United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives 

TRAFFIC SAFETY

Improved Reporting 

and Performance 

Measures Would 

Enhance Evaluation of 

High-Visibility 

Campaigns 

April 2008 

 

GAO-08-477 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 2008

TRAFFIC SAFETY

Improved Reporting and Performance Measures

Would Enhance Evaluation of High-Visibility 

Highlights of GAO-08-477, a report to the Campaigns

Chairman, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives 

Two primary risk behaviors related 

to fatal traffic crashes are failure to

use safety belts and driving while

impaired by alcohol. High-visibility 

enforcement (HVE) campaigns that

combine enforcement of a traffic 

safety law with media to inform the

public about the campaign are 

effective in reducing these 

behaviors. In 2005, the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users authorized

funding of an HVE program,

including safety belt and impaireddriving campaigns. The National 

Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) within the 

Department of Transportation 

(DOT) provides media and

coordinates with states to provide 

enforcement activities for the 

campaigns. This report addresses 

(1) the extent to which NHTSA has 

implemented the HVE program and 

(2) for selected states, the impact

of the campaigns and challenges

that exist in conducting the 

campaigns. To conduct this work, 

GAO analyzed fatality data, plans, 

and evaluations and interviewed 

officials from DOT and seven 

selected states. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of Transportation direct

NHTSA to establish a minimum set 

of reporting requirements for states

to report HVE activities that are

federally funded and include 

additional performance measures 

in campaign evaluations. DOT 

officials generally agreed with the 

findings and recommendations of

the report. 

NHTSA has fully implemented the high-visibility enforcement program by (1)

developing and disseminating advertising, (2) coordinating with states on 

media and enforcement activities, and (3) annually evaluating the 

effectiveness of the two HVE campaigns; however, NHTSA’s evaluations have

shortcomings that limit the agency’s ability to determine the effectiveness of 

the campaigns. Regarding advertising, NHTSA introduced an annual plan in 

2005 that sets forth a strategy for the campaign advertisements, developed 

advertisements, and purchased national media time for the advertisements. To 

coordinate with states, NHTSA provides an overall strategy and guidance to 

assist states in conducting the campaigns, as well as technical assistance and 

collateral materials, such as posters and model press releases. Officials in 

selected states reported that NHTSA’s coordination efforts provided the 

support and interaction needed to conduct HVE campaigns. Although 

NHTSA’s annual evaluations of campaign effectiveness indicate that the 

campaigns are helping to improve safety belt use and reduce impaired driving, 

the evaluations have shortcomings that limit NHTSA’s ability to assess the 

level of state and local activity—a key component of the campaigns—and the 

overall effectiveness of the campaigns. For example, the information that 

NHTSA has on states’ activities is inconsistent and incomplete because 

reporting of such data is generally voluntary for local law enforcement 

agencies. As a result, NHTSA has reported that it cannot provide meaningful 

analyses and comparisons of state activities. NHTSA’s ability to measure the 

campaigns’ overall effectiveness is also hindered because the performance 

measures used to evaluate the campaigns are not comprehensive. For 

example, while NHTSA measures daytime safety belt use, it does not directly 

measure nighttime safety belt use, despite recent efforts to increase safety 

belt use at night. In addition, NHTSA’s evaluations do not include measures of 

the effectiveness of the campaigns at reaching all target audiences. NHTSA is

working to develop more comprehensive performance measures. 

 

According to officials in selected states GAO visited, the campaigns are 

contributing to increased safety belt use and reduced alcohol-involved 

fatalities, but these states face challenges in conducting the campaigns and 

achieving desired results. From 1997 to 2006, safety belt use increased in all 

seven of the selected states, and each state experienced a decrease in the 

alcohol fatality rate. Officials in the selected states said that the campaigns 

provide additional benefits, such as apprehending suspects involved in other 

crimes. However, officials in those selected states identified several

challenges, such as increasing safety belt use and reducing impaired driving 

among resistant populations; insufficient staff to conduct the campaigns; and

weak prosecution of impaired-driving arrests. NHTSA has initiatives under 

way to help states address some of these challenges. For example, NHTSA has 

sponsored a campaign to increase safety belt use in rural areas. In addition, 

NHTSA provides funds that can be used by states to purchase equipment for 

local law enforcement agencies, such as breath-testing units, to encourage the 

agencies to participate in campaigns. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-477. 

For more information, contact Katherine A. 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 

siggerudk@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

NHTSA Has Implemented the HVE Program but Could Improve the 

Annual Evaluations of Campaign Effectiveness 14 

Selected State Officials Report That HVE Campaigns Are 

Contributing to Increased Safety Belt Use and Reduced 

Fatalities, but Several Challenges Hinder Further Progress 23 

Conclusions 33

Recommendations for Executive Action 34 

Agency Comments 34 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36 

Appendix II HVE Campaigns in Australia, Canada, and the 

Netherlands 39 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 42 

Table 

Table 1: Funding for HVE Paid Media and Evaluations, Fiscal Years 

2003-2007 13

Figures 

Figure 1: Total Fatalities and Total Fatalities per 100 Million 

Vehicle Miles Traveled (1985-2006) 6 

Figure 2: Unrestrained Vehicle Occupant Fatalities and 

Unrestrained Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles 

Traveled (1985-2006) 7 

Figure 3: Alcohol-Involved Fatalities and Alcohol-Involved 

Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (1985-

2006) 9

Figure 4: HVE Campaign Activities and Timeline 12 

Page i GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Figure 5: Increase in Safety Belt Use for Selected States Compared 

with Overall U.S. Increase (1997-2006) 24 

Figure 6: Safety Belt Use Compared with Federal Goal, Selected 

States (2006) 25 

Figure 7: Decrease in Alcohol-Involved Fatality Rate per 100 

Million Vehicle Miles Traveled for Selected States 

Compared with Average Decrease in the United States 

(1997-2006) 26

Figure 8: Fatalities with a BAC of 0.08 or Greater per 100 Million 

Vehicle Miles Traveled for Selected States Compared with 

Federal Goal (2006) 27 

Abbreviations 

BAC blood alcohol content 

CIOT Click It Or Ticket 

DOT Department of Transportation 

DUI driving under the influence 

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association 

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System 

HVE high-visibility enforcement 

NASJE National Association of State Judicial Educators 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board 

OTLUA Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest 

RBT random breath test 

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

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

VMT vehicle miles traveled 

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 ii GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

April 25, 2008

The Honorable James L. Oberstar 

Chairman 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

More than 42,600 people died in traffic accidents during 2006. The failure 

to use safety belts and driving while impaired by alcohol are two primary 

risk behaviors related to these accidents. High-visibility enforcement 

(HVE) campaigns that combine intensive enforcement of a specific traffic

safety law with extensive media communication to inform the public 

about the campaign have been found effective in the United States and 

other countries in helping reduce these behaviors. The Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU), enacted in 2005, authorized funding for an HVE program, 

including two primary HVE campaigns: Click It Or Ticket (CIOT), to 

increase safety belt use, and Drunk Driving, Over the Limit, Under Arrest 

(OTLUA), to decrease the number of impaired drivers.1

 SAFETEA-LU 

specified that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT) should 

implement this program by developing and disseminating national 

advertisements for the campaigns, coordinating with states to conduct the 

campaigns, and evaluating the results of the campaigns; the law authorized 

$29 million annually for NHTSA to implement the program. State and local 

governments provide law enforcement resources for the campaigns—such 

as officers, cars, and equipment for patrols or checkpoints—and may 

supplement NHTSA’s national advertisements; these entities may use 

federal traffic safety grants for such activities. 

You requested that we assess the HVE program and campaigns. 

Accordingly, this report addresses (1) the extent to which NHTSA has 

implemented the HVE program and (2) for selected states, the impact of 

the HVE campaigns and challenges that exist in conducting the campaigns. 

This report also includes additional information on the key components of 

 1

The OTLUA campaign was termed “You Drink & Drive, You Lose” from 2003 to 2005.

Page 1 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
HVE campaigns used by Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands (see app.

II). 

To determine the extent that NHTSA has implemented the HVE program, 

we analyzed information and interviewed officials from NHTSA 

headquarters and regions; the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); 

and state traffic safety offices, state police, local police, and police 

advocacy organizations in seven states—Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, North 

Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Washington. We judgmentally 

selected the states by including: states that have enacted various laws that 

may affect how states conduct enforcement campaigns; states with a wide

range of traffic safety performance levels, such as extent of safety belt use 

and number of alcohol-involved fatalities in each state; states with 

differences in average size of law enforcement agencies; states that 

exhibited various degrees of participation by state and local law 

enforcement agencies in campaigns; and states that were geographically 

dispersed. Since we used a nongeneralizable sampling approach, our 

findings cannot be used to make inferences about all states that 

implemented the HVE program. We also interviewed representatives of 

nongovernmental organizations, including the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials, Governors Highway Safety 

Association (GHSA), International Association of Chiefs of Police, Mothers 

Against Drunk Driving, National Safety Council, and the National Sheriffs 

Association. In addition, we reviewed studies, reports, and laws relevant 

to the implementation of the NHTSA HVE program. To determine, for 

selected states, what impact the HVE campaigns have had and what 

challenges exist, we analyzed safety belt use and alcohol-involved fatality 

data and interviewed officials from state traffic safety offices, state police,

local police, and police advocacy organizations in the seven selected 

states. We used data contained in NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS) database and vehicle miles traveled data maintained by 

FHWA in its Highway Performance Monitoring System database. We 

determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report. For further details of our objectives, scope, and methodology, see 

appendix I. We also provide a summary of high-visibility campaigns in 

Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands, which can be found in appendix II. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2007 to April 2008 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

Page 2 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
NHTSA has implemented the HVE program by developing and 

disseminating advertisements, coordinating with all states on 

advertisement and enforcement activities, and evaluating the effectiveness 

of the two HVE campaigns; however, NHTSA’s evaluations of these 

campaigns have shortcomings that limit the extent to which NHTSA can 

determine the effectiveness of the campaigns. 

Results in Brief 

• Advertisements. To develop and disseminate advertisements, NHTSA 

introduced an annual National Communications Plan in 2005 that sets 

forth a strategy for the campaigns, including goals, dates, target audiences, 

and messages for the campaigns. Through a contractor, NHTSA also 

developed advertisements in multiple languages and media formats—such 

as broadcast television, cable television, and radio—and purchased 

national media time for the advertisements. Purchasing media time for 

these advertisements accounted for the majority of NHTSA’s annual $29 

million appropriation for the HVE program. For example, NHTSA 

allocated nearly $28 million to purchase media time for advertisements in 

fiscal year 2006. 

• Coordination. To coordinate with states on advertisement and 

enforcement activities, NHTSA provides an overall strategy and guidance 

to assist states in conducting the campaigns, as well as technical 

assistance and collateral materials—such as posters and model press 

releases—to help state officials with their advertisements. According to 

officials in our seven selected states, NHTSA’s coordination efforts have 

provided the support and interaction needed to conduct HVE campaigns. 

For example, officials from one state noted that NHTSA assisted them in 

applying for traffic safety grants to conduct campaigns and provided tool 

kits that were useful in developing the campaigns. Officials from another 

state reported that NHTSA had improved the quality and timeliness of 

advertising materials, allowing them to devote more state resources to 

purchasing radio and television ads rather than developing the ads. 

NHTSA’s campaign coordination efforts are included as part of the 

agency’s day-to-day coordination efforts with the states and are not funded 

by the $29 million appropriation for the HVE program. 

• Evaluation. NHTSA evaluates the effectiveness of the campaigns annually, 

but the evaluations have shortcomings that limit NHTSA’s ability to assess 

the level of state activity and the overall effectiveness of the campaigns. 

The evaluations accounted for $750,000 of NHTSA’s $29 million 

appropriation in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. NHTSA’s evaluations include 

information on the level of enforcement activity by states and the results 

of the campaigns based on performance measures, such as message 

awareness, media activity, safety belt use, and fatality and injury statistics. 

Page 3 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
However, the information that NHTSA has on states’ activities is 

inconsistent and incomplete in part because states are not required to 

report such data, although NHTSA officials said that the agencies receiving

federal traffic safety grants for campaign activities generally voluntarily 

report on these activities. As a result, NHTSA is not able to fully account 

for state and local law enforcement campaign activity—a critical 

component of HVE campaigns for which states may use federal traffic 

safety grants. NHTSA’s ability to measure the campaigns’ overall 

effectiveness is also hindered in part because the performance measures 

used to evaluate the campaigns are not comprehensive or consistent. For 

example, while NHTSA measures the change in daytime safety belt use, it

does not directly measure nighttime safety belt use, despite recent efforts 

to increase the use of safety belts at night. Furthermore, measures of the 

effectiveness of NHTSA’s national advertising campaign in reaching all 

target audiences were limited. For example, both the safety belt and 

impaired-driving campaign evaluations contained information about the 

effectiveness of the campaigns at reaching their primary target audiences 

but no information on the effectiveness in reaching other target audiences 

that were listed in the National Communications Plan. NHTSA is working

to develop more comprehensive measures of the effectiveness of the 

campaigns.

According to officials in the selected states we visited, HVE campaigns are 

contributing to increased safety belt use and reduced alcohol-involved 

fatalities, but these states face challenges such as reaching resistant 

populations, finding sufficient resources to conduct the campaigns, and 

weak prosecution of impaired-driving offenders. From 1997 to 2006, safety 

belt use increased in all seven of the selected states, and four of those 

states exceeded the 2006 NHTSA goal for safety belt use (82 percent). HVE 

campaigns in the selected states are also contributing to reduced alcoholinvolved driving fatalities. From 1997 to 2006, each of the selected states 

experienced a decrease in the alcohol fatality rate (per 100 million vehicle 

miles traveled). In 2006, five of the seven selected states met the NHTSA 

goal pertaining to alcohol-involved fatality rates. Officials said that highvisibility campaigns provide other benefits beyond those for which the 

campaigns are designed. For example, officials in North Carolina and Iowa

said that stopping drivers for potential safety belt or impaired-driving 

violations also allowed them to increase overall traffic safety by writing 

citations for other traffic violations, as well as apprehend fugitives and 

recover stolen vehicles. Despite the progress made so far, states face 

several challenges in conducting the high-visibility campaigns and 

achieving desired results, including improving safety belt use and reducing 

impaired driving among resistant populations—such as pickup truck 

Page 4 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
drivers—and recruiting sufficient officers to conduct the campaigns when 

other law enforcement needs compete for resources. Officials from 

NHTSA and some of the selected states also cited weak prosecution of 

existing driving under the influence (DUI) laws as an obstacle. NHTSA has 

initiatives under way to help states address some of these challenges. For 

example, NHTSA has sponsored a campaign—Buckle Up In Your Truck—

to increase safety belt use by pickup truck drivers. In addition, NHTSA 

provides funds that can be used by states to purchase equipment for local 

law enforcement agencies, such as breath-testing units, to encourage the 

agencies to participate in impaired-driving campaigns. 

To improve NHTSA’s evaluations of the HVE campaigns, we recommend 

that the Secretary of Transportation direct NHTSA to develop a minimum 

core set of reporting requirements for states to report their federally 

funded HVE law enforcement and media activities. In addition, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct NHTSA to include 

additional performance measures—such as a measure for nighttime safety 

belt use and additional measures of media effectiveness—in the agency’s 

annual evaluations of the effectiveness of the two campaigns. DOT 

officials generally agreed with the findings and recommendations. 

During 2006, more than 42,600 drivers, occupants, cyclists, and pedestrians 

died as a result of motor vehicle crashes. Over the 10-year period from 

1997 through 2006, the number of motor vehicle fatalities per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has decreased by 14.1 percent, from 1.65 to 

1.41. However, the number of fatalities annually has remained relatively 

constant, showing only a slight increase of 1.5 percent, from 42,013 in 1997 

to 42,642 in 2006 (see fig. 1). 

Background 

Page 5 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Figure 1: Total Fatalities and Total Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (1985-2006) 

Number of fatalities Fatalities per 100 milion vehicle miles traveled

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA and FHWA data.

Year

Total fatalities per 100 million VMT

Total fatalities

Two primary behaviors related to fatal crashes are failure to use safety 

belts and driving while impaired by alcohol. Research has found that using 

lap and shoulder safety belts reduces the risk of fatal injury to front-seat 

passenger car occupants by 45 percent and light-truck occupants by 60 

percent. Overall, unrestrained fatalities2

 have decreased over the last two 

decades. From 1985 to 2006, the number of unrestrained fatalities 

decreased from 23,236 in 1985 to 16,053 in 2006, while the unrestrained 

fatality rate decreased by 0.78, from 1.31 to 0.53 fatalities per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled (see fig. 2). The greatest improvements were 

achieved from 1989 to 1993, a period when most states passed initial safety

belt use laws. From 1984 to 1992, 8 states passed primary safety belt laws 

that allow law enforcement officers to stop a driver for not wearing a 

safety belt and issue a citation, and 33 states passed secondary safety belt 

 2

Unrestrained fatalities are those in which the deceased was not wearing a shoulder belt, 

lap belt, lap and shoulder belt, child safety seat, or other restraint and were occupants 

(except bus passengers) of motor vehicles (except motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, or

snowmobiles). 

Page 6 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
laws that allow law enforcement officers to issue a citation for not wearing 

a safety belt only after the driver has been stopped for a separate offense.

Figure 2: Unrestrained Vehicle Occupant Fatalities and Unrestrained Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (1985-

2006) 

Number of fatalities Fatalities per 100 milion vehicle miles traveled

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA and FHWA data.

Year

Unrestrained fatalities per 100 million VMT

Restraint not used

Note: Data for 1985 through 1987 data included unknown restraint use in fatalities ranging from 12.6 

percent to 18.0 percent compared with unknown restraint use from 1988 through 2006 of 7.2 percent

to 10.6 percent. 

While alcohol-impaired driving showed similar improvements from 1986 to 

1994, progress has slowed, with a fluctuating number of alcohol-involved

fatalities3

 and generally a declining alcohol-involved fatality rate from 1994 

to 2006 (see fig. 3). From 1985 to 2006, the number of alcohol-involved

fatalities decreased by 4,964 people per year, and the alcohol-involved 

fatality rate decreased by 0.63, from 1.13 to 0.50 fatalities per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled. According to NHTSA, the improvements during the

1980s and early 1990s were influenced by the passage in 1984 of a law that

 3

Alcohol-involved fatalities include all fatalities in a motor vehicle crash where one or more 

involved drivers, pedestrians, or pedalcyclists in the crash had a blood alcohol content of 

0.08 g/dL or greater. 

Page 7 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
withheld a portion of a state’s federal highway funds unless the state 

established a 21-year-old minimum drinking age,

4

 the efforts of two 

groups—the Presidential Commission Against Drunk Driving and Mothers 

Against Drunk Driving—to galvanize public opinion about the damage 

caused by impaired drivers, and states’ efforts to strengthen their 

impaired-driving laws and increase enforcement of those laws. States 

received incentives to strengthen their laws and enforcement of the laws 

through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), 

which was enacted in 1998. For example, TEA-21 authorized incentive

grants to states to enact a law to establish 0.08 blood alcohol content 

(BAC) as the legal limit for drunken driving offenses. The TEA-21 

Restoration Act provided added incentives to encourage states to adopt an 

open container law that prohibits the possession of any open alcohol 

beverage container in a motor vehicle and enact a law that provides for 

specific penalties for individuals convicted of a second or subsequent 

drunken driving offense. For states that did not enact the open alcoholic

beverage container and repeat drunken driving laws, the TEA-21 

Restoration Act also included a provision to transfer a portion of those 

states’ highway construction and maintenance funds to the state’s highway 

safety program. 

 4

Pub. L. 98-363 specified that 10 percent of a state’s apportioned funds for the National 

Highway System, the Surface Transportation Program, and interstate reconstruction and 

maintenance would be withheld if a state did not establish a 21-year-old minimum drinking 

age. 

Page 8 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Figure 3: Alcohol-Involved Fatalities and Alcohol-Involved Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (1985-2006) 

Number of fatalities Fatalities per 100 milion vehicle miles traveled

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA and FHWA data.

