The Section 402 program provides over $1 billion for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 in federal funding to states for highway safety programs aimed at reducing traffic crashes and related deaths, injuries, and property damage. Each year, after states submit a highway safety plan to NHTSA that describes how they plan to use Section 402 funding, this funding is distributed to all states according to a formula that accounts for state road miles and population but not differences in safety statistics such as fatality rates among states. These grants are administered by state highway safety officials who identify traffic safety priorities of greatest importance to their state and select and fund subgrantees to carry out safety programs (see fig. 1). Some states have hundreds of subgrantees, and state subgrantees typically include a variety of different organizations, such as state and local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, nonprofit organizations, and advertising agencies. In fiscal year 2007, states spent over $203 million in Section 402 funding on traffic safety programs. States may use Section 402 grants to fund a wide range of programs that are designed to improve traffic safety primarily by influencing drivers’ behavior and that reflect one of nine national safety priorities established by NHTSA regulation. (See table 1 for a list of the national priorities and examples of programs that address each priority.) States may also use Section 402 funding to support safety issues specific to the state that are not addressed in the national safety goals—for example, winter driving safety in cold-weather states or street racing—if state officials submit supporting information to NHTSA. While the Section 402 program provides flexible traffic safety funding for states, incentive grants are structured to encourage states to implement specific traffic safety initiatives. In 2005, SAFETEA-LU reauthorized funding for 2 incentive grants related to safety belt use and alcohol- impaired driving and authorized funding for 5 new incentive grants that encourage states to (1) implement legislation governing the use of safety belts, (2) implement legislation governing the use of child safety seats, (3) promote safety training for motorcyclists and increase awareness of motorcyclists among other drivers, (4) improve state traffic safety data systems, and (5) prohibit racial profiling. In fiscal year 2007, states spent over $191 million in incentive grant funding on traffic safety programs (see table 2). Unlike Section 402 grants, which are distributed to all states, incentive grants require states to meet certain criteria to qualify for the grants. Also, the amount of incentive grant funding a state receives in a given year depends in part on the total number of states receiving the grant. To help ensure that states are managing this highway safety funding efficiently, in compliance with laws and regulations, and in a manner that will effectively address state safety problems, NHTSA oversees state highway safety programs through its national headquarters office and 10 regional offices across the country. Each regional office has jurisdiction over several states. For example, NHTSA’s Region 1 office, located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, oversees state highway safety programs in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. NHTSA’s oversight approach has evolved over time in response to congressional and state concerns, our recommendations, and NHTSA’s own efforts to improve its oversight. According to NHTSA officials, over time, Congress has given NHTSA different levels of oversight authority over state highway safety programs. For example, prior to 1998, NHTSA had the authority to approve or disapprove state spending on specific safety programs, but Congress later removed this authority in response to a congressional and state concern that the program-by-program approval process was too restrictive. In response, NHTSA adopted a performance- based oversight approach in 1998, requiring states to develop performance plans that identify key state safety problems and set goals and performance measures to address these problems. In 2003, we raised a concern that NHTSA’s oversight of states was inconsistent across its regional offices and recommended that NHTSA provide more specific guidance to its regional offices on when to conduct management reviews of state highway safety programs and how to measure state progress toward meeting safety goals. In response to the additional specificity in Section 412 of SAFETEA-LU regarding the scheduling of management reviews and our recommendation, NHTSA made several changes to its oversight approach, including clarifying and revising guidance to regional offices on the processes for conducting regular reviews of state use of grant funding. Currently, NHTSA’s oversight approach includes processes that assess both state management capabilities as well as state performance in meeting safety goals. With respect to assessing state management capabilities, NHTSA regional officials monitor state grant spending throughout the year to determine whether states are expending funds in a timely fashion and to ensure that states are directing funds to the programs identified in their highway safety plans. In addition, regional officials conduct on-site management reviews once every 3 years to assess state operations to ensure efficient administration and effective planning, programming, implementation, and evaluation of the state’s highway safety program. After completing the management review, regional officials generally issue the following report to the state containing recommendations for improvement and jointly with state officials develop the following plan for implementing these recommendations. See figure 2 for a summary of NHTSA’s Management Review Process. Management review reports: Management review reports document the process NHTSA officials used to evaluate the state’s grant management, identify areas in which the state excelled, and summarize NHTSA’s recommended improvements to the state on how to more efficiently and effectively manage its grant program. NHTSA’s recommendations can require that the state take action if the state is not in compliance with federal or state law, or can present a best practice that, if implemented, may improve management of the grant program or prevent the state from developing a compliance problem in the future. However, because NHTSA cannot require states to take action on best practice recommendations, they are not binding on the state. Corrective action plans: When necessary based on the results of the review, NHTSA and the state highway safety office jointly develop a corrective action plan to address open recommendations in the management review final report, including tasks to complete the actions, target dates for completion of each task, and status notes indicating state progress on each required action. As required since SAFETEA-LU, in section 412, Title 23 U.S.C., NHTSA also compiles annual reports that summarize its management review and findings during each fiscal year. These reports, available on NHTSA’s Web site, list some of the most common recommendations. While NHTSA’s oversight of state grant management helps ensure that states have management processes that are the basis for an effective highway safety program, it uses several additional approaches to assess state performance in improving safety outcomes. Evaluation of state established traffic safety goals with safety outcomes: To evaluate whether states are improving safety outcomes, NHTSA regional and headquarters officials annually review states’ progress toward safety goals. With input from NHTSA, each state annually establishes its goals and accompanying performance measures, as well as the programs it will fund to achieve these goals in the state’s performance and highway safety plans. NHTSA regional staff review these plans using standard checklists for uniformity in their evaluation. At the end of the year, each state describes the outcomes of its efforts in an annual report, which NHTSA uses to track each state’s progress against the goals the state established and provide feedback to states on the strengths and weaknesses of their programs. NHTSA officials told us that while they have the authority to approve state plans as a whole, they cannot require states to act on the feedback NHTSA officials offer. Special management reviews: Each fiscal year, NHTSA headquarters officials compare state performance in two national safety priorities— alcohol-impaired driving and safety belt use—over the prior 3 years with average national performance in these areas over the same time period. For those states that have consistently had below-average safety belt use or an above-average impaired driving fatality rate and less than half of the national average improvement, NHTSA regional and headquarters subject matter experts conduct special management reviews, which involve an in- depth evaluation of a state’s alcohol-impaired driving or safety belt program and result in recommendations for improvement. Regional officials follow up periodically with states to determine whether states have acted on these recommendations; however, because recommendations in a special management review generally do not relate to compliance issues, NHTSA cannot require state action. Technical program assessments: At the request of a state, NHTSA officials told us they will coordinate a technical program assessment to evaluate one particular area of a state’s highway safety program, such as traffic records, motorcycle safety, or emergency medical services, among others. NHTSA facilitates the assessment by bringing together leading experts in a particular program area to evaluate the state’s program against the national highway safety program guideline for that subject. After completing the assessment, these experts produce a final report containing recommendations for strengthening the state’s program. The report is the property of the state, and the state is not bound to implement any of its recommendations. Finally, NHTSA complements its oversight of states with training and technical assistance for state officials. NHTSA offers formal training through the Transportation Safety Institute in Oklahoma City on a range of highway safety topics, including courses on highway safety program management, financial management, and data analysis and evaluation. Most of the regional officials we spoke with said that NHTSA’s regional offices also provide training for state officials, including some of the highway safety courses offered through the Transportation Safety Institute. In addition to offering formal training, NHTSA officials are available to states for technical assistance, which includes support on a broad range of issues. For example, several NHTSA regional officials told us that they share best practices, such as a model policy and procedures manual, between the states in their regions, and other regional officials told us that they provide feedback to states on incentive grant applications.