Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of State 
Highway Safety Programs (21-APR-03, GAO-03-474).		 
                                                                 
In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century	 
funded a series of highway safety programs. These safety	 
programs, administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety	 
Administration (NHTSA), increased funding to the states to	 
improve highway safety through activities designed to encourage, 
among other things, the use of seat belts and child passenger	 
seats and to prevent drinking and driving. The states implement  
these activities through a "performance-based" approach under	 
which they establish highway safety goals and initiate projects  
to help reach those goals. NHTSA reviews the goals and provides  
oversight to the state highway safety programs. GAO was asked to 
provide trend data on highway safety, determine how much highway 
safety funding was provided and how the states used the funds,	 
and review NHTSA's oversight of highway safety programs.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-474 					        
    ACCNO:   A06696						        
  TITLE:     Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight  
of State Highway Safety Programs				 
     DATE:   04/21/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Federal aid for highways				 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Funds management					 
	     Highway safety					 
	     Motor vehicle safety				 
	     State programs					 
	     Transportation safety				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     FHWA Federal-Aid Highway Program			 
	     FHWA Hazard Elimination Program			 
	     FHWA State and Community Highway Section		 
	     402 Program					 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-474

Report to Congressional Requester

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

April 2003 HIGHWAY SAFETY Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of State
Highway Safety Programs

GAO- 03- 474

While the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined since the
1970s, it has stayed fairly level since 1995, at about 41,900 per year.
Fatality rates per miles traveled have also continued to decline, but the
bulk of this decline occurred between 1982 and 1992. In addition, the
number of alcohol- related fatalities declined from about 26,000 in 1982
to about 17,400 in 2001. However, alcohol- related fatalities rose in 2000
and 2001.

About $2 billion has been provided over the last 5 years for highway
safety programs under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century.
About $729 million went to the core highway safety program, Section 402,
to carry out traffic safety programs designed to influence drivers*
behavior in such areas as seat belt use, alcohol- impaired driving, and
speeding. About $936 million went to seven incentive programs designed to
encourage state efforts to improve seat- belt use, reduce drunk driving,
and improve highway safety data. About $361 million was transferred from
highway construction to

highway safety programs under provisions that penalized states that had
not passed repeat offender or open container laws to reduce drunk driving.
Of the incentive and transfer funds, most were used for behavioral
programs, but about $395 million was used for highway construction
programs.

Under the performance- based approach, NHTSA provides advice, training and
technical assistance to the states, which are responsible for setting and
achieving highway safety goals. NHTSA also provides oversight through
management reviews and improvement plans intended to help ensure that the
states are operating within guidelines and achieving the desired results.
However NHTSA*s regional offices have made inconsistent use of management
reviews and limited and inconsistent use of improvement plans because
NHTSA*s guidance to the regional offices does not specify when to use
them. As a result, NHTSA*s efforts to work with the states may not be
fully realized.

Highway Safety Funding to States, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2002

In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century funded a
series of highway safety programs. These safety programs, administered by
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), increased

funding to the states to improve highway safety through activities
designed to encourage, among other things, the use of seat belts

and child passenger seats and to prevent drinking and driving. The states
implement these activities through a *performance- based*

approach under which they establish highway safety goals and initiate
projects to help reach those goals. NHTSA reviews the goals and provides
oversight to the state highway safety programs. GAO was asked to provide
trend data on highway safety, determine how

much highway safety funding was provided and how the states used the
funds, and review NHTSA*s oversight of highway safety programs. GAO
recommends that NHTSA provide more specific written

guidance to its regional offices on when it is appropriate to use
management reviews and improvement plans to assist states with their
highway safety programs.

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 474. To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Peter Guerrero (202) 512- 2834. Highlights of GAO-
03- 474, a report to

Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce,
and Infrastructure, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.
S. Senate

April 2003

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of State Highway Safety Programs

Page i GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding Letter 1 Results in
Brief 2 Background 4 Trends in Highway Safety 8 States Used Increased
Safety Funding to Support Behavioral and

Construction Programs 13 NHTSA Makes Inconsistent and Limited Use of
Oversight Tools 20 Conclusions 24 Recommendations for Executive Action 25
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25 Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology 27

Appendix II Federal Funding for State Behavioral Safety Programs 29

Appendix III The Transfer Provisions Encourage Changes in State Laws 31

Tables

Table 1: Highway Safety Incentive Grant Programs 6 Table 2: State Use of
Highway Safety Incentive Funds, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2002 17 Table 3:
Changes in State Compliance with Federal Open Container and Repeat
Offender Requirements 31 Table 4: States* Compliance with Alcohol Transfer
Laws as of October 1, 2002 32 Figures

Figure 1: Rate of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001 3 Figure 2: State
and Community Grants Program Funding, Fiscal Years 1967 through 2002 5
Figure 3: Number of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001 9 Figure 4: Rate
of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001 10 Figure 5: Number of Traffic
Crashes, 1988 through 2001 11 Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Figure 6: Number of Alcohol- Related Fatalities, 1982 through 2001 12
Figure 7: Rate of Alcohol- Related Fatalities, 1982 through 2001 13 Figure
8: NHTSA Highway Safety Funding to States, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2002
14 Figure 9: Uses of State and Community Grants Funds, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2002 16 Figure 10: State Allocations of Transfer Funds, Fiscal
Years 2001 and 2002 18 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. It may contain copyrighted graphics,
images or other materials. Permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted materials separately
from GAO*s product.

Page 1 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

April 21, 2003 The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Competition,

Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation United States Senate

Dear Senator Dorgan: Over the last 25 years, more than 1.2 million people
have died as a result of traffic crashes in the United States. Since 1982,
about 40 percent of traffic deaths were from alcohol- related crashes. In
addition, traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for people aged 4
through 33. In 2000 alone, the economic cost of fatalities and injuries
from crashes totaled almost $231 billion, according to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

To improve safety on the nation*s highways, the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (P. L. 105- 178, 1998) authorized a number of highway
safety programs. Specifically, the act reauthorized the core federally
funded highway safety program, Section 402 State and Community Grant
Program. This program, authorized in 1966, uses a formula based on
population and road mileage to make grants available for each state to
carry out traffic safety programs designed to influence drivers* behavior,
commonly called behavioral safety programs. In addition, the act
authorized seven other grant programs that provide incentive funding to
encourage safety through the use of seat belts and child passenger seats
and through efforts to prevent drinking and driving. Finally, a 1998
amendment to the act established two new penalty requirements to reduce
the number of alcohol- related fatalities associated with repeat
drunkdriving offenders and open alcoholic beverage containers in motor
vehicles. Beginning in 2000, states that failed to adopt these
requirements were penalized by having a portion of their federal highway
construction funds transferred to highway safety programs. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration oversees the states* highway safety
programs; and, in 1998, it adopted a performance- based approach to
oversight, under which the states set their own highway safety goals and
targets and the agency*s 10 regional offices provide assistance to and
oversight of the states to help them reach those goals.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

You asked us to (1) provide information on trends in highway safety and
how alcohol contributes to these statistics, (2) provide information on
how much funding the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century made
available to the states for highway safety programs and how states have
used these funds, and (3) review the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration*s oversight of the states* highway safety programs.