Year

Alcohol-involved fatalities per 100 million VMT

Alcohol-involved fatalities

High-Visibility Enforcement (HVE) campaigns5

 have been found effective 

in the United States and other countries in helping to reduce these two 

primary risk behaviors associated with fatal crashes. An HVE campaign 

combines intensive enforcement of a specific traffic safety law with 

extensive communication, education, and outreach informing the public

about the enforcement activity. For example, a safety belt campaign could 

include several weeks during which television and radio commercials 

warn motorists to buckle their safety belt or risk receiving a ticket from 

increased law enforcement patrols, coupled with zero tolerance 

enforcement of safety belt laws highly visible to motorists through law 

enforcement techniques such as checkpoints and saturation patrols. Such 

a combination of activities is designed to increase the public’s perception

that people who violate the law will be ticketed, arrested, convicted, or 

punished, thereby persuading them to adhere to the law. HVE campaigns 

have been used for several decades in the United States and other 

countries to improve safety belt use and reduce impaired driving. Canada

 5

HVE campaigns are also known as Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs. 

Page 9 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
initiated the first safety belt HVE campaigns in North America in the 1980s,

during which time a 1-month program in Ottawa, Ontario, increased belt 

use from 58 percent to 80 percent. Based on the Canadian HVE campaigns, 

the community of Elmira, New York, conducted the first safety belt HVE 

effort in the United States in 1985 and raised its safety belt use rate from 

49 percent to 77 percent in 3 weeks. Impaired-driving HVE campaigns have

also been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol-impaired driving since 

1967 in Britain and since 1980 in New Zealand. In the 1980s, law 

enforcement agencies around the United States began using sobriety 

checkpoints to deter impaired driving. For example, a yearlong checkpoint 

program in 1984 in Charlottesville, Virginia, was associated with a 13 

percent reduction in alcohol-related crashes.6

While HVE campaigns have proved effective in the United States and other 

countries, selected other countries GAO reviewed generally have higher 

safety belt use rates and lower impaired-driving fatality percentages than 

the United States. For example, while the United States had a 2007 safety 

belt use rate of 82 percent, Canada had a 2006-2007 safety belt use rate of 

93 percent, Australia has a safety belt use rate of around 96 percent, and 

the Netherlands had a 2005 safety belt use rate of 90 percent. An official 

from Canada noted that, while HVE campaigns in the 1980s and early

1990s had been successful in improving Canada’s safety belt use rate, the 

rate has remained stagnant over the last 10 years and that approximately 

40 percent of Canada’s traffic fatalities still involved unbelted persons. The 

official attributed the lack of further progress to the fact that most of the 

last 10 percent of persons not wearing their safety belts are actively

choosing not to wear the belts. Officials from Australia and the 

Netherlands noted that impaired-driving fatalities have been reduced in 

their countries because law enforcement officials are allowed to stop 

drivers at random to test the driver’s breath for alcohol. However, this 

deterrent may be difficult to implement in the United States because other 

than at sobriety checkpoints (which are not allowed in some states), 

drivers cannot be stopped unless there is suspicious behavior or another 

traffic offense involved. Appendix II provides further details on HVE 

campaigns in other countries. 

 6

R.B. Voas, A.E. Rhodenizer, and C. Lynn, Evaluation of Charlottesville Checkpoint 

Operation (final report), special report prepared at the request of the U.S. Department of

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 1985. 

Page 10 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
The CIOT and OTLUA campaigns typically span about 7 weeks (see fig. 4).

The CIOT campaign is conducted during May to coincide with Memorial 

Day, and the OTLUA campaign is conducted during August and September 

to cover Labor Day and again in December to cover the holiday season and 

New Year’s Eve. The campaign activities conducted by NHTSA, state 

traffic safety offices, state law enforcement agencies, and local law 

enforcement agencies over the 7 weeks generally include the following: 

• Precampaign evaluation. Data such as safety belt use and public 

knowledge and attitudes about traffic enforcement programs are collected 

prior to the campaign to provide a baseline. States generally collect these

data through safety belt use surveys, department of motor vehicle driver 

surveys, and telephone surveys. 

• Earned media. Earned media is unpaid coverage by broadcast and 

published news services, such as a press conference or press release 

provided by the state or local law enforcement officials. These media 

events are used to announce the upcoming campaign, bring news coverage 

to the ongoing enforcement effort, and update the public on the progress 

and results of the campaign. 

• Paid media. Paid media includes advertisements on television and radio. 

NHTSA purchases these advertisements nationwide, which are 

strategically placed at times and places intended to maximize exposure to

selected audiences. For example, advertisements targeted toward 21- to 

34-year-old men who are more likely to drive impaired might air on sports 

programs during a time when the most people in the target audience are 

likely to be watching and listening. States may augment the national 

advertising with advertisements directed at state-level high-risk 

populations such as pickup truck drivers or with taglines to let the 

audience know that their local law enforcement agencies are involved in 

the campaign. 

• Enforcement. Enforcement techniques by state and local law enforcement 

agencies may include aggressive enforcement by routine patrols, 

“saturation” patrols that increase the number of officers on patrol in a 

specific area, and stationary checkpoints along roadsides. States and local 

agencies may use traffic safety grant funds administered by NHTSA 

through their state highway safety office to provide the increased level of

enforcement. 

• Postcampaign evaluation. Data are collected by states and local agencies 

after the campaign in the same manner as the precampaign evaluations 

and compared with precampaign data to identify changes in awareness of 

Page 11 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
the enforcement effort, measure progress toward campaign goals, and 

measure the impact on traffic safety.

Figure 4: HVE Campaign Activities and Timeline 

Sources: GAO and NHTSA.

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 7 Week 6

Precampaign evaluation

Postcampaign

evaluation

Earned media

Paid media

Enforcement

Note: The timeline is a general representation of campaign activities. The actual timing of the 

activities varies slightly between the CIOT and the OTLUA campaigns. 

Campaigns that were held prior to 2003—often referred to as Selective 

Traffic Enforcement Programs—typically relied on earned media such as 

unpaid television and radio news stories to advertise the campaigns; 

however, since 2003, Congress has funded nationwide paid advertising for 

safety belt and impaired-driving campaigns. The use of paid media allows 

advertisements to be placed at optimal times with high-quality messages 

so the campaign can better reach its target audiences and maximize the 

probability that the audience will pay attention to the advertisements, 

whereas earned media placement and frequency are usually controlled by 

station managers and may not be placed at optimal times. NHTSA used 

funds authorized under TEA-21 for activities such as developing and 

producing broadcast and print advertisements and providing media 

technical assistance to the states. Although TEA-21, when enacted, did not 

authorize funding to purchase national advertising for the campaigns, 

Congress appropriated funding of $19 million in 2003 and $24 million in 

2004 and 2005 for NHTSA to provide paid national advertising for both 

campaigns. In 2005, SAFETEA-LU authorized $29 million in each of fiscal

years 2006 through 2009 for NHTSA to conduct a nationwide HVE 

program. The program requirements included developing and 

disseminating advertisements, coordinating with states, and annually 

evaluating the effectiveness of the program. NHTSA uses available funding 

Page 12 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
to purchase national media time and conduct evaluations for the 

campaigns (see table 1). NHTSA also uses funding from other highway 

safety programs to develop the advertising and includes campaign 

coordination efforts as a part of the agency’s ongoing coordination efforts 

with states for other highway safety programs. 7 NHTSA officials report 

that the increase in funding authorized by SAFETEA-LU—$5 million above 

the annual funding level immediately prior to SAFETEA-LU—has allowed 

them to increase the visibility and frequency of advertising for the two 

enforcement campaigns during Memorial Day and Labor Day, as well as 

allowed them to provide additional national advertising for the impaireddriving campaign during the December holiday season. 

Table 1: Funding for HVE Paid Media and Evaluations, Fiscal Years 2003-2007 

Dollars in millions 

Fiscal year CIOT OTLUA Evaluation

Available

 funding

2003 $8.00 $11.00 $0 $19

2004 10.00 14.00 0 24

2005 9.92 13.89 0 24

2006 10.00 17.96 0.75 29

2007 10.00 18.25 0.75 29

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. 

States have used federal traffic safety grants authorized in TEA-21 and 

SAFETEA-LU—such as State and Community Highway Safety grants, 

Safety Belt Use grants, and Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures 

grants—to fund state and local campaign activities.8

 States and local 

governments use grant funds for activities such as paying overtime for law 

enforcement officials to conduct sobriety checkpoints and saturation 

patrols, purchasing paid advertising, training, conducting safety belt 

surveys, and buying enforcement equipment. The states and local 

 7

NHTSA has also continued to fund media technical assistance, the development of

advertisements and the production of advertisements through Highway Safety Research 

and Development Section 403 funds (i.e., for funds appropriated to carry out 23 U.S.C. 

§ 403) and in fiscal year 2007 reported expending $3,454,458.

8

Information on the amount states spend on these activities is not available because 

NHTSA does not require states to report such information, and their grant tracking system 

reports on program areas such as occupant protection and not on components within the

program such as HVE media. 

Page 13 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
governments are also allowed to use highway safety funding to provide 

local advertising and educational campaigns in conjunction with the 

national media campaign. When included in the state’s annual highway 

safety plan, a state may also conduct campaigns in addition to the national 

campaigns and provide sustained enforcement utilizing federal funds. 

States also use grant funds to purchase law enforcement equipment such 

as alcohol breath testers, radar units, and in-car video cameras to provide 

incentives for local law enforcement agencies to participate in the 

campaigns. 

NHTSA has implemented the HVE program, including two high-visibility 

traffic safety law enforcement campaigns to improve safety belt use and 

reduce impaired driving. Specifically, to meet the requirements in place 

since SAFETEA-LU, NHTSA has (1) developed and disseminated 

advertisements, (2) coordinated with states to conduct the HVE 

campaigns, and (3) evaluated the results of the campaigns. However, the 

evaluations have shortcomings that limit NHTSA’s ability to assess the 

level of state activity and the overall effectiveness of the campaigns. 

NHTSA Has 

Implemented the HVE 

Program but Could 

Improve the Annual 

Evaluations of 

Campaign 

Effectiveness 

NHTSA Has Developed an 

Advertising Plan, Created 

Advertising, and 

Purchased Media Time 

To develop and disseminate advertising for the CIOT and OTLUA 

campaigns, NHTSA has developed an advertising plan and hired a 

contractor to create advertising materials for national and state use and 

purchase national media time. Since 2005, NHTSA has annually developed 

a National Communications Plan that sets forth a national HVE campaign 

advertising strategy. For example, the plan9

 specifies goals, dates, target 

audiences, and core campaign messages for the campaigns. The plan also 

identifies how the campaign advertising should be developed and 

purchased to cost-effectively reach target audiences and includes links to 

Web sites that contain additional guidance and advertising materials. State 

traffic safety agencies can use these materials and develop supplemental 

advertising materials following the guidance provided in the plan. 

 9

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

NHTSA National Communications Plan 2007 (Washington, D.C., January 2007). 

Page 14 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
To create advertising materials, NHTSA contracts with a private 

advertising firm to provide technical assistance and ad production, 

including 

• producing national ads,

• modifying or updating national and state ads, 

• developing a national plan to purchase media, 

• reviewing states’ plans to purchase media, and

• negotiating and purchasing air time for national ads. 

National ads are produced in several media formats and languages. Media 

formats include television, radio, magazines, newspapers, and alternative 

media. Broadcast television, cable television, and radio are the three most 

used media formats to advertise HVE campaigns, accounting for about 85 

percent of the amount that NHTSA spends on campaign advertising. 

NHTSA has also begun to use the Internet to reach the target audience of 

young males by placing advertising messages into online games, social 

sites such as Face Book, and sports sites such as ESPN.com. These 

national ads are primarily produced in English and Spanish. NHTSA 

officials reported that they considered developing advertising for 

additional non-English-speaking populations and made the decision that it 

was not cost effective. However, they encourage states to develop 

materials for other non-English-speaking populations that are prevalent in

the state’s population. NHTSA’s contractor also refreshes existing ads 

because, according to NHTSA officials, they can reduce costs by updating

ads with new taglines or messages rather than creating new ads each year. 

For example, NHTSA darkened an existing television ad that had been

filmed in the daytime to make it appear as though it were night to support 

an enforcement message for nighttime safety belt use. 

To purchase media time for the national ads, the NHTSA contractor 

prepares a plan to purchase media for NHTSA’s approval and release 

before each national campaign. This plan identifies the advertising period, 

the media budget, target audience profiles, a strategy for purchasing the 

media, and the allocation of funds for different media formats. The 

allocation is based on reaching the campaign target audience as frequently 

and cost effectively as possible, the target audiences’ use of the various 

media types, and the cost of placing the advertisements. For example, 

prime-time broadcast television reaches many young men, but because it

Page 15 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
is expensive, NHTSA may build the desired frequency of reaching the 

young men with cable television or radio, which is less expensive. NHTSA 

is increasing funds allocated for Hispanic media outlets, based on fatality 

and census data, and alternative media outlets as young men spend more 

time on the Internet. For example, the allocation for Hispanic media for 

the impaired-driving campaign increased from 5 percent to 12 percent 

from 2004 to 2007, and the allocation for alternative media in the safety 

belt campaign has increased from 0 percent to 5 percent from 2004 to 

2007. 

Once NHTSA approves the plan to purchase media, the contractor 

negotiates with media providers—such as television or radio networks—

to purchase media. The contractor also negotiates for value-added media, 

which is advertising time that a television or radio network may provide to 

NHTSA at no additional cost because the network supports the campaign

message. After a campaign, the media contractor provides an analysis of 

the effectiveness of the media formats, including the extent to which the 

formats reached the target audience, the cost to reach the audience, and 

the dollar value of the value-added media. 

The National Communications Plan, the plans to purchase media, and 

other resources that NHTSA uses to advertise its campaigns include 

elements of the key practices we have previously identified through an 

expert panel10 as important to planning a consumer education campaign, 

motivating a target audience, and alleviating challenges in a campaign.11

The key practices include the following: 

• Define goals and objectives. NHTSA has established goals to reduce 

deaths and injuries from crashes on our nation’s highways by increasing 

the number of people regularly using safety belts and decrease the number 

of impaired drivers on the road. 

• Analyze the situation. NHTSA applies research, lessons learned, and 

other knowledge such as program evaluations to develop an integrated 

year-round marketing campaign designed to modify behavior with a 

 10The expert panel included strategic communications and social marketing experts. We

identified these elements in NHTSA’s plans and resources but did not evaluate each 

element. 

11GAO, Digital Television Transition: Increased Federal Planning and Risk Management

Could Further Facilitate the DTV Transition, GAO-08-43 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 

2007). 

Page 16 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
calendar of events timed to coincide with national holidays and 

celebrations, which have an increased number of traffic fatalities. 

• Identify stakeholders. NHTSA engages national, state, and local partners,

such as coalitions, highway safety offices, and law enforcement agencies

across the country, to be involved in the calendar of events. In addition, 

the communications plan identifies the need to look for marketing 

alliances with sports organizations and other corporations that already 

carry powerful brands important to NHTSA’s target audiences. 

• Identify resources. Annual funding for the national campaigns is 

authorized in SAFETEA-LU through fiscal year 2009. NHTSA identifies the

resources available for each campaign in the plan for purchasing media. 

• Research target audiences. NHTSA reviews existing research and surveys 

to help segment and target the key audiences, identifying preferences, 

beliefs, competing behaviors, and motivators. 

• Develop consistent, clear messages. The National Communications Plan 

specifies the need to maintain a strong CIOT and OTLUA brand-name 

status through consistency in presentation and broad geographical 

coverage. 

• Identify credible messengers. The credibility of the message lies in the 

combination of the message with a high level of enforcement, creating a 

general deterrence effect that increases the public perception that drivers 

are likely to receive a citation. The advertisements use law enforcement 

officers, who increase the credibility of the message. Additionally, the 

messages are produced and presented through media intended to appeal 

to the intended target audience, such as teens, pickup truck drivers, and 

rural audiences. 

• Design media mix. NHTSA identifies the target audiences and appropriate

media for target audiences to allocate media funding. 

• Establish metrics to measure success. NHTSA’s media contractor 

analyzes the results of each campaign to evaluate whether the message 

reached the intended target audience in the time period intended, and 

NHTSA reports how the campaign reached the target market. 

Page 17 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
NHTSA coordinates with the states and provides resources to help states 

carry out the campaigns through several means, including the National 

Communications Plan, guidance on conducting HVE campaigns, technical

assistance on advertisements, and collateral advertising materials. 

Officials in selected states reported that NHTSA’s coordination efforts 

provided the support and interaction needed to successfully conduct HVE 

campaigns. For example, officials from one state noted that NHTSA 

assisted them in applying for federal traffic safety grants to conduct 

campaigns and provided tool kits that were useful in developing the 

campaigns. Officials from another state reported that NHTSA had 

improved the quality and timeliness of advertising materials, allowing 

them to devote more state resources to purchasing radio and television 

ads rather than developing the ads. 

The annual National Communications Plan disseminates a strategy for 

states to conduct occupant protection and impaired-driving events 

throughout the year, including the CIOT and OTLUA campaigns. 

Specifically, the National Communications Plan sets out the following: 

State Officials Report That 

NHTSA’s Coordination 

Efforts Help Them 

Conduct Successful 

Campaigns 

• a primary purpose for each event, such as “to support enforcement 

activities and to remind all partygoers of the dangers of impaired driving”; 

• dates for the events; 

• messages to be emphasized, such as “Drunk Driving, Over the Limit, Under 

Arrest”; 

• primary and secondary target audiences, such as men, ages 21 to 34; and

• potential themes, such as “Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving—Designate a 

Sober Driver.” 

The National Communication Plan also provides links to Web sites 

containing guidance for states in conducting campaigns, such as 

www.TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov. NHTSA also provides further guidance,

such as the Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs, which 

includes guidance for both occupant protection and impaired driving; and

case studies of HVE campaigns, such as NHTSA’s “Creating Impaired 

Page 18 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Driving General Deterrence—Eight Case Studies of Sustained, HighVisibility, Impaired-Driving Enforcement.”12

NHTSA also furnishes technical advice and collateral materials to assist 

states with advertising for the campaigns. To provide technical support to 

states, NHTSA’s contractor may, when requested by state officials, 

evaluate states’ proposed media purchases and make suggestions for 

improvement. The evaluation includes reviewing states’ proposed target 

demographics, budget, and purchase of advertising time to provide 

guidance on the appropriateness of the purchase. These evaluations are 

intended to help states effectively reach target audiences. NHTSA also 

provides collateral materials such as posters, Web banners, talking points, 

and model press releases. States may download these materials directly 

from NHTSA’s Web site. These materials are designed to support the 

various events set out in the National Communications Plan. 

NHTSA’s annual evaluations of the HVE campaigns include information on 

the level of enforcement activity and the results of the campaigns based on 

performance measures, such as message awareness, earned media 

activity, safety belt use, and fatality and injury statistics.13 For example, the 

CIOT evaluation14 includes information on the number of law enforcement 

agencies that reported enforcement activities and the number of safety 

belt citations issued by these agencies; this information showed that the

number of citations issued increased from 2004 to 2005, even though the 

number of reporting agencies declined. Regarding message awareness, the 

OTLUA annual evaluation15 includes information from NHTSA’s annual 

national telephone surveys, which found that the impaired-driving 

NHTSA’s Annual 

Evaluations Are Limited by 

Inconsistent and 

Incomplete Data 

 12U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Creating Impaired Driving General Deterrence: Eight Case Studies of Sustained, HighVisibility, Impaired-Driving Enforcement (Washington, D.C., March 2006). 

13NHTSA issued its evaluation of the May 2005 CIOT Campaign in May 2007, and the 

evaluation of the Impaired Driving Campaigns for 2003-2005 in July 2007. NHTSA plans to

release evaluations of the 2006 campaigns—the first year of the national advertising 

campaigns authorized by SAFETEA-LU—in the spring of 2008. 

14U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Evaluation of the May 2005 Click It or Ticket Mobilization to Increase Seat Belt Use, 

Report No. DOT HS 810 778 (Washington, D.C., May 2007).

15U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Evaluation of the National Impaired Driving High-Visibility Enforcement Campaign: 

2003-2005, Report No. DOT HS 810 789 (Washington, D.C., July 2007). 

Page 19 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
message was reaching the general public—especially the 18- to 34-year-old 

target audience—although the awareness did not carry over from 

campaign to campaign.16 The CIOT report showed that safety belt use rates 

generally increased following the 2005 campaign, and the OTLUA report 

showed that the number of alcohol-impaired drivers involved in fatal 

crashes decreased overall from 2001 to 2005. 

However, the data on HVE campaign activity—such as the number of 

agencies participating in the campaigns, hours worked by law 

enforcement officers, citations issued, DUI enforcement actions, and 

advertisements purchased by states—that states report to NHTSA are not 

complete or consistent; this situation limits NHTSA’s ability to evaluate 

the overall level of state enforcement and advertising activity and the 

extent to which states use federal funding—through traffic safety grants—

to support HVE campaigns. Because these campaigns—other than the 

media developed and purchased by NHTSA—are carried out by states, 

these data are the only way to determine whether the level of activity is 

changing from year to year and whether NHTSA is effectively leveraging 

state and local resources. According to NHTSA officials, states are not 

required to report all HVE activity, although in recent years states have 

voluntarily reported the level of activity for selected law enforcement 

agencies—generally those agencies that receive federal grants for HVE 

activities.17 However, such voluntary reporting can cause substantial 

variances in data from campaign to campaign and year to year. For the 

campaigns conducted from 2003 through 2006, an average of three states 

did not report on campaign activity for each campaign, and between 22 

percent to 52 percent18 of the law enforcement agencies that indicated they

would participate in the campaigns did not report on campaign activity. 

Of the agencies that do report, the data reported are not consistent among 

law enforcement agencies or states. For example, some agencies include

 16This information is based on annual telephone surveys on the effectiveness of impaireddriving campaigns from 2003 through 2005. NHTSA officials also conducted regional

telephone surveys for the CIOT campaign in 2006 and a national telephone survey for the

CIOT campaign in 2007; data from these surveys will be included in NHTSA’s 2006 and 2007

evaluations. NHTSA reported the 2006 evaluation should be released in March 2008 and the 

2007 evaluation in the spring of 2009. 

17States that receive Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant funds are

required to report on HVE activities those funds support. 

18Percentage is based on NHTSA data collected from states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico. 

Page 20 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
all activities and others include only the federally funded portion of their 

activities. In addition, some states only require a portion of the activities to

be reported by agencies and leave reporting on other NHTSA requested 

activities as optional. As a result, the types of activity data collected from 

state to state vary. For example, in the May 2006 CIOT campaign, while 49

states reported having participating agencies, only 37 states reported the 

hours worked and only 36 states reported the number of earned media TV

spots. Due to these inconsistencies, NHTSA has reported that it is not 

possible to provide meaningful analyses and comparisons of state 

activities to conduct HVE campaigns. 

NHTSA and Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) officials 

stressed that law enforcement agencies are less likely to report if they 

receive little or no federal highway safety grant funding for enforcement 

activities. GHSA officials—who represent the state highway safety 

offices—suggested that simplifying reports and limiting the amount of data 

required may improve reporting. While it is important for NHTSA to limit 

reporting requirements for states, state and local law enforcement is a 

critical component of HVE campaigns that NHTSA currently cannot 

measure. A minimum set of core reporting requirements—such as the 

number of agencies reporting data, number of law enforcement labor 

hours applied to the mobilization, number of impaired-driving arrests 

made during the mobilization, number of safety belt violation citations 

issued, and amount spent on television, radio, print, and other ads from 

agencies that receive federal funding for these activities—would minimize 

the reporting burden while allowing NHTSA to more thoroughly and 

consistently measure the level of state activity over time and provide 

accountability for federal funding. 

To learn more about the extent of participation by local law enforcement 

agencies, NHTSA collected information from a sample of law enforcement 

agencies that conducted campaigns independent of the national 

mobilization evaluations or that had received federal traffic safety grants. 

NHTSA sought a representative sample of law enforcement agencies that

had at least 10 years of citation and arrest data on a monthly basis in order 

to track enforcement activities over time and compare enforcement 

activities before, during, and after the CIOT and OTLUA campaigns. The 

results of this data collection effort will be reported in the Evaluation of 

the 2006 CIOT Campaign (to be released later in 2008). This attempt to 

obtain more reliable and representative information has faced several 

obstacles, including difficulties in defining a representative sample of law 

enforcement agencies, locating and securing the cooperation of agencies 

Page 21 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
that had 10 years of citation and arrest data, and finding agencies that 

would provide the data on a monthly basis. 

NHTSA’s effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the HVE campaigns is also 

hindered, in part, because NHTSA’s performance measures are not 

comprehensive. For example, while NHTSA measures the change in

daytime safety belt use for the driver and right front passenger in 

passenger cars, vans, sports utility vehicles, and pickup trucks, it does not 

directly measure nighttime safety belt use, despite recent efforts to 

increase the use of safety belts at night. Specifically, NHTSA is working 

with the states of Washington, North Carolina, and West Virginia in pilot 

programs to evaluate the use of different enforcement strategies for 

increasing nighttime safety belt use. NHTSA and the states expect to 

report the results of these pilot programs by the end of 2008. In addition, 

NHTSA is preparing an enforcement guide on the different approaches 

states may use for nighttime enforcement during the 2008 CIOT campaign. 

The annual evaluations also include limited information on performance 

measures for the effectiveness of NHTSA’s advertisements. For example, 

while the evaluations include information on the extent to which the 

advertisements are reaching the primary target audience, the evaluations 

did not measure the extent to which the advertisements reached specialemphasis audiences identified in the 2005 National Communications 

Plan,19 such as pickup truck drivers and Hispanics for the CIOT campaign.

The impaired-driving report also did not evaluate the extent to which the

advertisements had reached other targeted audiences, such as college 

students, men ages 35 to 59, and young women 21 to 25 who were also 

identified in the 2005 National Communications Plan,20 and did not include 

the media dollar allocation to show how NHTSA had advertised to nonEnglish-speaking populations and used nontraditional media.21 Without 

this information, NHTSA cannot evaluate the extent to which the 

campaigns are meeting the goals set out in the National Communications 

Plans. 

 19U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005

National Communications Plan (Washington, D.C., November 2004). 

20While the 2005 Integrated National Communications Plan listed these other target 

audiences, the summary of the 2005 Impaired Driving Campaign shown in the appendix of

the 2006 National Communications plan shows these additional targeted audiences were

replaced with a “Newly Arrived Latino Immigrants” secondary target audience. 

21Media allocation was reported in an appendix of the 2006 National Communications Plan. 

Page 22 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
NHTSA officials recognize the need for more comprehensive performance 

measures, and—through a contractor—the agency is developing additional 

performance measures to address these issues. The statement of work for 

the contractor specifies that the purpose of the project is to develop a 

minimum set of performance measures that could be used by federal, 

state, and local governments for traffic safety areas, including highvisibility enforcement campaigns. The deadline for this work is August 

2008. However, NHTSA officials stated that the key requirement for 

developing effective performance measures is accurate and 

comprehensive data and that existing data available to states are not 

sufficient to mandate more specific performance measures. As a result, 

NHTSA plans to recommend—not require—the new performance 

measures to states. It is unlikely that all states will voluntarily report the 

same performance indicators in a consistent and comprehensive manner 

sufficient to allow national comparisons without specific required 

measures. 

According to officials in selected states we visited, HVE campaigns are 

contributing to increased safety belt use and reduced alcohol-involved 

fatalities. From 1997 to 2006, safety belt use increased in all seven of the 

selected states, and four of those states exceeded the 2006 NHTSA goal for 

safety belt use (82 percent). In addition to increases in safety belt use, 

from 1997 to 2006, each selected state’s alcohol fatality rate decreased, 

and, in 2006, five of the seven states met the NHTSA goal pertaining to 

alcohol-involved fatality rates. Despite the gains made so far, officials from 

these states reported facing several challenges: increasing safety belt use

and reducing impaired driving among resistant populations; insufficient 

staff to conduct the campaigns; and weak prosecution of DUI arrests. 

NHTSA and the states are taking steps to help address these challenges. 

HVE campaigns are contributing to increased safety belt use and reduced

alcohol-involved fatalities, according to officials in selected states we 

visited. Specifically, all of the selected states experienced increased safety

belt use and reduced alcohol-involved fatality rates in the last 10 years, 

and state officials attributed these improvements, in part, to participation 

in HVE campaigns. 

According to NHTSA data, between 1997 and 2006, safety belt use 

increased in all of the selected states, although some states experienced 

Selected State 

Officials Report That 

HVE Campaigns Are 

Contributing to 

Increased Safety Belt 

Use and Reduced 

Fatalities, but Several 

Challenges Hinder 

Further Progress

Officials in Selected States 

Report That HVE 

Campaigns Are 

Contributing to Increased 

Use of Safety Belts and 

Reduced Fatalities from 

Impaired Drivers 

Page 23 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
larger increases than other states. According to NHTSA survey data on

safety belt use, the increase in safety belt use from 1997 to 2006 ranged 

from a 6.5 percentage point increase in North Carolina to a 29.6 

percentage point increase in North Dakota. The overall increase in safety

belt use nationwide from 1997 to 2006 was 12 percentage points (see fig. 

5). 

Figure 5: Increase in Safety Belt Use for Selected States Compared with Overall 

U.S. Increase (1997-2006) 

The range in improvements in safety belt use rates from 1997 to 2006 can

be attributed in part to the safety belt use rate each state had achieved by

1997. For example, in 1997, North Carolina had achieved an 82 percent 

safety belt use rate, which exceeded the U.S. average safety belt use rate 

of 69 percent at that time. In contrast, North Dakota’s safety belt use rate 

in 1997 was only 49 percent. 

In 2006, safety belt use in the seven selected states ranged from 69 percent 

in Arkansas to 96 percent in Washington. Nationwide, safety belt use in 

2006 ranged from a low of 64 percent in New Hampshire and Wyoming to 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Overall U.S. 

North Carolina

Iowa

Rhode Island

Arkansas

Washington

Illinois

North Dakota

State

Percentage points

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.

29.6

25.7

19

18.8

15

14.7

6.5

12

Page 24 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Washington’s 96 percent. Safety belt use in four of the selected states we 

visited—Illinois, Iowa, North Carolina, and Washington—exceeded the 

2006 NHTSA safety belt use goal of 82 percent. All four of these states had 

a primary safety belt law in place by 2006. Safety belt use rates for 2006 in 

Arkansas, Rhode Island, and North Dakota—states without a primary 

safety belt law—fell short of the 2006 federal goal (see fig. 6).22

Figure 6: Safety Belt Use Compared with Federal Goal, Selected States (2006) 

According to officials, selected states’ HVE campaigns are also

contributing to reducing alcohol-involved fatality rates. From 1997 to 2006, 

all of the selected states experienced a decrease in alcohol-involved 

fatality rates. The decrease in the alcohol-involved fatality rate during this

0 20 40 60 80 100

NHTSA goal

Washington

Iowa

North Carolina

Illinois

North Dakota

Rhode Island

Arkansas

State

Belt use (percent)

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.

69.3

74

79

87.8

88.5

89.6

96.3

82

 22In general, throughout the U.S., safety belt use rates are higher in primary law states, but 

some states without a primary law have safety belt use rates that are higher than the 

nationwide average. Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, and West 

Virginias—states without a primary safety belt law according to NHTSA—experienced 2006

safety belt use rates that were higher than the nationwide average of 81 percent. 

Page 25 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
period ranged from 22 percent in Rhode Island and North Dakota to 3 

percent in Arkansas. Five of the seven selected states experienced 

declines in alcohol-involved fatality rates that were greater than the 

overall U.S. decrease of 12 percent (see fig. 7). 

Figure 7: Decrease in Alcohol-Involved Fatality Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles 

Traveled for Selected States Compared with Average Decrease in the United States 

(1997-2006) 

In 2006, alcohol-involved fatality rates in the seven selected states ranged 

from 0.62 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in Arkansas to 0.4 

in Rhode Island. Nationwide, the average alcohol-involved fatality rate in

2006 was 0.50 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. In 2006, five 

of the seven selected states experienced fatality rates that were lower than

the NHTSA goal of 0.51 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. 

North Dakota and Arkansas experienced alcohol-involved fatality rates in

2006 that fell short of the NHTSA goal (see fig. 8). 

0 5 10 15 20 25

U.S. average

Arkansas

Illinois

Washington

North Carolina

Iowa

North Dakota

Rhode Island

State

Percentage points

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA and FHWA data.

22

22

21

18

13

9

3

12

Page 26 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Figure 8: Fatalities with a BAC of 0.08 or Greater per 100 Million Vehicle Miles 

Traveled for Selected States Compared with Federal Goal (2006) 

Officials from the selected states we visited also identified other benefits 

that result from participating in HVE campaigns. For example, North 

Carolina and Iowa officials said that, during HVE campaigns, the 

additional officers staffing checkpoints or on patrol are able to apprehend

suspects in other crimes and write citations for traffic violations such as 

speeding; this increased level of enforcement activity contributes to 

improvements in overall traffic safety. For example, during a 2006 CIOT 

campaign in North Carolina, the state Department of Transportation 

reported that it issued over 23,000 speeding tickets but also arrested 699 

fugitives and recovered 141 stolen vehicles. Iowa officials also said that 

HVE campaigns yield benefits in that they will often find drugs or stolen 

property when stopping vehicles, and the campaigns serve to improve 

relationships between law enforcement personnel and the community. In 

addition, another benefit is that law enforcement agencies can use the 

equipment purchased for HVE campaigns—such as patrol cars, vehicle 

cameras, and BAC testing equipment—to enhance traffic safety 

enforcement efforts throughout the year. 

0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Federal goal

Rhode Island

Iowa

Washington

Illinois

North Carolina

North Dakota

Arkansas

State

Fatalities per 100 million VMT

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA and FHWA data.

0.62

0.56

0.47

0.46

0.44

0.41

0.40

0.51

Page 27 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Despite the gains made so far, several challenges hinder further progress 

in carrying out the HVE campaigns. The challenges cited by officials from 

the states we visited include: increasing safety belt use and reducing 

impaired driving among resistant populations; insufficient staff to conduct 

the campaigns; and weak prosecution of DUI arrests. Reviews of NHTSA’s

HVE campaigns from DOT’s Office of the Inspector General and the 

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have found similar 

challenges.23

Officials in selected states face the challenge of increasing safety belt use

and reducing impaired driving among resistant populations, such as 

drivers in rural areas, pickup truck drivers, and hardcore drinking drivers.

For example, statistics show that more drivers in rural areas resist wearing 

safety belts. Though recent progress has been made, in general, rural areas 

have a higher proportion of fatal crashes and traffic fatalities than in urban

areas. In a recent NHTSA analysis of urban and rural fatalities, NHTSA 

reported that rural fatalities accounted for 55 percent of fatal crashes and 

57 percent of traffic fatalities in 2006 even though only 23 percent of the

U.S. population lived in rural areas, according to 2006 Census estimates.24

Several factors in addition to lower safety belt use contribute to this 

disparity, including higher alcohol-involved crash rates, higher speed, rural 

roads that are narrow or have sharp curves, and less access to emergency 

services in rural areas. Crashes in rural areas are also more likely to 

involve occupants who are ejected from vehicles because they are not 

wearing safety belts. According to one study, of the 5,959 people who died

in rural crashes where a vehicle occupant was ejected or partially ejected 

from the vehicle, 92 percent were unbelted or were not properly restrained 

in a child safety seat. Statistics show that pickup truck drivers are also 

resistant to changing their safety belt habits. Compared with other drivers, 

Selected States Face 

Several Challenges in 

Conducting HVE 

Campaigns 

Challenge in Increasing Safety 

Belt Use and Reducing

Impaired Driving among 

Resistant Populations 

 23Since we used a nongeneralizable sample of seven states, these challenges should not be 

used to make inferences about challenges in all states that implement HVE campaigns. For 

similar challenges, see: Statement of The Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, 

U.S. Department of Transportation on the Effectiveness of Federal Drunk Driving 

Programs, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on 

Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality, Oversight Hearing on

Effectiveness of Federal Drunk Driving Programs, 110th Cong., 1st sess., October 25, 

2007; and Testimony of Mark V. Rosenker, Chairman, National Transportation Safety

Board, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on

Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality, Oversight Hearing on

Effectiveness of Federal Drunk Driving Programs, 110th Cong., 1st sess., October 25, 

2007. 

24NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts: Rural/Urban Comparison, DOT HS 810-812 (2006). 

Page 28 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
pickup truck drivers are more resistant to wearing safety belts. In 2007, 

according to NHTSA, 72 percent of pickup truck drivers were belted 

compared with 84 percent of passenger car drivers. This lower safety belt

use by pickup truck drivers and their passengers can lead to more vehicle

occupant ejections and fatalities. 

NHTSA and the states are taking steps to increase rural safety belt use and 

have developed programs targeting pickup truck drivers. In 2006, for 

example, a NHTSA report outlined several strategies that states and local 

communities could use to improve their rural safety belt programs and 

provided examples of leading enforcement and communication programs 

in many states.25 Illinois, one of selected states we visited, targeted rural 

safety belt use in 2005 by participating in a NHTSA Great Lakes Region 

Rural Demonstration program. The program involved intensified 

enforcement and paid media to alert residents in targeted rural areas that

safety belt laws would be enforced. During the program, Illinois aired 

television and radio ads in five media markets that include rural areas and

conducted safety belt enforcement zones by stopping vehicles if an 

unbuckled occupant was observed. Observational surveys of safety belt 

use in the targeted rural areas in Illinois showed belt use increased from a 

baseline of 78.5 percent before the Rural Demonstration program to 81.5 

percent after the program. Other states are also taking steps to increase 

safety belt use in rural areas. For example, Washington state developed a 

corridor program to improve traffic safety and safety belt use for one of its 

rural roads by increasing enforcement and installing signs to remind 

drivers to buckle up. Another example is in Iowa, where a rural youth 

organization expanded a program called “Farm Safety Just 4 Kids” to 

improve safety belt use among younger drivers in rural areas. 

NHTSA and the states have also taken actions to address the challenge of 

increasing belt use by drivers and occupants of pickup trucks. For 

example, in 2000, NHTSA initiated a study to identify safety belt use rates 

and important characteristics of pickup truck drivers and passengers, 

review public information campaigns intended for pickup truck drivers, 

obtain qualitative information about pickup truck drivers’ knowledge and

attitudes about safety belt use, and make suggestions for the development 

of future campaigns targeting pickup truck drivers. Some of the selected

states, in concert with NHTSA, have participated in special campaigns that 

 25NHTSA, Traffic Crashes Take Their Toll on America’s Rural Roads: The Need to 

Establish Rural Seat Belt Programs, DOT HS 810-658 (December 2006). 

Page 29 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
are designed to increase safety belt use in pickup trucks. Both Arkansas 

and North Carolina, working with their NHTSA regional offices, 

participated in safety belt campaigns in 2006 called “Buckle Up in Your 

Truck.” In Arkansas, the campaign ran during 2 weeks in May, and the ads 

for the campaign aired in five media markets. The ads ran at times and on 

programs that are popular with young males who are more likely to be 

driving pickup trucks. An analysis of a 2005 “Buckle Up in Your Truck” 

campaign in Alabama showed a greater than 4 percent increase in safety 

belt use in pickup trucks. 

Officials in selected states also face the challenge of reducing impaired 

driving among hardcore drinking drivers. Hardcore drinking drivers are 

those who drive with a BAC of 0.15 or greater. According to the NTSB, 

hardcore drinking drivers are involved in 54 percent of alcohol-involved 

fatalities, and these drivers are likely to be repeat drinking drivers. NHTSA 

and the states have taken steps to address this challenge. In August 2007, 

NHTSA recommended increased use of ignition interlock devices—an incar breath tester connected to the ignition that prevents the vehicle from 

starting if the device registers a BAC over a specified limit—as part of a 

penalty against repeat drunken driving offenders. In addition, NHTSA has 

published uniform guidelines for state highway safety programs that call

for states to enact laws such as high BAC and repeat offender laws with 

increased sanctions for each offense. Many states have enacted these laws. 

For example, 39 states and the District of Columbia impose higher 

penalties for drivers with BAC levels of 0.15 and above. In addition, 43 

states and the District of Columbia have repeat offender laws to 

discourage multiple alcohol offenses. All of the seven selected states have 

enacted these laws. 

Another challenge that hinders further progress in increasing safety belt 

use and reducing impaired driving is that law enforcement agencies report 

that they do not always have a sufficient number of officers to conduct 

HVE campaigns, even though traffic safety grants can be used for law 

enforcement officers to staff checkpoints or saturation patrols. This 

shortage of officers may affect HVE activities that occur during normal 

work hours and when HVE activities are staffed by officers working 

overtime. 

The challenge of finding a sufficient number of officers to conduct HVE 

campaign work during normal work hours can occur for various reasons. 

For example, some law enforcement agencies said they do not have 

sufficient staffing levels to conduct both regular police work and frequent

HVE campaign enforcement activities. In one city we visited, crime 

Challenge in Staffing 

Page 30 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
enforcement needs took priority over traffic enforcement, officials said. 

For example, until recently, Providence, Rhode Island, devoted most of its 

policing resources to reducing violent crime. However, with a reduction in

violent crime, Providence has been able to increase the number of officers 

working on traffic safety and HVE campaign activities. Officials also stated 

that regular staffing levels were being depleted because many of their 

officers have been called up for duty in the armed forces. Other factors 

that impact police department staffing levels, according to one 2005 study, 

include additional homeland security duties in many jurisdictions that lead 

to an increased workload for local police, as well as a potentially smaller 

pool of qualified applicants because of previous drug use and lack of 

physical condition. In addition, some law enforcement agencies may have

too few personnel to conduct HVE activities—staffing a full-scale sobriety 

checkpoint, for example, can require 10 or more officers. 

In addition to the challenge of finding sufficient staff for HVE activities 

during regular hours, officials in some of the law enforcement agencies we 

visited reported that they are also having a difficult time getting enough

officers to sign up for overtime to work on HVE campaigns. For example, 

officials in North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Washington said that one of 

the challenges in getting a sufficient number of officers to work overtime 

is that there are often other opportunities for overtime work, such as 

working in a work-zone patrol car at a highway construction site or as a 

security guard at a mall. Some officers prefer these opportunities over DUI 

enforcement because DUI enforcement involves a greater amount of effort 

and paperwork compared with other duties. 

Though NHTSA continues to provide funding through traffic safety grants, 

NHTSA has taken other steps to assist state and local law enforcement 

agencies in providing adequate staff for HVE campaigns. For example, 

NHTSA provides funds that states can use to provide equipment, such as 

breath-testing units, that are used as incentives to improve participation. 

NHTSA also provides guidance on how to make better use of existing 

resources. For example, NHTSA created a set of guidelines on sobriety 

checkpoints that outlines ways that small law enforcement agencies with 

limited staff can conduct effective sobriety checkpoints with fewer 

officers. 

States are also taking steps to address the staffing challenge. For example, 

to encourage officers to participate in enforcement campaigns, some 

states have developed programs to recognize officers for their 

contributions. In 2006, the Rhode Island Office of Highway Safety 

increased recognition for HVE work by giving awards to officers who 

Page 31 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
worked overtime in enforcement campaigns targeting drunken driving and 

drivers not wearing safety belts. In addition, Arkansas has initiated a 

recognition program for exemplary performance in DUI work. One way of

addressing staffing limitations in states with relatively small, neighboring 

law enforcement agencies is to conduct multijurisdictional enforcement 

activities. By pooling operations, according to NHTSA officials, 5 to10 

small agencies are able to concentrate appreciable resources during an 

HVE campaign mobilization period. For example, North Dakota is 

developing a multiagency approach to address the challenge of bringing 

together sufficient resources to staff DUI checkpoints. 

Another challenge for implementing HVE campaigns is weak prosecution 

of DUI arrests. Based on our interviews with selected state and NHTSA 

officials and our review of reports and studies, the main factors that 

contribute to weak DUI prosecution are as follows: 

Weak Prosecution of DUI 

Arrests 

• Court systems have heavy caseloads and limited resources. Therefore, DUI 

cases may be given a lower priority compared with more violent crimes. 

According to a 2002 panel convened by the National Association of State 

Judicial Educators, this results in prolonged adjudication of DUI cases and 

increased likelihood of dismissals and acquittals.

26 States often lack 

sufficient funds to establish special courts to more effectively process DUI 

cases and to provide the supervised probation and treatment that DUI 

offenders often require.

• Some law enforcement officials and prosecutors lack the necessary 

knowledge and training to consistently prosecute DUI cases. In some 

cases, the DUI charge may be dismissed because an officer lacks proper 

training. For example, an arresting officer may not have taken enough 

notes on the DUI arrest to testify in sufficient detail during the trial. In 

other cases, the DUI charge may be dismissed because the prosecutor did 

not have sufficient training to effectively prosecute DUI cases. However, 

many prosecutors view themselves as often not sufficiently prepared for 

their first DUI cases. A 2002 survey of prosecutors found that 48 percent 

believed they did not have adequate training or preparation before they 

began handling DUI cases. In addition, prosecutors and judges have to be

knowledgeable in the complex aspects of DUI cases, including relevant 

legal rulings and admissibility of evidence as well as more scientific and

technical issues such as blood alcohol testing procedures. The National 

 26National Association of State Judicial Educators and The Century Council, Hardcore 

Drunk Driving Judicial Guide (Washington, D.C., 2002). 

Page 32 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE) panel cited several 

challenges that judges handling DUI cases face, including that DUI cases 

are frequently plea-bargained, which may undermine the deterrent value of 

the arrest. 

Though states have a primary role in improving prosecution, NHTSA has 

provided guidance, funded training programs, and provided grants to 

states that can be used for more effective prosecution of DUI offenders.27

In February 2007, in cooperation with the National District Attorneys 

Association, NHTSA issued guidelines for improving testimony, note 

taking, and evidence gathering procedures by officers. NHTSA has also 

developed courses designed to improve prosecutorial skills, including one 

course on prosecuting DUI cases and another course that examines 

complex cases involving alcohol-involved crashes and provides training on 

how to prosecute these cases effectively and respond to challenges 

presented by the defense.28 NHTSA has also provided funding for systems 

that allow states to share information on effective DUI prosecution. For 

example, with NHTSA funding, NASJE is developing a clearinghouse for 

the exchange of materials, techniques, and information on DUI 

prosecution. 

Selected states have also developed initiatives to address the challenge of 

more effectively prosecuting DUI cases. For example, Arkansas has 

developed a judicial training project initiative that includes training for 

judges and officers on DUI prosecution and additional training for about 

400 officers on conducting field sobriety testing. In June 2006, Illinois used 

HVE 410 grant funding to conduct a 2-day seminar for 23 judges, which 

included training on sentencing and evidentiary issues. 

HVE enforcement campaigns have been shown to be effective tools in 

raising public awareness of and encouraging compliance with safety belt 

and impaired-driving laws. NHTSA has fulfilled the requirements for 

implementing an HVE program by developing advertising, coordinating 

with states, and evaluating the effectiveness of the campaigns. Although 

state officials we spoke with reported that NHTSA’s coordination efforts 

Conclusions 

 27States may use Alcohol-impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant funds to

implement an outreach program to educate prosecutors and judges. 

28These courses are offered by the National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators and the

American Prosecutors Training Institute. 

Page 33 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
helped them implement HVE campaigns, they also cited several challenges

to conducting campaigns and achieving desired results—resistant 

populations, insufficient staffing, and inconsistent DUI prosecution—that 

may be limiting the effectiveness of the campaigns. NHTSA is 

implementing some initiatives—such as the “Buckle Up In Your Truck” 

campaign to promote safety belt use among rural pickup truck drivers—to 

help states address these challenges. However, the challenges of 

insufficient staffing and inconsistent DUI prosecution are primarily state 

issues and largely out of NHTSA’s control to influence under the current 

program. While NHTSA’s performance measures indicate that the 

campaign messages are reaching the primary target audiences and 

positively affecting behaviors, NHTSA’s assessments of campaign 

effectiveness do not provide a complete picture of the impact of HVE 

campaigns. For example, NHTSA lacks the data to consistently measure a 

key component of the campaigns—the level of state and local activities—

and evaluate the use of federal funds used by states for campaign 

activities. Furthermore, the performance measures reported in the 

assessments are limited and do not provide information on the impact of 

the campaigns in areas such as nighttime safety belt use and 

advertisements for all target audiences. The assessments would be 

improved by more complete and consistent information on federally 

funded state campaign activities and a more comprehensive set of 

performance measures. 

To improve NHTSA’s evaluations of the HVE campaigns, we recommend 

that the Secretary of Transportation direct NHTSA to take the following 

two actions: 

• Develop a minimum core set of reporting requirements for states to 

consistently report HVE law enforcement and media activities funded with 

federal dollars. These requirements should be designed to achieve a more 

consistent measure of state activity and accountability for federal funding 

without presenting an undue burden to states. 

• Develop and include additional performance measures—such as a 

measure for nighttime safety belt use and additional measures of media 

effectiveness—in the agency’s annual evaluations of the effectiveness of 

the two campaigns. 

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for its review and comment. 

DOT officials—including the Senior Associate Administrator of Traffic 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

Page 34 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Injury Control—generally agreed with the findings and recommendations 

of the report.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and the Secretary of Transportation. We will also make copies

available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at 

no cost on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Sincerely yours, 

Katherine A. Siggerud 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 35 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Methodology 

To determine the extent that the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) has implemented the high-visibility enforcement 

program, and evaluated results, we reviewed information and interviewed 

officials from NHTSA and representatives of nongovernmental 

organizations, including the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Governors Highway Safety Association, 

International Association of Chiefs of Police, Mothers Against Drunk 

Driving, National Safety Council, and the National Sheriffs Association. In

addition, we reviewed studies, reports, and laws relevant to the 

implementation and evaluation of NHTSA’s and other high-visibility 

enforcement programs. We also interviewed state officials to obtain their

views on NHTSA’s assistance with campaign activities in seven states—

Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and

Washington. We judgmentally selected the states to include those with 

laws that may affect how states conduct enforcement campaigns; states 

with a wide range of traffic safety performance levels, such as safety belt 

use and number of alcohol-involved fatalities, and states with different 

sizes of law enforcement agencies and with various degrees of

participation in campaigns. In selecting states based on differences in laws 

that affect campaign enforcement, we included states that adopted 

primary safety belt laws before or after 1997 and states that have not 

enacted a primary safety belt law. In selecting states based on levels of 

traffic safety performance, we included states that, when ranked 

nationally, fell into the upper, lower, and middle third in safety belt use, 

unbuckled fatalities, and alcohol-related fatal crash ratio.1

 To select states

based on size of state law enforcement agencies, we looked at the average 

number of sworn officers reported by those agencies. To select states 

based on participation by law enforcement agencies, we chose states that 

had varying reported percentages of participation in HVE campaigns, the 

extent that agencies reported campaign hours worked, and whether law 

enforcement agencies used checkpoints while conducting the HVE 

campaigns from 2003 through 2006. In selecting the states, we used a 

nongeneralizable sampling approach, and, consequently, the results 

cannot be used to make inferences about all of the states. 

We used data contained in NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS) database to analyze information on all traffic-related fatalities. 

 1

The alcohol-related fatal crash ratio is the number of alcohol-related vehicle crashes with 

one or more fatalities divided by the total number of vehicle crashes with one or more 

fatalities. A crash was considered to be alcohol related if a vehicle operator, pedestrian, or 

bicyclist involved in the crash had blood alcohol content at or above 0.01. 

Page 36 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Each state provides NHTSA fatality data in a standardized format. To be 

included in the database, a crash must result in the death of an occupant 

or nonmotorist within 30 days of the incident. The states obtain this 

information from such sources as police reports, vehicle registration files, 

state driver licensing files, death certificates, coroner or medical examiner 

reports, and hospital records. It should be noted that while fatality data

are useful in understanding crashes, other factors in addition to those 

involved in causing the crash might have contributed to the fatality. This 

would include whether safety belt or other occupant protection measures 

were used and functioned properly. Further, in providing information on 

state fatality rate trends, we identified fatalities per million miles traveled.

To do so, we used vehicle miles traveled data maintained by Federal 

Highway Administration in its Highway Performance Monitoring System 

(HPMS). HPMS is a national-level highway information system that 

includes data on the extent, condition, performance, use, and operating 

characteristics of the nation’s highways. HPMS obtains vehicle-milestraveled data from each state, and states have different methods for 

collecting certain travel information. There are certain limitations 

associated with using these data. For example, the quality of the data in 

the system relies on state data collection techniques. HPMS guidance is 

flexible, so that each state has its own approach, and some approaches do

not require annual revisions. In addition, vehicle-miles-traveled data may 

not be comparable from state to state. We have previously assessed the 

reliability of the FARS and HPMS data by reviewing it for obvious errors in

accuracy and completeness, reviewing existing information about the 

data, and interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data and 

determined that the data is sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report. 

To determine the impact of the high-visibility enforcement campaigns and 

what challenges exist, we interviewed officials from state highway traffic 

safety offices, state police, and local police in the seven selected states. 

For each state we visited, we also interviewed officials in the applicable

NHTSA regional office and, when available, representatives of state 

associations of chiefs of police and sheriffs’ associations about the impact

of the HVE campaigns and challenges they faced. In addition, we reviewed 

the state highway safety plans and annual reports and other relevant 

reports for information on HVE campaign activities and challenges. We

also provide a summary of high-visibility campaigns in Australia, Canada, 

and the Netherlands, which can be found in appendix II. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2007 to April 2008 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

Page 37 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

Page 38 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Appendix II: HVE Campaigns in Australia, Appendix II: HVE Campaigns in Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands 

Canada, and the Netherlands 

Similar to the United States, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands, 

among other countries, combine high-visibility enforcement (HVE) with 

advertising to improve safety belt use and reduce impaired driving.1

 In fact, 

Canada was the first country in North America to demonstrate that highly

publicized occupant protection enforcement increases compliance with 

occupant protection laws. The United States based its model for highvisibility campaigns on Canada’s occupant protection enforcement 

program. 

A key difference among the U.S., Australia, and Netherlands HVE 

programs is the use of random breath testing (RBT), which allows police 

to pull over any driver at random to undergo a breath test for alcohol. 

Officials from Australia and the Netherlands noted that impaired-driving 

fatalities have been reduced in their countries because law enforcement 

officials are allowed to stop drivers at random to test the driver’s breath 

for alcohol. Though other countries report that the RBT technique is 

effective in combating impaired driving, it may be difficult to replicate in

the United States due to privacy concerns. In the United States, drivers 

must be stopped for suspicious behavior or another offense before being 

given a breathalyzer. However, states may be able to use equipment, such 

as a passive alcohol sensor embedded in a flashlight, to overcome 

potential privacy concerns. 

• Canada bases its current high-visibility enforcement campaigns on its 

national road safety plan, Road Safety Vision 2010, which commenced in 

2002. The plan has ambitious goals—a 30 percent reduction in fatalities 

and injuries based on average fatalities and serious injuries from 1996 to 

2001—and runs through 2010. Canadian HVE campaigns concentrate on 

speed, impaired driving, and safety belts among other things. Despite 

previous success with safety belt campaigns in the 1980s to 1990s, 

Canada’s safety belt use rates have remained stagnant at approximately 90

percent to 93 percent during the last 10 years. Canada is currently trying to 

develop strategies to target the “last 10 percent” since approximately 40 

percent of their fatalities involve unbuckled persons, many of whom are 

thrown from the vehicle. To target impaired drivers, Canada conducts a 

Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program, where police stop drivers 

to check for signs of alcohol consumption. If there is suspicion of 

drinking, a roadside screening test can be administered; if the driver fails 

this test, an evidentiary breath test is given, usually at the police station.

 1

GAO selected these three countries based on expert recommendation and the countries’ 

performance in reducing road fatalities. 

Page 39 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Appendix II: HVE Campaigns in Australia,

Canada, and the Netherlands 

Canadian law also stipulates that anyone with a blood alcohol content 

above 0.08 is criminally liable. Finally, Canada has a Web site to allow 

officers to share best practices in high-visibility campaigns. 

• Australia has primarily relied on RBT as an effective strategy for the 

country’s high-visibility law enforcement campaigns against impaired 

driving. Each Australian state enacted impaired-driving laws between 1976

and 1992, setting a blood alcohol content of 0.05 as the legal limit for 

drunken driving offenses. Each state has also enacted RBT laws, beginning 

with the state of Victoria in 1976. It was not until researchers determined 

in the early 1980s that one in two drivers killed in traffic accidents had a 

blood alcohol content over the legal limit, however, that Australia began 

widespread implementation of RBTs. For example, the state of Victoria 

went from conducting nearly 200,000 RBTs per year in the mid-1980s to

approximately 1.2 million RBTs per year in the early 1990s. Since there 

were approximately 3 million licensed drivers in the state of Victoria at 

that time, this means more than one in three drivers were subject to an

RBT. The proportion of drivers killed in Australia traffic accidents that had 

a blood alcohol content over the legal limit fell to one in five in 1992. 

Furthermore, the number of intoxicated drivers in the state of Victoria 

who died in accidents decreased from 350 per year in the 1980s to 

approximately 100 in 2006. In addition, Australia implemented a campaign

to educate the public about why police officers were conducting RBTs and 

ensured the RBTs were conducted efficiently to ensure minimal delays to 

drivers. Australia emphasized the RBTs have been successful because of 

the general deterrence theory—that is, Australian drivers are afraid of 

being pulled over and tested, and, thus, they are less likely to drink and 

drive. Finally, anyone who refuses a breathalyzer test is presumed to have

a blood alcohol content above the legal limit. 

• The Netherlands’ HVE campaigns focus on a variety of areas set by the 

Minister of Transport and employs a number of different strategies. The 

five campaigns for 2007 emphasized helmet use for motorcycles and 

mopeds, safety belt use, red light compliance, reducing impaired driving, 

and lowering driving speeds. Each campaign lasts several weeks and 

involves significant police activity using the country’s 750 traffic safety 

officers. Approximately 1.5 million RBTs are done per year in the 

Netherlands, and drivers are afraid of being pulled over and tested, based

on the general deterrence theory. The Netherlands also has an aggressive

speed enforcement program to ticket 100 percent of offenders on the 

country’s motorways, through an intricate speed camera system. For 

example, a motorway will have a camera on mile 1 and another camera on 

mile 10. A citation is then issued when drivers exceed the speed limit 

between those two locations; the fine depends on how far over the limit 

Page 40 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Appendix II: HVE Campaigns in Australia,

Canada, and the Netherlands 

the driver was traveling. In the past, the Netherlands has run a campaign 

featuring a cartoon character known as “Goochem the Armadillo” to 

encourage children ages 4 to 12 to wear safety belts. The campaign was 

intended to emphasize knowledge of safety belt laws, increase use of 

safety belts, and encourage positive attitudes about safety belts. The 

campaign was successful in raising safety belt use rates by back seat 

passengers. Safety belt use rates by back seat passengers increased from 

40 percent in urban areas and 43 percent in rural areas in 1998 to 73

percent for both in 2006. Further, although the campaign was aimed at 

children, a survey demonstrated that the campaign reached approximately 

90 percent of adults, as well. In addition to the high-visibility campaigns, 

the Netherlands also promotes sustained activity targeting each of the 

campaign areas throughout the year.

Page 41 GAO-08-477 Traffic Safety
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 42 GAO-08-477 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Katherine A. Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, other key contributors to this 

report were Sara Vermillion (Assistant Director), Elizabeth Curda, Sandra 

DePaulis, Brad Dubbs, Colin Fallon, Bert Japikse, Tom James, Leslie 

Locke, Terry Richardson, Beverly Ross, and Aron Szapiro. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(542114) Traffic Safety
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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 “E-mail Updates.” 

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, DC 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 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER