Notice 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The 

U.S. Government assumes no liability for use of the information contained 

in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, 

or regulation. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to 

serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes 

public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and 

maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. 

FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and 

processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FHWA-SA-15-015 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

2nd Edition 

5. Report Date 

July 2015 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Eric Tang, P.E. 

8. Performing Organization Report 

No. 

9. Performing Organization Name And Address 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 

4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 800 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-10-D-00020 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Department of Transportation 

Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered 

2nd Edition 

July 2015 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

HSSP 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Karen Scurry, COTM 

16. Abstract. 

Title 23 U.S.C. 148 establishes the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to achieve a significant 

reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. To obligate funds to be consistent with 23 

U.S.C. 148 (c)(1) States are required to: 1) develop and implement a State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP); 

2) produce a program of projects or strategies; 3) evaluate the plan on a regular basis; and 4) submit annual 

reports. The purpose of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Assessment Toolbox is to compile 

commonly used evaluation techniques that are available to support a review of the HSIP. It is beneficial to 

periodically take a step back and conduct an assessment of the HSIP. An assessment allows States to review 

their HSIP (or elements of the program) to identify noteworthy practices and opportunities for improvement. 

17. Key Words 

Highway Safety Improvement Program, Highway 

Safety, Assessment Toolbox 

18. Distribution Statement 

No Restrictions. This document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA 22161 

19. Security Classif. (of this 

report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of 

Pages 

70 

22. Price 

N/A 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. 

 

 

 

Preface 

It can be illuminating for any organization to periodically take a step back and conduct an 

assessment of how it conducts various aspects of its business. This can be accomplished through 

a self-assessment or a program or peer review. This type of activity allows the organization to 

look for opportunities for improvement and to identify and potentially integrate noteworthy 

practices into their existing programs. 

The initial edition of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Assessment Toolbox 

provided a tool to the States to conduct this type of assessment for their HSIP. This second 

edition of the HSIP Assessment Toolbox updates the original toolbox for consistency with 

MAP-21, compiles commonly used evaluation techniques, and incorporates current state-of-thepractice gleaned from FHWA’s interactions with many State DOTs. 

In addition to developing and providing this tool to the States, FHWA staff are available to assist 

States. FHWA can facilitate discussions and brainstorming sessions to determine which type of 

assessment best meets the needs of the State and to identify the best way to conduct a program 

assessment. For additional information, please contact your local FHWA Division Office. 

As the information in the Toolbox is utilized and additional information becomes available, 

enhancements will be made to the HSIP Assessment Toolbox. The FHWA Office of Safety will 

make every effort to provide meaningful information and assistance to support HSIP 

Assessments. If there is something more that you would like to see in this toolbox, please don’t 

hesitate to let us know. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Table of Contents
 

Background......................................................................................................................................1
 

Self-Assessment...............................................................................................................................3
 

HSIP Self-Assessment Tool................................................................................................ 3
 

Program Review...............................................................................................................................5
 

Steps for Conducting a Program Review............................................................................ 6
 

Resources ............................................................................................................................ 7
 

Peer Review .....................................................................................................................................8
 

Prior to the Visit.................................................................................................................. 9
 

During the Visit................................................................................................................. 10
 

Report................................................................................................................................ 10
 

Follow-up.......................................................................................................................... 11
 

Pulling It All Together...................................................................................................................12
 

Why should I conduct a program assessment? ................................................................. 12
 

When do I conduct a program assessment? ...................................................................... 13
 

Who leads the program assessment?................................................................................. 13
 

What happens with the results of the program assessment? ............................................. 14
 

Appendix........................................................................................................................................15
 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Quality Assessment .......................................... 16
 

Program Delivery Improvement Tool............................................................................... 23
 

Safety Activity Statements................................................................................................ 25
 

Program Review/Peer Review Questions ......................................................................... 31
 

General.............................................................................................................................. 32
 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) ............................................................................ 33
 

Railway-Highway Crossings Program (RHCP)................................................................ 36
 

Program of Highway Safety Improvement Projects (State HSIP).................................... 38
 

SHSP Process Approval Checklist.................................................................................... 42
 

Potential Information Resources....................................................................................... 55
 

Example Review Topics ................................................................................................... 56
 

Sample Peer Review Agenda............................................................................................ 57
 

Sample Report................................................................................................................... 58
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Background
 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is established under 23 U.S.C. 148 with the 

purpose to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public 

roads. The HSIP includes the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), the Railway-Highway 

Crossing Program (RHCP) and resulting program of highway safety improvement projects (or 

State HSIP). 

To obligate funds under the HSIP, States are required to: 1) develop, implement and update a 

SHSP; 2) produce a program of projects or strategies; and 3) evaluate the SHSP on a regular 

recurring basis. This program is regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

under 23 CFR 924. The HSIP is a Federally assisted, State-administered program. 

While the State Departments of Transportation (SDOT) have been delegated the responsibility to 

administer the HSIP, FHWA Division Offices are required to ensure that States are doing so in 

accordance with the law and regulation. As such, each agency has stewardship and oversight 

responsibilities, as defined in a stewardship and oversight agreement. Program assessments are 

frequently used to provide stewardship and oversight of the HSIP. 

A program assessment may take many forms including, but not limited to, self-assessments, 

program reviews, and peer reviews. All of these assessments are based on the common concepts 

of identifying strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities; and the identification and sharing of 

noteworthy practices to continually improve the program. 

The HSIP Assessment Toolbox presents information to assist SDOTs, FHWA Division Offices 

and other safety partners (i.e., Metropolitan Planning Organizations), as appropriate, with HSIPrelated program assessments. Each type of program assessment is described in detail within the 

toolbox, while supporting resources are provided in the appendices. It is important to note that 

much of the information presented in this document is available through other FHWA resources. 

Currently a variety of Federal-aid program assessments are conducted in every State. The goal of 

the HSIP Assessment Toolbox is to consolidate the available information and make it specific to 

the HSIP. 

The various assessments presented herein can be conducted as part of a larger process, as 

illustrated in the figure on the following page, or as stand-alone assessments. It is at the 

discretion of the agency conducting the HSIP assessment to best determine the applicability of 

the various program assessments to its particular situation. Examples of how these assessments 

can be applied are provided throughout the toolbox. 

The figure below illustrates how a program assessment might be conducted as part of a larger 

process. For example, activities identified as potential risks as part of a self-assessment process 

can be used to feed a risk assessment. Risk assessment can be defined as the systematic process 

for evaluating the potential exposure to loss for a particular program or process and the 

identification of potential countermeasures to control or reduce the perceived risk. 

1
 
 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

After risks have been identified, the next step is to develop and implement strategies to reduce or 

control the risks. These strategies may include reviews that provide assurance that policies, etc. 

are being applied and are working as intended. These reviews could be in the form of a program 

review or a peer review, which are carried out as part of a broader agency planning document 

(i.e., unit plan). Unit plans identify office-level objectives, measures, and activities. 

Implementation of the recommendations from a program review or peer review should be 

monitored and evaluated on a regular basis. Successful efforts will be realized in future program 

assessment efforts. 

SelfAssessment 

Risk 

Assessment 

Program 

Review 

Peer 

Review 

Unit Plan 

Results 

(Performance 

Dashboard) 

(Source: Federal Highway Administration.) 

The HSIP Assessment Toolbox can be used as a guide to assess a State’s HSIP, as appropriate. 

There is not a Federal requirement to conduct program assessments, other than those necessary 

to carry out stewardship and oversight responsibilities. However, FHWA recommends that States 

conduct an HSIP-related assessment at least once every five years. The intent of the toolbox is to 

provide SDOTs, FHWA Division Offices and other safety partners, as appropriate, with the tools 

and resources necessary to conduct an effective HSIP assessment to ensure successful 

implementation of HSIP-related practices and procedures. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Self-Assessment
 

The purpose of a self-assessment is to provide a formal process for Federal, State and local 

transportation safety professionals to collaboratively assess the HSIP and identify opportunities 

for improvement. The self-assessment process: 

• Helps raise the level of awareness of HSIP-related practices and strategies. 

• Serves as a working tool to identify gaps in existing HSIP efforts. 

• Provides an opportunity to benchmark progress at the agency level. 

Currently, the HSIP Self-Assessment Tool is available to transportation safety professionals to 

assess the current status of HSIP implementation efforts. Prior to the HSIP Self-Assessment 

Tool, FHWA used the HSIP Quality Assessment and the Program Delivery Improvement Tool to 

support HSIP self-assessment efforts. To maintain historical perspective, a discussion of both of 

these tools is included in the Appendix. An overview of the HSIP Self-Assessment Tool is 

provided below. 

HSIP Self-Assessment Tool 

The HSIP Self-Assessment Tool provides HSIP managers information to assess their programs, 

policies, and procedures against many of the recommended HSIP practices in use today. 

An HSIP self-assessment can be initiated and led by either the State Department of 

Transportation, FHWA Division Office, or other safety partners, as appropriate. A selfassessment is most beneficial if conducted as a partnership among stakeholders, as selfassessment requires a collaborative effort. The timeframe and frequency for conducting a selfassessment is at the discretion of the agency. Typically, self-assessments are conducted annually, 

or every other year, to measure progress in implementing program improvements. 

The HSIP Self-Assessment Tool consists of a series of questions to determine the level of 

adoption of a particular HSIP practice based on a five phase adoption process: initiation; 

development; execution; evaluation; and integration. Questions are scored on a scale of 0 to 15, 

with a higher number indicating a greater degree of adoption. Questions are grouped within five 

primary assessment areas: 

• Leadership 

• Administration 

• Planning 

• Implementation 

• Evaluation 

3
 
 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

The Leadership area acknowledges the relationship between support from the highest levels of 

agency management and the effectiveness of the HSIP. Agency management support as well as 

consistent safety goal setting and the presence of safety champions combines to raise the 

visibility and importance of the HSIP. This helps to create an agency culture supportive of HSIP 

goals. 

A comprehensive set of Administration elements are key to HSIP effectiveness. These elements 

include adequate staffing, established procedures, and clear guidance that define safety funding 

and eligibility features to maximize the effectiveness of the HSIP. 

The Planning area consists of features that assist in the identification of safety problems, the 

development of improvement strategies and countermeasures, and the programming of projects. 

The HSIP should be a data-driven process that considers a range of problems and solutions to 

maximize the return on scarce safety resources. 

Implementation questions are designed to evaluate the extent to which safety funds are allocated 

and safety projects are managed to assure fulfillment of safety goals. Once a program of projects 

is developed, it is important to monitor implementation to ensure successful completion. 

The Evaluation area provides feedback to policy makers and program managers regarding the 

effectiveness of the HSIP. Feedback provides a basis to continuously improve the program. 

HSIP managers can use the HSIP Self-Assessment results to establish a benchmark to measure 

progress in implementing the HSIP or in combination with other information such as program 

reviews, risk assessment, or performance measures to develop strategic plans, stewardship 

agreements, or allocate resources. 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

Program Review 

In general, a program review is a thorough analysis of key program components and the 

processes employed by the agency in managing the program. The reviews are conducted to 

1) ensure compliance with Federal requirements; 2) identify opportunities for greater efficiencies 

and improvements to the program; or 3) identify exemplary practices. They can be referred to, or 

are known as, program improvement reviews, program assessments, program/product 

evaluations, or continuous process improvement initiatives. 

A program review is an effective means to conduct a periodic evaluation of the overall HSIP, a 

particular element of the HSIP (i.e., SHSP, State HSIP, and RHCP) or to focus on a process 

within the HSIP (i.e., planning, implementation, and evaluation). Sample program review topics 

are included in the Appendix. 

The Data portion of this assessment tool will focus on how data is utilized to support the various 

programs under the HSIP. An assessment of a State’s crash data can be accomplished through 

the Crash Data Improvement Program (CDIP). An assessment of a State’s roadway data can be 

accomplished through the Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP). Lastly, an assessment 

of your State’s entire traffic records system can be achieved through a Traffic Records 

Assessment sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

The targeted area for a program review is often identified through the Division Office’s risk 

assessment process, in consultation with the SDOT, based on the stewardship and oversight 

agreement. Safety specialists might consider using the HSIP Self-Assessment Tool (as described 

in the previous section), to feed the risk assessment process. A program review may be 

warranted if the discussion surrounding a particular question indicates: 

•	 Opportunities for improvement in a particular area. 

•	 This is not how the SDOT currently does business. 

•	 There has been no change in the current process for a number of years. 

•	 A new process has been established recently. 

The following are examples of questions that a HSIP Program Review may help to answer: 

•	 Is the State seeing a positive impact from the implementation of the HSIP? 

•	 Is the HSIP in compliance with the law and regulation? 

•	 Is the State using the best project identification process given the available data? 

•	 Is the HSIP truly data driven? 

•	 Does the HSIP address all public roads? 

•	 Can areas for improvement be identified? 

•	 Are there noteworthy practices that would benefit HSIP peers? 

•	 Are the HSIP evaluation results feeding back into the planning element of the HSIP and 

affecting department policies and design standards? 

•	 Does the HSIP consider an appropriate balance between spot and systemic safety projects? 

•	 Why are HSIP obligation rates lower than that of other Federal-aid program areas? 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

The examples provided below further illustrate scenarios for which a HSIP program review may 

be beneficial. 

Example A Example B
 

Carol, a State safety engineer, is For the purposes of managing turnover
 

concerned about the effectiveness of the and legacy issues at the State, Carol is
 

safety program. To further complicate interested in documenting the processes
 

things, a new regulation was issued that by which they administer their HSIP.
 

may affect how they do business. While Carol has determined that an internal 

she suspects that most of the program program review can best help her
 

elements are at least partly consistent accomplish this goal.
 

with the regulation, she is concerned 

about compliance. Therefore, Carol has
 

decided to partner with her FHWA
 

Division Office to conduct a program
 

review.
 

Steps for Conducting a Program Review 

Typical steps for conducting a program review are as follows: 

1.	 Assemble a multi-disciplinary team. [A multidisciplinary team would include representatives 

from all units, teams, or departments responsible for carrying out the HSIP.] 

2.	 Develop a review plan. [The review plan should consist of a purpose, scope, expected results, 

information needed, gaps in information and possible sources, team members and roles, 

schedules, and resources.] 

3.	 Conduct review. 

4.	 Analyze and interpret results. 

5.	 Develop inferences, recommendations, and lessons learned. 

6.	 Prioritize recommendations and lessons learned. 

7.	 Present the findings from the review. 

8.	 Apply recommendations and lessons learned. 

The Work Zone Process Review Toolbox outlines the Steps for a Review (as noted above) in the 

“ABCs” of Process Reviews and provides additional explanatory details for each step of the 

program review process. While there are references to work zone process reviews throughout the 

document, the steps are generic enough to apply to all program areas, including the HSIP. 

Follow-up and monitoring are essential to the success of program reviews. Follow-up and 

monitoring may be in the form of regularly scheduled status meetings (i.e., quarterly, biannual) 

or presentations at appropriate meetings of task forces, managerial groups, etc. 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Resources 

The National Highway Institute hosts several courses related to program reviews including 

Conducting Effective Program Reviews (310120), Introduction to Data Analysis (310122) and 

Writing Effective Program Review Reports: Moving People to Action (310119). These 

workshops provide training and hands on assistance in the methodology and tools available for 

conducting successful reviews. 

A sample set of questions is included in the Appendix. These questions can be used to support 

the information gathering process (as identified in Step 2 and obtained in Step 3 of the review 

process), whether in the format of an interview or a questionnaire. These questions can be used 

as a starting point; however, they should be modified to address the intent of the program review 

and the target audience. They are organized by program area (General, SHSP, RHCP, and 

Program of Highway Safety Improvement Projects) and within each program by process (i.e., 

planning, implementation, evaluation). Examples of additional information resources that can 

support the review process are included in the Appendix. 

Many Divisions have conducted HSIP-related program reviews, some of which are available in 

the Program Review Library [available to FHWA personnel only]. It may be beneficial to review 

some of the HSIP-related program review reports to get a feel for what has been done in other 

States. In many instances, the report outlines the process used to conduct the review as well, 

which could prove useful in planning your review. The Program Review Library also contains a 

program review report template and writing and style guide that should be used to document 

your review efforts. 

Noteworthy practices can be used as the basis for the recommendations set forth in Step 5 of the 

review process. FHWA hosts a roadway safety noteworthy practices database that can be used to 

explore other State HSIP practices. If a State is interested in further exploring how another State 

does business in a particular area, it may be beneficial to host an HSIP-related peer review (as 

described in the next section). 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Peer Review
 

A peer review, as defined for the purpose of conducting an HSIP Assessment, is an impartial 

review of a State’s HSIP by a team of experts in the same field. A peer review is a practical and 

effective tool to foster excellence in program management. Peer reviews are not new concepts; 

the Research program has had great success in using this tool to improve Research, 

Development, & Technology (RD&T) management practices. In fact, the approach outlined 

below is borrowed from the RD&T Peer Exchange program. As the HSIP Peer Review Program 

evolves, it is expected that these procedures will be updated to better reflect the needs of the 

HSIP. 

The objective of a peer review program is to give agencies a means to improve the quality and 

effectiveness of their HSIP. A peer review is appropriate for agencies of any size, mission, 

discipline, or responsibility. The FHWA Office of Safety offers a Safety Technical Assistance 

Program, of which Peer review is a major component. As part of this program, technical 

assistance and resources are available to States wishing to host a peer review. 

It is extremely important to note that peer reviews are not compliance reviews. The intent of the 

peer review is for both the host State and the visitors to exchange information. The goal of the 

peer review is to share experiences. Peer reviews are intended to benefit all participants through 

an open exchange of ideas, knowledge, and brainstorming. The visitors should expect to gain as 

much from the experience, if not more, than the host State. The peer review is concerned with 

the HSIP process, not the composition of the program. 

The program is designed to send an outside team of invited HSIP managers and/or technical 

experts to meet with the host agency to discuss and review its HSIP process. Information on the 

host agency and team members’ HSIP policies and procedures are exchanged with the intent to 

improve the overall HSIP process. Peer reviews provide an opportunity for participants to share 

best practices and management innovations with each other. The information gathered from the 

exchange is presented to agency management. 

There are many benefits that can be realized from conducting a peer review. Potential benefits 

include solutions to specific problems; assessment of customer service; benchmarks for checking 

progress; inspiration for staff; and lastly they can help the HSIP gain the visibility and attention 

of management. 

It is the host agency’s responsibility to initiate its peer review. The composition of the peer 

review team, the breadth of the issues covered, the duration of the peer review, and other issues 

are at the agency’s discretion. FHWA staff is available to help facilitate discussions and 

brainstorming sessions to assist States in planning a peer review. The procedures outlined below 

are intended to be used to guide discussions, meetings with upper level management, preparation 

of a report, and follow-up activities. 

8
 
Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

Prior to the Visit 

A significant amount of planning occurs prior to the actual peer review. The information 

provided below is suggested activities that both the host State and review team should undertake 

prior to the visit to ensure a successful peer review. 

Host Agency 

1.	 Select prospective members of the review team. 

a)	 Composition of Review Team: The review team should include an appropriate balance of 

Federal, State and local participants. At a minimum, the review team should consist of 

two other State HSIP managers and the local FHWA Division Office Safety Engineer. 

Other prospective review team members might include representatives from the FHWA 

Office of Safety and/or Resource Center, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), 

Local Public Agencies (LPA), and others as appropriate to the review topic. 

b)	 Characteristics of Review Team members: The review team members should be diverse 

and have specific knowledge and expertise with the HSIP; the ability to be forthright in 

discussion and contribute successful ideas, methods and procedures; and excellent 

communications skills. Peer review team members must understand, accept, and employ 

the concepts of teamwork. 

2.	 Designate one of the visitors as the team leader. The team leader should be a good 

communicator; able to synthesize and summarize material well, including being able to see 

the “big picture”; and be able to effectively facilitate a group, including maintaining control 

of agenda and time. 

3.	 Personally contact each of the prospective team members to establish availability and 

tentative dates. 

4.	 Send each team member a copy of applicable resources at least 2 weeks prior to the visit. A 

list of potential resources is included in the Appendix. 

5.	 Identify focus areas considered desirable for discussion during the visit. Example review 

topics are provided in the Appendix. 

Review Team 

1.	 Agree to participation in the team only if you do so voluntarily and with a desire to both offer 

and receive new ideas. 

2.	 Review the materials sent by the host agency. Do not try to compare the host agency’s 

documentation with either the FHWA regulations or guidance. Remember, the purpose of the 

visit is NOT to check for compliance with requirements; that is the responsibility of the 

FHWA Division Office. 

3.	 Prepare to discuss your own program and your successes and failures and to participate in 

open discussions. 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

During the Visit 

The duration of the peer review is at the discretion of the host agency. Generally, the visit should 

be scheduled to last at least 3 days, allowing time to prepare a team report and conduct a “closeout” discussion. 

The host agency should prepare an agenda for the visit. The agenda will be largely shaped by the 

review topic selected. The agenda may include: 

•	 Discussion of the host and visiting State’s HSIP process, programs, and projects, as related to 

the review topic. 

•	 Opportunity for the team to look at example projects as they have advanced (and are 

advancing) through the system from identification through evaluation. 

•	 Discussion with other personnel involved in the HSIP process (i.e., contractors, planning 

organizations, local government agencies, Local Technical Assistance Program). 

•	 Some historical perspective of staff and financial resources. 

•	 Staff training. 

•	 Open discussion on strengths, key issues, opportunities, and planned actions. 

•	 Time for the visitors and host State to prepare a Team Report. The content of the report is 

discussed below. 

•	 A scheduled “close-out.” The “close-out” activity is described in the Report Section. 

A sample agenda is included in the Appendix. 

Report 

The report should be written before the closeout conference. As a minimum, the report should be 

prepared before the visitors leave. The report is to be considered a team effort that involves all of 

the visitors and the host agency HSIP Manager. 

The report should include a brief introduction that identifies all of the participants on the team 

and describes the purpose and intent of the activity. The body of the report should briefly discuss 

those aspects of the HSIP that were looked at by the team. 

The conclusion section of the report should reflect the highlights of the open discussions and be 

written as a team using a “team consensus” approach. It is expected that the report will reflect the 

aspects of the host agency’s program that the visitors desire to incorporate into their own 

programs as well as 1) the desirable features of the host State’s program that should be 

emphasized; and 2) those aspects of the host agency’s program that appear to warrant a new or 

expanded approach. 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

The report is most likely to be of value if it is kept brief and to the point. The use of “bullet” 

phrases and other outlining techniques should be used to help avoid the need to “wordsmith” the 

report and minimize the time needed to review the document. The report should include an 

endorsement by all of the members of the team. A sample report format is included in the 

Appendix. 

The “close-out” has the potential for the greatest benefit if it is conducted with upper 

management of the host agency. The “close-out” should highlight the most positive aspects of 

the host agency’s HSIP, as well as recommended areas of improvement, and the aspects of the 

host agency program that the visitors intend to incorporate into their own programs. Of course, 

any suggestions agreed to by the team, should also be highlighted to the host State upper 

management, with the understanding that upper management support is necessary to make 

significant changes. 

Follow-up 

One additional activity that would have substantial benefit involves some effort to follow-up on 

the consensus reached during the peer review. About a year after the visit, the host agency should 

initiate a “Round Robin” report that identifies any changes that have occurred and that were 

introduced because of the visit. Each of the visitors should add to the report those activities that 

were enhanced in their respective programs because of their participation in the peer review. The 

report would be circulated among all members of the team until everyone has had an opportunity 

to review everyone else’s comments. 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Pulling It All Together
 

The HSIP Assessment Toolbox contains information, tools, and resources to support various 

HSIP-related assessments. These assessments include self-assessments, program reviews, and 

peer reviews. Each type of assessment has been described in detail in the previous sections. 

However, many questions have not been answered, largely because this is a resource document, 

and not a guidance document. However, in an effort to link the various elements of the HSIP 

Assessment Toolbox, the following questions will be addressed: 

• Why should I conduct a program assessment? 

• When do I conduct a program assessment? 

• Who leads the assessment? 

• What happens with the results of the program assessment? 

Please note that there is no right or wrong way to conduct an assessment. The reasons for 

conducting an assessment, the timeframe for doing so, and the type of assessment being 

conducted are largely dependent on the agency leading the review and the review topic. 

However, the importance of the last question must be emphasized, as the response to any 

assessment is integral to the future success of the program. 

Why should I conduct a program assessment? 

There are many reasons to conduct an HSIP assessment; however, the primary reason is a desire 

to improve the process and procedures used to administer the HSIP. The SDOT, FHWA Division 

Office, and other safety partners, as appropriate, may perform a self-assessment to determine the 

status of the various elements of the HSIP as compared to what is desirable. The results of the 

self-assessment can be used as a benchmark and to track progress towards improving the 

effectiveness of the HSIP over the long term. 

The self-assessment results can also serve as input to the risk assessment process. Those areas 

that were identified as weaknesses or “high risk” may either warrant further investigation, 

through a program review or peer review. A program review or peer review would allow a more 

detailed investigation into a particular component of the HSIP and highlight opportunities for 

improvement. In addition, an agency may wish to host a peer review to learn more about an 

HSIP-related process or practice that is utilized in another State and being considered for 

implementation in their State. The following table provides a summary of the potential uses for 

each type of program assessment. 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

Table 1. Potential Uses for Program Assessment 

Program 

Assessment 

Potential Use 

Benchmark Compliance 

Identify Gaps & 

Opportunities for 

Improvement 

Identify & 

Share 

Noteworthy 

Practices 

Self-Assessment X X X 

Program 

Review X X X 

Peer Review X X 

When do I conduct a program assessment? 

The timeframe and frequency for conducting a program assessment is at the discretion of the 

SDOT and the FHWA Division Office. However, FHWA recommends that States conduct a 

program assessment at least once every 5 years. Many self-assessments are conducted annually 

or every other year to measure progress in implementing program improvements. Program or 

peer reviews should be conducted as deemed necessary based on the risk assessment or 

stewardship and oversight agreement. The topic does not always have to be the same; however, it 

would prove beneficial for States to both host and participate in a peer review on a regular basis 

to keep abreast of current program activities and to network with peers. 

Who leads the program assessment? 

A program assessment can be initiated and led by either the SDOT, FHWA Division Office, or 

others safety partners as appropriate. However, each type of assessment lends itself to a different 

review process. For example, 

•	 While a self-assessment can be conducted by either agency, it would be most beneficial if 

conducted as a partnership, as the very nature of a self-assessment tool is for a collaborative 

assessment. 

•	 Program reviews are most often conducted as part of FHWA’s stewardship and oversight 

responsibilities; therefore, the FHWA Division Office in consultation with the SDOT and 

other agencies, as appropriate most often leads a program review. However, this should not 

deter the SDOT from initiating a program review as an effort to periodically review their 

HSIP implementation efforts. A program review could also include HSIP experts from 

FHWA. 

•	 An SDOT-led program review may be best accomplished by hosting a peer review so that 

ideas, practices, and procedures can be shared amongst peers. While the peer review is a 

relatively new concept to the HSIP field, the RD&T peer review program is initiated and led 

by the SDOT. Of course, it is entirely feasible for a program review to recommend that an 

agency host a peer review to identify noteworthy practices for consideration in a specific 

area. 

13
 
Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

What happens with the results of the program assessment? 

Recommendations from the program assessment, particularly the program review and peer 

review, should be prioritized, assigned responsibility, and implemented accordingly. It is good 

practice to monitor program improvement efforts through biannual or annual follow-up 

activities. These follow-up activities can be as formal as a regularly scheduled meeting to discuss 

progress towards implementing the program assessment recommendations or an informal followup activity as described in the peer review section of this document. The implementation of the 

recommendations will ideally result in improved program performance and be reflected in future 

program assessments. It is only through continual program improvement that the success of the 

HSIP will be realized. 

14
 
Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Appendix
 

15
 
 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Quality Assessment 

The HSIP Quality Assessment includes ten primary questions related to the HSIP. In the past, the 

HSIP Quality Assessment was conducted annually by FHWA through input from Division 

Safety Engineers. The questions are related to SHSP stakeholders; SHSP priorities driving the 

HSIP; Highway Safety Plan and Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan expenditures; crash data; HSIP 

effectiveness; HSIP evaluation process; and HSIP obligation rates. In some instances, additional 

“sub-questions” are included to clarify the status of the various HSIP elements. 

The responses to each primary question were structured such that, in general, “E” is the “best” 

scenario or ideal status for each element. However, this philosophy may not be applicable to 

each State. For example, question six would indicate that it is best to use fatality and serious 

injury crash data to identify HSIP projects. This may or may not be appropriate for the small or 

rural States that fortunately do not experience a large number of motor-vehicle related fatalities. 

The HSIP Quality Assessment was first conducted in 2007 to establish a benchmark to measure 

progress in implementing the HSIP as part of the FHWA Strategic Implementation Plan. For four 

years, FHWA used the HSIP Quality Assessment to measure the effectiveness of the HSIP at the 

national level and to shape the future direction of the program, including the development of 

products to support HSIP implementation efforts. 

The 2010 HSIP Quality Assessment is provided below. 

Directions: 

Please select one answer for each question by using the toggle boxes to the left of the multiple 

choice options. If you have comments to add, please include them in the gray field below the 

comments section for each question. Additional clarifying guidance is provided in [brackets] 

where appropriate. In addition, in some instances additional “sub-questions” are asked to give 

you the opportunity to clarify your response. 

1. Which FHWA Division Office are you responding for? 

(State) 

2. Please provide your contact information 

(Name and phone number) 

16
 
 

 

A. 0 – 20% 

B.	 21 – 40% 

C.	 41 – 60% 

D.	 61 – 80% 

E.	 81 – 100% 

COMMENTS: 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

3. Based on the stakeholders list in the SHSP guidance 

(http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/shspguidance.htm) the SHSP development process 

included significant input (other than review and concurrence) from what percentage of 

the stakeholders? 

[Note: This question refers to SHSP development and should be answered based on the 

eight stakeholders required under 23 U.S.C. 148 NOT the guidance as indicated. 

Additional sub-questions related to SHSP implementation are provided below.] 

3a.	 How is SHSP implementation occurring? 

A. No implementation. 

B.	 Implementation of SHSP strategies (with no action plans). 

C.	 Emphasis area action plans. 

D.	 Implementation plan. 

[Note: An emphasis area action plan contains action steps (i.e., what to do) to 

accomplish the goal of the emphasis area, whereas the implementation plan would 

outline how to accomplish that goal (i.e., responsible party, timeline, resources needed). 

Some states combine both action steps and implementation steps into one plan.] 

COMMENTS: 

 

3b. What percentage of your SHSP strategies are being implemented? 

A. 0 – 20% 

B.	 21 – 40% 

C.	 41 – 60% 

D.	 61 – 80% 

E.	 81 – 100% 

COMMENTS: 

 

17
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

3c.	 Has the SHSP been updated to reflect current needs? 

[Note: Please indicate when and how often in the comments section below. 

Additional insights as to what triggered the update are also welcome.] 

A. No. 

B.	 In progress. 

C.	 Yes. 

COMMENTS: 

4. What percentage of project expenditures in your HSIP are driven by strategies and 

priorities in your SHSP? 

A. 0 – 20% 

B.	 21 – 40% 

C.	 41 – 60% 

D.	 61 – 80% 

E.	 81 – 100% 

COMMENTS: 

5.	 What percentage of projects in your HSP and CVSP are driven by strategies and priorities 

in your SHSP? 

[Note: Please answer question 5 to the best of your ability in reference to both the HSP 

AND CVSP. As we recognize that these answers could vary significantly, sub-questions 

have been added so that you have the opportunity to respond individually for each 

program.] 

A. 0 – 20% 

B.	 21 – 40% 

C.	 41 – 60% 

D.	 61 – 80% 

E.	 81 – 100% 

COMMENTS: 

18
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

5a.	 What percentage of projects in your HSP are driven by strategies and priorities in 

your SHSP? 

A. 0 – 20% 

B.	 21 – 40% 

C.	 41 – 60% 

D.	 61 – 80% 

E.	 81 – 100% 

COMMENTS: 

5b.	 What percentage of projects in your CVSP are driven by strategies and priorities 

in your SHSP? 

A. 0 – 20% 

B.	 21 – 40% 

C.	 41 – 60% 

D.	 61 – 80% 

E.	 81 – 100% 

COMMENTS: 

6.	 What types of crash data are used to identify projects in your HSIP? 

A. No crash data used 

B. All crashes with no indication of severity 

C. Only fatal crashes are used for analysis 

D. Fatal, serious injury and total crashes, with fatal and serious injury crashes 

weighted more heavily 

E. Only fatality and serious injury crashes are used 

COMMENTS: 

7. How effective do you believe HSIP projects have been in reducing fatalities and serious 

injuries in your state? 

A. Didn’t implement any HSIP projects 

B.	 Not effective 

C. Minimally effective 

D.	 Somewhat effective 

E. Very effective
 

COMMENTS: 

19
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

8. What percentage of all public roads are covered by your crash and roadway databases? 

[Note: Please answer question 8 to the best of your ability in reference to both the crash 

AND roadway database. As we recognize that these answers could vary significantly, 

sub-questions have been added so that you have the opportunity to respond individually 

for each database.] 

A. 0 – 20% 

B. 21 – 40% 

C. 41 – 60% 

D. 61 – 80% 

E. 81 – 100% 

COMMENTS: 

8a. What percentage of public roads is covered by your crash database? 

A. 0 – 20% 

B. 21 – 40% 

C. 41 – 60% 

D. 61 – 80% 

E. 81 – 100% 

COMMENTS: 

8b. What percentage of public roads is covered by your roadway database? 

[Note: For the purposes of the HSIP Quality Assessment, a roadway database 

refers to geometric characteristics.] 

A. 0 – 20% 

B. 21 – 40% 

C. 41 – 60% 

D. 61 – 80% 

E. 81 – 100% 

COMMENTS: 

20
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. 0 – 20% 

B.	 21 – 40% 

C.	 41 – 60% 

D.	 61 – 80% 

E.	 81 – 100% 

COMMENTS: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

9.	 Have HSIP funds addressed “off state” system needs adequately? 

[Note: If your state maintains all public roads, answer “D.”] 

A. No, local needs are not appropriately considered. 

B. Minimally, token amount of HSIP funds flow to locals, but not 

enough based on crash data. 

C. Marginally, some HSIP funds flow to locals, but not enough based 

on crash data. 

D. Yes, the distribution of HSIP funds between state and “off 

State” system matches the distribution of crash data 

COMMENTS: 

9a. What percentage of HSIP funds have been spent off the State system? 

10.	 Typically how long does it take for crash data from all public roads to be entered into 

your Statewide crash database and available for analysis? 

[Note: We recognize that the times can vary greatly from when the data is entered into 

the Statewide database and the time that the data is available for analysis. Please answer 

question 10 based on the “and” condition, specifically, “how long does it take for crash 

data from all public roads to be available for analysis?” A new sub-question gives you 

the opportunity to answer the first part of the question individually.] 

A. Over 1 year 

B. 9 – 12 months 

C. 6 – 9 months 

D. 3 – 6 months 

E. 0 – 3 months 

COMMENTS: 

21
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

10a. Typically how long does it take for crash data from all public roads to be entered 

into your Statewide crash database? 

A. Over 1 year 

B. 9 – 12 months 

C. 6 – 9 months 

D. 3 – 6 months 

E. 0 – 3 months 

COMMENTS: 

11. To what extent does the State use the HSIP evaluation process to refine project selection 

for future HSIP projects and modify strategies and programs in future SHSP revisions? 

A. No feedback 

B. HSIP evaluation slightly effects next year’s HSIP project selection 

C. HSIP evaluation significantly effects next year’s HSIP project selection 

D. HSIP evaluation slightly effects next year’s HSIP project selection and 

will be used in SHSP revisions 

E. HSIP evaluation significantly effects next year’s HSIP project selection 

and will be used in SHSP revisions 

COMMENTS: 

12.	 Is the percentage of HSIP funds obligated at or above the obligation rate for other core 

programs? 

[Note: “Other core programs” are defined as STP, NHS, IM, CMAQ and Bridge. The 

obligations rate for other core programs should reflect the sum of all the other core 

programs and not each one individually.] 

A. HSIP funds are obligated below the obligation rate for other core programs 

B. HSIP funds are obligated at the same obligate rate as for other core programs 

C. HSIP funds are obligated above the obligation rate for other core programs 

COMMENTS: 

22
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Program Delivery Improvement Tool
 

The purpose of the Program Delivery Improvement Tool (PDIT) is to assist agencies seeking 

ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of the Federal-aid highway 

program in the face of increasing challenges. The PDIT provides a consistent approach for 

identifying opportunities to improve program delivery and successful practices that can be shared 

among the transportation community. 

FHWA, State practitioners, and program specialists developed PDIT. PDIT includes a listing of 

processes, procedures, and actions that, if implemented, should result in high performing 

programs. PDIT will assist agencies in identifying strategies and initiatives to improve program 

delivery; facilitates discussion between Federal and State partners; and may identify successful 

practices that can be shared at the national level. 

The tool provides a common inventory of activities within the ten major program areas of the 

project development process, one of which is safety. The PDIT safety activity statements can be 

used to guide an assessment of the HSIP. Each activity statement can be reviewed to determine 

the current status of each activity, identify strengths and weaknesses, successful practices, and 

potential risks. Specific details are outlined below. 

PDIT Process 

It is envisioned that the utilization of PDIT will be a joint effort between the SDOT, FHWA 

Division office, and other safety partners as appropriate. While the users of PDIT can determine 

how to best use the tool to meet their needs, the intended process is outlined below. 

Step 1: The partners in each State should review each activity statement and determine if the 

process, procedure, or action is being implemented, in progress, no action taken to date, or not 

applicable to their program. 

Step 2: The object of the tool is not to have full implementation of each activity, but to evaluate 

the importance of the activity in your State (as determined in Step 1). Each activity deemed 

important to your State could be assigned a high, medium, or low priority. 

• High – Critical to the program and requires action. 

• Medium – High benefit depending upon the availability of resources. 

• Low – Beneficial to accomplish, but not critical at this time. 

Step 3: For future reference, it may be beneficial to record any key points discussed regarding 

the current status and future of each activity. 

Step 4: Identify and record current strengths and weaknesses regarding implementation of this 

activity. [Note: This information can be helpful as a reference when conducting a risk 

assessment.] 

23
 
Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Step 5: Strengths can be noted as successful practices that can be shared at the national level, 

while weaknesses may be identified as a potential risk to be considered during risk assessment. 

The PDIT results could be considered in combination with other information such as program 

reviews, risk assessment, or performance measures to develop strategic plans, stewardship 

agreements, or allocate resources. 

24
 
 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Safety Activity Statements 

Core Element: Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Activity #170: 

A quality control process is utilized to monitor the identification and development of Highway
 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) projects to assess compliance with HSIP procedures and 

best practices.
 

Activity #171: 

The methodology to identify and rank hazardous locations has a focus on fatalities and serious
 

injuries (frequencies and/or rates).
 

Activity #172:
 

The HSIP process include coverage of all public roads.
 

Activity #173:
 

The HSIP process leads to identification and implementation of cost effective projects in all of
 

the 4 E (engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services) areas.
 

Activity #174:
 

The HSIP project identification process includes coordination with the Governor’s Highway 

Safety Office on identified non-infrastructure countermeasures.
 

Activity #175:
 

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan drives the HSIP project selection process.
 

Activity #176:
 

Projects are developed and implemented at locations on the State’s “5 percent Report.”
 

Activity #177: 

A project evaluation process is in place, which provides feedback on countermeasure
 

effectiveness (crash severity reductions, crash reduction factors, etc.) back to the project
 

selection process.
 

Activity #178: 

The 10 percent funding flexibility option in SAFETEA-LU is used.
 

25
 
 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Core Element: Strategic Highway Safety Plans 

Activity #179:
 

Key processes, procedures, and/or activities are in place that guides strategic highway safety
 

planning. 

Activity #180: 

A broad range of multidisciplinary stakeholders is actively involved in the overall safety
 

program. 

Activity #181: 

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) drives the highway safety improvement program, 

highway safety plan, and commercial vehicle safety plan.
 

Activity #182: 

Funds provided for safety are prioritized for highest impact. 

Activity #183:
 

Funding flexibility from all sources is used in safety project selection. 

Activity #184: 

Implementation of strategies identified in SHSP has begun. 

Activity #185:
 

A process is in place to monitor the effectiveness of the SHSP. 

Core Element: Traffic Records Collection & Analysis 

Activity #186: 

A Statewide Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) is active and working to improve
 

the Traffic Records Systems (TRS).
 

Activity #187:
 

Membership on the TRCC represents the vehicle, driver, roadway, injury, and citation 

stakeholder groups at the local, State, and Federal level.
 

Activity #188: 

A Traffic Records Assessment has been performed.
 

Activity #189: 

The TRCC has developed a Traffic Records Strategic Plan to address traffic records needs.
 

Activity #190: 

Accuracy of the data contained in the electronic Statewide traffic records databases is assessed
 

on an annual basis and actions are being taken to improve accuracy. 

26
 
 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Activity #191:
 

The Statewide crash database contains data from all reportable crashes on all public roads.
 

Activity #192: 

All Statewide crash data is entered into an electronic database within 60 days of crash.
 

Activity #193: 

The Statewide TRS is substantially consistent with the nationally accepted and published 

guidelines and standards for data elements (NEMSIS, MMUCC, etc.) – obtained either from the
 

crash report data and/or from other database linkages. 

Activity #194: 

All crashes are located using GIS, geo-coding, etc., and can be analyzed/summarized on
 

electronic maps.
 

Activity #195:
 

The TRS is used in a systematic approach (weighing both crash severity and frequency) to 

identify potential safety improvements, set safety funding priorities and project decisions. 

Activity #196: 

All traffic records related databases (crash, roadway, driver, hospital, EMS) are linked and 

shared between appropriate agencies.
 

Activity #197:
 

Technical assistance is provided to local agencies in locating crashes on locally owned routs and
 

in crash/safety analysis capabilities.
 

Core Element: Required Safety Initiatives 

Activity #198: 

A process is in place to maintain current inventory information on the public rail-highway grade
 

crossings in the national inventory database maintained by the Federal Railroad Administration.
 

Activity #199:
 

There is a process for ranking the relative hazardousness of railroad-highway grade crossings
 

that result in annual projects that have a positive cumulative impact on eliminating hazards at 

rail-highway grade crossings.
 

Activity #200: 

There is a process in place to satisfactorily determine the fatality and incapacitating injury rates 

on rural major and minor collectors and rural locals roads and compare them to Statewide 

average rates to identify locations above the Statewide rates, or likely to exceed the Statewide 

rates, that would be eligible for funding under the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP). 

27
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Activity #201:
 

The HRRRP process leads to selection of countermeasures that result in implementation of cost
 

effective HRRRP projects.
 

Activity #202: 

A HRRRP project evaluation process is in place, which provides feedback on countermeasure
 

effectiveness (i.e., fatal and incapacitating injury crash reductions) back to the project selection
 

process.
 

Activity #203: 

The Safe Routes to School application process is competitive and results in infrastructure and 

non-infrastructure projects that meet the intent of the program as described in SAFETEA-LU
 

Section 1404.
 

Core Element: Safety in Project Development 

Activity #204: 

Planning documents (Unified Planning Work Program, Transportation Improvement Program, 

Long Range Transportation Plan, etc.) highlight tasks and projects to specifically address State
 

and region critical elements of the SHSP.
 

Activity #205: 

A Statewide safety and mobility policy is developed and implemented regarding the systematic
 

consideration of safety throughout the various stages of the project development and 

implementation process. 

Activity #206:
 

Low cost safety features and strategies are promoted extensively to State and local officials.
 

Activity #207:
 

Statewide safety enhancements are identified, considered, implemented as appropriate, and 

evaluated for all projects.
 

Activity #208: 

Safety is a primary consideration in all facets of the environmental process.
 

Activity #209: 

Planning process provides for systematic consideration of projects and strategies that will
 

increase safety.
 

Activity #210: 

Environmental documents address safety for each alternative to satisfy the Purpose and Need 

statement. 

Activity # 211:
 

An analysis of crash records is used to improve policies, procedures, specifications, and standards.
 

28
 
 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Activity #212:
 

Project plans include provisions for enhanced enforcement during construction when 

appropriate. 

Activity #213:
 

Innovative techniques are routinely used to improve project safety and reduce work zone crashes. 

Activity #214: 

General and seasonal work zone safety campaigns are implemented.
 

Activity #215: 

Night reviews on work zones are conducted on projects. 

Activity #216:
 

Senior managers, district engineers, county engineers, etc. are evaluated on the quality of their
 

work zone(s). 

Activity #217: 

Designers participate in final project inspections to identify safety improvements on future
 

projects. 

Activity #218: 

Design exception process includes safety analysis of the corridor to ensure safety is not
 

compromised. 

Activity #219:
 

Plans are reviewed for safe movement of all users (Bike and Pedestrian) during the design process.
 

Activity #220:
 

There is a policy in place to routinely incorporate safety enhancements into 3R projects. 

Core Element: Safety in Maintenance & Operations 

Activity #221:
 

A process is in place to adopt the most current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
 

Devices (MUTCD) issued by the FHWA.
 

Activity #222:
 

A Statewide MUTCD Committee is in place, including representatives of local highway
 

agencies, to develop Statewide plans for the implementation of new editions of or major
 

revisions to the MUTCD. 

Activity #223:
 

Annual budget plans for operations and maintenance programs include processes to consider and 

integrate highway safety strategies/enhancements into the operations and maintenance (O&M)
 

program areas where appropriate.
 

29
 
 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Activity #224: 

Procedures are in place to evaluate the effectiveness of O&M safety initiatives.
 

Activity #225:
 

The development of preventative maintenance projects (10/08/04 FHWA Memorandum)
 

includes procedures to identify and implement safety improvements to the highway
 

infrastructure. 

Activity #226:
 

A process is in place to share O&M strategies with all highway agencies.
 

Core Element: Program Management 

Activity #227: 

Agency leadership receives quarterly briefings on the status of attaining safety goals.
 

Activity #228: 

Agency leadership regularly uses the media to convey safety messages.
 

Activity #229:
 

The transportation budget has a category for safety in which safety transportation projects are
 

proposed, selected, and prioritized separately from other transportation projects. 

Activity #230:
 

Appropriate policy and guidance is developed, updated, and made available in this program area.
 

Activity #231:
 

Continuous improvement is supported through mechanisms such as program and process
 

reviews.
 

Activity #232: 

Training and development opportunities are provided to key internal and external partners and 

stakeholders. 

Activity #233: 

Processes are in place to ensure that key vacancies are filled.
 

Activity #234:
 

New technologies are considered and implemented to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
 

this program area. 

Activity #235: 

Processes are in place for the selection and administration of consultant support to ensure these
 

resources are used efficiently and effectively. 

30
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Program Review/Peer Review Questions
 

The following pages outline a series of questions that address the various elements of the safetyrelated programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Safety under 

the auspices of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) [23 U.S.C. 148]. These 

include the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), the Railway-Highway Crossing Program 

(RHCP) and the resulting program of highway safety improvement projects or State HSIP. 

[Note: The Data portion of this assessment tool will focus on how data is utilized to support the 

various programs under the HSIP. An assessment of your State’s crash data can be accomplished 

through the Crash Data Improvement Program (CDIP). An assessment of your State’s roadway 

data can be accomplished through the Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP). Lastly, an 

assessment of your State’s entire traffic records system can be achieved through a Traffic 

Records Assessment sponsored by NHTSA.] 

These questions encompass the range of information that can be gathered during your peer 

review or program review. Your review may focus on only one element of the HSIP (i.e., SHSP, 

RHCP, and Program of Highway Safety Improvement Projects) or on one specific program 

process (i.e., planning, implementation, or evaluation). Therefore, the questions have been 

organized by program, and within each program, by process, as noted on the following page. 

It will be up to the individual review teams to identify those questions that are most pertinent to 

your review. You are encouraged to add or delete questions to best suit your needs. 

Many of these questions will be asked of the agency representatives (i.e., program managers) 

that administer the programs under the HSIP. It is also beneficial to conduct outreach to agency 

leaders to gain an understanding of their views on the benefits and challenges associated with the 

HSIP. The questions under the “general” section would be appropriate for this audience. 

Remember, the intent of the program review or peer review is to identify noteworthy practices as 

well as opportunities for improvement. 

Directory 

General 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

Railway-Highway Crossings Program 

Program of Highway Safety Improvement Projects (State HSIP) 

31
 
 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

General
 

1.	 Briefly describe the HSIP. 

•	 How is the HSIP developed? 

•	 How does the HSIP function? 

•	 Who is responsible for administering the HSIP? 

•	 Who is involved in the HSIP process inside and outside the DOT? 

•	 How extensive is the HSIP? 

2.	 What are the strengths and weaknesses of the HSIP process? 

3.	 Describe any unique or innovative activities (i.e., time saving procedures) employed to 

administer the HSIP. 

4.	 What reviews or evaluations have you done on safety or the HSIP? What were the 

significant findings and recommendations? 

5.	 What objectives for safety and the HSIP are documented in current Department highway 

safety plans, Department strategic or annual work plans, or other Department plans? 

6.	 How is safety staffed in the Department? 

•	 Is there a full-time safety engineer/safety program person? 

•	 Is the safety program centralized or decentralized? 

•	 Are there Safety Engineers in each of the State’s District Offices? Do they meet on a 

regular basis? 

7.	 How has the development and implementation of your HSIP changed under current 

legislation? 

8.	 How are other agencies (i.e., Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Local Government 

Agencies, and Governor’s Highway Safety Office) and the general public involved in 

your safety programs? 

9.	 How are local roads (i.e., non-State system) addressed in the State HSIP? 

10.	 How does the HSIP support the goals, objectives, and strategies of the SHSP? 

32
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
 

[Note: The SHSP Champion’s Guidebook, Implementation Process Model, and Evaluation 

Process Model will provide additional information to support an SHSP Program Review or Peer 

Review. For States wishing to assess the SHSP development process, the SHSP Process 

Checklist may be helpful.] 

SHSP Development/Updates 

1.	 Describe the SHSP organizational structure? 

2.	 Describe top-level manager’s participation in executive committees or leadership 

structures/groups established for the SHSP. 

3.	 Describe the membership of the executive or leadership group, the steering committee, 

the emphasis area teams, and other groups. 

4.	 Explain the make-up of the SHSP steering committee or working group? 

•	 Do members of the executive committee or leadership group assign persons? 

•	 Do these people have decision-making authority? 

•	 Are multiple transportation modes represented, and do they actively participate on the 

steering committee/working group and emphasis area teams? 

5.	 Explain the management structure of the SHSP. 

•	 Has an SHSP program coordinator or manager been assigned? 

•	 What percentage of this person’s time is dedicated to the SHSP? 

6.	 Describe the support structure of SHSP emphasis areas? 

•	 Are they supported by teams with engaged leaders? 

7.	 How do you ensure the necessary disciplines, modes, and agencies (representing the 4 

E’s) are engaged in SHSP decision-making and implementation? 

8.	 Explain how stakeholders regularly collaborate on decisions that affect SHSP updates 

and implementation. 

9.	 Describe how the necessary stakeholders collaborate and jointly decide on SHSP goal 

and objective setting methods. 

10.	 How are data-driven methods, such as trend analysis, used to establish goals and set 

aggressive, yet achievable, objectives? 

•	 Are objectives specific, measurable, time bound, and realistic? 

33
 
 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

11.	 How is data analysis used to select the emphasis areas? 

12.	 Describe how emphasis area strategies are selected. 

SHSP Implementation 

1.	 Describe coordination on SHSP implementation and related safety programs. 

•	 Does your State hold regularly scheduled meetings? 

2.	 How are the DOT, the SHSO, and other safety stakeholders collaborating and sharing 

resources to implement the SHSP? 

3.	 How are MPOs and other regional and local agencies involved in SHSP implementation? 

4.	 Describe how action plans are used to support SHSP emphasis areas and strategies. 

5.	 Explain how multidisciplinary emphasis area action planning teams support your SHSP. 

•	 Is someone assigned to coordinate and document all the actions plans and track 

progress? 

•	 Are the action plans available to all the stakeholders? 

6.	 How have the various agencies and safety partners incorporated elements of the SHSP 

into their planning documents? (HSPs, HSIPs, CVSPs, LRTPs, S/TIPs, etc.) 

7.	 Are plan/program strategies and countermeasures consistent with SHSP strategies? 

•	 Do plan/programs target funding to implement strategies associated with SHSP 

emphasis areas? 

8.	 Describe senior management and technical staff communication and coordination on 

SHSP implementation? 

9.	 Describe any formal agreements (e.g., MOUs) that have been established among agencies 

with respect to SHSP implementation. 

SHSP Evaluation 

1.	 Describe how you utilize performance measures? Are they clearly linked to or derived 

from SHSP objectives? 

2.	 Are the numbers and rates of fatalities and serious injuries used as general statistical 

measures? 

3.	 How do you track and report the numbers and rates of fatalities and serious injuries by 

emphasis area and compared to set objectives? 

34
 
 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

4.	 How do you monitor and evaluate the SHSP? Who is responsible? 

5.	 How do you gather and review the status of output and outcome performance measures? 

6.	 What procedures are in place for ongoing SHSP update and revision? Who is responsible 

for leading the effort? Who participates? 

7.	 What data are used to update or revise the SHSP? 

8.	 How have evaluation results been interpreted and documented? 

9.	 How are evaluation results used to identify lessons learned and improve SHSP process 

and performance? 

10.	 How are evaluation results used to identify gaps and weaknesses in SHSP process or 

performance and addressed through follow-up actions? 

35
 
 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

Railway-Highway Crossings Program (RHCP)
 

Planning 

1.	 Who (i.e., State agency, public utility) leads the RHCP planning process? 

2.	 How is the RHCP planning process coordinated between agencies? 

Data Collection & Analysis 

3.	 Explain the process to update your State’s crossing inventory? How is it funded? 

•	 How frequently does your State conduct inspections of railway-highway crossings? 

4.	 Are new technologies (i.e., GIS) for RHCP data collection and analysis being used? 

5.	 Does your Statewide crash database contain information related to crashes that occur near 

or associated with highway railway grade crossings? 

6.	 How are RHCP project data and information collected and maintained? 

Crossing Prioritization and Project Selection 

7.	 How are highway-rail grade crossing projects prioritized? 

•	 Is it based on a hazard index formula? 

•	 How frequently is the hazard index updated? 

•	 To what extent is consideration given to highway-rail grade crossing exposure to 

large number of people, passenger trains, school buses, transit buses, pedestrians, 

bicyclists, and hazardous materials? 

•	 How are larger projects such as grade separations considered in the project 

prioritization process? 

8.	 Are there projects for Statewide improvements? 

9.	 Explain the process for obtaining consensus or approval of the priority project listing. 

10.	 How, and to what extent, are non-State DOT entities (i.e., legislature, elected officials) 

involved in providing input to project priorities or special emphasis topics? 

11.	 Does your State have criteria for using section 130 funds to upgrade aging active devices 

(flashing lights/gates)? 

12.	 State have a process or policy for crossing consolidation and/or closure? 

•	 Are there incentives for closing crossings? 

•	 On average, how many crossings are closed each year? 

36
 
 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

13.	 Has your State incorporated, or does your State plan to incorporate RSA techniques to 

identify railway-highway crossing safety problems and select safety treatments? 

14.	 Are all public RR crossings signed in accordance with the MUTCD? If not, explain the 

procedure used to accomplish this. 

15.	 Describe the design process for railway-highway crossing projects. 

Implementation 

16.	 How are railway-highway crossing projects prioritized for implementation? 

17.	 Explain how railway-highway crossing projects are incorporated into S/TIP. 

18.	 How many railway-highway crossing projects are completed annually? 

19.	 What is the average timeframe for railway-highway crossing projects from identification 

to implementation? 

20.	 Describe the construction process for railway-highway crossing projects. 

•	 Who does the construction? 

21.	 What is the policy/process for improving railway-highway crossings that are either within 

or near the terminus of capital projects? 

22.	 Are railway-highway crossing projects funded with sources other than the set-aside 

funding? 

•	 What additional funding sources (i.e., HSIP, other Federal-aid programs, 402 

program, State, local) are utilized to support RHCP implementation? 

•	 How much funding is directed towards RHCP projects each year by category? 

Evaluation 

23.	 Explain how your State evaluates the effectiveness of grade crossing improvements. 

•	 Is an evaluation method other than “before-and-after” crash data comparison used? 

Has another method been considered given that relatively few crashes occur at 

railway-highway crossings? 

37
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

Program of Highway Safety Improvement Projects (State HSIP) 

Planning 

Data Analysis/Problem Identification 

1.	 What data (i.e., crash, roadway, EMS) is used to support the HSIP planning process? 

2.	 How is the data analyzed to identify highway locations, sections, and elements determined 

to be hazardous based on accident experience or potential? 

•	 What methodology is used? 

•	 How is exposure (i.e., vehicle miles traveled) considered? 

•	 How many years of crash data are used? 

•	 Is any special consideration given to special vehicles (i.e., large trucks and buses) or 

other crash characteristics? 

3.	 What are the strengths and benefits of the HSIP problem identification process as described 

in Question 2 above? 

4.	 Where could improvements be made to the HSIP problem identification process? 

5.	 What do you consider to be your best practices related to the HSIP problem identification 

process? 

6.	 How is crash potential analyzed as part of the HSIP project identification process? 

7.	 How are high-risk rural roads addressed in the state HSIP? 

8.	 What other factors are considered in the HSIP project identification process? Explain. 

9.	 How are local roads addressed in the HSIP? 

10.	 What is the balance between crash-reducing and crash potential projects, as well as 

infrastructure vs. non-infrastructure projects? 

Engineering Studies 

11.	 Explain the process for conducting engineering studies of the identified hazardous 

locations, sections, and elements. 

•	 Are field investigations done at all locations? At some? 

•	 How are local government agencies involved in the engineering study process? 

•	 Once recommendations are made, what is the next step? 

12.	 How are engineering studies used to establish highway safety improvement projects? 

13.	 What are the strengths and benefits of the process used to conduct and implement the 

results of engineering studies? 

38
 
 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

14.	 Are there opportunities to improve the process for conducting and implementing the results 

of engineering studies? 

15.	 How is the engineering study process coordinated with other offices within the State 

DOT (i.e., districts) and other agencies? 

16.	 To what extent are driver or vehicle factors considered in countermeasure development? 

17.	 How are crash modification factors used to support the engineering study process? 

18.	 Are some solutions delegated to other sections? 

19.	 How are SHSP strategies considered when determining appropriate treatments for 

priority locations? 

Establishing Priorities 

20.	 What is the process for determining priorities for implementation of HSIP projects? 

21.	 What do you consider to be opportunities to improve your HSIP project prioritization 

process? 

22.	 What do you consider to be your best practices in establishing HSIP priorities? 

23.	 Explain the criteria for establishing priorities for both spot and systemic safety 

improvements. 

24.	 Are priorities established on a Statewide, district, system, or other basis? 

25.	 How are priorities for 402 Programs coordinated with those of the HSIP? 

26.	 Is there a process for obtaining consensus or approval of the priority project listing? 

Explain. 

27.	 How, and to what extent, are non-State DOT entities (i.e., MPOs, legislature, elected 

officials) involved in providing input to priorities or special emphasis topics? 

28.	 Are lower priority projects selected for construction/implementation before higher priority 

projects? If so, why, and what is the criteria for doing it? 

29.	 How are local road projects considered in the project prioritization process? 

• Is the location prioritization process different for on and off the State system? 

Implementation 

Funding 

30.	 How is your State leveraging HSIP funds? 

39
 
 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

•	 What additional funding sources (i.e., other Federal aid programs, 402 program, 

State, local) are utilized to support HSIP implementation? 

•	 How much funding is directed towards HSIP projects each year by category? 

31.	 Has there been an increase in the level of HSIP and non-HSIP funds spent on infrastructurerelated safety projects since MAP-21? 

32.	 Are there dollar limits for safety projects? 

33.	 What proportion of funding is provided for HSIP projects on State system roads vs. nonsystem roads? 

•	 Is the “off-system” funding adequate (proportional to crash experience)? 

•	 Has there been a change in how funds are allocated since MAP-21? 

•	 Are funds allocated to districts/regions, or do all districts apply for funds from the 

same pot? 

34.	 How are the planning and evaluation components of your HSIP funded? 

•	 If HSIP funds are used, please describe the process. 

35.	 In 23 U.S.C. section 120 it allows 100 percent Federal funding for “Certain Safety 

Projects.” Does your State take advantage of this provision? Please describe. 

Programming 

36.	 How are identified priority HSIP projects included in the S/TIP? 

37.	 Has your State developed any timesaving procedures to advance safety projects (i.e., 

Statewide categorical exclusions for safety projects, streamlined public involvement 

process, expedited programming steps, or other project development and delivery 

efficiencies)? Please describe. 

38.	 How do you ensure that projects funded with HSIP funding directly support the State’s 

goals and objectives in the SHSP? 

39.	 How do other units within the DOT or from outside initiate HSIP or other safety projects? 

40.	 What are the concerns of locals in pursuing Federal-aid? 

Environmental Process 

41.	 Are there programmatic environmental documents/procedures (i.e., categorical exclusion) 

in place for HSIP projects? 

40
 
Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

42.	 To what extent are HSIP projects subject to the environmental process beyond categorical 

exclusions? 

Construction 

43.	 Explain how HSIP projects are scheduled for construction/implementation. 

44.	 What is the average timeframe for HSIP project identification to implementation? 

45.	 What is the average timeframe for obligation of funds for HSIP projects to implementation? 

46.	 How are small-scale safety improvement projects implemented (i.e., bid individual 

projects, in-house State forces, bundle projects for bid, on call ID/IQ)? Please describe the 

process and any approvals that were necessary to make this happen. 

47.	 How many projects are completed annually (including local road projects)? 

Evaluation 

48.	 Explain the evaluation component, both project and program evaluation, of the HSIP. 

• How do you measure success for your HSIP? 

• How is the evaluation process funded? 

49.	 Are their opportunities to improve the HSIP evaluation process? 

50.	 What do you consider to be the best practices associated with the HSIP evaluation process? 

51.	 What do you consider to be the challenges associated with the HSIP evaluation process? 

52.	 How are the results of the evaluation component of HSIP incorporated back into the data 

collection, analysis prioritization, and scheduling (i.e., planning) procedures? 

53.	 Describe how the outcomes of implemented safety projects are used to develop AMFs or CRFs. 

• What are the methodology/guidelines used to develop the CRFs/AMFs? 

• Is this information shared with your peers? How? 

54.	 Explain how the HSIP evaluation results are being used to refine planning, design, 

operational or maintenance standards, policies, practices, and procedures for application of 

the successful outcomes in future projects? 

55.	 To what extent does the State use the HSIP evaluation process to modify strategies and 

programs in future SHSP revisions? 

41
 
 

 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

SHSP Process Approval Checklist

MAP-21 requires States to have an updated, approved Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). A State will be considered to have an
 

approved, updated SHSP if: 1) the SHSP is consistent with the requirements for updates and approval under section 148(d) and the
 

requirements for an SHSP defined in section 148(a)(12); and 2) the process the State used to update the SHSP is consistent with the 

requirements of section 148. (23 U.S.C. 148 (d)(2)(B)). The updated SHSP must be submitted to the FHWA Division Administrator, who
 

will ensure that the State has followed a process that is consistent with the requirements outlined in Sections 148 

(a)(1)(12),148(d)(1)(2)(3),and 148(g)(2). The Division Administrator will notify the State that the updated SHSP process has been
 

reviewed and approved. 

This SHSP Process Approval Checklist is a tool to help Division Offices assess the process and completeness of a State’s SHSP update. It 

is meant for your internal use and records. The factors outlined represent the required process elements of a State-developed SHSP.
 

SHSP MAP-21 Interim Guidance contains additional information on these elements and should be used as a reference document for this
 

checklist. 

The checklist consists of five columns: 

1) MAP-21 Requirements: Column one lists the key MAP-21 requirements (by topic area) for the SHSP and the specific MAP-21 

reference.
 

2) Indicators: Column two provides an example indicator that the State meets the requirement.
 

3) Considerations: Column three provides further considerations to help the Division assess if the State SHSP has met the
 

corresponding requirement. The examples provided are not exhaustive; States have different needs so each State may have 

different items to consider. The Division should consider what activities would best satisfy the intent of the MAP-21 requirements 

as appropriate for that State. 

4) Requirement Status: Column four provides a place for the Division to document the determination for each requirement (Meets 

or Does Not Meet). 

5) Support for Status Determination: Column five provides a place for the Division to document supporting information for whether 

the State has satisfied or not satisfied the requirement. 

SHSP Publication Date: _____________________________________________________________ 

Period Covered by SHSP: _____________________________________________________________ 

42 
 

 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

MAP-21 REQUIREMENTS 

INDICATOR THAT STATE 

MEETS REQUIREMENTS CONSIDERATIONS 

REQUIREMENT STATUS (DID 

THE STATE MEET THE MAP-21 

REQUIREMENT?) 

SUPPORT FOR STATUS 

DETERMINATION 

CONSULTATION 

23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(A) The State has conferred 

with stakeholders early in 

How was consultation 

accomplished? Was it a onetime 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

The term ‘State strategic highway the SHSP update process, event (e.g., meeting, workshop,  DOES NOT MEET brief description that 

safety plan’ means a considered their input summit, etc.)? Was it written REQUIREMENT supports this outcome. 

comprehensive plan, based on prior to decision-making, comments on the plan? Was it 

safety data, developed by a State and routinely informed ongoing participation in a OR 

transportation department that is them about actions taken working group, task group or 

developed after consultation with: regarding SHSP steering committee? If the requirement is not 

• a highway safety representative development. met, what are the 

of the Governor of the State. What was the level of local recommended action(s) the 

• regional transportation 

planning organizations and 

metropolitan planning 

organizations, if any. 

• representatives of major modes 

involvement? 

Were representatives from all 

4 Es involved in the 

development? 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

of transportation. 

• State and local traffic 

enforcement officials. 

Were stakeholders’ concerns 

given adequate consideration? 

• a highway-rail grade crossing If a stakeholder was not 

safety representative of the consulted with during the SHSP Governor of the State. update process, does the State • representatives conducting a have a satisfactory explanation 

motor carrier safety program for their absence? 

under section 31102, 31106, 

or 31309 of title 49. 

• motor vehicle administration 

agencies. 

• county transportation officials. 

• State representatives of 

nonmotorized users. 

• other major Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local safety 

stakeholders. 

43
 
 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

MAP-21 REQUIREMENTS 

INDICATOR THAT STATE 

MEETS REQUIREMENTS CONSIDERATIONS 

REQUIREMENT STATUS (DID 

THE STATE MEET THE MAP-21 

REQUIREMENT?) 

SUPPORT FOR STATUS 

DETERMINATION 

DATA 

23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(B) 

The term ‘State strategic highway 

safety plan’ means a 

comprehensive plan, based on 

safety data, developed by a State 

transportation department that: 

Analyzes and makes effective use of 

State, regional, local, or Tribal 

safety data. 

The State has used the 

best available safety 

data to identify critical 

highway safety problems 

and safety improvement 

opportunities on all public 

roads. 

When determining State 

transportation safety problems 

and priorities (i.e., emphasis 

areas), the State analyzed 

crash (e.g., fatality and serious 

injury), roadway, and traffic 

data. 

Did the State consider all 

highway users and modes 

during SHSP data analysis? 

What data did the State use to 

establish severity? 

Were trend analyses, 

benefit/cost analysis or other 

data analysis methods used to 

determine priorities? 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

44
 
 

 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

MAP-21 REQUIREMENTS 

23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(C) 

As part of the State highway 

safety improvement program, a 

State shall: adopt strategic and 

performance-based goals that: 

• address traffic safety, including 

behavioral and infrastructure 

problems and opportunities on 

all public road. 

• focus resources on areas of 

greatest need. 

• are coordinated with other 

State highway safety programs. 

INDICATOR THAT STATE 

MEETS REQUIREMENTS 

PE

The SHSP includes goals 

and measureable 

objectives to enable the 

State to track and monitor 

the status of SHSP 

implementation efforts 

and monitor progress in 

each of the SHSP 

emphasis areas. 

CONSIDERATIONS 

RFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 

Are the SHSP goals and 

objectives long- term and do 

they address a variety of 

output and outcome measures? 

How did the State determine 

the goals and objectives? Are 

these goals aggressive yet 

achievable? 

Are the goals and objectives 

based on analysis of crash and 

other safety data? 

Has the State considered how 

the SHSP goals and objectives 

will affect other safety plans 

and programs? 

REQUIREMENT STATUS (DID 

THE STATE MEET THE MAP-21 

REQUIREMENT?) 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

SUPPORT FOR STATUS 

DETERMINATION 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

Did the State consider how the 

goals and objectives can be 

adopted by other agencies? 

45
 
 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

MAP-21 REQUIREMENTS 

23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(C) 

The term ‘State strategic highway 

safety plan’ means a 

comprehensive plan, based on 

safety data, developed by a State 

transportation department that: 

Addresses engineering, 

management, operation, education, 

enforcement, and emergency 

services elements (including 

integrated, interoperable emergency 

communications) of highway safety 

as key factors in evaluating highway 

projects. 

INDICATOR THAT STATE 

MEETS REQUIREMENTS 

MU

The State considered the 

highway safety elements 

of engineering, education, 

enforcement and 

emergency medical 

services (the 4 Es) when 

determining strategies to 

address SHSP emphasis 

areas. 

CONSIDERATIONS 

LTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH 

Did the State consider and 

integrate 4 E strategies for 

infrastructure and behavioral 

emphasis areas, where 

practical? 

Were strategies selected that 

have the potential to 

significantly reduce highway 

fatalities and serious injuries? 

Does the State have 

multidisciplinary/4 E 

representation on emphasis 

area teams? 

REQUIREMENT STATUS (DID 

THE STATE MEET THE MAP-21 

REQUIREMENT?) 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

SUPPORT FOR STATUS 

DETERMINATION 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(F) 

The term ‘State strategic highway 

safety plan’ means a 

comprehensive plan, based on 

safety data, developed by a State 

transportation department that: 

Describes a program of strategies to 

reduce or eliminate safety hazards. 

The SHSP includes 

effective strategies to 

address the State’s 

emphasis areas. 

Was data used to determine 

the most effective strategies 

and countermeasures? 

Was high priority given to those 

strategies that can significantly 

reduce roadway fatalities and 

serious injuries in the SHSP 

emphasis areas? 

Did the State select strategies 

and countermeasures that will 

most effectively address their 

roadway safety problems? 

Did the State consider systemic 

improvements and low-cost 

countermeasures? 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

46
 
 

 

 

 

47
 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

MAP-21 REQUIREMENTS 

23 U.S.C. 148 (1)(d)(1)(B) 

In establishing requirements under 

this subsection, the Secretary shall 

ensure that States take into 

consideration, with respect to 

updated strategic highway safety 

plans: 

• the findings of road safety 

audits. 

• the locations of fatalities and 

serious injuries. 

• the locations that do not have 

an empirical history of fatalities 

and serious injuries, but possess 

risk factors for potential crashes. 

• rural roads, including all public 

roads, commensurate with 

fatality data. 

• motor vehicle crashes that 

INDICATOR THAT STATE 

MEETS REQUIREMENTS 

SHSP UP

A variety of data and 

safety programs were 

analyzed, reviewed and 

considered when 

determining SHSP 

Emphasis Areas and 

strategies in the updated 

SHSP. 

CONSIDERATIONS 

DATE CONTENT CONSIDERATIONS 

The State considered additional 

safety factors when updating 

their SHSP to inform emphasis 

area and strategy selection. 

Below are some examples: 

A State might consider if motor 

vehicle related bicycle or 

pedestrian fatalities or serious 

injuries have increased; if so an 

emphasis area or strategy to 

address the problem could be 

included in the SHSP. 

A State might consider findings 

of road safety audits (RSA)1. 

RSA findings should be 

analyzed in aggregate to 

identify common 

countermeasure 

REQUIREMENT STATUS (DID 

THE STATE MEET THE MAP-21 

REQUIREMENT?) 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

SUPPORT FOR STATUS 

DETERMINATION 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

include fatalities or serious 

injuries to pedestrians and 

bicyclists. 

• the cost-effectiveness of 

improvements. 

• improvements to rail-highway 

grade crossings. 

• safety on all public roads, 

including non-State-owned 

public roads and roads on 

Tribal land. 

recommendations for systemic 

improvements. 

1 A RSA is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent audit team. It qualitatively estimates and 

reports on potential road safety issues and identifies opportunities for improvements in safety for all road users. The RSA report includes findings of each safety 

issue identified and provides suggestions to remedy these issues. 
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

MAP-21 REQUIREMENTS 

INDICATOR THAT STATE 

MEETS REQUIREMENTS CONSIDERATIONS 

REQUIREMENT STATUS (DID 

THE STATE MEET THE MAP-21 

REQUIREMENT?) 

SUPPORT FOR STATUS 

DETERMINATION 

23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(D) 

The term ‘State strategic highway 

safety plan’ means a 

comprehensive plan, based on 

safety data, developed by a State 

transportation department that: 

Considers safety needs of, and highfatality segments of, all public 

roads, including non-State-owned 

public roads and roads on Tribal 

land. 

SHSP emphasis areas and 

strategies address State 

and non-State-owned 

public roads and roads on 

Tribal land, when 

applicable. 

How did the State engage local 

and Tribal agencies in the SHSP 

update process? 

Did the data analysis include 

data for non-state owned roads 

and roads on Tribal land? 

Are there specific emphasis 

areas or strategies targeting 

the safety needs of non-stateowned and roads on Tribal 

land? If not, did the data not 

warrant their inclusion? 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

48
 
 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

MAP-21 REQUIREMENTS 

23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(E) 

The term ‘State strategic highway 

safety plan’ means a 

comprehensive plan, based on 

safety data, developed by a State 

transportation department that: 

Considers the results of State, 

regional, or local transportation and 

highway safety planning processes. 

INDICATOR THAT STATE 

MEETS REQUIREMENTS 

The State coordinated 

with other planning 

processes, including but 

not limited to the State’s 

Highway Safety Plan 

(HSP), Commercial Vehicle 

Safety Plan (CVSP) 

(Section 31102 of Title 

49), Statewide 

Transportation Plan, 

Metropolitan 

Transportation Plans, local 

road safety plans, etc. 

CONSIDERATIONS 

COORDINATION 

To what extent did the State 

consider the different planning 

processes in developing the 

SHSP? (e.g., the Statewide 

Transportation Plan, 

metropolitan long range plans, 

Local Transportation Plans, 

Statewide CVSP, HSP, and 

HSIP). For example: 

Is there a process to align high 

level goals, strategies and 

objectives among the plans? Is 

alignment achieved? 

Did the State consider how the 

SHSP emphasis areas compare 

with the priorities of the other 

plans or processes? 

Has the State considered how 

the other plans and processes 

will play a role in implementing 

the SHSP? 

Has the State considered how 

the planning processes will work 

together in the future? 

REQUIREMENT STATUS (DID 

THE STATE MEET THE MAP-21 

REQUIREMENT?) 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

SUPPORT FOR STATUS 

DETERMINATION 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

49
 
 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

MAP-21 REQUIREMENTS 

INDICATOR THAT STATE 

MEETS REQUIREMENTS CONSIDERATIONS 

REQUIREMENT STATUS (DID 

THE STATE MEET THE MAP-21 

REQUIREMENT?) 

SUPPORT FOR STATUS 

DETERMINATION 

23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(H) 

The term ‘State strategic highway 

safety plan’ means a 

comprehensive plan, based on 

safety data, developed by a State 

transportation department that: 

Is consistent with section 135(g) 

[Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program] of Title 23 

U.S.C. 

The SHSP was/is: 

• Developed in 

consultation with 

affected nonmetropolitan local 

officials and with 

Indian Tribal 

governments 

• Provided interested 

parties with a 

reasonable 

opportunity for 

comment 

• Consistent with the 

Statewide 

Transportation Plan 

Has the State considered how 

the emphasis areas and 

strategies in the SHSP will be 

implemented through the 

Statewide transportation 

planning and programming 

process? 

How does the State plan to 

implement the SHSP through the 

HSIP? 

Is there a process in place to 

ensure that HSIP projects 

identified in the STIP are 

consistent with and address 

SHSP priorities? 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

50
 
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

MAP-21 REQUIREMENTS 

23 U.S.C. 148(c)(1)(C) 

Evaluates the strategic highway 

safety plan on a regularly recurring 

basis in accordance with subsection 

(d)(1) to ensure the accuracy of the 

data and priority of proposed 

strategies. 

INDICATOR THAT STATE 

MEETS REQUIREMENTS 

The State conducted a 

review of current data 

and research to determine 

SHSP emphasis areas and 

strategies. 

CONSIDERATIONS 

SHSP EVALUATION 

Did evaluation results confirm 

the validity of the emphasis 

areas? Were emphasis areas 

modified based on the data? 

Did the evaluation include a 

review of the State’s progress 

in meeting previous SHSP goals 

and objectives (e.g., reductions 

in the number and rate of 

crashes, fatalities and serious 

injuries in the SHSP’s emphasis 

areas)? If goals and objectives 

were not met, were strategies 

reviewed to determine their 

effectiveness (to help them 

determine if they should 

continue or modify strategies in 

the SHSP update)? 

REQUIREMENT STATUS (DID 

THE STATE MEET THE MAP-21 

REQUIREMENT?) 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

SUPPORT FOR STATUS 

DETERMINATION 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

During the development of this 

SHSP update, was attention 

given to what will be measured 

and how progress will be 

determined for the period of 

the current SHSP? 

Does the State have in place 

mechanisms for regularly 

tracking SHSP implementation 

and monitoring progress? 

Is an SHSP evaluation planned, 

as part of the State’s next SHSP 

update? 

51
 
 

 

 

 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

MAP-21 REQUIREMENTS 

23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(1) 

HIGH RISK RURAL ROAD – The 

term ‘high risk rural road’ means 

any roadway functionally classified 

as a rural major or minor collector 

or a rural local road with 

significant safety risks, as defined 

by a State in accordance with an 

updated State strategic highway 

safety plan. 

INDICATOR THAT STATE 

MEETS REQUIREMENTS 

The update includes the 

States definition of “High 

Risk Rural Road.” 

CONSIDERATIONS 

SPECIAL RULES 

GUIDANCE LINK—HSIP, MAP21 High Risk Rural Roads 

Guidance 

REQUIREMENT STATUS (DID 

THE STATE MEET THE MAP-21 

REQUIREMENT?) 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

SUPPORT FOR STATUS 

DETERMINATION 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

23 U.S.C. 148 (g)(2) 

OLDER DRIVERS AND 

PEDESTRIANS – If traffic fatalities 

and serious injuries per capita for 

drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65 in a State increases 

during the most recent 2-year 

period for which data are 

available, that State shall be 

required to include, in the 

subsequent Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan of the State, strategies 

to address the increases in those 

rates, taking into account the 

recommendations included in the 

publication of the Federal Highway 

Administration entitled ‘Highway 

Design Handbook for Older Drivers 

and Pedestrians’ (FHWA-RD-01-

103) dated May 2001, or as 

subsequently revised. 

The SHSP update includes 

strategies to address the 

increases in older driver 

and pedestrian traffic 

fatalities and serious 

injuries, if applicable. 

Does the Older Drivers and 

Pedestrians special rule apply 

to the State? 

GUIDANCE LINK—Section 148: 

Older Drivers and Pedestrians 

Special Rule Interim Guidance 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

52
 
 

 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

MAP-21 REQUIREMENTS 

23 U.S.C. 148 (d)(2)(A)(ii) 

In general, each State shall: 

• update the strategic 

highway safety plans of the 

State in accordance with 

the requirements 

established by the 

Secretary under this 

subsection. 

• submit the updated plans to 

the Secretary, along with a 

detailed description of the 

process used to update the 

plan. 

23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(G) 

The term ‘State strategic highway 

safety plan’ means a 

comprehensive plan, based on 

safety data, developed by a State 

transportation department that: 

Is approved by the Governor of the 

State or a responsible State agency. 

INDICATOR THAT STATE 

MEETS REQUIREMENTS 

DESCRI

The State 

included/provided a 

detailed description of the 

SHSP update process (this 

description can be 

included as a section, 

chapter or appendix in 

the SHSP, in the cover or 

transmittal letter for the 

SHSP, or as a standalone 

document). 

SHSP signed by the 

Governor or a responsible 

State agency 

CONSIDERATIONS 

PTION OF SHSP UPDATE PROCESS 

Does the description include a 

discussion of: 

• a data-driven process 

(evaluation); how emphasis 

areas and strategies were 

selected 

• who was consulted 

• how coordination was 

achieved 

• how progress will be 

measured 

• the next scheduled 

evaluation and update (is it 

within 5 years?) 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

REQUIREMENT STATUS (DID 

THE STATE MEET THE MAP-21 

REQUIREMENT?) 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

SUPPORT FOR STATUS 

DETERMINATION 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

53
 
 

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

MAP-21 REQUIREMENTS 

INDICATOR THAT STATE 

MEETS REQUIREMENTS CONSIDERATIONS 

REQUIREMENT STATUS (DID 

THE STATE MEET THE MAP-21 

REQUIREMENT?) 

SUPPORT FOR STATUS 

DETERMINATION 

23 U.S.C. 148 (a)(12)(I) 

The term ‘State strategic highway 

safety plan’ means a 

comprehensive plan, based on 

safety data, developed by a State 

transportation department that: 

Is updated and submitted to the 

Secretary for approval as required 

under subsection (d)(2). 

FHWA Division 

Administrator approves 

SHSP update process 

 MEETS REQUIREMENT 

 DOES NOT MEET 

REQUIREMENT 

If the requirement is met, 

provide a summary or 

brief description that 

supports this outcome. 

OR 

If the requirement is not 

met, what are the 

recommended action(s) the 

State should take to 

satisfy the requirement? 

The State’s SHSP Process is:  APPROVED  DISAPPROVED
 

DATE: _______________________________________________________________ 

FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS: 

54
 
Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

Potential Information Resources
 

The following is a list of potential resources that would be beneficial information to the review 

team prior to a peer review or program review. 

1.	 Invitation Letter. 

2.	 Purpose and objectives of the exchange and/or focus items for discussion. 

3.	 Preliminary agenda. 

4.	 List of State Web sites for safety, safety management systems, and/or HSIP information. 

5.	 HSIP Manual and highway safety project selection process. 

6.	 State’s annual HSIP report. 

7.	 State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

8.	 List of recent, current, and planned HSIP projects. 

9.	 Safety elements of planning documents (i.e., Long Range Plan, Capital Investment Strategy, 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program). 

10. Organizational chart for State DOT highlighting safety/HSIP functions. 

55
 
 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Example Review Topics
 

The peer review or program review should focus on only one element of the HSIP (i.e., SHSP, 

RHCP, Program of Highway Safety Improvement Projects) or on one specific program process 

(i.e., planning, implementation, or evaluation). Example review topics include: 

Strategic Highway Safety Plans 

• SHSP Development 

• SHSP Implementation 

• SHSP Evaluation 

• Integration of HSIP with SHSP 

• Coordination with Partners 

• Leveraging Resources 

Railway-Highway Crossing Program 

• Project Identification & Prioritization 

• Inspections 

• Construction process 

• Evaluation 

Program of Highway Safety Improvement Projects 

• Project Identification 

• Engineering Studies 

• Project Prioritization 

• Local Road Involvement 

• Funding/Programming Projects 

• Evaluation 

56
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Sample Peer Review Agenda
 

A sample agenda is outlined below. It is important to note that the content and structure of the 

agenda will be shaped by the review topic. 

Day One 

8:00 – 8:30 a.m. Introduction/Overview (purpose, review elements, etc.) 

8:30 – 9:30 a.m. Host State Presentations 

9:30 – 10:00 a.m. Question & Answer/Discussion 

10:00 – 10:30 a.m. Break 

10:30 a.m. – 12:00 noon Visiting State Presentations 

12:00 – 1:00 p.m. Lunch (Informal Networking Opportunity) 

1:00 – 5:00 p.m. Open Discussion 

Day Two 

8:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon Discussion with other HSIP Representatives 

12:00 – 1:00 p.m. Lunch (Informal Networking Opportunity) 

1:00 – 5:00 p.m. Open Discussion 

Day Three 

9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon Report Preparation 

12:00 – 1:00 p.m. Lunch (Informal Networking Opportunity) 

1:00 – 4:00 p.m. Close-out Session 

57
 
 

 

 

Highway Safety Improvement Program	 Assessment Toolbox 

Sample Report 

HSIP Peer Review
 

Hosted by the
 

[State name] Department of Transportation
 

[Date]
 

Introduction 

The [State name] Department of Transportation hosted a Peer Review of its Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) on [Date]. The peer review team consisted of: 

•	 [Name, title, and organization] Exchange Team Leader 

•	 [List All Team members – Name, title, and organization] 

•	 Other attendees and observers included: 

•	 [List Other Attendees and Observers – Name, title, and organization] 

Objectives 

The expressed objectives of the peer review process were to: 

•	 Learn how the [State name] Department of Transportation manages and implements the 

HSIP. 

•	 Provide an occasion for members of exchange team and the Department of Transportation to 

think about HSIP management. 

•	 Exchange information among members of the team and others involved in the peer review. 

•	 Identify useful ideas members of the peer review team can apply in their agency. 

•	 Address the following focus items identified by [State name] DOT: 

Scope 

To prepare for the peer review, the team reviewed documentation describing the Department of 

Transportation’s HSIP procedures. During the exchange, the team discussed [State name]’s 

procedures and those used in other team members’ respective agencies. The exchange team also 

interviewed [Number of] persons, including: 

•	 [List names of persons interviewed] 

Interviews were conducted using a general set of questions to stimulate discussion, and provided 

the exchange team an opportunity to listen to concerns, experiences, technical accomplishments, 

and suggestions from those interviewed. Members of the team also answered questions posed to 

them by persons from the Department of Transportation, FHWA, and others. The team members 

volunteered information pertinent to the discussions on administration, HSIP development, 

project management, and technical accomplishments. 

58
 
 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

Several common themes emerged from the interviews: 

• [Insert Theme 1] 

• [Insert Theme 2] 

• [Insert Theme 3] 

• [and so on] 

Strengths and Key Issues 

The exchange team noted several significant strengths at the Department of Transportation: 

• [Insert strength and/or key issue] 

• [Insert strength and/or key issue] 

• [Insert strength and/or key issue] 

• [and so on] 

The team’s observations on these issues as well as on general topic of HSIP follow: 

[Item or Issue] 

• [Insert observation] 

• [Insert observation] 

• [Insert observation] 

• [and so on] 

[Item or Issue] 

• [Insert observation] 

• [Insert observation] 

• [Insert observation] 

• [and so on] 

[Item or Issue] 

• [Insert observation] 

• [Insert observation] 

• [Insert observation] 

• [and so on] 

59
 
Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox 

The Peer Review Team Member Reports are as follows: 

[Name and organization – Team Leader] 

Observations: 

• [Insert observation] 

• [Insert observation] 

• [Insert observation] 

• [and so on] 

Planned Actions or Opportunities for [Team leader’s State name] DOT: 

• [Insert planned action or opportunity] 

• [Insert planned action or opportunity] 

• [Insert planned action or opportunity] 

• [and so on] 

[Use this same format for each of the Peer Review Team Members. The last individual report 

and usually most comprehensive of all the reports given is for the host State.] 

60
 

Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox