This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-788
entitled 'Traffic Safety: NHTSA's Improved Oversight Could Identify
Opportunities to Strengthen Management and Safety in Some States' which
was released on July 14, 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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2008:
Traffic Safety:
NHTSA's Improved Oversight Could Identify Opportunities to Strengthen
Management and Safety in Some States:
Traffic Safety:
GAO-08-788:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-788, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Traffic crashes kill thousands of Americans every year—in 2005, it was
the leading cause of death among young Americans. To try to improve
highway safety, Congress authorized a grant program overseen by the
Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). In 2003, GAO recommended that NHTSA improve the
consistency of its management reviews, a key aspect of NHTSA’s
oversight. In response to a legislative mandate, GAO assessed (1) how
states have used grant funding to address safety goals, (2) NHTSA’s
progress in improving consistency in its management reviews, (3) the
usefulness of its management review recommendations, and (4) approaches
to further improve safety. In performing this work, GAO reviewed
traffic safety data, analyzed state spending patterns, conducted site
visits with eight states, and interviewed agency officials.
What GAO Found:
From fiscal year 1999 through 2007, states directed about 54 percent of
NHTSA’s State and Community Highway Safety formula grant funding toward
programs, including traffic enforcement, that address the leading
causes of traffic fatalities—alcohol-impaired driving and driving
without a safety belt, both of which are national safety goals. States
directed the rest of this grant funding to a variety of safety
programs, many of which address national goals but some of which target
state-specific safety challenges such as driving safely in winter
weather. To address safety goals, state highway safety offices disperse
federal funding to “subgrantees,” such as local law enforcement or
nonprofit agencies that carry out the safety programs.
NHTSA implemented both Congress’ requirement that it conduct management
reviews of states and territories on a 3-year schedule as well as GAO’s
prior recommendation to improve the consistency with which it uses
these reviews. GAO analyzed NHTSA’s management reviews and identified
some variation in how information was documented. However, in 2007
NHTSA took several steps, such as instituting a team to review the
quality of management review reports, which should further improve the
consistency of information contained in these reports—information NHTSA
could use to assess the impact of its recommendations on state safety
programs.
GAO found NHTSA’s management review recommendations useful because they
are designed to address fundamental management principles such as
improving program planning and ensuring states’ compliance with
statutes governing safety grants. Also, state officials said NHTSA’s
recommendations serve as a useful management tool. However, NHTSA does
not analyze the recommendations on a national level to target its
technical assistance to common state challenges. GAO conducted such an
analysis and found that the recommendations revealed common state
challenges such as the need to improve monitoring of subgrantee
activities and expenditures, which helps ensure that funds are used for
the intended purpose. NHTSA also frequently recommended that states
spend grant funding more quickly, which NHTSA officials believed would
expand safety programs and, in turn, improve safety.
From 1997 through 2006, the national traffic fatality rate—the number
of traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled—declined
14 percent, but traffic fatalities remained at about 43,000 per year as
factors such as increases in the number of miles driven offset the
decrease in the rate. NHTSA uses several approaches to help states
reduce fatalities, including requiring program reviews in states that
are not making adequate progress in reducing alcohol-impaired driving
and increasing safety belt use. Yet some states with low or average
fatality rates but a high number of fatalities may not be eligible for
a required review under NHTSA’s current criteria. States with high
total numbers of fatalities offer an opportunity to save the greatest
number of lives, but for these states to receive an in-depth program
review, the states must request and pay for such safety expertise.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that NHTSA, among other things, increase the usefulness
of management review results to identify and address common state
challenges and identify options to target safety expertise to states
having a high number of fatalities.
DOT generally agreed with the analysis and conclusions of this report
but disagreed with one recommendation, which was revised to address
NHTSA’s concerns.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-788]. For more
information, contact Katherine A. Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or
siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
States Primarily Direct Section 402 Funding to National Safety
Priorities:
NHTSA Has Improved the Consistency of Its Management Review Process and
Instituted New Processes That Could Help to Assess the Impact of Its
Oversight:
NHTSA's Management Review Recommendations Address Fundamental
Management Principles and Could Be Analyzed at the National Level to
Identify Common State Challenges:
NHTSA's Approaches and Existing Financial Incentives Encourage States
to Improve Safety, While Refinements Could Further Help States:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: National Safety Priorities under SAFETEA-LU:
Table 2: State Incentive Grant Expenditures on Traffic Safety Goals in
Fiscal Year 2007:
Table 3: Amount and Percentage of State Section 402 Expenditures
Directed to Selected Program Areas for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2007:
Table 4: NHTSA Recommendations to Address State Challenges for Managing
Highway Safety Programs, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007:
Table 5: States Visited and Key Selection Criteria:
Figures:
Figure 1: Flow of Section 402 Funding from Federal to Local Level:
Figure 2: Summary of NHTSA's Management Review Process and Estimated
Number of Days for Each Stage of Process:
Figure 3: Traffic Fatality Rates and Total Number of Fatalities, 1997
through 2006:
Figure 4: Alcohol-Related Fatalities--Average Annual State Fatality
Rates and Corresponding Average Annual Number of Fatalities, 1998
through 2006:
Abbreviations:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
DOT IG: Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General:
DWI: Driving While Intoxicated:
GHSA: Governors Highway Safety Association:
GTS: Grants Tracking System:
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users:
STSF: Standardized Field Sobriety Test:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 14, 2008:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Vice Chairman:
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
United States Senate:
The Honorable James Oberstar:
Chairman:
The Honorable John L. Mica:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
Traffic crashes were the leading cause of death for young people in the
United States in 2005,[Footnote 1] and, according to estimates by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), traffic crashes
cost the United States over $230 billion in 2000 (about $275 billion in
2007 dollars).[Footnote 2] Congress has developed many approaches to
help states and communities reduce fatalities, including grants to
support state highway safety programs as well as federal oversight of,
and technical assistance to, state programs. Specifically, in 1966
Congress authorized a formula grant program--the State and Community
Highway Safety Grant Program (23 U.S.C. § 402), commonly referred to as
the Section 402 program--that requires that each state have an approved
highway safety program designed to address traffic safety issues.
States can use Section 402 funding for law enforcement activities to
reduce speeding, improvements to motorcycle safety training, or media
campaigns to encourage drivers to use their safety belts, among other
initiatives. More recently, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), authorized
a total of nearly $2.4 billion for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for
traffic safety programs--including over $1 billion for the Section 402
program and about $1.3 billion for safety incentive grants that focus
on specific national safety priorities, such as alcohol-impaired
driving. Some of these grants include eligibility criteria designed to
encourage states to pass safety legislation or that target states with
certain rates of fatalities to receive additional funds.
NHTSA--located within the Department of Transportation (DOT)--is
responsible for overseeing state highway traffic safety programs. It
does so by reviewing states' management of state safety programs, as
well as by providing training and technical assistance to state safety
officials. This approach is designed to ensure that state safety
programs have instituted essential planning and management processes
for developing a highway safety program that can improve safety. In
2003, we found that NHTSA's 10 regional offices conducted oversight
inconsistently--specifically, the regional offices made inconsistent
use of management reviews[Footnote 3] and resulting improvement plans
that the offices developed for states. We recommended that NHTSA
provide specific guidance to its regional offices on when to use these
reviews.[Footnote 4] We reported that NHTSA's management reviews had
commonly found problems with state safety programs. Since NHTSA did not
routinely conduct these reviews, however, it was difficult to ensure
that states were using federal funds for their intended purpose and in
compliance with law. Further, in 2005 SAFETEA-LU added section 412 to
23 U.S.C., which among other things included a requirement that NHTSA
strengthen its oversight of state use of federal safety grants by
reviewing each state's management of these grants once every three
years and making recommendations.
This report addresses your interest in information on how states have
used Section 402 safety grants and other approaches currently available
to improve safety outcomes and responds to a mandate enacted in SAFETEA-
LU that GAO determine whether NHTSA implemented the changes in its
oversight approach that SAFETEA-LU added. Specifically, this report
assesses (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 assess these issues, we reviewed legislation, guidance, and
procedures relevant to NHTSA's oversight of state highway safety
grants, including NHTSA's management review process. We interviewed
officials with NHTSA headquarters and regional offices and the
Governors Highway Safety Association--a nonprofit association
representing state highway safety programs. We also conducted site
visits to 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. In addition, we analyzed
data provided by NHTSA on how states spent highway safety grants for
fiscal years 1999 through 2007, and conducted a content analysis of the
recommendations in all management reviews and completed corrective
action plans developed in fiscal years 2005 through 2007. We conducted
this performance audit from July 2007 through 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 provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for more details on our
scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
According to NHTSA grant data, from fiscal years 1999 through 2007,
states directed most of their Section 402 funding toward the leading
causes of traffic fatalities and have also used this funding to address
state-specific safety problems, many of which reflect national safety
priorities. For example, states spent about 54 percent of their grant
funding on activities, including traffic enforcement, designed to
reduce alcohol-impaired driving and increase safety belt use, the top
two factors contributing to traffic fatalities. States directed the
remaining Section 402 funding to a variety of safety initiatives, many
of which represent national goals but some of which address state-
specific safety challenges. For instance, states directed funding to
pedestrian and bicycle safety, a national safety priority, and NHTSA
officials told us that some states fund initiatives on driving safely
in winter weather conditions--a state-specific challenge. States also
used the funding to address other state safety challenges that are not
national priorities, such as aggressive driving and safety among young
drivers. Officials in the eight states we visited said that Section 402
funding provides flexible and stable support that ensures their ability
to address a variety of traffic safety problems. Some officials also
noted that Section 402 grants are complemented by incentive grants and
that, in combination, these funding sources allow states to expand
their core efforts and support innovative traffic safety programs. To
address highway safety goals, state highway safety offices typically do
not carry out programs themselves; instead, they disperse federal
funding to "subgrantees," which are local agencies and state
organizations that implement safety programming. Subgrantees generally
include organizations such as state and local law enforcement agencies,
fire departments, nonprofit organizations, and advertising agencies.
State officials monitor subgrantees by reviewing performance reports
documenting the activities implemented with grant funding--for
instance, the number of overtime hours worked by law enforcement
officers--as well as documentation of the expenses related to these
activities.
NHTSA implemented both the Section 412 requirement that it conduct
management reviews of states and territories on a 3-year schedule, as
well as our recommendation to improve the consistency with which it
uses these reviews. However, we found some differences in NHTSA's
documentation of the reviews and in its tracking of state action on the
recommendations. During the 3-year period of fiscal years 2005 through
2007, NHTSA conducted 56 of the required 57 reviews. NHTSA also refined
its management review guidance for its regional offices to improve
consistency and developed a tool--the corrective action plan--to track
whether individual states implemented open recommendations emerging
from NHTSA's management review. Despite these improvements, our
analysis of NHTSA's management review reports and corrective action
plans filed in fiscal years 2005 through 2007 revealed some differences
in the information that NHTSA regional officials included in these
documents. For instance, regional officials varied in the content
included in the corrective action plans they developed; some plans
included information on whether states implemented recommendations,
while others did not. As a result, NHTSA cannot use these reports to
describe on a national level the extent to which states acted on its
advice and further cannot assess the impact of its recommendations to
states. During fiscal year 2007, NHTSA initiated several steps that
should help with such assessments. For example, NHTSA established a
review team to read drafts of the management review reports to ensure
that regional officials make recommendations in similar circumstances.
NHTSA also developed additional guidance in response to state concerns
regarding the presentation of some material in the management reviews
by developing a collaborative working relationship with the Governors
Highway Safety Association (GHSA). Specifically, future management
review reports will differentiate between "findings" that are
compliance-based problems the state is statutorily required to address
and "management considerations" that identify improvements to the
state's highway safety program but for which NHTSA cannot require state
action.
NHTSA's management reviews are designed to address fundamental
management principles, and state officials with whom we spoke said the
reviews are a useful management tool. However, NHTSA does not currently
analyze the recommendations on a national level to identify common
state challenges--a measure that could help NHTSA direct training and
technical assistance to issues having the widest impact on state grant
management. We analyzed the content of the reviews and found that NHTSA
recommended that most states improve monitoring of subgrantee
performance, expenditures, and equipment inventories. Because the
structure of the highway safety grant program involves many subgrantees
across a state, monitoring these subgrantees helps ensure that funds
are used for their intended purpose and for programs that will help the
state meet its safety goals. Our analysis also showed that NHTSA
recommended to more than half of the states that they spend a higher
percentage of the grant funding they receive each year. While states
can roll over funds from one year to the next, some NHTSA officials
believe spending more would expand the number or scope of safety
programs the states implement each year, which could, in turn, improve
safety. NHTSA and state officials with whom we spoke had different
views on the underlying causes of low expenditure rates: Some NHTSA
officials thought that better state planning would allow states to use
more grant money each year, while several state officials said that
delays in the release of federal funds shorten the number of months the
state has to conduct safety programming, which causes the states to
roll funds over to the next year. NHTSA has not definitively determined
the underlying causes or impact of current state grant expenditure
rates, although officials stated that prompt and effective use of these
funds is a fundamental expectation.
Finally, to help states reduce traffic fatalities, NHTSA uses several
approaches to evaluate state progress toward performance goals and
provide expert advice, and Congress has established financial
incentives, including grant programs, to encourage states to pass
safety legislation and improve safety outcomes. NHTSA's approaches
include (1) evaluations comparing state-established traffic safety
goals and corresponding performance measures with data showing the
extent to which the states achieved the desired outcomes each year, (2)
special management reviews conducted by NHTSA officials in states that
have consistently high alcohol-related fatality rates or low safety
belt use and lower-than-average improvement in these measures over
time, and (3) voluntary technical program assessments in which states
elect to participate in a review by independent leading experts of
safety issues, including, but not limited to, alcohol-related and
unbelted fatalities. In addition to these approaches, Congress
encourages states to improve safety outcomes by offering incentive
grants to states that pass safety legislation or meet specific
performance benchmarks, as well as penalty transfer programs that
discourage states from failing to pass certain types of safety
legislation.[Footnote 5] In recent years, the overall rate of traffic-
related fatalities in the United States has decreased. Despite this
decreased fatality rate, increases in population and the number of
vehicle miles traveled, among other factors, have resulted in the total
number of fatalities remaining at about 43,000 per year. Although more
time is needed to assess the impact of incentive grants on state
performance and determine whether different types of incentives will be
needed, refinements to certain aspects of NHTSA's approaches offer
opportunities to reduce traffic fatalities. For example, in its recent
evaluation of NHTSA's oversight of the highway safety grant program,
the Department of Transportation's Inspector General found that states
did not always use comparable performance measures in setting goals and
reporting outcomes, which reduces NHTSA's ability to effectively
analyze states' progress in its annual performance reviews. In
addition, our analysis of safety data suggests that some states other
than those NHTSA currently targets for special management reviews could
benefit from review or technical assistance. Specifically, we found
that some states have a consistently high total number of fatalities
but are not among those states with the highest rates of alcohol-
impaired driving fatalities or the lowest rates of safety belt use. As
a result, these states do not meet NHTSA's current criteria for a
special management review. To help lower overall fatalities, states
must take advantage of the technical assistance offered by NHTSA
regional officials or request a technical program assessment.
To help states improve management of highway safety grants, we
recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator
of NHTSA to (1) periodically analyze recommendations made in its
management reviews to identify common state challenges, (2)
periodically assess the extent to which states implemented
recommendations and identify barriers preventing states from doing so,
(3) identify options to strengthen state monitoring of subgrantees, (4)
determine the underlying causes and impact of low grant expenditure
rates and identify potential solutions, and (5) identify options to
target safety expertise and technical assistance to states with a high
number of fatalities. DOT commented on a draft of this report and
generally agreed with the analysis and conclusions of this report but
disagreed with our draft recommendation that NHTSA evaluate the need to
revise its criteria for selecting states for special management reviews
to include states that have a high number of fatalities. We revised the
recommendation to provide NHTSA with more flexibility to target its
technical assistance. DOT did not comment on our first four
recommendations. Finally, we incorporated DOT's technical comments
throughout the report as appropriate.
Background:
The Section 402 program provides over $1 billion for fiscal years 2005
through 2009 in federal funding to states[Footnote 6] for highway
safety programs aimed at reducing traffic crashes and related deaths,
injuries, and property damage. Each year, after states submit a highway
safety plan to NHTSA that describes how they plan to use Section 402
funding, this funding is distributed to all states according to a
formula that accounts for state road miles and population but not
differences in safety statistics such as fatality rates among
states.[Footnote 7] These grants are administered by state highway
safety officials who identify traffic safety priorities of greatest
importance to their state and select and fund subgrantees to carry out
safety programs (see fig. 1). Some states have hundreds of subgrantees,
and state subgrantees typically include a variety of different
organizations, such as state and local law enforcement agencies, fire
departments, nonprofit organizations, and advertising agencies.
Figure 1: Flow of Section 402 Funding from Federal to Local Level:
This figure is a flow of Section 402 funding from federal to local
level.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO; Nevada Department of Public Safety (photo).
[A] A safety belt convincer aims to demonstrate the importance of
wearing a safety belt by simulating the force of a low-speed collision
for an individual seated in the convincer.
[End of figure]
In fiscal year 2007, states spent over $203 million in Section 402
funding on traffic safety programs. States may use Section 402 grants
to fund a wide range of programs that are designed to improve traffic
safety primarily by influencing drivers' behavior and that reflect one
of nine national safety priorities established by NHTSA regulation.
(See table 1 for a list of the national priorities and examples of
programs that address each priority.) States may also use Section 402
funding to support safety issues specific to the state that are not
addressed in the national safety goals--for example, winter driving
safety in cold-weather states or street racing--if state officials
submit supporting information to NHTSA.
Table 1: National Safety Priorities under SAFETEA-LU:
National safety priority: 1. Alcohol-and drug-impaired driving;
Example programs: * purchase Driving Under the Influence trailer used
by police officers to process alcohol-impaired drivers;
* provide training for police officers on identifying and conducting
standardized assessments of alcohol-impaired drivers.
National safety priority: 2. Occupant protection (safety belt and child
safety seat use);
Example programs: * pay an advertising agency to develop radio ads that
promote safety belt use;
* pay technicians to educate community members about the proper
installation and use of child safety seats.
National safety priority: 3. Speeding;
Example programs: * purchase speed radar equipment for local police
departments.
National safety priority: 4. Traffic law enforcement;
Example programs:
* pay police officers to work overtime hours dedicated to stopping
impaired drivers.
National safety priority: 5. Emergency medical services;
Example programs: * develop a data registry of trauma injuries related
to crashes.
National safety priority: 6. Traffic records data;
Example programs: * create and maintain statewide database of crash
reports.
National safety priority: 7. Motorcycle safety;
Example programs: * improve the delivery of motorcycle rider training.
National safety priority: 8. Pedestrian and bicycle safety;
Example programs: * provide bicycle safety education and bicycle
helmets to elementary school children.
National safety priority: 9. Roadway safety[A];
Example programs: * purchase technical services, computer equipment,
and software to help analyze roadway collisions.
Sources: NHTSA and selected state highway safety plans.
[A] According to NHTSA, Section 402 funding for roadway safety
initiatives may be used to develop and implement systems and procedures
for carrying out safety construction and operation improvements, but
may not be used for highway construction, maintenance, or design
activities.
[End of table]
While the Section 402 program provides flexible traffic safety funding
for states, incentive grants are structured to encourage states to
implement specific traffic safety initiatives. In 2005, SAFETEA-LU
reauthorized funding for 2 incentive grants related to safety belt use
and alcohol-impaired driving and authorized funding for 5 new incentive
grants that encourage states to (1) implement legislation governing the
use of safety belts, (2) implement legislation governing the use of
child safety seats, (3) promote safety training for motorcyclists and
increase awareness of motorcyclists among other drivers, (4) improve
state traffic safety data systems, and (5) prohibit racial profiling.
In fiscal year 2007, states spent over $191 million in incentive grant
funding on traffic safety programs (see table 2). Unlike Section 402
grants, which are distributed to all states, incentive grants require
states to meet certain criteria to qualify for the grants. Also, the
amount of incentive grant funding a state receives in a given year
depends in part on the total number of states receiving the
grant.[Footnote 8]
Table 2: State Incentive Grant Expenditures on Traffic Safety Goals in
Fiscal Year 2007:
Dollars in millions.
Traffic safety goals: Occupant protection (safety belt use);
State expenditures[A]: $88.8.
Traffic safety goals: Alcohol-impaired driving;
State expenditures[A]: 85.0.
Traffic safety goals: Traffic safety data;
State expenditures[A]: 12.4.
Traffic safety goals: Motorcycle safety;
State expenditures[A]: 2.8.
Traffic safety goals: Prohibit racial profiling;
State expenditures[A]: 1.1.
Traffic safety goals: Child safety seat use;
State expenditures[A]: 0.9.
Traffic safety goals: Total;
State expenditures[A]: $191.0.
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.
[A] State incentive grant expenditures in fiscal year 2007 totaled
$191.1 million. The expenditures in this table do not add up to $191.1
million due to rounding.
[End of table]
To help ensure that states are managing this highway safety funding
efficiently, in compliance with laws and regulations, and in a manner
that will effectively address state safety problems, NHTSA oversees
state highway safety programs through its national headquarters office
and 10 regional offices across the country. Each regional office has
jurisdiction over several states. For example, NHTSA's Region 1 office,
located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, oversees state highway safety
programs in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont.
NHTSA's oversight approach has evolved over time in response to
congressional and state concerns, our recommendations, and NHTSA's own
efforts to improve its oversight. According to NHTSA officials, over
time, Congress has given NHTSA different levels of oversight authority
over state highway safety programs. For example, prior to 1998, NHTSA
had the authority to approve or disapprove state spending on specific
safety programs, but Congress later removed this authority in response
to a congressional and state concern that the program-by-program
approval process was too restrictive. In response, NHTSA adopted a
performance-based oversight approach in 1998, requiring states to
develop performance plans that identify key state safety problems and
set goals and performance measures to address these problems. In 2003,
we raised a concern that NHTSA's oversight of states was inconsistent
across its regional offices and recommended that NHTSA provide more
specific guidance to its regional offices on when to conduct management
reviews of state highway safety programs and how to measure state
progress toward meeting safety goals. In response to the additional
specificity in Section 412 of SAFETEA-LU regarding the scheduling of
management reviews and our recommendation, NHTSA made several changes
to its oversight approach, including clarifying and revising guidance
to regional offices on the processes for conducting regular reviews of
state use of grant funding.
Currently, NHTSA's oversight approach includes processes that assess
both state management capabilities as well as state performance in
meeting safety goals. With respect to assessing state management
capabilities, NHTSA regional officials monitor state grant spending
throughout the year to determine whether states are expending funds in
a timely fashion and to ensure that states are directing funds to the
programs identified in their highway safety plans. In addition,
regional officials conduct on-site management reviews once every 3
years to assess state operations to ensure efficient administration and
effective planning, programming, implementation, and evaluation of the
state's highway safety program. After completing the management review,
regional officials generally issue the following report to the state
containing recommendations for improvement and jointly with state
officials develop the following plan for implementing these
recommendations. See figure 2 for a summary of NHTSA's Management
Review Process.
* Management review reports: Management review reports document the
process NHTSA officials used to evaluate the state's grant management,
identify areas in which the state excelled, and summarize NHTSA's
recommended improvements to the state on how to more efficiently and
effectively manage its grant program. NHTSA's recommendations can
require that the state take action if the state is not in compliance
with federal or state law, or can present a best practice that, if
implemented, may improve management of the grant program or prevent the
state from developing a compliance problem in the future.[Footnote 9]
However, because NHTSA cannot require states to take action on best
practice recommendations, they are not binding on the state.
* Corrective action plans: When necessary based on the results of the
review, NHTSA and the state highway safety office jointly develop a
corrective action plan to address open recommendations in the
management review final report, including tasks to complete the
actions, target dates for completion of each task, and status notes
indicating state progress on each required action.
As required since SAFETEA-LU, in section 412, Title 23 U.S.C., NHTSA
also compiles annual reports that summarize its management review and
findings during each fiscal year. These reports, available on NHTSA's
Web site, list some of the most common recommendations.