To analyze highway fatality statistics, we used data from 1975 through
2001, the most recent year for which data are available from the agency*s
Fatality Analysis Reporting System, the national database on fatal traffic
accidents. In addition, for information on crashes and alcohol- related
fatalities, we used data that started to be collected in 1988 and 1982,
respectively. To provide information on available funding and its uses, we
obtained and analyzed data from the agency and visited six states that
accounted for a large amount (about 40 percent) of the funds transferred
under the penalty provisions (California, Georgia, Missouri, New York,
Ohio and Texas). We also used these states and visited the agency*s six
regional offices that are responsible for them, to review the agency*s
oversight of states* programs. We also interviewed representatives of the
Governors Highway Safety Association and other highway safety
organizations to obtain their perspective on safety issues and program
oversight. Appendix I provides additional details on our scope and
methodology.

The number of traffic fatalities has declined since the 1970s.
Specifically, traffic fatalities dropped from a high of about 51,100 in
1979 to a low of about 39,300 in 1992. Since 1995, fatalities have been
fairly constant with a slight increase, averaging about 41,900 per year.
The slowing in the decline in fatalities-* as measured by the number of
fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled* is shown in figure 1.
Similarly, the number of alcohol- related fatalities declined from about
26,200 in 1982, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
began tracking them, to about 17,400 in 2001. However, since 1992,
declines in the number of alcohol- related fatalities have slowed, and
these fatalities have also increased in 2000 and 2001. Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Figure 1: Rate of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001

About $2.0 billion has been provided to the states under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended, for (1) the
core Section 402 State and Community Safety Grants program, (2) seven
incentive programs, and (3) two penalty transfer programs for fiscal years
1998 through 2002. About $729 million of these funds supported the

Section 402 program and were used for behavioral highway safety programs
that addressed problems such as seat- belt use, alcohol- impaired driving,
and speeding. The seven incentive programs accounted for about $936
million. Five of these incentive programs required all of their funds to
be used for behavioral highway safety programs, and two of the incentive
programs allowed their funds to be used for either highway safety programs
or highway construction projects. Finally, in fiscal years 2001 and 2002,
about $361 million was transferred to safety programs from the states*
Federal- Aid Highway construction account in 34 states that did not meet
federal requirements related to open container and repeat offender laws.
The states that were subject to the transfer penalties could use these
funds for either alcohol- related programs or for highway safety
construction* specifically, for projects to eliminate roadway hazards.
These states chose to allocate about 69 percent of the transfer funds to
highway safety construction.

Under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration*s
performancebased oversight approach, each state sets its own safety
performance goals and develops an annual safety plan that describes
projects designed to achieve the goals. The agency*s 10 regional offices
review the annual plans and provide technical assistance, advice, and
comments. The

Page 4 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

regional offices can also conduct management reviews of state highway
safety programs. Management reviews generally involve sending a team to a
state to review its performance, examine its projects, and determine that
it is using funds in accordance with requirements. While the management

reviews often identify problems with states* highway safety programs that
need correction, we found that the regional offices were inconsistent in
conducting these reviews. This variation in the use of management reviews
occurs because the agency*s guidance is not specific on when the reviews
should be conducted. As a result, some regional offices conduct

reviews every other year, while others conduct them only when requested by
a state. In addition, when a state fails to make progress toward its
highway safety performance goals, the agency requires the development and
implementation of an improvement plan that identifies programs and
activities the state and regional offices will undertake to address
program weaknesses. We found that the regional offices have made limited
and inconsistent use of improvement plans. For example, some states did
not have improvement plans, even though their alcohol- related fatality
rates have increased or their seat- belt use rates have declined. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not established clear
criteria for using improvement plans.

We are recommending that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration provide more specific written guidance to the regional
offices on when it is appropriate to use management reviews and
improvement plans to assist states in their safety programs. In commenting
on a draft of this report, the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration agreed with our recommendation and stated that it had begun
the process to develop this guidance.

The behavioral safety programs authorized by the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA- 21) attempt to improve highway safety by
reducing the frequency and seriousness of crashes and by mitigating the
consequences of crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), within the Department of Transportation, provides
oversight of state highway safety programs.

The Section 402 State and Community Grants program is the core safety
grants program that was authorized in 1966. It is highly flexible,
allowing the states to use funds for a wide variety of highway safety
projects, including projects to reduce alcohol- impaired driving, increase
seat- belt use, develop regional traffic safety initiatives, improve
traffic records and Background Core Safety Program

Page 5 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

safety data, and improve pedestrian safety, among other projects. As shown
in figure 2, the funding for this program reached a high of over $450
million in 1978, in 2002 dollars. Since 1991, program funding has remained
relatively stable at about $150 million a year, in 2002 dollars.

Figure 2: State and Community Grants Program Funding, Fiscal Years 1967
through 2002

Besides reauthorizing the Section 402 program, TEA- 21 authorized seven
new incentive grant programs that provide funds to encourage states to
increase seat- belt use, reduce alcohol- impaired driving, and improve
highway safety data. States must meet certain requirements to qualify for
these incentive grants and generally must apply for them. Table 1 provides
information on the seven safety incentive grant programs. Incentive Grant
Programs

Page 6 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Table 1: Highway Safety Incentive Grant Programs Incentive category Title
of incentive Description of incentive

Section 157 Safety Incentive Grants for the Use of Seat Belts

Creates incentive grants to states to improve seat- belt use rates. A
state may use these funds for any highway safety or construction program.
The act authorized $500 million over 5 years. Section 157 Safety
Innovative Grants for Increasing SeatBelt Use Rates Provides that
unallocated Section 157 incentive funds be allocated to states to

carry out innovative projects to improve seat- belt use. Section 405
Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Creates an incentive grant program to
increase seat belt and child safety- seat use.

