Traffic Safety Programs
Progress, States' Challenges, and Issues for Reauthorization
Gao ID: GAO-08-990T July 16, 2008
Although the number of traffic crashes and the associated fatality rates have decreased over the last 10 years, the number of traffic fatalities has unfortunately remained at about 42,000 to 43,000 annually. To help states reduce traffic fatalities, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to award traffic safety grants to states and implement a high-visibility enforcement (HVE) program that combines intensive state and local enforcement of safety belt and impaired driving laws with extensive media communication provided by NHTSA. SAFETEA-LU also added requirements for NHTSA to review all states' management of traffic safety grants at least once every 3 years. This statement is based on recent GAO reports and ongoing work that address (1) NHTSA's progress in administering and overseeing the traffic safety grant and HVE programs, (2) the programs' effectiveness in addressing traffic safety issues, and (3) issues for Congress to consider in reauthorizing funding for the programs when SAFETEA-LU expires in 2009. This statement also discusses older driver safety. GAO's work, which included recommendations, was based on analyses of traffic fatality data; information from selected states; and reviews of legislation, NHTSA guidelines and procedures, and management reports.
In general, NHTSA has made substantial progress in administering and overseeing the traffic safety grant and HVE programs. For example, in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about $576 million through five safety incentive grant programs focused on national priorities, such as safety belt use, impaired driving, and motorcyclist safety. In addition, NHTSA has fully implemented the HVE program and evaluated campaign effectiveness. However, NHTSA's campaign evaluations are based on inconsistent and incomplete data and limited performance measures--GAO made recommendations in our recent report to overcome these limitations. Finally, NHTSA has improved the consistency of its management review process and implemented the requirement to conduct a management review of each state at least once every 3 years. However, NHTSA does not systematically analyze the recommendations that result from the reviews and has not nationally tracked the extent to which states have implemented its recommendations. NHTSA has not yet assessed the effectiveness of the grant programs, but selected state officials told GAO the programs are helping to address key traffic safety issues such as unrestrained driving and alcohol-impaired driving. These officials also identified challenges that limit program effectiveness, such as difficulties in meeting eligibility requirements, separate application processes, and limited flexibility. Additionally, a key indicator of effectiveness at the national level--the number of traffic fatalities annually--has remained essentially constant over the last 10 years, although traffic fatalities per vehicle mile traveled have declined by about 14 percent. During this time, some causes of fatalities have changed. For example, motorcycle fatalities increased 127 percent while child passenger fatalities decreased 31 percent. The challenges associated with the safety incentive grants, the lack of performance accountability mechanisms to tie state performance to the receipt of grants, and the persistence of substantial numbers of traffic fatalities nationwide raise issues that Congress may want to consider in reauthorizing funding for traffic safety programs when SAFETEA-LU expires in 2009. According to NHTSA officials, the challenges related to the safety incentive grants stem from the structure of the grant programs established under SAFETEA-LU. In addition, state performance in improving traffic safety is not always tied to the receipt of the grants. Furthermore, the plateau in the number of annual traffic fatalities nationwide and the changes in causes of fatalities may indicate that the traffic safety programs, as currently structured, have limited ability to effectively reduce fatalities. Consequently, in 2009, Congress will be faced with deciding whether to redesign the programs to simplify the grant application process, allow states more flexibility in using grant funds, provide different or additional incentives, or focus more specifically on accountability for performance. However, such changes would require improved safety data to enhance states' ability to identify safety issues and a robust accountability system to ensure that states use federal funds appropriately.
GAO-08-990T, Traffic Safety Programs: Progress, States' Challenges, and Issues for Reauthorization
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-990T
entitled 'Traffic Safety Programs: Progress, States' Challenges, and
Issues for Reauthorization' which was released on July 16, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT Wednesday, July 16, 2008:
Traffic safety programs:
Progress, States' Challenges, and Issues for Reauthorization:
Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director:
Physical Infrastructure:
GAO-08-990T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-990T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Although the number of traffic crashes and the associated fatality
rates have decreased over the last 10 years, the number of traffic
fatalities has unfortunately remained at about 42,000 to 43,000
annually. To help states reduce traffic fatalities, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized funding for the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to award traffic safety grants to
states and implement a high-visibility enforcement (HVE) program that
combines intensive state and local enforcement of safety belt and
impaired driving laws with extensive media communication provided by
NHTSA. SAFETEA-LU also added requirements for NHTSA to review all
states‘ management of traffic safety grants at least once every 3
years. This statement is based on recent GAO reports and ongoing work
that address (1) NHTSA‘s progress in administering and overseeing the
traffic safety grant and HVE programs, (2) the programs‘ effectiveness
in addressing traffic safety issues, and (3) issues for Congress to
consider in reauthorizing funding for the programs when SAFETEA-LU
expires in 2009. This statement also discusses older driver safety.
GAO‘s work, which included recommendations, was based on analyses of
traffic fatality data; information from selected states; and reviews of
legislation, NHTSA guidelines and procedures, and management reports.
What GAO Found:
In general, NHTSA has made substantial progress in administering and
overseeing the traffic safety grant and HVE programs. For example, in
fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about $576 million through
five safety incentive grant programs focused on national priorities,
such as safety belt use, impaired driving, and motorcyclist safety. In
addition, NHTSA has fully implemented the HVE program and evaluated
campaign effectiveness. However, NHTSA‘s campaign evaluations are based
on inconsistent and incomplete data and limited performance
measures”GAO made recommendations in our recent report to overcome
these limitations. Finally, NHTSA has improved the consistency of its
management review process and implemented the requirement to conduct a
management review of each state at least once every 3 years. However,
NHTSA does not systematically analyze the recommendations that result
from the reviews and has not nationally tracked the extent to which
states have implemented its recommendations.
NHTSA has not yet assessed the effectiveness of the grant programs, but
selected state officials told GAO the programs are helping to address
key traffic safety issues such as unrestrained driving and alcohol-
impaired driving. These officials also identified challenges that limit
program effectiveness, such as difficulties in meeting eligibility
requirements, separate application processes, and limited flexibility.
Additionally, a key indicator of effectiveness at the national
level”the number of traffic fatalities annually”has remained
essentially constant over the last 10 years, although traffic
fatalities per vehicle mile traveled have declined by about 14 percent.
During this time, some causes of fatalities have changed. For example,
motorcycle fatalities increased 127 percent while child passenger
fatalities decreased 31 percent.
The challenges associated with the safety incentive grants, the lack of
performance accountability mechanisms to tie state performance to the
receipt of grants, and the persistence of substantial numbers of
traffic fatalities nationwide raise issues that Congress may want to
consider in reauthorizing funding for traffic safety programs when
SAFETEA-LU expires in 2009. According to NHTSA officials, the
challenges related to the safety incentive grants stem from the
structure of the grant programs established under SAFETEA-LU. In
addition, state performance in improving traffic safety is not always
tied to the receipt of the grants. Furthermore, the plateau in the
number of annual traffic fatalities nationwide and the changes in
causes of fatalities may indicate that the traffic safety programs, as
currently structured, have limited ability to effectively reduce
fatalities. Consequently, in 2009, Congress will be faced with deciding
whether to redesign the programs to simplify the grant application
process, allow states more flexibility in using grant funds, provide
different or additional incentives, or focus more specifically on
accountability for performance. However, such changes would require
improved safety data to enhance states‘ ability to identify safety
issues and a robust accountability system to ensure that states use
federal funds appropriately.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-990T]. For more information,
contact Katherine A. Siggerud, (202) 512-2834, siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing to discuss
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) programs
and oversight. This is an urgent issue because the number of traffic
fatalities has unfortunately remained at about 43,000 annually over the
last decade, although the fatality rate has decreased by 14 percent
during that period. The number of crashes during this time period has
also decreased by 12 percent. Congress has developed many approaches to
help states and communities reduce traffic fatalities, including
traffic safety grant programs and a high-visibility enforcement (HVE)
program as well as federal oversight of, and technical assistance to,
state highway safety programs. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
authorized NHTSA to award nearly $2.4 billion from fiscal year 2005
through 2009 to states for Section 402 formula grants[Footnote 1] and
safety incentive grant programs which focus on specific national safety
priorities--such as safety belt use, impaired driving, and motorcyclist
safety--and include eligibility criteria which states need to meet in
order to receive the grants. In addition, SAFETEA-LU authorized $29
million annually for NHTSA to implement an HVE program that combines
intensive state and local enforcement of a specific traffic safety law
with extensive media communication provided by NHTSA to inform the
public about the campaigns: Click It or Ticket (CIOT) to increase
safety belt use, and Over the Limit, Under Arrest (OTLUA) to decrease
the number of impaired drivers. Finally, to strengthen NHTSA's
oversight, SAFETEA-LU added Section 412 to Title 23 U.S.C., which among
other things included a requirement that the administration conduct
regular management reviews--reviews of states' management of traffic
safety grants--for all states at least once every 3 years and make
recommendations.
