Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues, Despite State Eligibility and Management Difficulties
Published: 2008-03-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) included authorizations of nearly $2.2 billion for safety incentive grant programs to assist states in their efforts to reduce traffic fatalities. Administered by the Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), five of these programs provide incentive grants to states to implement legislation governing the use of safety belts and child safety seats, and promote activities to reduce alcohol-impaired driving, improve motorcycle training and awareness, and improve traffic safety information systems. To help Congress prepare for the reauthorization of the surface transportation programs in 2009, this report provides information on (1) NHTSA's status in awarding and overseeing states' use of these five grants programs, (2) activities states have conducted using the grants and issues they have faced in applying for and implementing the grants, and (3) how NHTSA plans to evaluate the results of the grant programs and implications for reauthorizing the programs. To conduct this work, GAO interviewed DOT and state officials, analyzed safety reports from 50 states, and analyzed grant data from DOT and 7 selected states. DOT officials generally agreed with the findings of the report and offered technical corrections that were incorporated, as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about $575 million to states for the five safety incentive grant programs; NHTSA uses several oversight processes to determine the extent to which states are meeting safety-related performance goals and to monitor how the states spend grant funds. The number of states receiving the grants generally remained constant or increased from fiscal year 2006 to 2007, although the extent to which states qualified for the different grant programs varied. For example, in 2006, 22 states received the Safety Belt Use grant and 5 states received the Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use grant because not all states were able to pass the laws that the grant programs required, while the majority of states received the other grants. To oversee states' use of grants, NHTSA uses a performance-based approach to assess state progress toward meeting safety goals and complements this assessment with oversight processes that monitor whether states are accomplishing the tasks that will allow the state to achieve its goals. This approach allows NHTSA to be involved throughout the lifecycle of state grants. In response to a mandate to evaluate the effectiveness of NHTSA's oversight process, GAO plans to issue a report in July 2008. States are planning and implementing safety improvement activities using grant funds, but the structure of the grant programs has created eligibility and management difficulties for states. The activities generally fall within five categories--education and training, media and public information, enforcement, data and technology, and infrastructure improvements. Safety officials GAO spoke with in seven selected states agree that the safety incentive grant programs are assisting states in implementing activities that address key safety issues and meeting goals and performance measures established in state highway safety plans. However, state safety officials also noted difficulties in passing laws to meet eligibility requirements for some grant programs, as well as managing grant applications, deadlines, and timing. For example, not all states have passed a primary safety belt law, which allows law enforcement officers to stop a driver for not wearing a safety belt and is required to qualify for a Safety Belt Use grant. The selected states have also had difficulty managing the multiple grant applications, which are all due within a 3-month period. NHTSA officials acknowledge state officials' concerns but noted they cannot address the concerns because the difficulties stem from the grant requirements established in SAFETEA-LU. NHTSA plans to develop additional performance measures to evaluate the results of these grant programs, but state performance is generally not tied to receipt of the grants; the absence of such performance accountability mechanisms as well as issues described above that states face in using grants raise implications for reauthorization. Congress will be faced with deciding whether the grant programs could be designed differently to allow states more flexibility in using grant funds and to focus more specifically on performance accountability, as some have advocated. However, these changes would require improved safety data and a robust accountability system.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: More than 42,600 people were killed in traffic accidents in 2006. Of these  fatalities, nearly 40 percent were motor vehicle passengers who were not  using safety belts or proper child restraints, about 35 percent involved a  driver with a blood alcohol content that was over the legal limit, and about  11 percent were motorcycle riders. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable,  Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users  (SAFETEA-LU) authorized nearly $2.2 billion from fiscal year 2006  through 2009 for safety incentive grant programs to assist states in their  efforts to reduce motor vehicle and other fatalities. Administered by the  Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety  Administration (NHTSA), five of these programs provide grants to states  as an incentive to implement legislation governing the use of safety belts  and child safety seats and promote activities to reduce alcohol-impaired  driving, promote motorcycle training and awareness, and improve traffic  safety information systems.
To prepare for the reauthorization of the surface transportation programs  in 2009 and the opportunity to consider changes in the programs’  structure, you requested that we assess NHTSA’s and states’  implementation of the five safety incentive grant programs concerning  safety belts and child safety seats, alcohol-impaired driving, motorcycle  training and awareness, and traffic safety information systems.  Accordingly, this report addresses (1) NHTSA’s status in awarding and  overseeing states’ use of these five grant programs, (2) activities states  have conducted using the grants and difficulties states have faced in  applying for and implementing the grants, and (3) how NHTSA plans to  evaluate the results of the grant programs and implications for  reauthorizing the programs.
To determine the progress NHTSA has made in awarding and overseeing  the five safety incentive grants, we reviewed documents and interviewed  officials from NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and  representatives from professional groups, including the Governors  Highway Safety Association (GHSA), National Safety Council, and  Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety. We also reviewed past GAO work  and relied on our ongoing work on oversight to evaluate NHTSA’s progress  in overseeing the grants. To identify the activities states have conducted  using the five safety incentive grants and the difficulties states have faced  in applying for and implementing the grant programs, we interviewed state  highway safety officials and reviewed documents from seven selected  states: California, Illinois, New Jersey, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina,  and Vermont. We selected the states based on a combination of  characteristics, including fatality rates, funding, and geographic  distribution. In addition, we reviewed states’ 2007 highway safety plans  and 2006 annual reports for all 50 states to identify activities states are  funding with the grants. To determine how NHTSA plans to evaluate the  results of the five safety incentive grant programs and implications for  reauthorization, we reviewed DOT’s and NHTSA’s performance measures  and other documents, including NHTSA’s 2002 reauthorization proposal  and GAO reports on performance measures. We conducted this  performance audit from March 2007 through March 2008 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives. For details of our objectives, scope, and methodology,  see appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In 2006, more than 42,600 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes.  Overall, this represents a 1.5 percent increase in the number of fatalities  from 1997 to 2006, although the fatality rate—fatalities per 100 million  vehicle miles traveled (VMT)—declined by approximately 14 percent, from  1.65 in 1997 to 1.41 in 2006 (see fig. 1).
Through SAFETEA-LU, Congress authorized nearly $2.2 billion for 4 years,  from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, for seven programs to provide safety  grants to assist states in their efforts to reduce traffic fatalities (see   table 1). This represents an increase of $172 million annually from the  authorization levels under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st  Century (TEA-21). States’ highway safety offices use these funds to  reimburse selected state and local organizations—nonprofit organizations,  universities, hospitals, and law enforcement agencies—for conducting  traffic safety improvement activities that have been approved by the state.
Two of these grant programs—State and Community Highway Safety and  Occupant Protection—were largely unchanged by SAFETEA-LU. The  State and Community Highway Safety grant provides highway safety funds  for states through a formula based on each state’s population and public  road miles. All states are eligible to receive this grant after submitting a  performance plan that establishes goals and performance measures to  improve highway safety in the state, as well as a highway safety plan that  describes activities to achieve those goals. The Occupant Protection grant  provides incentive funds for states to adopt and implement programs to  reduce deaths and injuries from riding “unrestrained” or “improperly  restrained.” To be eligible for this grant, states must meet four out of six  criteria, some of which are also criteria for other safety incentive grants.  One of these criteria is to pass a safety belt law providing for primary  enforcement, which allows law enforcement officers to stop a driver for  not wearing a safety belt. Transportation safety experts generally consider  primary safety belt laws to be the most effective countermeasure to  prevent traffic fatalities and injuries to vehicle occupants, and states with  primary enforcement laws generally have lower fatality rates than states  that do not have such laws. States are required to provide matching funds  for both grants; the state share required for the State and Community  Highway Safety grant is at least 20 percent of the total program cost, while  the state share for the Occupant Protection grant is at least 25 percent for  the first and second years (beginning in 2003), 50 percent for the third and  fourth years, and 75 percent for the fifth and sixth years.
The remaining five grant programs—Safety Belt Use, Child Safety and  Child Booster Seat Use, Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures,  Motorcyclist Safety, and State Traffic Safety Information Systems  Improvement—were modified or added by SAFETEA-LU. States’ ability to  qualify for grants is exclusively determined by whether they meet the  statutory grant qualification criteria established by SAFETEA-LU.
Safety Belt Use: This one-time grant encourages states to enact and  directly enforce safety belt use laws. States can use grant funds for a range  of highway safety activities, including public education programs or  construction to improve a hazardous roadway. To be awarded a grant, a  state can qualify in one of three ways:    Enact a primary safety belt law after January 1, 2003, and certify that  the law is enacted and will be enforced; these “new law states” receive  priority in the award process and are awarded a one-time grant equal to  475 percent of the amount they were apportioned for their fiscal year  2003 State and Community Highway Safety grant.
Beginning in fiscal year 2008, certify that the state has achieved at least  an 85 percent safety belt use rate in the two preceding calendar years.
If a state does not meet either of the first two criteria, and if funds  remain after grants have been awarded to all states meeting those  criteria, states that had a primary safety belt law in effect prior to 2003,  and certify the law is enacted and being enforced are eligible to receive  a one-time grant equal to 200 percent of the amount they were  apportioned for their fiscal year 2003 State and Community Highway  Safety grant.
In addition, NHTSA will allocate any grant funds remaining available on  July 1, 2009, among all states that have in effect and are enforcing a  primary safety belt law for all passenger motor vehicles as of that date.  These funds will be allocated among the states in accordance with the  formula used to determine the amount of the State and Community  Highway Safety grant.
The Safety Belt Use grant program authorized in SAFETEA-LU includes  more stringent criteria than the corresponding TEA-21 incentive grant,  which awarded grants to states based solely on improvements in safety  belt use rates. Congress authorized $500 million over 5 years for the safety  belt incentive grant authorized in TEA-21 and $498 million over 4 years for  the program authorized in SAFETEA-LU. There are no requirements for  state matching funds.
Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use (Child Safety and Booster  Seat): This grant is designed to encourage states to enact and enforce  booster seat laws. These grant funds may be used only for child restraint  programs, including programs to enforce laws or train child safety  professionals and parents on the proper use of child safety and booster  seats. Up to 50 percent of the funds that a state receives under this grant  may be used to purchase and distribute child restraints—both child safety  and booster seats—for low-income families. To qualify for this grant,  states must enact and enforce a law requiring any child riding in a  passenger motor vehicle who is under the age of 8 to be secured in an  appropriate child restraint system, unless the child weighs more than 65  pounds or is 4 feet 9 inches or taller. Similar to the Safety Belt Use grant  program, the criteria for the Child Safety and Booster Seat grant program  adopted in the wake of SAFETEA-LU are more stringent than the  corresponding pre-SAFETEA-LU grant program; states had to apply and  then use the grant for child passenger protection education activities.  Congress authorized $15 million for the child passenger protection  education grant under TEA-21 and $25 million for the Child Safety and  Booster Seat grant under SAFETEA-LU. States are also required to provide  matching funds of at least 25 percent during the first 3 years and 50  percent during the fourth year.
Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures (Impaired Driving):  This grant is designed to encourage states to implement enforcement,  education, training, and other countermeasure activities to reduce alcohol- impaired driving. States can use the grant to implement these activities,  such as training for law enforcement officers and advertising and  educational campaigns that publicize sobriety checkpoints. States may  also purchase equipment—such as blood alcohol content (BAC) testing  devices—to assist officers in enforcement activities. States can qualify to  receive this grant in three ways: (1) achieving an alcohol-related fatality  rate of 0.5 or less per 100 million VMT, (2) being 1 of the 10 states with the  highest alcohol-related fatality rate, or (3) meeting a minimum number of  the eight programmatic criteria—three in fiscal year 2006, four in fiscal  year 2007, and five in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. The programmatic  criteria are as follows:  Implement a program to conduct high-visibility enforcement campaigns  using checkpoints or saturation patrols, along with paid and earned  media;  Implement a program to educate judges and prosecutors about  prosecuting and adjudicating offenders;  Implement a program to increase the rate of BAC testing of drivers  involved in fatal crashes;    Enact legislation imposing stronger sanctions or additional penalties  for high-risk drivers whose BAC is 0.15 or more;  Implement a program to rehabilitate repeat or high-risk offenders or  refer them to a state-sanctioned DWI court;    Develop a strategy to prevent underage drivers from obtaining  alcoholic beverages and to prevent persons of any age from making  alcoholic beverages available to persons under 21;  Implement a program to suspend or revoke licenses for drivers who  were apprehended while driving under the influence; or  Implement a “self-sustaining impaired driving prevention program” in  which a significant portion of DWI fines or surcharges collected are  returned to communities for activities to reduce alcohol-impaired  driving.
While the Impaired Driving grants authorized by SAFETEA-LU are similar  to the impaired driving grants authorized in TEA-21, the number of criteria  a state must meet differs. Specifically, states had to meet more criteria for  the TEA-21 grants, but the SAFETEA-LU grant criteria are more stringent.  For example, the TEA-21 criteria required states to implement programs,  whereas the SAFETEA-LU criteria may include legislative requirements.  SAFETEA-LU more than doubled the funding—from $219.5 million to $515  million—authorized for the Impaired Driving grant program. States are  also required to provide matching funds of at least 25 percent the first and  second years and 50 percent the third and fourth years.
Motorcyclist Safety: SAFETEA-LU established a new incentive grant  program to encourage states to adopt and implement programs to reduce  the number of crashes involving motorcyclists. To be eligible to receive  this grant, a state must meet one of six criteria in the first fiscal year and  two of the criteria in the second and subsequent years. The criteria are as  follows:  Implement a statewide training program for motorcycle riders;  Implement a program to promote motorcyclist awareness;    Achieve a reduction in fatalities and crashes involving motorcycles in  Implement a statewide impaired-driving program, including measures  to reduce impaired motorcycle operation;    Achieve a reduction in fatalities and crashes involving impaired  motorcyclists in the preceding year; or    Use all fees collected from motorcyclists—such as motorcycle  licensing and registration—for motorcycle programs.
Funds under this grant program may be used for motorcyclist safety  training and motorist awareness programs, including improvement of  training curricula, delivery of training, recruitment or retention of  motorcyclist safety instructors, and public awareness and outreach  programs. States are not required to provide matching funds.
State Traffic Safety Information Systems Improvement (Traffic  Safety Information Systems): This grant program provides funding for  states to adopt and implement programs to improve the timeliness,  accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of state  data needed to identify priorities for national, state, and local highway and  traffic safety programs. The purpose of the grant program is to improve  the compatibility and interoperability of states’ data systems with each  other and with national data systems, and enhance NHTSA’s ability to  analyze national trends in traffic safety. To qualify for a grant for the first  year, a state must    establish a multidisciplinary highway safety data and traffic records  coordinating committee;    develop a multiyear safety data and traffic records strategic plan,  approved by the coordinating committee and containing performance- based measures; and    certify that it has adopted and is using the model data elements  included in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria and National  Emergency Medical Service Information System determined by the  Secretary to be useful, or certify that grant funds will be used toward  adopting and using the most elements practicable.
To qualify for a grant in subsequent years, a state must    certify that an assessment or audit of the state traffic records system  has been conducted or updated within the preceding 5 years,    certify that the coordinating committee continues to operate and    specify how the grant funds and any other state funds will support the    demonstrate measurable progress toward achieving the goals and  objectives identified in the plan, and    submit a report showing measurable progress in implementing the  plan.
The eligibility requirements for this grant program are more stringent than  under prior law. For example, states must demonstrate measurable  progress to qualify for subsequent-year funding, whereas previously they  only had to certify they had a traffic records committee and activities were  funded with the grant regardless of the impact of the projects. Congress  authorized $32 million in TEA-21 compared with $138 million in  SAFETEA-LU, a significant increase in funding. States are also required to  provide matching funds of at least 20 percent of the total federal and state  program costs.
section_title: NHTSA Has Awarded Grants and Uses Several Oversight Processes to Assess States’ Progress toward Safety Goals and Monitor States’ Use of Grant Funds
paragraphs: In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded to eligible states about $576  million for the five safety grants—about $11 million less than the  authorized amount of $587 million. According to NHTSA officials, the total  amount of funds authorized was not awarded because fewer states were  able to pass laws to become eligible for certain grants than anticipated.  With the exception of the safety belt grant program, the number of states  receiving the grants remained constant or increased from fiscal year 2006  to 2007, although the extent to which states qualified for the different  grants varied, with fewer states receiving grants that require passing a law.  NHTSA uses several oversight processes to determine the extent to which  states are meeting safety-related performance goals that grant-funded  activities are designed to address and monitor how the states spend grant  funds. NHTSA’s oversight processes have evolved over time in response to  state concerns about restrictive NHTSA oversight and our prior  recommendations that NHTSA ensure more consistent use of management  and oversight tools, provide guidance to its regions on use of those tools,  and provide a more consistent means of measuring progress toward  highway safety goals. The DOT Office of Inspector General and we  currently have reviews under way to evaluate the effectiveness of  NHTSA’s performance-based oversight approach.
subsections: section_title: NHTSA Has Awarded Grants to States That Met Eligibility Criteria
paragraphs: In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about $576 million for the  five safety grant programs—about $11 million less than the authorized  amount of $587 million—to states meeting statutory grant criteria (see fig.  2). The unawarded funds were primarily for the Child Safety and Booster  Seat grants in fiscal year 2006—$3.4 million, or over one-half of the  authorized amount of $6 million—and for the Safety Belt Use grant in  fiscal year 2007—$4.2 million. NHTSA officials determined that a number  of states did not meet the statutory criteria contained in SAFETEA-LU for  the Child Safety and Booster Seat grant. Consequently, the amount of  awards for the Child Safety and Booster Seat grant in fiscal year 2006 was  less than the amount authorized. The remainder of the $11 million was due  to an across-the-board 1 percent rescission in fiscal year 2006.
From fiscal year 2006 to 2007, the number of states that received the five  grants generally remained constant or increased, although the number of  states varied by grant. With the exception of the Safety Belt Use grant,  states maintained or increased participation in the grant programs.  Specifically, the number of states eligible for the Child Safety and Booster  Seat grant more than doubled from 5 to 13 states, the number awarded the  Impaired Driving grant held steady at 50 states, and states awarded the  Motorcyclist Safety grant and the Traffic Safety Information Systems grant  increased from 44 states to 47 and 49 states, respectively. Overall, 8 states  have enacted and are enforcing a primary safety belt law to qualify for  Safety Belt Use grants since December 31, 2002—the date specified in  SAFETEA-LU. The 8 states represent a 50 percent increase in the number  of states that previously had primary safety belt laws. The decline in the  number of states receiving Safety Belt Use grants—from 22 states in  fiscal year 2006 to 18 states in fiscal year 2007—reflects the fact that states  passing a primary safety belt law for the first time received grants in a  single year, while 16 states that had the law in place prior to 2003, received  the grant over 2 years:  In fiscal year 2006, 6 states qualified for grants by enacting laws to  implement and enforce primary safety belt laws, in addition to the 16  states that had primary safety belt laws prior to 2003; these 6 states  received the full amount of their grants in fiscal year 2006, while the 16  states received a first installment of their grants.
In fiscal year 2007, 2 states enacted laws and received the full amount  of their grants, and the 16 states received a second and final installment  of their grants.
The extent to which states received the different grants varied, with fewer  states receiving grants that require passing a law. For example, as shown  in appendixes II and III, fewer than half of the states qualified for grants  that require legislation—the Safety Belt Use and the Child Safety and  Booster Seat grants, while all states qualified for Impaired Driving grants  and the majority qualified for the Motorcyclist Safety and Traffic Safety  Information Systems grants (see apps. IV through VI). In contrast to the  Safety Belt Use and Child Safety and Booster Seat grants, states could  qualify for the Impaired Driving, Motorcyclist Safety, and Traffic Safety  Information Systems grants by submitting plans for varied highway safety  activities to be funded under those grants, such as motorcyclist training,  alcohol enforcement activities, or new or enhanced information  communication systems, without having to enact new legislation.
NHTSA awards grants annually under the five safety incentive programs  between June and September because the various grant programs require  that states meet criteria by completing activities or enacting laws by a  specified date in order to be eligible (see fig. 3). NHTSA assists states with  applications—including reviewing applications—to meet application  deadlines throughout the year. The application deadlines for all five grants  are scheduled from June through August of the fiscal year to allow states  sufficient time to meet eligibility requirements and receive awards in that  fiscal year. For example, the Child Safety and Booster Seat Use grant  program requires states to enact a law or revise an existing statute to  require that children be restrained in a child safety seat meeting  requirements established by the Secretary, which in turn requires that  children under 8 years old be restrained properly. To qualify, states must  have enacted a qualifying booster seat law by June 30. Consequently,  NHTSA set a July 1 application deadline for these grants, at which time  states applying for this grant had to certify that the law met NHTSA’s  requirements and submit a copy of the law for NHTSA’s review. For the  Motorcyclist Safety grant program, NHTSA established an August 1  application deadline and required states to submit an application in the  first year and in subsequent years provide certifications that its program  meets the grant criteria, such as having a statewide motorcyclist training  course or a statewide motorcyclist awareness program. NHTSA officials  indicated they needed to give states time to meet the additional criteria in  subsequent years and noted that most of these activities would be  completed by June 30 of a given year.  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
The award letter notifies the state it has been awarded a grant. Grant funds are usually available to  states shortly after they receive their award letter.
If safety incentive grant funds are not used in the fiscal year in which they are awarded, they can be  carried over and used in the following fiscal year.
Within 2 to 3 months following the receipt of the applications, NHTSA  reviewed grant applications and awarded the grants to the states. For 5 of  the 10 application periods over both fiscal years, NHTSA reviewed grant  applications and awarded the grants to the states within 2 months  following the application deadline. For example, in fiscal years 2006 and  2007, NHTSA reviewed applications for the Impaired Driving and  Motorcyclist Safety grants, issued letters notifying the states of the  amounts awarded under each grant, and made funds available by  September 22 of each year following the application deadline of August 1.  However, NHTSA took 3 months to review applications and award grants  for the Safety Belt Use grants in fiscal year 2007 and the Child Safety and  Booster Seat grant in both years. According to NHTSA officials, reviewing  the individual state laws took more time than expected because of the  large number of applications and the need to determine whether states  met the statutory criteria. In some instances, the same NHTSA staff were  involved in preparing documentation and reviewing application approval  packages for multiple grant programs. Additionally, while applications for  the Traffic Safety Information Systems grant program were due June 15,  NHTSA awarded these grants in September. According to NHTSA officials,  the NHTSA team reviewing the applications for these grants had to request  additional or clarifying information from states based on their applications  in an effort to assist as many states as possible to qualify.
As part of the award process, NHTSA also assists states in applying for  grants and meeting application deadlines. NHTSA issued guidance for  three of the grant programs within 6 months of the passage of SAFETEA- LU in August 2005, while it issued the implementing regulations for the  Impaired Driving and Motorcyclist Safety grant programs within 8 to 11  months (see fig. 4). NHTSA officials explained that they chose the most  expedient route for issuing guidance to the states in order to get the  guidance out to the states as quickly as possible within relatively tight time  frames. Because it takes longer to publish regulations, NHTSA issued  implementing guidelines for three of the grant programs.
State officials we spoke with generally found NHTSA’s guidance helpful.  They told us that NHTSA headquarters and the regions provided  information to help the states prepare applications. For example, NHTSA’s  regional offices provided the states with information on national priorities  and letters indicating traffic safety areas on which states could focus their  efforts to support the national goals. Some NHTSA regions also shared  grant application review checklists with the states to help them complete  their applications as much as possible before sending them to the region  for review. In addition, for the Traffic Safety Information Systems grant,  NHTSA hired contractors to meet with state officials to help them  understand what NHTSA expected in a grant application.
However, for the Traffic Safety Information Systems grant program, the  guidance from NHTSA headquarters and regions was inconsistent, which  resulted in some states having to provide additional information or revise  their applications. Some state officials explained they were frustrated by  the application process because NHTSA headquarters frequently requested  they provide additional or clarifying information to demonstrate  measurable progress. However, according to officials from NHTSA  headquarters and regions, the team in headquarters that reviewed the  applications had different expectations from the NHTSA regions and  states. When state officials worked closely with NHTSA regional officials  to develop their applications, they believed that the applications were  complete and that they qualified for the grants. After the review from  NHTSA headquarters, they learned that additional work was needed on  their application to qualify. According to NHTSA headquarters officials, in  many instances, the states were asked to submit additional information  and clarification because their initial applications lacked valid or  accurately calculated performance measures or, in some cases, included  no performance measures. NHTSA officials initially attributed these  problems to the grant’s criteria and more stringent requirements than  under prior law; this grant requires that states clearly incorporate how  they will measure progress and demonstrate quantifiable results in order  to qualify for the grant in subsequent years. However, similar problems  also occurred in the application process for fiscal year 2007 when states  again received questions from NHTSA and had to clarify information or  provide additional information to the review team. To address this issue,  NHTSA has begun providing training to NHTSA regional officials so that  they provide consistent guidance. In addition, several regions have  established regional grant review teams similar to NHTSA headquarters  grant review teams to ensure grants receive more complete reviews at the  regional level.
section_title: NHTSA Uses Several Oversight Processes to Assess States’ Progress toward Safety Goals and Monitor States’ Use of Grant Funds
paragraphs: NHTSA uses several processes to determine the extent to which states are  meeting safety-related performance goals that grant-funded activities are  designed to address and monitor how the states spend grant funds.  Specifically, NHTSA uses a performance-based approach to assess state  progress toward meeting safety goals and complements this assessment  with oversight processes that monitor whether states are accomplishing  the tasks that will allow the state to achieve its goals. NHTSA’s  performance-based approach primarily involves assessing states’ progress  in meeting safety-related performance goals by comparing state planning  documents with annual reports on the state’s performance and conducting  special reviews of states not making adequate progress toward their goals.  These activities create the opportunity for NHTSA to be involved  throughout the lifecycle of state grants, allowing the agency to provide  input on the development of state safety goals and performance measures  and to oversee the implementation of safety programs and use of federal  funds.
Establishing state safety goals and conducting activities to  achieve the goals: Early in the calendar year, each state initiates a  planning process to prioritize safety goals and develop a performance  plan and highway safety plan for the upcoming fiscal year. These plans  establish performance goals and objectives based on safety problems  identified in each state and include activities the state funds with  NHTSA’s traffic safety grants that will help the state reach its goals. For  example, Nevada’s fiscal year 2008 plan identified impaired driving as  the most common cause of fatal crashes and established a performance  goal of reducing the number of fatalities to 5.75 per 100,000 people by  2008 (which would be down from 6.31 in 2005). To achieve this goal,  Nevada plans to devote about 28 percent of its federal funding to  impaired-driving activities such as conducting highly publicized driving  under the influence (DUI) enforcement activities and training  prosecutors on DUI cases. To help states identify safety priorities and  develop performance goals for the year, NHTSA provides each state  with an analysis of state-level traffic safety data, such as fatality rates,  seat belt use, and alcohol-related fatalities. The agency also shares  information on countermeasures that address safety problems that are  specific to the state. For example, NHTSA regional offices may  recommend that states develop a statewide media plan regarding seat  belt use, with specific emphasis on heightening media exposure in  high-risk counties. NHTSA also informs states of countermeasures that  other states have used through activities like regional conferences.  NHTSA regional staff meet regularly with state highway safety staff  during the planning process, providing guidance on national priorities  and other technical assistance to help the state develop a plan that  addresses key safety issues. States must submit performance plans and  highway safety plans to NHTSA by September 1, and NHTSA responds  with a formal letter documenting the agency’s analysis of the plans and  providing additional feedback.
Review of state progress toward state safety goals: In December  of each year, states must submit to NHTSA regional offices a report on  the previous fiscal year’s program activities, including the programs  funded by the safety grants. The regional offices assess these reports to  determine state progress toward achieving the goals and performance  measures identified in the state’s performance plan. These assessments  allow NHTSA to track state performance in improving safety outcomes  and to provide feedback to states on strengths and weaknesses in the  programs.
Assisting states not making progress toward safety goals: For  states that are not making adequate progress in NHTSA’s priority areas  of reducing alcohol-related deaths or improving safety belt use, NHTSA  conducts special management reviews. To identify states for impaired  driving reviews, NHTSA analyzes national fatality data and compares  state performance with national levels; to identify states for occupant  protection reviews, NHTSA analyzes state-reported seat belt use rates  from observational surveys, and compares those rates to the VMT- weighted average seat belt use of all 50 states, the District of Columbia,  and Puerto Rico. States with performance consistently below the  national average are candidates for a special management review.  These reviews, which are currently only conducted for impaired driving  and occupant protection, focus on state management of a specific  program area—such as those funded by the safety grants—to identify  barriers to progress and make formal recommendations on strategies  that could help the state improve safety outcomes. Special  management reviews involve an on-site review lasting several days and  include interviews with state staff, reviews of program files, a  formalized report developed by NHTSA, and potentially creating a  “performance enhancement plan,” which establishes target dates for  the completion of recommendations made in the review. As of  September 2007, NHTSA conducted 29 special management reviews for  fiscal years 2005 through 2007.
Oversight processes to track state use of funding: Throughout the  year, NHTSA monitors state grant management activities, including  whether states are expending funds in a timely fashion and directing  funds appropriately to the programs identified in the state’s highway  safety plan as having potential to address the state’s safety goals. The  primary tool NHTSA uses to monitor state spending is its Grants  Tracking System (GTS), a Web-based application that allows NHTSA to  track, approve, and release to states the grant funds available for  highway safety programs. At the beginning of each fiscal year, states  enter accounting information into GTS reflecting the total amount of  funding the state may obligate that year and how much the state  indicated in its highway safety plan it would spend on different  programmatic areas. Then during the year, states enter data into GTS  to indicate how grant funding is being spent, and NHTSA regional  offices use GTS to monitor state spending by periodically reviewing  financial data to ensure states are making progress in expending funds,  meeting financial requirements, and using funding for the programs  indicated in their plans. NHTSA monitors whether states deviate from  their planned spending—for example, by shifting funding from an  impaired driving program to a program addressing a safety goal that  state data suggest is a lower priority—and can request additional  justification if states make changes. GTS contains the requirements of  each grant—for instance, the percentage of funding that states must  match—and allows states to submit vouchers for reimbursement.  Because the data entered into GTS include the total spent on a given  grant, NHTSA regional offices also conduct on-site reviews of vouchers  to examine documentation supporting these expenditures and  determine whether the expenses were allowable, reasonable, related to  the project, and expended within the grant year.
Assessing state grant management: In addition to monitoring  throughout the year, NHTSA conducts more comprehensive on-site  “management reviews” for each state once every 3 years to assess state  operational practices to ensure efficient administration and effective  planning, programming, implementation, and evaluation of the state’s  highway safety programs.
This oversight approach has evolved over time in response to agency  processes to identify areas for improvement, congressional and state  concerns, and our prior recommendations. Prior to fiscal year 1998,  NHTSA regulations required each state to submit a highway safety plan to  NHTSA for approval. This plan detailed—down to the project level—the  activities the state proposed to implement with federal grant funding.  However, in response to congressional and state concerns that NHTSA’s  project-by-project approval process was too restrictive, NHTSA adopted a  performance-based approach in 1998. Specifically, states were required to  submit a performance plan that identified key highway safety problems in  the state and established goals and performance measures to address  these problems. States still submitted the highway safety plan, but NHTSA  no longer approved or disapproved individual projects contained in the  plan unless those projects were not allowed under statutory limitations  imposed on the various grants; rather, the agency determined whether the  state submitted the plan in compliance with regulations.
In a 2003 report, we identified problems with NHTSA’s performance-based  approach, noting inconsistencies among the NHTSA regional offices in the  level of guidance to states on how to use safety grant funding. We  recommended that NHTSA provide more specific guidance to regional  offices on when to conduct reviews of state safety programs and how to  measure progress toward meeting safety goals. In response to our  recommendations and new direction from Congress, NHTSA clarified and  revised its guidance to states on how best to craft highway safety plans, as  well as the process for how the agency would conduct regular reviews of  state use of grant funding.
Both the Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG) and  GAO are required by law to evaluate NHTSA’s oversight process since the  agency initiated changes in 2005. The DOT IG’s review will verify whether  NHTSA developed and followed policies and procedures for conducting  management reviews and special management reviews in accordance with  our April 2003 recommendation, determine the extent to which NHTSA’s  reviews addressed states’ safety performance measures, and identify best  practices for improving NHTSA’s oversight activities. To accomplish their  review, officials from the IG told us that they accompanied NHTSA  regional office staff on several reviews to observe the process and analyze  management review reports, as well as underlying workpapers that  supported the review’s findings and conclusions. Our review will describe  how NHTSA oversees state safety grants and the role of the State and  Community Highway Safety Grant Program in state highway safety  programs. Our report will be released in July 2008, and as of mid-February  2008, the DOT IG planned to release its report in the spring of 2008.
section_title: States Are Planning and Implementing Safety Improvement Activities, but the Structure of the Grant Programs Has Created Eligibility and Management Difficulties
paragraphs: Using grant funds, states are planning and implementing safety  improvement activities to address the key traffic safety issues in their  states, but the structure of the grant programs has created eligibility  difficulties for states, as well as management difficulties for governors’  highway safety offices that administer the grants. State safety officials  agreed that the grants are helping them address key safety issues but have  found it challenging to meet eligibility requirements for some grant  programs, particularly those requiring states to pass laws. In addition,  state safety officials have faced management challenges involving multiple  grant applications and deadlines. State safety officials also noted concerns  about the timing of the grant awards and limitations on the amount of  flexibility they have to use the funds. NHTSA officials agree with state  officials’ concerns, but noted that they cannot take action to address them  because these issues are required by law. Any changes to the grant  structure would have to be undertaken by Congress.
subsections: section_title: States Are Planning and Implementing Safety Improvement Activities Using Grant Funds
paragraphs: For each grant, state highway safety officials are planning and  implementing activities to address key traffic safety problems in their  states. These activities generally fall within five categories of activities— education and training, media and public information, enforcement, data  and technology, and infrastructure improvements (see table 2). Safety  officials we spoke with in seven selected states agree that the safety  incentive grant programs are assisting states in implementing activities  that address key safety issues. State and local chapters of associations  such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and state sheriffs and  chiefs of police also indicated that the issues the grants target are critical  safety problems in their states.
Furthermore, states are using their grants to address goals and  performance measures established in state highway safety plans. For  example, although New Jersey had a 90 percent safety belt usage rate in  2006, the state’s 2007 highway safety plan indicates the state plans to  continue efforts to increase safety belt usage rates by 2 percentage points,  from 90 percent in 2006 to 92 percent in 2007. The state budgeted $1.3  million for safety belt enforcement to help reach this goal. Similarly,  although California has made significant progress in reducing the  frequency of impaired driving and related injuries and fatalities, alcohol  remains the number one primary collision factor in fatal crashes in  California. Consequently, the state has allocated $3.6 million of the  Impaired Driving grant for DUI enforcement, education, and public  information activities to 22 law enforcement agencies to achieve its goal of  decreasing the number of persons killed in alcohol-involved collisions by 2  percent by December 31, 2008. Also, given the rise in the rate of  motorcycle fatalities, Illinois and several other states have set goals to  reduce statewide motorcycle fatalities. Specifically, Illinois has allocated  $104,000 toward developing a motorcycle awareness program to address  its goal of reducing motorcycle fatalities from 9.8 percent of total fatalities  in 2003 to 7 percent by January 2008. Additionally, as Massachusetts faces  incomplete statewide data on injuries and fatalities, it has designated a  portion of the Traffic Safety Information Systems grant for the  development of an ambulance record information system in its 2007  highway safety plan.
Because the structure of the Safety Belt Use grant program provides more  flexibility in how the funds may be used compared with the other grants,  activities that states are planning and conducting with the grant  encompass all five key areas as well as other activities, such as conducting  activities to reduce alcohol-impaired driving by teens or conducting  statewide safety belt use surveys. While this is the only grant program  that can be used to fund infrastructure improvements, states have  allocated a large portion of these grants toward programs designed to  influence safety. For example, Illinois allocated 75 percent ($22.3 million)  of the $29.7 million grant for behavioral projects and 25 percent ($7.4  million) for infrastructure projects. California used all of the $19.4 million  it received in fiscal year 2006 for behavioral activities. Education and  training, media and public information, and enforcement activities funded  by this grant program are generally linked to the national high-visibility  “Click It or Ticket” campaign. Some states, such as South Carolina, have  allocated most of the grant to data and technology activities to improve  traffic safety information systems. These activities may include developing  systems to enable electronic crash reporting and data transmission or  identifying top locations for aggressive driving. Specifically, South  Carolina received $10.6 million and is using the majority of this amount— about $8 million—for traffic records improvement. Finally, states have  also used these grants for other activities, such as infrastructure safety  measures, including upgrading and improving locations where pedestrian  and motor vehicle collisions occur or videotaping and assessing county  roadway systems.
Because the goal of the Child Safety and Booster Seat grant program is to  encourage greater use of child safety and booster seats, the activities that  states are planning and conducting are limited to education and training,  media and public information, and other activities such as car seat  purchases. States are planning to use these grants to increase training for  child safety seat technicians and instructors and to support additional  safety checkpoints and clinics where parents learn how to properly install  safety seats. Safety advocacy groups have indicated that this funding is  important because the population of first-time parents is constantly  changing. For example, New Jersey funded the Safe C.A.R.G.O Program at  the Monmouth County Sheriff’s Office to help educate parents, child-care  services, and other caregivers on how to properly install and use child  safety seats. States are planning to fund media and public information to  promote awareness of child passenger safety. Vermont, for instance, plans  to educate parents through public awareness campaigns. The Monmouth  County Sheriff’s Office also partnered with local social service agencies to  determine which families are eligible for seats and provided vouchers to  be redeemed at Safe C.A.R.G.O. inspection locations.
States have used the Impaired Driving grant to focus their efforts on  education, training, media, and public information. For example, Georgia  and other states have used the funding to promote Students Against  Destructive Decisions, which educates youth on alcohol and drug  education and prevention. States are planning to fund training for local  law enforcement officers and promote outreach programs to prosecutors  and judges. Our analysis also indicated that states have used the grants to  fund awareness programs on the impact of impaired driving and target  messages to teen drivers, as well as to fund a variety of high-visibility  enforcement activities, such as the national “Over the Limit, Under Arrest”  campaign. For example, 15 California police departments participated or  plan to participate in the traditional holiday enforcement campaigns where  the departments set up DUI checkpoints and conduct billboard campaigns  urging residents to drive sober during this period. The Illinois State  Police uses grant funds to target establishments that sell alcoholic  beverages to minors. States have also used the grant to purchase new  equipment, such as breath alcohol testing vans, diesel-powered light  towers, and variable message boards for law enforcement to use at  checkpoints. In addition to these activities, states have used this grant for  activities to enhance courts’ and prosecutors’ ability to prosecute impaired  driving, as well as to encourage legislation imposing stronger sanctions  and penalties for impaired driving. For example, Arkansas plans to use the  funding to provide a traffic safety resource prosecutor who will serve as a  resource to prosecutors in the state on impaired driving and other traffic  cases. In addition, NHTSA officials indicated that states have used this  grant to promote legislation to impose sanctions and penalties for  impaired driving.
The Motorcyclist Safety grant program’s focus on training for  motorcyclists and increasing other motorists’ awareness of motorcyclists  has provided states with a new source of funding for education and  training, media and public information, and activities such as purchasing  motorcycles for training courses. States are using the funds to train more  rider education coaches and add more classes because capacity for these  classes has been limited and classes have filled up quickly in many states.  For example, in Alaska, the Juneau American Bikers Aimed Toward  Education (ABATE) plans to expand the number of Motorcycle Safety  Foundation-certified rider education coaches in southeast Alaska.  Nevada plans to allocate $20,000 to provide training to maintain current  instructor levels and add new instructors in fiscal year 2007. Additionally,  states have funded or plan to fund campaigns to increase other motorists’  awareness of motorcyclists and promote motorcycle training courses. For  example, Utah funded motorcycle safety and “Share the Road” public  awareness campaigns, while Kentucky and several other states plan or  have begun to publicize and promote training courses. In addition, states  purchased or plan to purchase additional motorcycles for training courses.
The Traffic Safety Information Systems grant program allows states to  focus activities specifically on data and technology activities. This  program assists states in identifying and addressing the quality of  information concerning crashes, drivers’ licenses, injury surveillance,  roadways, enforcement and adjudication, and vehicles. For example,  Arkansas plans to use part of its funding to improve the timeliness and  uniformity of its crash data, while Indiana plans to develop an electronic  citation system to allow the electronic issuance, collection, and court  processing of citation data. Similarly, Michigan plans to use the grant to  create a statewide emergency medical system and trauma database, while  New Mexico plans to use the funds to enhance its DWI records. In  addition, NHTSA officials indicated that California plans to upgrade its  crash system to include GPS coordinates.
section_title: Some States Have Faced Difficulties in Passing Laws to Meet Eligibility Requirements and Manage Grants
paragraphs: While state safety officials we contacted during site visits agreed that the  grants are helping states address key safety issues, they also noted  difficulties in passing laws to meet eligibility requirements for some  grants, as well as managing grant applications, deadlines, and timing.
subsections: section_title: Difficulties in Passing Laws
paragraphs: While about half of the states have passed primary safety belt laws to  qualify for the Safety Belt Use grant, other states have not enacted primary  safety belt laws principally because of state legislatures’ or governors’  opposition to mandating safety belt use laws that could infringe on  individuals’ personal freedom. For example, according to Montana traffic  safety officials and others involved in traffic safety, the state Senate  passed a primary safety belt bill that the Governor supported, but the bill  failed in the state House by a narrow margin. In Vermont, a traffic safety  official told us that the state House passed a primary safety belt bill, but  the Governor did not support it, and it failed in the state Senate. An  analysis of state legislative activity indicates states have faced challenges  in enacting primary safety belt laws. Of the 29 states that introduced  primary safety belt bills from 2003 through 2007, 8 passed the bills (see  table 3); 16 states had primary safety belt laws in effect before 2003.
Similarly, about one-fourth of the 50 states have passed laws to qualify for  Child Safety and Booster Seat grants. As our analysis of state legislative  activity indicates, from 2003, when states became aware of some of the  provisions that would likely be included in the reauthorization legislation,  through 2007, 24 states considered requiring children to use booster seats up  to age 8. In total, 5 states passed new laws or modified existing laws so that  they qualified for the grant in fiscal year 2006. An additional 8 states passed  laws to qualify for the grant in fiscal year 2007 (see table 4). Although many  states already had booster seat laws in effect, these laws vary in terms of the  age, height, and weight requirements. For example, some states require  children to use booster seats up to ages 5, 6, or 7 but not age 8. Other states  use height or weight requirements. According to traffic safety officials and  safety advocates, the variations occurred because, over time, NHTSA has  changed the criteria concerning age, height, and weight for determining who  should be in booster seats. According to NHTSA officials, these changes were  based on evolving research and understanding on how to best protect  children. However, once a state has a booster seat law in effect—even one  not meeting the grant’s requirement—state safety officials, safety advocates,  and others familiar with traffic safety legislation are often reluctant to attempt  to upgrade it because of fears that the current law could be revisited and the  safety provisions could be lost, according to an NCSL official and  representatives of organizations involved in child passenger safety.
Although all 50 states met the eligibility requirements for the first and  second years of the Impaired Driving grant program, NHTSA regional and  governors’ highway safety officials have expressed concerns about states’  ability to meet the eligibility criteria in the future. According to these  officials, the criteria will be more difficult to meet because states may  need to pass laws that impose stronger sanctions against those convicted  of drunken driving, such as installing ignition interlock devices and  suspending or revoking drivers’ licenses. As table 5 illustrates, states have  not attempted to qualify for the Impaired Driving grant using three of the  grant’s programmatic criteria, which may require legislation; the criteria  are high-risk driver program, administrative license suspension or  revocation system, and self-sustaining impaired-driving prevention  programs. Federal and state officials have expressed concern that, as with  efforts to pass laws related to the Safety Belt Use and Child Safety and  Booster Seat grants, some states will find it more difficult than others to  pass laws imposing stronger sanctions. In addition, officials are concerned  that states that cannot meet the eligibility criteria would have difficulty  continuing their efforts to reduce alcohol-impaired driving.
The multiple grant applications and deadlines presented challenges for the  seven states we visited. As illustrated in figure 5, the five applications are  due within a period of 1-1/2 months between June 15 and August 1.  According to state highway safety officials, each application requires  extensive amounts of staff time and resources. The application process  requires states to submit to NHTSA the application, a certification of  compliance, and additional information, depending on the grant. Although  the application process is similar for each grant, having to complete it  several times within a few months presents administrative challenges for  states. Several states expressed concerns about the demands the  application process placed on their staff, even though states with larger  safety programs have more staff and resources available to manage grant  applications than states with smaller safety programs. For example,  Illinois officials said they have had difficulty meeting NHTSA’s  administrative requirements to apply for the grants because the state  Division of Traffic Safety has had staff shortages resulting from cutbacks  and are considering an electronic grants process to enable them to meet  the requirements. Similarly, Montana officials indicated they have a small  staff and are burdened with grant paperwork. According to NHTSA and  state highway safety officials, smaller state highway safety offices—such  as that in Vermont—struggled to manage their grants. According to  NHTSA, the application requirements reflect SAFETEA-LU’s requirements  to award the grants in the same year in which the state’s legislative status  and fatality-rate performance are measured.
State officials also expressed concern over the delay in receiving grant  awards and the associated impact on states’ ability to expend the funds to  address traffic safety concerns. States received most of the grants in  September—at the end of the federal fiscal year—in both fiscal years 2006  and 2007, from 1 to 3 months after the states submitted the grant  applications. According to data provided by NHTSA, states received $250  million late in fiscal year 2006, and expended 14.1 percent of the combined  funds in fiscal year 2006. Most of the fiscal year 2006 funds carried  forward to fiscal year 2007. In fiscal year 2007, states received $274  million; the states carried forward $261 million and expended $157 million,  or 29.4 percent of the combined funds (see table 6).
One NHTSA official attributed the low rate of expenditures for the fiscal  year 2006 grants to the fact that SAFETEA-LU was not passed until August  2005, giving state officials little time to plan how to spend the funds they  received beginning in fiscal year 2006. State officials indicated that, once  they received the awards, they needed time to assess applications from  subgrantees and award the grants. Additionally, the amount of funding a  state receives in a given year for a grant depends in part on the number of  other states that also receive the grant, which can make it difficult to  predict the amount a state is going to receive or can result in a state  receiving more than state officials had anticipated in a given year. For  example, according to NHTSA officials, Michigan received more Safety  Belt Use grant funding in fiscal year 2006 than anticipated. Similarly, the  states that received the Child Safety and Booster Seat grant in fiscal year  2006 received much more than they expected because so few received the  grant. As a result, they did not have plans for using the increased level of  funding. NHTSA officials indicated they were aware that the states  received the funds late in the fiscal year and that this affected states’  ability to use the funds, but noted that states will be able to carry the funds  over to the next fiscal year. One NHTSA regional official indicated that,  while state officials do not know the exact amount of the grants prior to  receiving the money, after the first year of the grants, state officials should  have a general idea of how much they will receive and therefore can begin  planning how to use the funds.
State officials also noted they would have preferred having more flexibility  in how they use the grants. For example, the Motorcyclist Safety grant  program allows the federal funding to be used only for training and to  increase other motorists’ awareness of motorcyclists. Officials in Montana  noted they would like to use the funds to expand training sites to provide  more training opportunities. However, the grant does not allow the funds  to be used for this purpose. Additionally, officials in New Jersey noted that  the Child Safety and Booster Seat grant they received in fiscal year 2006  was much larger than they expected. They would have preferred to have  used the additional funding for other areas, such as the state’s traffic  safety information systems.
NHTSA officials agree with state officials’ concerns but noted they cannot  take action to address these issues because the challenges stem from the  grant requirements built into the law itself. The officials indicated they are  currently in the preliminary stages of developing a proposal to reauthorize  funding for these programs but have not developed it sufficiently to  provide specific information on what they are considering.
section_title: NHTSA Plans to Develop More Comprehensive Performance Measures; Performance Accountability Mechanisms and Issues States Face in Using Grants Raise Implications for Reauthorization
paragraphs: NHTSA plans to develop more comprehensive performance measures to  evaluate the results of these grant programs, but state performance is not  tied to the receipt of the grants; the absence of such performance  accountability mechanisms, as well as issues described above that states  face in using grants, raise implications for reauthorization.
The changes made by SAFETEA-LU to the safety incentive grant programs  have not been in place long enough to assess their impact on fatalities,  injuries, and crashes, although the grants have resulted in states enacting  laws and implementing activities to meet grant criteria. NHTSA officials  indicated they plan to rely on performance measures to determine the  results of the grant programs. However, these performance measures are  not comprehensive. Additionally, three of the five grants do not include  performance accountability mechanisms that would tie states’ eligibility  for the grants or the amount states receive to performance. These issues  as well as those that states have faced in applying for and using the grants  raise implications for Congress to consider in reauthorizing the surface  transportation program.
subsections: section_title: NHTSA Plans to Develop More Comprehensive Performance Measures to Evaluate Results of Grant Programs, but State Performance Is Not Tied to Receipt of Grants
paragraphs: Although changes made by SAFETEA-LU to the safety incentive grant  programs have not been in place long enough to allow for an evaluation of  results, such as improvements in fatality rates, NHTSA officials indicated  they plan to rely on performance measures to help determine the results of  the programs and other safety initiatives (see figure 6). NHTSA has  awarded grants for 2 fiscal years, and states are currently implementing  activities using the grant funds. According to a NHTSA official, the grant  awards made in late fiscal year 2006 could not have been expected to  impact performance measures such as fatality rates until calendar year  2007 at the earliest. Moreover, because of the time required to start up  projects that states fund with the grants, the impact of the activities might  not be realized until 2008. Data on fatality rates for 2007 will be available  in the fall of 2008. The measures currently used by NHTSA include DOT- wide measures that reflect the overall goal of reducing traffic fatalities,  such as the passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate and motorcycle  fatality rate. In addition to DOT’s performance measures, NHTSA also has  intermediate outcome measures to track behaviors that influence traffic  safety, such as safety belt use, improperly licensed motorcycle riders in  fatal crashes, and safety restraint use for children under age 8.
However, the performance measures are not comprehensive for the  traffic safety areas covered by the grant programs. NHTSA’s  intermediate outcome measures do not include measures to track  behaviors that influence alcohol-related fatalities. Such measures could  include the numbers of impaired-driving citations issued, arrests, and  convictions. Currently, states vary in the extent to which the data to  track such measures are collected. NHTSA recognizes the need to  improve these measures and, in partnership with GHSA, has hired a  contractor to develop a common set of performance measures that  federal, state, and local governments could use. The objective is to  establish intermediate outcome measures for a broad range of traffic  safety areas, including safety belts and child passenger safety, impaired  driving, and motorcycles, that can reliably track progress toward  reducing the safety problems in each area. NHTSA plans to use these  measures to track progress at the national level and encourage states to  consider these measures in the highway safety planning process. The  contractor’s analysis of performance measures is expected to be  completed in August 2008.
While more comprehensive performance measures could improve  NHTSA’s ability to measure national and individual state progress  toward traffic safety goals, the receipt of grant funds by states are  generally not directly linked to the results—or performance—of  states’ activities to achieve those goals. For example, one way for  states to qualify for Safety Belt Use grants, and the only way for  noncomplying states to qualify for the Child Safety and Booster Seat  grants, has been to pass laws. The Motorcyclist Safety grants require  states to conduct certain activities to initially receive the grants. A  majority of the states also qualify for the Impaired Driving grant by  conducting activities. To receive grants in the future, states must  continue these activities and meet additional criteria, which could  include conducting additional activities or, in the case of the Impaired  Driving grant, pass additional legislation. States do not need to  achieve a particular performance level—or reduction in fatality rate— in order to continue receiving the grants. In contrast, the fifth grant  program—Traffic Safety Information Systems—includes a  performance accountability mechanism requiring that states  demonstrate measurable improvement in their systems, as well as  continue to meet other eligibility criteria, in order to receive the grant  in subsequent years. Additionally, the Impaired Driving grant includes  a performance accountability mechanism because states that achieve  an alcohol-related fatality rate of 0.5 or less per 100 million VMT  receive a grant based on the amount of the State and Community  Highway Safety grant. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, 19 states qualified  for grants in this manner. However, these states are not eligible to  receive funds based on the programmatic criteria specified for this  grant and receive these grants after the states with the highest  alcohol-related fatality rates receive their Impaired Driving grants.
We have previously reported that such performance accountability  mechanisms could improve the design and implementation of federal  grants. Regarding transportation-related grants, we have raised concerns  about insufficient links between state performance and receipt of grants.  In addition, transportation and other experts on a panel convened by  GAO’s Comptroller General in May 2007 stated that the nation’s overall  transportation goals—including safety goals—need to be linked to  performance measures that measure what the respective programs and  polices are designed to accomplish.
section_title: Implications for Reauthorization
paragraphs: Congress changed the traffic safety incentive grant programs in SAFETEA- LU to encourage states to undertake activities tied to safety areas that  Congress had identified as being high priority. These programs set forth  specific criteria for states to qualify for grants, as well as specific  requirements for how states can use the funding provided. However, this  structure does not always allow states flexibility to direct funding toward  safety priorities as identified in highway safety plans. Furthermore, while  the current grant structure ensures that states are directing their efforts  toward congressionally established priorities, it does not necessarily  ensure that the grants are in proportion to the extent of the traffic safety  problems. As noted previously, the current structure also presents some  eligibility and management issues for states and does not include  performance accountability mechanisms for all grants.
NHTSA has not developed its proposal for the next highway safety  authorization bill when the current authorization, expires in 2009, but  NHTSA officials noted that DOT’s 2003 reauthorization proposal included  features that would address these issues. For example, NHTSA’s proposal  included performance-based grants within the State and Community  Highway Safety grant program that could address the issues that states  have faced in applying for and using the current safety incentive grants.
The basis for awarding the grants under this proposal would have been  data driven; as states improved the performance of their highway safety  programs by decreasing fatalities, their grant amounts would have  increased. States would not have faced the issues concerning multiple  applications because they would not have had to apply for the grants.  Additionally, according to the proposal, NHTSA would have awarded the  grants by December 31 of each year—much earlier than states currently  receive them. Finally, states would have had flexibility in using the funds  because the grants would have been part of the State and Community  Highway Safety grant program; this program permits flexibility in how  grant funds are used.
In December 2007, the National Surface Transportation Policy and  Revenue Study Commission proposed a National Safe Mobility Program  with a performance-based structure similar to NHTSA’s proposal. In the  proposed program, DOT would define safety performance metrics to be  used by all federal, state, and local agencies, as well as work with states to  define specific goals for individual states. States would then develop  strategies for reaching these goals, including safety projects within the  highway safety plan. The commission recommended that a national plan  for safety be developed that leads to transportation investments  undertaken purely for safety purposes and that the federal share of the  funding for qualifying safety projects be 90 percent of the project cost.  According to the report, qualifying safety projects could include projects  designed to change safety behaviors, such as safety belt use and impaired  driving, as well as projects to improve the safety of surface transportation  infrastructure.
DOT’s 2003 reauthorization proposal also included performance  accountability mechanisms for traffic safety incentive grants that would  link performance or progress toward achieving safety goals with grant  awards. Specifically, NHTSA proposed that the amount of an individual  state’s grant award depend on the state’s performance related to various  crash fatality rates, safety belt use, and safety belt laws. Since NHTSA’s  current oversight approach is based on state performance in achieving  safety goals states establish in their highway safety plans, establishing  such performance accountability mechanisms for traffic safety incentive  grants would be more consistent with NHTSA’s oversight approach and is  an option that could be considered when Congress reauthorizes the  surface transportation program. (See app. VII for a more complete  description of NHTSA’s 2003 proposal.)
As Congress considers the reauthorization of funding for these programs,  it will face the decision of retaining the current grant structure or moving  toward a more performance-based, data-driven grant structure. While a  performance-based, data-driven grant structure is more consistent with  NHTSA’s current oversight approach, such a structure would depend on  the quality of state data systems because states would need to be able to  report on fatalities, crashes, and other traffic safety characteristics in a  timely and accurate manner. In 2004, we reported that states vary  considerably in the extent to which their traffic safety data systems meet  recommended criteria used by NHTSA to assess the quality of crash  information. We reviewed systems in nine states and found, for example,  that some states entered crash information into their systems in a matter  of weeks, while others took a year or more. While some systems were  better than others, all had opportunities for improvement. Furthermore, a  performance-based grant structure would also depend on a robust  oversight approach for NHTSA to ensure that states are establishing  appropriate traffic safety goals and making sufficient progress toward  those goals. As previously noted, we are currently examining NHTSA’s  oversight approach and expect to issue a report on it in July 2008.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT for its review and comment.  DOT officials, including the Deputy Administrator of NHTSA, generally  agreed with the findings of the report and offered technical corrections  that we incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees and the Secretary of Transportation. We will also make copies  available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at  no cost on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-6570 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: We were asked to evaluate five safety incentive grant programs included in  the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act  (SAFETEA-LU), specifically the Safety Belt Use, Child Safety and Child  Booster Seat Use, Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures,  Motorcyclist Safety, and State Traffic Safety Data Systems Improvement  grant programs. This report addresses (1) the National Highway Traffic  Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) status in awarding and overseeing states’  use of these grant programs, (2) activities states have conducted using the  grants and issues they have faced in applying for and implementing them,  and (3) how NHTSA plans to evaluate the results of the grant programs  and implications for reauthorizing the programs.
To determine the progress NHTSA has made in awarding and overseeing  the use of the grants, we reviewed past GAO reports on NHTSA’s oversight  and analyzed applicable laws, regulations, and other guidance for  awarding and overseeing grants. We interviewed NHTSA officials to  determine guidance it provided to states on grant applications, guidelines  in overseeing the grants, and grant award data. We also interviewed  Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Motor Carrier  Safety Administration officials within the U.S. Department of  Transportation (DOT) and representatives from professional groups,  including the Governors Highway Safety Association, National Conference  of State Legislatures (NCSL), National Safety Council, American  Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, and Advocates for  Auto and Highway Safety on the grants process and measures NHTSA has  taken to improve the process. In addition, we interviewed national safety  and law enforcement associations, including Mothers Against Drunk  Driving (MADD), the American Automobile Association (AAA), Safe Kids,  International Association of Chiefs of Police, and National Sheriffs’  Association. We also requested and received data regarding grant awards  from NHTSA. To obtain state information on NHTSA’s progress in  awarding and overseeing the five grants, we conducted case studies in  seven states—California, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, South  Carolina, and Vermont—to discuss NHTSA’s progress in awarding and  overseeing the grants with state officials. We selected the states based on  a combination of characteristics, including fatality rates, funding, and  geographic distribution. For fatality rates and funding, we selected states  to include those with high- and low-fatality rates and high and low use of  highway safety grants. We considered highway safety grants during our  state selection process to mirror the multitude of safety factors that may  be reflected in fatality rates. We also ensured our selection covered at  least three states for each incentive grant to provide sufficient coverage of  each grant. However, the results of our case study analyses are not  generalizable to all 50 states because the states selected are not  necessarily representative of the grants each state is eligible to receive and  activities other states would implement.
To identify activities states are funding with the grants and issues they  have faced in applying for and implementing the grants, we interviewed  officials and analyzed data for the seven states we visited. In each state we  visited, we interviewed governors’ highway safety representatives or their  designees and reviewed documentation describing those states’ traffic  safety programs and the activities states have funded with the grants. In  addition, we reviewed the 2007 state highway safety plans and 2006 annual  reports for all 50 states to identify activities states are funding with the  grants and categorized them into five key areas—education and training,  media and public information, enforcement, data and technology, and  infrastructure improvements. For each state we visited, we also  interviewed the applicable NHTSA regional and FHWA division officials.  In general, we also interviewed representatives of state and local chapters  of national safety associations, such as MADD, AAA, and Safe Kids.  Additionally, we interviewed representatives from law enforcement, such  as state associations of chiefs of police and sheriffs’ associations about the  activities states have funded and challenges they faced. We also examined  NCSL’s legislative tracking database of primary safety belt and booster  seat legislative activity from 2001 to 2007 to assess states’ progress in  meeting legislative requirements for the Safety Belt Use and Child Safety  and Booster Seat grant programs. In addition, we requested and received  data regarding states’ expenditures of the grant funds.
To determine how NHTSA plans to evaluate the results of the grant  programs and the implications for reauthorizing them, we interviewed  NHTSA officials and reviewed a variety of documents related to  performance measures, and reauthorization. Specifically, we reviewed  DOT’s and NHTSA’s performance measures, as well as GAO reports on  performance measures and federal grant management. We also reviewed  and considered the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue  Study Commission report and NHTSA’s 2002 reauthorization proposal  related to safety incentive grant programs.
section_title: Appendix II: States Receiving Safety Belt Use Grants
subsections: section_title: Primary safety belt law effective date
paragraphs: Total includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the territories of American Samoa, the  Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
section_title: Appendix III: States Receiving Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use Grants
section_title: Appendix IV: States Awarded Alcohol- Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants
paragraphs: FY 2007  high- fatality  grant   A state can qualify in one of three ways for an Impaired Driving grant: as a “low-fatality” rate state, a  programmatic state, or as a “high-fatality” rate state (being among the 10 states with the highest  fatality rates). It is possible for a high-fatality state to be awarded both a programmatic grant and a  high-fatality rate grant in the same year.
FY 2007 total includes Puerto Rico, and FY 2006 total includes the District of Columbia and Puerto  Rico.
section_title: Appendix V: States Awarded Motorcyclist Safety Grants
paragraphs: FY 2006 grants (44 states)
FY 2006 grants (44 states)
section_title: Appendix VI: States Awarded Traffic Safety Information Systems Grants
paragraphs: FY 2006 grants (44 states)
FY 2006 grants (44 states)
section_title: Appendix VII: DOT’s 2003 Reauthorization Proposal
paragraphs: In 2003, DOT submitted to Congress its reauthorization proposal for the  surface transportation program, which included NHTSA’s grant programs.  The proposal, as it related to traffic safety, included grant programs that  had both similarities to and differences from the structural changes that  Congress included in SAFETEA-LU.
Several of the programs included in that proposal are relevant to the five  safety incentive grant programs included in our review. Specifically, the  relevant programs included in the proposal are as follows:    A program to award performance grants based on states’ performance  in three categories: motor vehicle crash fatalities; alcohol-related crash  fatalities; and motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian crash fatalities. The  proposal would have required NHTSA to determine measures using  fatality data and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and establish goals based  on those measures. States would have received awards by December  31 of each year in amounts based on the extent to which they achieved  the goals or made progress toward them, creating a performance  accountability mechanism that tied the grant amount to states’  performance. The proposal included these grants within the State and  Community Highway Safety grant program. This program was not  adopted.
A program to award safety belt performance grants designed to  encourage states to adopt and enforce primary safety belt laws and  increase the rate of safety belt use. Each state that had already enacted  and was enforcing a primary enforcement safety belt law would have  received a one-time grant. Additionally, states passing primary  enforcement safety belt laws after the reauthorization bill became law,  or demonstrating a safety belt use rate of 90 percent or more, would  have subsequently been eligible for a one-time grant. This proposal was  similar to the safety belt use grant program requirement, as adopted by  SAFETEA-LU, with the difference being that, as adopted, the law  provides different grant amounts for states depending on when their  primary safety belt laws became effective. In addition, under DOT’s  proposal, each state would have received an annual award based on the  state’s prior year’s safety belt use rate, regardless of whether the states  passed a primary safety belt law. This feature would have created a  performance accountability mechanism by tying a portion of the grant  amount to states’ performance. States would have received these  grants by December 31 of each year. These grant proposals were also  within the State and Community Highway Safety grant program. The  proposal for annual grants based on safety belt use rates was not  adopted.
An amended Traffic Safety Information Systems grant program that  was similar to the Traffic Safety Information Systems grant program  adopted by SAFETEA-LU.
A discretionary impaired driving program designed to reduce impaired  driving in states with a high number of alcohol-related fatalities and a  high rate of alcohol-related fatalities relative to VMT and population.  This program would have required NHTSA to develop, demonstrate,  and evaluate comprehensive state programs to reduce impaired driving  in states with high alcohol-related fatality rates. NHTSA would have  chosen participating states based on an application specifically  developed for this grant. This proposal was not adopted.
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, other key contributors to this  report were Sara Vermillion (Assistant Director), Elizabeth Curda, Colin  Fallon, Lynn Filla-Clark, Chir Jen Huang, Bert Japikse, Tom James, Terry  Richardson, Beverly Ross, and Don Watson.