Highway Safety
Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of State Highway Safety Programs Gao ID: GAO-03-474 April 21, 2003In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century funded a series of highway safety programs. These safety programs, administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), increased funding to the states to improve highway safety through activities designed to encourage, among other things, the use of seat belts and child passenger seats and to prevent drinking and driving. The states implement these activities through a "performance-based" approach under which they establish highway safety goals and initiate projects to help reach those goals. NHTSA reviews the goals and provides oversight to the state highway safety programs. GAO was asked to provide trend data on highway safety, determine how much highway safety funding was provided and how the states used the funds, and review NHTSA's oversight of highway safety programs.
While the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined since the 1970s, it has stayed fairly level since 1995, at about 41,900 per year. Fatality rates per miles traveled have also continued to decline, but the bulk of this decline occurred between 1982 and 1992. In addition, the number of alcohol-related fatalities declined from about 26,000 in 1982 to about 17,400 in 2001. However, alcohol-related fatalities rose in 2000 and 2001. About $2 billion has been provided over the last 5 years for highway safety programs under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century. About $729 million went to the core highway safety program, Section 402, to carry out traffic safety programs designed to influence drivers' behavior in such areas as seat belt use, alcohol-impaired driving, and speeding. About $936 million went to seven incentive programs designed to encourage state efforts to improve seat-belt use, reduce drunk driving, and improve highway safety data. About $361 million was transferred from highway construction to highway safety programs under provisions that penalized states that had not passed repeat offender or open container laws to reduce drunk driving. Of the incentive and transfer funds, most were used for behavioral programs, but about $395 million was used for highway construction programs. Under the performance-based approach, NHTSA provides advice, training and technical assistance to the states, which are responsible for setting and achieving highway safety goals. NHTSA also provides oversight through management reviews and improvement plans intended to help ensure that the states are operating within guidelines and achieving the desired results. However NHTSA's regional offices have made inconsistent use of management reviews and limited and inconsistent use of improvement plans because NHTSA's guidance to the regional offices does not specify when to use them. As a result, NHTSA's efforts to work with the states may not be fully realized.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-474, Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of State Highway Safety Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-474
entitled 'Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of
State Highway Safety Programs' which was released on May 14, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requester:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
April 2003:
Highway Safety:
Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of State Highway Safety
Programs:
GAO-03-474:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-474, a report to Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century funded a
series of highway safety programs. These safety programs,
administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), increased funding to the states to improve highway safety
through activities designed to encourage, among other things, the use
of seat belts and child passenger seats and to prevent drinking and
driving. The states implement these activities through a
’performance-based“ approach under which they establish highway safety
goals and initiate projects to help reach those goals. NHTSA reviews
the goals and provides oversight to the state highway safety programs.
GAO was asked to provide trend data on highway safety, determine how
much highway safety funding was provided and how the states used the
funds, and review NHTSA‘s oversight of highway safety programs.
What GAO Found:
While the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined since the
1970s, it has stayed fairly level since 1995, at about 41,900 per
year. Fatality rates per miles traveled have also continued to
decline, but the bulk of this decline occurred between 1982 and 1992.
In addition, the number of alcohol-related fatalities declined from
about 26,000 in 1982 to about 17,400 in 2001. However, alcohol-
related fatalities rose in 2000 and 2001.
About $2 billion has been provided over the last 5 years for highway
safety programs under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century. About $729 million went to the core highway safety program,
Section 402, to carry out traffic safety programs designed to influence drivers‘ behavior in such areas as seat belt use, alcohol-impaired driving, and speeding. About $936 million went to seven incentive programs designed to encourage state efforts to improve seat-belt use, reduce drunk driving, and improve highway safety data. About $361 million was transferred from highway construction to highway safety programs under provisions that penalized states that had not passed repeat offender or open container laws to reduce drunk driving. Of the incentive and transfer funds, most were used for behavioral programs, but about $395 million was used for highway construction programs.
Under the performance-based approach, NHTSA provides advice, training
and technical assistance to the states, which are responsible for
setting and achieving highway safety goals. NHTSA also provides
oversight through management reviews and improvement plans intended to
help ensure that the states are operating within guidelines and
achieving the desired results. However NHTSA‘s regional offices have
made inconsistent use of management reviews and limited and
inconsistent use of improvement plans because NHTSA‘s guidance to the
regional offices does not specify when to use them. As a result,
NHTSA‘s efforts to work with the states may not be fully realized.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that NHTSA provide more specific written guidance to
its regional offices on when it is appropriate to use management
reviews and improvement plans to assist states with their highway
safety programs.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-474.
To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Peter Guerrero (202) 512-2834.
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Trends in Highway Safety:
States Used Increased Safety Funding to Support Behavioral and
Construction Programs:
NHTSA Makes Inconsistent and Limited Use of Oversight Tools:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Federal Funding for State Behavioral Safety Programs:
Appendix III: The Transfer Provisions Encourage Changes in State Laws:
Tables:
Table 1: Highway Safety Incentive Grant Programs:
Table 2: State Use of Highway Safety Incentive Funds, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2002:
Table 3: Changes in State Compliance with Federal Open Container and
Repeat Offender Requirements:
Table 4: States' Compliance with Alcohol Transfer Laws as of October 1,
2002:
Figures:
Figure 1: Rate of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001:
Figure 2: State and Community Grants Program Funding, Fiscal Years 1967
through 2002:
Figure 3: Number of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001:
Figure 4: Rate of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001:
Figure 5: Number of Traffic Crashes, 1988 through 2001:
Figure 6: Number of Alcohol-Related Fatalities, 1982 through 2001:
Figure 7: Rate of Alcohol-Related Fatalities, 1982 through 2001:
Figure 8: NHTSA Highway Safety Funding to States, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2002:
Figure 9: Uses of State and Community Grants Funds, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2002:
Figure 10: State Allocations of Transfer Funds, Fiscal Years 2001 and
2002:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 21, 2003:
The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Competition,
Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Dorgan:
Over the last 25 years, more than 1.2 million people have died as a
result of traffic crashes in the United States. Since 1982, about 40
percent of traffic deaths were from alcohol-related crashes. In
addition, traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for people
aged 4 through 33. In 2000 alone, the economic cost of fatalities and
injuries from crashes totaled almost $231 billion, according to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
To improve safety on the nation's highways, the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178, 1998) authorized a number of
highway safety programs. Specifically, the act reauthorized the core
federally funded highway safety program, Section 402 State and
Community Grant Program. This program, authorized in 1966, uses a
formula based on population and road mileage to make grants available
for each state to carry out traffic safety programs designed to
influence drivers' behavior, commonly called behavioral safety
programs. In addition, the act authorized seven other grant programs
that provide incentive funding to encourage safety through the use of
seat belts and child passenger seats and through efforts to prevent
drinking and driving. Finally, a 1998 amendment to the act established
two new penalty requirements to reduce the number of alcohol-related
fatalities associated with repeat drunk-driving offenders and open
alcoholic beverage containers in motor vehicles. Beginning in 2000,
states that failed to adopt these requirements were penalized by having
a portion of their federal highway construction funds transferred to
highway safety programs. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration oversees the states' highway safety programs; and, in
1998, it adopted a performance-based approach to oversight, under which
the states set their own highway safety goals and targets and the
agency's 10 regional offices provide assistance to and oversight of the
states to help them reach those goals.
You asked us to (1) provide information on trends in highway safety and
how alcohol contributes to these statistics, (2) provide information on
how much funding the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
made available to the states for highway safety programs and how states
have used these funds, and (3) review the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's oversight of the states' highway safety
programs.
To analyze highway fatality statistics, we used data from 1975 through
2001, the most recent year for which data are available from the
agency's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, the national database on
fatal traffic accidents. In addition, for information on crashes and
alcohol-related fatalities, we used data that started to be collected
in 1988 and 1982, respectively. To provide information on available
funding and its uses, we obtained and analyzed data from the agency and
visited six states that accounted for a large amount (about 40 percent)
of the funds transferred under the penalty provisions (California,
Georgia, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Texas). We also used these states
and visited the agency's six regional offices that are responsible for
them, to review the agency's oversight of states' programs. We also
interviewed representatives of the Governors Highway Safety Association
and other highway safety organizations to obtain their perspective on
safety issues and program oversight. Appendix I provides additional
details on our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
The number of traffic fatalities has declined since the 1970s.
Specifically, traffic fatalities dropped from a high of about 51,100 in
1979 to a low of about 39,300 in 1992. Since 1995, fatalities have been
fairly constant with a slight increase, averaging about 41,900 per
year. The slowing in the decline in fatalities--as measured by the
number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled--is shown
in figure 1. Similarly, the number of alcohol-related fatalities
declined from about 26,200 in 1982, when the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration began tracking them, to about 17,400 in 2001.
However, since 1992, declines in the number of alcohol-related
fatalities have slowed, and these fatalities have also increased in
2000 and 2001.
Figure 1: Rate of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
About $2.0 billion has been provided to the states under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended, for (1) the
core Section 402 State and Community Safety Grants program, (2) seven
incentive programs, and (3) two penalty transfer programs for fiscal
years 1998 through 2002. About $729 million of these funds supported
the Section 402 program and were used for behavioral highway safety
programs that addressed problems such as seat-belt use, alcohol-
impaired driving, and speeding. The seven incentive programs accounted
for about $936 million. Five of these incentive programs required all
of their funds to be used for behavioral highway safety programs, and
two of the incentive programs allowed their funds to be used for either
highway safety programs or highway construction projects. Finally, in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, about $361 million was transferred to
safety programs from the states' Federal-Aid Highway construction
account in 34 states that did not meet federal requirements related to
open container and repeat offender laws. The states that were subject
to the transfer penalties could use these funds for either alcohol-
related programs or for highway safety construction--specifically, for
projects to eliminate roadway hazards. These states chose to allocate
about 69 percent of the transfer funds to highway safety construction.
Under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's performance-
based oversight approach, each state sets its own safety performance
goals and develops an annual safety plan that describes projects
designed to achieve the goals. The agency's 10 regional offices review
the annual plans and provide technical assistance, advice, and
comments. The regional offices can also conduct management reviews of
state highway safety programs. Management reviews generally involve
sending a team to a state to review its performance, examine its
projects, and determine that it is using funds in accordance with
requirements. While the management reviews often identify problems with
states' highway safety programs that need correction, we found that the
regional offices were inconsistent in conducting these reviews. This
variation in the use of management reviews occurs because the agency's
guidance is not specific on when the reviews should be conducted. As a
result, some regional offices conduct reviews every other year, while
others conduct them only when requested by a state. In addition, when a
state fails to make progress toward its highway safety performance
goals, the agency requires the development and implementation of an
improvement plan that identifies programs and activities the state and
regional offices will undertake to address program weaknesses. We found
that the regional offices have made limited and inconsistent use of
improvement plans. For example, some states did not have improvement
plans, even though their alcohol-related fatality rates have increased
or their seat-belt use rates have declined. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration has not established clear criteria for
using improvement plans.
We are recommending that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration provide more specific written guidance to the regional
offices on when it is appropriate to use management reviews and
improvement plans to assist states in their safety programs. In
commenting on a draft of this report, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration agreed with our recommendation and stated that it
had begun the process to develop this guidance.
Background:
The behavioral safety programs authorized by the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) attempt to improve highway safety by
reducing the frequency and seriousness of crashes and by mitigating the
consequences of crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), within the Department of Transportation,
provides oversight of state highway safety programs.
Core Safety Program:
The Section 402 State and Community Grants program is the core safety
grants program that was authorized in 1966. It is highly flexible,
allowing the states to use funds for a wide variety of highway safety
projects, including projects to reduce alcohol-impaired driving,
increase seat-belt use, develop regional traffic safety initiatives,
improve traffic records and safety data, and improve pedestrian safety,
among other projects. As shown in figure 2, the funding for this
program reached a high of over $450 million in 1978, in 2002 dollars.
Since 1991, program funding has remained relatively stable at about
$150 million a year, in 2002 dollars.
Figure 2: State and Community Grants Program Funding, Fiscal Years 1967
through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Incentive Grant Programs:
Besides reauthorizing the Section 402 program, TEA-21 authorized seven
new incentive grant programs that provide funds to encourage states to
increase seat-belt use, reduce alcohol-impaired driving, and improve
highway safety data. States must meet certain requirements to qualify
for these incentive grants and generally must apply for them. Table 1
provides information on the seven safety incentive grant programs.
Table 1: Highway Safety Incentive Grant Programs:
Incentive category: Seat Belt/ Occupant Protection Incentives:
Title of
incentive: Section 157 Safety Incentive Grants for the Use of Seat
Belts; Description of incentive: Creates incentive grants to states to
improve seat-belt use rates. A state may use these funds for any
highway safety or construction program. The act authorized $500 million
over 5 years..
Title of incentive: Section 157 Safety Innovative Grants for Increasing
Seat-Belt Use Rates; Description of incentive: Provides that
unallocated Section 157 incentive funds be allocated to states to carry
out innovative projects to improve seat-belt use..
Title of incentive: Section 405 Occupant Protection Incentive Grant;
Description of incentive: Creates an incentive grant program to
increase seat belt and child safety-seat use. A state may use these
funds only to implement occupant protection programs. The act
authorized $68 million over 5 years..
Title of incentive: Section 2003(b) Child Passenger Protection
Education Grants; Description of incentive: Creates a program designed
to prevent deaths and injuries to children, educate the public on child
restraints, and train safety personnel on child restraint use. The act
authorized $15 million over 2 years for Section 2003(b). However, the
Congress appropriated funds to support the program for 2 additional
years..
Incentive category: Alcohol Incentives:
Title of incentive: Section 163
Safety Incentives to Prevent the Operation of Motor Vehicles by
Intoxicated Persons; Description of incentive: Provides grants to
states that have enacted and are enforcing laws stating that a person
with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or higher while
operating a motor vehicle has committed a per se driving-while-
intoxicated (DWI) offense. A state may use these funds for any highway
safety or construction program. The act provides $500 million over 6
years for the program..
Title of incentive: Section 410 Alcohol Impaired Driving
Countermeasures; Description of incentive: Revised an existing
incentive program and provides grants to states that adopt or
demonstrate specified programs, or to states that meet performance
criteria showing reductions in fatalities involving impaired drivers.
The act provides $219.5 million over 6 years, which are to be used for
impaired driving programs..
Incentive category: Data Incentives:
Title of incentive: Section 411
State Highway Safety Data Improvements; Description of incentive:
Provides incentive grants to states to improve the timeliness,
accuracy, completeness, uniformity and accessibility of highway safety
data. The act provides $32 million over 4 years..
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Penalty Transfer Programs:
To encourage states to enact stronger safety laws, TEA-21, as amended
through the TEA-21 Restoration Act, established penalties for states
that fail to enact laws implementing two new requirements set forth in
the act. Under Section 154, a state must have a law prohibiting the
possession of any open alcoholic beverage container, or consumption of
any alcoholic beverage, in the passenger compartment of any motor
vehicle on a public highway or right of way. Under Section 164, a state
must have a repeat intoxicated driver law that provides for, among
other things, a 1-year license suspension for the second offense; the
impoundment, immobilization, or installation of an ignition interlock
on all the offender's vehicles; an assessment of the individual's
degree of alcohol abuse and appropriate treatment; and specified
minimum jail or community service sentences. States that do not meet
either the open container or the repeat offender requirement will have
a percentage of funds transferred from their Federal-Aid Highway
program to their Section 402 State and Community Grants program. States
may use the transferred funds for alcohol-related behavioral programs,
such as information programs designed to reduce drunk driving, or they
may allocate funds back to the Federal-Aid Highway program where they
are to be used for highway construction projects that address safety
concerns, which could include almost any kind of unsafe road or bridge
condition. Every year NHTSA's Chief Counsel assesses the states to
determine which states are in compliance with the open container and
repeat offender requirements.
NHTSA's Oversight of State Highway Safety Programs:
NHTSA oversees the state highway safety programs through its 10
regional offices, which administer the grants to the states. The
regions' emphasis is on providing the states with technical assistance.
NHTSA regions also provide training programs for state safety officials
and work with the states to encourage them to participate in programs
that have been shown to be successful, such as "Click-It-or-Ticket"
seat-belt use programs and increased enforcement. According to NHTSA
officials, this has resulted in improvement in the area of seat-belt
use. However, the regions do not require the states to adopt particular
programs.[Footnote 1]
In 1998, NHTSA adopted a "performance-based" approach to its oversight
of highway safety programs. Under this approach, a state develops an
annual performance plan that establishes traffic safety goals and
performance measures. In addition, the performance plan must describe
the process the state used to identify problems, establish goals, and
select projects. Based on the performance plan, the state prepares an
annual highway safety plan, which identifies projects to be funded that
address the state's goals. In addition, at the end of the year, the
state is required to prepare an annual report that describes (1) the
state's progress in meeting its highway safety goals, using the
measures identified in its performance plan and (2) the contribution of
funded projects to meeting the state's highway safety goals. Under the
performance-based approach, NHTSA does not approve the state's highway
safety plan or projects. Instead, it focuses on whether the state is
achieving the goals it set for itself in its plans. However, if the
state is not making progress toward meeting its goals, NHTSA
regulations state that the NHTSA region and the state should develop an
improvement plan to address the shortcomings.
Other Highway Safety Construction Funding:
In addition to NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
another Department of Transportation agency, funds and oversees
projects designed to improve safety. For example, FHWA's Hazard
Elimination program provides funds for construction-related safety
improvements on any public road, public surface transportation
facility, or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail,
including such items as traffic signals, sight distance improvements,
pavement and shoulder widening, and guardrail and barrier improvements.
States that are subject to the penalty transfer requirements may choose
to use some or all of those funds for safety construction projects
under the Hazard Elimination program.
Trends in Highway Safety:
The number of traffic fatalities has declined since the 1970s.
Specifically, annual traffic fatalities have gone from a high of 51,093
in 1979 to a low of 39,250 in 1992.[Footnote 2] Since 1995, the number
of annual fatalities has increased, averaging about 41,900. (See fig.
3.)[Footnote 3]
Figure 3: Number of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
From 1975 through 2001, traffic fatality rates--fatalities per 100
million miles traveled--dropped by more than half; but since 1992, the
rate of decline has slowed.[Footnote 4] In 1979, the nationwide
fatality rate peaked at 3.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). By 1992, the fatality rate had declined to 1.8 deaths
per 100 million VMT. Subsequently, fatality rates continued to decline,
but at a slower pace, reaching 1.5 deaths per 100 million VMT in 2001.
(See fig. 4.):
Figure 4: Rate of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
From 1988, when NHTSA began collecting these data, through 2001, trends
in the number of highway crashes generally parallel trends in the
number of highway fatalities--declining until 1992, then rising
somewhat. Throughout this period, according to NHTSA's data, the annual
number of crashes has ranged from about 6.0 million to 6.9 million.
About 6.3 million crashes occurred in 2001. (See fig. 5.) The severity
of crashes has remained consistent: about two-thirds involve property
damage only and one-third involve injuries. Only a small fraction of
crashes--0.6 percent--are fatal. According to analysts, highway crashes
are typically the result of a complex combination of factors, including
human behavior, the roadway environment, and the vehicle. Of these,
human behavior, including speeding, violating laws, alcohol or drug
impairment, inattention, and decision errors, most often contribute to
highway crashes.[Footnote 5]
Figure 5: Number of Traffic Crashes, 1988 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Alcohol-related crashes account for a large portion of traffic
fatalities.[Footnote 6] Between 1982, when NHTSA began tracking
alcohol-related fatalities, and 2001, over 400,000 people died in
alcohol-related crashes. In 1982, NHTSA reported 26,173 alcohol-related
deaths, representing 59.6 percent of all traffic fatalities. Alcohol-
related fatalities declined to 39.7 percent of all traffic fatalities
in 1999, but rose to 17,448--41.4 percent of fatalities--by 2001. (See
fig. 6.) Blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of 0.08 or greater were
reported for 85.6 percent of the 17,448 alcohol-related fatalities in
2001.
Figure 6: Number of Alcohol-Related Fatalities, 1982 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
As figure 7 shows, alcohol-related fatality rates declined steadily
(except in 1986) from 1982 through 1997. However, there has been almost
no further decline in rates since 1997, when the rate was 0.65
fatalities per 100 million VMT. In 2001, the rate was 0.63 fatalities
per 100 million VMT.
Figure 7: Rate of Alcohol-Related Fatalities, 1982 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In commenting on a draft of this report, NHTSA noted that the easiest
changes in driver behavior have been made. The challenge now is to
reach those whose behavior is the most difficult to change. For
example, seat-belt use in the United States has reached 75 percent--an
all-time high. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
have child passenger safety laws, and 49 states have adult safety belt
laws in effect. NHTSA estimates that approximately 8.5 percent of
nonsafety belt users convert to being regular belt users each year.
Continuing to convert this percentage each year becomes increasingly
difficult because as the conversion occurs, the hard-core nonusers
become a higher proportion of the remaining nonusers. Likewise, NHTSA
noted that the problem with drunk driving is increasingly one that
involves persons with severe alcohol abuse problems.
States Used Increased Safety Funding to Support Behavioral and
Construction Programs:
About $2.0 billion has been provided to the states for highway safety
programs under TEA-21 for the core Section 402 State and Community
Safety Grants program, seven incentive programs, and two penalty
transfer programs from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002. The
Section 402 State and Community Grants program received about $729
million, the seven incentive programs received about $936 million, and
the penalty transfer programs received $361 million. States could use
funds from two of the incentive programs for highway construction and
funds from the two penalty transfers for the Federal-Aid Highway Hazard
Elimination program. As a result, states allocated about $147 million
of the incentive funds to construction and $248 million of the transfer
funds to Hazard Elimination. Figure 8 shows the funding associated with
TEA-21 highway safety programs and the split between behavioral
programs and highway construction.
Figure 8: NHTSA Highway Safety Funding to States, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
While overall highway safety funding has grown, the actual increases by
state vary widely. For example, the highway safety funding for Kansas,
which was not subject to any penalty transfers, grew by 1.7 percent and
stayed at about $5.2 million annually from 1998 through 2001, while the
highway safety funding for Montana, which was subject to both transfer
penalties, grew by over 480 percent from $0.9 million to $5.4 million,
over this period. (See app. II for a breakdown of total federal funding
to states for NHTSA highway safety programs.):
Funding for Section 402 Program Remained Level and Was Used to Support
Many Behavioral Activities:
Funding for the core Section 402 State and Community Grants program has
been fairly level, in constant dollars, since 1991. These funds could
be used for a variety of programs in a number of major Section 402
program categories, as follows:
* Police Traffic Services - Grants support police agency enforcement
projects, education, and training. Uses include projects to educate the
public and enforce laws about driving while impaired, speeding, and
seat-belt use.
* Impaired Driving - Grants support programs to reduce alcohol--or
other drug-impaired driving. Uses include enforcement, public
education, drug recognition training, and training for prosecutors and
judges. Prevention training may also target youth, educators, alcoholic
beverage servers, and liquor sales clerks.
* Seat Belts - Grants support increased use of seat belts and child
safety seats. Funds can be used for such purposes as enforcement of
seat-belt laws, public education on the importance and use of safety
restraints, and proper installation of child safety seats.
* Community Safety Programs - Grants support safety or injury control
programs. Programs include regional traffic safety programs and safe
community programs that take an organized approach to addressing
community injury problems.
* Planning and Administration - States may use up to 10 percent of
their Section 402 funds for salaries, travel, equipment, and other
expenses necessary to carry out state highway safety office functions.
* Traffic Records - Grants support state or local safety records,
including data on crashes, drivers, vehicles, roadways, citations,
convictions, and emergency medical services. Data systems support
problem identification, analysis, and countermeasure evaluation.
* Other - Grants can support many other highway safety topics,
including roadway safety, pedestrian safety, emergency medical
services, speed control, driver education, motorcycle safety, school
bus safety, and paid advertising to support Section 402 programs.
Four major program categories account for most of the states' use of
the $729 million in Section 402 State and Community Grants funds
provided between 1998 and 2002: police traffic services, impaired
driving, seat belts, and community safety programs. Combined, these
four categories account for about 72 percent of the grant funds. Figure
9 shows how the states used their Section 402 State and Community
Grants funds during the 5-year period covered by TEA-21.
Figure 9: Uses of State and Community Grants Funds, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: "Other" includes roadway safety, pedestrian safety, emergency
medical services, speed control, driver education, paid advertising,
and motorcycle safety.
[End of figure]
States Had Flexibility in Using Incentive Grant Program Funds:
The seven incentive programs under TEA-21 also provide funds to
encourage greater seat-belt use, implement programs or requirements to
reduce drunk driving, and improve state highway safety data. The
funding available for these programs grew from $83.5 million in 1998 to
$257.2 million in 2002. While most of these funds were used for funding
additional behavioral safety programs, the act provided that two
programs, the 0.08 percent BAC Incentive (Section 163) and the Seat
Belt Use Incentive (Section 157) could be used for any highway purpose-
-highway construction, construction that remedied safety concerns, or
behavioral safety programs. Table 2 provides information on total
funding for incentive programs and the split between behavioral program
use and construction.
Table 2: State Use of Highway Safety Incentive Funds, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2002:
(Dollars in millions).
Alcohol; Behavioral program funding: [Empty]; Construction program
funding: [Empty]; Total funding: [Empty].
Section 163 - .08 BAC; Behavioral program funding: $226.0; Construction
program funding: $117.3; Total funding: $343.2.
Section 410 - Impaired Driving; Behavioral program funding: $166.3;
Construction program funding: [Empty]; Total funding: $166.3.
Occupant Protection; Behavioral program funding: [Empty]; Construction
program funding: [Empty]; Total funding: [Empty].
Section 157 - Seat Belt Use; Behavioral program funding: $179.9;
Construction program funding: $ 29.8; Total funding: $209.7.
Section 157 Innovative - Seat Belt Use; Behavioral program funding:
$112.0; Construction program funding: [Empty]; Total funding: $112.0.
Section 2003(b) - Child Occupant Protection; Behavioral program
funding: $ 22.4; Construction program funding: [Empty]; Total funding:
$ 22.4.
Section 405 - Occupant Protection; Behavioral program funding: $ 45.6;
Construction program funding: [Empty]; Total funding: $ 45.6.
Data Improvement; Behavioral program funding: $ 36.3; Construction
program funding: [Empty]; Total funding: $ 36.3.
Total; Behavioral program funding: $788.6; Construction program
funding: $147.0; Total funding: $935.6.
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.
Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.
[End of table]
Penalty Transfers Increased Funding for Behavioral Programs and Safety
Construction Projects:
The states that did not meet either the open container or the repeat
offender requirements had a percentage of funds (now 3 percent for each
requirement not satisfied) transferred from their Federal-Aid Highway
construction program to their Section 402 State and Community Grants
program.[Footnote 7] During fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the first 2
years that funds have been transferred, 34 states were subject to one
or both of the penalty provisions, and about $361 million was
transferred from these states' Federal-Aid Highway Program funding.
Appendix III shows how state compliance has changed over time.
While states may choose to keep transferred funds in the NHTSA Section
402 State and Community Grants program where they are to be used to
support alcohol-related programs, they also may choose to allocate
transferred funds to highway construction projects under the FHWA
Hazard Elimination Program. As shown in figure 10, the states varied
greatly in their decisions on how to use these funds, from allocating
100 percent of the funds to construction projects to allocating 100
percent of the funds to behavioral projects. Overall, the states
allocated about 69 percent to highway safety construction projects
under the FHWA Hazard Elimination program, and 31 percent went to
highway safety behavioral programs. Twenty-eight of the 34 states with
transferred funds allocated a majority to construction activities under
the Hazard Elimination program.
Figure 10: State Allocations of Transfer Funds, Fiscal Years 2001 and
2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The six states we visited--California, Georgia, Missouri, New York,
Ohio and Texas--used the transfer funds in a variety of ways.
* California, which did not meet all the federal requirements for
repeat offenders, had $39.5 million transferred in fiscal years 2001
and 2002. In fiscal year 2001, all of the transfer funds, $19.4
million, went to the highway construction Hazard Elimination program,
where they were used for a project involving the construction of a
truck lane on Interstate 15 in San Bernardino County. California
officials said that there had been a large backlog of hazard
elimination projects that could readily use the funds. In fiscal year
2002, a majority of the funds, $14.3 million out of $20.1 million, were
used for behavioral safety programs under the Section 402 State and
Community Grants program. These programs funded such activities as a
regional task force to crack down on drunk driving in Los Angeles
County, training for prosecutors, the use of county probation officers
to enforce court orders affecting repeat drunk driving offenders, and
the creation of a special speeding and drunk driving unit in the
Stockton Police Department. The $5.8 million transferred in 2002 to the
highway construction Hazard Elimination program was used for a median
barrier project along Interstate 5 in San Joaquin County and a barrier
guardrail project along route 160 in Sacramento County.
* Georgia was subject to both transfers for fiscal year 2001, amounting
to $16.6 million. It allocated about $9 million of the transfer funds
to the highway construction Hazard Elimination program, primarily to
improve the state's highway safety data collection system, which had
experienced severe problems. According to Georgia officials, the
rollout of a new highway safety data collection system had failed, and
the state was not able to collect crash data for a time. The transfer
funds enabled the state to correct this problem. Additional Hazard
Elimination projects included red light running technology, guardrail
delineators, and deer accident prevention measures. All the remaining
$8 million went to behavioral programs, primarily to law enforcement
organizations for drunk driving prevention programs. Georgia
subsequently passed new laws that met the federal requirements for open
containers and repeat offenders and was not subject to either penalty
in fiscal year 2002.
* Missouri was subject to both transfers in fiscal year 2001 and
allocated the entire $10.4 million to Section 402 alcohol-related
behavioral programs. The state used these funds to, for example,
purchase specialized blood-alcohol testing vans and improve the
collection of highway safety data. In fiscal year 2002, Missouri was
subject to only the open container transfer and allocated almost all
its $5.3 million transfer to the highway construction Hazard
Elimination program for such activities as traffic signals, grading,
and paving to improve intersections.
* New York was subject to the repeat offender penalty transfers for
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and transferred a total of about $15.9
million. New York, which is able to supplement federal highway safety
funds with state funds derived from driving-while-intoxicated (DWI)
fines, decided to put all the transfer funds into the Hazard
Elimination program. New York safety officials said that given the
state's high level of support for highway safety behavioral activities,
there was no great need to allocate these funds to alcohol-related
behavioral programs. Initially, the state was going to use the transfer
funds for several Hazard Elimination projects, but when these projects
were delayed, state officials decided to allocate all of the transfer
funds to safety aspects of a single bridge project.
* Ohio was subject to the repeat offender transfer in both fiscal years
2001 and 2002. Of a total of $15.6 million transferred, the state
allocated $14.8 million to the highway construction Hazard Elimination
program for seven projects. The remaining $800,000 was used for
alcohol-related behavioral programs, such as education programs for
high school students, drunk driving task forces, and training for
alcohol servers and sales clerks.
* Texas had both open container and repeat offender transfers in fiscal
year 2001, totaling $37 million. Of this amount, $33.6 million was
allocated to the highway construction Hazard Elimination program and
about $3.4 million went to alcohol-related behavioral programs.
According to Texas highway safety officials, the state legislature was
interested in maximizing funding for highway construction, so the state
allocated the funds to Hazard Elimination. Also, because the transfer
funds were taken from construction categories, the state officials said
it was appropriate for the majority of the funds to be used for safety
construction improvements. Texas set up a special $10 million
Interstate median barrier program and a $15 million road shoulder
rumble strip program with the transfer funds, along with increasing the
state's regular Hazard Elimination program funding, allowing additional
safety improvement projects to be constructed. Texas subsequently
adopted open container and repeat offender laws and was not subject to
any transfers in fiscal year 2002.
NHTSA Makes Inconsistent and Limited Use of Oversight Tools:
Under its performance-based approach to overseeing state highway safety
programs, NHTSA has focused on providing advice, training, and
technical assistance to the states, which are responsible for setting
and achieving their highway safety goals. In addition, NHTSA has three
oversight tools to help it ensure that states' programs are operating
within guidelines and are achieving desired results--management
reviews, improvement plans, and high-risk designations. However, NHTSA
has made inconsistent use of the management reviews and limited use of
the improvement plans because guidance provided to the regions is not
specific on when to use them. While two U.S. territories are under a
high-risk designation, NHTSA and regional office officials did not
identify any states that were candidates for high-risk status.
NHTSA Regional Offices Have Made Inconsistent Use of Management
Reviews:
NHTSA regions can conduct management reviews to help improve and
enhance the financial and operational management of the state programs.
In conducting these reviews, a team of NHTSA regional staff visit the
state and examine such items as its organization and staffing, program
management, financial management, and selected programs like impaired
driving, occupant protection, public information and education, and
outreach. The resulting report will comment on state activities and may
make recommendations for improvement.
NHTSA has no written guidance on when to perform management reviews. We
found that the management reviews were not being conducted
consistently. For example, in the six NHTSA regions we visited, we
found goals of conducting management reviews every 2 years, on no set
schedule, and only when requested by a state.
While NHTSA does not require management reviews, the officials that
regularly conduct such reviews told us they do them because they find
them beneficial in surfacing problems. For example, management reviews
completed in 2001 and 2002 identified weaknesses in states' processes,
systems, and practices that, if not addressed, could lead to
inefficient or unauthorized uses of federal funds. These weaknesses
included:
* states' inadequate monitoring of subgrantees,
* a lack of coordination in state alcohol program planning,
* the inability of a state to identify how its matching funds
requirement was being met,
* the lack of a state computerized system to track grant expenditures
or equipment purchased with federal funds,
* costs incurred after a grant was over,
* improper cash advances by the state to subgrantees, and:
* large unexpended balances of program funds.
Some regional officials also saw management reviews as a vehicle to
help keep them involved in the states' programs and as a means of
helping NHTSA build productive partnerships with the states. They noted
that state highway safety personnel change over time and new staff may
not be familiar with federal requirements. Regional officials said that
some states have requested the reviews to assist them in their
programs. For example, the new state highway safety program directors
in California and Missouri requested the reviews to help identify
problems they needed to address. Officials from the region that
conducted the reviews only when requested by a state told us that they
did not regularly do the reviews because they thought such efforts
could hurt their relations with the states.
NHTSA Regional Offices Have Made Limited and Inconsistent Use of
Improvement Plans:
According to Section 402 program regulations, if a NHTSA regional
office finds that a state is not making progress toward its highway
safety goals, NHTSA and the state are to develop an improvement plan to
address the shortcomings. NHTSA officials emphasized that improvement
plans are not intended as punitive actions; rather, they are
collaborative efforts between NHTSA and a state to develop an effective
state safety program. The regulations call for the plan to detail
strategies, program activities, and funding targets to meet the defined
goals. For example, NHTSA, working with one state, developed an
improvement plan that identified specific actions that NHTSA and the
state would accomplish to improve alcohol-related highway safety. The
plan included such actions as implementing a judicial education
program, requiring all police officers working on impaired driving
enforcement to be adequately trained in field sobriety testing, and
developing a statewide DWI violation tracking system.
NHTSA regional offices have made limited use of improvement plans to
help address the states' highway safety performance. Since the
performance-based approach began in 1998, NHTSA and the states have
developed 7 improvement plans in 3 of the 10 NHTSA regions. Of these
plans, four focus on alcohol-related issues, two involve seat-belt
usage, and one addresses overall program management.[Footnote 8]
NHTSA regional offices have also made inconsistent use of improvement
plans. We found that the highway safety performance of a number of
states that were not operating under improvement plans was worse than
the performance of other states that were operating under such plans.
For example, we compared the performance of the three states that had
developed improvement plans for alcohol-related problems with the
performance of other states. Using 1997, the year before the
performance-based approach was uniformly implemented, as a baseline
year, we found that for 14 states, the rate of alcohol-related
fatalities increased from 1997 through 2001, and that for 7 of these
states, the state alcohol-related fatality rate also exceeded the
national rate in 2001. One of these seven states was on an improvement
plan. Furthermore, for one state that was not on an improvement plan,
the alcohol-related fatality rate for 2001 was about double the
national average and grew by over 40 percent from 1997 through 2001.
Similarly, the performance of a number of states that were not
operating under improvement plans to increase seat-belt usage was worse
than the performance of the two states that were operating under such
plans. We found that the rate of seat-belt usage varied widely by
state, from a low of about 52 percent to a high of over 91 percent in
2001. In addition, the rate of change from 1997 through 2001 ranged
from 6 percent less use to 27 percent more use. We found that the seat-
belt usage rates for the two states that were on improvement plans were
about 55 percent and 68 percent in 2001; however, the seat-belt usage
rates for 16 other states were worse than the rate for 1 of these
states.
The limited and inconsistent use of improvement plans is due to a lack
of specificity in criteria for requiring such plans. NHTSA's guidance
says simply that these plans should be developed when a state is not
making progress toward its highway safety goals. Without a consistent
means of measuring progress, NHTSA and state officials lack common
expectations about how to define progress, how long states should have
to demonstrate progress, and how the goals should be set and measured.
NHTSA officials said that while all regions were not using improvement
plans, they were reviewing the states' performance and making
recommendations for state action.
NHTSA officials told us that while some regional offices may not be
doing improvement plans, they periodically assess state performance and
make recommendations for state action. In addition, they pointed out
that some regions believe that it would not be productive to put a
state on an improvement plan if it has been implementing programs NHTSA
has recommended it adopt.
NHTSA Has Designated Two U.S. Territories as High Risk:
If NHTSA finds a state not in compliance with federal law, it can
designate the state's program as high-risk--a more stringent and rarely
used NHTSA oversight tool. NHTSA may place a program in high-risk
status if it determines that the state has a history of unsatisfactory
performance, is not financially stable, lacks a management system that
meets standards, has not conformed to the conditions of previous
grants, or is otherwise not responsible. Once placed in high-risk
status, a state may be subject to a number of special restrictions--
withholding the authority to proceed with projects; additional
financial reporting, monitoring, or prior approvals of spending; or
special management or technical assistance. Currently, NHTSA has not
designated any states as high risk; however, two U.S. territories that
receive Section 402 funds are operating under high-risk status. None of
the officials with whom we spoke from the six regional offices we
visited or from NHTSA headquarters identified concerns about state
programs that would warrant a high-risk designation.
:
Conclusions:
Under NHTSA's performance-based approach to overseeing highway safety
programs, the states and the federal government are to work together to
make the nation's highways safer. The agency's management reviews and
improvement plans create opportunities for NHTSA to help the states
improve and enhance the financial and operational management of their
highway safety programs and make progress toward their highway safety
goals. Because the agency has not provided specific guidance on when
these oversight tools should be used, they are not being used
consistently. As a result, NHTSA's oversight of highway safety programs
is less effective than it could be, both in ensuring the efficient and
proper use of federal funds and in helping the states achieve their
highway safety goals.
The NHTSA regions that conduct management reviews regularly have found
them beneficial, both for identifying weaknesses in states' processes,
systems, and practices and for keeping the regions involved in
productive relationships with the states. Consequently, the regions
that do conduct the reviews have been able to work with the states to
correct vulnerabilities that, if uncorrected, could lead to inefficient
or improper uses of federal safety program funds. These regions'
ongoing involvement with the states also creates opportunities for
sharing and encouraging the implementation of best practices, which may
then lead to more effective safety programs and projects.
Although NHTSA's guidance for developing improvement plans indicates
that the plans should be used when the states are making little or no
progress toward their performance goals, the guidance does not
establish a consistent means of measuring progress. As a result, some
states do not have improvement plans, even though their alcohol-related
fatality rates have increased or their seat-belt usage rates have
declined. Without improvement plans, NHTSA's efforts to work with the
states may not be fully realized. Moreover, without a consistent means
of measuring progress, neither NHTSA nor the states have common
expectations about when improvement plans should be used to help states
meet their highway safety goals.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure more consistent use of management reviews and
improvement plans, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation
direct the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, to provide more specific guidance to the regional
offices on when it is appropriate to use management reviews and
improvement plans to assist states with their safety programs. The
guidance for using improvement plans should include a consistent means
of measuring progress toward meeting established highway safety goals.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of
Transportation for its review and comment. We met with Department
officials, specifically, the Acting Senior Associate Administrator for
Traffic Injury Control and Chief of Injury Control Operations and
Resources, Program Support Division--to discuss their comments. The
officials agreed with our recommendations and stated that they have
begun taking action to develop criteria and guidance to field offices
on the use of management reviews and improvement plans. In addition,
they emphasized that over a longer historical perspective, traffic
safety has greatly improved and the recent increase in alcohol-related
fatalities is slight. The officials also noted that with regard to
alcohol-related fatalities, the problem of the "social drinker" has
been reduced; and now they face the difficult problem of driving by
persons with more severe alcohol abuse. Further, they suggested that
some discussion of recent increases in seat-belt usage should be
included in the report, along with the efforts the department has made
in promoting successful programs. Finally, the officials noted that in
moving to a performance-based approach to oversight, they were acting
in response to congressional concerns and in the spirit of the
Government Performance and Results Act.
In response to the Department of Transportation comments, we have added
information noting the challenges the department faces in achieving
further improvements in highway safety. In addition, we have added
information to the report on seat-belt use and its support of the
"Click-It-or-Ticket" program. We also incorporated technical changes to
the report suggested by the department, as appropriate.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of
NHTSA. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, copies of this report will be available on our Web site at
http//www.gao.gov.
If you have questions about the report, please contact me at (202) 512-
2834. Key contributors to this report were Richard Calhoon, Robert
Ciszewski, Bess Eisenstadt, Dedrick Roberts, and Glen Trochelman.
Sincerely yours,
Peter Guerrero
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Signed by Peter Guerrero:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, asked us to
(1) provide information on trends in highway safety and how alcohol
contributes to these statistics, (2) provide information on how much
funding the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
made available to the states for highway safety programs and how states
have used these funds, and (3) review the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's (NHTSA) oversight of the states' highway safety
programs.
To provide information on trends in highway safety and alcohol's
contribution to these statistics, we reviewed NHTSA highway safety
reports and analyzed NHTSA crash data. We included analyses of data on
overall trends of fatalities and crashes, alcohol-related fatalities
and crashes, and seat-belt use, which are usual measures in determining
highway safety.
To provide information on how much funding TEA-21 made available to the
states for highway safety programs and how states have used these
funds, we obtained data from NHTSA and state sources. NHTSA provided
data on funding for (1) the Section 402 State and Community Grants
program since its inception in 1967; (2) the seven incentive grant
programs authorized under TEA-21 to supplement the Section 402 program
by promoting vehicle occupant protection, discouraging impaired
driving, and improving state safety data; and (3) the amounts
transferred to highway safety programs in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 by
the 34 states whose laws did not comply during those years with the
act's open container and repeat offender requirements. To obtain
information on how the states used their Section 402 and alcohol
transfer funds, we obtained NHTSA data summarizing how states spent
their grant funds. For specific information on how states spent their
transfer funds, we obtained data from six states that we visited:
California, Georgia, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Texas. We selected
these states to provide geographic coverage of six NHTSA regions and
maximize the amount of transfer funds involved. The six states chosen
were among the eight states that had the highest amount of alcohol
transfers for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and in total accounted for
about 40 percent of all transfer funds from the 34 states involved. In
each selected state, we obtained data on alcohol transfer spending from
the state offices responsible for allocating these funds--the traffic
safety office for transfer funds that were allocated to alcohol
programs and the highway safety office for funds that were programmed
for hazard elimination projects.
To review NHTSA's oversight of the states' highway safety programs, we
interviewed NHTSA officials in the Office of Injury Control Operations
and Resources and six NHTSA regional offices responsible for the states
discussed above. We also discussed program oversight with state
officials in our six sample states, and we reviewed state planning
documents, improvement plans, and other state program documents from
the six selected NHTSA regions. Furthermore, we interviewed officials
of private organizations interested in highway traffic safety and
NHTSA's oversight of state highway traffic safety programs, including
the Governor's Highway Safety Association, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, the National Safety Council, AAA (formerly the American
Automobile Association), the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, and the
Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety.
We performed our review from July 2002 through March 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Federal Funding for State Behavioral Safety Programs:
Figure 11:
Dollars in millions.
Alabama; 1998: $4.5; 1999: $4.5; 2000: $6.0; 2001: $5.8; 2002: $7.2.
Alaska; 1998: $0.9; 1999: $0.9; 2000: $1.5; 2001: $3.3; 2002: $2.2.
Arizona; 1998: $2.5; 1999: $3.6; 2000: $3.4; 2001: $6.6; 2002: $6.8.
Arkansas; 1998: $2.1; 1999: $1.9; 2000: $2.8; 2001: $3.7; 2002: $5.6.
California; 1998: $33.5; 1999: $52.3; 2000: $50.2; 2001: $50.6; 2002:
$73.0.
Colorado; 1998: $2.7; 1999: $3.1; 2000: $4.7; 2001: $3.8; 2002: $4.1.
Connecticut; 1998: $1.9; 1999: $1.8; 2000: $4.0; 2001: $8.6; 2002:
$9.4.
Delaware; 1998: $0.7; 1999: $1.1; 2000: $1.3; 2001: $1.6; 2002: $2.5.
District of Columbia; 1998: $0.9; 1999: $1.9; 2000: $2.1; 2001: $1.7;
2002: $2.2.
Florida; 1998: $14.4; 1999: $15.3; 2000: $17.7; 2001: $17.0; 2002:
$20.2.
Georgia; 1998: $4.8; 1999: $6.4; 2000: $9.5; 2001: $19.2; 2002: $9.7.
Hawaii; 1998: $1.7; 1999: $2.3; 2000: $2.7; 2001: $2.6; 2002: $2.7.
Idaho; 1998: $1.9; 1999: $2.1; 2000: $2.1; 2001: $2.5; 2002: $2.2.
Illinois; 1998: $11.2; 1999: $11.0; 2000: $13.6; 2001: $16.7; 2002:
$15.9.
Indiana; 1998: $4.1; 1999: $4.4; 2000: $7.0; 2001: $7.0; 2002: $9.8.
Iowa; 1998: $2.7; 1999: $3.5; 2000: $3.9; 2001: $4.6; 2002: $7.4.
Kansas; 1998: $5.1; 1999: $4.6; 2000: $5.4; 2001: $5.2; 2002: $5.2.
Kentucky; 1998: $2.7; 1999: $2.4; 2000: $3.2; 2001: $5.9; 2002: $5.5.
Louisiana; 1998: $2.3; 1999: $3.2; 2000: $4.4; 2001: $5.8; 2002: $4.5.
Maine; 1998: $1.5; 1999: $1.8; 2000: $1.9; 2001: $2.0; 2002: $1.5.
Maryland; 1998: $3.1; 1999: $3.8; 2000: $6.3; 2001: $9.7; 2002: $8.6.
Massachusetts; 1998: $2.8; 1999: $3.1; 2000: $3.7; 2001: $10.9; 2002:
$6.0.
Michigan; 1998: $6.4; 1999: $6.9; 2000: $8.9; 2001: $9.7; 2002: $11.2.
Minnesota; 1998: $4.0; 1999: $4.2; 2000: $4.8; 2001: $11.0; 2002: $9.4.
Mississippi; 1998: $2.1; 1999: $2.1; 2000: $3.8; 2001: $4.2; 2002:
$4.1.
Missouri; 1998: $4.1; 1999: $4.5; 2000: $4.9; 2001: $15.5; 2002: $7.0.
Montana; 1998: $0.9; 1999: $1.2; 2000: $1.4; 2001: $5.4; 2002: $5.4.
Nebraska; 1998: $1.9; 1999: $2.1; 2000: $2.7; 2001: $3.7; 2002: $4.0.
Nevada; 1998: $1.2; 1999: $1.5; 2000: $2.3; 2001: $2.0; 2002: $2.5.
New Hampshire; 1998: $1.0; 1999: $1.0; 2000: $2.1; 2001: $1.8; 2002:
$2.3.
New Jersey; 1998: $4.3; 1999: $4.4; 2000: $6.3; 2001: $5.3; 2002: $9.5.
New Mexico; 1998: $2.8; 1999: $3.7; 2000: $4.3; 2001: $6.2; 2002: $5.7.
New York; 1998: $8.4; 1999: $14.4; 2000: $17.0; 2001: $17.1; 2002:
$14.8.
North Carolina; 1998: $8.4; 1999: $10.7; 2000: $12.7; 2001: $11.8;
2002: $11.6.
North Dakota; 1998: $1.3; 1999: $1.2; 2000: $2.0; 2001: $2.4; 2002:
$2.0.
Ohio; 1998: $5.4; 1999: $8.8; 2000: $8.0; 2001: $9.9; 2002: $9.9.
Oklahoma; 1998: $2.3; 1999: $4.0; 2000: $2.8; 2001: $3.4; 2002: $4.5.
Oregon; 1998: $3.9; 1999: $5.7; 2000: $6.4; 2001: $5.3; 2002: $6.5.
Pennsylvania; 1998: $7.8; 1999: $8.0; 2000: $10.0; 2001: $11.7; 2002:
$10.2.
Puerto Rico; 1998: $1.6; 1999: $2.0; 2000: $2.6; 2001: $4.2; 2002:
$6.0.
Rhode Island; 1998: $0.7; 1999: $0.9; 2000: $1.4; 2001: $2.1; 2002:
$1.8.
South Carolina; 1998: $2.0; 1999: $2.7; 2000: $4.1; 2001: $5.3; 2002:
$3.5.
South Dakota; 1998: $1.0; 1999: $1.5; 2000: $1.0; 2001: $1.0; 2002:
$1.4.
Tennessee; 1998: $3.4; 1999: $3.6; 2000: $4.8; 2001: $10.4; 2002:
$10.1.
Texas; 1998: $11.9; 1999: $22.1; 2000: $18.8; 2001: $20.8; 2002: $16.6.
Utah; 1998: $2.0; 1999: $2.4; 2000: $3.0; 2001: $2.9; 2002: $3.6.
Vermont; 1998: $1.7; 1999: $1.9; 2000: $2.6; 2001: $3.0; 2002: $2.7.
Virginia; 1998: $4.0; 1999: $5.8; 2000: $9.3; 2001: $8.7; 2002: $13.3.
Washington; 1998: $3.7; 1999: $7.3; 2000: $6.7; 2001: $7.8; 2002: $7.0.
West Virginia; 1998: $1.0; 1999: $1.3; 2000: $1.8; 2001: $2.0; 2002:
$2.3.
Wisconsin; 1998: $4.1; 1999: $3.9; 2000: $5.6; 2001: $8.8; 2002: $5.3.
Wyoming; 1998: $0.7; 1999: $0.7; 2000: $0.7; 2001: $1.6; 2002: $0.9.
State total; 1998: $212.1; 1999: $275.3; 2000: $320.3; 2001: $399.6;
2002: $407.3.
Bureau of Indian Affairs; 1998: $1.1; 1999: $1.1; 2000: $1.1; 2001:
$1.2; 2002: $1.3.
American Samoa; 1998: $0.4; 1999: $0.4; 2000: $0.6; 2001: $0.7; 2002:
$0.6.
Guam; 1998: $0.4; 1999: $0.4; 2000: $0.6; 2001: $0.4; 2002: $0.6.
Northern Marianas; 1998: $0.4; 1999: $0.4; 2000: $0.6; 2001: $0.7;
2002: $0.7.
Virgin Islands; 1998: $0.4; 1999: $0.4; 2000: $0.4; 2001: $0.6; 2002:
$0.7.
Total; 1998: $214.6; 1999: $278.0; 2000: $323.6; 2001: $403.0; 2002:
$411.2.
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.
Notes: State totals include funds for the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico. Figures may not add because of rounding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: The Transfer Provisions Encourage Changes in State Laws:
Since Congress enacted the penalty transfer provisions, the general
trend in the states has been to enact legislation to bring state laws
in conformance with the federal requirements. Some, but not all, states
have changed their highway safety laws to conform to the federal
provisions. In 1998, prior to the passage of TEA-21, 14 states had
conforming open container laws, 5 states had conforming repeat offender
laws, and 3 states had both laws. (See table 3.) By the time of the
first transfer penalty assessments in 2000, 31 states had conforming
open container laws, 24 had conforming repeat offender laws, and 19
states had both laws. Currently, 25 states are in conformance with both
laws.
Table 3: Changes in State Compliance with Federal Open Container and
Repeat Offender Requirements:
States complying with open container requirement (Sec. 154); 1998 (TEA-
21 passed): 14; October 2000 (First transfers applied): 31; October
2001 (Second transfers applied): 35; October 2002 (Third transfers:
applied): 37.
States complying with repeat offender requirement (Sec. 164); 1998
(TEA-21 passed): 5; October 2000 (First transfers applied): 24; October
2001 (Second transfers applied): 28; October 2002 (Third transfers:
applied): 33.
States complying with both requirements; 1998 (TEA-21 passed): 3;
October 2000 (First transfers applied): 19; October 2001 (Second
transfers applied): 23; October 2002 (Third transfers: applied): 25.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA and NHTSA data.
Note: Table includes compliance status of all states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
[End of table]
In the six states we visited, officials with whom we spoke differed in
their assessment of the effectiveness of the transfer provisions. Some
said that the provisions helped change state laws, while others thought
that the transfers had little effect on their legislature. For example,
Georgia safety officials said that the federal transfer provisions were
crucial in the state debate over enactment of both open container and
repeat offender laws. Likewise Texas safety officials told us they
believed the transfer provisions were important in getting the state to
enact both laws. Both Georgia and Texas were subject to both transfer
penalties in 2001 but no transfers in 2002, as a result of legislative
changes. However, New York safety officials told us that the transfer
amounts were insufficient to generate interest in the state legislature
and had no real effect on state policy. Instead, the transfer
provisions had simply become a bureaucratic exercise for state
administrators. Table 4 shows a state-by-state breakdown of transfer
funds.
Table 4: States' Compliance with Alcohol Transfer Laws as of October 1,
2002:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data.
Note: For each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, we
present the total amount transferred for fiscal years 2001 and 2002,
the first 2 years the alcohol transfer provisions were in effect.
[A] Some states that were in compliance with both laws as of October 1,
2002, have transfer amounts because they were not in compliance with at
least one of the laws before that date.
[End of table]
NHTSA and some state officials cited rules limiting the advocacy
actions of state officials as a barrier to getting more such laws
passed. In the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Transportation
Appropriations Act, Congress expanded certain existing anti-lobbying
restrictions covering the department and NHTSA to include state
officials. The act generally prohibits the use of federal Department of
Transportation funds to advocate or oppose state legislation and from
"grass roots lobbying" campaigns that encourage third parties to
advocate or oppose introduced congressional or state
legislation.[Footnote 9] As a result, some state highway safety
officials that receive federal highway safety funds believe they are
barred from lobbying their state legislatures to enact better highway
safety laws. Some state officials told us that this means they cannot
contact state legislative staff or members to discuss the advantages of
taking actions to improve highway safety in the state. For example,
they said they are prohibited from taking the initiative to discuss the
merits of primary seat-belt laws that have been shown to save lives or
to encourage the passage of the open container, repeat offender, or the
0.08 BAC laws the Congress supports, unless they are specifically asked
to do so. The Governor's Highway Safety Association believes that the
current restrictions are an obstacle preventing states' safety
officials from lobbying on behalf of enacting state legislation that
meets the federal open container and repeat offender requirements.
However, safety officials from the states we visited differed in their
assessment of the anti-lobbying provisions. Officials in California and
Georgia considered the provisions a serious impediment that limited
their ability to influence safety legislation. However, officials from
New York, Ohio, Texas, and Missouri did not consider the anti-lobbying
provisions to be a major impediment in their states.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Click-It-or-Ticket is a highway safety program that uses increased
enforcement along with a media campaign to encourage seat-belt use.
[2] Traffic Safety Facts 2001, NHTSA. December 2002. These are the most
recent available data.
[3] In commenting on a draft of this report, NHTSA officials noted that
between 1997 and 2001 motorcycle fatalities increased by 1,065, which
contributed to the overall increase in highway fatalities.
[4] Fatality rates, which are generally reported as the number of
deaths per 100 million VMT, provide a consistent measure of highway
fatalities and are appropriate for making year-to-year comparisons. The
primary source of uncertainty in estimating fatality rates is the
number of vehicle miles traveled. These data are subject to sampling
errors whose magnitude depends on how well 4,000 continuous traffic-
counting locations represent nationwide traffic rates. The data are
also subject to estimating differences between the states, though FHWA
works to minimize such differences.
[5] We discuss factors contributing to highway crashes in more detail
in another report, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Safety:
Research Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor
Vehicle Crashes, (GAO-03-436, Mar. 31, 2003).
[6] Alcohol-related fatalities represent crash victims killed with BAC
at any level above 0.01. At this concentration, a person's blood
contains 1 one-hundredth of 1 percent alcohol.
[7] For the first 2 years, the transfer penalty was 1.5 percent of the
funds apportioned to the state's National Highway System, Surface
Transportation Program, and Interstate Maintenance funding, for each
transfer penalty. This amount rose to 3 percent for each transfer
penalty in October 2002.
[8] The seven improvement plans include one that NHTSA developed with
the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs for a tribe,
rather than a state. The Bureau of Indian Affairs receives Section 402
funds.
[9] The act does not prevent state officials from communicating with
Congress or state legislatures if they are requested to do so.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