My testimony today addresses (1) NHTSA's progress in administering and
overseeing the traffic safety grant and HVE programs, (2) the programs'
effectiveness in addressing traffic safety issues, and (3) issues for
Congress to consider in reauthorizing funding for the programs in 2009.
In addition, this statement provides information on a traffic safety
area that we expect to become a more serious issue in the future--older
driver safety.
My testimony is based on three recently issued reports on (1) NHTSA's
Safety Incentive Grants, (2) the HVE campaign programs, and (3) NHTSA's
oversight of state traffic safety programs and the approaches currently
available to improve safety outcomes.[Footnote 2] In addition, we
discuss issues raised in last year's report on older driver
safety.[Footnote 3] For all four of these reviews, we analyzed traffic
fatality data from NHTSA and selected states, visited selected states,
interviewed state highway safety officials, and reviewed relevant
documents. We interviewed officials from NHTSA and representatives of
at least one nongovernmental organization, including representatives of
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
the Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA), and the National
Safety Council, among others. We also reviewed other relevant
documentation, including legislation, NHTSA guidelines and procedures,
and all NHTSA management reports developed in fiscal years 2005 through
2007. For the NHTSA oversight review, we analyzed data provided by
NHTSA on how states spent highway safety grants from fiscal years 1999
through 2007. We found the data sufficiently reliable for purposes of
this testimony. We conducted these four performance audits between
April 2006 and July 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 meets these
standards.
Summary:
In general, NHTSA has made substantial progress in implementing and
overseeing the traffic safety grant programs and the HVE program. In
fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about $435 million[Footnote
4] to states through the Section 402 grant program, and an additional
$576 million through five safety incentive grant programs focused on
safety belt use, child safety seat and booster seat use, impaired
driving, motorcyclist safety, and traffic safety information systems.
While all states receive Section 402 grant funds, the extent to which
states have qualified for the additional incentive grant programs has
varied. For example, in 2006, 22 states received the Safety Belt Use
grant and 5 states received the Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use
grant because not all states were able to pass the laws that these
grant programs required. A majority of states received the other three
grants for which states are required to take actions that do not
specifically involve passing laws. In addition, NHTSA has fully
implemented the HVE program by (1) developing and disseminating
advertisements, (2) coordinating advertisement and enforcement
activities with all states, and (3) evaluating the effectiveness of the
CIOT and OTLUA campaigns. However, NHTSA's evaluations of its HVE
campaign have shortcomings--such as inconsistent and incomplete data
and limited performance measures--that hinder the administration's
ability to assess the overall effectiveness of the campaigns. To
improve the evaluations of HVE campaigns, we recommended that NHTSA
develop a minimum core set of reporting requirements for states and
include additional performance measures in the evaluations. Finally, as
we recommended in 2003, NHTSA has improved the consistency of its
management review process--one of the administration's key tools for
overseeing state management of traffic safety grants--including
implementing the Section 412 requirement that the administration
conduct a management review of each state at least once every 3 years.
Although the recommendations made by NHTSA as a result of the
management reviews provide insight into common state challenges--
information that NHTSA could use to direct some of its technical
assistance and training resources--NHTSA does not currently analyze
these recommendations systematically at a national level. In addition,
NHTSA has not nationally tracked the extent to which states have
implemented its recommendations, which could help the administration
assess the impact of its oversight.
NHTSA has not yet assessed the effectiveness of the grant programs, but
selected state officials told us the programs are helping to improve
traffic safety; these officials also identified challenges that limit
program effectiveness. Additionally, a key indicator of effectiveness
at the national level--overall traffic fatalities--has not improved
over the last 10 years. NHTSA currently does not have sufficient
performance measures to assess the grant programs' effectiveness but
has begun the process of developing those measures. In addition,
insufficient time has passed since the safety incentive grants were
first awarded in 2006 to analyze trends in fatalities that the states'
use of the grants might have affected. Nevertheless, officials in
selected states told us the traffic safety grant and HVE programs help
address key safety issues such as unbelted driving and alcohol-impaired
driving. State officials further said that incentive grants complement
Section 402 grants by allowing states to expand core traffic safety
activities. For example, states have used the safety belt use and
impaired driving incentive grants to fund enforcement activities for
high-visibility enforcement campaigns. However, state officials also
noted several challenges that limit the effectiveness of these
programs:
* Despite the availability of incentive grants, some states have faced
challenges passing legislation required to qualify for the safety belt
use and child safety and booster seat grants.
* Each safety incentive grant has a separate application process, which
has proven challenging for some states to manage, especially those with
small safety offices.
* Some states also would have preferred more flexibility in using the
safety incentive grants; this could become a key issue in the future as
emerging issues--such as older driver safety--become more critical in
states.
At the national level, a key indicator of the overall effectiveness of
these programs--traffic fatalities--has not decreased but rather has
remained at about 43,000 for the last 10 years. Traffic fatalities per
100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) declined, however, by
approximately 14 percent in this time period. Within this overall
indicator, some causes of fatalities have changed in the last decade.
For example, between 1997 and 2006, annual motorcycle fatalities
increased by 127 percent while child passenger fatalities decreased by
31 percent.
The challenges associated with the safety incentive grants, the lack of
performance accountability mechanisms to tie state performance to
receipt of grants, and the persistence of substantial numbers of
traffic fatalities nationwide as well as changes in causes of
fatalities raise issues that Congress may want to consider in
reauthorizing funding for the Surface Transportation Program. First,
NHTSA officials told us that the challenges related to the safety
incentive grants--difficulties in meeting eligibility requirements,
separate application processes, and limited flexibility--stem from the
structure of the grant programs authorized under SAFETEA-LU. Second,
although NHTSA is developing additional performance measures to
evaluate the results of traffic safety grants, state performance is not
always tied to the receipt of the grants. Furthermore, the plateau in
the number of annual traffic fatalities nationwide and the changes in
causes of fatalities may indicate that the current structure of traffic
safety programs has limited ability to effectively reduce fatalities
and allow NHTSA and states to respond to emerging safety issues, such
as motorcycle safety in recent years and potentially older driver
safety in the future. Consequently, in 2009, Congress will be faced
with deciding whether the programs could be designed differently to
simplify the grant application process, allow states more flexibility
in using grant funds to address current and emerging safety issues,
provide different or additional incentives, or focus more specifically
on performance accountability. NHTSA officials noted that the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) 2003 reauthorization proposal
included features that would address these issues, such as performance-
based grants within the Section 402 grant. However, these changes would
require improved safety data to enhance states' ability to identify
safety issues and a robust accountability system to assure that states
use federal funds appropriately.
Background:
In 2006, more than 42,600 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes.
Overall, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the
last decade, although the fatality rate declined by approximately 14
percent, from 1.65 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 1997 to 1.41 in
2006 (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: Trends in Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rates (1997 to
2006):
This figure is a combination bar and line graph showing trends in
traffic fatalities and fatality rates (1997 to 2006). The X axis is the
year, the left Y axis represents the fatalities, and the right Y axis
represents fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The line
represents the fatalities per 100 million VMT, and the bars represent
the total fatalities.
Year: 1997
Total fatalities: 42,013;
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.646.
Year: 1998;
Total fatalities: 41,501;
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.579.
Year: 1999;
Total fatalities: 41,717;
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.551.
Year: 2000;
Total fatalities: 41,945;
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.527.
Year: 2001;
Total fatalities: 42,196;
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.508.
Year: 2002;
Total fatalities: 43005;
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.506.
Year: 2003;
Total fatalities: 42,884;
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.483.
Year: 2004;
Total fatalities: 42,836;
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.446.
Year: 2005;
Total fatalities: 43,510;
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.455.
Year: 2006;
Total fatalities: 42,642;
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.41.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA and FHWA data.
[End of figure]
The two leading factors contributing to fatal crashes are the failure
to use safety belts and alcohol-impaired driving; speeding and
motorcycle crashes are also key factors.[Footnote 5] Overall,
unrestrained fatalities[Footnote 6] and alcohol-involved[Footnote 7]
fatalities have decreased over the last two decades. However, in
contrast to the progress made in reducing unrestrained and alcohol-
involved motor vehicle fatalities and fatality rates over time,
speeding-related fatalities have remained fairly constant, and
motorcycle fatalities and fatality rates have increased significantly
over the last decade.
While older drivers currently represent about 14 percent of annual
traffic fatalities, their safety is an emerging issue that will likely
become more serious due to predicted rapid growth in the elderly
population. By 2030, the number of licensed drivers ages 65 and older
is expected to nearly double to about 57 million. As people age, they
may experience declines in physical, visual, and cognitive functions
that affect their ability to drive safely. While older drivers
experience fewer fatal crashes per licensed driver than younger
drivers, they are more likely to suffer injuries or die in crashes.
Through SAFETEA-LU, Congress authorized nearly $2.4 billion for 5
years, from fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to provide safety grants to
assist states' efforts to reduce traffic fatalities. This represents an
increase of $172 million annually from the authorization levels under
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) from fiscal
years 1998 through 2003.[Footnote 8] The largest portion of these
funds--about $1 billion--was allocated for the continuation of the
Section 402 grant program that provides core highway safety funds for
all states through a formula based on each state's population and
public road miles. States can use Section 402 funding to address a
variety of traffic safety issues. SAFETEA-LU also modified or added
five safety incentive grant programs, as follows:[Footnote 9]
* Safety Belt Use ($498 million)--encourages states to enact and
directly enforce safety belt use laws. States qualify for this program
if they pass primary safety belt laws or achieve and maintain a safety
belt usage rate of 85 percent. States can use funds for a range of
highway safety activities, including public education programs or
construction to improve a hazardous roadway.
* Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use ($25 million)--encourages
states to enact and enforce booster seat laws.[Footnote 10] States
qualify for this program if they have in effect a law requiring any
child under the age of 8 to be secured in an appropriate child
restraint system, unless the child weighs more than 65 pounds or is 4
feet 9 inches or taller. States can use funds for child restraint
programs, including enforcing laws or training child safety
professionals and parents on the proper use of child safety and booster
seats. States may use up to 50 percent of the funds to purchase and
distribute child safety and booster seats for low-income families.
* Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures ($515 million)--encourages
states to implement enforcement, education, training, and other
countermeasure activities to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. States
qualify for this grant by: (1) achieving a low alcohol-related fatality
rate of 0.5 or less per 100 million VMT, (2) being 1 of the 10 states
with the highest alcohol-related fatality rate, or (3) meeting specific
programmatic criteria--three in fiscal year 2006, four in fiscal year
2007, and five in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.[Footnote 11]
* Motorcyclist Safety ($25 million)--to encourage states to adopt and
implement programs to reduce crashes involving motorcyclists. States
can use funds for motorcyclist safety training and motorist awareness
programs. To qualify, states must meet one of six programmatic criteria
in the first fiscal year and two in the second and subsequent
years.[Footnote 12]
* State Traffic Safety Information Systems Improvement ($138 million)-
-to adopt and implement programs to improve states' safety data
systems, which includes data on crashes, vehicles, drivers, enforcement
or adjudication, and injury surveillance. States can use funds to
improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity,
integration, and accessibility of state data to identify national,
state, and local highway and traffic safety programs. To qualify in the
first year, a state must meet three criteria. To qualify in subsequent
years, a state must meet five criteria.[Footnote 13] In 2004, GAO
reported that state traffic safety data systems vary considerably in
the extent to which they meet recommended criteria used by NHTSA to
assess the quality of crash information.[Footnote 14]
SAFETEA-LU also authorized $29 million annually from fiscal years 2006
through 2009 for NHTSA to implement two nationwide HVE campaigns to
increase safety belt use--CIOT--and reduce alcohol-impaired driving--
OTLUA. HVE campaigns combine intensive traffic law enforcement with
extensive communication, education, and outreach informing the public
about the enforcement activity. This combination of media and
enforcement is designed to increase the public's perception that people
who violate the law will be ticketed, arrested, convicted, or punished,
and persuade them to adhere to the law. NHTSA is responsible for
developing and disseminating national advertisements, coordinating with
states to conduct the campaigns, and evaluating the results. State and
local law enforcement agencies provide resources for the campaigns such
as officers, cars, and equipment for patrols and checkpoints and can
use federal traffic safety grants to support these activities.
NHTSA oversees state traffic safety grant programs by reviewing states'
management of these grants and assessing their progress in improving
safety outcomes, and in 2003 GAO recommended that NHTSA take steps to
improve its oversight. NHTSA oversees states' grant management by
monitoring spending and conducting triennial management reviews
designed to ensure that states manage grants effectively, efficiently,
and in compliance with laws and regulations. NHTSA also assesses
states' performance against state-established safety goals and national
safety outcomes. NHTSA conducts special management reviews of states
with consistently high alcohol-related fatality rates or low safety
belt use rates and less than half of the national average improvement
in these areas over time.[Footnote 15] A special management review is
an in-depth evaluation of a state's impaired driving or safety belt use
program which NHTSA uses to recommend program improvements. In
addition, at states' request, NHTSA officials told us that the
administration coordinates voluntary technical program assessments
conducted by leading independent experts who review state programs in
one of seven traffic safety areas and recommend program
improvements.[Footnote 16] In 2003, we found that NHTSA used management
reviews and resulting improvement plans inconsistently across the
administration's 10 regional offices, which made it difficult to ensure
that states used federal funds in accordance with requirements and that
they addressed program weaknesses. As a result, we recommended that
NHTSA provide more specific guidance to regional offices on when to
conduct management reviews and use improvement plans, and how to
measure state progress toward meeting safety goals.[Footnote 17]
NHTSA Has Successfully Implemented the Traffic Safety and HVE Programs
and Improved the Consistency of Its Oversight Process:
Overall, NHTSA has successfully administered the traffic safety grant
and HVE programs and improved the consistency of its oversight. In
fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about $1 billion to states
through the Section 402 program and five incentive grant programs, but
some states were unable to meet the eligibility requirements for two of
the incentive grant programs--the Safety Belt Use and Child Safety and
Booster Seat Use programs--which required states to pass laws. NHTSA
has implemented the HVE program by developing and disseminating
advertising, coordinating with states, and evaluating the effectiveness
of the campaigns. However, NHTSA's campaign evaluations have weaknesses
related to data and performance measures that hinder the
administration's ability to assess the campaigns' key components and
overall effectiveness, and we recommended that NHTSA take steps to
address these shortcomings. Finally, as we recommended in 2003, NHTSA
has improved the consistency of its oversight process, including
implementing requirements added by SAFETEA-LU. Even so, NHTSA does not
currently analyze its management review recommendations to identify
common state challenges, provide assistance accordingly, and assess the
impact of its oversight.
NHTSA Has Awarded Traffic Safety Grants to States:
NHTSA has fully implemented the Section 402 and safety incentive grant
programs, although some states have been unable to qualify for certain
incentive grants, particularly those requiring states to pass laws. As
table 1 indicates, in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about
$435 million to states[Footnote 18] through the Section 402 grant
program, and awarded an additional $576 million to states through the
five incentive grant programs.
Table 1: Grant Funds Awarded in Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 (Dollars in
millions):
Grants: Section 402;
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: $434.6.
Grants: Safety Incentive Grants;
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: [Empty].
Grants: Safety Belt Use;
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: 243.6.
Grants: Child Safety and Booster Seat;
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: 8.6.
Grants: Impaired Driving;
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: 242.8.
Grants: Motorcyclist Safety;
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: 11.9.
Grants: Traffic Safety Information Systems;
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: 68.7.
Grants: Total Safety Incentive Grants;
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: $575.6.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
In each of these years, all states received the Section 402 formula
grant and the Impaired Driving grant, and the majority of states
received the Motorcyclist Safety and Traffic Safety Information Systems
grants. However, fewer than half the states were able to meet the
eligibility requirements for the Safety Belt Use and Child Safety and
Booster Seat grant programs, which required states to pass laws--a
primary safety belt law or a booster seat law--in order to qualify for
the grants. Specifically, in fiscal year 2006, 22 states received the
Safety Belt Use grant.[Footnote 19] In fiscal year 2007, two additional
states qualified for this grant by passing a primary safety belt law.
Beginning in fiscal year 2008, NHTSA will also award the Safety Belt
Use grant to states that have achieved an 85 percent safety belt use
rate in the preceding 2 calendar years. In fiscal year 2008, six
additional states will receive this grant--five states qualified based
on safety belt use rates, and one state based on a new primary safety
belt law. According to a NHTSA official, only two additional states
have a mathematical chance of qualifying for this grant in fiscal year
2009 based on safety belt use rates. Similarly, five states received
the Child Safety and Booster Seat Use grant in fiscal year 2006. In
fiscal year 2007, 8 additional states qualified for this grant program,
for a total of 13 states receiving the grant that year.[Footnote 20]
NHTSA Has Implemented the HVE Program, but Should Take Steps to Improve
Evaluation of the Program:
NHTSA has implemented a nationwide HVE program, but we recently
recommended that NHTSA take steps to improve its evaluations so the
administration can better assess the overall effectiveness of the
campaigns. As specified in SAFETEA-LU, NHTSA has implemented the HVE
program by (1) developing and disseminating advertising, (2)
coordinating with states on media and enforcement activities, and (3)
annually evaluating the effectiveness of the CIOT and OTLUA campaigns.
NHTSA introduced a national plan in 2005 that set forth an advertising
strategy and has also developed advertisements and purchased national
media time. In addition, NHTSA provides guidance to states, including
an overall strategy for conducting the campaigns, as well as technical
assistance and advertising materials such as posters and model press
releases. Officials in selected states said that NHTSA has provided the
support they need to conduct HVE campaigns. Although NHTSA's annual
evaluations indicate that the campaigns are helping to improve safety
belt use and reduce impaired driving, these evaluations have weaknesses
that hinder the administration's ability to assess the level of state
and local activity--a key component of the campaigns--and the
campaigns' overall effectiveness. For example, NHTSA cannot
meaningfully analyze and compare state activities because state data
are incomplete and inconsistent due to voluntary reporting by law
enforcement agencies. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot measure the campaigns'
overall effectiveness because the performance measures used to evaluate
the campaigns are not comprehensive. For example, while NHTSA measures
the change in daytime safety belt use, it does not directly measure
nighttime safety belt use, despite recent efforts to increase the use
of safety belts at night. NHTSA is working to develop more
comprehensive performance measures. Nevertheless, to improve these
evaluations, we recommended that NHTSA develop a minimum core set of
reporting requirements for states and include additional performance
measures in the evaluations.
NHTSA Has Improved Its Oversight of States, but Does Not Currently
Analyze the Management Review Recommendations to Identify Common State
Problems and Direct Resources Accordingly:
As we recommended in 2003, NHTSA has improved the consistency of its
oversight process, including implementing the requirement added by
SAFETEA-LU that the administration conduct a management review of each
state at least once every 3 years. NHTSA regional officials conducted
56 of the 57 required management reviews from fiscal years 2005 through
2007.[Footnote 21] NHTSA also refined its management review guidance to
clarify the process each regional office uses to initiate, conduct, and
publish a final management review report. In addition, NHTSA developed
a tool--the corrective action plan--to track state implementation of
management review recommendations and encourage states to act on the
administration's advice. Recently, NHTSA has worked with the Governors
Highway Safety Association (GHSA) to clearly distinguish between
recommendations related to noncompliance with statutes or regulations,
which states are required by law to implement, and recommendations
related to best practices, which states are not required to implement.
NHTSA has also trained regional officials on these changes to the
management review process and established a national team to review all
draft management review reports for consistency.
NHTSA's recent initiatives to improve the consistency of its management
reviews should improve the information available to the administration
for analysis--such as information on common grant management challenges
faced by states--and thus may provide an opportunity for NHTSA to
enhance its oversight. However, NHTSA does not currently have a process
for analyzing its management review recommendations on a national
level, identifying common challenges faced by states, and directing
training and technical assistance resources accordingly. Furthermore,
NHTSA has not nationally tracked the extent to which states have
implemented its recommendations, which could help the administration
assess the impact of its oversight.
Selected State Officials Say Programs Are Helping Improve Traffic
Safety Despite Some Challenges, but Nationwide Fatalities Have Not
Decreased:
NHTSA has not yet assessed the grant programs' effectiveness because it
has not developed sufficient performance measures and the safety
incentive grants have not been in place long enough to evaluate trends.
Nevertheless, selected state officials told us the programs are helping
to improve traffic safety. These officials also identified challenges
limiting the programs' effectiveness. Additionally, a key indicator of
effectiveness at the national level--overall traffic fatalities--has
not improved over the last 10 years, being offset by factors such as
increases in population and the number of vehicle miles traveled.
Insufficient Performance Measures and Trend Data Preclude Assessments
of Effectiveness:
NHTSA officials indicated that they plan to rely on performance
measures to help determine the results of traffic safety programs.
NHTSA does not currently have sufficient performance measures in place
and changes to the safety incentive grant programs resulting from
SAFETEA-LU have not been in place long enough to allow NHTSA to
evaluate results, such as improvements in fatality rates. According to
a NHTSA official, they will begin receiving sufficient trend data later
in 2008. NHTSA currently uses DOT-wide measures that reflect the
overall goal of reducing traffic fatalities, such as measures of the
fatality rates of passenger vehicle occupants and motorcyclists. In
addition, NHTSA has developed intermediate outcome measures to track
behaviors influencing traffic safety, such as safety belt use.
However, these measures do not comprehensively cover the traffic safety
areas included in the grant programs because they do not include
measures to track behaviors influencing alcohol-related fatalities,
such as the number of impaired-driving citations that police officers
issued, arrests, and convictions.[Footnote 22] Currently, the extent to
which states collect data needed to track such measures varies. NHTSA
recognizes the need to improve these measures and, in partnership with
GHSA, has hired a contractor to develop a common set of performance
measures that federal, state, and local governments could use. NHTSA
seeks to establish intermediate outcome measures for a broad range of
traffic safety areas, including safety belts and child passenger
safety, impaired driving, and motorcycles, that can reliably track
progress toward reducing safety problems. NHTSA plans to use these
measures to track progress at the national level and encourage states
to consider them in the highway safety planning process. The
contractor's analysis is expected to be completed in August 2008.
Selected State Officials Report Safety Grant and HVE Programs Help
Improve Traffic Safety:
Officials in selected states told us that the safety grant and HVE
programs help improve safety by funding activities addressing key
safety issues in their states, and that the incentive grants complement
Section 402 grants by allowing states to expand core traffic safety
activities. For example:
* States primarily use Section 402 funds for programs aimed at reducing
alcohol-impaired driving and unbelted driving. From fiscal years 1999
through 2007, states spent approximately $1.5 billion in Section 402
funding. More than half of this funding was spent on traffic law
enforcement, occupant protection, and alcohol-impaired driving
countermeasures. These three areas support programs intended to reduce
the incidence of alcohol-impaired and unrestrained driving, such as
overtime hours police officers dedicated to traffic law enforcement,
training for police officers on identifying and assessing drivers who
are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and media campaigns
aimed at increasing safety belt use as well as campaigns targeting
populations that are at high risk for driving under the influence of
alcohol. States also used Section 402 funding for programs to reduce
speeding and improve motorcycle safety.
* States also use safety incentive grant programs to plan and implement
safety improvement activities to address key traffic safety issues in
their states. These activities generally fall into five categories--
education and training, media and public information, enforcement, data
and technology, and infrastructure improvements. States use the grants
to address goals and performance measures established in state highway
safety plans. These include increasing safety belt use, reducing
alcohol-impaired driving, and reducing motorcyclist fatalities.
Specifically, states use the safety incentive grant programs as
follows:
* Safety Belt Use--State officials have more flexibility in using these
funds compared with other incentive grants because they can use this
grant program to fund any traffic safety activities, as well as to fund
infrastructure improvements, although most funding has been allocated
toward programs influencing safety. Specific examples of activities
funded include the CIOT HVE campaign, statewide safety belt use
surveys, traffic safety information system improvements, upgrades and
improvements to locations where pedestrian and motor vehicle collisions
occur, or videotaping and assessing county roadway systems.
* Child Safety and Booster Seat--States use these funds for education
and training, media and public information, and other activities such
as car seat purchases. Specifically, these activities include
increasing training for child safety seat technicians and instructors
and supporting additional safety checkpoints and clinics where parents
learn how to properly install safety seats, as well as promoting
awareness of child passenger safety.
* Impaired Driving--States use these funds for education, training,
media, public information, and enforcement activities. Activities
include training law enforcement officers and promoting outreach
programs to prosecutors and judges, promoting awareness of the impact
of impaired driving, including teen drivers, and funding HVE activities
such as the OTLUA campaign, and targeting establishments that sell
alcoholic beverages to minors. In addition, states have used funds to
purchase equipment such as breath alcohol testing vans, enhance courts'
and prosecutors' ability to prosecute impaired driving, and encourage
legislation imposing stronger sanctions and penalties for impaired
driving.
* Motorcyclist Safety--States use these funds for education and
training as well as media and public information. Specifically, states
use these funds to train more motorcycle safety instructors and add
classes, for campaigns to increase other motorists' awareness of
motorcyclists and promote motorcycle training courses, and to purchase
additional motorcycles for training courses.
* Traffic Safety Information Systems--States use these funds for data
and technology activities to enhance the quality of information
concerning crashes, drivers licenses, injury surveillance, roadways,
enforcement and adjudication, and vehicles. Activities include
improving the timeliness and uniformity of crash data; developing an
electronic citation system to allow electronic issuance, collection,
and court processing of citation data; creating a statewide emergency
medical system and trauma database; and enhancing driving under the
influence (DUI) records.
* Officials in selected states reported that HVE campaigns contribute
to increases in safety belt use and reductions in impaired driver
fatalities. These states all experienced increased safety belt use and
reduced alcohol-involved fatality rates in the last 10 years. Increased
safety belt use ranged from 6.5 percent in North Carolina to 29.6
percent in North Dakota. Nationwide, safety belt use increased 12
percentage points from 1997 to 2006. Similarly, the selected states
experienced a decrease in alcohol-involved fatality rates from 1997 to
2006. Decreases ranged from 22 percent in Rhode Island and North Dakota
to 3 percent in Arkansas. Five of the seven states we visited
experienced declines in alcohol-involved fatality rates that exceeded
the overall U.S. decrease of 12 percent. States officials we spoke with
attributed these improvements, in part, to participation in HVE
campaigns.
State Officials Noted Challenges Limit Programs' Effectiveness:
Although officials in selected states have found the grants and HVE
programs helpful, they noted several challenges that limit the
programs' effectiveness:
* Despite the availability of incentives, some states have faced
challenges passing legislation required to qualify for the Safety Belt
Use and Child Safety and Booster Seat grants. About half of the states
have not enacted primary safety belt laws principally because their
state legislatures or governors oppose mandating safety belt use laws
that could infringe on individuals' personal freedom. Although 16
states had primary safety belt laws in effect before 2003, from 2003
through 2007, 29 states introduced primary safety belt bills; only 8
passed the bills. Similarly, relatively few states have passed laws to
qualify for Child Safety and Booster Seat grants. From 2003, when
states became aware that certain provisions would likely be included in
the reauthorization legislation, through 2007, 24 states considered
requiring children to use booster seats up to age 8. In total, five
states passed new laws or modified existing laws to qualify for the
grant in fiscal year 2006. An additional eight states passed laws to
qualify in fiscal year 2007. Although many states have booster seat
laws in effect, the laws vary in terms of age, height, and weight
requirements, with some states requiring seats up to ages 5, 6, or 7.
Other states use height and weight requirements. According to traffic
safety officials and safety advocates, these variations occurred
because of evolving research and guidance from NHTSA on determining who
should be in booster seats. However, once a state has a booster seat
law, those involved in child passenger safety are reluctant to try to
change it for fear of losing the states' existing safety provisions.
* Each safety incentive grant has a separate application process, which
has proven challenging for some states to manage, especially those with
small safety offices. The five applications are each due within a 1-1/
2 month period between June 15 and August 1. According to state highway
safety officials, each application requires extensive amounts of staff
time and resources. Although the application process is similar for
each grant, having to complete it several times within a short time
frame presents administrative challenges for states. Several states
expressed concerns about the demands the application process placed on
their staff, including those with larger safety programs and more staff
and resources than those with smaller safety programs. According to
NHTSA, the application requirements reflect statutory requirements to
award grants in the same year in which the state's legislative status
and fatality-rate performance are measured.
* Some states would have preferred more flexibility in using safety
incentive grants; flexibility could become a key issue in the future as
emerging issues become more critical. For example, the Motorcyclist
Safety grant program allows funding to be used only for training and to
increase other motorists' awareness of motorcyclists. Officials in
Montana would like to use the funds to build new sites or expand the
size of current training sites, but the grant does not allow them to do
so, although the grant does allow states to lease or purchase new
sites. New Jersey officials also noted that the Child Safety and
Booster Seat grant they received in fiscal year 2006 was much larger
than expected; they would have preferred using the additional funding
for other areas, such as the state's traffic safety information
systems. Some state officials we interviewed noted that, while the
traffic safety data improvement grant will help them improve their data
systems, the cost of developing and maintaining these systems far
exceeds the amount of the grant.
* In implementing the HVE campaigns, some law enforcement agencies
found it difficult to recruit sufficient officers to conduct campaigns.
Some law enforcement agencies said they did not have sufficient
staffing levels for both regular police work and frequent HVE campaign
enforcement activities. Factors affecting staffing include crime
enforcement having priority over traffic enforcement, officers being
called up for military duty or diverted to homeland security duties,
too few personnel, and an insufficient number of officers signing up
for overtime to work the campaigns. NHTSA has taken steps to help
states overcome these challenges by providing funding for equipment as
an incentive to participate and providing guidance on how to better use
existing resources. States have also taken steps, for example, by
recognizing officers for contributions to HVE campaigns.
* Weak prosecution of impaired driving offenders reduces the likelihood
that HVE campaigns will achieve desired results. State and NHTSA
officials indicated that, because court systems have heavy caseloads
and limited resources, DUI cases may be given a lower priority compared
with more violent crimes. Additionally, some law enforcement officials
and prosecutors lack the knowledge and training needed to consistently
prosecute DUI cases. As a result, some DUI charges may be dismissed.
Finally, judges handling DUI cases face challenges, including frequent
plea bargains, which may undermine the deterrent value of the arrest.
States have developed initiatives to train judges and officers on DUI
prosecution and train officers on conducting field sobriety testing.
NHTSA has also provided guidance, funded training programs, and
provided states grants to more effectively prosecute DUI offenders.