A state may use these funds only to implement occupant protection
programs. The act authorized $68 million over 5 years. Seat Belt/

Occupant Protection Incentives

Section 2003( b) Child Passenger Protection Education Grants

Creates a program designed to prevent deaths and injuries to children,
educate the public on child restraints, and train safety personnel on
child restraint use. The act authorized $15 million over 2 years for
Section 2003( b). However, the Congress appropriated funds to support the
program for 2 additional years. Section 163 Safety Incentives to Prevent
the Operation of Motor Vehicles by Intoxicated Persons

Provides grants to states that have enacted and are enforcing laws stating
that a person with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or higher
while operating a motor vehicle has committed a per se driving- while-
intoxicated (DWI) offense. A

state may use these funds for any highway safety or construction program.
The act provides $500 million over 6 years for the program. Alcohol

Incentives Section 410 Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures Revised an
existing incentive program and provides grants to states that adopt or

demonstrate specified programs, or to states that meet performance
criteria showing reductions in fatalities involving impaired drivers. The
act provides $219.5 million over 6 years, which are to be used for
impaired driving programs. Data Incentives Section 411 State Highway

Safety Data Improvements Provides incentive grants to states to improve
the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity and accessibility of
highway safety data. The act

provides $32 million over 4 years. Source: GAO. To encourage states to
enact stronger safety laws, TEA- 21, as amended

through the TEA- 21 Restoration Act, established penalties for states that
fail to enact laws implementing two new requirements set forth in the act.
Under Section 154, a state must have a law prohibiting the possession of
any open alcoholic beverage container, or consumption of any alcoholic
beverage, in the passenger compartment of any motor vehicle on a public
highway or right of way. Under Section 164, a state must have a repeat
intoxicated driver law that provides for, among other things, a 1- year

license suspension for the second offense; the impoundment,
immobilization, or installation of an ignition interlock on all the
offender*s vehicles; an assessment of the individual*s degree of alcohol
abuse and appropriate treatment; and specified minimum jail or community
service sentences. States that do not meet either the open container or
the repeat offender requirement will have a percentage of funds
transferred from their Federal- Aid Highway program to their Section 402
State and

Community Grants program. States may use the transferred funds for
alcohol- related behavioral programs, such as information programs Penalty
Transfer Programs

Page 7 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

designed to reduce drunk driving, or they may allocate funds back to the
Federal- Aid Highway program where they are to be used for highway
construction projects that address safety concerns, which could include
almost any kind of unsafe road or bridge condition. Every year NHTSA*s
Chief Counsel assesses the states to determine which states are in
compliance with the open container and repeat offender requirements.

NHTSA oversees the state highway safety programs through its 10 regional
offices, which administer the grants to the states. The regions* emphasis
is on providing the states with technical assistance. NHTSA regions also
provide training programs for state safety officials and work with the
states to encourage them to participate in programs that have been shown
to be successful, such as *Click- It- or- Ticket* seat- belt use programs
and increased enforcement. According to NHTSA officials, this has resulted
in improvement in the area of seat- belt use. However, the regions do not
require the states to adopt particular programs. 1 In 1998, NHTSA adopted
a *performance- based* approach to its oversight

of highway safety programs. Under this approach, a state develops an
annual performance plan that establishes traffic safety goals and
performance measures. In addition, the performance plan must describe the
process the state used to identify problems, establish goals, and select
projects. Based on the performance plan, the state prepares an annual
highway safety plan, which identifies projects to be funded that address
the state*s goals. In addition, at the end of the year, the state is
required to prepare an annual report that describes (1) the state*s
progress in meeting

its highway safety goals, using the measures identified in its performance
plan and (2) the contribution of funded projects to meeting the state*s
highway safety goals. Under the performance- based approach, NHTSA does
not approve the state*s highway safety plan or projects. Instead, it
focuses on whether the state is achieving the goals it set for itself in
its plans. However, if the state is not making progress toward meeting its
goals, NHTSA regulations state that the NHTSA region and the state should
develop an improvement plan to address the shortcomings.

1 Click- It- or- Ticket is a highway safety program that uses increased
enforcement along with a media campaign to encourage seat- belt use.
NHTSA*s Oversight of State

Highway Safety Programs

Page 8 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

In addition to NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), another
Department of Transportation agency, funds and oversees projects designed
to improve safety. For example, FHWA*s Hazard Elimination program provides
funds for construction- related safety improvements on any public road,
public surface transportation facility, or publicly owned bicycle or
pedestrian pathway or trail, including such

items as traffic signals, sight distance improvements, pavement and
shoulder widening, and guardrail and barrier improvements. States that are
subject to the penalty transfer requirements may choose to use some or all
of those funds for safety construction projects under the Hazard
Elimination program.

The number of traffic fatalities has declined since the 1970s.
Specifically, annual traffic fatalities have gone from a high of 51,093 in
1979 to a low of 39,250 in 1992. 2 Since 1995, the number of annual
fatalities has increased, averaging about 41,900. (See fig. 3.) 3 2
Traffic Safety Facts 2001, NHTSA. December 2002. These are the most recent
available

data. 3 In commenting on a draft of this report, NHTSA officials noted
that between 1997 and 2001 motorcycle fatalities increased by 1,065, which
contributed to the overall increase in highway fatalities. Other Highway
Safety Construction Funding

Trends in Highway Safety

Page 9 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Figure 3: Number of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001

From 1975 through 2001, traffic fatality rates* fatalities per 100 million
miles traveled* dropped by more than half; but since 1992, the rate of
decline has slowed. 4 In 1979, the nationwide fatality rate peaked at 3. 3
deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). By 1992, the fatality
rate had declined to 1.8 deaths per 100 million VMT. Subsequently,
fatality rates continued to decline, but at a slower pace, reaching 1.5
deaths per 100 million VMT in 2001. (See fig. 4.) 4 Fatality rates, which
are generally reported as the number of deaths per 100 million VMT,

provide a consistent measure of highway fatalities and are appropriate for
making year- toyear comparisons. The primary source of uncertainty in
estimating fatality rates is the number of vehicle miles traveled. These
data are subject to sampling errors whose magnitude depends on how well
4,000 continuous traffic- counting locations represent nationwide traffic
rates. The data are also subject to estimating differences between the
states, though FHWA works to minimize such differences.

Page 10 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Figure 4: Rate of Traffic Fatalities, 1975 through 2001

From 1988, when NHTSA began collecting these data, through 2001, trends in
the number of highway crashes generally parallel trends in the number of
highway fatalities* declining until 1992, then rising somewhat. Throughout
this period, according to NHTSA*s data, the annual number of crashes has
ranged from about 6.0 million to 6.9 million. About 6.3 million crashes
occurred in 2001. (See fig. 5.) The severity of crashes has remained
consistent: about two- thirds involve property damage only and one- third
involve injuries. Only a small fraction of crashes* 0.6 percent* are
fatal. According to analysts, highway crashes are typically the result of
a complex combination of factors, including human behavior, the roadway
environment, and the vehicle. Of these, human behavior, including
speeding, violating laws, alcohol or drug impairment, inattention, and
decision errors, most often contribute to highway crashes. 5 5 We discuss
factors contributing to highway crashes in more detail in another report,
see

U. S. General Accounting Office, Highway Safety: Research Continues on a
Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes, (GAO- 03-
436, Mar. 31, 2003).

Page 11 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Figure 5: Number of Traffic Crashes, 1988 through 2001

Alcohol- related crashes account for a large portion of traffic
fatalities. 6 Between 1982, when NHTSA began tracking alcohol- related
fatalities, and 2001, over 400,000 people died in alcohol- related
crashes. In 1982, NHTSA reported 26,173 alcohol- related deaths,
representing 59.6 percent of all traffic fatalities. Alcohol- related
fatalities declined to 39.7 percent of all

traffic fatalities in 1999, but rose to 17,448* 41.4 percent of
fatalities* by 2001. (See fig. 6.) Blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of
0.08 or greater were reported for 85.6 percent of the 17,448 alcohol-
related fatalities in 2001.

6 Alcohol- related fatalities represent crash victims killed with BAC at
any level above 0. 01. At this concentration, a person*s blood contains 1
one- hundredth of 1 percent alcohol.

Page 12 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Figure 6: Number of Alcohol- Related Fatalities, 1982 through 2001

As figure 7 shows, alcohol- related fatality rates declined steadily
(except in 1986) from 1982 through 1997. However, there has been almost no
further decline in rates since 1997, when the rate was 0.65 fatalities per
100 million VMT. In 2001, the rate was 0.63 fatalities per 100 million
VMT.

Page 13 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Figure 7: Rate of Alcohol- Related Fatalities, 1982 through 2001

In commenting on a draft of this report, NHTSA noted that the easiest
changes in driver behavior have been made. The challenge now is to reach
those whose behavior is the most difficult to change. For example,
seatbelt use in the United States has reached 75 percent* an all- time
high. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have child
passenger safety laws, and 49 states have adult safety belt laws in
effect. NHTSA estimates that approximately 8.5 percent of nonsafety belt
users convert to being regular belt users each year. Continuing to convert
this percentage each year becomes increasingly difficult because as the
conversion occurs,

the hard- core nonusers become a higher proportion of the remaining
nonusers. Likewise, NHTSA noted that the problem with drunk driving is
increasingly one that involves persons with severe alcohol abuse

problems. About $2.0 billion has been provided to the states for highway
safety programs under TEA- 21 for the core Section 402 State and Community
Safety Grants program, seven incentive programs, and two penalty transfer
programs from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002. The Section 402
State and Community Grants program received about $729 million, the seven
incentive programs received about $936 million, and the penalty transfer
programs received $361 million. States could use funds from two of the
incentive programs for highway construction and funds from the two penalty
transfers for the Federal- Aid Highway Hazard States Used Increased

Safety Funding to Support Behavioral and Construction Programs

Page 14 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Elimination program. As a result, states allocated about $147 million of
the incentive funds to construction and $248 million of the transfer funds
to Hazard Elimination. Figure 8 shows the funding associated with TEA- 21
highway safety programs and the split between behavioral programs and
highway construction.

Figure 8: NHTSA Highway Safety Funding to States, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2002

While overall highway safety funding has grown, the actual increases by
state vary widely. For example, the highway safety funding for Kansas,
which was not subject to any penalty transfers, grew by 1.7 percent and
stayed at about $5.2 million annually from 1998 through 2001, while the
highway safety funding for Montana, which was subject to both transfer
penalties, grew by over 480 percent from $0.9 million to $5.4 million,
over this period. (See app. II for a breakdown of total federal funding to
states for NHTSA highway safety programs.)

Funding for the core Section 402 State and Community Grants program has
been fairly level, in constant dollars, since 1991. These funds could be
used for a variety of programs in a number of major Section 402 program

categories, as follows: Funding for Section 402

Program Remained Level and Was Used to Support Many Behavioral Activities

Page 15 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

 Police Traffic Services * Grants support police agency enforcement
projects, education, and training. Uses include projects to educate the
public and enforce laws about driving while impaired, speeding, and
seatbelt use.

 Impaired Driving * Grants support programs to reduce alcohol-- or other
drug- impaired driving. Uses include enforcement, public education, drug
recognition training, and training for prosecutors and judges. Prevention

training may also target youth, educators, alcoholic beverage servers, and
liquor sales clerks.

 Seat Belts * Grants support increased use of seat belts and child safety
seats. Funds can be used for such purposes as enforcement of seat- belt
laws, public education on the importance and use of safety restraints, and
proper installation of child safety seats.

 Community Safety Programs * Grants support safety or injury control
programs. Programs include regional traffic safety programs and safe
community programs that take an organized approach to addressing community
injury problems.

 Planning and Administration * States may use up to 10 percent of their
Section 402 funds for salaries, travel, equipment, and other expenses
necessary to carry out state highway safety office functions.  Traffic
Records * Grants support state or local safety records, including

data on crashes, drivers, vehicles, roadways, citations, convictions, and
emergency medical services. Data systems support problem identification,
analysis, and countermeasure evaluation.

 Other * Grants can support many other highway safety topics, including
roadway safety, pedestrian safety, emergency medical services, speed
control, driver education, motorcycle safety, school bus safety, and paid
advertising to support Section 402 programs.

Four major program categories account for most of the states* use of the
$729 million in Section 402 State and Community Grants funds provided
between 1998 and 2002: police traffic services, impaired driving, seat
belts, and community safety programs. Combined, these four categories
account for about 72 percent of the grant funds. Figure 9 shows how the
states used their Section 402 State and Community Grants funds during the
5- year period covered by TEA- 21.

Page 16 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Figure 9: Uses of State and Community Grants Funds, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2002

Note: *Other* includes roadway safety, pedestrian safety, emergency
medical services, speed control, driver education, paid advertising, and
motorcycle safety.

The seven incentive programs under TEA- 21 also provide funds to encourage
greater seat- belt use, implement programs or requirements to reduce drunk
driving, and improve state highway safety data. The funding available for
these programs grew from $83.5 million in 1998 to $257.2 million in 2002.
While most of these funds were used for funding additional behavioral
safety programs, the act provided that two programs, the 0.08 percent BAC
Incentive (Section 163) and the Seat Belt Use Incentive (Section 157)
could be used for any highway purpose* highway construction, construction
that remedied safety concerns, or behavioral safety programs. Table 2
provides information on total funding for incentive programs and the split
between behavioral program use and construction. States Had Flexibility in

Using Incentive Grant Program Funds

Page 17 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Table 2: State Use of Highway Safety Incentive Funds, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2002

(Dollars in millions) Incentive Behavioral

program funding Construction

program funding Total funding

Alcohol Section 163 - .08 BAC $226.0 $117.3 $343.2

Section 410 - Impaired Driving $166.3 $166.3

Occupant Protection Section 157 - Seat Belt Use $179.9 $ 29.8 $209.7

Section 157 Innovative - Seat Belt Use $112.0 $112.0

Section 2003( b) * Child Occupant Protection $ 22.4 $ 22.4

Section 405 * Occupant Protection $ 45.6 $ 45.6

Data Improvement $ 36.3 $ 36.3 Total $788.6 $147.0 $935.6

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. Note: Figures may not add due to
rounding.

The states that did not meet either the open container or the repeat
offender requirements had a percentage of funds (now 3 percent for each
requirement not satisfied) transferred from their Federal- Aid Highway

construction program to their Section 402 State and Community Grants
program. 7 During fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the first 2 years that funds
have been transferred, 34 states were subject to one or both of the
penalty provisions, and about $361 million was transferred from these
states* Federal- Aid Highway Program funding. Appendix III shows how state
compliance has changed over time.

While states may choose to keep transferred funds in the NHTSA Section 402
State and Community Grants program where they are to be used to support
alcohol- related programs, they also may choose to allocate transferred
funds to highway construction projects under the FHWA Hazard Elimination
Program. As shown in figure 10, the states varied greatly in their
decisions on how to use these funds, from allocating 100

7 For the first 2 years, the transfer penalty was 1.5 percent of the funds
apportioned to the state*s National Highway System, Surface Transportation
Program, and Interstate Maintenance funding, for each transfer penalty.
This amount rose to 3 percent for each transfer penalty in October 2002.
Penalty Transfers

Increased Funding for Behavioral Programs and Safety Construction Projects

Page 18 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

percent of the funds to construction projects to allocating 100 percent of
the funds to behavioral projects. Overall, the states allocated about 69
percent to highway safety construction projects under the FHWA Hazard
Elimination program, and 31 percent went to highway safety behavioral
programs. Twenty- eight of the 34 states with transferred funds allocated
a majority to construction activities under the Hazard Elimination
program.

Figure 10: State Allocations of Transfer Funds, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

The six states we visited* California, Georgia, Missouri, New York, Ohio
and Texas* used the transfer funds in a variety of ways.

 California, which did not meet all the federal requirements for repeat
offenders, had $39.5 million transferred in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. In
fiscal year 2001, all of the transfer funds, $19.4 million, went to the
highway construction Hazard Elimination program, where they were used for
a project involving the construction of a truck lane on Interstate 15 in
San Bernardino County. California officials said that there had been a

large backlog of hazard elimination projects that could readily use the
funds. In fiscal year 2002, a majority of the funds, $14.3 million out of
$20.1 million, were used for behavioral safety programs under the Section
402 State and Community Grants program. These programs funded such
activities as a regional task force to crack down on drunk driving in Los
Angeles County, training for prosecutors, the use of county probation

Page 19 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

officers to enforce court orders affecting repeat drunk driving offenders,
and the creation of a special speeding and drunk driving unit in the
Stockton Police Department. The $5.8 million transferred in 2002 to the
highway construction Hazard Elimination program was used for a median
barrier project along Interstate 5 in San Joaquin County and a barrier

guardrail project along route 160 in Sacramento County.  Georgia was
subject to both transfers for fiscal year 2001, amounting to

$16.6 million. It allocated about $9 million of the transfer funds to the
highway construction Hazard Elimination program, primarily to improve the
state*s highway safety data collection system, which had experienced
severe problems. According to Georgia officials, the rollout of a new

highway safety data collection system had failed, and the state was not
able to collect crash data for a time. The transfer funds enabled the
state to correct this problem. Additional Hazard Elimination projects
included red light running technology, guardrail delineators, and deer
accident prevention measures. All the remaining $8 million went to
behavioral programs, primarily to law enforcement organizations for drunk
driving prevention programs. Georgia subsequently passed new laws that met
the federal requirements for open containers and repeat offenders and was
not subject to either penalty in fiscal year 2002.

 Missouri was subject to both transfers in fiscal year 2001 and allocated
the entire $10.4 million to Section 402 alcohol- related behavioral
programs. The state used these funds to, for example, purchase specialized
bloodalcohol testing vans and improve the collection of highway safety
data. In fiscal year 2002, Missouri was subject to only the open container
transfer and allocated almost all its $5.3 million transfer to the highway
construction Hazard Elimination program for such activities as traffic
signals, grading, and paving to improve intersections.

 New York was subject to the repeat offender penalty transfers for fiscal
years 2001 and 2002 and transferred a total of about $15.9 million. New
York, which is able to supplement federal highway safety funds with state
funds derived from driving- while- intoxicated (DWI) fines, decided to put
all the transfer funds into the Hazard Elimination program. New York
safety officials said that given the state*s high level of support for
highway safety behavioral activities, there was no great need to allocate
these funds to alcohol- related behavioral programs. Initially, the state
was going to use the transfer funds for several Hazard Elimination
projects, but when these projects were delayed, state officials decided to
allocate all of the transfer funds to safety aspects of a single bridge
project.

Page 20 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

 Ohio was subject to the repeat offender transfer in both fiscal years
2001 and 2002. Of a total of $15.6 million transferred, the state
allocated $14.8 million to the highway construction Hazard Elimination
program for seven projects. The remaining $800,000 was used for alcohol-
related behavioral programs, such as education programs for high school
students, drunk

driving task forces, and training for alcohol servers and sales clerks. 
Texas had both open container and repeat offender transfers in fiscal year

2001, totaling $37 million. Of this amount, $33.6 million was allocated to
the highway construction Hazard Elimination program and about $3.4 million
went to alcohol- related behavioral programs. According to Texas highway
safety officials, the state legislature was interested in maximizing
funding for highway construction, so the state allocated the funds to
Hazard Elimination. Also, because the transfer funds were taken from
construction categories, the state officials said it was appropriate for
the majority of the funds to be used for safety construction improvements.
Texas set up a special $10 million Interstate median barrier program and a
$15 million road shoulder rumble strip program with the transfer funds,
along with increasing the state*s regular Hazard Elimination program
funding, allowing additional safety improvement projects to be

constructed. Texas subsequently adopted open container and repeat offender
laws and was not subject to any transfers in fiscal year 2002.

Under its performance- based approach to overseeing state highway safety
programs, NHTSA has focused on providing advice, training, and technical
assistance to the states, which are responsible for setting and achieving
their highway safety goals. In addition, NHTSA has three oversight tools
to help it ensure that states* programs are operating within guidelines
and are achieving desired results* management reviews, improvement plans,
and

high- risk designations. However, NHTSA has made inconsistent use of the
management reviews and limited use of the improvement plans because
guidance provided to the regions is not specific on when to use them.
While two U. S. territories are under a high- risk designation, NHTSA and
regional office officials did not identify any states that were candidates
for high- risk status.

NHTSA regions can conduct management reviews to help improve and enhance
the financial and operational management of the state programs. In
conducting these reviews, a team of NHTSA regional staff visit the state
and examine such items as its organization and staffing, program
management, financial management, and selected programs like impaired
NHTSA Makes Inconsistent and

Limited Use of Oversight Tools

NHTSA Regional Offices Have Made Inconsistent Use of Management Reviews

Page 21 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

driving, occupant protection, public information and education, and
outreach. The resulting report will comment on state activities and may
make recommendations for improvement.

NHTSA has no written guidance on when to perform management reviews. We
found that the management reviews were not being conducted consistently.
For example, in the six NHTSA regions we visited, we found goals of
conducting management reviews every 2 years, on no set schedule, and only
when requested by a state.

While NHTSA does not require management reviews, the officials that
regularly conduct such reviews told us they do them because they find them
beneficial in surfacing problems. For example, management reviews

completed in 2001 and 2002 identified weaknesses in states* processes,
systems, and practices that, if not addressed, could lead to inefficient
or unauthorized uses of federal funds. These weaknesses included

 states* inadequate monitoring of subgrantees,  a lack of coordination
in state alcohol program planning,  the inability of a state to identify
how its matching funds requirement was

being met,  the lack of a state computerized system to track grant
expenditures or

equipment purchased with federal funds,  costs incurred after a grant was
over,  improper cash advances by the state to subgrantees, and  large
unexpended balances of program funds.

Some regional officials also saw management reviews as a vehicle to help
keep them involved in the states* programs and as a means of helping NHTSA
build productive partnerships with the states. They noted that state
highway safety personnel change over time and new staff may not be
familiar with federal requirements. Regional officials said that some
states have requested the reviews to assist them in their programs. For
example, the new state highway safety program directors in California and
Missouri requested the reviews to help identify problems they needed to
address. Officials from the region that conducted the reviews only when
requested by a state told us that they did not regularly do the reviews
because they thought such efforts could hurt their relations with the
states.

Page 22 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

According to Section 402 program regulations, if a NHTSA regional office
finds that a state is not making progress toward its highway safety goals,
NHTSA and the state are to develop an improvement plan to address the
shortcomings. NHTSA officials emphasized that improvement plans are not
intended as punitive actions; rather, they are collaborative efforts
between NHTSA and a state to develop an effective state safety program.
The regulations call for the plan to detail strategies, program
activities,

and funding targets to meet the defined goals. For example, NHTSA, working
with one state, developed an improvement plan that identified specific
actions that NHTSA and the state would accomplish to improve alcohol-
related highway safety. The plan included such actions as implementing a
judicial education program, requiring all police officers working on
impaired driving enforcement to be adequately trained in field sobriety
testing, and developing a statewide DWI violation tracking system.

NHTSA regional offices have made limited use of improvement plans to help
address the states* highway safety performance. Since the performance-
based approach began in 1998, NHTSA and the states have

developed 7 improvement plans in 3 of the 10 NHTSA regions. Of these
plans, four focus on alcohol- related issues, two involve seat- belt
usage, and one addresses overall program management. 8 NHTSA regional
offices have also made inconsistent use of improvement

plans. We found that the highway safety performance of a number of states
that were not operating under improvement plans was worse than the
performance of other states that were operating under such plans. For
example, we compared the performance of the three states that had
developed improvement plans for alcohol- related problems with the
performance of other states. Using 1997, the year before the
performancebased approach was uniformly implemented, as a baseline year,
we found that for 14 states, the rate of alcohol- related fatalities
increased from 1997 through 2001, and that for 7 of these states, the
state alcohol- related fatality rate also exceeded the national rate in
2001. One of these seven states was on an improvement plan. Furthermore,
for one state that was not on an improvement plan, the alcohol- related
fatality rate for 2001 was

8 The seven improvement plans include one that NHTSA developed with the
Department of the Interior*s Bureau of Indian Affairs for a tribe, rather
than a state. The Bureau of Indian Affairs receives Section 402 funds.
NHTSA Regional Offices

Have Made Limited and Inconsistent Use of Improvement Plans

Page 23 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

about double the national average and grew by over 40 percent from 1997
through 2001.

Similarly, the performance of a number of states that were not operating
under improvement plans to increase seat- belt usage was worse than the
performance of the two states that were operating under such plans. We
found that the rate of seat- belt usage varied widely by state, from a low
of about 52 percent to a high of over 91 percent in 2001. In addition, the
rate of change from 1997 through 2001 ranged from 6 percent less use to 27
percent more use. We found that the seat- belt usage rates for the two
states that were on improvement plans were about 55 percent and 68 percent
in 2001; however, the seat- belt usage rates for 16 other states were
worse than the rate for 1 of these states.

The limited and inconsistent use of improvement plans is due to a lack of
specificity in criteria for requiring such plans. NHTSA*s guidance says
simply that these plans should be developed when a state is not making
progress toward its highway safety goals. Without a consistent means of
measuring progress, NHTSA and state officials lack common expectations
about how to define progress, how long states should have to demonstrate

progress, and how the goals should be set and measured. NHTSA officials
said that while all regions were not using improvement plans, they were
reviewing the states* performance and making recommendations for state
action.

NHTSA officials told us that while some regional offices may not be doing
improvement plans, they periodically assess state performance and make
recommendations for state action. In addition, they pointed out that some
regions believe that it would not be productive to put a state on an
improvement plan if it has been implementing programs NHTSA has
recommended it adopt.

If NHTSA finds a state not in compliance with federal law, it can
designate the state*s program as high- risk* a more stringent and rarely
used NHTSA oversight tool. NHTSA may place a program in high- risk status
if it determines that the state has a history of unsatisfactory
performance, is not financially stable, lacks a management system that
meets standards, has not conformed to the conditions of previous grants,
or is otherwise not responsible. Once placed in high- risk status, a state
may be subject to a number of special restrictions* withholding the
authority to proceed with projects; additional financial reporting,
monitoring, or prior approvals of spending; or special management or
technical assistance. Currently, NHTSA Has Designated

Two U. S. Territories as High Risk

Page 24 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

NHTSA has not designated any states as high risk; however, two U. S.
territories that receive Section 402 funds are operating under high- risk
status. None of the officials with whom we spoke from the six regional
offices we visited or from NHTSA headquarters identified concerns about
state programs that would warrant a high- risk designation.

Under NHTSA*s performance- based approach to overseeing highway safety
programs, the states and the federal government are to work together to
make the nation*s highways safer. The agency*s management reviews and
improvement plans create opportunities for NHTSA to help the states
improve and enhance the financial and operational management of their
highway safety programs and make progress toward their highway safety
goals. Because the agency has not provided specific guidance on when these
oversight tools should be used, they are not being used

consistently. As a result, NHTSA*s oversight of highway safety programs is
less effective than it could be, both in ensuring the efficient and proper
use of federal funds and in helping the states achieve their highway
safety goals.

The NHTSA regions that conduct management reviews regularly have found
them beneficial, both for identifying weaknesses in states* processes,
systems, and practices and for keeping the regions involved in productive
relationships with the states. Consequently, the regions that do conduct
the reviews have been able to work with the states to correct

vulnerabilities that, if uncorrected, could lead to inefficient or
improper uses of federal safety program funds. These regions* ongoing
involvement with the states also creates opportunities for sharing and
encouraging the implementation of best practices, which may then lead to
more effective safety programs and projects.