Figure 2: Summary of NHTSA's Management Review Process and Estimated
Number of Days for Each Stage of Process:
This figure is a summary of NHTSA's management review process and
estimated number of days for each stage of process.
NHTSA regional office schedules a management review with a state and
requests documentation: Initial contact;
State highway safety office submits documents to NHTSA for review, and
NHTSA provides information to the state on the management review
process: 60 days;
NHTSA regional office conducts management review on site with the state
and provides preliminary observations at the end of review: 5 days;
NHTSA prepares management review draft report, submits it to the state
for comment, and uses an iterative process to address factual
corrections and incorporate the state’s comments: 120 days;
NHTSA transmits the report to the state governor’s representative who
oversees the state highway safety program: 20 days;
When necessary, NHTSA collaborates with the state to develop a
corrective action plan to document state action on open
recommendations: Ongoing.
Estimated number of days for entire management review process: 205.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA guidance.
[End of figure]
While NHTSA's oversight of state grant management helps ensure that
states have management processes that are the basis for an effective
highway safety program, it uses several additional approaches to assess
state performance in improving safety outcomes.
* Evaluation of state established traffic safety goals with safety
outcomes: To evaluate whether states are improving safety outcomes,
NHTSA regional and headquarters officials annually review states'
progress toward safety goals. With input from NHTSA, each state
annually establishes its goals and accompanying performance measures,
as well as the programs it will fund to achieve these goals in the
state's performance and highway safety plans. NHTSA regional staff
review these plans using standard checklists for uniformity in their
evaluation. At the end of the year, each state describes the outcomes
of its efforts in an annual report, which NHTSA uses to track each
state's progress against the goals the state established and provide
feedback to states on the strengths and weaknesses of their programs.
NHTSA officials told us that while they have the authority to approve
state plans as a whole, they cannot require states to act on the
feedback NHTSA officials offer.
* Special management reviews: Each fiscal year, NHTSA headquarters
officials compare state performance in two national safety priorities-
-alcohol-impaired driving and safety belt use--over the prior 3 years
with average national performance in these areas over the same time
period. For those states that have consistently had below-average
safety belt use or an above-average impaired driving fatality rate and
less than half of the national average improvement, NHTSA regional and
headquarters subject matter experts conduct special management reviews,
which involve an in-depth evaluation of a state's alcohol-impaired
driving or safety belt program and result in recommendations for
improvement. Regional officials follow up periodically with states to
determine whether states have acted on these recommendations; however,
because recommendations in a special management review generally do not
relate to compliance issues, NHTSA cannot require state
action.[Footnote 10]
* Technical program assessments: At the request of a state, NHTSA
officials told us they will coordinate a technical program assessment
to evaluate one particular area of a state's highway safety program,
such as traffic records, motorcycle safety, or emergency medical
services, among others. NHTSA facilitates the assessment by bringing
together leading experts in a particular program area to evaluate the
state's program against the national highway safety program guideline
for that subject. After completing the assessment, these experts
produce a final report containing recommendations for strengthening the
state's program. The report is the property of the state, and the state
is not bound to implement any of its recommendations.
Finally, NHTSA complements its oversight of states with training and
technical assistance for state officials. NHTSA offers formal training
through the Transportation Safety Institute in Oklahoma City on a range
of highway safety topics, including courses on highway safety program
management, financial management, and data analysis and evaluation.
Most of the regional officials we spoke with said that NHTSA's regional
offices also provide training for state officials, including some of
the highway safety courses offered through the Transportation Safety
Institute. In addition to offering formal training, NHTSA officials are
available to states for technical assistance, which includes support on
a broad range of issues. For example, several NHTSA regional officials
told us that they share best practices, such as a model policy and
procedures manual, between the states in their regions, and other
regional officials told us that they provide feedback to states on
incentive grant applications. NHTSA headquarters officials provide
expert advice to states on the effectiveness of different strategies to
address traffic safety problems, such as the relative effectiveness of
laws, enforcement, and media campaigns in increasing safety belt use.
States Primarily Direct Section 402 Funding to National Safety
Priorities:
In recent years, states spent about 54 percent of their Section 402
funding to support safety programs, including traffic enforcement,
intended to reduce alcohol-impaired driving and unbelted driving, the
primary factors contributing to traffic fatalities and injuries. In
addition to addressing these two national safety priorities, states
have also used Section 402 funding to address state-specific problems-
-many of which are also national safety priorities, such as improving
pedestrian and bicycle safety, but some of which are not, such as
reducing aggressive driving. Highway safety officials in the eight
states we visited said that Section 402 funding provides flexible and
stable support for a variety of safety programs. Some officials also
noted that Section 402 grants are complemented by incentive grants and
that, in combination, these funding sources allow states to expand
their key safety efforts and initiate innovative safety programs. To
address safety goals, state highway safety offices distribute Section
402 funding to local agencies and state organizations, known as
subgrantees, that carry out traffic safety programs across the state.
State officials also monitor subgrantees to ensure that the funding is
used appropriately.
States Use Section 402 Grants to Address the Main Causes of Traffic
Fatalities and State-Specific Safety Problems:
Since fiscal year 1999, states have directed about 54 percent of their
Section 402 funding to traffic safety programs, such as traffic law
enforcement, aimed at reducing alcohol-impaired driving and unbelted
driving, the leading national causes of traffic fatalities and
injuries.[Footnote 11] According to data from NHTSA's Grants Tracking
System (GTS), states spent almost $1.5 billion in Section 402 funding
on traffic safety programs for fiscal years 1999 through 2007.[Footnote
12] As shown in table 3, states spent over half of this funding on
three program areas: traffic law enforcement, occupant protection
(safety belt use), and alcohol-impaired driving.[Footnote 13] According
to a NHTSA official, traffic law enforcement is a strategy used
primarily to reduce alcohol-impaired driving and increase safety belt
use. During this time period, states also targeted Section 402 funding
toward other key factors contributing to traffic fatalities by
directing about $37 million to programs aimed at reducing speeding and
about $10 million to programs intended to improve motorcycle safety
(see table 3).[Footnote 14]
Table 3: Amount and Percentage of State Section 402 Expenditures
Directed to Selected Program Areas for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2007:
Dollars in millions[A].
Section 402 program areas[B]: Program areas addressing leading causes
of fatalities nationwide;
Amount of 402 expenditures: [Empty];
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: [Empty];
Grouped percentage: 54.2.
Section 402 program areas[B]: Traffic law enforcement;
Amount of 402 expenditures: $374.0;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 25.7;
Grouped percentage: [Empty].
Section 402 program areas[B]: Occupant protection (safety belt use);
Amount of 402 expenditures: 218.9;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 15.0;
Grouped percentage: [Empty].
Section 402 program areas[B]: Alcohol-impaired driving;
Amount of 402 expenditures: 197.1;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 13.6;
Grouped percentage: [Empty].
Section 402 program areas[B]: Program areas addressing other traffic
safety issues;
Amount of 402 expenditures: [Empty];
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: [Empty];
Grouped percentage: 45.8.
Section 402 program areas[B]: Community traffic safety projects;
Amount of 402 expenditures: $245.6;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 16.9;
Grouped percentage: [Empty].
Section 402 program areas[B]: Planning and administration;
Amount of 402 expenditures: 84.5;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 5.8;
Grouped percentage: [Empty].
Section 402 program areas[B]: Traffic records;
Amount of 402 expenditures: 79.5;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 5.5;
Grouped percentage: [Empty].
Section 402 program areas[B]: Pedestrian and bicycle safety;
Amount of 402 expenditures: 54.2;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 3.7;
Grouped percentage: [Empty].
Section 402 program areas[B]: Roadway safety;
Amount of 402 expenditures: 53.2;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 3.7;
Grouped percentage: [Empty].
Section 402 program areas[B]: Speed control and enforcement;
Amount of 402 expenditures: 37.4;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 2.6;
Grouped percentage: [Empty].
Section 402 program areas[B]: Emergency medical services;
Amount of 402 expenditures: 30.8;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 2.1;
Grouped percentage: [Empty].
Section 402 program areas[B]: Motorcycle safety;
Amount of 402 expenditures: 10.0;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 0.7;
Grouped percentage: [Empty].
Section 402 program areas[B]: Other program areas (11);
Amount of 402 expenditures: 69.7;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 4.8;
Grouped percentage: [Empty].
Total;
Amount of 402 expenditures: $1,455.1;
Percentage of total 402 expenditures: 100;
Grouped percentage: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.
[A] We rounded the amount expended in each program area to the nearest
hundred thousand.
[B] Due to some overlap between program areas in GTS, we collapsed
several program areas for our analysis. The occupant protection program
area includes two smaller program areas: occupant protection and
special occupant protection; the community traffic safety projects
program area includes two smaller program areas: community traffic
safety projects and Safe Communities; and the speed control and
enforcement program area includes two smaller program areas: speed
control and speed enforcement.
[End of table]
The three program areas support programs intended to reduce the
incidence of alcohol-impaired and unbelted driving. Such programs
include overtime hours for 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 while
impaired by alcohol. Further, states increased the amount of Section
402 funding that they spent on alcohol-impaired and unbelted driving
from about $95 million in 2007 dollars (54 percent of spending) in
fiscal year 1999 to about $119 million in 2007 dollars (58 percent of
spending) in fiscal year 2007. Most noticeably, during this time,
states increased the funding that they directed towards traffic law
enforcement by about $23 million in 2007 dollars (a 55 percent
increase).
State highway safety officials with whom we spoke said that Section 402
funding provides flexible support that ensures their ability to address
a variety of state-specific traffic safety problems, many of which are
also national safety priorities. GTS data for fiscal years 1999 through
2007 indicate that, after targeting about 54 percent of their Section
402 funding to alcohol-impaired and unbelted driving, states directed
the remaining 46 percent of this funding toward 18 additional program
areas.[Footnote 15] Many of these program areas address national safety
priorities such as improving emergency medical services, data from
traffic records, motorcycle safety, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and
speed control and enforcement (see table 3).[Footnote 16] In addition,
officials in one state told us that they have used some of their
Section 402 funding to address state-specific concerns that are not
explicitly included in the national safety priorities, including
reducing aggressive driving and improving safety among young drivers,
and NHTSA officials told us that cold weather states fund winter
driving safety initiatives.
Some state highway safety officials noted that incentive grants
complement Section 402 funding and that, in combination, these grants
allow states to expand their efforts to address key traffic safety
problems and to support innovative traffic safety programs. Unlike
Section 402 funding, incentive grants are statutorily designed to
target specific safety issues and have eligibility requirements that
states must meet to receive the funding. In this way, these grants are
less flexible than Section 402 grants--for instance, the Motorcyclist
Safety incentive grant is designed to fund rider training and driver-
awareness educational programs. However, officials in all eight states
we visited said they have used incentive grants to expand the core
traffic safety activities they fund with Section 402 grants. For
example, officials in one of these states told us they have used
incentive grants aimed at improving traffic records to build upon the
traffic data programs the state was already supporting with Section 402
funds. Further, officials in two states told us they also use incentive
grant funding to support innovative traffic safety programs they would
not have been able to support with Section 402 dollars alone. For
instance, officials in both states used an incentive grant targeted at
alcohol-impaired driving to test and pilot innovative programs such as
Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) courts that focus primarily on
adjudicating cases involving alcohol-impaired drivers.
States Fund Local Agencies to Implement Safety Programming:
State highway safety offices work to achieve safety goals by
distributing federal funding to local agencies and state organizations
(subgrantees) that implement safety programming. State highway safety
offices are designed to provide a link between federal funding and
agencies that can implement safety programs, but these offices
generally do not carry out programs themselves. Rather, state highway
safety offices manage federal funding and grant requirements and
develop partnerships with agencies--such as the state highway patrol,
local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, nonprofit
organizations, and advertising agencies--that have the resources to
implement or support safety programming. The Section 402 program
requires states to use at least 40 percent of this funding to directly
support or for the benefit of political subdivisions, which can include
directly funding a local organization to conduct safety programming in
its surrounding community or funding the salaries of state patrol
officers that provide traffic enforcement services to rural communities
that do not have a local police department. Several state officials we
spoke with noted that they exceed the 40 percent minimum requirement
and distribute higher amounts to local subgrantees.
State traffic safety officials administer the Section 402 program by
identifying key state traffic safety problems, developing related
safety goals, selecting and funding subgrantees to carry out programs
that address these safety goals, and monitoring subgrantees. Highway
safety officials are required to use a data-driven process to identify
state traffic safety problems and establish performance goals. For
example, Nevada's fiscal year 2008 plan identified impaired driving as
the most common cause of fatal crashes and established a performance
goal of reducing the number of such fatalities to 5.75 per 100,000
people by 2008 (which would be down from 6.31 in 2005). After
identifying state safety goals, officials identify potential
subgrantees to initiate safety programming that can help the state
improve safety outcomes. The states we visited accomplished this by
issuing statewide requests for proposals requesting grant applications,
by contacting potential subgrantees directly to encourage them to apply
for funding, or by using both strategies. After soliciting grant
applications, officials in most of the states we visited used a formal
process to evaluate these applications and select subgrantees. Finally,
state officials are required to monitor subgrantees' use of Section 402
funding to ensure that subgrantees are using funding in accordance with
federal grant requirements and for the activities approved by the
state. In all eight states we visited, officials monitored subgrantees
by reviewing performance reports documenting the activities implemented
with grant funding--for instance, the number of overtime hours worked
by law enforcement officers--as well as documentation of the expenses
related to these activities.
NHTSA Has Improved the Consistency of Its Management Review Process and
Instituted New Processes That Could Help to Assess the Impact of Its
Oversight:
NHTSA implemented both the requirement that it conduct management
reviews of states and territories on a 3-year schedule as well as our
recommendation to improve the consistency with which it uses these
reviews. NHTSA also refined management review guidance for its regional
offices and developed the corrective action plan--a tool to track state
implementation of management review recommendations and encourage
states to act on NHTSA's advice. Our analysis of management review
reports and corrective action plans for fiscal years 2005 through 2007
revealed some differences among the regions with respect to the
information the regions included in these documents, as well as how
these documents organized information. As a result, NHTSA cannot use
these reports to describe on a national level the extent to which
states acted on its advice or assess the impact of its recommendations
to states. NHTSA recently took steps to respond to state concerns and
further improve consistency in the management reviews. These measures
should improve the information available to NHTSA for analysis that
could further enhance its oversight.
NHTSA Addressed Section 412 Requirements and Our Previous
Recommendations to Consistently Use Management Reviews:
NHTSA implemented both the Section 412 requirement that it conduct
management reviews of states and territories on a 3-year schedule as
well as our recommendation to improve the consistency with which it
uses these reviews. During the 3-year period of fiscal years 2005
through 2007, NHTSA conducted 56 of the required 57 reviews or about 15
to 20 reviews per year.[Footnote 17] Each of the 10 NHTSA regional
offices performed one or more management reviews per year to ensure it
reviewed each state or territory in its region during the 3-year cycle.
NHTSA also refined its management review guidance for its regional
offices. This guidance clarified the process each region is to use to
initiate, conduct, and publish a final management review report. For
example, it requires regional offices to provide to state highway
safety offices (1) advanced notice before beginning a management
review, (2) information on aspects of the state highway safety program
that NHTSA officials would review, (3) a schedule of work, and (4) a
list of materials and documents that the state highway safety office
would need to provide the NHTSA regional office prior to the review.
Some state officials told us that this guidance added clarity and
consistency to the management review process, as they knew what to
expect and had time to prepare more effectively for the review. NHTSA's
guidance also provided its staff with more information on the aspects
of the state highway safety office that NHTSA regional staff should
analyze during a management review (what NHTSA referred to as "the
elements of the review"), including issues related to organization and
staffing, program management, and financial management. Lastly, NHTSA
provided guidance to its regional offices on developing a draft report
to incorporate states' comments and on preparing a final report that
addressed all elements reviewed, including issues with compliance, best
practices or commendations, recommendations, and other comments. This
guidance was designed to ensure that NHTSA's regional offices would
provide each state with a final management review report that outlined
areas of improvement leading to changes in the state's grant management
process and by extension each state's traffic safety program.
Finally, NHTSA developed the corrective action plan to address open
recommendations in the final management review report. NHTSA regional
offices and states jointly develop corrective action plans to identify
tasks the state should take to complete actions, target dates for the
completion of each task, and status notes indicating progress of each
action--as well as any issues preventing states from completing
actions--to address the recommendations. NHTSA headquarters officials
told us that based on the guidance they provided to regional officials,
they expected that each region would produce a corrective action plan
to track any open recommendations in the management reviews, including
both compliance-based findings and best practice management
considerations, although if states were able to address a
recommendation prior to the final management review report being
issued, regional offices did not need to include it in the corrective
action plan.
Despite Increased Consistency in the Use and Implementation of
Management Reviews, Regions Provided Varying Information in Recent
Reviews:
Our analysis of fiscal year 2005 through 2007 management review reports
and corrective action plans revealed some differences among the regions
with respect to the information the regions included in these reports
as well as how these documents organized information. This type of
variation makes it more difficult for NHTSA to assess the impact of its
oversight and advice to states on a national level. Some regional
officials told us there were differences in how their office
interpreted NHTSA's guidance for conducting the management reviews
compared with other regional offices. We observed the following
differences:
* Organization and content in the management review reports varied:
Regional officials adopted different approaches to documenting state
performance on the management review elements. Some documented
information when they identified problems or offered commendations,
while others summarized information on each review element, indicating
whether the states were achieving a satisfactory level of performance,
needed improvement, or had exemplary performance. The number of
recommendations also varied greatly among regional offices--for
example, one region averaged almost 28 recommendations per review,
while another averaged about 10. While this disparity could mean that
states in some regions performed worse than states in other regions, it
may also indicate that some regions were more stringent in their review
than others. We noted, however, that many of the management reviews
conducted in fiscal year 2007 more consistently organized information.
NHTSA officials explained that in the fall of 2007 it rolled out a new
template for the management reviews to improve consistency in report
organization and content.
* Variation in information summarized from NHTSA's review of subgrantee
program documentation: States must keep documentation of the safety
programs performed and expenses of state subgrantees receiving highway
safety funding, and NHTSA analyzes this documentation during management
reviews. However, we found variation in the extent to which management
review reports summarized the outcomes of NHTSA staff's analysis. Some
management review reports included a list of programs for which NHTSA
officials had examined documentation, but no summary of whether the
documentation was adequate. Other reports included several
recommendations to the state on how to improve this documentation. A
few reviews cited the adequacy of documentation for each program
reviewed, noting specific inadequacies or that the program contained
sufficient documentation of subgrantee activities and expenses.
Reviewing documentation provided by subgrantees ensures that states and
their subgrantees are spending federal funding on allowable costs, in
keeping with federal requirements, and that the states have adequate
documentation to support expenses. Such reviews can also identify
misuse of federal funding. For example, officials from one regional
office told us they uncovered a subgrantee embezzling funds during a
review of the program's documentation, which led NHTSA officials to
contact the state inspector general and other authorities to resolve
this issue. The Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector
General (DOT IG) noted in its recent evaluation of NHTSA's highway
safety program that several recent cases of false claims for work
performed and embezzlement of grant funds resulted in convictions and
the recovery of $119,000 in highway safety grant funding.[Footnote 18]
The DOT IG recommended that NHTSA encourage states to conduct
substantive testing of subgrantee grant expenditures to detect fraud,
waste, and abuse--testing that NHTSA officials support but also
recognize may be difficult for states given limited resources and that
most state highway officials are program specialists rather than
auditors. Consistent and thorough reporting of the outcomes of the
program file reviews that NHTSA conducts during its management reviews
would increase state accountability for comprehensively reviewing
subgrantee documentation of activities performed and expenses incurred,
and NHTSA's revised management review guidance should add consistency
to the documentation of project file reviews.
* Recommendations were inconsistently characterized: Management reviews
did not always clearly distinguish between recommendations that
addressed instances in which the state program was not complying with
laws and regulations and was therefore statutorily required to take
remedial actions and recommendations that were management best
practices that would improve the state's program but on which NHTSA
could not require the state to act. As a result, according to officials
in some of the states we visited, state leadership penalized some state
highway safety offices because it appeared that the state had multiple
compliance problems in the management review report. NHTSA officials
stated that they were not made aware of such incidents, and we did not
independently confirm these statements. Nevertheless, as discussed in
the next section, NHTSA has taken steps to improve the clarity of its
management review reports.
* Inconsistent use and content of the corrective action plans: NHTSA
inconsistently used its corrective action plans, which it developed to
track state implementation of its recommendations and encourage state
action. As of March 2008, we found that 38 of the 56 states receiving a
management review in fiscal years 2005 through 2007 had a corrective
action plan, even though all reviews had recommendations and NHTSA
headquarters' expectation was that regional staff would develop a plan
any time there were open recommendations.[Footnote 19] The content of
the corrective action plans also varied--for instance, some regions
included all of the recommendations from the management review, while
others included only some of the recommendations from the management
review. In addition, corrective action plans did not always include
information on whether states had implemented recommendations.
As a result, NHTSA cannot describe--and we were unable to assess--on a
national level the extent to which states are acting on NHTSA's
recommendations, some of which require action on compliance issues.
Further it cannot assess the impact of these recommendations on states.
The DOT IG's evaluation also noted that NHTSA could improve its
oversight, among other issues, by implementing a nationwide
recommendation tracking system that could improve accounting for the
disposition of recommendations to ensure follow-up for unresolved
items, and NHTSA agreed to do so. Such information would allow NHTSA to
identify how often states implemented its recommendations--both those
that require action as well as those that NHTSA cannot require states
to implement--and, to the extent that states did not act on NHTSA's
advice, NHTSA could identify the barriers that prevented states from
doing so.
NHTSA Responded to State Concerns and Further Improved Consistency in
the Management Reviews, Improving Information Available for Analysis:
NHTSA recently took steps to respond to state concerns and further
improve consistency in the management reviews--steps that should
improve the information available for analysis that could further
enhance NHTSA's oversight. In 2006, NHTSA began working with the
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) to refine how it
categorizes recommendations in its management reviews, and NHTSA
implemented new guidance in the summer of 2007. Specifically, NHTSA and
GHSA collaborated to clearly distinguish between recommendations that
NHTSA can require state offices to act on because the state is not in
compliance with federal rules or regulations and recommendations that
represent a management best practice. NHTSA updated its guidance in
July 2007 and now differentiates between "findings" that are compliance-
based problems the state is statutorily required to address, and
"management considerations" that identify improvements to the state's
highway safety program but for which NHTSA cannot require state action.
In addition to its collaboration with GHSA, NHTSA initiated several new
processes related to how regional officials document management review
reports and corrective action plans that should help NHTSA address some
of the inconsistencies we found in the reports and plans for fiscal
years 2005 through 2007. In November 2007, NHTSA trained regional staff
on its recently updated management review guidance and introduced new
templates associated with the management review process. These
templates include initiation letters, close-out letters, and checklists
for the review process, among others. NHTSA also established a team to
read draft management review reports and ensure that recommendations
are made in similar circumstances, that compliance issues include a
description and reference to the relevant law or regulation, and that
definitions and language are used consistently across the regions.
Also, NHTSA's recent management review guidance indicates that regional
office officials should summarize major issues identified during the
review of state subgrantee program documentation.[Footnote 20] Several
regional officials told us they thought these efforts will add more
consistency to the management review reports.
NHTSA also updated its guidance on the use of corrective action plans,
which are now used when NHTSA identifies compliance-based findings and
will not include management considerations. NHTSA plans to track
management considerations in separate documents maintained by the
regional offices. Specifically, in May 2008, NHTSA officials stated
they developed the recommendation action tracking form that regional
offices will be able to use to track state action in response to
management considerations. Regional officials will follow up with
states semiannually to update states' progress. According to NHTSA
officials, GHSA and states requested that NHTSA drop management
considerations from the management reviews altogether and base the
reviews solely on compliance related issues. However, NHTSA officials
disagreed, stating that they view NHTSA's role as including
responsibility to disseminate best practices, and management
considerations allow for this opportunity. In previous reports on
similarly structured federal programs, we have recommended that other
federal agencies disseminate best practices to state agencies or other
grantees receiving federal funds. Additionally, in the long term,
action on management considerations may prevent states from having
compliance issues.
NHTSA's Management Review Recommendations Address Fundamental
Management Principles and Could Be Analyzed at the National Level to
Identify Common State Challenges:
NHTSA's management review recommendations--both its compliance-based
findings and management considerations--address fundamental management
principles, and state officials with whom we spoke said the review
recommendations serve as a useful management tool and, in some cases,
helped them obtain needed resources from state leadership. In the
future, NHTSA could use information from the reviews to identify common
state problems at a national level and direct resources accordingly. We
conducted such an analysis and found that states experienced a number
of common challenges such as needing to improve monitoring of
subgrantees--an issue the DOT IG also identified in its report as a
process in need of strengthening--and spending highway safety grant
funding in a more timely fashion. As noted earlier, some of NHTSA's
recent initiatives should improve the consistency of information
documented in management reviews and corrective action plans. Such
improvements could help NHTSA not only assess the impact of its
oversight, but also identify common state challenges for which NHTSA
may be able to provide additional assistance to states.
NHTSA's Management Review Recommendations Address Fundamental
Management Principles, and State Officials Found These Reviews Helpful:
In its management reviews, NHTSA recommended actions to improve
planning and implementation of programs, strengthen internal controls,
ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations, and address
fundamental management principles. These actions are consistent with
guidance and evaluation tools from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and GAO regarding oversight of federal grants and good management
practices.[Footnote 21] For example, OMB guidance indicates that a
recipient of a federal grant demonstrate that its planning will allow
it to make effective use of federal funding. NHTSA's fiscal year 2005
through 2007 management reviews examined several aspects of state
highway safety office planning and made several recommendations that
states could use to strengthen planning processes--for example, by
using data on fatalities and injuries to better target federal dollars
to the safety issues that are of greatest significance to the state. In
addition, our work on internal controls and other management practices
as well as OMB guidance suggests that processes like regular monitoring
of the quality of state programs' performance over time, financial
management accountability that provides assurances that programs are
using funding in the intended manner, and having sufficient levels of
well-trained staff to conduct the programs' work, can ensure that
programs are run efficiently and effectively. NHTSA's management
reviews and recommendations addressed each of these areas, as well as
others that our work indicates are necessary for effective programs.
State officials with whom we spoke viewed NHTSA management reviews
favorably. They indicated that the recommendations served as a useful
management tool and helped them focus on specific areas needing
improvement. For example, officials from one state commented that the
recommendations identified several ways the state could improve its
processes, communication among staff, and monitoring of subgrantees.
Officials from another state said that implementing the recommendations
improved the state's highway safety program, for example, by
recommending they hire a coordinator for youth programs. Officials from
two other states noted respectively that the reviews helped the office
focus on accomplishing important, basic aspects of their traffic safety
program and gave them the "push" to complete projects such as updating
their policy and procedures manual. Some state officials also told us
that NHTSA sometimes made recommendations to assist the state highway
traffic safety office in obtaining resources from state leadership that
have authority over the office's budget or staff allocation. For
example, NHTSA recommendations helped one state to hire additional
staff and assisted another in obtaining funding from state leadership
to send staff to training.
Monitoring Subgrantees and Spending Grants in a Timely Manner Were
Common State Challenges in Recent Management Reviews:
Our analysis of the fiscal year 2005 through 2007 management review
recommendations[Footnote 22] indicated that states face several common
challenges in managing highway safety programs. These challenges
include:
* improving monitoring of subgrantees;
* resolving financial management issues such as ensuring that expenses
submitted by subgrantees were paid promptly and for the correct amounts
or that the state used federal planning and administration funds for
staff salaries only when appropriate;
* strengthening planning processes and programming to better address
traffic safety risks;
* staffing issues such as clearly defining staff functions and the
processes staff should use to perform their roles, as well as providing
necessary training and development;
* improving implementation of safety programming, such as ensuring that
states have written requirements for subgrantees about how they manage
their programs and reports the state expects to receive regarding
subgrantee activities and progress toward milestones; and:
* spending grant funding in a timely fashion. (See table 4 for a
summary of the most common NHTSA recommendations.)
Table 4: NHTSA Recommendations to Address State Challenges for Managing
Highway Safety Programs, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007:
State challenge: Improve monitoring of subgrantees;
Number of states and territories receiving the recommendation: 49.
State challenge: Resolving financial management issues such as ensuring
that expenses submitted by subgrantees were paid promptly and for the
correct amounts or that the state used federal planning and
administration funds for staff salaries only when appropriate;
Number of states and territories receiving the recommendation: 48.
State challenge: Strengthen planning processes and programming to
better address traffic safety risks;
Number of states and territories receiving the recommendation: 41.
State challenge: Staffing issues such as clearly defining staff
functions and the processes staff should use to perform their role, as
well as providing necessary training and development[A];
Number of states and territories receiving the recommendation: 40.
State challenge: Improve implementation of safety programming such as
written requirements regarding subgrantees' management of their
programs;
Number of states and territories receiving the recommendation: 38.
State challenge: Spend ("liquidate") grant funding in a timely fashion;
Number of states and territories receiving the recommendation: 33.
Source: GAO analysis of management review reports.
[A] Staff functions and training were separate categories in our
analysis, and recommendations were made to 40 states in both
categories.
[End of table]
The most common recommendations we observed related to the need for
state highway safety offices to strengthen the processes they use to
monitor subgrantees. Federal regulations require monitoring of
recipients of federal funds, including subgrantees. The DOT IG noted in
its recent evaluation of NHTSA's highway safety program that such
monitoring helps ensure that funds are being used for (1) their
intended purpose, (2) for programs that will help the state meet its
safety goals, and (3) in compliance with laws and regulations. Federal
highway safety grant funding generally passes through state highway
safety offices to local agencies and other subgrantees to implement
programs. Because the structure of this grant program involves many
organizations across a state, NHTSA often recommended that state
highway safety offices develop and execute monitoring processes such
as:
* tracking and evaluating subgrantee performance, which could include
reports on how many citations a local police department issued during
overtime enforcement of impaired driving or the number of child safety
seats a nonprofit agency installed in the cars of low income families;
* financial accountability, which could include ensuring that
subgrantees spent funds on items reviewed and approved by the state
highway safety office and that the costs claimed are supported with
documentation; and:
* maintenance of inventories of equipment costing more than $5,000 and
purchased with federal funds, which OMB requires.
Some NHTSA regional officials told us that because state highway safety
staff perform numerous duties, they can overlook monitoring and
documenting subgrantee activities. In addition, some of these officials
noted that new state staff often require training in monitoring, which
suggests the importance of continual training on these processes. The
DOT IG recommended that NHTSA encourage states to conduct comprehensive
on-site reviews of subgrantee internal controls over grant
expenditures, substantive testing of grant expenditures, or other
procedures to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse.
Another frequently made recommendation and one that some NHTSA
officials identified as potentially having an effect on state progress
toward achieving its safety outcomes, was the need for states to
liquidate grant funding in a timely fashion. In its management reviews,
NHTSA recommended that 33 of the 56 states and territories reviewed
increase the rate at which they spend federal dollars. Our analysis of
data from NHTSA's Grants Tracking System, which contains information on
state highway safety grant spending, showed that from fiscal year 1999
through 2007, states spent between about 63 percent and 73 percent of
Section 402 funding each year. States can carry unused funding into the
next fiscal year--for example, states carried over about $103 million
from fiscal year 2007 into fiscal year 2008, which is nearly half of
the total Section 402 funds available to states in fiscal year 2007.
Some NHTSA regional officials told us that low levels of expenditures
indicate that states are not implementing as much safety programming as
the states have funding for, which means that each year states could
expand their efforts and potentially reduce fatalities, injuries, and
crashes beyond what the state is currently accomplishing. Furthermore,
according to NHTSA headquarters officials and as included in their
recommendations to states in some management reviews, a fundamental
expectation of Congress is that funds made available to states will be
used promptly and effectively to address the highway safety problems
for which they were authorized. Finally, one of the measures NHTSA uses
in assessing the effectiveness of a state's highway safety program is
whether available program funds are expended on a timely basis or
whether funds remain largely unexpended and carried forward into a
subsequent year.
Many of the state officials we spoke with recognized liquidation rates
as an issue but explained that such delays occur when the federal
government operates under a continuing budget resolution, which
prevents NHTSA from releasing the full amount of Section 402 funding to
the states and in turn delays distribution of the funds to subgrantees.
NHTSA officials we spoke with appreciated this concern, and
headquarters officials noted that, in addition to delayed passage of
appropriation bills, other factors can prevent states from spending the
full amount of grants, including states awarding or implementing
contract awards late, slow spending by subgrantees, or delayed project
starts by subgrantees. Also, officials from some regional offices said
that states often do not plan a large enough safety program to spend
all of the Section 402 funding each year, regardless of whether a
continuing budget resolution is likely, and better planning and
management could increase liquidation rates.
Management Review Recommendations Identify Common State Challenges That
Could Help Direct Resources:
By documenting areas of improvement for each state managing highway
safety grants, management review recommendations provide insight into
common state challenges. When analyzed systematically at a national
level, such information could be used to direct technical assistance
and training resources accordingly. Although NHTSA officials stated
that they continually review the effectiveness of their recommendations
and policies, NHTSA does not currently use the management reviews for
this purpose. In its report, the DOT IG made a related observation and
recommended that NHTSA develop a process to electronically track
recommendations on a national level and provide all regional offices
with access to this system to identify solutions for states with
similar issues.
As noted, the consistency of the information documented in management
reviews and corrective action plans is a current barrier to analyzing
problems that occur in many states. For example, regional officials did
not consistently categorize similar recommendations--one region's
management review classified the need for staff to receive training as
a program management issue while another region listed it as a
financial management issue, and yet another as an organization and
staffing issue--thus making it more difficult to analyze
recommendations on a national level. However, the steps NHTSA has
recently implemented should improve the information included in the
management reviews and corrective action plans developed in the next 3-
year period. In addition, several other planned and currently available
resources could be used to facilitate an analysis.
* NHTSA officials told us, and indicated in their response to the DOT
IG's recommendations, that they plan to create a compendium of
management review recommendations on their intranet that would be
searchable by all regional offices. Regional officials could use the
compendium to see how other offices addressed challenges similar to
ones they encountered--a practice NHTSA headquarters officials thought
would improve consistency. If the database included all recommendations
(findings and management considerations) from the fiscal year 2008
through 2010 management reviews and information on whether states
implemented the recommendations, NHTSA could also use it to analyze
recommendations in the database to identify common state problems. As
of February 2008, NHTSA was developing such a tracking system but had
not yet implemented it.
* To fulfill a requirement in Section 412, NHTSA currently develops
brief summaries of the management reviews that list the common
recommendations from each of the three review areas (organization and
staffing, program management, and financial management) and has so far
completed fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 summaries. NHTSA's
summaries do not include--and Section 412 does not explicitly require-
-an analysis of the relative importance or potential effect these
common problems could have on state programs or how these common issues
could inform NHTSA's plans for training, technical assistance, or
oversight, which are NHTSA's resources for influencing state programs.
NHTSA officials stated that while they try to continually improve their
programs, they do not currently use the recommendation summaries for
this purpose.
* NHTSA has a fairly extensive training and technical assistance
program for states that includes formal classes on grant requirements,
using data to identify safety challenges, and financial management of
the grant program. In addition, each region organizes annual
conferences to discuss topics like emerging safety issues and
innovative programs states are testing. The states we visited all
complimented NHTSA's support, and many noted several different areas in
which NHTSA staff provided expert advice, including grant management
and safety programming. NHTSA could use data from management reviews to
efficiently direct some of these information-sharing resources to
common challenges that states experience.
NHTSA's Approaches and Existing Financial Incentives Encourage States
to Improve Safety, While Refinements Could Further Help States:
NHTSA uses several approaches to help states improve their traffic
safety outcomes, and Congress has established incentive grants and,
under Sections 154(c) and 164(b) to Title 23 U.S.C., penalty transfer
programs to encourage states to improve safety. 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. Congress also offers
financial incentives to improve state safety, including incentive
grants that encourage states to pass safety legislation and achieve
certain performance benchmarks, as well as penalty transfer programs
that shift federal funding from road construction to behavioral safety
programs for states that fail to pass safety legislation. However, it
is too early to assess the impact of recently established incentive
grants on traffic fatalities or to determine whether other types of
incentives might be needed. Further, while the national traffic
fatality rate has decreased, the number of fatalities has remained
fairly constant over the last 10 years, offset by factors such as
increases in population and the number of vehicle miles traveled. In
addition, the DOT IG found that NHTSA could improve its annual
oversight of state performance by encouraging states to use consistent
performance measures in their safety plans and annual reports. We also
found that some states have a consistently high number of fatalities
but do not meet NHTSA's current selection criteria for a special
management review. As a result, NHTSA must rely on the states to take
advantage of the technical assistance offered by regional officials or
to request a technical program assessment. Finally, existing incentive
grants do not target states that have low or average fatality rates but
high total numbers of fatalities.
NHTSA Provides Expert Advice to Help States Make Progress toward Safety
Goals, While Grant Programs Offer Financial Incentives for States to
Improve Safety:
NHTSA uses three approaches to evaluate state progress toward safety
goals and provide states with expert advice to make the best use of
traffic safety funding. These approaches are different from NHTSA's
management reviews in that NHTSA focuses on aspects of a state's
highway safety program that more directly address safety outcomes while
management reviews focus on improving grant management processes. Each
of NHTSA's performance evaluation processes is designed to target a
slightly different group of states and provides a different type of
advice.
* Oversight of state performance: Each year, NHTSA evaluates the
progress all states and territories made toward their established
safety goals--such as reducing state traffic fatalities by a certain
number--which ensures that all states receive at least some advice from
NHTSA on how to improve their safety programs and outcomes.[Footnote
23] States develop safety goals annually in their highway safety and
performance plans, and NHTSA provides each state with an analysis of
state-level traffic safety data, such as fatality rates, safety belt
use, and alcohol-related fatalities. NHTSA also shares countermeasures
that address safety problems specific to each state--for example, the
use of sobriety checkpoints used by law enforcement officers to
determine whether drivers are impaired--and provides feedback on state
planning with respect to the programs the state plans to fund with its
federal highway safety grants. Further, each December, states must
submit to NHTSA regional offices an annual report on the previous
fiscal year's program activities and the progress the state made toward
achieving its goals. This process allows NHTSA to assess individual
state performance in improving safety outcomes and to provide feedback
to states on strengths and weaknesses in their programs. However, NHTSA
officials told us that while they have the authority to approve state
plans as a whole, they cannot require states to act on the feedback
NHTSA officials offer unless there is a compliance issue.
* Special management reviews: Beyond its annual evaluations, NHTSA
targets additional resources toward states not making adequate progress
in NHTSA's priority areas of reducing impaired driving fatalities and
increasing safety belt use by selecting these states for special
management reviews, which it began implementing in fiscal year
2005.[Footnote 24] NHTSA conducted 30 special management reviews, 2 of
which NHTSA officials noted actually combined elements of a special
management review and technical program assessment, in the initial 3-
year review cycle from January 2005 through September 2007 and, as of
June 2008, planned to conduct at least two of these reviews in fiscal
year 2008. Special management reviews involve an in-depth evaluation by
NHTSA regional and headquarters officials of a state's impaired driving
or safety belt program, including issues related to state leadership
and state priorities, issues related to the funding and implementation
of individual safety projects, program evaluation issues, and
legislative issues such as the presence of safety legislation. NHTSA
officials indicated that they often identify deficiencies in the
state's safety program through these reviews and recommend steps that
could improve the state program and potentially the state's safety
outcomes. However, NHTSA officials stated that they cannot require the
state to act on these recommendations unless there is a compliance
issue. NHTSA officials told us that NHTSA pays the cost of these
reviews and that they recently formed a team to examine the consistency
and effectiveness of the special management review process.
* Technical program assessments: NHTSA officials told us that they also
coordinate voluntary technical program assessments for any state that
wishes to improve its outcomes on specific traffic safety issues.
Technical program assessments differ from special management reviews in
several ways. First, assessments are available to any state, not just
those with high fatality rates related to alcohol-impaired driving and
low safety belt use rates, and states must request an assessment--
unlike with special management reviews where states are selected for
evaluation by NHTSA. Second, assessments bring together leading
independent experts in a particular topic area to evaluate the state's
program; in contrast, special management reviews are conducted by NHTSA
officials with subject-matter expertise. Third, assessments cover a
wider range of safety issues, including alcohol-impaired driving,
occupant protection (safety belts), occupant protection for children,
motorcycle safety, emergency medical services, traffic records, and
standardized field sobriety testing.[Footnote 25] Fourth, according to
NHTSA officials, states pay most of the costs of the assessments,
although in some cases NHTSA pays for a facilitator to participate in
the assessment. NHTSA officials and highway safety officials in two of
the states we visited noted that these assessment reports carry more
authority with state leadership than special management reviews due to
their independent nature. However, NHTSA officials noted that they
cannot require states to implement the experts' recommendations.
In addition to NHTSA's approaches, Congress designed financial
incentives--incentive grants and penalty transfers--to encourage states
to improve outcomes by passing safety legislation or meeting
performance-based benchmarks. The incentive grants are designed to
encourage states to do both of these things.[Footnote 26] Studies have
shown a relationship between strong safety legislation and improvements
in safety outcomes--for example, a 2006 NHTSA study[Footnote 27] found
that states with primary safety belt laws had much lower fatality rates
than all other states[Footnote 28]--and the Occupant Protection and
Safety Belt Use incentive grants encourage states to pass such
legislation by making that legislation one of the criteria for grant
eligibility. Similarly, to qualify for the Child Safety and Booster
Seat Use incentive grant, states must pass a law requiring any child
under the age of 8 riding in a passenger vehicle to be secured in an
appropriate child restraint system, with certain height and weight
exceptions. In addition, several incentive grants use positive
performance-based eligibility criteria to encourage and reward states
for achieving certain levels of performance. For example, states that
have not passed a primary safety belt law can qualify for the Safety
Belt Use incentive grant if the state has achieved a safety belt use
rate of at least 85 percent in the 2 preceding calendar years.[Footnote
29] States with very low rates of impaired driving fatalities (an
alcohol-related fatality rate of 0.5 or less fatalities per 100 million
vehicle miles traveled) can automatically qualify for the Alcohol
Impaired Driving Countermeasures incentive grant.[Footnote 30]
Congress also uses penalty transfer programs to encourage states to
pass other types of safety legislation that are expected to improve
safety outcomes. For example, the law requires that a percentage of the
state's Federal-Aid Highway program funding be transferred to the
state's Section 402 safety program if the state fails to pass an open
container law, which prohibits the possession of an open alcoholic
beverage container or the consumption of any alcoholic beverage in a
motor vehicle.
Refinements to NHTSA's Approaches Could Help States Improve Safety, but
More Time Is Needed to Assess the Impact of Incentive Grants:
While the national traffic fatality rate has declined, the number of
traffic fatalities has remained fairly level since 1997, as factors
such as increases in population and the number of vehicle miles
traveled offset improvements in the fatality rate.[Footnote 31]
Although NHTSA provides expert advice to states, some opportunity to
improve state--and thus national--outcomes such as decreasing
fatalities could come from refinements to certain aspects of NHTSA's
approaches to reviewing and providing feedback on state performance.
For example, a recent DOT IG evaluation of NHTSA's highway safety
program identified one opportunity for NHTSA to strengthen its annual
review of state safety goals and outcomes--an approach NHTSA uses to
ensure that all states receive some feedback on their performance.
Specifically, the DOT IG found that states did not always use
consistent performance measures between the performance plans that
identify annual state safety goals and the annual reports that document
state progress toward these goals. For example, the DOT IG noted that
none of the 12 performance measures in one state's performance plan
carried over to the state's annual report and 9 measures had no
measurable targets. According to the DOT IG, the measures that states
use in performance plans and annual reports must be comparable for
NHTSA to effectively analyze states' progress. To better track state
performance, the DOT IG recommended that NHTSA promote the development
and adoption of consistent performance measures in state plans and
provide guidance to the states to ensure state performance reports
include trend lines determining whether the state is on track to meet
its highway safety goals. In partnership with GHSA, NHTSA hired a
contractor to develop a common set of performance measures that it
plans to use to track progress at the national level and encourage
states to use these measures as part of highway safety planning.
Further, fatality data suggest that states other than those meeting the
selection criteria for a special management review may benefit from
additional technical assistance or review. Specifically, we found that
some states have low or average fatality rates but a consistently high
number of fatalities over time. From 1997 through 2006, national
traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled declined by
approximately 14 percent, from 1.65 to 1.41, while the number of
fatalities remained fairly level at about 43,000 per year during this
time period (see fig. 3) likely due to factors such as increasing
population, the number of vehicle miles traveled, and use of
motorcycles, among other factors.
Figure 3: Traffic Fatality Rates and Total Number of Fatalities, 1997
through 2006:
This figure is a combination line and bar graph showing traffic
fatality rates and total number of fatalities, 1997 through 2006. The X
axis is the year, the left Y axis represents the fatality number, and
the right Y axis represents the fatalities per 100 million vehicle
miles traveled.
Year: 1997;
Total fatalities: 42,013;
Fatalities per 100 million per miles traveled: 1.65.
Year: 1998;
Total fatalities: 41,501;
Fatalities per 100 million per miles traveled: 1.58.
Year: 1999;
Total fatalities: 41,717;
Fatalities per 100 million per miles traveled: 1.55.
Year: 2000;
Total fatalities: 41,945;
Fatalities per 100 million per miles traveled: 1.53.
Year: 2001;
Total fatalities: 42,196;
Fatalities per 100 million per miles traveled: 1.51.
Year: 2002;
Total fatalities: 43,005;
Fatalities per 100 million per miles traveled: 1.51.
Year: 2003;
Total fatalities: 42,884;
Fatalities per 100 million per miles traveled: 1.49.
Year: 2004;
Total fatalities: 42,836;
Fatalities per 100 million per miles traveled: 1.45.
Year: 2005;
Total fatalities: 43,510;
Fatalities per 100 million per miles traveled: 1.46.
Year: 2006;
Total fatalities: 42,642;
Fatalities per 100 million per miles traveled: 1.41.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA and FHWA data.
[End of figure]
On a state level, from 1998 through 2006, 27 states had average alcohol-
related fatality rates that were equal to or below the national average
of 0.61 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. However,
despite their low or average fatality rates, 10 of these 27 states had
an above-average number of fatalities, or an average of more than 336
fatalities per year. During this time period, these 10 states accounted
for a total of more than 55,000 fatalities, or over a third of the
number of alcohol-related fatalities nationwide. Figure 4 below
compares the average annual alcohol-related fatality rate per state and
average annual number of alcohol-related fatalities per state from 1998
through 2006 and shows that states with relatively low to average
fatality rates can have high levels of fatalities.
Figure 4: Alcohol-Related Fatalities--Average Annual State Fatality
Rates and Corresponding Average Annual Number of Fatalities, 1998
through 2006:
This figure is a dot graph showing alcohol-related fatalities--average
annual state fatality rates and corresponding average annual number of
fatalities, 1998 through 2006. The X axis represents the average annual
fatality rate per state[A], and the Y axis represents the average
annual number of fatalities per state.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 37.4;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.7784.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 431.9;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.7478.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 231;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.7595.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 481.2;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.9138.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 1581.9;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.5006.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 264.9;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.6078.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 141.7;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.4584.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 25.6;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.7005.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 55.1;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.6228.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 1275.6;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.7385.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 546.2;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.5099.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 61.7;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.6768.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 142.4;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.4707.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 99.9;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.7028.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 623.6;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.5942.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 320.4;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.4498.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 176.9;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.6204.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 289.4;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.6196.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 440.9;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 1.024.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 203.4;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.3804.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 257.1;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.4858.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 61.7;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.4858.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 494.9;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.4978.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 231.1;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.4297.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 499.4;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.7385.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 351.3;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.9391.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 115.9;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 1.1084.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 565.6;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.6088.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 49.7;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.6686.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 106;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.572.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 57.7;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.4583.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 280.8;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.4038.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 205.2;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.8824.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 162.1;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.866.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 519.4;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.3906.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 528.7;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.4897.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 263.1;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.5852.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 193.7;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.5586.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 631.1;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.6033.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 249.1;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 1.3753.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 44.4;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.5398.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 489.3;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 1.037.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 81.8;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.9592.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 506.6;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.7486.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 1747.7;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.7878.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 70.2;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.299.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 361.1;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.4713.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 31.7;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.4134.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 284.2;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.5236.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 353.1;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.6033.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 152.6;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.7709.
Average Annual Number of Facilities per state: 67.3;
Average Annual Fatality Rate per state[A]: 0.7747.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data.
[A] The fatality rate is the number of fatalities per 100 million
vehicle miles traveled.
[End of figure]
Given the relatively low fatality rates of these states, the high
number of fatalities does not necessarily indicate a problem with the
state's safety program. For example, many of the 27 states with below-
average or average fatality rates have relatively large populations
and, therefore, have a relatively high number of vehicle miles traveled
and a relatively high number of fatalities. Specifically, 16 of these
states had estimated populations of over 5 million as of July 1, 2006.
In addition, NHTSA officials offered the following illustration. From
2000 through 2006, 12,292 people died in Texas and 11,480 people died
in California in alcohol-related crashes. Although the number of
fatalities suggests these states have similar alcohol-related crash
problems, on a per-mile driven basis, Texans were 53 percent more
likely to die in an alcohol-related crash than Californians. Neither
Texas nor California have met NHTSA's selection criteria for a special
management review.
Yet, states with high total numbers of fatalities offer an opportunity
to save the greatest number of lives. Targeting these states could
provide an opportunity to focus on reducing the total number of
fatalities nationwide. Currently, these states receive feedback from
NHTSA on their safety programs as a part of NHTSA's annual evaluation
of state progress toward its performance goals, and NHTSA regional
officials provide technical assistance as part of their oversight
activities of states throughout the year. However, these states may not
receive an in-depth programmatic review that could identify additional
opportunities to reduce fatalities. For example, under NHTSA's current
criteria for special management reviews, these states would not be
selected for a review.[Footnote 32] In addition, although all states
can request a technical program assessment and would receive similar
programmatic advice as they would through a special management review,
since January 2005, 3 of the 10 states that had an above-average number
of alcohol-related fatalities per year requested and received an
assessment focused on impaired driving.
Recently established incentive grants primarily target states that take
steps to improve safety outcomes either by passing legislation that
research indicates improves safety outcomes or by achieving high levels
of safety performance. However, current incentive grants are not
specifically designed to target states with low or average fatality
rates but high numbers of fatalities. In addition, these incentive
grants have been in effect since October 2005, and it is too early to
determine whether they will be effective in significantly improving
state safety outcomes. Initial state responses to these incentives have
varied. As we reported earlier this year, a number of states have been
unable to pass the safety legislation necessary to qualify for
incentive grants.[Footnote 33] In addition, some have yet to pass
legislation that would allow them to avoid penalty transfers of funding
from state road construction to traffic safety. At the end of 2007,
about half of the states had passed primary safety belt laws, and about
one-fourth of the states had passed child safety and booster seat
laws.[Footnote 34] Seven of the eight states we visited had not passed
primary safety belt laws--attributed by officials in one state to the
political climate and the opposition of key legislators.[Footnote 35]
Further, some states are still working to obtain incentive grants based
on performance. For example, according to a NHTSA official, 5 states
qualified for the Safety Belt Use incentive grant in fiscal year 2008
by achieving an 85 percent safety belt use rate in 2006 and
2007.[Footnote 36] In addition, officials in several of the states we
visited as well as officials from GHSA noted that fewer states may
qualify for grants like the Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures
incentive grant in the future because the performance and programmatic
criteria that states must meet become more stringent over time. While a
number of incentive grants provide resources to states achieving high
levels of performance, the Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures
incentive grant also provides funding to the ten states with the
highest alcohol-related fatality rates.[Footnote 37]
Conclusions:
Through its positive working relationship with states and GHSA and its
own initiatives for continuous improvement, NHTSA has made considerable
progress in improving the consistency of its oversight of state highway
safety programs. Our analysis of the recommendations NHTSA made in its
fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2007 management reviews showed
that NHTSA focuses on fundamental management principles that can
improve state management of highway safety programs. However, our
analysis also showed that states experienced several common problems,
some of which, if left unaddressed, could produce negative consequences
such as lost equipment or misuse of federal funds. A periodic analysis
of these recommendations on a national level could help NHTSA direct
its training, technical assistance, and oversight to issues that could
have the widest impact on improving state programs. Furthermore, a
periodic analysis of the extent to which states acted on NHTSA's
recommendations would help NHTSA to evaluate the impact of its
recommendations and identify barriers that prevent states from taking
action to improve management of their programs. NHTSA has worked to
continually make improvements to its oversight of states, including
recent steps to further improve the consistency of information
available about its recommendations. A more systematic analysis of this
information would likely enhance these efforts.
Our analysis of NHTSA's recent management review recommendations
identified several common challenges that states experienced during the
initial 3-year cycle of management reviews--challenges that NHTSA could
address in the near future. For example, the most common recommendation
addressed the need for states to improve monitoring of subgrantee
performance, expenditures, and equipment inventories--an issue the DOT
IG also noted in its report and one that has the potential to prevent
and detect misuse of federal funds. In addition, because the structure
of the highway safety grant program involves many subgrantees across a
state, monitoring these subgrantees helps ensure that funds are used
for their intended purpose and for programs that will help the state
meet its safety goals. NHTSA also frequently recommended that states
increase the amount of grant funding states spend each year, an action
that some NHTSA officials believe might contribute to improving safety
outcomes by expanding the number or scope of safety programs the state
implements each year. Making the best use of federal funding as
possible each year can help to improve safety outcomes, and identifying
the underlying causes of current liquidation rates as well as
strategies to help states improve could accomplish this.
Finally, our review found that states are directing Section 402 program
and incentive grant funding primarily toward the two leading causes of
fatalities in car crashes, and NHTSA takes an active role in providing
oversight and technical assistance to help states achieve safety-
related performance goals. However, the total number of fatalities has
remained at about 43,000 for the last 10 years, and achieving further
reductions in fatalities could be challenging as the national rate of
traffic fatalities already declined by 14 percent during this period.
NHTSA currently conducts special management reviews for states having
the highest rates of fatalities related to alcohol-impaired driving and
lowest rates of safety belt use, and all states can request that NHTSA
coordinate a technical program assessment. However, because some states
with a high total number of fatalities may not meet NHTSA's selection
criteria for a special management review and may not elect to
participate in an assessment, these states may not receive an in-depth
programmatic review that could identify additional opportunities to
reduce fatalities. In addition, current incentive grants do not
specifically target these states, although these states may be eligible
for incentive grants based on other criteria.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the
Administrator of NHTSA to take the following five actions:
* Periodically analyze, on a national level, all recommendations made
to states to identify common challenges and areas in which NHTSA may
need to focus its oversight or states may need additional help, such as
training or technical assistance.
* Periodically assess the extent to which states have implemented
NHTSA's recommendations, and, when states have not, identify the
barriers that prevent states from doing so and alter the type or focus
of future recommendations as needed.
* Identify options, such as new guidance or training for states, to
strengthen state monitoring of subgrantee performance, activities, and
expenditures.
* Develop a working group with GHSA and state highway traffic safety
offices as appropriate to identify the reasons for low annual rates of
grant expenditures and solutions that could help address these
challenges.
* 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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Transportation
(DOT) for review and comment. On behalf of DOT, the Senior Associate
Administrator, Traffic Safety Control, provided comments via e-mail.
DOT officials generally agreed with the analysis and conclusions of
this report but disagreed with one of our draft recommendations--that
NHTSA evaluate the need to revise its criteria for selecting states for
special management reviews to include states that have a high number of
fatalities. While DOT officials agreed that directing resources and
technical assistance to states that have high numbers of fatalities
represents an opportunity to save the greatest number of lives, they
did not agree that conducting special management reviews would be the
best way to do so. Specifically, DOT officials stated that special
management reviews are initiated based on evidence that a state's
program area performance is deficient, which is not necessarily the
case for states with high numbers of fatalities. We continue to believe
that these states would benefit from additional technical assistance or
review and revised our recommendation to provide NHTSA with flexibility
to determine the best approach to target expertise and technical
assistance to these states. We revised our draft recommendation in this
area accordingly. DOT did not comment on our other four
recommendations. DOT also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate throughout the report.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of
NHTSA. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix II.
Signed by:
Katherine A. Siggerud:
Managing Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) added Section 412 to Title 23 U.S.C.,
which among other things included a requirement that GAO analyze the
effectiveness of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) oversight of traffic safety grants and usefulness of the
NHTSA's advice to states on the management of safety programs. In
addition, as the federal government prepares to reauthorize highway
safety programs, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure asked us to provide information on how states have used
Section 402 safety grants and how NHTSA oversees state progress under
these grants. To address these issues, we examined (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 each of our objectives, we reviewed relevant legislation,
rule making, and guidance and conducted interviews with key officials.
Specifically, we interviewed NHTSA officials from headquarters and the
10 regional offices, as well as officials from the Governors Highway
Safety Association (GHSA), a nonprofit association representing state
highway safety programs, to gather their perspectives on these issues.
To obtain insight from state officials on our objectives, we conducted
site visits with eight traffic safety departments in Arizona, Idaho,
Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin and
interviewed state highway traffic safety staff as well as two to three
state subgrantee recipients of NHTSA's highway traffic safety funding
in each state. We chose these states based on several criteria,
including states that had (1) a management review in 2005 or early
2006, (2) varying amounts of Section 402 grant funding and incentive
grants that added to their overall safety grant funding, and (3)
different geographic areas and NHTSA regions. See table 5 below for a
summary of these criteria.
Table 5: States Visited and Key Selection Criteria:
State: Arizona;
Date of last management review (2005 or early 2006): July 2005;
Amount of Section 402 grant funding received in fiscal year 2006
(rank): $3,497,557 (21);
Incentive grants received in fiscal year 2006[A]: Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Motorcyclist Safety Traffic Data; Geographic area/ NHTSA
region: Western/Region 9.
State: Idaho; Date of last management review (2005 or early 2006):
February 2005; Amount of Section 402 grant funding received in fiscal
year 2006 (rank): $1,296,592 (42);
Incentive grants received in fiscal year 2006[A]: Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Motorcyclist Safety Traffic Data; Geographic area/ NHTSA
region: Pacific Northwest/ Region 10.
State: Maine; Date of last management review (2005 or early 2006): June
2005; Amount of Section 402 grant funding received in fiscal year 2006
(rank): $1,073,507 (43);
Incentive grants received in fiscal year 2006[A]: Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Child Safety Seats Motorcyclist Safety Traffic Data; Geographic
area/ NHTSA region: New England/Region 1.
State: Minnesota; Date of last management review (2005 or early 2006):
February 2005; Amount of Section 402 grant funding received in fiscal
year 2006 (rank): $4,327,252 (16);
Incentive grants received in fiscal year 2006[A]: Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Motorcyclist Safety Traffic Data; Geographic area/ NHTSA
region: Great Lakes/Region 5.
State: Nevada; Date of last management review (2005 or early 2006):
August 2005; Amount of Section 402 grant funding received in fiscal
year 2006 (rank): $1,507,235 (37);
Incentive grants received in fiscal year 2006[A]: Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Motorcyclist Safety Traffic Data; Geographic area/ NHTSA
region: Rocky Mountain/ Region 8.
State: Texas; Date of last management review (2005 or early 2006):
March 2006; Amount of Section 402 grant funding received in fiscal year
2006 (rank): $15,070,584 (2);
Incentive grants received in fiscal year 2006[A]: Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Motorcyclist Safety Safety Belt Use; Geographic area/ NHTSA
region: South Central/ Region 6.
State: West Virginia; Date of last management review (2005 or early
2006): August 2005; Amount of Section 402 grant funding received in
fiscal year 2006 (rank): $1,443,924 (40);
Incentive grants received in fiscal year 2006[A]: Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Child Safety Seats Motorcyclist Safety Prohibiting Racial
Profiling Traffic Data; Geographic area/ NHTSA region: Mid
Atlantic/Region 3.
State: Wisconsin; Date of last management review (2005 or early 2006):
January 2005; Amount of Section 402 grant funding received in fiscal
year 2006 (rank): $4,332,858 (15);
Incentive grants received in fiscal year 2006[A]: Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Motorcyclist Safety Traffic Data; Geographic area/ NHTSA
region: Great Lakes/Region 5.
Alcohol-Impaired Driving = Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasure
Incentive Grants Child Safety Seats = Child Safety and Child Booster
Seat Incentive Grants Motorcyclist Safety = Motorcyclist Safety Grants
Prohibiting Racial Profiling = Racial Profiling Prohibition Grant
Safety Belt Use = Safety Belt Performance Grants Traffic Data = State
Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grants:
Source: GAO.
[A] As a part of our selection criteria, we focused on whether states
had received incentive grants that had been added or significantly
changed by SAFETEA-LU. However, we did not include in our criteria the
incentive grant to prohibit racial profiling in fiscal year 2006
because so few of the states that met our initial criteria of having a
management review in 2005 or 2006 received this grant.
[End of table]
We complemented our discussions with officials from NHTSA, the states,
and GHSA with additional methodologies specific to each of the
objectives. To determine how states have used Section 402 funding to
achieve national safety goals, we analyzed data from NHTSA's Grants
Tracking System (GTS) on state Section 402 and incentive grant
expenditures from fiscal years 1999 through 2007. Specifically, we used
the data to determine the percentage of Section 402 funding that states
spent on individual safety goals over fiscal years 1999 through 2007
and looked for changes in spending patterns over this time period.
Prior to our analysis, we reviewed NHTSA's technical documentation
related to GTS and assessed the reliability of this data by
interviewing NHTSA headquarters officials as well as highway safety
officials responsible for entering data into GTS in the 8 states we
visited, and we found that GTS data was reliable for the purposes of
our report.
To assess the progress NHTSA has made toward addressing consistency in
the management review process, we reviewed prior GAO reports on NHTSA's
oversight of states, NHTSA's 2004 report to Congress on changes to the
management review process, NHTSA's guidance for carrying out management
reviews, and templates NHTSA developed for written products produced
during the review process. We also reviewed NHTSA's management review
schedule to determine the approximate number of reviews completed
yearly and the total number completed. In addition, we reviewed 56
management review reports representing reviews conducted in fiscal
years 2005 through 2007 to assess the consistency of these reports with
respect to organization and content. We also reviewed the 38 corrective
action plans available as of March 2008 to determine how often regional
offices developed these plans, the number of management review
recommendations included in the plans, and the extent to which the
plans included information on whether states had implemented NHTSA's
recommendations.
To determine how useful management reviews and NHTSA's recommendations
are to improving state safety programs, we reviewed GAO reports and
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) publications related to oversight
of federal grants, internal controls, and management principles related
to running efficient and effective grant programs. We compared the
management principles in these documents to NHTSA's guidance on the
elements that should be examined in a management review to assess
whether the management reviews address fundamental management
principles established by GAO and OMB. In addition, we conducted a
content analysis of 56 management review reports from fiscal years 2005
through 2007 to determine the total number of recommendations that
NHTSA made to states over this time period and assess whether there
were commonalities in the recommendations that NHTSA made across
states. With respect to liquidation rates, we used data from GTS to
identify the average rate at which states liquidated Section 402
funding from 1999 through 2007. We also reviewed NHTSA's summaries of
the management reviews conducted in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 and
summarized information from NHTSA's corrective action plans to
determine the extent to which these tools had been used consistently by
the regional offices.
To describe the approaches NHTSA uses to improve safety outcomes, we
reviewed NHTSA's procedures for (1) conducting special management
reviews; (2) annual evaluations of state highway safety plans,
performance plans, and annual reports; and (3) technical program
assessments. We also reviewed the criteria NHTSA uses to select states
for special management reviews and the schedule for conducting these
reviews and technical program assessments over the last 3 years.
Finally, we analyzed data provided by NHTSA on state performance with
respect to the total number of alcohol-related fatalities and fatality
rates as well as the number of unbelted fatalities and fatality rates
from 1998 through 2006.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 through 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 provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Katherine A. Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, other key contributors to this
report were Cathy Colwell (Assistant Director), Caitlin Croake, Colin
Fallon, Joah Iannotta, Bert Japikse, Thomas James, Thanh Lu, Grant
Mallie, SaraAnn Moessbauer, and Nitin Rao.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] In 2005, motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death in
the United States for young people ages 3 through 6 and 8 through 34.
R. Subramanian, NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Motor
Vehicle Traffic Crashes as a Leading Cause of Death in the United
States, 2005, DOT HS 810 936 (Washington, D.C., 2008).
[2] Blincoe et al., NHTSA, The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle
Crashes, 2000 (Washington, D.C., 2002). The cost of traffic crashes
includes the cost of fatalities, nonfatal injuries, and damaged
vehicles. To adjust for inflation, we converted 2000 dollars into 2007
dollars using a gross domestic product price index.
[3] Management reviews generally involve reviewing a state's
operational and financial management, grant projects, and whether
states used funds in accordance with requirements.
[4] See GAO, Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of
State Highway Safety Programs, GAO-03-474 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21,
2003).
[5] GAO reported in March on NHTSA's incentive grants. See Traffic
Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues, Despite State
Eligibility and Management Difficulties, GAO-08-398 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 14, 2008). We reported in April on high-visibility enforcement:
Traffic Safety: Improved Reporting and Performance Measures Would
Enhance Evaluation of High-Visibility Campaigns, GAO-08-477
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2008).
[6] In fiscal year 2007, all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Native American Nations, and 4 territories received
Section 402 funding. In this report, we use the term "states" to refer
to all of the entities that receive Section 402 funding.
[7] The formula includes a minimum apportionment so that all states
receive a minimum amount of dollars regardless of road miles and
population. Section 402, Title 23 U.S.C., requires most states to
provide matching funds of at least 20 percent of the total highway
safety program costs, with the exception of states containing certain
types of nontaxable federal lands. For these states, matching funds are
calculated on a sliding scale and may be less than 20 percent of total
highway safety program costs.
[8] For more information on incentive grants, see GAO-08-398.
[9] Beginning with fiscal year 2008 management reviews, recommendations
that are compliance related are called findings while those that are
best practices are called management considerations. This is discussed
later in our report.
[10] Following special management reviews, a performance enhancement
plan is developed collaboratively between the regional office and the
state. This plan details strategies for implementing recommendations,
establishes target dates for completion of each recommendation, and
contains status notes indicating progress toward meeting each
recommendation.
[11] According to data provided by NHTSA, alcohol-impaired and unbelted
driving are the leading factors contributing to traffic fatalities. For
example, from 2000 through 2006, these two factors contributed from
about 78 percent to 84 percent of annual traffic fatalities. A NHTSA
official noted that there is overlap between these factors, in that
many of the people killed in alcohol-related crashes were also
unbuckled.
[12] Fiscal year 2007 data are the most current complete fiscal year
data available. Because these are budget numbers, we are reporting them
in nominal dollars. When evaluating trends in spending over time, we
used budget numbers that we inflation-adjusted into constant 2007
dollars.
[13] These percentages may underestimate actual state spending because
there is some overlap between program areas. According to NHTSA
officials, states may use community traffic safety projects to address
any traffic safety goal. For example, states may fund community
projects to reduce alcohol-impaired driving but may categorize these
activities in NHTSA's Grants Tracking System (GTS) as community traffic
safety projects rather than alcohol-impaired driving activities.
[14] According to data provided by NHTSA, speeding contributed from 30
percent to 32 percent of annual traffic fatalities from 2000 through
2006. Motorcycles were involved in an increasing percentage of fatal
crashes over this time period, from about 7 percent in 2000 through
about 12 percent in 2006. According to NHTSA, there is some overlap
between speeding and other contributing factors such as alcohol-
impaired driving and unbelted driving.
[15] They also used the funding to pay grant planning and
administration costs.
[16] As noted earlier in this report, NHTSA's nine national safety
priorities, established by rulemaking prior to SAFETEA-LU are: alcohol-
and drug-impaired driving, occupant protection, traffic law enforcement
activities, emergency medical services, traffic records, motorcycle
safety, pedestrian and bicycle safety, roadway safety, and speed
control.
[17] American Samoa was the only state or territory that did not
receive a management review for 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 on-site management review during those
fiscal years. The regional office plans on conducting an on-site visit
in fiscal year 2008. American Samoa received $1.6 million in federal
highway safety funding for fiscal year 2007, one of the lowest amounts
of funding in the nation.
[18] U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector
General, Best Practices for Improving Oversight of State Highway Safety
Programs, MH-2008-046 (Washington, D.C., 2008).
[19] For 5 of 18 states, corrective action plans were still being
developed by March 2008 because the management review had taken place
late in fiscal year 2007.
[20] Additionally, NHTSA developed monitoring guidance for regional
offices that includes the minimum number of times regional offices
should conduct on-site monitoring of states. NHTSA officials believe
this will ensure more consistency in the monitoring of grantees outside
the management review.
[21] See, for example, 2 CFR Part 215 (OMB Circular A-110) and OMB
Circular A-102 (the Common Rule). Also see GAO, Standards for Internal
Controls in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington,
D.C.: November 1999); and Internal Control Management and Evaluation
Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.: August 2001).
[22] These recommendations included findings and management
considerations, as NHTSA did not differentiate these recommendations
during this period.
[23] We did not examine NHTSA's evaluations of the progress made by
individual states and territories as part of this study.
[24] 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 period. States with alcohol-related fatality
rates consistently above the national average or safety belt use rates
consistently below the national average that have also shown relatively
low levels of improvement over time--defined as less than half of the
average national improvement--may be selected to receive a special
management review.
[25] 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 DWI suspects, describe the behavior of these
suspects, and present effective testimony in court.
[26] The incentive grants include the Occupant Protection, Safety Belt
Use, Child Safety and Booster Seat Use, Alcohol Impaired Driving
Countermeasures, Motorcyclist Safety, and State Traffic Information
Systems Improvement grants.
[27] C. Liu et al., NHTSA, States with Primary Enforcement Laws Have
Lower Fatality Rates, DOT HS 810 557 (Washington, D.C., 2006). This
study was updated in 2008 and reached the same conclusion, although the
difference in fatality rates between states with primary safety belt
laws and all other states was smaller.
[28] Primary safety belt laws allow law enforcement officers to stop a
driver for not wearing a safety belt and issue a ticket.
[29] In addition, states can qualify for a first-time Motorcyclist
Safety incentive grant by meeting criteria including achieving a
reduction in fatalities and crashes involving motorcycles in the
preceding year. However, eligibility for the Occupant Protection grant
is not tied to performance outcomes but rather to state action on four
of six criteria, for example, establishing a statewide child passenger
protection program that includes educational programs on proper safety
seat use. Similarly, to be eligibile for a first-time State Traffic
Information Systems Improvement grant, states must establish a traffic
records coordinating committee and a related strategic plan, and
certify that the state is using model data elements.
[30] While the Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures incentive grant
targets states with very low fatality rates, it also targets states
with very high fatality rates by automatically qualifying the ten
states with the highest alcohol-related fatality rates for this grant.
For more information, see GAO-08-398.
[31] Calendar year 2006 fatality data is the most current complete year
of fatality data available.
[32] We analyzed data over 9 years to show general patterns over time.
However, as noted above, NHTSA examines alcohol-related fatality data
in 3-year intervals and compares performance during these intervals to
performance in the base year prior to these intervals.
[33] For more information, see GAO-08-398.
[34] For more information, see GAO-08-398.
[35] Texas was the only state that had a primary safety belt law in
effect at the time of our visit. However, after our visit, Maine passed
a primary safety belt law.
[36] Beginning in fiscal year 2008, states can qualify for the Safety
Belt Use incentive grant either by passing a primary safety belt law or
by achieving a safety belt use rate of at least 85 percent in the two
preceding calendar years. According to a NHTSA official, in fiscal year
2008, only 1 new state qualified for this grant by passing a primary
safety belt law.
[37] For more information, see GAO-08-398.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
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. Government Accountability 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: