of 

crashes has ranged from about 6.0 million to 6.9 million. About 6.3 million 

crashes occurred in 2001. (See fig. 5.) The severity of crashes has 

remained consistent: about two-thirds involve property damage only and 

one-third involve injuries. Only a small fraction of crashes—0.6 percent—

are fatal. According to analysts, highway crashes are typically the result of 

a complex combination of factors, including human behavior, the roadway 

environment, and the vehicle. Of these, human behavior, including 

speeding, violating laws, alcohol or drug impairment, inattention, and 

decision errors, most often contribute to highway crashes.5

 5

We discuss factors contributing to highway crashes in more detail in another report, see 

U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Safety: Research Continues on a Variety of 

Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes, (GAO-03-436, Mar. 31, 2003). 
Page 11 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Figure 5: Number of Traffic Crashes, 1988 through 2001 

Alcohol-related crashes account for a large portion of traffic fatalities.6

Between 1982, when NHTSA began tracking alcohol-related fatalities, and 

2001, over 400,000 people died in alcohol-related crashes. In 1982, NHTSA 

reported 26,173 alcohol-related deaths, representing 59.6 percent of all 

traffic fatalities. Alcohol-related fatalities declined to 39.7 percent of all 

traffic fatalities in 1999, but rose to 17,448—41.4 percent of fatalities—by 

2001. (See fig. 6.) Blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of 0.08 or greater 

were reported for 85.6 percent of the 17,448 alcohol-related fatalities in 

2001. 

 6

Alcohol-related fatalities represent crash victims killed with BAC at any level above 0.01. 

At this concentration, a person’s blood contains 1 one-hundredth of 1 percent alcohol. 
Page 12 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Figure 6: Number of Alcohol-Related Fatalities, 1982 through 2001 

As figure 7 shows, alcohol-related fatality rates declined steadily (except 

in 1986) from 1982 through 1997. However, there has been almost no 

further decline in rates since 1997, when the rate was 0.65 fatalities per 100 

million VMT. In 2001, the rate was 0.63 fatalities per 100 million VMT. 
Page 13 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Figure 7: Rate of Alcohol-Related Fatalities, 1982 through 2001 

In commenting on a draft of this report, NHTSA noted that the easiest 

changes in driver behavior have been made. The challenge now is to reach 

those whose behavior is the most difficult to change. For example, seatbelt use in the United States has reached 75 percent—an all-time high. All 

50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have child passenger 

safety laws, and 49 states have adult safety belt laws in effect. NHTSA 

estimates that approximately 8.5 percent of nonsafety belt users convert to 

being regular belt users each year. Continuing to convert this percentage 

each year becomes increasingly difficult because as the conversion occurs, 

the hard-core nonusers become a higher proportion of the remaining 

nonusers. Likewise, NHTSA noted that the problem with drunk driving is 

increasingly one that involves persons with severe alcohol abuse 

problems. 

About $2.0 billion has been provided to the states for highway safety 

programs under TEA-21 for the core Section 402 State and Community 

Safety Grants program, seven incentive programs, and two penalty 

transfer programs from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002. The 

Section 402 State and Community Grants program received about $729 

million, the seven incentive programs received about $936 million, and the 

penalty transfer programs received $361 million. States could use funds 

from two of the incentive programs for highway construction and funds 

from the two penalty transfers for the Federal-Aid Highway Hazard 

States Used Increased 

Safety Funding to 

Support Behavioral 

and Construction 

Programs 
Page 14 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Elimination program. As a result, states allocated about $147 million of the 

incentive funds to construction and $248 million of the transfer funds to 

Hazard Elimination. Figure 8 shows the funding associated with TEA-21 

highway safety programs and the split between behavioral programs and 

highway construction. 

Figure 8: NHTSA Highway Safety Funding to States, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2002 

While overall highway safety funding has grown, the actual increases by 

state vary widely. For example, the highway safety funding for Kansas, 

which was not subject to any penalty transfers, grew by 1.7 percent and 

stayed at about $5.2 million annually from 1998 through 2001, while the 

highway safety funding for Montana, which was subject to both transfer 

penalties, grew by over 480 percent from $0.9 million to $5.4 million, over 

this period. (See app. II for a breakdown of total federal funding to states 

for NHTSA highway safety programs.) 

Funding for the core Section 402 State and Community Grants program 

has been fairly level, in constant dollars, since 1991. These funds could be 

used for a variety of programs in a number of major Section 402 program 

categories, as follows: 

Funding for Section 402 

Program Remained Level 

and Was Used to Support 

Many Behavioral Activities 
Page 15 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

• Police Traffic Services – Grants support police agency enforcement 

projects, education, and training. Uses include projects to educate the 

public and enforce laws about driving while impaired, speeding, and seatbelt use. 

• Impaired Driving – Grants support programs to reduce alcohol--or other 

drug-impaired driving. Uses include enforcement, public education, drug 

recognition training, and training for prosecutors and judges. Prevention 

training may also target youth, educators, alcoholic beverage servers, and 

liquor sales clerks. 

• Seat Belts – Grants support increased use of seat belts and child safety 

seats. Funds can be used for such purposes as enforcement of seat-belt 

laws, public education on the importance and use of safety restraints, and 

proper installation of child safety seats. 

• Community Safety Programs – Grants support safety or injury control 

programs. Programs include regional traffic safety programs and safe 

community programs that take an organized approach to addressing 

community injury problems. 

• Planning and Administration – States may use up to 10 percent of their 

Section 402 funds for salaries, travel, equipment, and other expenses 

necessary to carry out state highway safety office functions. 

• Traffic Records – Grants support state or local safety records, including 

data on crashes, drivers, vehicles, roadways, citations, convictions, and 

emergency medical services. Data systems support problem identification, 

analysis, and countermeasure evaluation. 

• Other – Grants can support many other highway safety topics, including 

roadway safety, pedestrian safety, emergency medical services, speed 

control, driver education, motorcycle safety, school bus safety, and paid 

advertising to support Section 402 programs. 

Four major program categories account for most of the states’ use of the 

$729 million in Section 402 State and Community Grants funds provided 

between 1998 and 2002: police traffic services, impaired driving, seat belts, 

and community safety programs. Combined, these four categories account 

for about 72 percent of the grant funds. Figure 9 shows how the states 

used their Section 402 State and Community Grants funds during the 5-

year period covered by TEA-21. 
Page 16 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Figure 9: Uses of State and Community Grants Funds, Fiscal Years 1998 through 

2002 

Note: “Other” includes roadway safety, pedestrian safety, emergency medical services, speed control, 

driver education, paid advertising, and motorcycle safety. 

The seven incentive programs under TEA-21 also provide funds to 

encourage greater seat-belt use, implement programs or requirements to 

reduce drunk driving, and improve state highway safety data. The funding 

available for these programs grew from $83.5 million in 1998 to $257.2 

million in 2002. While most of these funds were used for funding additional 

behavioral safety programs, the act provided that two programs, the 0.08 

percent BAC Incentive (Section 163) and the Seat Belt Use Incentive 

(Section 157) could be used for any highway purpose—highway 

construction, construction that remedied safety concerns, or behavioral 

safety programs. Table 2 provides information on total funding for 

incentive programs and the split between behavioral program use and 

construction. 

States Had Flexibility in 

Using Incentive Grant 

Program Funds 
Page 17 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Table 2: State Use of Highway Safety Incentive Funds, Fiscal Years 1998 through 

2002 

 (Dollars in millions) 

Incentive 

Behavioral 

program 

funding 

Construction 

program funding 

Total 

funding

Alcohol 

 Section 163 - .08 BAC $226.0 $117.3 $343.2

 Section 410 - Impaired Driving $166.3 $166.3

Occupant Protection 

 Section 157 - Seat Belt Use $179.9 $ 29.8 $209.7

 Section 157 Innovative - Seat Belt Use $112.0 $112.0

 Section 2003(b) – Child Occupant 

Protection $ 22.4 $ 22.4

 Section 405 – Occupant Protection $ 45.6 $ 45.6

Data Improvement $ 36.3 $ 36.3

Total $788.6 $147.0 $935.6

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. 

Note: Figures may not add due to rounding. 

The states that did not meet either the open container or the repeat 

offender requirements had a percentage of funds (now 3 percent for each 

requirement not satisfied) transferred from their Federal-Aid Highway 

construction program to their Section 402 State and Community Grants 

program.7

 During fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the first 2 years that funds 

have been transferred, 34 states were subject to one or both of the penalty 

provisions, and about $361 million was transferred from these states’ 

Federal-Aid Highway Program funding. Appendix III shows how state 

compliance has changed over time. 

While states may choose to keep transferred funds in the NHTSA Section 

402 State and Community Grants program where they are to be used to 

support alcohol-related programs, they also may choose to allocate 

transferred funds to highway construction projects under the FHWA 

Hazard Elimination Program. As shown in figure 10, the states varied 

greatly in their decisions on how to use these funds, from allocating 100 

 7

For the first 2 years, the transfer penalty was 1.5 percent of the funds apportioned to the 

state’s National Highway System, Surface Transportation Program, and Interstate 

Maintenance funding, for each transfer penalty. This amount rose to 3 percent for each 

transfer penalty in October 2002. 

Penalty Transfers 

Increased Funding for 

Behavioral Programs and 

Safety Construction 

Projects 
Page 18 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

percent of the funds to construction projects to allocating 100 percent of 

the funds to behavioral projects. Overall, the states allocated about 69 

percent to highway safety construction projects under the FHWA Hazard 

Elimination program, and 31 percent went to highway safety behavioral 

programs. Twenty-eight of the 34 states with transferred funds allocated a 

majority to construction activities under the Hazard Elimination program. 

Figure 10: State Allocations of Transfer Funds, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 

The six states we visited—California, Georgia, Missouri, New York, Ohio 

and Texas—used the transfer funds in a variety of ways. 

• California, which did not meet all the federal requirements for repeat 

offenders, had $39.5 million transferred in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. In 

fiscal year 2001, all of the transfer funds, $19.4 million, went to the 

highway construction Hazard Elimination program, where they were used 

for a project involving the construction of a truck lane on Interstate 15 in 

San Bernardino County. California officials said that there had been a 

large backlog of hazard elimination projects that could readily use the 

funds. In fiscal year 2002, a majority of the funds, $14.3 million out of $20.1 

million, were used for behavioral safety programs under the Section 402 

State and Community Grants program. These programs funded such 

activities as a regional task force to crack down on drunk driving in Los 

Angeles County, training for prosecutors, the use of county probation 
Page 19 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

officers to enforce court orders affecting repeat drunk driving offenders, 

and the creation of a special speeding and drunk driving unit in the 

Stockton Police Department. The $5.8 million transferred in 2002 to the 

highway construction Hazard Elimination program was used for a median 

barrier project along Interstate 5 in San Joaquin County and a barrier 

guardrail project along route 160 in Sacramento County. 

• Georgia was subject to both transfers for fiscal year 2001, amounting to 

$16.6 million. It allocated about $9 million of the transfer funds to the 

highway construction Hazard Elimination program, primarily to improve 

the state’s highway safety data collection system, which had experienced 

severe problems. According to Georgia officials, the rollout of a new 

highway safety data collection system had failed, and the state was not 

able to collect crash data for a time. The transfer funds enabled the state 

to correct this problem. Additional Hazard Elimination projects included 

red light running technology, guardrail delineators, and deer accident 

prevention measures. All the remaining $8 million went to behavioral 

programs, primarily to law enforcement organizations for drunk driving 

prevention programs. Georgia subsequently passed new laws that met the 

federal requirements for open containers and repeat offenders and was 

not subject to either penalty in fiscal year 2002. 

• Missouri was subject to both transfers in fiscal year 2001 and allocated the 

entire $10.4 million to Section 402 alcohol-related behavioral programs. 

The state used these funds to, for example, purchase specialized bloodalcohol testing vans and improve the collection of highway safety data. In 

fiscal year 2002, Missouri was subject to only the open container transfer 

and allocated almost all its $5.3 million transfer to the highway 

construction Hazard Elimination program for such activities as traffic 

signals, grading, and paving to improve intersections. 

• New York was subject to the repeat offender penalty transfers for fiscal 

years 2001 and 2002 and transferred a total of about $15.9 million. New 

York, which is able to supplement federal highway safety funds with state 

funds derived from driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) fines, decided to put 

all the transfer funds into the Hazard Elimination program. New York 

safety officials said that given the state’s high level of support for highway 

safety behavioral activities, there was no great need to allocate these funds 

to alcohol-related behavioral programs. Initially, the state was going to use 

the transfer funds for several Hazard Elimination projects, but when these 

projects were delayed, state officials decided to allocate all of the transfer 

funds to safety aspects of a single bridge project. 
Page 20 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

• Ohio was subject to the repeat offender transfer in both fiscal years 2001 

and 2002. Of a total of $15.6 million transferred, the state allocated $14.8 

million to the highway construction Hazard Elimination program for seven 

projects. The remaining $800,000 was used for alcohol-related behavioral 

programs, such as education programs for high school students, drunk 

driving task forces, and training for alcohol servers and sales clerks. 

• Texas had both open container and repeat offender transfers in fiscal year 

2001, totaling $37 million. Of this amount, $33.6 million was allocated to 

the highway construction Hazard Elimination program and about $3.4 

million went to alcohol-related behavioral programs. According to Texas 

highway safety officials, the state legislature was interested in maximizing 

funding for highway construction, so the state allocated the funds to 

Hazard Elimination. Also, because the transfer funds were taken from 

construction categories, the state officials said it was appropriate for the 

majority of the funds to be used for safety construction improvements. 

Texas set up a special $10 million Interstate median barrier program and a 

$15 million road shoulder rumble strip program with the transfer funds, 

along with increasing the state’s regular Hazard Elimination program 

funding, allowing additional safety improvement projects to be 

constructed. Texas subsequently adopted open container and repeat 

offender laws and was not subject to any transfers in fiscal year 2002. 

Under its performance-based approach to overseeing state highway safety 

programs, NHTSA has focused on providing advice, training, and technical 

assistance to the states, which are responsible for setting and achieving 

their highway safety goals. In addition, NHTSA has three oversight tools to 

help it ensure that states’ programs are operating within guidelines and are 

achieving desired results—management reviews, improvement plans, and 

high-risk designations. However, NHTSA has made inconsistent use of the 

management reviews and limited use of the improvement plans because 

guidance provided to the regions is not specific on when to use them. 

While two U.S. territories are under a high-risk designation, NHTSA and 

regional office officials did not identify any states that were candidates for 

high-risk status. 

NHTSA regions can conduct management reviews to help improve and 

enhance the financial and operational management of the state programs. 

In conducting these reviews, a team of NHTSA regional staff visit the state 

and examine such items as its organization and staffing, program 

management, financial management, and selected programs like impaired 

NHTSA Makes 

Inconsistent and 

Limited Use of 

Oversight Tools 

NHTSA Regional Offices 

Have Made Inconsistent 

Use of Management 

Reviews 
Page 21 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

driving, occupant protection, public information and education, and 

outreach. The resulting report will comment on state activities and may 

make recommendations for improvement. 

NHTSA has no written guidance on when to perform management reviews. 

We found that the management reviews were not being conducted 

consistently. For example, in the six NHTSA regions we visited, we found 

goals of conducting management reviews every 2 years, on no set 

schedule, and only when requested by a state. 

While NHTSA does not require management reviews, the officials that 

regularly conduct such reviews told us they do them because they find 

them beneficial in surfacing problems. For example, management reviews 

completed in 2001 and 2002 identified weaknesses in states’ processes, 

systems, and practices that, if not addressed, could lead to inefficient or 

unauthorized uses of federal funds. These weaknesses included 

• states’ inadequate monitoring of subgrantees, 

• a lack of coordination in state alcohol program planning, 

• the inability of a state to identify how its matching funds requirement was 

being met, 

• the lack of a state computerized system to track grant expenditures or 

equipment purchased with federal funds, 

• costs incurred after a grant was over, 

• improper cash advances by the state to subgrantees, and 

• large unexpended balances of program funds. 

Some regional officials also saw management reviews as a vehicle to help 

keep them involved in the states’ programs and as a means of helping 

NHTSA build productive partnerships with the states. They noted that 

state highway safety personnel change over time and new staff may not be 

familiar with federal requirements. Regional officials said that some states 

have requested the reviews to assist them in their programs. For example, 

the new state highway safety program directors in California and Missouri 

requested the reviews to help identify problems they needed to address. 

Officials from the region that conducted the reviews only when requested 

by a state told us that they did not regularly do the reviews because they 

thought such efforts could hurt their relations with the states. 
Page 22 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

According to Section 402 program regulations, if a NHTSA regional office 

finds that a state is not making progress toward its highway safety goals, 

NHTSA and the state are to develop an improvement plan to address the 

shortcomings. NHTSA officials emphasized that improvement plans are 

not intended as punitive actions; rather, they are collaborative efforts 

between NHTSA and a state to develop an effective state safety program. 

The regulations call for the plan to detail strategies, program activities, 

and funding targets to meet the defined goals. For example, NHTSA, 

working with one state, developed an improvement plan that identified 

specific actions that NHTSA and the state would accomplish to improve 

alcohol-related highway safety. The plan included such actions as 

implementing a judicial education program, requiring all police officers 

working on impaired driving enforcement to be adequately trained in field 

sobriety testing, and developing a statewide DWI violation tracking 

system. 

NHTSA regional offices have made limited use of improvement plans to 

help address the states’ highway safety performance. Since the 

performance-based approach began in 1998, NHTSA and the states have 

developed 7 improvement plans in 3 of the 10 NHTSA regions. Of these 

plans, four focus on alcohol-related issues, two involve seat-belt usage, 

and one addresses overall program management.8

NHTSA regional offices have also made inconsistent use of improvement 

plans. We found that the highway safety performance of a number of 

states that were not operating under improvement plans was worse than 

the performance of other states that were operating under such plans. For 

example, we compared the performance of the three states that had 

developed improvement plans for alcohol-related problems with the 

performance of other states. Using 1997, the year before the performancebased approach was uniformly implemented, as a baseline year, we found 

that for 14 states, the rate of alcohol-related fatalities increased from 1997 

through 2001, and that for 7 of these states, the state alcohol-related 

fatality rate also exceeded the national rate in 2001. One of these seven 

states was on an improvement plan. Furthermore, for one state that was 

not on an improvement plan, the alcohol-related fatality rate for 2001 was 

 8

The seven improvement plans include one that NHTSA developed with the Department of 

the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs for a tribe, rather than a state. The Bureau of Indian 

Affairs receives Section 402 funds. 

NHTSA Regional Offices 

Have Made Limited and 

Inconsistent Use of 

Improvement Plans 
Page 23 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

about double the national average and grew by over 40 percent from 1997 

through 2001. 

Similarly, the performance of a number of states that were not operating 

under improvement plans to increase seat-belt usage was worse than the 

performance of the two states that were operating under such plans. We 

found that the rate of seat-belt usage varied widely by state, from a low of 

about 52 percent to a high of over 91 percent in 2001. In addition, the rate 

of change from 1997 through 2001 ranged from 6 percent less use to 27 

percent more use. We found that the seat-belt usage rates for the two 

states that were on improvement plans were about 55 percent and 68 

percent in 2001; however, the seat-belt usage rates for 16 other states were 

worse than the rate for 1 of these states. 

The limited and inconsistent use of improvement plans is due to a lack of 

specificity in criteria for requiring such plans. NHTSA’s guidance says 

simply that these plans should be developed when a state is not making 

progress toward its highway safety goals. Without a consistent means of 

measuring progress, NHTSA and state officials lack common expectations 

about how to define progress, how long states should have to demonstrate 

progress, and how the goals should be set and measured. NHTSA officials 

said that while all regions were not using improvement plans, they were 

reviewing the states’ performance and making recommendations for state 

action. 

NHTSA officials told us that while some regional offices may not be doing 

improvement plans, they periodically assess state performance and make 

recommendations for state action. In addition, they pointed out that some 

regions believe that it would not be productive to put a state on an 

improvement plan if it has been implementing programs NHTSA has 

recommended it adopt. 

If NHTSA finds a state not in compliance with federal law, it can designate 

the state’s program as high-risk—a more stringent and rarely used NHTSA 

oversight tool. NHTSA may place a program in high-risk status if it 

determines that the state has a history of unsatisfactory performance, is 

not financially stable, lacks a management system that meets standards, 

has not conformed to the conditions of previous grants, or is otherwise not 

responsible. Once placed in high-risk status, a state may be subject to a 

number of special restrictions—withholding the authority to proceed with 

projects; additional financial reporting, monitoring, or prior approvals of 

spending; or special management or technical assistance. Currently, 

NHTSA Has Designated 

Two U.S. Territories as 

High Risk 
Page 24 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

NHTSA has not designated any states as high risk; however, two U.S. 

territories that receive Section 402 funds are operating under high-risk 

status. None of the officials with whom we spoke from the six regional 

offices we visited or from NHTSA headquarters identified concerns about 

state programs that would warrant a high-risk designation. 

Under NHTSA’s performance-based approach to overseeing highway 

safety programs, the states and the federal government are to work 

together to make the nation’s highways safer. The agency’s management 

reviews and improvement plans create opportunities for NHTSA to help 

the states improve and enhance the financial and operational management 

of their highway safety programs and make progress toward their highway 

safety goals. Because the agency has not provided specific guidance on 

when these oversight tools should be used, they are not being used 

consistently. As a result, NHTSA’s oversight of highway safety programs is 

less effective than it could be, both in ensuring the efficient and proper use 

of federal funds and in helping the states achieve their highway safety 

goals. 

The NHTSA regions that conduct management reviews regularly have 

found them beneficial, both for identifying weaknesses in states’ 

processes, systems, and practices and for keeping the regions involved in 

productive relationships with the states. Consequently, the regions that do 

conduct the reviews have been able to work with the states to correct 

vulnerabilities that, if uncorrected, could lead to inefficient or improper 

uses of federal safety program funds. These regions’ ongoing involvement 

with the states also creates opportunities for sharing and encouraging the 

implementation of best practices, which may then lead to more effective 

safety programs and projects. 

Although NHTSA’s guidance for developing improvement plans indicates 

that the plans should be used when the states are making little or no 

progress toward their performance goals, the guidance does not establish 

a consistent means of measuring progress. As a result, some states do not 

have improvement plans, even though their alcohol-related fatality rates 

have increased or their seat-belt usage rates have declined. Without 

improvement plans, NHTSA‘s efforts to work with the states may not be 

fully realized. Moreover, without a consistent means of measuring 

progress, neither NHTSA nor the states have common expectations about 

when improvement plans should be used to help states meet their highway 

safety goals. 

Conclusions 
Page 25 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

To help ensure more consistent use of management reviews and 

improvement plans, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation 

direct the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

to provide more specific guidance to the regional offices on when it is 

appropriate to use management reviews and improvement plans to assist 

states with their safety programs. The guidance for using improvement 

plans should include a consistent means of measuring progress toward 

meeting established highway safety goals. 

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of 

Transportation for its review and comment. We met with Department 

officials, specifically, the Acting Senior Associate Administrator for Traffic 

Injury Control and Chief of Injury Control Operations and Resources, 

Program Support Division—to discuss their comments. The officials 

agreed with our recommendations and stated that they have begun taking 

action to develop criteria and guidance to field offices on the use of 

management reviews and improvement plans. In addition, they 

emphasized that over a longer historical perspective, traffic safety has 

greatly improved and the recent increase in alcohol-related fatalities is 

slight. The officials also noted that with regard to alcohol-related fatalities, 

the problem of the “social drinker” has been reduced; and now they face 

the difficult problem of driving by persons with more severe alcohol 

abuse. Further, they suggested that some discussion of recent increases in 

seat-belt usage should be included in the report, along with the efforts the 

department has made in promoting successful programs. Finally, the 

officials noted that in moving to a performance-based approach to 

oversight, they were acting in response to congressional concerns and in 

the spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act. 

In response to the Department of Transportation comments, we have 

added information noting the challenges the department faces in achieving 

further improvements in highway safety. In addition, we have added 

information to the report on seat-belt use and its support of the “Click-Itor-Ticket” program. We also incorporated technical changes to the report 

suggested by the department, as appropriate. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to 

Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of NHTSA. We will also 

make copies available to others upon request. In addition, copies of this 

report will be available on our Web site at http//www.gao.gov. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 26 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

If you have questions about the report, please contact me at (202) 512-

2834. Key contributors to this report were Richard Calhoon, Robert 

Ciszewski, Bess Eisenstadt, Dedrick Roberts, and Glen Trochelman. 

Sincerely yours, 

Peter Guerrero 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 27 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

The Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce, and 

Infrastructure, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, asked us to (1) provide information on trends in highway 

safety and how alcohol contributes to these statistics, (2) provide 

information on how much funding the Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century (TEA-21) made available to the states for highway safety 

programs and how states have used these funds, and (3) review the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) oversight of 

the states’ highway safety programs. 

To provide information on trends in highway safety and alcohol’s 

contribution to these statistics, we reviewed NHTSA highway safety 

reports and analyzed NHTSA crash data. We included analyses of data on 

overall trends of fatalities and crashes, alcohol-related fatalities and 

crashes, and seat-belt use, which are usual measures in determining 

highway safety. 

To provide information on how much funding TEA-21 made available to 

the states for highway safety programs and how states have used these 

funds, we obtained data from NHTSA and state sources. NHTSA provided 

data on funding for (1) the Section 402 State and Community Grants 

program since its inception in 1967; (2) the seven incentive grant programs 

authorized under TEA-21 to supplement the Section 402 program by 

promoting vehicle occupant protection, discouraging impaired driving, and 

improving state safety data; and (3) the amounts transferred to highway 

safety programs in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 by the 34 states whose laws 

did not comply during those years with the act’s open container and repeat 

offender requirements. To obtain information on how the states used their 

Section 402 and alcohol transfer funds, we obtained NHTSA data 

summarizing how states spent their grant funds. For specific information 

on how states spent their transfer funds, we obtained data from six states 

that we visited: California, Georgia, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Texas. 

We selected these states to provide geographic coverage of six NHTSA 

regions and maximize the amount of transfer funds involved. The six 

states chosen were among the eight states that had the highest amount of 

alcohol transfers for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and in total accounted for 

about 40 percent of all transfer funds from the 34 states involved. In each 

selected state, we obtained data on alcohol transfer spending from the 

state offices responsible for allocating these funds—the traffic safety 

office for transfer funds that were allocated to alcohol programs and the 

highway safety office for funds that were programmed for hazard 

elimination projects. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 28 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

To review NHTSA’s oversight of the states’ highway safety programs, we 

interviewed NHTSA officials in the Office of Injury Control Operations and 

Resources and six NHTSA regional offices responsible for the states 

discussed above. We also discussed program oversight with state officials 

in our six sample states, and we reviewed state planning documents, 

improvement plans, and other state program documents from the six 

selected NHTSA regions. Furthermore, we interviewed officials of private 

organizations interested in highway traffic safety and NHTSA’s oversight 

of state highway traffic safety programs, including the Governor’s Highway 

Safety Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the National Safety 

Council, AAA (formerly the American Automobile Association), the AAA 

Foundation for Traffic Safety, and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic 

Safety. 

We performed our review from July 2002 through March 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Federal Funding for State 

Behavioral Safety Programs 

Page 29 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Dollars in millions 

State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Alabama $4.5 $4.5 $6.0 $5.8 $7.2 

Alaska $0.9 $0.9 $1.5 $3.3 $2.2 

Arizona $2.5 $3.6 $3.4 $6.6 $6.8 

Arkansas $2.1 $1.9 $2.8 $3.7 $5.6 

California $33.5 $52.3 $50.2 $50.6 $73.0 

Colorado $2.7 $3.1 $4.7 $3.8 $4.1 

Connecticut $1.9 $1.8 $4.0 $8.6 $9.4 

Delaware $0.7 $1.1 $1.3 $1.6 $2.5 

District of Columbia $0.9 $1.9 $2.1 $1.7 $2.2 

Florida $14.4 $15.3 $17.7 $17.0 $20.2 

Georgia $4.8 $6.4 $9.5 $19.2 $9.7 

Hawaii $1.7 $2.3 $2.7 $2.6 $2.7 

Idaho $1.9 $2.1 $2.1 $2.5 $2.2 

Illinois $11.2 $11.0 $13.6 $16.7 $15.9 

Indiana $4.1 $4.4 $7.0 $7.0 $9.8 

Iowa $2.7 $3.5 $3.9 $4.6 $7.4 

Kansas $5.1 $4.6 $5.4 $5.2 $5.2 

Kentucky $2.7 $2.4 $3.2 $5.9 $5.5 

Louisiana $2.3 $3.2 $4.4 $5.8 $4.5 

Maine $1.5 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $1.5 

Maryland $3.1 $3.8 $6.3 $9.7 $8.6 

Massachusetts $2.8 $3.1 $3.7 $10.9 $6.0 

Michigan $6.4 $6.9 $8.9 $9.7 $11.2 

Minnesota $4.0 $4.2 $4.8 $11.0 $9.4 

Mississippi $2.1 $2.1 $3.8 $4.2 $4.1 

Missouri $4.1 $4.5 $4.9 $15.5 $7.0 

Montana $0.9 $1.2 $1.4 $5.4 $5.4 

Nebraska $1.9 $2.1 $2.7 $3.7 $4.0 

Nevada $1.2 $1.5 $2.3 $2.0 $2.5 

New Hampshire $1.0 $1.0 $2.1 $1.8 $2.3 

New Jersey $4.3 $4.4 $6.3 $5.3 $9.5 

New Mexico $2.8 $3.7 $4.3 $6.2 $5.7 

New York $8.4 $14.4 $17.0 $17.1 $14.8 

North Carolina $8.4 $10.7 $12.7 $11.8 $11.6 

North Dakota $1.3 $1.2 $2.0 $2.4 $2.0 

Ohio $5.4 $8.8 $8.0 $9.9 $9.9 

Oklahoma $2.3 $4.0 $2.8 $3.4 $4.5 

Oregon $3.9 $5.7 $6.4 $5.3 $6.5 

Pennsylvania $7.8 $8.0 $10.0 $11.7 $10.2 

Appendix II: Federal Funding for State 

Behavioral Safety Programs 
Appendix II: Federal Funding for State 

Behavioral Safety Programs 

Page 30 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Dollars in millions 

State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Puerto Rico $1.6 $2.0 $2.6 $4.2 $6.0 

Rhode Island $0.7 $0.9 $1.4 $2.1 $1.8 

South Carolina $2.0 $2.7 $4.1 $5.3 $3.5 

South Dakota $1.0 $1.5 $1.0 $1.0 $1.4 

Tennessee $3.4 $3.6 $4.8 $10.4 $10.1 

Texas $11.9 $22.1 $18.8 $20.8 $16.6 

Utah $2.0 $2.4 $3.0 $2.9 $3.6 

Vermont $1.7 $1.9 $2.6 $3.0 $2.7 

Virginia $4.0 $5.8 $9.3 $8.7 $13.3 

Washington $3.7 $7.3 $6.7 $7.8 $7.0 

West Virginia $1.0 $1.3 $1.8 $2.0 $2.3 

Wisconsin $4.1 $3.9 $5.6 $8.8 $5.3 

Wyoming $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $1.6 $0.9 

State total $212.1 $275.3 $320.3 $399.6 $407.3 

Bureau of Indian Affairs $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.3 

American Samoa $0.4 $0.4 $0.6 $0.7 $0.6 

Guam $0.4 $0.4 $0.6 $0.4 $0.6 

Northern Marianas $0.4 $0.4 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 

Virgin Islands $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.6 $0.7 

Total $214.6 $278.0 $323.6 $403.0 $411.2 

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. 

Notes: State totals include funds for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Figures may not add 

because of rounding. 
Appendix III: The Transfer Provisions 

Encourage Changes in State Laws 

Page 31 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Since Congress enacted the penalty transfer provisions, the general trend 

in the states has been to enact legislation to bring state laws in 

conformance with the federal requirements. Some, but not all, states have 

changed their highway safety laws to conform to the federal provisions. In 

1998, prior to the passage of TEA-21, 14 states had conforming open 

container laws, 5 states had conforming repeat offender laws, and 3 states 

had both laws. (See table 3.) By the time of the first transfer penalty 

assessments in 2000, 31 states had conforming open container laws, 24 had 

conforming repeat offender laws, and 19 states had both laws. Currently, 

25 states are in conformance with both laws. 

Table 3: Changes in State Compliance with Federal Open Container and Repeat 

Offender Requirements 

1998 (TEA-21 

passed)

October 2000 

(First 

transfers 

applied)

October 2001 

(Second 

transfers 

applied) 

October 2002 

(Third 

transfers

applied)

States complying with 

open container 

requirement (Sec. 154) 14 31 35 37

States complying with 

repeat offender 

requirement (Sec. 164) 5 24 28 33

States complying with 

both requirements 3 19 23 25

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA and NHTSA data. 

Note: Table includes compliance status of all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

In the six states we visited, officials with whom we spoke differed in their 

assessment of the effectiveness of the transfer provisions. Some said that 

the provisions helped change state laws, while others thought that the 

transfers had little effect on their legislature. For example, Georgia safety 

officials said that the federal transfer provisions were crucial in the state 

debate over enactment of both open container and repeat offender laws. 

Likewise Texas safety officials told us they believed the transfer 

provisions were important in getting the state to enact both laws. Both 

Georgia and Texas were subject to both transfer penalties in 2001 but no 

transfers in 2002, as a result of legislative changes. However, New York 

safety officials told us that the transfer amounts were insufficient to 

generate interest in the state legislature and had no real effect on state 

policy. Instead, the transfer provisions had simply become a bureaucratic 

exercise for state administrators. Table 4 shows a state-by-state 

breakdown of transfer funds. 

Appendix III: The Transfer Provisions 

Encourage Changes in State Laws 
Appendix III: The Transfer Provisions 

Encourage Changes in State Laws 

Page 32 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Table 4: States’ Compliance with Alcohol Transfer Laws as of October 1, 2002 

Dollars in thousands 

Open container 

(Section 154) 

Repeat 

offender 

(Section 164) 

Amount 

transferred for 

fiscal years 2001 

and 2002a

State Yes No Yes No 

Alabama 3 3 

Alaska 3 3 $9,096 

Arizona 3 3 

Arkansas 3 3 $6,266 

California 3 3 $39,489 

Colorado 3 3 $6,600 

Connecticut 3 3 $9,608 

Delaware 3 3 $4,352 

District of Columbia 3 3 

Florida 3 3 

Georgia 3 3 $16,563 

Hawaii 3 3 

Idaho 3 3 

Illinois 3 3 $7,338 

Indiana 3 3 $11,979 

Iowa 3 3 $3,027 

Kansas 3 3 $2,907 

Kentucky 3 3 

Louisiana 3 3 $13,477 

Maine 3 3 

Maryland 3 3 $13,685 

Massachusetts 3 3 $10,299 

Michigan 3 3 

Minnesota 3 3 $7,885 

Mississippi 3 3 $6,093 

Missouri 3 3 $15,703 

Montana 3 3 $9,932 

Nebraska 3 3 

Nevada 3 3 

New Hampshire 3 3 

New Jersey 3 3 

New Mexico 3 3 $7,846 

New York 3 3 $15,846 
Appendix III: The Transfer Provisions 

Encourage Changes in State Laws 

Page 33 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

Dollars in thousands 

Open container 

(Section 154) 

Repeat 

offender 

(Section 164) 

Amount 

transferred for 

fiscal years 2001 

and 2002a

State Yes No Yes No 

North Carolina 3 3 

North Dakota 3 3 $3,700 

Ohio 3 3 $15,617 

Oklahoma 3 3 

Oregon 3 3 $5,784 

Pennsylvania 3 3 

Puerto Rico 3 3 $4,503 

Rhode Island 3 3 $2,222 

South Carolina 3 3 $8,050 

South Dakota 3 3 $3,696 

Tennessee 3 3 $20,275 

Texas 3 3 $37,030 

Utah 3 3 

Vermont 3 3 $4,237 

Virginia 3 3 $18,227 

Washington 3 3 

West Virginia 3 3 $6,779 

Wisconsin 3 3 $4,887 

Wyoming 3 3 $8,110 

Total 37 15 33 19 $361,106 

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data. 

Note: For each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, we present the total amount 

transferred for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the first 2 years the alcohol transfer provisions were in 

effect. 

a

Some states that were in compliance with both laws as of October 1, 2002, have transfer amounts 

because they were not in compliance with at least one of the laws before that date. 

NHTSA and some state officials cited rules limiting the advocacy actions 

of state officials as a barrier to getting more such laws passed. In the 

Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 

Congress expanded certain existing anti-lobbying restrictions covering the 

department and NHTSA to include state officials. The act generally 

prohibits the use of federal Department of Transportation funds to 

advocate or oppose state legislation and from “grass roots lobbying” 

campaigns that encourage third parties to advocate or oppose introduced 
Appendix III: The Transfer Provisions 

Encourage Changes in State Laws 

Page 34 GAO-03-474 Highway Safety Program Funding 

congressional or state legislation.1 As a result, some state highway safety 

officials that receive federal highway safety funds believe they are barred 

from lobbying their state legislatures to enact better highway safety laws. 

Some state officials told us that this means they cannot contact state 

legislative staff or members to discuss the advantages of taking actions to 

improve highway safety in the state. For example, they said they are 

prohibited from taking the initiative to discuss the merits of primary seatbelt laws that have been shown to save lives or to encourage the passage 

of the open container, repeat offender, or the 0.08 BAC laws the Congress 

supports, unless they are specifically asked to do so. The Governor’s 

Highway Safety Association believes that the current restrictions are an 

obstacle preventing states’ safety officials from lobbying on behalf of 

enacting state legislation that meets the federal open container and repeat 

offender requirements. However, safety officials from the states we visited 

differed in their assessment of the anti-lobbying provisions. Officials in 

California and Georgia considered the provisions a serious impediment 

that limited their ability to influence safety legislation. However, officials 

from New York, Ohio, Texas, and Missouri did not consider the antilobbying provisions to be a major impediment in their states. 

 1

The act does not prevent state officials from communicating with Congress or state 

legislatures if they are requested to do so. 

(545018) 
The General Accounting 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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

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. General Accounting 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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs