1

HSIP Implementation Plan Guidance 

Date Issued:

October 13, 2017

FHWA Office of Safety

Background

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid highway program, the purpose of which is to achieve 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The HSIP is a federally-funded, State-administered 

program under 23 U.S.C. 148, 23 U.S.C. 150, and 23 U.S.C. 130 and regulated by 23 CFR Parts 924 and 490. Under 23 CFR 

Part 490, each State is required to establish annual safety performance targets for five measures: 1) number of fatalities, 2) 

number of serious injuries, 3) fatality rate (per hundred million vehicle miles traveled (HMVMT)), 4) serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT), and 5) number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries.

If the State does not meet or make significant progress towards meeting its annual safety performance targets, the State

must comply with the provisions set forth in 23 U.S.C. 148(i) for the subsequent fiscal year. The State must: 1) use 

obligation authority equal to the HSIP apportionment for the year prior to the year for which the targets were not met or 

significant progress was not made, only for HSIP projects; and 2) submit an annual HSIP Implementation Plan that describes 

actions the State will take to meet or make significant progress toward meeting its subsequent targets. Under 23 U.S.C. 

148(i), the HSIP Implementation Plan must: 

• Identify roadway features that constitute a hazard to road users;

• Identify highway safety improvement projects on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, or other datasupported means;

• Describe how HSIP funds will be allocated, including projects, activities, and strategies to be implemented;

• Describe how the proposed projects, activities, and strategies funded under the State HSIP will allow the State to 

make progress toward achieving the safety performance targets; and 

• Describe the actions the State will undertake to achieve the performance targets.

While the HSIP Implementation Plan has specific requirements as listed above, the State also must meet all HSIP planning 

requirements [23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B) & (E) and 23 CFR Part 924.9] and consider those requirements as part of its HSIP 

Implementation Plan development efforts. 
2

Purpose

The purpose of this guidance is to clarify the HSIP Implementation Plan requirements presented in 23 U.S.C. 148(i). 

Specifically, this guidance addresses the HSIP Implementation Plan: 1) Schedule and Frequency, 2) Decision Support 

Framework, and 3) Content and Structure. States will meet the first two requirements of the HSIP Implementation Plan 

through the application of the decision support framework and HSIP planning process. The outcomes of these efforts will 

lead to the projects, strategies, and activities to be implemented, which will be included as part of the HSIP Implementation 

Plan. 

Schedule and Frequency 

In accordance with 23 CFR Part 490.211(e), FHWA will first evaluate whether a State DOT has met or made significant 

progress toward meeting its safety performance targets at the end of 2019. As described in the preamble to the Safety 

Performance Management Final Rule,1 FHWA expects to report the results to the States no later than March 31, 2020. 

Additional information about the significant progress assessment can be found on the Met or Made Significant Progress 

Determination Fact Sheet.

2 If a State did not meet or make significant progress towards meeting its 2014-2018 safety 

performance targets, the State should submit an HSIP implementation plan for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2021 to the FHWA 

Division Office by June 30, 2020. The FHWA Division Office should review the implementation plan to ensure it meets the

applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and transmit the final HSIP Implementation Plan to the FHWA Office of 

Safety before October 1, 2020 (i.e., the start of the new fiscal year). The State must submit an implementation plan each 

year that it does not meet or make significant progress towards meeting its annual safety performance targets. 23 U.S.C. 

148(i)(2).

 1 National Performance Management Measures; Highway Safety Improvement Program: Final Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 13882, 13909 (March 

15, 2016).

2 FHWA, Met or Made Significant Progress Determination Fact Sheet, FHWA-SA-16-045, April 2016. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/pm_progress_fs.cfm
3

Decision Support Framework

The first step to developing an HSIP Implementation Plan is to understand why the State failed to meet or make significant 

progress towards meeting the State’s safety performance targets. The decision support framework presented below 

mirrors some of the evaluation techniques in the HSIP Assessment Toolbox3 and the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 

Evaluation Process Model.

4 As part of the decision support framework, the State should review fatality and serious injury 

trends, HSIP expenditures, and historical project performance. As part of this review, the State may identify gaps or 

deficiencies that can be improved through program modifications. States can review documented noteworthy practices and 

engage safety stakeholders in a discussion about program needs and potential solutions. As States conduct this analysis and 

outreach, they should consider how their findings might shape the State HSIP Implementation Plan (i.e., what changes in 

the State’s program are necessary to address these deficiencies), as well as other State safety plans. As such, it may be 

helpful for the State DOT to work through this decision support framework in partnership with the State Highway Safety 

Office. 

Review fatality and serious injury trends 

The State should review fatality and serious injury trends to better understand its highway safety needs. States should 

disaggregate fatality and serious injury trends in various ways. For example, the State might review data by region, district,

or county as compared to the statewide trends. The State may also review fatality and serious injury trends by SHSP 

emphasis areas, rural/urban designation, functional classification, or roadway ownership to further isolate the problem. 

Some of this information may be available in the State’s annual HSIP report.

Review HSIP Expenditures

The State should review historical HSIP obligations using the same disaggregation categories for comparison with the 

fatality and serious injury trends. Do the State’s HSIP expenditures align with where the problems are occurring? For 

example, the SHSP is intended to drive HSIP investment decisions. Does the proportion of HSIP expenditures by SHSP

 3 FHWA, Highway Safety Improvement Program Assessment Toolbox, FHWA-SA-15-015, July 2015. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa15015/

4 FHWA, Strategic Highway Safety Plan Evaluation Process Model, FHWA-SA-12-035, March 2013. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/shsp/epm/
4

emphasis area align with the proportion of fatalities and serious injuries in those emphasis areas? The same type of 

comparisons can be made for expenditures on the state owned system and non-state owned system, rural and urban

system, functional classification, etc. The Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool5 provides further guidance on reviewing 

past funding practices. 

Review Historical Project Performance 

As part of the State’s HSIP evaluation process, the State should review the effectiveness of previously implemented 

projects, countermeasures, and programs to determine what is working and what may need further consideration. Other 

considerations may include: 

• Which countermeasures were implemented? 

• Where were countermeasures implemented?

• What crash types were these countermeasures addressing? 

• Were these countermeasures and crash types identified as a priority in the SHSP?

• What was the outcome (i.e., countermeasures effectiveness)? 

For example, a particular countermeasure may address a target crash type under some conditions but not others. Perhaps 

there are other countermeasures better suited to those conditions. Alternatively, implementation of successful programs 

and treatments implemented as part of the HSIP should continue and be expanded if necessary. The HSIP Manual6 and 

Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool provide further details on various evaluation approaches. 

Identifying Gaps or Deficiencies 

After a State reviews the above data and information, the State may identify gaps and deficiencies in the HSIP. The State 

should make program modifications to ensure the projects are identified, prioritized and programmed properly, and have 

the best potential for reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Such modifications may require the State to process Statewide 

 5 FHWA, Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool, FHWA–SA-13-019, July 2013. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa13019/ 6

FHWA, Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual, FHWA-SA-09-029, January 2010. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/
5

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) amendments in order to add or modify HSIP projects in their existing program 

of projects.

Identify Noteworthy Practices 

A State may want to review literature on noteworthy practices that address State-specific crash characteristics. To achieve 

future performance targets, a State may want to identify noteworthy practices that it has not yet implemented and 

consider them in its HSIP. The FHWA’s Roadway Safety Noteworthy Practices Database7 and other similar resources (e.g.,

scan tour and peer exchange reports) may be a good starting point. 

Conduct Stakeholder Outreach 

The State should also consider engaging safety stakeholders in a discussion about program needs and potential solutions. 

This outreach might include other offices within the Department of Transportation, the State Highway Safety Office, 

regional planning organizations, and local agencies. The State may educate stakeholders on the outcome from the reviews 

above and brainstorm potential programs, strategies and activities to address the State’s HSIP gaps and deficiencies. 

Develop HSIP Implementation Plan 

The State can use the input from the gap analysis, literature review, and safety stakeholders as a starting point for 

development of the HSIP Implementation Plan. The State must meet the HSIP Implementation Plan requirements [23 U.S.C. 

148(i)(2)], as well as address all HSIP planning requirements [23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B) & (E) and 23 CFR Part 924.9] and 

consider those requirements as part of its HSIP Implementation Plan development efforts. As part of the HSIP planning 

process, States identify roadway features that constitute a hazard to road users, as well as highway safety improvement 

projects on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, or other data-supported means. The results of this analysis will 

lead to the individual projects that will be implemented under the State’s various HSIP programs, strategies, and activities

and included in the State’s HSIP implementation plan. 

 7 FHWA, Roadway Safety Noteworthy Practices, https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/default.aspx. 
6

Content and Structure of the HSIP Implementation Plan 

The HSIP Implementation Plan documents the State’s HSIP funding and project decisions for the upcoming fiscal year to 

meet or make significant progress toward meeting its safety performance targets in subsequent years. The HSIP 

Implementation Plan is an opportunity for a State to re-evaluate its HSIP investment decisions and identify gaps or 

deficiencies to ultimately ensure that projects identified, prioritized, and programmed in the State have the best potential 

for reducing serious injuries and fatalities. The HSIP Implementation Plan should indicate available funding for the plan 

period; present funding allocation goals; provide an overview of HSIP programs, strategies, and activities; include a project 

list; and describe a summary of actions the State will undertake to achieve safety performance targets in subsequent years, 

as described below.

Available Funding

Under 23 U.S.C. 148(i)(1), States that do not meet or make significant progress towards meeting their safety performance 

targets must obligate HSIP funds in the amount apportioned for the prior year only for HSIP projects. For example, a State 

must obligate an amount equal to its Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2017 HSIP apportionment in FFY 2021 if it does not meet or 

make significant progress towards its 2014-2018 safety performance targets. Therefore, the State’s FFY 2021 HSIP 

Implementation Plan should describe how the State plans to obligate at least the amount equal to its FFY17 HSIP 

apportionment. Attachment 1 lists the State HSIP apportionments for FFY17. 

Funding Allocation Goals

The HSIP Implementation Plan must describe how HSIP funds will be allocated during the plan period. 23 U.S.C. 148(i)(2)(C).

In determining these funding allocation goals, the State should consider funding needs by SHSP emphasis areas (e.g.,

roadway departure, intersections), roadway ownership (e.g., state vs. local roads), improvement type (e.g., spot vs.

systemic safety improvements), and other relevant categories. Ideally, these funding goals would be data-driven and 

reflective of the State’s safety needs. The Reliability of Safety Management Series: Systemic Safety Programs8 presents a 

 8 FHWA, Reliability of Safety Management Series: Systemic Safety Programs, FHWA-SA-16-041, September 2016. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/fhwasa16041.pdf
7

methodology to allocate funding between spot and systemic safety improvement projects. The State should provide a 

diagram or similar information to supplement the HSIP funding allocation description. For example, State X may allocate 

HSIP funding between spot and systemic improvements, and then further distribute the systemic funding based on the 

percentage of fatalities and serious injuries in each infrastructure–related SHSP emphasis area, as shown in Figure 1. 

As another example, State Y may first allocate HSIP funding to the districts or regions within a State based on the 

distribution of fatalities and serious injuries in each district or region, and then further distribute the funding by roadway 

ownership based on the number of fatalities and serious injuries occurring on State-owned vs. non-State owned roads, as 

shown in Figure 2. 

Hot Spot

(50%)

Systemic

(50%)

Roadway 

Departure

(50%)

Intersection

(36%)

Bike/Ped

(14%)

Figure 1 State X HSIP Funding Allocation (Example)
8

As a final example, State Z may allocate HSIP funding by SHSP emphasis area fatality and serious injury distributions (see 

Figure 3), and then have a number of programs, strategies, or activities to address each emphasis area. 

Figure 1 State Z HSIP Funding Allocation (Example)

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

District Funding 

Distribution Between State 

and Local Roads

Local

State

35%

35%

10%

10%

5% 5%

Roadway or Lane

Departure Safety

Intersection Safety

Off-System Safety

High Risk Rural Road

Safety

8.3%

4.9%

14.6%

6.7%

11.7%

7.9% 6.9%

39.0%

HSIP Funding Distribution by District

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Figure 2 State Y HSIP Funding Allocation (Example)
9

HSIP Programs, Strategies and Activities

The State’s HSIP Implementation Plan must identify a combination of programs, strategies, and activities to be funded 

under the HSIP that will (1) contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries [23 U.S.C. 148(b) & 150(b)(1)] and (2) 

help the State achieve or make significant progress towards achieving their safety performance targets in subsequent years

[23 U.S.C. 148(i)(2)(D)]. For HSIP purposes, FHWA defines a program as a group of projects (not necessarily similar in type or 

location) implemented to achieve a common highway safety goal. For example, some States have one program that 

includes all projects resulting from the HSIP planning component. Other States have multiple sub-programs. An example of 

a sub-program may be a skid treatment program designed to reduce wet-weather-related crashes at different locations. 

Some States also refer to sub-programs as activities or initiatives.

The HSIP programs, strategies, and activities should be informed by the State’s SHSP and research conducted as part of the 

HSIP implementation plan development process. They must address roadway features that constitute a hazard to road 

users, as well as highway safety improvement projects that were identified on the basis of crash experience, crash 

potential, or other data-supported means. 23 U.S.C. 148(i)(2)(A)—(B). For each program, strategy, or activity, the State 

should provide the following information in the HSIP Implementation Plan. 

Purpose

The State should describe the purpose of this program, strategy, or activity (i.e., what problem does it address), and 

how it relates back to the State SHSP. All HSIP projects, strategies, and activities must be consistent with the SHSP. 

23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A).

Cost

The State should indicate the estimated cost for this program, strategy, or activity. This estimate may also include 

project cost limits by phase (e.g., project development and delivery), by district, etc.

Methodology and Implementation Plan 

The State should briefly describe the methodology that was used to identify projects under this program, strategy,

or activity. This methodology should include a description of the data-driven process, including the target crash 
10

type and facility type, as appropriate. States should consider using more advanced safety analysis methods to 

ensure reliability of data analysis results. See the Reliability in Safety Management Methods: Network Screening9 for 

more information. The State should also describe the types of countermeasures or improvements that will be 

implemented as part of these projects, as well as an implementation schedule. 

Benefits

The State must identify how the program, strategy, or activity will contribute to a reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries and help the State make progress toward achieving the safety performance targets in subsequent years [23 

U.S.C. 148(b)(c) & (i)(2)(D)]. The State should present quantitative evidence to the maximum extent possible, or a 

very strong qualitative justification for the program, strategy, or activity where quantitative evidence is not 

available. 

Project List

A detailed list of projects that will be obligated during the subject fiscal year should be provided as an attachment or 

appendix to the HSIP Implementation Plan. While the HSIP Implementation Plan includes a project list, individual projects 

may still need to be justified and approved on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the stewardship and oversight 

agreement between the State and FHWA Division Office. In some cases, it may be appropriate for the State to list a 

systemic project without providing information about specific locations. At a minimum, the project list should include at 

least the following fields:

• Project Name and Project Number are State defined fields. 

• Improvement Type, Functional Classification, and Roadway Ownership should be consistent with the HSIP 

Reporting Guidance10 dated December 29, 2016. 

• The Project Cost should reflect the estimated HSIP funds to be obligated for this project. The State may choose to 

add a second column for total project cost if desired. The sum of the project costs for all projects should match the 

available HSIP funding for the upcoming fiscal year. Attachment A includes the FFY 17 HSIP apportionments.

 9 FHWA, Reliability of Safety Management Methods: Network Screening, FHWA-SA-16-037, October 2016. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/fhwasa16037.pdf

10 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/legislationandpolicy/fast/hsip_reporting_guidance.cfm
11

• The State should link each project to the relevant Program, Strategy, or Activity from the HSIP Implementation 

Plan. 

• All HSIP projects must be consistent with the State SHSP. 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A)]. Therefore, the State should list the 

relevant SHSP Emphasis Area for each project. 

Table 1 includes a project list template that the State may use or modify to meet best meet their needs.

Table 1 Project List Template

Project 

Name

Project 

Number

Improvement 

Type

Project Cost Program, 

Strategy or 

Activity

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

Functional 

Classification

Roadway 

Ownership

Project A

Project B

Project C

...

In addition, the State should provide a table in the HSIP Implementation Plan summarizing the estimated number of 

projects and funding goals by program, strategy, or activity. Table 2 illustrates an example of a summary table. 

Table 2 Example Summary Table

Program, Strategy or Activity Estimated # Projects Estimated Funding 

Program A 5 $5,000,000

Strategy B 12 $1,200,000

Activity C 7 $3,800,000

Total 24 $10,000,000
12

Summary of Actions

The HSIP implementation plan must describe the actions the State will undertake to achieve or make significant progress 

towards achieving the State’s safety performance targets in subsequent years. 23 U.S.C. 148(i)(2)(E). This description may 

include a summary of major program changes resulting from the effort to develop the HSIP Implementation Plan or actions 

necessary to accommodate the HSIP Implementation Plan. Since the projects, strategies, and activities included in the HSIP 

implementation plan must be consistent with the SHSP and STIP [23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4) & (10)], such actions might include 

SHSP updates or modifications to the STIP, recognizing that fiscal constraints and project schedules may impact 

programming to some degree.
13

Attachment 1

FY17 HSIP Apportionments by State

State FFY17 HSIP Apportionment11 ($)

ALABAMA 46,077,031

ALASKA 31,004,800

ARIZONA 43,159,446

ARKANSAS 30,490,529

CALIFORNIA 198,773,805

COLORADO 29,831,604

CONNECTICUT 29,537,309

DELAWARE 9,459,880

DIST. OF COL. 8,914,842

FLORIDA 118,157,887

GEORGIA 74,726,046

HAWAII 9,552,612

IDAHO 16,662,848

ILLINOIS 77,466,533

INDIANA 53,817,427

IOWA 27,175,922

KANSAS 18,750,605

KENTUCKY 40,499,117

LOUISIANA 42,651,957

MAINE 10,477,686

MARYLAND 34,408,151

MASSACHUSETTS 33,878,538

MICHIGAN 58,162,180

MINNESOTA 35,794,181

MISSISSIPPI 28,568,181

MISSOURI 56,964,289

MONTANA 24,882,649

NEBRASKA 15,214,311

NEVADA 21,129,531

NEW HAMPSHIRE 9,297,647

NEW JERSEY 56,178,737

NEW MEXICO 22,493,059

NEW YORK 93,628,551

NORTH CAROLINA 60,484,658

NORTH DAKOTA 12,218,799

OHIO 75,077,031

OKLAHOMA 36,895,867

 11 Source: FHWA Notice N 4510.812, Table 1. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510812/n4510812_t1.cfm
14

 12 Source: FHWA Notice N 4510.812, Table 1. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510812/n4510812_t1.cfm

State FY17 HSIP Apportionment12 ($)

OREGON 29,504,796

PENNSYLVANIA 97,043,015

RHODE ISLAND 12,926,288

SOUTH CAROLINA 40,226,379

SOUTH DAKOTA 15,685,762

TENNESSEE 49,871,364

TEXAS 220,003,552

UTAH 20,872,234

VERMONT 11,734,187

VIRGINIA 60,483,427

WASHINGTON 38,987,856

WEST VIRGINIA 26,755,867

WISCONSIN 43,226,412

WYOMING 15,506,962