* States face difficulties increasing safety belt use and reducing
alcohol-impaired driving among resistant populations, such as drivers
in rural areas, those who drive pickup trucks, and those who repeatedly
drink and drive. Statistics show that more drivers in rural areas
resist wearing safety belts. In general, rural areas have a higher
proportion of fatal crashes and traffic fatalities than urban areas, as
well as higher alcohol-involved crash rates, crashes at higher speeds
on narrow or sharply curved rural roads, and less access to emergency
services. Moreover, crashes in rural areas also more likely involve
unrestrained occupants who are thus ejected from vehicles. NHTSA and
states are taking steps to increase rural safety belt use and have
developed programs targeting pickup truck drivers, including the
"Buckle Up in Your Truck," campaign that targeted young males who are
more likely to drive pickup trucks. NHTSA has outlined strategies for
states and local communities, such as a rural demonstration program
involving intensified enforcement and paid media to alert residents in
targeted areas that safety belt laws will be enforced. Another
challenge is reducing impaired driving among hardcore drunk drivers--
those who drive with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.15 or greater.
NHTSA data indicates that hardcore drinkers are involved in 54 percent
of alcohol-involved fatalities and are likely to be repeat drinking
drivers. NHTSA has recommended increased use of ignition interlock
devices--which prevent a vehicle from starting if the BAC exceeds a
certain limit--as a penalty against repeat drunken drivers.
Despite improvements in certain areas, traffic fatalities--a key
indicator of the overall effectiveness of these programs--have remained
relatively constant at about 43,000 per year over the last 10 years.
Traffic fatalities per 100 million VMT declined by approximately 14
percent during this period, from 1.65 in 1997 to 1.41 in 2006. Also,
the two primary causes of fatalities--improper safety belt use and
impaired driving--have been somewhat mitigated. 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 VMT. These improvements were likely due to safety belt laws
states began passing in the 1980s. Alcohol-impaired driving showed
similar reductions. From 1985 to 2006, the alcohol- involved fatality
rate decreased by 0.63, from 1.13 to 0.50 fatalities per 100 million
VMT. According to NHTSA, these improvements were influenced by federal
laws providing states incentives to strengthen impaired driving laws,
among other factors. Nevertheless, progress has slowed, with a
fluctuating number of alcohol-involved fatalities and a generally
declining alcohol-involved fatality rate from 1994 to 2006. A third
category--child passenger fatalities--decreased by 31 percent, from
3,157 in 1997 to 2,173 in 2006.
However, increases in motorcycle fatalities from 1997 to 2006 offset
improvements in other areas. Motorcycle fatalities more than doubled
between 1997 and 2006, increasing from 2,116 fatalities (5 percent of
total traffic fatalities) to 4,810 fatalities (11.3 percent of total
traffic fatalities). Similarly, motorcycle fatality rates grew from
55.30 fatalities per 100,000 registered motorcycles in 1997 to 71.94
fatalities per 100,000 registered motorcycles in 2006.[Footnote 23]
NHTSA attributes part of this problem to an increase in older
motorcycle riders--particularly those riders over age 50 who have not
operated motorcycles in 15 to 20 years--whose riding skills have
declined, but have not sought additional training. In contrast to the
changes in these three types of traffic fatalities, speeding-related
fatalities have essentially remained constant over the last decade,
growing slightly from 13,036 fatalities in 1997 (31 percent of total
traffic fatalities) to 13,543 in 2006 (32 percent of total traffic
fatalities).
Issues for Reauthorization:
The administrative challenges faced by states in applying for and using
incentive grants and a lack of performance measures that link traffic
safety grant awards to state performance, as well as the plateau in
overall traffic fatalities and changes in causes of fatalities in
recent years pose implications that Congress may want to consider when
reauthorizing funding for the Surface Transportation Program. As noted
previously, states have faced challenges in meeting eligibility
requirements for the Safety Belt Use and Child Safety and Booster Seat
grant programs and in managing the separate grant applications and
deadlines associated with each of the five incentive grants, and would
like to have more flexibility in the range of traffic safety activities
supported by these grants. NHTSA officials acknowledged state
officials' concerns, but noted they cannot address the concerns because
these difficulties stem from the grant requirements established in
SAFETEA-LU. In reauthorization, Congress may wish to consider ways to
reduce these administrative and management challenges for states, for
example, by restructuring the safety incentive grant programs or
adjusting grant requirements to consolidate incentive grant
applications, simplifying the application procedures and deadlines, or
allowing states to use these grants for a broader range of traffic
safety purposes.
A second potential consideration is whether the traffic safety grant
programs could be designed differently to include performance
accountability mechanisms to link state performance with traffic safety
grant awards. NHTSA officials indicated that they plan to rely on
performance measures to help determine the results of the incentive
grant programs. Although the performance measures that NHTSA currently
uses--DOT performance measures and several intermediate outcome
measures--are not comprehensive, the administration is in the process
of developing more comprehensive measures to reliably track states'
progress toward achieving safety goals in a broad range of traffic
safety areas. Even so, states' receipt of traffic safety grant funds is
not always linked to performance. For example, while the Traffic Safety
Information Systems and Impaired Driving grants include performance
criteria in their eligibility requirements, states can also qualify for
the Impaired Driving grant based on additional criteria, and the three
other incentive grants do not include any performance-based eligibility
criteria.[Footnote 24] We have previously reported that such
performance accountability mechanisms could improve the design and
implementation of federal grants.[Footnote 25] Specifically, regarding
transportation-related grants, we have raised concerns about
insufficient links between state performance and receipt of grants.
Finally, given the plateau in the number of annual traffic fatalities
nationwide and the changes in causes of fatalities, including the
increase in motorcycle fatalities and fatality rates, Congress may wish
to consider whether the current traffic safety programs could be
restructured to more effectively reduce fatalities. Currently, to
address traffic fatalities, Congress offers incentive grants to
encourage states to pass safety legislation and achieve certain safety
outcomes, and penalty transfer programs to discourage states from
failing to pass safety legislation. In addition, NHTSA uses several
approaches to help states improve their safety outcomes. NHTSA provides
expert advice to all states through its evaluation of state progress
toward safety goals and performance measures established annually by
each state, special management reviews for states not making adequate
progress in the areas of alcohol-impaired driving and safety belt use,
and voluntary technical program assessments for states requesting
additional assistance in a variety of areas. However, since the number
of annual traffic fatalities has remained fairly constant in recent
years--being offset by factors such as increases in population and the
number of vehicle miles traveled--Congress may wish to consider
adjusting these existing strategies or implementing additional
strategies to reduce fatalities. For example, Congress may wish to
consider different or additional state incentives, or allow states more
flexibility in using grant funds to address current and emerging safety
issues. We have also recommended that NHTSA identify options to target
safety expertise and technical assistance to states with a high number
of fatalities that would not qualify for a special management review.
NHTSA officials noted that DOT's 2003 reauthorization proposal included
performance-based grants within the Section 402 grant, and would have
addressed the eligibility and management challenges states faced in
using the safety incentive grants. Under this proposal, the amount of
each state's performance based grant would have depended on the state's
performance related to various crash fatality rates, safety belt use,
and safety belt laws. However, given that we identified deficiencies in
the quality of state data systems in 2004, data-driven changes to the
traffic safety grant programs such as those included in NHTSA's 2003
reauthorization proposal would require improved state safety data to
enhance states' ability to identify traffic safety issues, as well as a
robust oversight approach to ensure that states are using federal funds
appropriately. As noted earlier in this statement, NHTSA has improved
the consistency of its oversight since 2003 and has implemented
requirements established in SAFETEA-LU regarding the frequency of its
management reviews of states.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee
might have.
For further information on this statement, please contact Katherine
Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found on the
last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to
this testimony were Sara Vermillion, Assistant Director; Michael Armes;
Catherine Colwell; Caitlin Croake; Colin Fallon; Lynn Filla-Clark; Joah
Iannotta; Tom James; Bert Japikse; Leslie Locke; and Terry Richardson.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to participate in this hearing to discuss the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) programs and oversight.
Our statement addresses (1) NHTSA's progress in administering and
overseeing the traffic safety grant and high-visibility enforcement
(HVE) programs, (2) the programs' effectiveness in addressing traffic
safety issues, and (3) implications for reauthorization of the programs
in 2009. In addition, this statement provides information on a traffic
safety area that we expect to become a more serious issue in the
future--older driver safety. Our statement is based on three recently
issued reports on (1) NHTSA's Safety Incentive Grants, (2) the HVE
campaign programs, and (3) NHTSA's oversight of state traffic safety
programs and the approaches currently available to improve safety
outcomes.[Footnote 26] In addition, we touch on issues raised in last
year's report on older driver safety.[Footnote 27]
NHTSA Safety Incentive Grants:
In the NHTSA Safety Incentive Grants report, we addressed (1) NHTSA's
status in awarding and overseeing states' use of these grant programs,
(2) the activities states have conducted using the grants and issues
they have faced in applying for and implementing them, and (3) how
NHTSA plans to evaluate the results of the grant programs and
implications for reauthorizing funding for these programs. To address
these objectives, we reviewed documents and interviewed officials from
NHTSA, the Federal Highway Safety Administration (FHWA), and
representatives from professional groups, including the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Governors
Highway Safety Association (GHSA), National Safety Council, and
Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety. We interviewed state highway
safety officials and reviewed documents from 7 selected states--
California, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, South Carolina,
and Vermont (see Table 2). We selected the states based on a
combination of characteristics, including fatality rates, funding, and
geographic distribution. Since we used a nongeneralizable sampling
approach, our findings cannot be used to make inferences about all
states that received NHTSA Safety Incentive Grants. We also reviewed
states' 2007 highway safety plans and 2006 annual reports for all 50
states to identify activities states are funding with these grants. In
addition, we reviewed the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) and
NHTSA's performance measures and other related documents, including
NHTSA's 2003 reauthorization proposal. We conducted this performance
audit from March 2007 through March 2008 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Table 2: Site Visit Locations for GAO Traffic Safety Reports:
NHTSA Safety Incentive Grants: California;
Illinois;
Missouri;
Montana;
New Jersey;
South Carolina;
Vermont;
HVE Campaign Program: Arkansas;
Illinois;
Iowa;
North Carolina;
North Dakota;
Rhode Island;
Washington;
NHTSA Oversight: Arizona;
Idaho;
Maine;
Minnesota;
Nevada;
Texas;
West Virginia;
Wisconsin;
Older Driver Safety: California;
Florida;
Iowa;
Maryland;
Michigan;
Oregon.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
HVE Campaign Program:
In the HVE campaign program report, we addressed (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. To address these objectives, we analyzed
information and interviewed officials from NHTSA headquarters and
regions; 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 (see Table 2). 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; reviewed relevant studies, reports, and
laws; and analyzed safety belt use and alcohol-involved fatality data
for selected states.[Footnote 28] We conducted this performance audit
from March 2007 through April 2008 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
NHTSA Oversight:
In the NHTSA oversight report, we addressed (1) how states have used
Section 402 funding to achieve national safety goals, (2) the progress
NHTSA has made toward addressing consistency in the management review
process, (3) how useful NHTSA's management reviews and recommendations
are in improving management of state safety programs, and (4) the
approaches currently available to improve safety outcomes. To address
these objectives, we reviewed legislation, guidance, and procedures
relevant to NHTSA's oversight of state highway safety grants, including
NHTSA's management review process. We interviewed NHTSA headquarters
and regional officials and representatives from the Governors Highway
Safety Administration (GHSA). We also conducted site visits in eight
states--Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Texas, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin--to gather state officials' views of NHTSA's oversight,
including the management review process, and to discuss how states use
Section 402 grants (see table 2). In addition, we analyzed data NHTSA
provided on how states spent highway safety grants from fiscal years
1999 through 2007, conducted a content analysis of the recommendations
in all management reviews developed in fiscal years 2005 through 2007,
and summarized information from NHTSA's corrective action plans. We
also analyzed data provided by NHTSA on the total number of alcohol-
related fatalities and fatality rates as well as the total number of
unbelted fatalities and fatality rates from 1998 through 2006. We
conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to July 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Older Driver Safety:
Finally, in the older driver safety report, we addressed (1) what the
federal government has done to promote practices to make roads safer
for older drivers and the extent to which states have implemented those
practices, (2) the extent to which states assess the fitness of older
drivers and what support the federal government has provided, and (3)
what initiatives selected states have implemented to improve the safety
of older drivers. To address these objectives, we reviewed documents
and interviewed officials from NHTSA, FHWA, the National Institute on
Aging and the Administration on Aging within the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, and the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administration. To obtain information on the extent to which
states are implementing practices to make roads safer for older
drivers, we surveyed and received responses from DOTs in each of the 50
states and the District of Columbia. We also conducted case studies in
six states--California, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, and Oregon-
-that transportation experts identified as progressive in their efforts
to improve older driver safety. We conducted our work from April 2006
through April 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Criteria for States to Qualify for Selected Incentive
Grant Programs:
Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant. The eight criteria are:
(1) implement a high-visibility enforcement campaign program using
checkpoints or saturation patrols, along with paid and earned media;
(2) implement an education program for judges and prosecutors on
prosecuting and adjudicating offenders; (3) implement a program to
increase blood alcohol content (BAC) testing rate for drivers in fatal
crashes; (4) enact legislation imposing stronger sanctions or
additional penalties for high-risk drivers with a BAC of at least 0.15;
(5) implement a rehabilitation program for repeat or high-risk
offenders or refer them to a state-sanctioned driving while intoxicated
(DWI) court; (6) develop a strategy to prevent underage drivers from
obtaining alcoholic beverages and anyone from making alcoholic
beverages available to persons under 21; (7) implement a program to
suspend or revoke licenses for drivers apprehended while driving under
the influence; or (8) implement a "self-sustaining impaired driving
prevention program" in which a significant portion of DWI fines or
surcharges collected are returned to communities to reduce alcohol-
impaired driving.
Motorcyclist Safety Grant. The six criteria are: (1) implement a
statewide motorcycle rider training program; (2) implement a program
promoting motorcyclist awareness; (3) reduce fatalities and crashes
involving motorcycles in the prior year; (4) implement a statewide
impaired-driving program that includes measures targeting impaired
motorcycle operation; (5) reduce fatalities and crashes involving
impaired motorcyclists in the prior year; and (6) use all fees
collected from motorcyclists for motorcycle programs.
State Traffic Safety Information Systems Improvement Grant. The three
criteria for the first year are to (1) establish a multidisciplinary
highway safety data and traffic records coordinating committee; (2)
develop an approved multiyear safety data and traffic records strategic
plan with performance-based measures; and (3) certify that the state
has adopted and is using model data elements in the Model Minimum
Uniform Crash Criteria and National Emergency Medical Service
Information System, or certify that it will use funds to adopt and use
the most elements practicable.
The five criteria for the second and subsequent years are to (1)
certify that an assessment or audit of the state traffic records system
has been conducted or updated in the last 5 years; (2) certify that the
coordinating committee still operates and supports the plan; (3)
specify how grant and other state funds will support the plan; (4)
demonstrate measurable progress toward achieving goals and objectives
in the plan; and (5) submit a report showing measurable progress in
implementing the plan.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Older Driver Safety:
In GAO's 2007 report on older driver safety,[Footnote 29] we found the
following:
* FHWA has recommended practices--such as using larger letters on
signs--targeted to making roadways easier for older drivers to
navigate. FHWA also provides funding that states may use for projects
that address older driver safety. States have, to varying degrees,
adopted FHWA's recommended practices. For example, 24 states reported
including about half or more of FHWA's practices in state design
guides, while the majority of states reported implementing certain FHWA
practices in roadway construction, operations, and maintenance
activities. States generally do not place high priority on projects
that specifically address older drive safety but try to include
practices that benefit older drivers in all projects.
* More than half of the states have implemented licensing requirements
for older drivers that are more stringent than requirements for younger
drivers, but states' assessment practices are not comprehensive. For
example, these practices primarily involve more frequent or in-person
renewals and mandatory vision screening but do not generally include
assessments of physical and cognitive functions. While requirements for
in-person license renewals generally appear to correspond with lower
crash rates for drivers age 85 and older, the validity of other
assessment tools is less clear. NHTSA is sponsoring research and other
initiatives to develop and assist states in implementing more
comprehensive driver fitness assessment practices.
* Five of the six states GAO visited have implemented coordination
groups to assemble a broad range of stakeholders to develop strategies
and foster efforts to improve older driver safety in areas of strategic
planning, education and awareness, licensing and driver fitness
assessment, roadway engineering, and data analysis. However, knowledge
sharing among states on older driver safety initiatives is limited, and
officials said states could benefit from knowledge of other states'
initiatives.
We recommended that the Secretary direct FHWA and NHTSA Administrators
to implement a mechanism to allow states to share information on older
driver safety practices.
In response to our recommendations, FHWA indicated that it is working
with NHTSA and others in DOT to identify the types of references and
links to other organizations' information to include on its Web site.
This information includes articles on older road users, technical
reference materials, and research results. FHWA expects to have its Web
site updated by June 2008.
NHTSA responded that it has also taken steps to allow states to share
information on leading practices for enhancing older drivers' safety.
First, NHTSA established a clearinghouse for sharing technical
information about older road user programs. The clearinghouse was
created through an interagency agreement with the Federal Transit
Administration and the National Central for Senior Transportation, a
clearinghouse for information on transportation for seniors, such as
programs and strategies that have been successful in other states.
Second, NHTSA's regional offices have worked with state highway safety
offices to develop older road user programs, including exchanging
information on other states' best practices. The regions are also
promoting use of NHTSA's Older Driver Law Enforcement Course, and
advising states of progress with demonstration projects. These include
a project in Missouri to help establish older driver coalitions, and
others in New Jersey and Virginia to enhance driver licensing referral
programs.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] In 1966, Congress established a formula grant program--the State
and Community Highway Safety Grant Program, commonly referred to as
Section 402--that provides core funding to all states to address a
range of traffic safety issues.
[2] GAO, Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues,
Despite State Eligibility and Management Difficulties, GAO-08-398
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2008); Traffic Safety: Improved Reporting
and Performance Measures Would Enhance Evaluation of High-Visibility
Campaigns, GAO-08-477 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2008); and Traffic
Safety: NHTSA's Improved Oversight Could Identify Opportunities to
Strengthen Management and Safety in Some States, GAO-08-788
(Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2008).
[3] GAO, Older Driver Safety: Knowledge Sharing Should Help States
Prepare for Increase in Older Driver Population, GAO-07-413
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2007).
[4] All dollar values are in nominal dollars and not adjusted for
inflation.
[5] According to NHTSA, these factors overlap, in that many of the
people killed in alcohol-related crashes were also unrestrained. In
addition, speeding-related crashes may involve alcohol, motorcycles,
and/or unrestrained driving.
[6] Unrestrained fatalities are those in which the deceased was not
wearing a shoulder belt, lap belt, lap and shoulder belt, child safety
seat, or other restraint and were occupants (except bus passengers) of
motor vehicles (except motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, and
snowmobiles).
[7] Alcohol-involved fatalities include all fatalities in a motor
vehicle crash where one or more involved drivers, pedestrians, or
pedalcyclists in the crash had a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or
greater.
[8] Under TEA-21, Congress authorized approximately $2.3 billion for 6
years, from fiscal years 1998 to 2003. After TEA-21 expired in 2003,
Congress authorized extensions until passing SAFETEA-LU in 2005. We are
not including funding authorized by these extensions.
[9] SAFETEA-LU also continued the Occupant Protection grant program
($100 million) that provides funds for states to adopt and implement
programs to reduce deaths and injuries from riding "unrestrained" or
"improperly restrained."
[10] Booster seats are intended to be used by children weighing more
than 40 pounds who have outgrown a child safety seat. The seats serve
as a transition to wearing a safety belt.
[11] See App. II for the eight programmatic criteria that states can
use to qualify.
[12] See App. II for explanation of the six criteria that states can
use to qualify.
[13] See App. II for explanation of the criteria to qualify in the
first and subsequent years.
[14] GAO, Highway Safety: Improved Monitoring and Oversight of Traffic
Safety Data Program Are Needed, GAO-05-24 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 4,
2004).
[15] To select states for a special management review, each year NHTSA
headquarters officials compare state performance in impaired driving
and safety belt use over the prior 3 years with average national
performance over the same time period. States with alcohol-related
fatality rates consistently above the national average or safety belt
usage rates consistently below the national average can be selected to
receive a special management review.
[16] These areas include alcohol-impaired driving, occupant protection,
occupant protection for children, motorcyclist safety, emergency
medical services, traffic records, or standardized field sobriety
testing. The Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) is a battery of
three tests administered and evaluated in a standardized manner to
obtain validated indicators of impairment and establish probable cause
for arrest. SFST training programs help law enforcement officers become
more skillful at detecting driving while intoxicated (DWI) suspects,
describing the behavior of these suspects, and presenting effective
testimony in court.
[17] See GAO, Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight
of State Highway Safety Programs, GAO-03-474 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
21, 2003).
[18] All 50 states; the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico; the
territories of Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands; and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) receive Section 402 grant funds. Moreover, all 50 states,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico are eligible for each of the
safety incentive grants. The territories of Guam, Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands
are eligible for the Safety Belt Use, Impaired Driving, and Traffic
Safety Information Systems grant programs. BIA is eligible for the
Impaired Driving and Traffic Safety Information Systems grants. Dollar
amounts in our figures include the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the territories, and BIA, but the focus of this testimony
is the 50 states.
[19] Six states passed a primary safety belt law in 2003 or later and
received a one-time Safety Belt Use grant in fiscal year 2006. Sixteen
states had a law in place before 2003 and received this grant in two
installments over fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
[20] States that pass or have in effect a booster seat law receive the
Child Safety and Booster Seat grant each year under SAFETEA-LU.
[21] American Samoa was the only state or territory that did not
receive a management review from fiscal years 2005 through 2007. A
NHTSA official told us that due to a limited travel budget, the
regional office was unable to conduct an onsite management review
during those fiscal years. The regional office plans on conducting an
onsite visit in fiscal year 2008. American Samoa received $1.6 million
in federal highway safety funding in fiscal year 2007, one of the
lowest amounts of funding in the nation.
[22] U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General,
Audit of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration‘s Alcohol-
Impaired Driving Traffic Safety Program, Report No. MH-2007-036
(Washington, D.C., Mar. 5, 2007).
[23] DOT has changed the baseline for its motorcycle fatality rates
from 100 million VMT to 100,000 registered motorcycles because of
concerns that VMT did not seem valid considering the number of
registered motorcycles. NHTSA calculates motorcycle fatality rates
using both measures. Thus, using VMT, the motorcycle fatality rates
increased from 20.99 per 100 million VMT in 1997 to 38.79 per 100
million VMT in 2006.
[23] NHTSA will begin awarding the Safety Belt Use grant in fiscal year
2008 to states that have certified that they have achieved at least an
85 percent safety belt use rate in the preceding 2 calendar years.
However, a NHTSA official indicated that only five states would qualify
for the grant based on safety belt use in fiscal year 2008 and that
only two had a mathematical chance of qualifying under this criteria in
fiscal year 2009.
[24] GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability
Provisions Could Lead to Better Results, GAO-06-1046 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 29, 2006).
[25] GAO, Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues,
Despite State Eligibility and Management Difficulties, GAO-08-398
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2008); Traffic Safety: Improved Reporting
and Performance Measures Would Enhance Evaluation of High-Visibility
Campaigns, GAO-08-477 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2008); and Traffic
Safety: NHTSA's Improved Oversight Could Identify Opportunities to
Strengthen Management and Safety in Some States, GAO-08-788
(Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2008).
[26] GAO, Older Driver Safety: Knowledge Sharing Should Help States
Prepare for Increase in Older Driver Population, GAO-07-413
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2007).
[27] We used data contained in NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting
System database and vehicle miles traveled data maintained by FHWA in
its Highway Performance Monitoring System database.
[28] GAO, Older Driver Safety: Knowledge Sharing Should Help States
Prepare for Increase in Older Driver Population, GAO-07-413
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2007).