HSIP Self Assessment Tool

Frequently Asked Questions

General

The response to the question seems to be yes or no; what do I do? While a simple “yes” or “no” 

response could be provided in many instances, the purpose of the self-assessment activity is to assess 

the level of adoption. Determine the level of adoption among initiation, development, execution, 

evaluation and integration and then assign a score.

If my state has not evaluated a practice, but that practice has been integrated into agency culture, 

how do we score it? If an agency scores themselves between 13 and 15, then the concept addressed in 

the question is deemed to be fully integrated into the culture of the agency. While a formal evaluation 

may not have occurred, it likely that some form of evaluation did take place for that concept to have 

been advanced to the integration phase. 

If my state is implementing a noteworthy practice on a case-by-case basis, does that equate to 

integration? If a noteworthy practice is being implemented on a case-by-case basis, it would not be 

considered fully integrated into the culture of the agency. Case-by-case implementation might be 

considered execution, until such time an evaluation determines this is an effective practice that should 

be integrated into the culture of an agency. 

How do I compare the score in our state with a score in another state? The intent of this selfassessment tool is to provide each state with a tool to track progress in implementing program 

improvements on a year by year basis, identify gaps in current HSIP efforts, and to spur thinking on 

strategies to improve HSIP-related activities. What may be important or favorable in one state, may not 

be in another state; therefore, a fair comparison cannot be made between states. 

How should I report the results to my management? By completing the self-assessment in the first 

year, a benchmark score will be established to compare current HSIP activities to identified noteworthy 

practices. An agency will identify areas of strengths and opportunities for improvement through the self 

assessment process. Both the strengths and opportunities should be shared with management so that 

they are aware of the status of the HSIP in their state. 

Leadership

What is the correlation between the HSIP and the SHSP goals? It is the intent that the HSIP be linked to 

the SHSP in the Planning, Implementation and Evaluation phases of the process. Information from the 

SHSP feeds directly into the HSIP for problem identification, countermeasure identification, project 

prioritization, implementation of projects and evaluation of the project effectiveness.

Could the responsible person (4.1.2) and the safety champion (4.1.3) be the same person? The goal is 

for these two positions would be filled by two different individuals; however, due to the small size of 
many agencies, these positions may be occupied by the same individual. The safety champion will have 

access to senior or executive management with the agency whereas the HSIP responsible person would 

have program oversight responsibilities. 

Administration

Why should safety funds be used on all roads in the state? A data-driven approach to identifying and 

prioritizing high crash locations and then constructing projects to improve safety should not be impeded 

by jurisdictional boundaries.

How much flexibility do I have to make adjustments to the HSIP process? States often decide to 

develop processes and procedures that vary from the Federal requirements to meet the specific needs 

of the State. These processes and procedures should be developed in consultation with and approved 

by the FHWA prior to implementation. 

Planning

Why should advanced statistical methods be used for network screening? Advanced statistical 

methods can improve the effectiveness of the network screening process since they address the crash 

normalization factors (especially related to regression-to-the-mean) and traffic volume changes. Use of 

these advanced methods can ensure that the limited safety funds are truly addressing safety needs.

Should we be spending time and money on high-risk locations that have not experienced a high 

number of crashes? Absolutely. Traditional network screening approaches identify high crash locations 

(i.e. black spots) to implement a particular treatment. However, crashes are rare and random events and 

often not isolated to one location, rather across the network. This is especially true of crashes involving 

fatalities and serious injuries. Several states have found success in identifying prevalent crash types and 

implementing systemic treatments at locations with high risk features associated with those crash types. 

Finding the appropriate balance between systemic and spot location improvements should be 

determined by each State.

Is there a limit to the number of contributing factors that can be identified at a potential safety 

improvement location? No. 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- and roadside-related causes (e.g., 

sharp curve, sight distance limitations) 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.

Why should I conduct an RSA for the HSIP? Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are a proven low-cost strategy 

for reducing the frequency and severity at high-crash locations when conducted by an experienced,

multidisciplinary team. RSAs can be used to supplement other engineering studies to provide a broader 

and more complete picture of the crash problem and can strengthen the countermeasure development 

process.
Implementation

Evaluation

Why should we collect after data for our agency to compute our own crash modification factors

(CMFs) when they are available at the CMF clearinghouse? By developing agency-specific CMFs, a state 

can have increased confidence in the effectiveness of crash countermeasures. Agency-specific CMFs are 

more likely to match local conditions (i.e. topography, weather). Further, the agency now has detailed 

knowledge about the CMF development process that they can use 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.