i 
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 the use of the information contained in this document. 

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. 

Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names may appear in this report only because they are 

considered essential to the objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 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-15-014

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Highway Safety Improvement Program Self-Assessment Tool, 

2nd Edition

5. Report Date

July 2015

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Eric Tang, P.E. 

Authors of Previous Edition

Jeffrey Trombly, Ph.D., (SAIC), Brian Chandler, P.E., (SAIC), Timothy 

White, P.E. (Kimley-Horn Associates, Incorporated)

8. Performing Organization Report

No.

9. Performing Organization Name And Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 800

Bethesda, MD 20814

Performing Organization Name and Address for Previous Edition

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

1710 SAIC Drive

McLean, VA 92121-1578

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-D-00020

Contract or Grant No. for Previous 

Edition 

DTFH61-10-D-00024

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 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Self-Assessment Tool Guide describes an approach to 

self assessment that allows users to evaluate specific aspects of the HSIP process. The HSIP Self-Assessment 

Tool consists of a number of questions designed to provide those with HSIP management responsibilities 

information to assess their programs, policies, and procedures against many of the recommended HSIP practices 

in use today. 

17. Key Words

Highway Safety Improvement Program, Highway 

Safety, Self Assessment

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

42

22. Price

N/A

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

Preface

The 2nd Edition of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

Self-Assessment Tool provides a mechanism for agencies to evaluate HSIP 

implementation efforts and updates the original document for consistency with 

MAP-21 legislation. The HSIP Self-Assessment Tool consists of a number of 

questions designed to provide those with HSIP management responsibilities 

information to assess their programs, policies, and procedures against many of 

the recommended HSIP practices in use today. The HSIP Self-Assessment Tool 

is intended to be a group exercise and, as such, should be conducted with as 

many transportation safety stakeholder representatives as possible. Among other 

things, the Self-Assessment Tool can be used to: 

• Benchmark and track progress towards improving the effectiveness of the

HSIP over the long term;

• Raise the level of awareness of HSIP-related practices and strategies;

• Identify gaps in existing HSIP efforts; and

• Generate strategies to improve HSIP-related practices.

i 

Contents

1. Introduction and Background ..................................................................................... 1

2. Conducting the Self Assessment .............................................................................. 1

2.1 Self-Assessment Participants .............................................................................. 1

2.2 Self-Assessment Preparation .............................................................................. 2

2.3 Self-Assessment Format ...................................................................................... 2

2.4 Applying the Results ............................................................................................. 3

3. Scoring the Self Assessment ..................................................................................... 4

4. HSIP Self-Assessment Tool Questions .................................................................... 7

4.1 Leadership .............................................................................................................. 8

4.2 Administration....................................................................................................... 10

4.3 Planning ................................................................................................................ 12

4.4 Implementation .................................................................................................... 19

4.5 Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 22

5. Next Steps................................................................................................................... 24

APPENDIX A—HSIP Self-Assessment Tool Scoring Template ............................. 26

List of Tables

Table 1. Scoring Guidelines ................................................................................................ 4

iii

Abbreviations

CMAQ—Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program

CMFs—Crash Modification Factors

FHWA—Federal Highway Administration

HRRRP—High-Risk Rural Road Program

HSIP—Highway Safety Improvement Program

IM—Interstate Maintenance

MPO—Metropolitan Planning Organization

PDIT—Program Delivery Improvement Tool

RHGCP—Railway-Highway-Grade Crossing Program

RPC—Regional Planning Commission

RSAs—Road Safety Audits/Assessments

SDOT—State Department of Transportation

SHSP—State Strategic Highway Safety Plan

SPF—Safety Performance Functions

State HSIP—State Highway Safety Improvement Program

STIP—State Transportation Improvement Program

STP—Surface Transportation Program

TIP—Transportation Improvement Program

v 

1. Introduction and Background

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. The HSIP encompasses the State Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP), the Railway-Highway Crossings Program (RHCP) and the 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 plan 

on a regular basis. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety developed the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Assessment Toolbox (Federal 

Highway Administration. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

Assessment Toolbox, FHWA-SA-15-015, July 2015) to help states identify 

program strengths and weaknesses as well as to identify and share noteworthy 

practices to continually improve the program. The HSIP Assessment Toolbox

presents three approaches to conduct a program assessment, including self 

assessment, program review, and peer exchange. The HSIP Self-Assessment 

Tool allows users to evaluate specific aspects of the HSIP process. 

The HSIP Self-Assessment Tool consists of a number of questions designed to 

provide those with HSIP management responsibilities information to assess their 

programs, policies, and procedures against many of the recommended HSIP 

practices in use today. 

2. Conducting the Self Assessment

A self assessment can be initiated and led by either the State Department of 

Transportation (SDOT), FHWA Division Office, or other safety partners, as 

appropriate. A self assessment is most beneficial if conducted as a partnership

among stakeholders, as self assessment requires a collaborative effort. The 

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

the agency. Typically, self assessments are conducted annually, or every other 

year, to measure progress in implementing program improvements.

2.1 Self-Assessment Participants

The HSIP Self-Assessment Tool is intended to be a group exercise and, as such, 

should be conducted with as many transportation safety stakeholder 

representatives as possible. Those involved in the assessment should represent 

every aspect of the HSIP, including HSIP Champions, HSIP Administrators, 

HSIP Managers, Planners, and others involved in project programming (e.g., 

District Traffic and/or Planning staff, local public agencies). A meeting facilitator 

1 
should be identified who is familiar with the HSIP Self-Assessment Tool and 

experienced with the HSIP. This could be an outside facilitator, but in many cases 

it will likely be the FHWA Division Safety Specialist or State DOT Safety Engineer. 

It is important that the facilitator approach the exercise with an open mind. He or 

she should have excellent listening skills to clearly understand and appreciate 

group discussions and to be able to accurately capture key points. The facilitator 

will be responsible for guiding the group through the self assessment by: 

developing and maintaining a meeting agenda; structuring and encouraging 

participation; and, recording results on the scoring template provided in 

appendix A. An effective facilitator (Center for Conflict Resolution. A Manual for 

Group Facilitators. The Center for Conflict Resolution. 731 State Street Madison, 

WI. PO Box 1468 Madison, WI 53701): 

• Challenges thinking; 

• Helps the group create lists of important points; 

• Summarizes the issues throughout the meeting; 

• Shares ideas when they can help the meeting progress; 

• Provides handouts when needed to clarify the main points; 

• Raises questions to bring out different viewpoints; 

• Guides discussion, but does not lead it; 

• Restates ideas when the person presenting them is not clear; and 

• Provides constructive criticism when, for example, a person or people 

attempt to dominate the meeting.

2.2 Self-Assessment Preparation

In advance of the assessment discussion, this Guide and the scoring template 

should be provided to each invited participant. Each participant should be asked 

to read the Guide, consider the questions, and score each based on their 

perception regarding the level of adoption by the agency. Participants are 

encouraged to bring their score sheets and the Guide to the assessment group 

discussion for reference. The time to conduct the assessment discussion can 

vary depending on the number of participants and their previous experience in 

conducting the group discussion. For the initial group discussion, it is suggested 

that approximately three hours be scheduled to complete the self-assessment 

group discussion. 

2.3 Self-Assessment Format

After the welcome and introductions, it is recommended that the assessment 

facilitator describe each of the five primary self-assessment areas: Leadership, 

Administration, Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation—before proceeding to 

the actual assessment questions. The facilitator should briefly review the scoring 

scale and methodology, and then encourage open discussion on each 

assessment question to identify at what level this activity or process is being 

2 
accomplished. Due to the complexity of operational, economical, and political 

issues that can impact the response to any of the assessment items, the 

facilitator should emphasize that “one size does not fit all conditions,” and 

encourage the group to be aware of the constraints that transportation agencies 

have in each of the topic item areas.

In summary, to carry out the self-assessment group discussion: 

• Identify a meeting facilitator; 

• Assemble a team of participants that is fully versed in the HSIP; 

• Provide background information that the team can reference during 

review (e.g., State SHSP, HSIP, and related policies); 

• Provide participants with the assessment Guide and score sheet to 

complete in advance of the meeting; 

• Ask the participants to submit their responses to the facilitator prior to the 

meeting. Participants also should bring their completed score sheets and 

Guide with them to the assessment exercise; 

• Summarize each of the participant’s scores on a single sheet and 

distribute the summary sheet to the group. This will provide each 

participant with a means to quickly review all scores recorded by others; 

• Encourage open discussion about each topic area to better understand 

the participants’ responses; and

• Discuss the final score in each topic section and collect information on 

any practices, policies, and procedures that are being done and that are 

proving successful. The discussion also should address what could be 

done to improve the score.

2.4 Applying the Results

The first applications of the tool results in a baseline that can be applied to: 

1) Identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement; and

2) Monitor progress over time by comparing HSIP Self-Assessment results 

against the baseline. 

Among other things, the Self-Assessment Tool can be used to: 

• Benchmark and track progress towards improving the effectiveness of 

the HSIP over the long term;

• Raise the level of awareness of HSIP-related practices and strategies; 

• Identify gaps in existing HSIP efforts; and

• Generate strategies to improve HSIP-related practices.

3 
3. Scoring the Self Assessment

The method for scoring each question in the Self-Assessment Tool assumes that 

adoption of a particular requirement follows a five phase adoption process: 

initiation; development; execution; evaluation; and integration. Questions are 

scored on a scale of 0 to 15 using the guidelines presented in table 1. 

Table 1. Scoring Guidelines

Adoption 

Phase

Scoring 

Range

Description

Initiation (0-3) Agency has started to address the requirement

described in the question. (Requirements include 

characteristics, feature, capability, element, policy, etc.) 

If the agency has not initiated any activities to address 

the requirement, record a response of “0.”

Development (4-6) Agency has developed a plan or approach to address 

requirement described in the question.

Execution (7-9) Agency has executed an approach to meet the 

requirement described in the question.

Evaluation (10-12) Agency has assessed the performance of the 

requirement described in the question after it has been 

executed for a period of time.

Integration (13-15) Agency has integrated the requirement described in the 

question into agency culture.

In assigning a score for a particular question, participants should select the 

appropriate adoption phase by considering the following:

Initiation

During this phase, agency leadership has acknowledged that a particular 

requirement will be beneficial to the HSIP and agrees to initiate activities required 

to implement that particular requirement. Consider:

1. If the agency management acknowledges the need for the particular item. 

2. Whether exploratory research has taken place to assess the benefits of 

this item. 

3. If management supports further development of the requirements of this 

item. 

Example: Has the State adopted a strategic safety goal to guide the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)?

Situation: The agency has not adopted a goal; however, the agency 

management recently agreed that a goal should be developed.

4 
Scoring: This could be scored either a “1” or “2” depending on how advanced 

and developed these discussions regarding the adoption of a goal have 

progressed. The salient point is that the requirement has been acknowledged as 

important by management.

Development

During this phase, the agency has commenced activities to develop the 

requirement described in a question. Consider:

1. Whether the agency has developed a plan or approach to address 

requirements of this item and/or has started to investigate the feasibility of 

implementation. 

2. If the agency is developing standards, and guidance to enable 

implementation of this item. 

3. Whether the agency has required approvals necessary for 

implementation. 

4. If all resources are in place to support the adoption of this item. 

Example: Has the State adopted a strategic safety goal to guide the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)?

Situation: The agency has not adopted a goal; however, the agency 

management recently authorized staff to develop a goal for adoption.

Scoring: This could be scored either a “3” or “4” depending on how far the plan 

to develop and adopt a goal has advanced.

Execution

At this phase, the agency has implemented a particular requirement. Consider:

1. If the agency has started implementing or carrying out the requirements of 

this item.

2. How the agency has allocated financial or staff resources necessary for 

continued execution of this item.

3. Whether appropriate personnel have been trained to execute the 

requirements of this item.

4. If a process owner has been established to support this item. 

Situation: Has the State adopted a strategic safety goal to guide the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)?

Discussion: The agency has adopted a goal. 

Scoring: This could be scored either a “7” or “8” as a goal has been adopted.

5 
Evaluation

During this phase, the agency reflects on the effectiveness of the requirement 

that has been implemented. Consider:

1. If the agency has developed an evaluation process to assess the 

effectiveness of this item.

2. Whether the agency has started using the evaluation process for 

assessing this item.

3. If the agency has implemented appropriate changes to the requirements 

of this item based on performance evaluation. 

Example: Has the State adopted a strategic safety goal to guide the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)?

Situation: The agency has recently conducted an evaluation of the adopted goal

and developed a process to update the goal.

Scoring: This could be scored either a “10” or “11” depending on the how the far 

the development of the evaluation process has progressed.

Integration

At this phase, the agency has incorporated the requirement into its policies,

processes, or standards. The results of evaluation efforts are used to establish 

management commitment to HSIP goals and objectives as well as processes 

and procedures. Evaluation results are periodically reviewed to improve quality. 

The requirement is strongly supported by management and is a key contributor 

to the agency mission. Consider:

1. How the agency is integrating the requirements of this item into quality 

improvement processes.

2. If the requirements of this item are integrated into agency processes and 

standards. 

3. Whether the requirements of this item are included as part of employee 

performance rating system.

4. If the requirements of this item are documented and approved, as 

appropriate, by the FHWA Division Office. 

Example: Has the State adopted a strategic safety goal to guide the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)?

Situation: The agency has published the goal and uses it to guide agency 

operations.

6 
Scoring: This could be scored either a “13” or “14” depending on the extent of 

support.

In summary, as you discuss the self-assessment questions consider the degree, 

or extent, to which an agency performs or practices the item under consideration. 

While it appears that in some cases a simple “yes” or “no” answer may be an 

appropriate response, the purpose of the self-assessment activity is to assign a 

level of adoption. In assigning a rating to a question, first decide which adoption 

phase best fits the overall item response (i.e., initiation, development, execution, 

evaluation, integration). Overall “best fit” does not require total agreement with 

each of the questions or the description for that scoring range. Next, assign the 

score within the adoption range. This requires participants to evaluate the level of 

effort that has been applied within a particular adoption phase. If only a “minimal 

effort” has been applied, then the lowest rating in a range should be assigned. If 

a “moderate effort” has been applied, then the midpoint rating in a range should 

be applied. If an “extensive effort” has been applied, then the highest rating for a 

range should be assigned.

4. HSIP Self-Assessment Tool Questions

The HSIP Self-Assessment Tool consists of five primary assessment areas:

1. Leadership 

2. Administration

3. Planning

4. Implementation

5. Evaluation

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.

7 
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 policymakers and program managers 

regarding the effectiveness of the HSIP. Feedback provides a basis to 

continuously improve the program. 

The following sections describe each assessment area and their questions in 

detail. Appendix A includes forms that can be used to record scores for each 

question in the tool and to summarize the results of each section. A simple Excel 

spreadsheet is also provided to enable recording and display of results.

4.1 Leadership 

The success of any program begins with leadership. It is important that the HSIP 

is led effectively, and that the program’s goals and objectives are promoted by

the agency’s top management to ensure the program is given priority, resources,

and consideration for the purpose of improving traffic safety. Leadership also is 

advanced by champions who regularly promote the goals of the program as well 

as other safety leaders who are authorized to make decisions regarding program 

implementation.

4.1.1 Safety Goal Setting

Question: Is the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) connected to the 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) safety goals and objectives? 

As an “umbrella document” intended to guide other plans, the SHSP provides an 

opportunity to develop a consistent safety strategy among safety partners

throughout the State. An agency should adopt written strategic goals consistent 

with the SHSP to guide the overall efforts of the HSIP. The goals are generally 

based on number, proportion, type, or rate of crashes, fatalities, and/or serious 

injuries. Many States have interim “not to exceed” targets for fatalities and 

serious injuries to measure their performance toward longer-term goals; others

have adopted an ultimate goal of zero fatalities in their jurisdictions. 

Objectives are concrete steps toward achieving a goal, stated in measureable 

terms. They typically have specific performance targets (e.g., reducing roadway 

departure-type crashes by 12 percent by 2020).

The process of developing and adopting goals and objectives provides an 

opportunity to examine the importance of safety, promote HSIP efforts to improve 

safety, and measure performance over time. The resulting products are specific 

goal statements and documented objectives that can be used to set direction and 

establish expectations for HSIP planning and implementation. 

8 
To achieve the highest scores in this category, the agency should adopt safety 

goals and objectives to guide the HSIP, and they should identify the links 

between the HSIP and SHSP.

4.1.2 Safety Leadership

Question: Does the State have a person responsible for leadership and 

oversight of the HSIP who is authorized to make decisions regarding program 

implementation? 

For the HSIP to be an effective program, it is important that the overall process 

be led by a person with responsibility and authority to implement the program.

Investing responsibility and implementation authority in a single person (or a 

limited number of persons) enhances accountability for program results. It is 

desirable to have one person leading and overseeing the statewide HSIP 

program, though in some situations the program may have multiple leaders

(e.g., a program separated by State and non-State roadways) such that multiple 

HSIP leaders are appropriate. 

Focusing HSIP implementation leadership concentrates program knowledge in a 

staff member (or members) who have authority to act on that knowledge. It also 

provides “one-stop-shop” benefits to safety practitioners around the State who 

may have questions about the program. Authorization for decisionmaking allows 

the HSIP leader(s) to make decisions that improve implementation of the 

program without delay or potential veto by a multilevel approval structure.

4.1.3 HSIP Champion

Question: Does the State highway agency have a champion (or champions) for 

highway safety who regularly promotes and advances HSIP goals and objectives 

with senior management (Chief Engineer, Director, CEO, etc.)? 

The agency should have an HSIP champion with a regular “seat at the table” with 

senior management. For example, in some states a highway safety champion is 

a member of the State DOT leadership team, participating in high-level 

management meetings for the purposes of promoting SHSP and HSIP goals and 

objectives. Since the HSIP is a relatively small program, its priorities can 

sometimes be pushed to a lower priority than other highway programs and 

agency issues. It is important that the HSIP goals and objectives are clearly 

shared with agency leadership on a regular basis to ensure the use of these 

funds for purposes consistent with the agency’s safety goals.

To achieve the highest scores on this question, the agency should have an 

identified HSIP Champion who meets regularly with senior management to 

discuss the program. 

9 
4.1.4 Senior Management Support 

Question: Are the goals and objectives of the HSIP regularly discussed at the 

senior managerial level (Chief Engineer, Director, CEO, etc.) in the State 

transportation agency?

It is important that the highest levels of management in an agency discuss the 

HSIP goals and objectives on a regular basis within the agency, with 

stakeholders, and with the general public. The support of senior management in 

safety goal setting and oversight of the HSIP gives them buy-in and regular 

feedback regarding implementation progress. Keeping safety at the forefront of 

transportation discussions can provide opportunities to promote the SHSP and 

HSIP goals and objectives in the long term.

To achieve the highest scores on this question, HSIP goals and objectives 

should be a regular agenda item in senior management meetings of the State 

highway agency.

4.2 Administration

Effective administration of the HSIP is vital for program success. For example, 

documenting procedures ensures program continuity and consistency and

reduces the impacts of staff turnover or leadership changes. Providing adequate 

staff, as well as clear eligibility policies and guidance, results in timely and 

consistent program administration. 

4.2.1 HSIP Staffing

Question: Does your State highway agency have a staff member who devotes 

his/her time to management of the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP)?

Administration of HSIP rules, regulations, policies, and procedures is typically 

handled most effectively when an agency gives a single staff member 

responsibility for the program. A dedicated staff member responsible for 

administering the HSIP supports consistent interpretation and enforcement of the 

established, documented policies and procedures. It is not necessary that this 

person is in control of project-level funding decisions, but rather that he/she 

assures HSIP projects meet base guidelines as established by FHWA and the 

State. This staff member may report directly to the Safety Champion discussed in 

the previous section, or the Safety Champion and the HSIP administrator may be 

the same person.

To achieve the highest scores on this question, there should be a recognized 

HSIP administrator at the State highway agency that is known as such by 

management. Performance measures related to the management of the HSIP 

should be included in his/her annual performance review.

10 
4.2.2 Established Procedures

Question: Does your agency have established and documented procedures for 

administering the HSIP? 

Due to issues like employee turnover and the interpretation of regulations and 

policies, it is important that the administrative processes and procedures for 

implementing the HSIP are documented. Documentation should include the 

network screening process, problem identification process, identification of 

countermeasures, project prioritization, project programming process, and 

evaluation of benefits. Ideally, the agency should develop an HSIP 

Implementation Guide or similar State-specific document that defines the 

processes and procedures for administration of the HSIP. Examples of State

HSIP manuals are linked on the Office of Safety Web site at 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/. 

4.2.3 Safety Need Focus

Question: Do HSIP eligibility policies focus on addressing the greatest safety 

needs, regardless of jurisdiction (i.e., State roads, locally owned roads)?

For the HSIP to be the most effective at reducing the number and severity of 

traffic crashes, prioritizing projects based on safety need on State- and locally

owned roadways is vital. Safety need is not simply identifying the intersections or 

segments that have experienced the most crashes; a more indepth analysis of 

where HSIP funds can be most effectively used to improve safety is necessary. 

Statewide HSIPs that identify safety needs based on data rather than 

jurisdictional boundaries more effectively address statewide safety goals. 

Additionally, providing HSIP funds to local jurisdictions may encourage those 

agencies to expand safety projects with other funding sources beyond the HSIP.

Established policies bring clarity and objectivity to a program that is sometimes 

affected by external influences that are not always consistent with the intent of 

the program. Focusing HSIP funds on a State’s greatest safety needs supports 

the goals and objectives of both the HSIP and SHSP to reduce the number of 

fatalities and serious injuries in the most efficient manner possible.

4.2.4 Project Eligibility

Question: Does your State have established criteria for HSIP project eligibility 

(e.g., project size, specified countermeasures) in your State? 

FHWA regulations regarding HSIP project type eligibility are relatively broad. 

HSIP-related laws, regulations, and policies can be interpreted differently by 

various State highway agencies. Established policies bring clarity, consistency, 

and objectivity to the program, especially as it relates to the definition of HSIP11 
eligible expenditures. In some cases a State may want to further define the 

approved HSIP process in their State (beyond the Federal regulations) based on 

their specific safety needs and SHSP goals and objectives.

Examples include limits on the size of a single HSIP-funded project (e.g., less 

than $1 million); and further limitations beyond what is described in safety 

regulation (23 CFR 924) regarding State-approved countermeasures. In some 

States, only infrastructure countermeasures are funded with HSIP monies. In 

others, noninfrastructure treatments (e.g., law enforcement, public education, 

data system improvements) are deemed eligible as well. 

Focusing HSIP project types on those that support State-specific SHSP goals will 

improve the effectiveness of the HSIP in each State for reducing the number of 

fatalities and serious injuries.

4.3 Planning

HSIP project planning consists of three primary areas: problem identification, 

countermeasure selection, and project prioritization. Since the HSIP is a datadriven program, quality data and data collection processes are important to the

network screening process that identifies safety issues on the network. Once the 

high-risk locations are identified, it is important to identify contributing crash 

factors and select and prioritize effective crash countermeasures. The project 

prioritization process ends the planning process as HSIP projects are prioritized 

for implementation through a number of ranking and optimization approaches. 

4.3.1 Data Screening on State System

Question: Are crash, roadway, and traffic data used in the screening process to 

identify potential HSIP project locations on the State-owned roadway system?

A data-driven network-screening process is the most effective method for 

identifying locations with a higher-than-expected number of crashes. A 

combination of crash type and crash frequency history, roadway characteristics 

(number of lanes, roadway curvature and median type), area type (rural versus 

urban) and traffic volume is the most effective way to identify locations most likely 

to experience future crashes. Agencies should use the identification methods that 

suit their eligibility criteria, coordinate with SHSP goals and emphasis areas, and 

are supported by available data. 

4.3.2 Data Screening on the Locally Owned or Tribal-Owned System

Question: Are crash, roadway, and traffic data used in the screening process to 

identify potential HSIP project locations on the non-State-owned roadway 

systems? 

12 
In support of SHSP goals of reducing the number and severity of traffic crashes 

on all roadways in a State, the data screening process should include the 

non-State roadway system. A systematic, data-driven system-screening process 

is the most effective method of determining high-risk locations. A combination of 

crash type and frequency, roadway characteristics (number of lanes, roadway 

curvature and median type), area type (rural versus urban), and traffic count data 

should be used to identify potential crash locations. Agencies should use 

identification methods in the screening process that suit their SHSP goals and 

emphasis areas, and are supported by available data. By using a systematic 

process that is repeatable and defendable, the data screening process can be 

used to identify potential HSIP project locations. 

4.3.3 Application of Advanced Statistical Methods for Network Screening

Question: Does the HSIP network screening process in your State incorporate 

advanced statistical methodologies for determining locations of need? 

Simple before/after studies can sometimes provide misleading results, as they 

are susceptible to the randomness inherent in annual crash frequencies and 

changes in other roadway network characteristics (e.g., roadway cross section, 

traffic volume). 

Advanced statistical methods can improve the effectiveness of a State’s network 

screening process, as they can address normalization factors (e.g., traffic 

volume, route length), potential roadway cross section changes, and statistical 

randomness of annual crash frequency. 

Relatively simple analysis methods include using multiple years of crash data 

(typically three or more), route length, and crash rates (by traffic volume) to 

appropriately compare similar route segments and intersections. More advanced 

methods use safety performance functions (SPF) to predict the number of 

expected crashes. 

The use of multiple screening methods may provide more confidence in the 

evaluation of the roadway network, as it is likely that locations with the highest 

safety need will rise to the top of the list using multiple methods. 

To achieve the highest scores in this category, it is necessary for the agency’s 

documented screening process to use advanced statistical methods that 

accounts for potential biases such as regression to the mean and traffic volume 

changes. 

13 
4.3.4 Assessment of Crash Locations

Question: Does your State highway agency evaluate and apply safety 

countermeasures not only at high-crash locations, but also at other high-risk 

locations?

Crash analysis can result in problem identification and countermeasure 

implementation at the spot, corridor, and area levels (particularly in rural areas). 

For situations where high-crash spot locations are not as readily apparent, 

systemic improvements may be a more viable solution for implementing SHSP 

strategies related to that emphasis area. High-risk locations can be intersections 

and segments that are not identified using a crash screening analysis, but have 

similar geometric and/or traffic characteristics to locations that have experienced 

crashes. 

The systemic approach focuses more on crash types, which tend to be more 

predictable than specific crash locations over time. During crash analysis, the 

criteria used to identify locations for treatment include historical crash data; 

however, additional information such as traffic volume, functional class of 

roadways, and geometric features can also be beneficial. 

This is a particularly effective approach in rural conditions, as crash locations 

tend to be dispersed throughout a jurisdiction, and only a few specific locations 

experience a high number of crashes. Installing low-cost countermeasures along 

entire routes, on a series of curves, or at groups of intersections can provide a 

cost effective benefit across the system. For example, some State highway 

agencies are systematically installing shoulder and centerline rumble strips on 

hundreds of miles of rural roadways. Agencies have decided to install rumble 

strips on roadways with a crash history as well as on roadways with similar cross 

sections and traffic volumes that have not yet experienced an elevated number of 

roadway departure crashes.

4.3.5 Systemic and Spot Location Improvements

Question: Does the HSIP consider a balance of spot location and systemic 

safety improvement projects in your State?

Many states are now implementing systemic improvements, which identify 

roadway segments, areas, or a set of spot locations based on high-risk roadway 

characteristics, rather than focusing solely on individual sites. A systemic 

highway safety improvement is a particular countermeasure, or set of 

countermeasures, implemented on all roadways or roadway sections where a 

crash type is linked with a particular roadway characteristic. Usually this crash 

type has been identified in the SHSP for further action. For example, if a State 

has identified roadway departure crashes in their SHSP, then the State may 

14 
decide to target this crash type by installing edge line rumble stripes, addressing 

clear zone issues, and considering shoulder installation, among other treatments. 

Striking a balance between funding both systemic improvements and site-specific 

improvements is critical, as each has advantages and disadvantages. Systemic 

improvements are generally low-cost and affect a large portion of the network, 

but their crash reduction is limited at any single location. Spot location 

improvements can provide a greater benefit at a small number of locations, but 

the overall impact is generally much lower.

The appropriate balance between systemic and spot location improvements 

should be determined by each State. Using HSIP funds for both of these 

categories is likely to produce the strongest overall safety improvement results 

for the State. 

4.3.6 Rural Road Safety Needs

Question: Does your State highway agency address rural roads at a level 

consistent with their safety needs? 

Traffic fatality rates on rural roadways have historically exceeded those on urban 

roads for a number of reasons, including lack of safety features, higher vehicle 

speeds, a higher occurrence of high-risk driver behavior (e.g., impaired driving, 

unbelted occupants), and longer distances from the crash scenes to medical 

care.

Due to relatively low traffic volumes, typically lower overall number of crashes, 

and the dispersion of severe crashes around most states, addressing safety 

needs on rural roads can be challenging.

It is important for rural safety needs to be identified and addressed to impact the 

overall number of fatalities and serious injuries in a State. This can be 

accomplished by the development of a rural-specific network screening process, 

identification of safety strategies proven effective on rural roads (e.g., curve 

warning signing, rumble strips, vegetation removal), and processes to ensure 

rural needs receive funding consistent with their safety needs. 

4.3.7 State Agency Safety Data Analysis

Question: Does your State highway agency analyze location-specific, safetyrelated information to determine the specific safety concerns at potential HSIP 

project locations?

Once the network screening process identifies a number of locations (e.g., 

intersections, segments, corridors) with a higher-than-expected number and/or 

severity of crashes, additional analyses should be performed to determine the 

15 
crash types, other contributing factors (e.g., impaired driving, weather 

conditions), traffic volume, and roadway characteristics (e.g., lane width, 

shoulder width, and type) at these locations. 

The most beneficial countermeasures tend to those installed at locations, or 

systemically to address a specific crash type, where indepth safety data analyses 

have been performed. For example, if an analysis of crashes at a signalized 

intersection reveals a high number of red-light-running severe crashes, the 

practitioner can choose a number of engineering countermeasures (e.g., revised 

clearance intervals, increased signal head conspicuity) and/or law enforcement 

strategies (e.g., red-light-running cameras, targeted enforcement). If a high 

number of roadway departure crashes have been identified at curves in a 

jurisdiction, the practitioner can choose a systemic solution of low-cost curve 

safety strategies to treat that crash type.

4.3.8 Countermeasure Identification

Question: Does the State highway agency consider all contributing factors 

(driver, vehicle, roadway, environment) when identifying appropriate 

countermeasures?

 

Properly diagnosing the contributing factors in crashes requires engineering and 

human behavior experience and judgment. Due to this fact, it is understandable 

why identifying effective crash countermeasures seems so complex. Determining 

the cause of a crash often requires a great deal of observation at the specific 

crash location to determine why the crash could have occurred. There are often 

multiple contributing factors for crashes related to various SHSP emphasis areas, 

including driver-related causes (e.g., inattention, driving while intoxicated), 

vehicle-related causes (e.g., vehicle malfunction, flat tire), roadway-related 

causes (e.g., sharp curve, pothole) or environment-related causes (e.g., wet 

pavement, snow-covered roads). 

Identifying as many of the contributing factors as possible is an important part of 

the process to determine the most appropriate mitigation measures, which may 

result in infrastructure projects funded by the HSIP or other safety strategies as 

determined by SHSP leadership and emphasis area teams. 

4.3.9 Road Safety Audits/Assessments (RSA)

Question: Are RSAs used to support the HSIP engineering study and 

countermeasure identification process? 

Road Safety Audits/Assessments (RSA) can be used to supplement other 

engineering studies to provide a broader and more complete picture of the crash 

problem. The FHWA defines an RSA as “a formal and independent safety 

performance review of a road transportation project by an experienced team of 

16 
safety specialists, addressing the safety of all road users.” RSAs provide an 

opportunity to improve safety by taking a detailed look at an intersection or 

roadway segment and suggesting specific safety improvements. Conducting 

RSAs can help to strengthen the countermeasure development process through 

the use of a multidisciplinary team. 

For an agency to receive the highest scores on this question, the RSA Program 

and HSIP should be coordinated. Activities could include a requirement that any 

site recommended for an HSIP-funded project receive an RSA before it is 

approved. 

4.3.10 Selection of Safety Countermeasures

Question: Does your State highway agency choose safety countermeasures 

supported by quantifiable safety benefits (i.e., crash modification factors)?

Crash modification factors (CMF) are used by safety practitioners to estimate the 

expected safety benefit of a given countermeasure at a specific site. The 

objective nature of CMFs provides a “third-party” tool to support decisions related 

to countermeasure selection and benefit-cost calculations.

CMFs are available for many engineering improvements, such as installing a 

traffic signal or constructing a left-turn lane. Multiple resources are available from 

which widely accepted CMFs can be obtained to provide safety practitioners with 

an estimate of countermeasure effectiveness. Even when using published CMFs, 

practitioners should make every effort to use a CMF applicable to their State and 

local roadway conditions.

For an agency to receive the highest scores in this area, they should have a list 

of recommended CMFs to use in the State. 

4.3.11 Objective Project Prioritization

Question: Does your State highway agency use objective criteria to prioritize 

safety projects for programming? 

Once countermeasures are identified, SHSP priorities and emphasis area action 

plans drive project prioritization. Quantitative analysis should be used whenever 

possible in the HSIP project prioritization process. This approach involves 

identifying and comparing costs and benefits for each proposed project. Benefit/

cost analysis is a quantitative measure commonly used in prioritizing projects 

and countermeasures. Quantitative information allows for an objective analysis of 

the decisionmaking process which might otherwise be dominated by subjective 

judgment or political considerations. Using a quantitative approach helps to 

improve the likelihood that the maximum safety benefit will be obtained for the 

amount of funds invested. 

17 
Projects can be prioritized by a number of criteria, including the following:

1. Benefit/Cost ratio. 

2. Total number of estimated crashes (and/or severe crashes) reduced. 

3. Project readiness. 

4. Project cost. 

To achieve the highest scores in this category, a State highway agency should 

have a documented process for prioritizing projects that is coordinated with 

SHSP priorities and action plans. For example, benefit/cost ratio and total benefit 

(in terms of expected crash reduction) could be used as the initial ranking criteria

to prioritize projects, with project cost and readiness provided as secondary 

factors. 

4.3.12 Planning Partners Involvement

Question: Are planning partners outside the State highway agency involved in 

the HSIP planning process?

By involving interested parties from outside the State highway agency in the 

HSIP planning process, unique perspectives on the relevance of certain safety 

projects can be vetted. It may be advantageous to engage safety stakeholders 

and other partners outside the State highway agency when selecting potential 

solutions. Creative options are often identified when issues are reviewed from 

different perspectives.

Examples of planning partners include Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPO), tribal governments, Regional Planning Commissions (RPC), cities, and 

counties. They can be consulted at various times throughout the process, 

including network screening, potential countermeasure development, and project 

prioritization based on safety need. The earlier these agencies are involved, the 

more likely they will be able to provide valuable input to improve the results of the 

process. 

4.3.13 SHSP Priorities in HSIP Project Identification and Prioritization

Question: Does your State highway agency consider SHSP priorities during 

HSIP project identification and prioritization?

SHSP emphasis areas and strategies in each State are intended to drive HSIP 

planning and investment decisions. The State HSIP should be consistent with the 

SHSP emphasis areas and strategies; therefore, it is important that the 

relationship between the SHSP and the HSIP be maintained. This tight linkage 

between the SHSP and HSIP will strengthen and solidify implementation efforts

to efficiently improve traffic safety. 

18 
As potential HSIP projects are identified and prioritized, criteria related to the 

SHSP should be used to determine which projects are the most beneficial in 

meeting SHSP goals and objectives. 

To achieve the highest scores in this category, the State’s HSIP Implementation 

Guide (see question 4.2.2) should identify the links between the HSIP and SHSP.

4.4 Implementation

The implementation phase of the HSIP occurs after needs have been identified

and countermeasures have been selected, as projects are prioritized for 

programming. Implementation, as described here, addresses funding sources, 

funding allocation issues, and project management during construction. 

The base performance measurement for programming and implementation is the 

HSIP obligation rate for a State, which calculates the percentage of apportioned 

HSIP funds a State has obligated in a given time period—typically a Federal 

fiscal year. Additional information about State-specific obligation rates can be 

found at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/gen_info/slorhsip/. 

4.4.1 Distribution of Funding Off-System

Question: Is HSIP funding distributed to non-State roadway safety projects in 

your State proportionate to safety needs? 

In most states, a significant percentage of traffic fatalities and serious injuries 

occur off the State highway system. In order to meet SHSP goals, non-State road 

safety needs should be addressed. One step towards addressing these needs is 

including local roads in the funding distribution process.

If safety needs on the non-State roadway system are not addressed in the State 

HSIP funding distribution process, the selected safety projects will not have as 

much of an impact on addressing serious injuries and fatalities statewide. Each 

State highway agency should seek to proportionately allocate HSIP funds to 

non-State-owned roadway safety projects based on safety needs.

To achieve the highest scores in this category, the agency’s HSIP funding 

distribution policy should specify that funding be allocated proportional to the 

need.

4.4.2 Use of Other Funding Sources

Question: Are other funding sources leveraged to support the use of HSIP funds 

on safety projects in your State?

To get the most impact from HSIP funds, it can be helpful to support them by 

leveraging other funding sources. There are numerous funding sources that can 

19 
be used to improve safety. These funding categories include, but are not limited 

to, National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), and Surface Transportation Program 

(STP), as well as State and local funding sources. 

Section 148(e)(2)(B) of title 23 U.S.C., makes clear that other Federal-aid funds 

are eligible to support and leverage the safety program. By leveraging these 

funds, the HSIP funds can be used to complete more safety-related projects 

each year. 

4.4.3 Stand-Alone Safety Projects

Question: Does your State highway agency limit the use of HSIP funding to 

stand-alone safety projects only? 

It is important for each State highway agency to develop a plan to most 

effectively use HSIP funding to meet the goals and objectives of the SHSP. 

Improvements to safety features, such as guardrail, that are routinely provided as 

part of a broader Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source as 

the broader project. This allows the HSIP funds to be reserved for stand-alone 

safety projects. This is consistent with the provision of separate funding for safety 

projects and with FHWA’s long-standing position on the use of safety funds.

(U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 

Memorandum, Achieving Maximum Results in Safety, May 16, 2006. Available at 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/policy_guide/memo051706.cfm) 

4.4.4 Innovative Programming Practices

Question: Has your State highway agency considered and implemented 

innovative programming practices to provide time and cost savings to HSIPfunded projects? 

Implementing innovative practices into the HSIP programming process can help 

the State highway agency save time and money over the long run. The longer it 

takes for safety projects to get on the program, the more likely additional crashes 

will occur, resulting in potential additional injuries and fatalities. 

An example of an innovative programming practice used successfully in some 

States is the provision of an HSIP placeholder in the State Transportation 

Improvement Plan (STIP) and/or regional or local Transportation Implementation 

Plans (TIPs). This practice allows for increased flexibility in moving safety 

projects forward and addressing emerging safety needs without the multiyear 

delay that is typical of many programmed projects. 

20 
4.4.5 Innovative Contracting Practices

Question: Has your State highway agency implemented innovative contracting 

practices to provide time and cost savings to HSIP-funded projects? 

Implementing innovative practices into the HSIP contracting process can help the 

State highway agency save time and money over the long run. The longer it 

takes for safety projects to get implemented, the more likely additional crashes 

will occur, resulting in potential additional injuries and fatalities. 

Alternative contracting methods may include task order contracts. This 

contracting method allows an oncall contractor to be given multiple safety 

improvement projects to construct on an as-needed basis. This method works 

well for traffic signal installations, sign installations, and minor intersection 

improvements, such as turn lanes. For larger safety improvement projects or for 

multiple smaller projects bundled into one large project, a design-build contract 

could be selected for construction, depending on the State-specific related rules 

and regulations. 

4.4.6 Scope Management

Question: Does your State highway agency have an established procedure to 

minimize the impact of project scope increases (i.e., scope creep) on HSIP 

projects?

To ensure HSIP projects are constructed in a timely manner, increases in the 

scope and corresponding costs must be controlled. Once preliminary engineering 

starts on a safety project, it is critical that the original scope of the project does 

not significantly increase. For example, a relatively low-cost roundabout retrofit 

project could be modified to include additional capacity improvements down the 

multiple intersection legs to tie into adjacent intersections. In another situation, 

desired enhancements such as adding a closed drainage system could be added 

to a lighting improvement project, which may not significantly improve the safety 

benefits of the project. These efforts could add cost without adding value related 

to safety. 

One way this issue can be controlled is to complete some of the preliminary 

engineering prior to programming the project. The scope of the project, estimated 

cost, and proposed schedule can be fine tuned with more information, such as a 

detailed survey. It also is important to collaborate with stakeholders and 

decisionmakers within and outside the agency to help generate internal and 

external support so that projects can quickly move through the programming 

process. 

21 
4.4.7 Project Monitoring

Question: Does your agency use a tracking system to monitor project 

implementation? 

In order to promote the implementation of HSIP projects according to established 

policies, an agency should use tracking system to monitor the processes of 

problem identification, project prioritization and selection, and implementation. 

Tracking the implementation of HSIP projects can provide information about any 

problems in the process, the most often-funded project types, and comparisons 

of projects chosen to previously identified safety needs. 

Specifically, project monitoring is an important aspect of the evaluation process. 

A number of States have developed customized project evaluation tools to track 

important elements of their project delivery. One State has developed a tracking 

tool to combine crash data and safety project data to report on the effectiveness 

of safety projects in reducing crashes. Additional information is available in the 

HSIP Evaluation Noteworthy Practices at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/

resources/fhwasa1102/eval_fl.cfm. 

To achieve the highest scores in this category, the agency’s tracking tools should 

include constant updates, discussion with management related to issues 

encountered, and development of recommended solutions to resolve those issues. 

4.5 Evaluation

Once HSIP projects have been selected, constructed, and are in operation, it is 

important to evaluate their effectiveness. Depending on the benefits of each type 

of project, that same type of project can be expanded or eliminated from future 

programming for the purpose of improving the cost-effective reductions of 

fatalities and serious injuries.

4.5.1 Data Gathering for Project Evaluation

Question: Does your agency collect and analyze data to assess the benefits of 

HSIP-funded safety projects? 

To achieve fulfillment of statewide safety goals, agencies should monitor the 

performance of HSIP-funded safety projects. Measuring the benefits of project 

implementation provides much needed feedback about the effectiveness of 

projects. The most effective project types may be expanded to additional sites, 

while projects that were not as successful may cause an agency to consider 

removing those types from future consideration in the HSIP. Suggested data to 

be collected include before and after crashes at the project location(s) with 

details about those crashes (e.g., crash type, contributing circumstances); traffic 

volumes and traffic patterns before and after project completion; and any other 

22 
changes in the region that may have affected safety at the project location. Due 

to the need to wait a period of time to perform an evaluation, it is sometimes

difficult to prioritize post-installation evaluation when current safety needs are 

vying for attention. However, determining the benefits of recently installed safety 

countermeasures can provide valuable information to support future decisions.

4.5.2 Data Gathering for Program Evaluation

Question: Does your agency collect and analyze data to assess overall 

program-level benefits of the HSIP? 

Beyond simply analyzing before/after traffic crashes at each project location, it is 

important to determine the overall benefit of the HSIP in a given State. The 

combination of benefits on multiple projects can provide a picture of the overall 

effect the HSIP is having on traffic safety. Knowing the overall benefits of the 

HSIP can be a selling point for safety. It can give HSIP administrators/

coordinators the information needed to solicit funding from other sources for 

additional safety projects based on HSIP success.

4.5.3 Evaluation Methods

Question: Does your agency’s evaluation of safety projects and programs 

incorporate advanced statistical methodologies? 

Simple before/after studies can provide an indication of the safety benefits of 

HSIP projects, but can sometimes underestimate or overestimate the actual 

safety benefits. Changes in traffic volumes and traffic patterns can skew the 

results, as can statistical issues like regression to the mean. Applying statistical 

methodologies to the before/after study can provide a more realistic and 

repeatable analysis of HSIP project benefits. Regression-to-the-mean concerns 

can be mitigated by using more robust statistical analysis (e.g., Empirical-Bayes, 

yoked pair). More advanced methods would use Safety Performance Functions 

(SPF) rather than rates. Normalization of data that may change over time 

(e.g., traffic volume) may provide a more accurate comparison of the before and 

after conditions.

4.5.4 Future Countermeasure Development

Question: Does your agency modify policies, procedures, and recommended

countermeasures based on historical performance of HSIP-funded safety projects?

Evaluating the effect of countermeasures on HSIP projects can provide safety 

practitioners with State-specific information about the effectiveness of those 

treatments on their roadways. This information provides the basis to modify 

decisions on policies, procedures, and countermeasures for future HSIP projects; 

and to improve the cost effectiveness of those projects. 

23 
Once successful treatments are supported with jurisdiction-specific data over 

time, the agency can consider expanding those countermeasures to additional 

locations on its system, including locations that have yet to experience a high 

number of crashes. The move from project-specific treatments, to programmatic 

solutions, to policy changes can enhance the safety culture in an agency. 

For example, an agency may choose to install chevron signs around a curve or 

series of curves experiencing a high number of roadway departure crashes. If 

these projects are successful, the agency could set up a program to install 

chevrons in broader areas (e.g., counties, districts, regions) that experience a 

safety need, or even systemically to even more curves. If this program proves to 

be beneficial, then the State may develop a policy requiring any curve with 

certain characteristics (i.e., degree of curvature) to have chevrons installed.

4.5.5 Developing Agency-Specific Crash Modification Factors

Question: Does your agency develop its own crash modification factors (CMF) 

based on completed HSIP projects?

Crash Modification Factors (CMF) are typically based on national averages or a 

small number of studies that could have occurred anywhere. Depending on the 

types of drivers, environments, etc., of the studies, the results may or may not be 

applicable in a particular State. By developing agency-specific CMFs, a State can 

have increased confidence in the effectiveness of crash countermeasures. They 

can use this information to increase the efficiency of funds used for future HSIP 

projects. When shared within the State and among States, this information provides 

the ability to improve the ever-changing state of the practice in traffic safety.

To achieve the highest scores in this category, the agency should have a robust 

set of State-specific, customized CMFs for all safety countermeasures used in 

the State.

5. Next Steps

Interpret the Results

After completing the HSIP Self Assessment, the evaluation team should calculate 

the scores and review the results together. First, the team should examine the 

resulting scores for each individual question in the self-assessment tool. These 

scores will provide an indication of particular areas of strength as well as areas 

where improvements may be required to improve performance. Agencies also

may wish to consider the relative importance of each activity to the success of 

their program.

In addition to examining individual questions, the team should examine the 

scores for each of the five primary assessment areas (e.g., Leadership, 

24 
Administration, Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation). This examination will 

provide an indication of broad areas of strength as well as potential opportunities 

for improvement.

Develop an Action Plan

Once the team understands the areas where performance can be improved, 

members should consider developing an action plan to improve performance. To 

make this action plan implementable, the team should assign responsibilities and 

timeframes for completing each action item where needed improvements were 

identified. 

Some actions may be very straight forward. For example, if a champion for 

highway safety needs to be designated to improve HSIP leadership 

(question 4.1.3), the action required is to identify a champion or champions. In 

some cases, the action may be less clear, so the team may need to collect more 

information or conduct more detailed discussions to create multiple steps to 

implementation. For example, if your agency does not incorporate advanced 

statistical methods into safety evaluation (question 4.5.3), discussions may be 

required to identify such procedures and to adopt procedures for use in safety 

evaluations. In any event, actions plans should be as specific as possible and 

should include, at a minimum, a description of what needs to be done, who is 

going to do it, and when it will be completed.

Communicate the Findings and Actions

Finally, once the evaluation team has completed an examination of results and 

developed an action plan, they should prepare a communications plan to share 

results with management. The team should consider the following questions as 

they create this communications plan:

• Who needs the information and why?

• What information is needed?

• How will the information be communicated?

• How will the information be used?

• Who will convey the information?

• When will the information be given?

Develop Schedule to Update Self Assessment

After implementing the action plan, the evaluation team should schedule a time 

to update the self assessment. The process of updating the self assessment 

provides an opportunity to examine the effectiveness of the action plan and to 

monitor overall program effectiveness over time. 

25 
APPENDIX A—HSIP Self-Assessment Tool Scoring Template

SECTION 1 

LEADERSHIP

SCORE

4.1.1: Is the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

connected to the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) safety 

goals and objectives?

4.1.2: Does the State have a person responsible for leadership and 

oversight of the HSIP who is authorized to make decisions regarding 

program implementation?

4.1.3: Does the State highway agency have a champion (or 

champions) for highway safety who regularly promotes and 

advances HSIP goals and objectives with senior leadership (e.g., 

Chief Engineer, CEO, etc.)?

4.1.4: Are the goals and objectives of the HSIP regularly discussed 

at the senior managerial level (Chief Engineer, Director, CEO, etc.) 

in the State transportation agency?

SECTION TOTAL:

26 
SECTION 2 

ADMINISTRATION

SCORE

4.2.1: Does your State highway agency have a staff member who 

devotes his/her time to management of the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP)?

4.2.2: Does your agency have established and documented 

procedures for administering the HSIP? 

4.2.3: Do HSIP eligibility policies focus on addressing the greatest 

safety needs, regardless of jurisdiction (i.e., State roads, locally

owned roads)?

4.2.4: Does your State have established guidance defining the 

criteria for HSIP project eligibility (e.g., project size, specified 

countermeasures) in your State?

SECTION TOTAL

27 
SECTION 3 

PLANNING

SCORE

4.3.1: Are crash, roadway, and traffic data used in the screening 

process to identify potential HSIP project locations on the Stateowned roadway system?

4.3.2: Are crash, roadway, and traffic data used in the screening 

process to identify potential HSIP project locations on the 

non-State roadway systems?

4.3.3: Does the HSIP network screening process in your State 

incorporate advanced statistical methodologies for determining 

locations of need?

4.3.4: Does your State highway agency evaluate and apply 

safety countermeasures not only at high-crash locations, but also 

at high-risk locations?

4.3.5: Does the HSIP consider a balance of spot location and 

systemic safety improvement projects in your State?

4.3.6: Does your State highway agency adequately address rural 

road safety needs at a level consistent with their safety needs?

4.3.7: Does your State highway agency analyze location-specific 

safety-related information to determine the specific safety 

concerns at potential HSIP project locations?

4.3.8: Does the State highway agency consider all contributing 

factors (driver, vehicle, roadway, environment) when identifying 

appropriate countermeasures?

4.3.9: Are RSAs used to support the HSIP engineering study and 

countermeasure identification process?

4.3.10: Does your State highway agency choose safety 

countermeasures supported by quantifiable safety benefits 

(i.e., crash modification factors)?

4.3.11: Does your State highway agency use objective criteria to 

prioritize safety projects for programming?

4.3.12: Are planning partners outside the State highway agency 

involved in the HSIP planning process?

4.3.13: Does your State highway agency consider SHSP 

priorities during project identification and prioritization?

SECTION TOTAL

28 
SECTION 4 

IMPLEMENTATION

SCORE

4.4.1: Is HSIP funding distributed to non-State roadway safety 

projects in your State proportionate to safety needs?

4.4.2: Are other funding sources leveraged to support the use of 

HSIP funds on safety projects in your State?

4.4.3: Does your State highway agency limit the use of HSIP 

funding to stand-alone safety projects only?

4.4.4: Has your State highway agency considered and 

implemented innovative programming practices to provide time 

and cost savings to HSIP-funded projects?

4.4.5: Has your State highway agency considered and 

implemented innovative contracting practices to provide time and 

cost savings to HSIP-funded projects?

4.4.6: Does your State highway agency have an established 

procedure to minimize the impact of project scope increases 

(i.e., scope creep) on HSIP projects?

4.4.7: Does your agency use a tracking system to monitor project 

implementation?

SECTION TOTAL:

29 
SECTION 5

EVALUATION

SCORE

4.5.1: Does your agency collect and analyze data to assess the 

benefits of HSIP-funded safety projects? 

4.5.2: Does your agency collect and analyze data to assess 

overall program-level benefits of the HSIP? 

4.5.3: Does your agency’s evaluation of safety projects and 

programs incorporate advanced statistical methodologies?

4.5.4: Does your agency modify policies, procedures, and 

countermeasures based on historical performance of HSIP-funded 

safety projects?

4.5.5: Does your agency develop its own crash modification 

factors (CMFs) based on completed HSIP projects?

SECTION TOTAL:

30 
SUMMARY

SCORE

Section

1. Leadership

2. Administration

3. Planning

4. Implementation

5. Evaluation

TOTAL:

31 
32