Traffic Safety: Improved Reporting and Performance Measures Would Enhance Evaluation of High-Visibility Campaigns
Published: 2008-04-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Two primary risk behaviors related to fatal traffic crashes are failure to use safety belts and driving while impaired by alcohol. High-visibility enforcement (HVE) campaigns that combine enforcement of a traffic safety law with media to inform the public about the campaign are effective in reducing these behaviors. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users authorized funding of an HVE program, including safety belt and impaired-driving campaigns. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT) provides media and coordinates with states to provide enforcement activities for the campaigns. This report addresses (1) the extent to which NHTSA has implemented the HVE program and (2) for selected states, the impact of the campaigns and challenges that exist in conducting the campaigns. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed fatality data, plans, and evaluations and interviewed officials from DOT and seven selected states.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: NHTSA has fully implemented the high-visibility enforcement program by (1) developing and disseminating advertising, (2) coordinating with states on media and enforcement activities, and (3) annually evaluating the effectiveness of the two HVE campaigns; however, NHTSA's evaluations have shortcomings that limit the agency's ability to determine the effectiveness of the campaigns. Regarding advertising, NHTSA introduced an annual plan in 2005 that sets forth a strategy for the campaign advertisements, developed advertisements, and purchased national media time for the advertisements. To coordinate with states, NHTSA provides an overall strategy and guidance to assist states in conducting the campaigns, as well as technical assistance and collateral materials, such as posters and model press releases. Officials in selected states reported that NHTSA's coordination efforts provided the support and interaction needed to conduct HVE campaigns. Although NHTSA's annual evaluations of campaign effectiveness indicate that the campaigns are helping to improve safety belt use and reduce impaired driving, the evaluations have shortcomings that limit NHTSA's ability to assess the level of state and local activity--a key component of the campaigns--and the overall effectiveness of the campaigns. For example, the information that NHTSA has on states' activities is inconsistent and incomplete because reporting of such data is generally voluntary for local law enforcement agencies. As a result, NHTSA has reported that it cannot provide meaningful analyses and comparisons of state activities. NHTSA's ability to measure the campaigns' overall effectiveness is also hindered because the performance measures used to evaluate the campaigns are not comprehensive. For example, while NHTSA measures daytime safety belt use, it does not directly measure nighttime safety belt use, despite recent efforts to increase safety belt use at night. In addition, NHTSA's evaluations do not include measures of the effectiveness of the campaigns at reaching all target audiences. NHTSA is working to develop more comprehensive performance measures. According to officials in selected states GAO visited, the campaigns are contributing to increased safety belt use and reduced alcohol-involved fatalities, but these states face challenges in conducting the campaigns and achieving desired results. From 1997 to 2006, safety belt use increased in all seven of the selected states, and each state experienced a decrease in the alcohol fatality rate. Officials in the selected states said that the campaigns provide additional benefits, such as apprehending suspects involved in other crimes. However, officials in those selected states identified several challenges, such as increasing safety belt use and reducing impaired driving among resistant populations; insufficient staff to conduct the campaigns; and weak prosecution of impaired-driving arrests. NHTSA has initiatives under way to help states address some of these challenges. For example, NHTSA has sponsored a campaign to increase safety belt use in rural areas. In addition, NHTSA provides funds that can be used by states to purchase equipment for local law enforcement agencies, such as breath-testing units, to encourage the agencies to participate in campaigns.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: More than 42,600 people died in traffic accidents during 2006. The failure  to use safety belts and driving while impaired by alcohol are two primary  risk behaviors related to these accidents. High-visibility enforcement  (HVE) campaigns that combine intensive enforcement of a specific traffic  safety law with extensive media communication to inform the public  about the campaign have been found effective in the United States and  other countries in helping reduce these behaviors. The Safe, Accountable,  Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users  (SAFETEA-LU), enacted in 2005, authorized funding for an HVE program,  including two primary HVE campaigns: Click It Or Ticket (CIOT), to  increase safety belt use, and Drunk Driving, Over the Limit, Under Arrest  (OTLUA), to decrease the number of impaired drivers. SAFETEA-LU  specified that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  (NHTSA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT) should  implement this program by developing and disseminating national  advertisements for the campaigns, coordinating with states to conduct the  campaigns, and evaluating the results of the campaigns; the law authorized  $29 million annually for NHTSA to implement the program. State and local  governments provide law enforcement resources for the campaigns—such  as officers, cars, and equipment for patrols or checkpoints—and may  supplement NHTSA’s national advertisements; these entities may use  federal traffic safety grants for such activities.
You requested that we assess the HVE program and campaigns.  Accordingly, this report addresses (1) the extent to which NHTSA has  implemented the HVE program and (2) for selected states, the impact of  the HVE campaigns and challenges that exist in conducting the campaigns.  This report also includes additional information on the key components of  HVE campaigns used by Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands (see app.  II).
To determine the extent that NHTSA has implemented the HVE program,  we analyzed information and interviewed officials from NHTSA  headquarters and regions; the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA);  and state traffic safety offices, state police, local police, and police  advocacy organizations in seven states—Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, North  Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Washington. We judgmentally  selected the states by including: states that have enacted various laws that  may affect how states conduct enforcement campaigns; states with a wide  range of traffic safety performance levels, such as extent of safety belt use  and number of alcohol-involved fatalities in each state; states with  differences in average size of law enforcement agencies; states that  exhibited various degrees of participation by state and local law  enforcement agencies in campaigns; and states that were geographically  dispersed. Since we used a nongeneralizable sampling approach, our  findings cannot be used to make inferences about all states that  implemented the HVE program. We also interviewed representatives of  nongovernmental organizations, including the American Association of  State Highway and Transportation Officials, Governors Highway Safety  Association (GHSA), International Association of Chiefs of Police, Mothers  Against Drunk Driving, National Safety Council, and the National Sheriffs  Association. In addition, we reviewed studies, reports, and laws relevant  to the implementation of the NHTSA HVE program. To determine, for  selected states, what impact the HVE campaigns have had and what  challenges exist, we analyzed safety belt use and alcohol-involved fatality  data and interviewed officials from state traffic safety offices, state police,  local police, and police advocacy organizations in the seven selected  states. We used data contained in NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting  System (FARS) database and vehicle miles traveled data maintained by  FHWA in its Highway Performance Monitoring System database. We  determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  report. For further details of our objectives, scope, and methodology, see  appendix I. We also provide a summary of high-visibility campaigns in  Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands, which can be found in appendix II.  We conducted this performance audit from March 2007 to April 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: During 2006, more than 42,600 drivers, occupants, cyclists, and pedestrians  died as a result of motor vehicle crashes. Over the 10-year period from  1997 through 2006, the number of motor vehicle fatalities per 100 million  vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has decreased by 14.1 percent, from 1.65 to  1.41. However, the number of fatalities annually has remained relatively  constant, showing only a slight increase of 1.5 percent, from 42,013 in 1997  to 42,642 in 2006 (see fig. 1).
Two primary behaviors related to fatal crashes are failure to use safety  belts and driving while impaired by alcohol. Research has found that using  lap and shoulder safety belts reduces the risk of fatal injury to front-seat  passenger car occupants by 45 percent and light-truck occupants by 60  percent. Overall, unrestrained fatalities have decreased over the last two  decades. From 1985 to 2006, the number of unrestrained fatalities  decreased from 23,236 in 1985 to 16,053 in 2006, while the unrestrained  fatality rate decreased by 0.78, from 1.31 to 0.53 fatalities per 100 million  vehicle miles traveled (see fig. 2). The greatest improvements were  achieved from 1989 to 1993, a period when most states passed initial safety  belt use laws. From 1984 to 1992, 8 states passed primary safety belt laws  that allow law enforcement officers to stop a driver for not wearing a  safety belt and issue a citation, and 33 states passed secondary safety belt  laws that allow law enforcement officers to issue a citation for not wearing  a safety belt only after the driver has been stopped for a separate offense.
While alcohol-impaired driving showed similar improvements from 1986 to  1994, progress has slowed, with a fluctuating number of alcohol-involved  fatalities and generally a declining alcohol-involved fatality rate from 1994  to 2006 (see fig. 3). From 1985 to 2006, the number of alcohol-involved  fatalities decreased by 4,964 people per year, and the alcohol-involved  fatality rate decreased by 0.63, from 1.13 to 0.50 fatalities per 100 million  vehicle miles traveled. According to NHTSA, the improvements during the  1980s and early 1990s were influenced by the passage in 1984 of a law that  withheld a portion of a state’s federal highway funds unless the state  established a 21-year-old minimum drinking age, the efforts of two  groups—the Presidential Commission Against Drunk Driving and Mothers  Against Drunk Driving—to galvanize public opinion about the damage  caused by impaired drivers, and states’ efforts to strengthen their  impaired-driving laws and increase enforcement of those laws. States  received incentives to strengthen their laws and enforcement of the laws  through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),  which was enacted in 1998. For example, TEA-21 authorized incentive  grants to states to enact a law to establish 0.08 blood alcohol content  (BAC) as the legal limit for drunken driving offenses. The TEA-21  Restoration Act provided added incentives to encourage states to adopt an  open container law that prohibits the possession of any open alcohol  beverage container in a motor vehicle and enact a law that provides for  specific penalties for individuals convicted of a second or subsequent  drunken driving offense. For states that did not enact the open alcoholic  beverage container and repeat drunken driving laws, the TEA-21  Restoration Act also included a provision to transfer a portion of those  states’ highway construction and maintenance funds to the state’s highway  safety program.
High-Visibility Enforcement (HVE) campaigns have been found effective  in the United States and other countries in helping to reduce these two  primary risk behaviors associated with fatal crashes. An HVE campaign  combines intensive enforcement of a specific traffic safety law with  extensive communication, education, and outreach informing the public  about the enforcement activity. For example, a safety belt campaign could  include several weeks during which television and radio commercials  warn motorists to buckle their safety belt or risk receiving a ticket from  increased law enforcement patrols, coupled with zero tolerance  enforcement of safety belt laws highly visible to motorists through law  enforcement techniques such as checkpoints and saturation patrols. Such  a combination of activities is designed to increase the public’s perception  that people who violate the law will be ticketed, arrested, convicted, or  punished, thereby persuading them to adhere to the law. HVE campaigns  have been used for several decades in the United States and other  countries to improve safety belt use and reduce impaired driving. Canada  initiated the first safety belt HVE campaigns in North America in the 1980s,  during which time a 1-month program in Ottawa, Ontario, increased belt  use from 58 percent to 80 percent. Based on the Canadian HVE campaigns,  the community of Elmira, New York, conducted the first safety belt HVE  effort in the United States in 1985 and raised its safety belt use rate from  49 percent to 77 percent in 3 weeks. Impaired-driving HVE campaigns have  also been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol-impaired driving since  1967 in Britain and since 1980 in New Zealand. In the 1980s, law  enforcement agencies around the United States began using sobriety  checkpoints to deter impaired driving. For example, a yearlong checkpoint  program in 1984 in Charlottesville, Virginia, was associated with a 13  percent reduction in alcohol-related crashes.
While HVE campaigns have proved effective in the United States and other  countries, selected other countries GAO reviewed generally have higher  safety belt use rates and lower impaired-driving fatality percentages than  the United States. For example, while the United States had a 2007 safety  belt use rate of 82 percent, Canada had a 2006-2007 safety belt use rate of  93 percent, Australia has a safety belt use rate of around 96 percent, and  the Netherlands had a 2005 safety belt use rate of 90 percent. An official  from Canada noted that, while HVE campaigns in the 1980s and early  1990s had been successful in improving Canada’s safety belt use rate, the  rate has remained stagnant over the last 10 years and that approximately  40 percent of Canada’s traffic fatalities still involved unbelted persons. The  official attributed the lack of further progress to the fact that most of the  last 10 percent of persons not wearing their safety belts are actively  choosing not to wear the belts. Officials from Australia and the  Netherlands noted that impaired-driving fatalities have been reduced in  their countries because law enforcement officials are allowed to stop  drivers at random to test the driver’s breath for alcohol. However, this  deterrent may be difficult to implement in the United States because other  than at sobriety checkpoints (which are not allowed in some states),  drivers cannot be stopped unless there is suspicious behavior or another  traffic offense involved. Appendix II provides further details on HVE  campaigns in other countries.
The CIOT and OTLUA campaigns typically span about 7 weeks (see fig. 4).  The CIOT campaign is conducted during May to coincide with Memorial  Day, and the OTLUA campaign is conducted during August and September  to cover Labor Day and again in December to cover the holiday season and  New Year’s Eve. The campaign activities conducted by NHTSA, state  traffic safety offices, state law enforcement agencies, and local law  enforcement agencies over the 7 weeks generally include the following:    Precampaign evaluation. Data such as safety belt use and public  knowledge and attitudes about traffic enforcement programs are collected  prior to the campaign to provide a baseline. States generally collect these  data through safety belt use surveys, department of motor vehicle driver  surveys, and telephone surveys.
Earned media. Earned media is unpaid coverage by broadcast and  published news services, such as a press conference or press release  provided by the state or local law enforcement officials. These media  events are used to announce the upcoming campaign, bring news coverage  to the ongoing enforcement effort, and update the public on the progress  and results of the campaign.
Paid media. Paid media includes advertisements on television and radio.
NHTSA purchases these advertisements nationwide, which are  strategically placed at times and places intended to maximize exposure to  selected audiences. For example, advertisements targeted toward 21- to  34-year-old men who are more likely to drive impaired might air on sports  programs during a time when the most people in the target audience are  likely to be watching and listening. States may augment the national  advertising with advertisements directed at state-level high-risk  populations such as pickup truck drivers or with taglines to let the  audience know that their local law enforcement agencies are involved in  the campaign.
Enforcement. Enforcement techniques by state and local law enforcement  agencies may include aggressive enforcement by routine patrols,  “saturation” patrols that increase the number of officers on patrol in a  specific area, and stationary checkpoints along roadsides. States and local  agencies may use traffic safety grant funds administered by NHTSA  through their state highway safety office to provide the increased level of  enforcement.
Postcampaign evaluation. Data are collected by states and local agencies  after the campaign in the same manner as the precampaign evaluations  and compared with precampaign data to identify changes in awareness of  the enforcement effort, measure progress toward campaign goals, and  measure the impact on traffic safety.
Campaigns that were held prior to 2003—often referred to as Selective  Traffic Enforcement Programs—typically relied on earned media such as  unpaid television and radio news stories to advertise the campaigns;  however, since 2003, Congress has funded nationwide paid advertising for  safety belt and impaired-driving campaigns. The use of paid media allows  advertisements to be placed at optimal times with high-quality messages  so the campaign can better reach its target audiences and maximize the  probability that the audience will pay attention to the advertisements,  whereas earned media placement and frequency are usually controlled by  station managers and may not be placed at optimal times. NHTSA used  funds authorized under TEA-21 for activities such as developing and  producing broadcast and print advertisements and providing media  technical assistance to the states. Although TEA-21, when enacted, did not  authorize funding to purchase national advertising for the campaigns,  Congress appropriated funding of $19 million in 2003 and $24 million in  2004 and 2005 for NHTSA to provide paid national advertising for both  campaigns. In 2005, SAFETEA-LU authorized $29 million in each of fiscal  years 2006 through 2009 for NHTSA to conduct a nationwide HVE  program. The program requirements included developing and  disseminating advertisements, coordinating with states, and annually  evaluating the effectiveness of the program. NHTSA uses available funding  to purchase national media time and conduct evaluations for the  campaigns (see table 1). NHTSA also uses funding from other highway  safety programs to develop the advertising and includes campaign  coordination efforts as a part of the agency’s ongoing coordination efforts  with states for other highway safety programs.  NHTSA officials report  that the increase in funding authorized by SAFETEA-LU—$5 million above  the annual funding level immediately prior to SAFETEA-LU—has allowed  them to increase the visibility and frequency of advertising for the two  enforcement campaigns during Memorial Day and Labor Day, as well as  allowed them to provide additional national advertising for the impaired- driving campaign during the December holiday season.
States have used federal traffic safety grants authorized in TEA-21 and  SAFETEA-LU—such as State and Community Highway Safety grants,  Safety Belt Use grants, and Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures  grants—to fund state and local campaign activities. States and local  governments use grant funds for activities such as paying overtime for law  enforcement officials to conduct sobriety checkpoints and saturation  patrols, purchasing paid advertising, training, conducting safety belt  surveys, and buying enforcement equipment. The states and local  governments are also allowed to use highway safety funding to provide  local advertising and educational campaigns in conjunction with the  national media campaign. When included in the state’s annual highway  safety plan, a state may also conduct campaigns in addition to the national  campaigns and provide sustained enforcement utilizing federal funds.  States also use grant funds to purchase law enforcement equipment such  as alcohol breath testers, radar units, and in-car video cameras to provide  incentives for local law enforcement agencies to participate in the  campaigns.
section_title: NHTSA Has Implemented the HVE Program but Could Improve the Annual Evaluations of Campaign Effectiveness
paragraphs: NHTSA has implemented the HVE program, including two high-visibility  traffic safety law enforcement campaigns to improve safety belt use and  reduce impaired driving. Specifically, to meet the requirements in place  since SAFETEA-LU, NHTSA has (1) developed and disseminated  advertisements, (2) coordinated with states to conduct the HVE  campaigns, and (3) evaluated the results of the campaigns. However, the  evaluations have shortcomings that limit NHTSA’s ability to assess the  level of state activity and the overall effectiveness of the campaigns.
subsections: section_title: NHTSA Has Developed an Advertising Plan, Created Advertising, and Purchased Media Time
paragraphs: To develop and disseminate advertising for the CIOT and OTLUA  campaigns, NHTSA has developed an advertising plan and hired a  contractor to create advertising materials for national and state use and  purchase national media time. Since 2005, NHTSA has annually developed  a National Communications Plan that sets forth a national HVE campaign  advertising strategy. For example, the plan specifies goals, dates, target  audiences, and core campaign messages for the campaigns. The plan also  identifies how the campaign advertising should be developed and  purchased to cost-effectively reach target audiences and includes links to  Web sites that contain additional guidance and advertising materials. State  traffic safety agencies can use these materials and develop supplemental  advertising materials following the guidance provided in the plan.
To create advertising materials, NHTSA contracts with a private  advertising firm to provide technical assistance and ad production,  including    modifying or updating national and state ads,    developing a national plan to purchase media,  reviewing states’ plans to purchase media, and   negotiating and purchasing air time for national ads.
National ads are produced in several media formats and languages. Media  formats include television, radio, magazines, newspapers, and alternative  media. Broadcast television, cable television, and radio are the three most  used media formats to advertise HVE campaigns, accounting for about 85  percent of the amount that NHTSA spends on campaign advertising.  NHTSA has also begun to use the Internet to reach the target audience of  young males by placing advertising messages into online games, social  sites such as Face Book, and sports sites such as ESPN.com. These  national ads are primarily produced in English and Spanish. NHTSA  officials reported that they considered developing advertising for  additional non-English-speaking populations and made the decision that it  was not cost effective. However, they encourage states to develop  materials for other non-English-speaking populations that are prevalent in  the state’s population. NHTSA’s contractor also refreshes existing ads  because, according to NHTSA officials, they can reduce costs by updating  ads with new taglines or messages rather than creating new ads each year.  For example, NHTSA darkened an existing television ad that had been  filmed in the daytime to make it appear as though it were night to support  an enforcement message for nighttime safety belt use.
To purchase media time for the national ads, the NHTSA contractor  prepares a plan to purchase media for NHTSA’s approval and release  before each national campaign. This plan identifies the advertising period,  the media budget, target audience profiles, a strategy for purchasing the  media, and the allocation of funds for different media formats. The  allocation is based on reaching the campaign target audience as frequently  and cost effectively as possible, the target audiences’ use of the various  media types, and the cost of placing the advertisements. For example,  prime-time broadcast television reaches many young men, but because it  is expensive, NHTSA may build the desired frequency of reaching the  young men with cable television or radio, which is less expensive. NHTSA  is increasing funds allocated for Hispanic media outlets, based on fatality  and census data, and alternative media outlets as young men spend more  time on the Internet. For example, the allocation for Hispanic media for  the impaired-driving campaign increased from 5 percent to 12 percent  from 2004 to 2007, and the allocation for alternative media in the safety  belt campaign has increased from 0 percent to 5 percent from 2004 to  2007.
Once NHTSA approves the plan to purchase media, the contractor  negotiates with media providers—such as television or radio networks— to purchase media. The contractor also negotiates for value-added media,  which is advertising time that a television or radio network may provide to  NHTSA at no additional cost because the network supports the campaign  message. After a campaign, the media contractor provides an analysis of  the effectiveness of the media formats, including the extent to which the  formats reached the target audience, the cost to reach the audience, and  the dollar value of the value-added media.
The National Communications Plan, the plans to purchase media, and  other resources that NHTSA uses to advertise its campaigns include  elements of the key practices we have previously identified through an  expert panel as important to planning a consumer education campaign,  motivating a target audience, and alleviating challenges in a campaign.  The key practices include the following:    Define goals and objectives. NHTSA has established goals to reduce  deaths and injuries from crashes on our nation’s highways by increasing  the number of people regularly using safety belts and decrease the number  of impaired drivers on the road.
Analyze the situation. NHTSA applies research, lessons learned, and  other knowledge such as program evaluations to develop an integrated  year-round marketing campaign designed to modify behavior with a  calendar of events timed to coincide with national holidays and  celebrations, which have an increased number of traffic fatalities.
Identify stakeholders. NHTSA engages national, state, and local partners,  such as coalitions, highway safety offices, and law enforcement agencies  across the country, to be involved in the calendar of events. In addition,  the communications plan identifies the need to look for marketing  alliances with sports organizations and other corporations that already  carry powerful brands important to NHTSA’s target audiences.
Identify resources. Annual funding for the national campaigns is  authorized in SAFETEA-LU through fiscal year 2009. NHTSA identifies the  resources available for each campaign in the plan for purchasing media.
Research target audiences. NHTSA reviews existing research and surveys  to help segment and target the key audiences, identifying preferences,  beliefs, competing behaviors, and motivators.
Develop consistent, clear messages. The National Communications Plan  specifies the need to maintain a strong CIOT and OTLUA brand-name  status through consistency in presentation and broad geographical  coverage.
Identify credible messengers. The credibility of the message lies in the  combination of the message with a high level of enforcement, creating a  general deterrence effect that increases the public perception that drivers  are likely to receive a citation. The advertisements use law enforcement  officers, who increase the credibility of the message. Additionally, the  messages are produced and presented through media intended to appeal  to the intended target audience, such as teens, pickup truck drivers, and  rural audiences.
Design media mix. NHTSA identifies the target audiences and appropriate  media for target audiences to allocate media funding.
Establish metrics to measure success. NHTSA’s media contractor  analyzes the results of each campaign to evaluate whether the message  reached the intended target audience in the time period intended, and  NHTSA reports how the campaign reached the target market.
section_title: State Officials Report That NHTSA’s Coordination Efforts Help Them Conduct Successful Campaigns
paragraphs: NHTSA coordinates with the states and provides resources to help states  carry out the campaigns through several means, including the National  Communications Plan, guidance on conducting HVE campaigns, technical  assistance on advertisements, and collateral advertising materials.  Officials in selected states reported that NHTSA’s coordination efforts  provided the support and interaction needed to successfully conduct HVE  campaigns. For example, officials from one state noted that NHTSA  assisted them in applying for federal traffic safety grants to conduct  campaigns and provided tool kits that were useful in developing the  campaigns. Officials from another state reported that NHTSA had  improved the quality and timeliness of advertising materials, allowing  them to devote more state resources to purchasing radio and television  ads rather than developing the ads.
The annual National Communications Plan disseminates a strategy for  states to conduct occupant protection and impaired-driving events  throughout the year, including the CIOT and OTLUA campaigns.  Specifically, the National Communications Plan sets out the following:    a primary purpose for each event, such as “to support enforcement  activities and to remind all partygoers of the dangers of impaired driving”;   dates for the events;    messages to be emphasized, such as “Drunk Driving, Over the Limit, Under    primary and secondary target audiences, such as men, ages 21 to 34; and    potential themes, such as “Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving—Designate a  Sober Driver.”
The National Communication Plan also provides links to Web sites  containing guidance for states in conducting campaigns, such as  www.TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov. NHTSA also provides further guidance,  such as the Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs, which  includes guidance for both occupant protection and impaired driving; and  case studies of HVE campaigns, such as NHTSA’s “Creating Impaired  Driving General Deterrence—Eight Case Studies of Sustained, High- Visibility, Impaired-Driving Enforcement.”
NHTSA also furnishes technical advice and collateral materials to assist  states with advertising for the campaigns. To provide technical support to  states, NHTSA’s contractor may, when requested by state officials,  evaluate states’ proposed media purchases and make suggestions for  improvement. The evaluation includes reviewing states’ proposed target  demographics, budget, and purchase of advertising time to provide  guidance on the appropriateness of the purchase. These evaluations are  intended to help states effectively reach target audiences. NHTSA also  provides collateral materials such as posters, Web banners, talking points,  and model press releases. States may download these materials directly  from NHTSA’s Web site. These materials are designed to support the  various events set out in the National Communications Plan.
section_title: NHTSA’s Annual Evaluations Are Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data
paragraphs: NHTSA’s annual evaluations of the HVE campaigns include information on  the level of enforcement activity and the results of the campaigns based on  performance measures, such as message awareness, earned media  activity, safety belt use, and fatality and injury statistics. For example, the  CIOT evaluation includes information on the number of law enforcement  agencies that reported enforcement activities and the number of safety  belt citations issued by these agencies; this information showed that the  number of citations issued increased from 2004 to 2005, even though the  number of reporting agencies declined. Regarding message awareness, the  OTLUA annual evaluation includes information from NHTSA’s annual  national telephone surveys, which found that the impaired-driving  message was reaching the general public—especially the 18- to 34-year-old  target audience—although the awareness did not carry over from  campaign to campaign. The CIOT report showed that safety belt use rates  generally increased following the 2005 campaign, and the OTLUA report  showed that the number of alcohol-impaired drivers involved in fatal  crashes decreased overall from 2001 to 2005.
However, the data on HVE campaign activity—such as the number of  agencies participating in the campaigns, hours worked by law  enforcement officers, citations issued, DUI enforcement actions, and  advertisements purchased by states—that states report to NHTSA are not  complete or consistent; this situation limits NHTSA’s ability to evaluate  the overall level of state enforcement and advertising activity and the  extent to which states use federal funding—through traffic safety grants— to support HVE campaigns. Because these campaigns—other than the  media developed and purchased by NHTSA—are carried out by states,  these data are the only way to determine whether the level of activity is  changing from year to year and whether NHTSA is effectively leveraging  state and local resources. According to NHTSA officials, states are not  required to report all HVE activity, although in recent years states have  voluntarily reported the level of activity for selected law enforcement  agencies—generally those agencies that receive federal grants for HVE  activities. However, such voluntary reporting can cause substantial  variances in data from campaign to campaign and year to year. For the  campaigns conducted from 2003 through 2006, an average of three states  did not report on campaign activity for each campaign, and between 22  percent to 52 percent of the law enforcement agencies that indicated they  would participate in the campaigns did not report on campaign activity.
Of the agencies that do report, the data reported are not consistent among  law enforcement agencies or states. For example, some agencies include  all activities and others include only the federally funded portion of their  activities. In addition, some states only require a portion of the activities to  be reported by agencies and leave reporting on other NHTSA requested  activities as optional. As a result, the types of activity data collected from  state to state vary. For example, in the May 2006 CIOT campaign, while 49  states reported having participating agencies, only 37 states reported the  hours worked and only 36 states reported the number of earned media TV  spots. Due to these inconsistencies, NHTSA has reported that it is not  possible to provide meaningful analyses and comparisons of state  activities to conduct HVE campaigns.
NHTSA and Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) officials  stressed that law enforcement agencies are less likely to report if they  receive little or no federal highway safety grant funding for enforcement  activities. GHSA officials—who represent the state highway safety  offices—suggested that simplifying reports and limiting the amount of data  required may improve reporting. While it is important for NHTSA to limit  reporting requirements for states, state and local law enforcement is a  critical component of HVE campaigns that NHTSA currently cannot  measure. A minimum set of core reporting requirements—such as the  number of agencies reporting data, number of law enforcement labor  hours applied to the mobilization, number of impaired-driving arrests  made during the mobilization, number of safety belt violation citations  issued, and amount spent on television, radio, print, and other ads from  agencies that receive federal funding for these activities—would minimize  the reporting burden while allowing NHTSA to more thoroughly and  consistently measure the level of state activity over time and provide  accountability for federal funding.
To learn more about the extent of participation by local law enforcement  agencies, NHTSA collected information from a sample of law enforcement  agencies that conducted campaigns independent of the national  mobilization evaluations or that had received federal traffic safety grants.  NHTSA sought a representative sample of law enforcement agencies that  had at least 10 years of citation and arrest data on a monthly basis in order  to track enforcement activities over time and compare enforcement  activities before, during, and after the CIOT and OTLUA campaigns. The  results of this data collection effort will be reported in the Evaluation of  the 2006 CIOT Campaign (to be released later in 2008). This attempt to  obtain more reliable and representative information has faced several  obstacles, including difficulties in defining a representative sample of law  enforcement agencies, locating and securing the cooperation of agencies  that had 10 years of citation and arrest data, and finding agencies that  would provide the data on a monthly basis.
NHTSA’s effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the HVE campaigns is also  hindered, in part, because NHTSA’s performance measures are not  comprehensive. For example, while NHTSA measures the change in  daytime safety belt use for the driver and right front passenger in  passenger cars, vans, sports utility vehicles, and pickup trucks, it does not  directly measure nighttime safety belt use, despite recent efforts to  increase the use of safety belts at night. Specifically, NHTSA is working  with the states of Washington, North Carolina, and West Virginia in pilot  programs to evaluate the use of different enforcement strategies for  increasing nighttime safety belt use. NHTSA and the states expect to  report the results of these pilot programs by the end of 2008. In addition,  NHTSA is preparing an enforcement guide on the different approaches  states may use for nighttime enforcement during the 2008 CIOT campaign.
The annual evaluations also include limited information on performance  measures for the effectiveness of NHTSA’s advertisements. For example,  while the evaluations include information on the extent to which the  advertisements are reaching the primary target audience, the evaluations  did not measure the extent to which the advertisements reached special- emphasis audiences identified in the 2005 National Communications  Plan, such as pickup truck drivers and Hispanics for the CIOT campaign.  The impaired-driving report also did not evaluate the extent to which the  advertisements had reached other targeted audiences, such as college  students, men ages 35 to 59, and young women 21 to 25 who were also  identified in the 2005 National Communications Plan, and did not include  the media dollar allocation to show how NHTSA had advertised to non- English-speaking populations and used nontraditional media. Without  this information, NHTSA cannot evaluate the extent to which the  campaigns are meeting the goals set out in the National Communications  Plans.
NHTSA officials recognize the need for more comprehensive performance  measures, and—through a contractor—the agency is developing additional  performance measures to address these issues. The statement of work for  the contractor specifies that the purpose of the project is to develop a  minimum set of performance measures that could be used by federal,  state, and local governments for traffic safety areas, including high- visibility enforcement campaigns. The deadline for this work is August  2008. However, NHTSA officials stated that the key requirement for  developing effective performance measures is accurate and  comprehensive data and that existing data available to states are not  sufficient to mandate more specific performance measures. As a result,  NHTSA plans to recommend—not require—the new performance  measures to states. It is unlikely that all states will voluntarily report the  same performance indicators in a consistent and comprehensive manner  sufficient to allow national comparisons without specific required  measures.
section_title: Selected State Officials Report That HVE Campaigns Are Contributing to Increased Safety Belt Use and Reduced Fatalities, but Several Challenges Hinder Further Progress
paragraphs: According to officials in selected states we visited, HVE campaigns are  contributing to increased safety belt use and reduced alcohol-involved  fatalities. From 1997 to 2006, safety belt use increased in all seven of the  selected states, and four of those states exceeded the 2006 NHTSA goal for  safety belt use (82 percent). In addition to increases in safety belt use,  from 1997 to 2006, each selected state’s alcohol fatality rate decreased,  and, in 2006, five of the seven states met the NHTSA goal pertaining to  alcohol-involved fatality rates. Despite the gains made so far, officials from  these states reported facing several challenges: increasing safety belt use  and reducing impaired driving among resistant populations; insufficient  staff to conduct the campaigns; and weak prosecution of DUI arrests.  NHTSA and the states are taking steps to help address these challenges.
subsections: section_title: Officials in Selected States Report That HVE Campaigns Are Contributing to Increased Use of Safety Belts and Reduced Fatalities from Impaired Drivers
paragraphs: HVE campaigns are contributing to increased safety belt use and reduced  alcohol-involved fatalities, according to officials in selected states we  visited. Specifically, all of the selected states experienced increased safety  belt use and reduced alcohol-involved fatality rates in the last 10 years,  and state officials attributed these improvements, in part, to participation  in HVE campaigns.
According to NHTSA data, between 1997 and 2006, safety belt use  increased in all of the selected states, although some states experienced  larger increases than other states. According to NHTSA survey data on  safety belt use, the increase in safety belt use from 1997 to 2006 ranged  from a 6.5 percentage point increase in North Carolina to a 29.6  percentage point increase in North Dakota. The overall increase in safety  belt use nationwide from 1997 to 2006 was 12 percentage points (see fig.  5).
The range in improvements in safety belt use rates from 1997 to 2006 can  be attributed in part to the safety belt use rate each state had achieved by  1997. For example, in 1997, North Carolina had achieved an 82 percent  safety belt use rate, which exceeded the U.S. average safety belt use rate  of 69 percent at that time. In contrast, North Dakota’s safety belt use rate  in 1997 was only 49 percent.
In 2006, safety belt use in the seven selected states ranged from 69 percent  in Arkansas to 96 percent in Washington. Nationwide, safety belt use in  2006 ranged from a low of 64 percent in New Hampshire and Wyoming to  Washington’s 96 percent. Safety belt use in four of the selected states we  visited—Illinois, Iowa, North Carolina, and Washington—exceeded the  2006 NHTSA safety belt use goal of 82 percent. All four of these states had  a primary safety belt law in place by 2006. Safety belt use rates for 2006 in  Arkansas, Rhode Island, and North Dakota—states without a primary  safety belt law—fell short of the 2006 federal goal (see fig. 6).
According to officials, selected states’ HVE campaigns are also  contributing to reducing alcohol-involved fatality rates. From 1997 to 2006,  all of the selected states experienced a decrease in alcohol-involved  fatality rates. The decrease in the alcohol-involved fatality rate during this  period ranged from 22 percent in Rhode Island and North Dakota to 3  percent in Arkansas. Five of the seven selected states experienced  declines in alcohol-involved fatality rates that were greater than the  overall U.S. decrease of 12 percent (see fig. 7).
In 2006, alcohol-involved fatality rates in the seven selected states ranged  from 0.62 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in Arkansas to 0.4  in Rhode Island. Nationwide, the average alcohol-involved fatality rate in  2006 was 0.50 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. In 2006, five  of the seven selected states experienced fatality rates that were lower than  the NHTSA goal of 0.51 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.  North Dakota and Arkansas experienced alcohol-involved fatality rates in  2006 that fell short of the NHTSA goal (see fig. 8).
Officials from the selected states we visited also identified other benefits  that result from participating in HVE campaigns. For example, North  Carolina and Iowa officials said that, during HVE campaigns, the  additional officers staffing checkpoints or on patrol are able to apprehend  suspects in other crimes and write citations for traffic violations such as  speeding; this increased level of enforcement activity contributes to  improvements in overall traffic safety. For example, during a 2006 CIOT  campaign in North Carolina, the state Department of Transportation  reported that it issued over 23,000 speeding tickets but also arrested 699  fugitives and recovered 141 stolen vehicles. Iowa officials also said that  HVE campaigns yield benefits in that they will often find drugs or stolen  property when stopping vehicles, and the campaigns serve to improve  relationships between law enforcement personnel and the community. In  addition, another benefit is that law enforcement agencies can use the  equipment purchased for HVE campaigns—such as patrol cars, vehicle  cameras, and BAC testing equipment—to enhance traffic safety  enforcement efforts throughout the year.
section_title: Selected States Face Several Challenges in Conducting HVE Campaigns
paragraphs: Despite the gains made so far, several challenges hinder further progress  in carrying out the HVE campaigns. The challenges cited by officials from  the states we visited include: increasing safety belt use and reducing  impaired driving among resistant populations; insufficient staff to conduct  the campaigns; and weak prosecution of DUI arrests. Reviews of NHTSA’s  HVE campaigns from DOT’s Office of the Inspector General and the  National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have found similar  challenges.
subsections: section_title: Challenge in Increasing Safety Belt Use and Reducing Impaired Driving among Resistant Populations
paragraphs: Officials in selected states face the challenge of increasing safety belt use  and reducing impaired driving among resistant populations, such as  drivers in rural areas, pickup truck drivers, and hardcore drinking drivers.  For example, statistics show that more drivers in rural areas resist wearing  safety belts. Though recent progress has been made, in general, rural areas  have a higher proportion of fatal crashes and traffic fatalities than in urban  areas. In a recent NHTSA analysis of urban and rural fatalities, NHTSA  reported that rural fatalities accounted for 55 percent of fatal crashes and  57 percent of traffic fatalities in 2006 even though only 23 percent of the  U.S. population lived in rural areas, according to 2006 Census estimates.  Several factors in addition to lower safety belt use contribute to this  disparity, including higher alcohol-involved crash rates, higher speed, rural  roads that are narrow or have sharp curves, and less access to emergency  services in rural areas. Crashes in rural areas are also more likely to  involve occupants who are ejected from vehicles because they are not  wearing safety belts. According to one study, of the 5,959 people who died  in rural crashes where a vehicle occupant was ejected or partially ejected  from the vehicle, 92 percent were unbelted or were not properly restrained  in a child safety seat. Statistics show that pickup truck drivers are also  resistant to changing their safety belt habits. Compared with other drivers,  pickup truck drivers are more resistant to wearing safety belts. In 2007,  according to NHTSA, 72 percent of pickup truck drivers were belted  compared with 84 percent of passenger car drivers. This lower safety belt  use by pickup truck drivers and their passengers can lead to more vehicle  occupant ejections and fatalities.
NHTSA and the states are taking steps to increase rural safety belt use and  have developed programs targeting pickup truck drivers. In 2006, for  example, a NHTSA report outlined several strategies that states and local  communities could use to improve their rural safety belt programs and  provided examples of leading enforcement and communication programs  in many states. Illinois, one of selected states we visited, targeted rural  safety belt use in 2005 by participating in a NHTSA Great Lakes Region  Rural Demonstration program. The program involved intensified  enforcement and paid media to alert residents in targeted rural areas that  safety belt laws would be enforced. During the program, Illinois aired  television and radio ads in five media markets that include rural areas and  conducted safety belt enforcement zones by stopping vehicles if an  unbuckled occupant was observed. Observational surveys of safety belt  use in the targeted rural areas in Illinois showed belt use increased from a  baseline of 78.5 percent before the Rural Demonstration program to 81.5  percent after the program. Other states are also taking steps to increase  safety belt use in rural areas. For example, Washington state developed a  corridor program to improve traffic safety and safety belt use for one of its  rural roads by increasing enforcement and installing signs to remind  drivers to buckle up. Another example is in Iowa, where a rural youth  organization expanded a program called “Farm Safety Just 4 Kids” to  improve safety belt use among younger drivers in rural areas.
NHTSA and the states have also taken actions to address the challenge of  increasing belt use by drivers and occupants of pickup trucks. For  example, in 2000, NHTSA initiated a study to identify safety belt use rates  and important characteristics of pickup truck drivers and passengers,  review public information campaigns intended for pickup truck drivers,  obtain qualitative information about pickup truck drivers’ knowledge and  attitudes about safety belt use, and make suggestions for the development  of future campaigns targeting pickup truck drivers. Some of the selected  states, in concert with NHTSA, have participated in special campaigns that  are designed to increase safety belt use in pickup trucks. Both Arkansas  and North Carolina, working with their NHTSA regional offices,  participated in safety belt campaigns in 2006 called “Buckle Up in Your  Truck.” In Arkansas, the campaign ran during 2 weeks in May, and the ads  for the campaign aired in five media markets. The ads ran at times and on  programs that are popular with young males who are more likely to be  driving pickup trucks. An analysis of a 2005 “Buckle Up in Your Truck”  campaign in Alabama showed a greater than 4 percent increase in safety  belt use in pickup trucks.
Officials in selected states also face the challenge of reducing impaired  driving among hardcore drinking drivers. Hardcore drinking drivers are  those who drive with a BAC of 0.15 or greater. According to the NTSB,  hardcore drinking drivers are involved in 54 percent of alcohol-involved  fatalities, and these drivers are likely to be repeat drinking drivers. NHTSA  and the states have taken steps to address this challenge. In August 2007,  NHTSA recommended increased use of ignition interlock devices—an in- car breath tester connected to the ignition that prevents the vehicle from  starting if the device registers a BAC over a specified limit—as part of a  penalty against repeat drunken driving offenders. In addition, NHTSA has  published uniform guidelines for state highway safety programs that call  for states to enact laws such as high BAC and repeat offender laws with  increased sanctions for each offense. Many states have enacted these laws.  For example, 39 states and the District of Columbia impose higher  penalties for drivers with BAC levels of 0.15 and above. In addition, 43  states and the District of Columbia have repeat offender laws to  discourage multiple alcohol offenses. All of the seven selected states have  enacted these laws.
section_title: Challenge in Staffing
paragraphs: Another challenge that hinders further progress in increasing safety belt  use and reducing impaired driving is that law enforcement agencies report  that they do not always have a sufficient number of officers to conduct  HVE campaigns, even though traffic safety grants can be used for law  enforcement officers to staff checkpoints or saturation patrols. This  shortage of officers may affect HVE activities that occur during normal  work hours and when HVE activities are staffed by officers working  overtime.
The challenge of finding a sufficient number of officers to conduct HVE  campaign work during normal work hours can occur for various reasons.  For example, some law enforcement agencies said they do not have  sufficient staffing levels to conduct both regular police work and frequent  HVE campaign enforcement activities. In one city we visited, crime  enforcement needs took priority over traffic enforcement, officials said.  For example, until recently, Providence, Rhode Island, devoted most of its  policing resources to reducing violent crime. However, with a reduction in  violent crime, Providence has been able to increase the number of officers  working on traffic safety and HVE campaign activities. Officials also stated  that regular staffing levels were being depleted because many of their  officers have been called up for duty in the armed forces. Other factors  that impact police department staffing levels, according to one 2005 study,  include additional homeland security duties in many jurisdictions that lead  to an increased workload for local police, as well as a potentially smaller  pool of qualified applicants because of previous drug use and lack of  physical condition. In addition, some law enforcement agencies may have  too few personnel to conduct HVE activities—staffing a full-scale sobriety  checkpoint, for example, can require 10 or more officers.
In addition to the challenge of finding sufficient staff for HVE activities  during regular hours, officials in some of the law enforcement agencies we  visited reported that they are also having a difficult time getting enough  officers to sign up for overtime to work on HVE campaigns. For example,  officials in North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Washington said that one of  the challenges in getting a sufficient number of officers to work overtime  is that there are often other opportunities for overtime work, such as  working in a work-zone patrol car at a highway construction site or as a  security guard at a mall. Some officers prefer these opportunities over DUI  enforcement because DUI enforcement involves a greater amount of effort  and paperwork compared with other duties.
Though NHTSA continues to provide funding through traffic safety grants,  NHTSA has taken other steps to assist state and local law enforcement  agencies in providing adequate staff for HVE campaigns. For example,  NHTSA provides funds that states can use to provide equipment, such as  breath-testing units, that are used as incentives to improve participation.  NHTSA also provides guidance on how to make better use of existing  resources. For example, NHTSA created a set of guidelines on sobriety  checkpoints that outlines ways that small law enforcement agencies with  limited staff can conduct effective sobriety checkpoints with fewer  officers.
States are also taking steps to address the staffing challenge. For example,  to encourage officers to participate in enforcement campaigns, some  states have developed programs to recognize officers for their  contributions. In 2006, the Rhode Island Office of Highway Safety  increased recognition for HVE work by giving awards to officers who  worked overtime in enforcement campaigns targeting drunken driving and  drivers not wearing safety belts. In addition, Arkansas has initiated a  recognition program for exemplary performance in DUI work. One way of  addressing staffing limitations in states with relatively small, neighboring  law enforcement agencies is to conduct multijurisdictional enforcement  activities. By pooling operations, according to NHTSA officials, 5 to10  small agencies are able to concentrate appreciable resources during an  HVE campaign mobilization period. For example, North Dakota is  developing a multiagency approach to address the challenge of bringing  together sufficient resources to staff DUI checkpoints.
section_title: Weak Prosecution of DUI Arrests
paragraphs: Another challenge for implementing HVE campaigns is weak prosecution  of DUI arrests. Based on our interviews with selected state and NHTSA  officials and our review of reports and studies, the main factors that  contribute to weak DUI prosecution are as follows:    Court systems have heavy caseloads and limited resources. Therefore, DUI  cases may be given a lower priority compared with more violent crimes.  According to a 2002 panel convened by the National Association of State  Judicial Educators, this results in prolonged adjudication of DUI cases and  increased likelihood of dismissals and acquittals. States often lack  sufficient funds to establish special courts to more effectively process DUI  cases and to provide the supervised probation and treatment that DUI  offenders often require.
Some law enforcement officials and prosecutors lack the necessary  knowledge and training to consistently prosecute DUI cases. In some  cases, the DUI charge may be dismissed because an officer lacks proper  training. For example, an arresting officer may not have taken enough  notes on the DUI arrest to testify in sufficient detail during the trial. In  other cases, the DUI charge may be dismissed because the prosecutor did  not have sufficient training to effectively prosecute DUI cases. However,  many prosecutors view themselves as often not sufficiently prepared for  their first DUI cases. A 2002 survey of prosecutors found that 48 percent  believed they did not have adequate training or preparation before they  began handling DUI cases. In addition, prosecutors and judges have to be  knowledgeable in the complex aspects of DUI cases, including relevant  legal rulings and admissibility of evidence as well as more scientific and  technical issues such as blood alcohol testing procedures. The National  Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE) panel cited several  challenges that judges handling DUI cases face, including that DUI cases  are frequently plea-bargained, which may undermine the deterrent value of  the arrest.
Though states have a primary role in improving prosecution, NHTSA has  provided guidance, funded training programs, and provided grants to  states that can be used for more effective prosecution of DUI offenders.  In February 2007, in cooperation with the National District Attorneys  Association, NHTSA issued guidelines for improving testimony, note  taking, and evidence gathering procedures by officers. NHTSA has also  developed courses designed to improve prosecutorial skills, including one  course on prosecuting DUI cases and another course that examines  complex cases involving alcohol-involved crashes and provides training on  how to prosecute these cases effectively and respond to challenges  presented by the defense. NHTSA has also provided funding for systems  that allow states to share information on effective DUI prosecution. For  example, with NHTSA funding, NASJE is developing a clearinghouse for  the exchange of materials, techniques, and information on DUI  prosecution.
Selected states have also developed initiatives to address the challenge of  more effectively prosecuting DUI cases. For example, Arkansas has  developed a judicial training project initiative that includes training for  judges and officers on DUI prosecution and additional training for about  400 officers on conducting field sobriety testing. In June 2006, Illinois used  HVE 410 grant funding to conduct a 2-day seminar for 23 judges, which  included training on sentencing and evidentiary issues.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: HVE enforcement campaigns have been shown to be effective tools in  raising public awareness of and encouraging compliance with safety belt  and impaired-driving laws. NHTSA has fulfilled the requirements for  implementing an HVE program by developing advertising, coordinating  with states, and evaluating the effectiveness of the campaigns. Although  state officials we spoke with reported that NHTSA’s coordination efforts  helped them implement HVE campaigns, they also cited several challenges  to conducting campaigns and achieving desired results—resistant  populations, insufficient staffing, and inconsistent DUI prosecution—that  may be limiting the effectiveness of the campaigns. NHTSA is  implementing some initiatives—such as the “Buckle Up In Your Truck”  campaign to promote safety belt use among rural pickup truck drivers—to  help states address these challenges. However, the challenges of  insufficient staffing and inconsistent DUI prosecution are primarily state  issues and largely out of NHTSA’s control to influence under the current  program. While NHTSA’s performance measures indicate that the  campaign messages are reaching the primary target audiences and  positively affecting behaviors, NHTSA’s assessments of campaign  effectiveness do not provide a complete picture of the impact of HVE  campaigns. For example, NHTSA lacks the data to consistently measure a  key component of the campaigns—the level of state and local activities— and evaluate the use of federal funds used by states for campaign  activities. Furthermore, the performance measures reported in the  assessments are limited and do not provide information on the impact of  the campaigns in areas such as nighttime safety belt use and  advertisements for all target audiences. The assessments would be  improved by more complete and consistent information on federally  funded state campaign activities and a more comprehensive set of  performance measures.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve NHTSA’s evaluations of the HVE campaigns, we recommend  that the Secretary of Transportation direct NHTSA to take the following  two actions:    Develop a minimum core set of reporting requirements for states to  consistently report HVE law enforcement and media activities funded with  federal dollars. These requirements should be designed to achieve a more  consistent measure of state activity and accountability for federal funding  without presenting an undue burden to states.
Develop and include additional performance measures—such as a  measure for nighttime safety belt use and additional measures of media  effectiveness—in the agency’s annual evaluations of the effectiveness of  the two campaigns.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT for its review and comment.  DOT officials—including the Senior Associate Administrator of Traffic  Injury Control—generally agreed with the findings and recommendations  of the report.
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) 512-2834 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 III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the extent that the National Highway Traffic Safety  Administration (NHTSA) has implemented the high-visibility enforcement  program, and evaluated results, we reviewed information and interviewed  officials from NHTSA and representatives of nongovernmental  organizations, including the American Association of State Highway and  Transportation Officials, Governors Highway Safety Association,  International Association of Chiefs of Police, Mothers Against Drunk  Driving, National Safety Council, and the National Sheriffs Association. In  addition, we reviewed studies, reports, and laws relevant to the  implementation and evaluation of NHTSA’s and other high-visibility  enforcement programs. We also interviewed state officials to obtain their  views on NHTSA’s assistance with campaign activities in seven states— Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and  Washington. We judgmentally selected the states to include those with  laws that may affect how states conduct enforcement campaigns; states  with a wide range of traffic safety performance levels, such as safety belt  use and number of alcohol-involved fatalities, and states with different  sizes of law enforcement agencies and with various degrees of  participation in campaigns. In selecting states based on differences in laws  that affect campaign enforcement, we included states that adopted  primary safety belt laws before or after 1997 and states that have not  enacted a primary safety belt law. In selecting states based on levels of  traffic safety performance, we included states that, when ranked  nationally, fell into the upper, lower, and middle third in safety belt use,  unbuckled fatalities, and alcohol-related fatal crash ratio. To select states  based on size of state law enforcement agencies, we looked at the average  number of sworn officers reported by those agencies. To select states  based on participation by law enforcement agencies, we chose states that  had varying reported percentages of participation in HVE campaigns, the  extent that agencies reported campaign hours worked, and whether law  enforcement agencies used checkpoints while conducting the HVE  campaigns from 2003 through 2006. In selecting the states, we used a  nongeneralizable sampling approach, and, consequently, the results  cannot be used to make inferences about all of the states.
We used data contained in NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System  (FARS) database to analyze information on all traffic-related fatalities.
Each state provides NHTSA fatality data in a standardized format. To be  included in the database, a crash must result in the death of an occupant  or nonmotorist within 30 days of the incident. The states obtain this  information from such sources as police reports, vehicle registration files,  state driver licensing files, death certificates, coroner or medical examiner  reports, and hospital records. It should be noted that while fatality data  are useful in understanding crashes, other factors in addition to those  involved in causing the crash might have contributed to the fatality. This  would include whether safety belt or other occupant protection measures  were used and functioned properly. Further, in providing information on  state fatality rate trends, we identified fatalities per million miles traveled.  To do so, we used vehicle miles traveled data maintained by Federal  Highway Administration in its Highway Performance Monitoring System  (HPMS). HPMS is a national-level highway information system that  includes data on the extent, condition, performance, use, and operating  characteristics of the nation’s highways. HPMS obtains vehicle-miles- traveled data from each state, and states have different methods for  collecting certain travel information. There are certain limitations  associated with using these data. For example, the quality of the data in  the system relies on state data collection techniques. HPMS guidance is  flexible, so that each state has its own approach, and some approaches do  not require annual revisions. In addition, vehicle-miles-traveled data may  not be comparable from state to state. We have previously assessed the  reliability of the FARS and HPMS data by reviewing it for obvious errors in  accuracy and completeness, reviewing existing information about the  data, and interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data and  determined that the data is sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  report.
To determine the impact of the high-visibility enforcement campaigns and  what challenges exist, we interviewed officials from state highway traffic  safety offices, state police, and local police in the seven selected states.  For each state we visited, we also interviewed officials in the applicable  NHTSA regional office and, when available, representatives of state  associations of chiefs of police and sheriffs’ associations about the impact  of the HVE campaigns and challenges they faced. In addition, we reviewed  the state highway safety plans and annual reports and other relevant  reports for information on HVE campaign activities and challenges. We  also provide a summary of high-visibility campaigns in Australia, Canada,  and the Netherlands, which can be found in appendix II.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2007 to April 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.
section_title: Appendix II: HVE Campaigns in Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands
paragraphs: Similar to the United States, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands,  among other countries, combine high-visibility enforcement (HVE) with  advertising to improve safety belt use and reduce impaired driving. In fact,  Canada was the first country in North America to demonstrate that highly  publicized occupant protection enforcement increases compliance with  occupant protection laws. The United States based its model for high- visibility campaigns on Canada’s occupant protection enforcement  program.
A key difference among the U.S., Australia, and Netherlands HVE  programs is the use of random breath testing (RBT), which allows police  to pull over any driver at random to undergo a breath test for alcohol.  Officials from Australia and the Netherlands noted that impaired-driving  fatalities have been reduced in their countries because law enforcement  officials are allowed to stop drivers at random to test the driver’s breath  for alcohol. Though other countries report that the RBT technique is  effective in combating impaired driving, it may be difficult to replicate in  the United States due to privacy concerns. In the United States, drivers  must be stopped for suspicious behavior or another offense before being  given a breathalyzer. However, states may be able to use equipment, such  as a passive alcohol sensor embedded in a flashlight, to overcome  potential privacy concerns.
Canada bases its current high-visibility enforcement campaigns on its  national road safety plan, Road Safety Vision 2010, which commenced in  2002. The plan has ambitious goals—a 30 percent reduction in fatalities  and injuries based on average fatalities and serious injuries from 1996 to  2001—and runs through 2010. Canadian HVE campaigns concentrate on  speed, impaired driving, and safety belts among other things. Despite  previous success with safety belt campaigns in the 1980s to 1990s,  Canada’s safety belt use rates have remained stagnant at approximately 90  percent to 93 percent during the last 10 years. Canada is currently trying to  develop strategies to target the “last 10 percent” since approximately 40  percent of their fatalities involve unbuckled persons, many of whom are  thrown from the vehicle. To target impaired drivers, Canada conducts a  Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program, where police stop drivers  to check for signs of alcohol consumption. If there is suspicion of  drinking, a roadside screening test can be administered; if the driver fails  this test, an evidentiary breath test is given, usually at the police station.
Canadian law also stipulates that anyone with a blood alcohol content  above 0.08 is criminally liable. Finally, Canada has a Web site to allow  officers to share best practices in high-visibility campaigns.
Australia has primarily relied on RBT as an effective strategy for the  country’s high-visibility law enforcement campaigns against impaired  driving. Each Australian state enacted impaired-driving laws between 1976  and 1992, setting a blood alcohol content of 0.05 as the legal limit for  drunken driving offenses. Each state has also enacted RBT laws, beginning  with the state of Victoria in 1976. It was not until researchers determined  in the early 1980s that one in two drivers killed in traffic accidents had a  blood alcohol content over the legal limit, however, that Australia began  widespread implementation of RBTs. For example, the state of Victoria  went from conducting nearly 200,000 RBTs per year in the mid-1980s to  approximately 1.2 million RBTs per year in the early 1990s. Since there  were approximately 3 million licensed drivers in the state of Victoria at  that time, this means more than one in three drivers were subject to an  RBT. The proportion of drivers killed in Australia traffic accidents that had  a blood alcohol content over the legal limit fell to one in five in 1992.  Furthermore, the number of intoxicated drivers in the state of Victoria  who died in accidents decreased from 350 per year in the 1980s to  approximately 100 in 2006. In addition, Australia implemented a campaign  to educate the public about why police officers were conducting RBTs and  ensured the RBTs were conducted efficiently to ensure minimal delays to  drivers. Australia emphasized the RBTs have been successful because of  the general deterrence theory—that is, Australian drivers are afraid of  being pulled over and tested, and, thus, they are less likely to drink and  drive. Finally, anyone who refuses a breathalyzer test is presumed to have  a blood alcohol content above the legal limit.
The Netherlands’ HVE campaigns focus on a variety of areas set by the  Minister of Transport and employs a number of different strategies. The  five campaigns for 2007 emphasized helmet use for motorcycles and  mopeds, safety belt use, red light compliance, reducing impaired driving,  and lowering driving speeds. Each campaign lasts several weeks and  involves significant police activity using the country’s 750 traffic safety  officers. Approximately 1.5 million RBTs are done per year in the  Netherlands, and drivers are afraid of being pulled over and tested, based  on the general deterrence theory. The Netherlands also has an aggressive  speed enforcement program to ticket 100 percent of offenders on the  country’s motorways, through an intricate speed camera system. For  example, a motorway will have a camera on mile 1 and another camera on  mile 10. A citation is then issued when drivers exceed the speed limit  between those two locations; the fine depends on how far over the limit  the driver was traveling. In the past, the Netherlands has run a campaign  featuring a cartoon character known as “Goochem the Armadillo” to  encourage children ages 4 to 12 to wear safety belts. The campaign was  intended to emphasize knowledge of safety belt laws, increase use of  safety belts, and encourage positive attitudes about safety belts. The  campaign was successful in raising safety belt use rates by back seat  passengers. Safety belt use rates by back seat passengers increased from  40 percent in urban areas and 43 percent in rural areas in 1998 to 73  percent for both in 2006. Further, although the campaign was aimed at  children, a survey demonstrated that the campaign reached approximately  90 percent of adults, as well. In addition to the high-visibility campaigns,  the Netherlands also promotes sustained activity targeting each of the  campaign areas throughout the year.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
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, Sandra  DePaulis, Brad Dubbs, Colin Fallon, Bert Japikse, Tom James, Leslie  Locke, Terry Richardson, Beverly Ross, and Aron Szapiro.