Although NHTSA*s guidance for developing improvement plans indicates that
the plans should be used when the states are making little or no progress
toward their performance goals, the guidance does not establish a
consistent means of measuring progress. As a result, some states do not
have improvement plans, even though their alcohol- related fatality rates
have increased or their seat- belt usage rates have declined. Without
improvement plans, NHTSA* s efforts to work with the states may not be
fully realized. Moreover, without a consistent means of measuring
progress, neither NHTSA nor the states have common expectations about when
improvement plans should be used to help states meet their highway safety
goals. Conclusions

Page 25 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

To help ensure more consistent use of management reviews and improvement
plans, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to provide
more specific guidance to the regional offices on when it is appropriate
to use management reviews and improvement plans to assist states with
their safety programs. The guidance for using improvement plans should
include a consistent means of measuring progress toward meeting
established highway safety goals.

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of
Transportation for its review and comment. We met with Department
officials, specifically, the Acting Senior Associate Administrator for
Traffic Injury Control and Chief of Injury Control Operations and
Resources, Program Support Division* to discuss their comments. The
officials agreed with our recommendations and stated that they have begun
taking action to develop criteria and guidance to field offices on the use
of

management reviews and improvement plans. In addition, they emphasized
that over a longer historical perspective, traffic safety has greatly
improved and the recent increase in alcohol- related fatalities is slight.
The officials also noted that with regard to alcohol- related fatalities,
the problem of the *social drinker* has been reduced; and now they face
the difficult problem of driving by persons with more severe alcohol
abuse. Further, they suggested that some discussion of recent increases in
seat- belt usage should be included in the report, along with the efforts
the department has made in promoting successful programs. Finally, the
officials noted that in moving to a performance- based approach to
oversight, they were acting in response to congressional concerns and in
the spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act.

In response to the Department of Transportation comments, we have added
information noting the challenges the department faces in achieving
further improvements in highway safety. In addition, we have added

information to the report on seat- belt use and its support of the *Click-
Itor- Ticket* program. We also incorporated technical changes to the
report suggested by the department, as appropriate.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of NHTSA. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
copies of this report will be available on our Web site at http// www.
gao. gov. Recommendations for

Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Page 26 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

If you have questions about the report, please contact me at (202) 512-
2834. Key contributors to this report were Richard Calhoon, Robert
Ciszewski, Bess Eisenstadt, Dedrick Roberts, and Glen Trochelman.

Sincerely yours, Peter Guerrero Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 27 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

The Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, asked us to (1)
provide information on trends in highway

safety and how alcohol contributes to these statistics, (2) provide
information on how much funding the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA- 21) made available to the states for highway safety programs
and how states have used these funds, and (3) review the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration*s (NHTSA) oversight of the
states* highway safety programs.

To provide information on trends in highway safety and alcohol*s
contribution to these statistics, we reviewed NHTSA highway safety reports
and analyzed NHTSA crash data. We included analyses of data on overall
trends of fatalities and crashes, alcohol- related fatalities and

crashes, and seat- belt use, which are usual measures in determining
highway safety.

To provide information on how much funding TEA- 21 made available to the
states for highway safety programs and how states have used these funds,
we obtained data from NHTSA and state sources. NHTSA provided data on
funding for (1) the Section 402 State and Community Grants

program since its inception in 1967; (2) the seven incentive grant
programs authorized under TEA- 21 to supplement the Section 402 program by
promoting vehicle occupant protection, discouraging impaired driving, and
improving state safety data; and (3) the amounts transferred to highway
safety programs in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 by the 34 states whose laws
did not comply during those years with the act*s open container and repeat
offender requirements. To obtain information on how the states used their

Section 402 and alcohol transfer funds, we obtained NHTSA data summarizing
how states spent their grant funds. For specific information on how states
spent their transfer funds, we obtained data from six states that we
visited: California, Georgia, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Texas. We
selected these states to provide geographic coverage of six NHTSA regions
and maximize the amount of transfer funds involved. The six states chosen
were among the eight states that had the highest amount of alcohol
transfers for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and in total accounted for about
40 percent of all transfer funds from the 34 states involved. In each
selected state, we obtained data on alcohol transfer spending from the
state offices responsible for allocating these funds* the traffic safety
office for transfer funds that were allocated to alcohol programs and the
highway safety office for funds that were programmed for hazard
elimination projects. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 28 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

To review NHTSA*s oversight of the states* highway safety programs, we
interviewed NHTSA officials in the Office of Injury Control Operations and
Resources and six NHTSA regional offices responsible for the states
discussed above. We also discussed program oversight with state officials
in our six sample states, and we reviewed state planning documents,
improvement plans, and other state program documents from the six selected
NHTSA regions. Furthermore, we interviewed officials of private
organizations interested in highway traffic safety and NHTSA*s oversight
of state highway traffic safety programs, including the Governor*s Highway
Safety Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the National Safety
Council, AAA (formerly the American Automobile Association), the AAA

Foundation for Traffic Safety, and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic
Safety.

We performed our review from July 2002 through March 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Federal Funding for State Behavioral Safety Programs

Page 29 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Dollars in millions State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Alabama $4.5 $4.5 $6.0 $5.8 $7.2 Alaska $0.9 $0.9 $1.5 $3.3 $2.2 Arizona
$2.5 $3.6 $3.4 $6.6 $6.8 Arkansas $2.1 $1.9 $2.8 $3.7 $5.6 California
$33.5 $52.3 $50.2 $50.6 $73.0 Colorado $2.7 $3.1 $4.7 $3.8 $4.1
Connecticut $1.9 $1.8 $4.0 $8.6 $9.4 Delaware $0.7 $1.1 $1.3 $1.6 $2.5
District of Columbia $0.9 $1.9 $2.1 $1.7 $2.2 Florida $14.4 $15.3 $17.7
$17.0 $20.2 Georgia $4.8 $6.4 $9.5 $19.2 $9.7 Hawaii $1.7 $2.3 $2.7 $2.6
$2.7 Idaho $1.9 $2.1 $2.1 $2.5 $2.2 Illinois $11.2 $11.0 $13.6 $16.7 $15.9
Indiana $4.1 $4.4 $7.0 $7.0 $9.8 Iowa $2.7 $3.5 $3.9 $4.6 $7.4 Kansas $5.1
$4.6 $5.4 $5.2 $5.2 Kentucky $2.7 $2.4 $3.2 $5.9 $5.5 Louisiana $2.3 $3.2
$4.4 $5.8 $4.5 Maine $1.5 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $1.5 Maryland $3.1 $3.8 $6.3 $9.7
$8.6 Massachusetts $2.8 $3.1 $3.7 $10.9 $6.0 Michigan $6.4 $6.9 $8.9 $9.7
$11.2 Minnesota $4.0 $4.2 $4.8 $11.0 $9.4 Mississippi $2.1 $2.1 $3.8 $4.2
$4.1 Missouri $4.1 $4.5 $4.9 $15.5 $7.0 Montana $0.9 $1.2 $1.4 $5.4 $5.4
Nebraska $1.9 $2.1 $2.7 $3.7 $4.0 Nevada $1.2 $1.5 $2.3 $2.0 $2.5 New
Hampshire $1.0 $1.0 $2.1 $1.8 $2.3 New Jersey $4.3 $4.4 $6.3 $5.3 $9.5 New
Mexico $2.8 $3.7 $4.3 $6.2 $5.7 New York $8.4 $14.4 $17.0 $17.1 $14.8
North Carolina $8.4 $10.7 $12.7 $11.8 $11.6 North Dakota $1.3 $1.2 $2.0
$2.4 $2.0 Ohio $5.4 $8.8 $8.0 $9.9 $9.9 Oklahoma $2.3 $4.0 $2.8 $3.4 $4.5
Oregon $3.9 $5.7 $6.4 $5.3 $6.5 Pennsylvania $7.8 $8.0 $10.0 $11.7 $10.2

Appendix II: Federal Funding for State Behavioral Safety Programs

Appendix II: Federal Funding for State Behavioral Safety Programs

Page 30 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Dollars in millions State 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Puerto Rico $1.6 $2.0 $2.6 $4.2 $6.0 Rhode Island $0.7 $0.9 $1.4 $2.1 $1.8
South Carolina $2.0 $2.7 $4.1 $5.3 $3.5 South Dakota $1.0 $1.5 $1.0 $1.0
$1.4 Tennessee $3.4 $3.6 $4.8 $10.4 $10.1 Texas $11.9 $22.1 $18.8 $20.8
$16.6 Utah $2.0 $2.4 $3.0 $2.9 $3.6 Vermont $1.7 $1.9 $2.6 $3.0 $2.7
Virginia $4.0 $5.8 $9.3 $8.7 $13.3 Washington $3.7 $7.3 $6.7 $7.8 $7.0
West Virginia $1.0 $1.3 $1.8 $2.0 $2.3 Wisconsin $4.1 $3.9 $5.6 $8.8 $5.3
Wyoming $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $1.6 $0.9

State total $212.1 $275.3 $320.3 $399.6 $407.3

Bureau of Indian Affairs $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.3 American Samoa $0.4 $0.4
$0.6 $0.7 $0.6 Guam $0.4 $0.4 $0.6 $0.4 $0.6 Northern Marianas $0.4 $0.4
$0.6 $0.7 $0.7 Virgin Islands $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.6 $0.7

Total $214.6 $278.0 $323.6 $403.0 $411.2

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA data. Notes: State totals include funds for
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Figures may not add because of
rounding.

Appendix III: The Transfer Provisions Encourage Changes in State Laws

Page 31 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Since Congress enacted the penalty transfer provisions, the general trend
in the states has been to enact legislation to bring state laws in
conformance with the federal requirements. Some, but not all, states have
changed their highway safety laws to conform to the federal provisions. In
1998, prior to the passage of TEA- 21, 14 states had conforming open
container laws, 5 states had conforming repeat offender laws, and 3 states
had both laws. (See table 3.) By the time of the first transfer penalty
assessments in 2000, 31 states had conforming open container laws, 24 had
conforming repeat offender laws, and 19 states had both laws. Currently,
25 states are in conformance with both laws.

Table 3: Changes in State Compliance with Federal Open Container and
Repeat Offender Requirements

1998 (TEA- 21 passed) October 2000

(First transfers

applied) October 2001

(Second transfers

applied) October 2002

(Third transfers

applied)

States complying with open container requirement (Sec. 154) 14 31 35 37

States complying with repeat offender requirement (Sec. 164) 5 24 28 33

States complying with both requirements 3 19 23 25 Source: GAO analysis of
FHWA and NHTSA data. Note: Table includes compliance status of all states,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

In the six states we visited, officials with whom we spoke differed in
their assessment of the effectiveness of the transfer provisions. Some
said that the provisions helped change state laws, while others thought
that the transfers had little effect on their legislature. For example,
Georgia safety officials said that the federal transfer provisions were
crucial in the state debate over enactment of both open container and
repeat offender laws. Likewise Texas safety officials told us they
believed the transfer provisions were important in getting the state to
enact both laws. Both Georgia and Texas were subject to both transfer
penalties in 2001 but no transfers in 2002, as a result of legislative
changes. However, New York safety officials told us that the transfer
amounts were insufficient to generate interest in the state legislature
and had no real effect on state policy. Instead, the transfer provisions
had simply become a bureaucratic exercise for state administrators. Table
4 shows a state- by- state breakdown of transfer funds. Appendix III: The
Transfer Provisions

Encourage Changes in State Laws

Appendix III: The Transfer Provisions Encourage Changes in State Laws

Page 32 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Table 4: States* Compliance with Alcohol Transfer Laws as of October 1,
2002

Dollars in thousands Open container (Section 154)

Repeat offender (Section 164)

Amount transferred for fiscal years 2001

and 2002 a State Yes No Yes No Alabama

Appendix III: The Transfer Provisions Encourage Changes in State Laws

Page 33 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

Dollars in thousands Open container (Section 154)

Repeat offender (Section 164)

Amount transferred for fiscal years 2001

and 2002 a State Yes No Yes No North Carolina

Appendix III: The Transfer Provisions Encourage Changes in State Laws

Page 34 GAO- 03- 474 Highway Safety Program Funding

congressional or state legislation. 1 As a result, some state highway
safety officials that receive federal highway safety funds believe they
are barred from lobbying their state legislatures to enact better highway
safety laws. Some state officials told us that this means they cannot
contact state legislative staff or members to discuss the advantages of
taking actions to improve highway safety in the state. For example, they
said they are prohibited from taking the initiative to discuss the merits
of primary seat- belt laws that have been shown to save lives or to
encourage the passage of the open container, repeat offender, or the 0.08
BAC laws the Congress

supports, unless they are specifically asked to do so. The Governor*s
Highway Safety Association believes that the current restrictions are an
obstacle preventing states* safety officials from lobbying on behalf of
enacting state legislation that meets the federal open container and
repeat offender requirements. However, safety officials from the states we
visited

differed in their assessment of the anti- lobbying provisions. Officials
in California and Georgia considered the provisions a serious impediment
that limited their ability to influence safety legislation. However,
officials from New York, Ohio, Texas, and Missouri did not consider the
antilobbying

provisions to be a major impediment in their states. 1 The act does not
prevent state officials from communicating with Congress or state
legislatures if they are requested to do so.

(545018)

The General Accounting 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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000

TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800

U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***