Traffic Safety Programs: Progress, States' Challenges, and Issues
for Reauthorization (16-JUL-08, GAO-08-990T).			 
                                                                 
Although the number of traffic crashes and the associated	 
fatality rates have decreased over the last 10 years, the number 
of traffic fatalities has unfortunately remained at about 42,000 
to 43,000 annually. To help states reduce traffic fatalities, the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized funding for the	 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to award  
traffic safety grants to states and implement a high-visibility  
enforcement (HVE) program that combines intensive state and local
enforcement of safety belt and impaired driving laws with	 
extensive media communication provided by NHTSA. SAFETEA-LU also 
added requirements for NHTSA to review all states' management of 
traffic safety grants at least once every 3 years. This statement
is based on recent GAO reports and ongoing work that address (1) 
NHTSA's progress in administering and overseeing the traffic	 
safety grant and HVE programs, (2) the programs' effectiveness in
addressing traffic safety issues, and (3) issues for Congress to 
consider in reauthorizing funding for the programs when 	 
SAFETEA-LU expires in 2009. This statement also discusses older  
driver safety. GAO's work, which included recommendations, was	 
based on analyses of traffic fatality data; information from	 
selected states; and reviews of legislation, NHTSA guidelines and
procedures, and management reports.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-990T					        
    ACCNO:   A82885						        
  TITLE:     Traffic Safety Programs: Progress, States' Challenges,   
and Issues for Reauthorization					 
     DATE:   07/16/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Federal aid for highways				 
	     Federal aid for transportation			 
	     Federal aid to localities				 
	     Federal aid to states				 
	     Federal legislation				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Grant administration				 
	     Grant monitoring					 
	     Grants						 
	     Grants to states					 
	     Highway safety					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Risk factors					 
	     Risk management					 
	     State-administered programs			 
	     Traffic accidents					 
	     Transportation planning				 
	     Transportation policies				 
	     Transportation safety				 
	     Safety regulation					 
	     Safety standards					 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Accountability					 
	     program goals or objectives			 
	     High-Visibility Enforcement 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-08-990T

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 [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery: 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT Wednesday, July 16, 2008: 

Traffic safety programs: 

Progress, States' Challenges, and Issues for Reauthorization: 

Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director: 

Physical Infrastructure: 

GAO-08-990T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-990T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Although the number of traffic crashes and the associated fatality 
rates have decreased over the last 10 years, the number of traffic 
fatalities has unfortunately remained at about 42,000 to 43,000 
annually. To help states reduce traffic fatalities, the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized funding for the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to award traffic safety grants to 
states and implement a high-visibility enforcement (HVE) program that 
combines intensive state and local enforcement of safety belt and 
impaired driving laws with extensive media communication provided by 
NHTSA. SAFETEA-LU also added requirements for NHTSA to review all 
statesï¿½ management of traffic safety grants at least once every 3 
years. This statement is based on recent GAO reports and ongoing work 
that address (1) NHTSAï¿½s progress in administering and overseeing the 
traffic safety grant and HVE programs, (2) the programsï¿½ effectiveness 
in addressing traffic safety issues, and (3) issues for Congress to 
consider in reauthorizing funding for the programs when SAFETEA-LU 
expires in 2009. This statement also discusses older driver safety. 
GAOï¿½s work, which included recommendations, was based on analyses of 
traffic fatality data; information from selected states; and reviews of 
legislation, NHTSA guidelines and procedures, and management reports. 

What GAO Found: 

In general, NHTSA has made substantial progress in administering and 
overseeing the traffic safety grant and HVE programs. For example, in 
fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about $576 million through 
five safety incentive grant programs focused on national priorities, 
such as safety belt use, impaired driving, and motorcyclist safety. In 
addition, NHTSA has fully implemented the HVE program and evaluated 
campaign effectiveness. However, NHTSAï¿½s campaign evaluations are based 
on inconsistent and incomplete data and limited performance 
measuresï¿½GAO made recommendations in our recent report to overcome 
these limitations. Finally, NHTSA has improved the consistency of its 
management review process and implemented the requirement to conduct a 
management review of each state at least once every 3 years. However, 
NHTSA does not systematically analyze the recommendations that result 
from the reviews and has not nationally tracked the extent to which 
states have implemented its recommendations. 

NHTSA has not yet assessed the effectiveness of the grant programs, but 
selected state officials told GAO the programs are helping to address 
key traffic safety issues such as unrestrained driving and alcohol-
impaired driving. These officials also identified challenges that limit 
program effectiveness, such as difficulties in meeting eligibility 
requirements, separate application processes, and limited flexibility. 
Additionally, a key indicator of effectiveness at the national 
levelï¿½the number of traffic fatalities annuallyï¿½has remained 
essentially constant over the last 10 years, although traffic 
fatalities per vehicle mile traveled have declined by about 14 percent. 
During this time, some causes of fatalities have changed. For example, 
motorcycle fatalities increased 127 percent while child passenger 
fatalities decreased 31 percent. 

The challenges associated with the safety incentive grants, the lack of 
performance accountability mechanisms to tie state performance to the 
receipt of grants, and the persistence of substantial numbers of 
traffic fatalities nationwide raise issues that Congress may want to 
consider in reauthorizing funding for traffic safety programs when 
SAFETEA-LU expires in 2009. According to NHTSA officials, the 
challenges related to the safety incentive grants stem from the 
structure of the grant programs established under SAFETEA-LU. In 
addition, state performance in improving traffic safety is not always 
tied to the receipt of the grants. Furthermore, the plateau in the 
number of annual traffic fatalities nationwide and the changes in 
causes of fatalities may indicate that the traffic safety programs, as 
currently structured, have limited ability to effectively reduce 
fatalities. Consequently, in 2009, Congress will be faced with deciding 
whether to redesign the programs to simplify the grant application 
process, allow states more flexibility in using grant funds, provide 
different or additional incentives, or focus more specifically on 
accountability for performance. However, such changes would require 
improved safety data to enhance statesï¿½ ability to identify safety 
issues and a robust accountability system to ensure that states use 
federal funds appropriately. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-990T]. For more information, 
contact Katherine A. Siggerud, (202) 512-2834, [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing to discuss 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) programs 
and oversight. This is an urgent issue because the number of traffic 
fatalities has unfortunately remained at about 43,000 annually over the 
last decade, although the fatality rate has decreased by 14 percent 
during that period. The number of crashes during this time period has 
also decreased by 12 percent. Congress has developed many approaches to 
help states and communities reduce traffic fatalities, including 
traffic safety grant programs and a high-visibility enforcement (HVE) 
program as well as federal oversight of, and technical assistance to, 
state highway safety programs. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 
authorized NHTSA to award nearly $2.4 billion from fiscal year 2005 
through 2009 to states for Section 402 formula grants[Footnote 1] and 
safety incentive grant programs which focus on specific national safety 
priorities--such as safety belt use, impaired driving, and motorcyclist 
safety--and include eligibility criteria which states need to meet in 
order to receive the grants. In addition, SAFETEA-LU authorized $29 
million annually for NHTSA to implement an HVE program that combines 
intensive state and local enforcement of a specific traffic safety law 
with extensive media communication provided by NHTSA to inform the 
public about the campaigns: Click It or Ticket (CIOT) to increase 
safety belt use, and Over the Limit, Under Arrest (OTLUA) to decrease 
the number of impaired drivers. Finally, to strengthen NHTSA's 
oversight, SAFETEA-LU added Section 412 to Title 23 U.S.C., which among 
other things included a requirement that the administration conduct 
regular management reviews--reviews of states' management of traffic 
safety grants--for all states at least once every 3 years and make 
recommendations. 

My testimony today addresses (1) NHTSA's progress in administering and 
overseeing the traffic safety grant and HVE programs, (2) the programs' 
effectiveness in addressing traffic safety issues, and (3) issues for 
Congress to consider in reauthorizing funding for the programs in 2009. 
In addition, this statement provides information on a traffic safety 
area that we expect to become a more serious issue in the future--older 
driver safety. 

My testimony is based on three recently issued reports on (1) NHTSA's 
Safety Incentive Grants, (2) the HVE campaign programs, and (3) NHTSA's 
oversight of state traffic safety programs and the approaches currently 
available to improve safety outcomes.[Footnote 2] In addition, we 
discuss issues raised in last year's report on older driver 
safety.[Footnote 3] For all four of these reviews, we analyzed traffic 
fatality data from NHTSA and selected states, visited selected states, 
interviewed state highway safety officials, and reviewed relevant 
documents. We interviewed officials from NHTSA and representatives of 
at least one nongovernmental organization, including representatives of 
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 
the Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA), and the National 
Safety Council, among others. We also reviewed other relevant 
documentation, including legislation, NHTSA guidelines and procedures, 
and all NHTSA management reports developed in fiscal years 2005 through 
2007. For the NHTSA oversight review, we analyzed data provided by 
NHTSA on how states spent highway safety grants from fiscal years 1999 
through 2007. We found the data sufficiently reliable for purposes of 
this testimony. We conducted these four performance audits between 
April 2006 and July 2008 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained meets these 
standards. 

Summary: 

In general, NHTSA has made substantial progress in implementing and 
overseeing the traffic safety grant programs and the HVE program. In 
fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about $435 million[Footnote 
4] to states through the Section 402 grant program, and an additional 
$576 million through five safety incentive grant programs focused on 
safety belt use, child safety seat and booster seat use, impaired 
driving, motorcyclist safety, and traffic safety information systems. 
While all states receive Section 402 grant funds, the extent to which 
states have qualified for the additional incentive grant programs has 
varied. For example, in 2006, 22 states received the Safety Belt Use 
grant and 5 states received the Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use 
grant because not all states were able to pass the laws that these 
grant programs required. A majority of states received the other three 
grants for which states are required to take actions that do not 
specifically involve passing laws. In addition, NHTSA has fully 
implemented the HVE program by (1) developing and disseminating 
advertisements, (2) coordinating advertisement and enforcement 
activities with all states, and (3) evaluating the effectiveness of the 
CIOT and OTLUA campaigns. However, NHTSA's evaluations of its HVE 
campaign have shortcomings--such as inconsistent and incomplete data 
and limited performance measures--that hinder the administration's 
ability to assess the overall effectiveness of the campaigns. To 
improve the evaluations of HVE campaigns, we recommended that NHTSA 
develop a minimum core set of reporting requirements for states and 
include additional performance measures in the evaluations. Finally, as 
we recommended in 2003, NHTSA has improved the consistency of its 
management review process--one of the administration's key tools for 
overseeing state management of traffic safety grants--including 
implementing the Section 412 requirement that the administration 
conduct a management review of each state at least once every 3 years. 
Although the recommendations made by NHTSA as a result of the 
management reviews provide insight into common state challenges-- 
information that NHTSA could use to direct some of its technical 
assistance and training resources--NHTSA does not currently analyze 
these recommendations systematically at a national level. In addition, 
NHTSA has not nationally tracked the extent to which states have 
implemented its recommendations, which could help the administration 
assess the impact of its oversight. 

NHTSA has not yet assessed the effectiveness of the grant programs, but 
selected state officials told us the programs are helping to improve 
traffic safety; these officials also identified challenges that limit 
program effectiveness. Additionally, a key indicator of effectiveness 
at the national level--overall traffic fatalities--has not improved 
over the last 10 years. NHTSA currently does not have sufficient 
performance measures to assess the grant programs' effectiveness but 
has begun the process of developing those measures. In addition, 
insufficient time has passed since the safety incentive grants were 
first awarded in 2006 to analyze trends in fatalities that the states' 
use of the grants might have affected. Nevertheless, officials in 
selected states told us the traffic safety grant and HVE programs help 
address key safety issues such as unbelted driving and alcohol-impaired 
driving. State officials further said that incentive grants complement 
Section 402 grants by allowing states to expand core traffic safety 
activities. For example, states have used the safety belt use and 
impaired driving incentive grants to fund enforcement activities for 
high-visibility enforcement campaigns. However, state officials also 
noted several challenges that limit the effectiveness of these 
programs: 

* Despite the availability of incentive grants, some states have faced 
challenges passing legislation required to qualify for the safety belt 
use and child safety and booster seat grants. 

* Each safety incentive grant has a separate application process, which 
has proven challenging for some states to manage, especially those with 
small safety offices. 

* Some states also would have preferred more flexibility in using the 
safety incentive grants; this could become a key issue in the future as 
emerging issues--such as older driver safety--become more critical in 
states. 

At the national level, a key indicator of the overall effectiveness of 
these programs--traffic fatalities--has not decreased but rather has 
remained at about 43,000 for the last 10 years. Traffic fatalities per 
100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) declined, however, by 
approximately 14 percent in this time period. Within this overall 
indicator, some causes of fatalities have changed in the last decade. 
For example, between 1997 and 2006, annual motorcycle fatalities 
increased by 127 percent while child passenger fatalities decreased by 
31 percent. 

The challenges associated with the safety incentive grants, the lack of 
performance accountability mechanisms to tie state performance to 
receipt of grants, and the persistence of substantial numbers of 
traffic fatalities nationwide as well as changes in causes of 
fatalities raise issues that Congress may want to consider in 
reauthorizing funding for the Surface Transportation Program. First, 
NHTSA officials told us that the challenges related to the safety 
incentive grants--difficulties in meeting eligibility requirements, 
separate application processes, and limited flexibility--stem from the 
structure of the grant programs authorized under SAFETEA-LU. Second, 
although NHTSA is developing additional performance measures to 
evaluate the results of traffic safety grants, state performance is not 
always tied to the receipt of the grants. Furthermore, the plateau in 
the number of annual traffic fatalities nationwide and the changes in 
causes of fatalities may indicate that the current structure of traffic 
safety programs has limited ability to effectively reduce fatalities 
and allow NHTSA and states to respond to emerging safety issues, such 
as motorcycle safety in recent years and potentially older driver 
safety in the future. Consequently, in 2009, Congress will be faced 
with deciding whether the programs could be designed differently to 
simplify the grant application process, allow states more flexibility 
in using grant funds to address current and emerging safety issues, 
provide different or additional incentives, or focus more specifically 
on performance accountability. NHTSA officials noted that the 
Department of Transportation's (DOT) 2003 reauthorization proposal 
included features that would address these issues, such as performance- 
based grants within the Section 402 grant. However, these changes would 
require improved safety data to enhance states' ability to identify 
safety issues and a robust accountability system to assure that states 
use federal funds appropriately. 

Background: 

In 2006, more than 42,600 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes. 
Overall, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the 
last decade, although the fatality rate declined by approximately 14 
percent, from 1.65 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 1997 to 1.41 in 
2006 (see fig. 1). 

Figure 1: Trends in Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rates (1997 to 
2006): 

This figure is a combination bar and line graph showing trends in 
traffic fatalities and fatality rates (1997 to 2006). The X axis is the 
year, the left Y axis represents the fatalities, and the right Y axis 
represents fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The line 
represents the fatalities per 100 million VMT, and the bars represent 
the total fatalities. 

Year: 1997 
Total fatalities: 42,013; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.646. 

Year: 1998; 
Total fatalities: 41,501; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.579. 

Year: 1999; 
Total fatalities: 41,717; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.551. 

Year: 2000; 
Total fatalities: 41,945; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.527. 

Year: 2001; 
Total fatalities: 42,196; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.508. 

Year: 2002; 
Total fatalities: 43005; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.506. 

Year: 2003; 
Total fatalities: 42,884; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.483. 

Year: 2004; 
Total fatalities: 42,836; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.446. 

Year: 2005; 
Total fatalities: 43,510; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.455. 

Year: 2006; 
Total fatalities: 42,642; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: 1.41. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA and FHWA data. 

[End of figure] 

The two leading factors contributing to fatal crashes are the failure 
to use safety belts and alcohol-impaired driving; speeding and 
motorcycle crashes are also key factors.[Footnote 5] Overall, 
unrestrained fatalities[Footnote 6] and alcohol-involved[Footnote 7] 
fatalities have decreased over the last two decades. However, in 
contrast to the progress made in reducing unrestrained and alcohol- 
involved motor vehicle fatalities and fatality rates over time, 
speeding-related fatalities have remained fairly constant, and 
motorcycle fatalities and fatality rates have increased significantly 
over the last decade. 

While older drivers currently represent about 14 percent of annual 
traffic fatalities, their safety is an emerging issue that will likely 
become more serious due to predicted rapid growth in the elderly 
population. By 2030, the number of licensed drivers ages 65 and older 
is expected to nearly double to about 57 million. As people age, they 
may experience declines in physical, visual, and cognitive functions 
that affect their ability to drive safely. While older drivers 
experience fewer fatal crashes per licensed driver than younger 
drivers, they are more likely to suffer injuries or die in crashes. 

Through SAFETEA-LU, Congress authorized nearly $2.4 billion for 5 
years, from fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to provide safety grants to 
assist states' efforts to reduce traffic fatalities. This represents an 
increase of $172 million annually from the authorization levels under 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) from fiscal 
years 1998 through 2003.[Footnote 8] The largest portion of these 
funds--about $1 billion--was allocated for the continuation of the 
Section 402 grant program that provides core highway safety funds for 
all states through a formula based on each state's population and 
public road miles. States can use Section 402 funding to address a 
variety of traffic safety issues. SAFETEA-LU also modified or added 
five safety incentive grant programs, as follows:[Footnote 9] 

* Safety Belt Use ($498 million)--encourages states to enact and 
directly enforce safety belt use laws. States qualify for this program 
if they pass primary safety belt laws or achieve and maintain a safety 
belt usage rate of 85 percent. States can use funds for a range of 
highway safety activities, including public education programs or 
construction to improve a hazardous roadway. 

* Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use ($25 million)--encourages 
states to enact and enforce booster seat laws.[Footnote 10] States 
qualify for this program if they have in effect a law requiring any 
child under the age of 8 to be secured in an appropriate child 
restraint system, unless the child weighs more than 65 pounds or is 4 
feet 9 inches or taller. States can use funds for child restraint 
programs, including enforcing laws or training child safety 
professionals and parents on the proper use of child safety and booster 
seats. States may use up to 50 percent of the funds to purchase and 
distribute child safety and booster seats for low-income families. 

* Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures ($515 million)--encourages 
states to implement enforcement, education, training, and other 
countermeasure activities to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. States 
qualify for this grant by: (1) achieving a low alcohol-related fatality 
rate of 0.5 or less per 100 million VMT, (2) being 1 of the 10 states 
with the highest alcohol-related fatality rate, or (3) meeting specific 
programmatic criteria--three in fiscal year 2006, four in fiscal year 
2007, and five in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.[Footnote 11] 

* Motorcyclist Safety ($25 million)--to encourage states to adopt and 
implement programs to reduce crashes involving motorcyclists. States 
can use funds for motorcyclist safety training and motorist awareness 
programs. To qualify, states must meet one of six programmatic criteria 
in the first fiscal year and two in the second and subsequent 
years.[Footnote 12] 

* State Traffic Safety Information Systems Improvement ($138 million)-
-to adopt and implement programs to improve states' safety data 
systems, which includes data on crashes, vehicles, drivers, enforcement 
or adjudication, and injury surveillance. States can use funds to 
improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, 
integration, and accessibility of state data to identify national, 
state, and local highway and traffic safety programs. To qualify in the 
first year, a state must meet three criteria. To qualify in subsequent 
years, a state must meet five criteria.[Footnote 13] In 2004, GAO 
reported that state traffic safety data systems vary considerably in 
the extent to which they meet recommended criteria used by NHTSA to 
assess the quality of crash information.[Footnote 14] 

SAFETEA-LU also authorized $29 million annually from fiscal years 2006 
through 2009 for NHTSA to implement two nationwide HVE campaigns to 
increase safety belt use--CIOT--and reduce alcohol-impaired driving-- 
OTLUA. HVE campaigns combine intensive traffic law enforcement with 
extensive communication, education, and outreach informing the public 
about the enforcement activity. This combination of media and 
enforcement is designed to increase the public's perception that people 
who violate the law will be ticketed, arrested, convicted, or punished, 
and persuade them to adhere to the law. NHTSA is responsible for 
developing and disseminating national advertisements, coordinating with 
states to conduct the campaigns, and evaluating the results. State and 
local law enforcement agencies provide resources for the campaigns such 
as officers, cars, and equipment for patrols and checkpoints and can 
use federal traffic safety grants to support these activities. 

NHTSA oversees state traffic safety grant programs by reviewing states' 
management of these grants and assessing their progress in improving 
safety outcomes, and in 2003 GAO recommended that NHTSA take steps to 
improve its oversight. NHTSA oversees states' grant management by 
monitoring spending and conducting triennial management reviews 
designed to ensure that states manage grants effectively, efficiently, 
and in compliance with laws and regulations. NHTSA also assesses 
states' performance against state-established safety goals and national 
safety outcomes. NHTSA conducts special management reviews of states 
with consistently high alcohol-related fatality rates or low safety 
belt use rates and less than half of the national average improvement 
in these areas over time.[Footnote 15] A special management review is 
an in-depth evaluation of a state's impaired driving or safety belt use 
program which NHTSA uses to recommend program improvements. In 
addition, at states' request, NHTSA officials told us that the 
administration coordinates voluntary technical program assessments 
conducted by leading independent experts who review state programs in 
one of seven traffic safety areas and recommend program 
improvements.[Footnote 16] In 2003, we found that NHTSA used management 
reviews and resulting improvement plans inconsistently across the 
administration's 10 regional offices, which made it difficult to ensure 
that states used federal funds in accordance with requirements and that 
they addressed program weaknesses. As a result, we recommended that 
NHTSA provide more specific guidance to regional offices on when to 
conduct management reviews and use improvement plans, and how to 
measure state progress toward meeting safety goals.[Footnote 17] 

NHTSA Has Successfully Implemented the Traffic Safety and HVE Programs 
and Improved the Consistency of Its Oversight Process: 

Overall, NHTSA has successfully administered the traffic safety grant 
and HVE programs and improved the consistency of its oversight. In 
fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about $1 billion to states 
through the Section 402 program and five incentive grant programs, but 
some states were unable to meet the eligibility requirements for two of 
the incentive grant programs--the Safety Belt Use and Child Safety and 
Booster Seat Use programs--which required states to pass laws. NHTSA 
has implemented the HVE program by developing and disseminating 
advertising, coordinating with states, and evaluating the effectiveness 
of the campaigns. However, NHTSA's campaign evaluations have weaknesses 
related to data and performance measures that hinder the 
administration's ability to assess the campaigns' key components and 
overall effectiveness, and we recommended that NHTSA take steps to 
address these shortcomings. Finally, as we recommended in 2003, NHTSA 
has improved the consistency of its oversight process, including 
implementing requirements added by SAFETEA-LU. Even so, NHTSA does not 
currently analyze its management review recommendations to identify 
common state challenges, provide assistance accordingly, and assess the 
impact of its oversight. 

NHTSA Has Awarded Traffic Safety Grants to States: 

NHTSA has fully implemented the Section 402 and safety incentive grant 
programs, although some states have been unable to qualify for certain 
incentive grants, particularly those requiring states to pass laws. As 
table 1 indicates, in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about 
$435 million to states[Footnote 18] through the Section 402 grant 
program, and awarded an additional $576 million to states through the 
five incentive grant programs. 

Table 1: Grant Funds Awarded in Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 (Dollars in 
millions): 

Grants: Section 402; 
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: $434.6. 

Grants: Safety Incentive Grants; 
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: [Empty]. 

Grants: Safety Belt Use; 
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: 243.6. 

Grants: Child Safety and Booster Seat; 
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: 8.6. 

Grants: Impaired Driving; 
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: 242.8. 

Grants: Motorcyclist Safety; 
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: 11.9. 

Grants: Traffic Safety Information Systems; 
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: 68.7. 

Grants: Total Safety Incentive Grants; 
Funds awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007: $575.6. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

In each of these years, all states received the Section 402 formula 
grant and the Impaired Driving grant, and the majority of states 
received the Motorcyclist Safety and Traffic Safety Information Systems 
grants. However, fewer than half the states were able to meet the 
eligibility requirements for the Safety Belt Use and Child Safety and 
Booster Seat grant programs, which required states to pass laws--a 
primary safety belt law or a booster seat law--in order to qualify for 
the grants. Specifically, in fiscal year 2006, 22 states received the 
Safety Belt Use grant.[Footnote 19] In fiscal year 2007, two additional 
states qualified for this grant by passing a primary safety belt law. 
Beginning in fiscal year 2008, NHTSA will also award the Safety Belt 
Use grant to states that have achieved an 85 percent safety belt use 
rate in the preceding 2 calendar years. In fiscal year 2008, six 
additional states will receive this grant--five states qualified based 
on safety belt use rates, and one state based on a new primary safety 
belt law. According to a NHTSA official, only two additional states 
have a mathematical chance of qualifying for this grant in fiscal year 
2009 based on safety belt use rates. Similarly, five states received 
the Child Safety and Booster Seat Use grant in fiscal year 2006. In 
fiscal year 2007, 8 additional states qualified for this grant program, 
for a total of 13 states receiving the grant that year.[Footnote 20] 

NHTSA Has Implemented the HVE Program, but Should Take Steps to Improve 
Evaluation of the Program: 

NHTSA has implemented a nationwide HVE program, but we recently 
recommended that NHTSA take steps to improve its evaluations so the 
administration can better assess the overall effectiveness of the 
campaigns. As specified in SAFETEA-LU, NHTSA has implemented the HVE 
program by (1) developing and disseminating advertising, (2) 
coordinating with states on media and enforcement activities, and (3) 
annually evaluating the effectiveness of the CIOT and OTLUA campaigns. 
NHTSA introduced a national plan in 2005 that set forth an advertising 
strategy and has also developed advertisements and purchased national 
media time. In addition, NHTSA provides guidance to states, including 
an overall strategy for conducting the campaigns, as well as technical 
assistance and advertising materials such as posters and model press 
releases. Officials in selected states said that NHTSA has provided the 
support they need to conduct HVE campaigns. Although NHTSA's annual 
evaluations indicate that the campaigns are helping to improve safety 
belt use and reduce impaired driving, these evaluations have weaknesses 
that hinder the administration's ability to assess the level of state 
and local activity--a key component of the campaigns--and the 
campaigns' overall effectiveness. For example, NHTSA cannot 
meaningfully analyze and compare state activities because state data 
are incomplete and inconsistent due to voluntary reporting by law 
enforcement agencies. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot measure the campaigns' 
overall effectiveness because the performance measures used to evaluate 
the campaigns are not comprehensive. For example, while NHTSA measures 
the change in daytime safety belt use, it does not directly measure 
nighttime safety belt use, despite recent efforts to increase the use 
of safety belts at night. NHTSA is working to develop more 
comprehensive performance measures. Nevertheless, to improve these 
evaluations, we recommended that NHTSA develop a minimum core set of 
reporting requirements for states and include additional performance 
measures in the evaluations. 

NHTSA Has Improved Its Oversight of States, but Does Not Currently 
Analyze the Management Review Recommendations to Identify Common State 
Problems and Direct Resources Accordingly: 

As we recommended in 2003, NHTSA has improved the consistency of its 
oversight process, including implementing the requirement added by 
SAFETEA-LU that the administration conduct a management review of each 
state at least once every 3 years. NHTSA regional officials conducted 
56 of the 57 required management reviews from fiscal years 2005 through 
2007.[Footnote 21] NHTSA also refined its management review guidance to 
clarify the process each regional office uses to initiate, conduct, and 
publish a final management review report. In addition, NHTSA developed 
a tool--the corrective action plan--to track state implementation of 
management review recommendations and encourage states to act on the 
administration's advice. Recently, NHTSA has worked with the Governors 
Highway Safety Association (GHSA) to clearly distinguish between 
recommendations related to noncompliance with statutes or regulations, 
which states are required by law to implement, and recommendations 
related to best practices, which states are not required to implement. 
NHTSA has also trained regional officials on these changes to the 
management review process and established a national team to review all 
draft management review reports for consistency. 

NHTSA's recent initiatives to improve the consistency of its management 
reviews should improve the information available to the administration 
for analysis--such as information on common grant management challenges 
faced by states--and thus may provide an opportunity for NHTSA to 
enhance its oversight. However, NHTSA does not currently have a process 
for analyzing its management review recommendations on a national 
level, identifying common challenges faced by states, and directing 
training and technical assistance resources accordingly. Furthermore, 
NHTSA has not nationally tracked the extent to which states have 
implemented its recommendations, which could help the administration 
assess the impact of its oversight. 

Selected State Officials Say Programs Are Helping Improve Traffic 
Safety Despite Some Challenges, but Nationwide Fatalities Have Not 
Decreased: 

NHTSA has not yet assessed the grant programs' effectiveness because it 
has not developed sufficient performance measures and the safety 
incentive grants have not been in place long enough to evaluate trends. 
Nevertheless, selected state officials told us the programs are helping 
to improve traffic safety. These officials also identified challenges 
limiting the programs' effectiveness. Additionally, a key indicator of 
effectiveness at the national level--overall traffic fatalities--has 
not improved over the last 10 years, being offset by factors such as 
increases in population and the number of vehicle miles traveled. 

Insufficient Performance Measures and Trend Data Preclude Assessments 
of Effectiveness: 

NHTSA officials indicated that they plan to rely on performance 
measures to help determine the results of traffic safety programs. 
NHTSA does not currently have sufficient performance measures in place 
and changes to the safety incentive grant programs resulting from 
SAFETEA-LU have not been in place long enough to allow NHTSA to 
evaluate results, such as improvements in fatality rates. According to 
a NHTSA official, they will begin receiving sufficient trend data later 
in 2008. NHTSA currently uses DOT-wide measures that reflect the 
overall goal of reducing traffic fatalities, such as measures of the 
fatality rates of passenger vehicle occupants and motorcyclists. In 
addition, NHTSA has developed intermediate outcome measures to track 
behaviors influencing traffic safety, such as safety belt use. 

However, these measures do not comprehensively cover the traffic safety 
areas included in the grant programs because they do not include 
measures to track behaviors influencing alcohol-related fatalities, 
such as the number of impaired-driving citations that police officers 
issued, arrests, and convictions.[Footnote 22] Currently, the extent to 
which states collect data needed to track such measures varies. NHTSA 
recognizes the need to improve these measures and, in partnership with 
GHSA, has hired a contractor to develop a common set of performance 
measures that federal, state, and local governments could use. NHTSA 
seeks to establish intermediate outcome measures for a broad range of 
traffic safety areas, including safety belts and child passenger 
safety, impaired driving, and motorcycles, that can reliably track 
progress toward reducing safety problems. NHTSA plans to use these 
measures to track progress at the national level and encourage states 
to consider them in the highway safety planning process. The 
contractor's analysis is expected to be completed in August 2008. 

Selected State Officials Report Safety Grant and HVE Programs Help 
Improve Traffic Safety: 

Officials in selected states told us that the safety grant and HVE 
programs help improve safety by funding activities addressing key 
safety issues in their states, and that the incentive grants complement 
Section 402 grants by allowing states to expand core traffic safety 
activities. For example: 

* States primarily use Section 402 funds for programs aimed at reducing 
alcohol-impaired driving and unbelted driving. From fiscal years 1999 
through 2007, states spent approximately $1.5 billion in Section 402 
funding. More than half of this funding was spent on traffic law 
enforcement, occupant protection, and alcohol-impaired driving 
countermeasures. These three areas support programs intended to reduce 
the incidence of alcohol-impaired and unrestrained driving, such as 
overtime hours police officers dedicated to traffic law enforcement, 
training for police officers on identifying and assessing drivers who 
are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, and media campaigns 
aimed at increasing safety belt use as well as campaigns targeting 
populations that are at high risk for driving under the influence of 
alcohol. States also used Section 402 funding for programs to reduce 
speeding and improve motorcycle safety. 

* States also use safety incentive grant programs to plan and implement 
safety improvement activities to address key traffic safety issues in 
their states. These activities generally fall into five categories-- 
education and training, media and public information, enforcement, data 
and technology, and infrastructure improvements. States use the grants 
to address goals and performance measures established in state highway 
safety plans. These include increasing safety belt use, reducing 
alcohol-impaired driving, and reducing motorcyclist fatalities. 
Specifically, states use the safety incentive grant programs as 
follows: 

* Safety Belt Use--State officials have more flexibility in using these 
funds compared with other incentive grants because they can use this 
grant program to fund any traffic safety activities, as well as to fund 
infrastructure improvements, although most funding has been allocated 
toward programs influencing safety. Specific examples of activities 
funded include the CIOT HVE campaign, statewide safety belt use 
surveys, traffic safety information system improvements, upgrades and 
improvements to locations where pedestrian and motor vehicle collisions 
occur, or videotaping and assessing county roadway systems. 

* Child Safety and Booster Seat--States use these funds for education 
and training, media and public information, and other activities such 
as car seat purchases. Specifically, these activities include 
increasing training for child safety seat technicians and instructors 
and supporting additional safety checkpoints and clinics where parents 
learn how to properly install safety seats, as well as promoting 
awareness of child passenger safety. 

* Impaired Driving--States use these funds for education, training, 
media, public information, and enforcement activities. Activities 
include training law enforcement officers and promoting outreach 
programs to prosecutors and judges, promoting awareness of the impact 
of impaired driving, including teen drivers, and funding HVE activities 
such as the OTLUA campaign, and targeting establishments that sell 
alcoholic beverages to minors. In addition, states have used funds to 
purchase equipment such as breath alcohol testing vans, enhance courts' 
and prosecutors' ability to prosecute impaired driving, and encourage 
legislation imposing stronger sanctions and penalties for impaired 
driving. 

* Motorcyclist Safety--States use these funds for education and 
training as well as media and public information. Specifically, states 
use these funds to train more motorcycle safety instructors and add 
classes, for campaigns to increase other motorists' awareness of 
motorcyclists and promote motorcycle training courses, and to purchase 
additional motorcycles for training courses. 

* Traffic Safety Information Systems--States use these funds for data 
and technology activities to enhance the quality of information 
concerning crashes, drivers licenses, injury surveillance, roadways, 
enforcement and adjudication, and vehicles. Activities include 
improving the timeliness and uniformity of crash data; developing an 
electronic citation system to allow electronic issuance, collection, 
and court processing of citation data; creating a statewide emergency 
medical system and trauma database; and enhancing driving under the 
influence (DUI) records. 

* Officials in selected states reported that HVE campaigns contribute 
to increases in safety belt use and reductions in impaired driver 
fatalities. These states all experienced increased safety belt use and 
reduced alcohol-involved fatality rates in the last 10 years. Increased 
safety belt use ranged from 6.5 percent in North Carolina to 29.6 
percent in North Dakota. Nationwide, safety belt use increased 12 
percentage points from 1997 to 2006. Similarly, the selected states 
experienced a decrease in alcohol-involved fatality rates from 1997 to 
2006. Decreases ranged from 22 percent in Rhode Island and North Dakota 
to 3 percent in Arkansas. Five of the seven states we visited 
experienced declines in alcohol-involved fatality rates that exceeded 
the overall U.S. decrease of 12 percent. States officials we spoke with 
attributed these improvements, in part, to participation in HVE 
campaigns. 

State Officials Noted Challenges Limit Programs' Effectiveness: 

Although officials in selected states have found the grants and HVE 
programs helpful, they noted several challenges that limit the 
programs' effectiveness: 

* Despite the availability of incentives, some states have faced 
challenges passing legislation required to qualify for the Safety Belt 
Use and Child Safety and Booster Seat grants. About half of the states 
have not enacted primary safety belt laws principally because their 
state legislatures or governors oppose mandating safety belt use laws 
that could infringe on individuals' personal freedom. Although 16 
states had primary safety belt laws in effect before 2003, from 2003 
through 2007, 29 states introduced primary safety belt bills; only 8 
passed the bills. Similarly, relatively few states have passed laws to 
qualify for Child Safety and Booster Seat grants. From 2003, when 
states became aware that certain provisions would likely be included in 
the reauthorization legislation, through 2007, 24 states considered 
requiring children to use booster seats up to age 8. In total, five 
states passed new laws or modified existing laws to qualify for the 
grant in fiscal year 2006. An additional eight states passed laws to 
qualify in fiscal year 2007. Although many states have booster seat 
laws in effect, the laws vary in terms of age, height, and weight 
requirements, with some states requiring seats up to ages 5, 6, or 7. 
Other states use height and weight requirements. According to traffic 
safety officials and safety advocates, these variations occurred 
because of evolving research and guidance from NHTSA on determining who 
should be in booster seats. However, once a state has a booster seat 
law, those involved in child passenger safety are reluctant to try to 
change it for fear of losing the states' existing safety provisions. 

* Each safety incentive grant has a separate application process, which 
has proven challenging for some states to manage, especially those with 
small safety offices. The five applications are each due within a 1-1/ 
2 month period between June 15 and August 1. According to state highway 
safety officials, each application requires extensive amounts of staff 
time and resources. Although the application process is similar for 
each grant, having to complete it several times within a short time 
frame presents administrative challenges for states. Several states 
expressed concerns about the demands the application process placed on 
their staff, including those with larger safety programs and more staff 
and resources than those with smaller safety programs. According to 
NHTSA, the application requirements reflect statutory requirements to 
award grants in the same year in which the state's legislative status 
and fatality-rate performance are measured. 

* Some states would have preferred more flexibility in using safety 
incentive grants; flexibility could become a key issue in the future as 
emerging issues become more critical. For example, the Motorcyclist 
Safety grant program allows funding to be used only for training and to 
increase other motorists' awareness of motorcyclists. Officials in 
Montana would like to use the funds to build new sites or expand the 
size of current training sites, but the grant does not allow them to do 
so, although the grant does allow states to lease or purchase new 
sites. New Jersey officials also noted that the Child Safety and 
Booster Seat grant they received in fiscal year 2006 was much larger 
than expected; they would have preferred using the additional funding 
for other areas, such as the state's traffic safety information 
systems. Some state officials we interviewed noted that, while the 
traffic safety data improvement grant will help them improve their data 
systems, the cost of developing and maintaining these systems far 
exceeds the amount of the grant. 

* In implementing the HVE campaigns, some law enforcement agencies 
found it difficult to recruit sufficient officers to conduct campaigns. 
Some law enforcement agencies said they did not have sufficient 
staffing levels for both regular police work and frequent HVE campaign 
enforcement activities. Factors affecting staffing include crime 
enforcement having priority over traffic enforcement, officers being 
called up for military duty or diverted to homeland security duties, 
too few personnel, and an insufficient number of officers signing up 
for overtime to work the campaigns. NHTSA has taken steps to help 
states overcome these challenges by providing funding for equipment as 
an incentive to participate and providing guidance on how to better use 
existing resources. States have also taken steps, for example, by 
recognizing officers for contributions to HVE campaigns. 

* Weak prosecution of impaired driving offenders reduces the likelihood 
that HVE campaigns will achieve desired results. State and NHTSA 
officials indicated that, because court systems have heavy caseloads 
and limited resources, DUI cases may be given a lower priority compared 
with more violent crimes. Additionally, some law enforcement officials 
and prosecutors lack the knowledge and training needed to consistently 
prosecute DUI cases. As a result, some DUI charges may be dismissed. 
Finally, judges handling DUI cases face challenges, including frequent 
plea bargains, which may undermine the deterrent value of the arrest. 
States have developed initiatives to train judges and officers on DUI 
prosecution and train officers on conducting field sobriety testing. 
NHTSA has also provided guidance, funded training programs, and 
provided states grants to more effectively prosecute DUI offenders. 

* States face difficulties increasing safety belt use and reducing 
alcohol-impaired driving among resistant populations, such as drivers 
in rural areas, those who drive pickup trucks, and those who repeatedly 
drink and drive. Statistics show that more drivers in rural areas 
resist wearing safety belts. In general, rural areas have a higher 
proportion of fatal crashes and traffic fatalities than urban areas, as 
well as higher alcohol-involved crash rates, crashes at higher speeds 
on narrow or sharply curved rural roads, and less access to emergency 
services. Moreover, crashes in rural areas also more likely involve 
unrestrained occupants who are thus ejected from vehicles. NHTSA and 
states are taking steps to increase rural safety belt use and have 
developed programs targeting pickup truck drivers, including the 
"Buckle Up in Your Truck," campaign that targeted young males who are 
more likely to drive pickup trucks. NHTSA has outlined strategies for 
states and local communities, such as a rural demonstration program 
involving intensified enforcement and paid media to alert residents in 
targeted areas that safety belt laws will be enforced. Another 
challenge is reducing impaired driving among hardcore drunk drivers-- 
those who drive with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.15 or greater. 
NHTSA data indicates that hardcore drinkers are involved in 54 percent 
of alcohol-involved fatalities and are likely to be repeat drinking 
drivers. NHTSA has recommended increased use of ignition interlock 
devices--which prevent a vehicle from starting if the BAC exceeds a 
certain limit--as a penalty against repeat drunken drivers. 

Despite improvements in certain areas, traffic fatalities--a key 
indicator of the overall effectiveness of these programs--have remained 
relatively constant at about 43,000 per year over the last 10 years. 
Traffic fatalities per 100 million VMT declined by approximately 14 
percent during this period, from 1.65 in 1997 to 1.41 in 2006. Also, 
the two primary causes of fatalities--improper safety belt use and 
impaired driving--have been somewhat mitigated. Unrestrained fatalities 
decreased from 23,236 in 1985 to 16,053 in 2006, while the unrestrained 
fatality rate decreased by 0.78, from 1.31 to 0.53 fatalities per 100 
million VMT. These improvements were likely due to safety belt laws 
states began passing in the 1980s. Alcohol-impaired driving showed 
similar reductions. From 1985 to 2006, the alcohol- involved fatality 
rate decreased by 0.63, from 1.13 to 0.50 fatalities per 100 million 
VMT. According to NHTSA, these improvements were influenced by federal 
laws providing states incentives to strengthen impaired driving laws, 
among other factors. Nevertheless, progress has slowed, with a 
fluctuating number of alcohol-involved fatalities and a generally 
declining alcohol-involved fatality rate from 1994 to 2006. A third 
category--child passenger fatalities--decreased by 31 percent, from 
3,157 in 1997 to 2,173 in 2006. 

However, increases in motorcycle fatalities from 1997 to 2006 offset 
improvements in other areas. Motorcycle fatalities more than doubled 
between 1997 and 2006, increasing from 2,116 fatalities (5 percent of 
total traffic fatalities) to 4,810 fatalities (11.3 percent of total 
traffic fatalities). Similarly, motorcycle fatality rates grew from 
55.30 fatalities per 100,000 registered motorcycles in 1997 to 71.94 
fatalities per 100,000 registered motorcycles in 2006.[Footnote 23] 
NHTSA attributes part of this problem to an increase in older 
motorcycle riders--particularly those riders over age 50 who have not 
operated motorcycles in 15 to 20 years--whose riding skills have 
declined, but have not sought additional training. In contrast to the 
changes in these three types of traffic fatalities, speeding-related 
fatalities have essentially remained constant over the last decade, 
growing slightly from 13,036 fatalities in 1997 (31 percent of total 
traffic fatalities) to 13,543 in 2006 (32 percent of total traffic 
fatalities). 

Issues for Reauthorization: 

The administrative challenges faced by states in applying for and using 
incentive grants and a lack of performance measures that link traffic 
safety grant awards to state performance, as well as the plateau in 
overall traffic fatalities and changes in causes of fatalities in 
recent years pose implications that Congress may want to consider when 
reauthorizing funding for the Surface Transportation Program. As noted 
previously, states have faced challenges in meeting eligibility 
requirements for the Safety Belt Use and Child Safety and Booster Seat 
grant programs and in managing the separate grant applications and 
deadlines associated with each of the five incentive grants, and would 
like to have more flexibility in the range of traffic safety activities 
supported by these grants. NHTSA officials acknowledged state 
officials' concerns, but noted they cannot address the concerns because 
these difficulties stem from the grant requirements established in 
SAFETEA-LU. In reauthorization, Congress may wish to consider ways to 
reduce these administrative and management challenges for states, for 
example, by restructuring the safety incentive grant programs or 
adjusting grant requirements to consolidate incentive grant 
applications, simplifying the application procedures and deadlines, or 
allowing states to use these grants for a broader range of traffic 
safety purposes. 

A second potential consideration is whether the traffic safety grant 
programs could be designed differently to include performance 
accountability mechanisms to link state performance with traffic safety 
grant awards. NHTSA officials indicated that they plan to rely on 
performance measures to help determine the results of the incentive 
grant programs. Although the performance measures that NHTSA currently 
uses--DOT performance measures and several intermediate outcome 
measures--are not comprehensive, the administration is in the process 
of developing more comprehensive measures to reliably track states' 
progress toward achieving safety goals in a broad range of traffic 
safety areas. Even so, states' receipt of traffic safety grant funds is 
not always linked to performance. For example, while the Traffic Safety 
Information Systems and Impaired Driving grants include performance 
criteria in their eligibility requirements, states can also qualify for 
the Impaired Driving grant based on additional criteria, and the three 
other incentive grants do not include any performance-based eligibility 
criteria.[Footnote 24] We have previously reported that such 
performance accountability mechanisms could improve the design and 
implementation of federal grants.[Footnote 25] Specifically, regarding 
transportation-related grants, we have raised concerns about 
insufficient links between state performance and receipt of grants. 

Finally, given the plateau in the number of annual traffic fatalities 
nationwide and the changes in causes of fatalities, including the 
increase in motorcycle fatalities and fatality rates, Congress may wish 
to consider whether the current traffic safety programs could be 
restructured to more effectively reduce fatalities. Currently, to 
address traffic fatalities, Congress offers incentive grants to 
encourage states to pass safety legislation and achieve certain safety 
outcomes, and penalty transfer programs to discourage states from 
failing to pass safety legislation. In addition, NHTSA uses several 
approaches to help states improve their safety outcomes. NHTSA provides 
expert advice to all states through its evaluation of state progress 
toward safety goals and performance measures established annually by 
each state, special management reviews for states not making adequate 
progress in the areas of alcohol-impaired driving and safety belt use, 
and voluntary technical program assessments for states requesting 
additional assistance in a variety of areas. However, since the number 
of annual traffic fatalities has remained fairly constant in recent 
years--being offset by factors such as increases in population and the 
number of vehicle miles traveled--Congress may wish to consider 
adjusting these existing strategies or implementing additional 
strategies to reduce fatalities. For example, Congress may wish to 
consider different or additional state incentives, or allow states more 
flexibility in using grant funds to address current and emerging safety 
issues. We have also recommended that NHTSA identify options to target 
safety expertise and technical assistance to states with a high number 
of fatalities that would not qualify for a special management review. 

NHTSA officials noted that DOT's 2003 reauthorization proposal included 
performance-based grants within the Section 402 grant, and would have 
addressed the eligibility and management challenges states faced in 
using the safety incentive grants. Under this proposal, the amount of 
each state's performance based grant would have depended on the state's 
performance related to various crash fatality rates, safety belt use, 
and safety belt laws. However, given that we identified deficiencies in 
the quality of state data systems in 2004, data-driven changes to the 
traffic safety grant programs such as those included in NHTSA's 2003 
reauthorization proposal would require improved state safety data to 
enhance states' ability to identify traffic safety issues, as well as a 
robust oversight approach to ensure that states are using federal funds 
appropriately. As noted earlier in this statement, NHTSA has improved 
the consistency of its oversight since 2003 and has implemented 
requirements established in SAFETEA-LU regarding the frequency of its 
management reviews of states. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 
to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee 
might have. 

For further information on this statement, please contact Katherine 
Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or [email protected]. Contact points for our 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found on the 
last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to 
this testimony were Sara Vermillion, Assistant Director; Michael Armes; 
Catherine Colwell; Caitlin Croake; Colin Fallon; Lynn Filla-Clark; Joah 
Iannotta; Tom James; Bert Japikse; Leslie Locke; and Terry Richardson. 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

We were asked to participate in this hearing to discuss the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) programs and oversight. 
Our statement addresses (1) NHTSA's progress in administering and 
overseeing the traffic safety grant and high-visibility enforcement 
(HVE) programs, (2) the programs' effectiveness in addressing traffic 
safety issues, and (3) implications for reauthorization of the programs 
in 2009. In addition, this statement provides information on a traffic 
safety area that we expect to become a more serious issue in the 
future--older driver safety. Our statement is based on three recently 
issued reports on (1) NHTSA's Safety Incentive Grants, (2) the HVE 
campaign programs, and (3) NHTSA's oversight of state traffic safety 
programs and the approaches currently available to improve safety 
outcomes.[Footnote 26] In addition, we touch on issues raised in last 
year's report on older driver safety.[Footnote 27] 

NHTSA Safety Incentive Grants: 

In the NHTSA Safety Incentive Grants report, we addressed (1) NHTSA's 
status in awarding and overseeing states' use of these grant programs, 
(2) the activities states have conducted using the grants and issues 
they have faced in applying for and implementing them, and (3) how 
NHTSA plans to evaluate the results of the grant programs and 
implications for reauthorizing funding for these programs. To address 
these objectives, we reviewed documents and interviewed officials from 
NHTSA, the Federal Highway Safety Administration (FHWA), and 
representatives from professional groups, including the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Governors 
Highway Safety Association (GHSA), National Safety Council, and 
Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety. We interviewed state highway 
safety officials and reviewed documents from 7 selected states-- 
California, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, South Carolina, 
and Vermont (see Table 2). We selected the states based on a 
combination of characteristics, including fatality rates, funding, and 
geographic distribution. Since we used a nongeneralizable sampling 
approach, our findings cannot be used to make inferences about all 
states that received NHTSA Safety Incentive Grants. We also reviewed 
states' 2007 highway safety plans and 2006 annual reports for all 50 
states to identify activities states are funding with these grants. In 
addition, we reviewed the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) and 
NHTSA's performance measures and other related documents, including 
NHTSA's 2003 reauthorization proposal. We conducted this performance 
audit from March 2007 through March 2008 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. 

Table 2: Site Visit Locations for GAO Traffic Safety Reports: 

NHTSA Safety Incentive Grants: California; 
Illinois; 
Missouri; 
Montana; 
New Jersey; 
South Carolina; 
Vermont; 
HVE Campaign Program: Arkansas; 
Illinois; 
Iowa; 
North Carolina; 
North Dakota; 
Rhode Island; 
Washington; 
NHTSA Oversight: Arizona; 
Idaho; 
Maine; 
Minnesota; 
Nevada; 
Texas; 
West Virginia; 
Wisconsin; 
Older Driver Safety: California; 
Florida; 
Iowa; 
Maryland; 
Michigan; 
Oregon. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

HVE Campaign Program: 

In the HVE campaign program report, we addressed (1) the extent to 
which NHTSA has implemented the HVE program and (2) for selected 
states, the impact of the HVE campaigns and challenges that exist in 
conducting the campaigns. To address these objectives, we analyzed 
information and interviewed officials from NHTSA headquarters and 
regions; FHWA; and state traffic safety offices, state police, local 
police, and police advocacy organizations in seven states--Arkansas, 
Illinois, Iowa, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and 
Washington (see Table 2). We judgmentally selected the states by 
including: states that have enacted various laws that may affect how 
states conduct enforcement campaigns; states with a wide range of 
traffic safety performance levels, such as extent of safety belt use 
and number of alcohol-involved fatalities in each state; states with 
differences in average size of law enforcement agencies; states that 
exhibited various degrees of participation by state and local law 
enforcement agencies in campaigns; and states that were geographically 
dispersed. Since we used a nongeneralizable sampling approach, our 
findings cannot be used to make inferences about all states that 
implemented the HVE program. We also interviewed representatives of 
nongovernmental organizations; reviewed relevant studies, reports, and 
laws; and analyzed safety belt use and alcohol-involved fatality data 
for selected states.[Footnote 28] We conducted this performance audit 
from March 2007 through April 2008 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. 

NHTSA Oversight: 

In the NHTSA oversight report, we addressed (1) how states have used 
Section 402 funding to achieve national safety goals, (2) the progress 
NHTSA has made toward addressing consistency in the management review 
process, (3) how useful NHTSA's management reviews and recommendations 
are in improving management of state safety programs, and (4) the 
approaches currently available to improve safety outcomes. To address 
these objectives, we reviewed legislation, guidance, and procedures 
relevant to NHTSA's oversight of state highway safety grants, including 
NHTSA's management review process. We interviewed NHTSA headquarters 
and regional officials and representatives from the Governors Highway 
Safety Administration (GHSA). We also conducted site visits in eight 
states--Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Texas, West Virginia, 
and Wisconsin--to gather state officials' views of NHTSA's oversight, 
including the management review process, and to discuss how states use 
Section 402 grants (see table 2). In addition, we analyzed data NHTSA 
provided on how states spent highway safety grants from fiscal years 
1999 through 2007, conducted a content analysis of the recommendations 
in all management reviews developed in fiscal years 2005 through 2007, 
and summarized information from NHTSA's corrective action plans. We 
also analyzed data provided by NHTSA on the total number of alcohol- 
related fatalities and fatality rates as well as the total number of 
unbelted fatalities and fatality rates from 1998 through 2006. We 
conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to July 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Older Driver Safety: 

Finally, in the older driver safety report, we addressed (1) what the 
federal government has done to promote practices to make roads safer 
for older drivers and the extent to which states have implemented those 
practices, (2) the extent to which states assess the fitness of older 
drivers and what support the federal government has provided, and (3) 
what initiatives selected states have implemented to improve the safety 
of older drivers. To address these objectives, we reviewed documents 
and interviewed officials from NHTSA, FHWA, the National Institute on 
Aging and the Administration on Aging within the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, and the American Association of Motor 
Vehicle Administration. To obtain information on the extent to which 
states are implementing practices to make roads safer for older 
drivers, we surveyed and received responses from DOTs in each of the 50 
states and the District of Columbia. We also conducted case studies in 
six states--California, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, and Oregon-
-that transportation experts identified as progressive in their efforts 
to improve older driver safety. We conducted our work from April 2006 
through April 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Criteria for States to Qualify for Selected Incentive 
Grant Programs: 

Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant. The eight criteria are: 
(1) implement a high-visibility enforcement campaign program using 
checkpoints or saturation patrols, along with paid and earned media; 
(2) implement an education program for judges and prosecutors on 
prosecuting and adjudicating offenders; (3) implement a program to 
increase blood alcohol content (BAC) testing rate for drivers in fatal 
crashes; (4) enact legislation imposing stronger sanctions or 
additional penalties for high-risk drivers with a BAC of at least 0.15; 
(5) implement a rehabilitation program for repeat or high-risk 
offenders or refer them to a state-sanctioned driving while intoxicated 
(DWI) court; (6) develop a strategy to prevent underage drivers from 
obtaining alcoholic beverages and anyone from making alcoholic 
beverages available to persons under 21; (7) implement a program to 
suspend or revoke licenses for drivers apprehended while driving under 
the influence; or (8) implement a "self-sustaining impaired driving 
prevention program" in which a significant portion of DWI fines or 
surcharges collected are returned to communities to reduce alcohol- 
impaired driving. 

Motorcyclist Safety Grant. The six criteria are: (1) implement a 
statewide motorcycle rider training program; (2) implement a program 
promoting motorcyclist awareness; (3) reduce fatalities and crashes 
involving motorcycles in the prior year; (4) implement a statewide 
impaired-driving program that includes measures targeting impaired 
motorcycle operation; (5) reduce fatalities and crashes involving 
impaired motorcyclists in the prior year; and (6) use all fees 
collected from motorcyclists for motorcycle programs. 

State Traffic Safety Information Systems Improvement Grant. The three 
criteria for the first year are to (1) establish a multidisciplinary 
highway safety data and traffic records coordinating committee; (2) 
develop an approved multiyear safety data and traffic records strategic 
plan with performance-based measures; and (3) certify that the state 
has adopted and is using model data elements in the Model Minimum 
Uniform Crash Criteria and National Emergency Medical Service 
Information System, or certify that it will use funds to adopt and use 
the most elements practicable. 

The five criteria for the second and subsequent years are to (1) 
certify that an assessment or audit of the state traffic records system 
has been conducted or updated in the last 5 years; (2) certify that the 
coordinating committee still operates and supports the plan; (3) 
specify how grant and other state funds will support the plan; (4) 
demonstrate measurable progress toward achieving goals and objectives 
in the plan; and (5) submit a report showing measurable progress in 
implementing the plan. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Older Driver Safety: 

In GAO's 2007 report on older driver safety,[Footnote 29] we found the 
following: 

* FHWA has recommended practices--such as using larger letters on 
signs--targeted to making roadways easier for older drivers to 
navigate. FHWA also provides funding that states may use for projects 
that address older driver safety. States have, to varying degrees, 
adopted FHWA's recommended practices. For example, 24 states reported 
including about half or more of FHWA's practices in state design 
guides, while the majority of states reported implementing certain FHWA 
practices in roadway construction, operations, and maintenance 
activities. States generally do not place high priority on projects 
that specifically address older drive safety but try to include 
practices that benefit older drivers in all projects. 

* More than half of the states have implemented licensing requirements 
for older drivers that are more stringent than requirements for younger 
drivers, but states' assessment practices are not comprehensive. For 
example, these practices primarily involve more frequent or in-person 
renewals and mandatory vision screening but do not generally include 
assessments of physical and cognitive functions. While requirements for 
in-person license renewals generally appear to correspond with lower 
crash rates for drivers age 85 and older, the validity of other 
assessment tools is less clear. NHTSA is sponsoring research and other 
initiatives to develop and assist states in implementing more 
comprehensive driver fitness assessment practices. 

* Five of the six states GAO visited have implemented coordination 
groups to assemble a broad range of stakeholders to develop strategies 
and foster efforts to improve older driver safety in areas of strategic 
planning, education and awareness, licensing and driver fitness 
assessment, roadway engineering, and data analysis. However, knowledge 
sharing among states on older driver safety initiatives is limited, and 
officials said states could benefit from knowledge of other states' 
initiatives. 

We recommended that the Secretary direct FHWA and NHTSA Administrators 
to implement a mechanism to allow states to share information on older 
driver safety practices. 

In response to our recommendations, FHWA indicated that it is working 
with NHTSA and others in DOT to identify the types of references and 
links to other organizations' information to include on its Web site. 
This information includes articles on older road users, technical 
reference materials, and research results. FHWA expects to have its Web 
site updated by June 2008. 

NHTSA responded that it has also taken steps to allow states to share 
information on leading practices for enhancing older drivers' safety. 
First, NHTSA established a clearinghouse for sharing technical 
information about older road user programs. The clearinghouse was 
created through an interagency agreement with the Federal Transit 
Administration and the National Central for Senior Transportation, a 
clearinghouse for information on transportation for seniors, such as 
programs and strategies that have been successful in other states. 
Second, NHTSA's regional offices have worked with state highway safety 
offices to develop older road user programs, including exchanging 
information on other states' best practices. The regions are also 
promoting use of NHTSA's Older Driver Law Enforcement Course, and 
advising states of progress with demonstration projects. These include 
a project in Missouri to help establish older driver coalitions, and 
others in New Jersey and Virginia to enhance driver licensing referral 
programs. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] In 1966, Congress established a formula grant program--the State 
and Community Highway Safety Grant Program, commonly referred to as 
Section 402--that provides core funding to all states to address a 
range of traffic safety issues. 

[2] GAO, Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues, 
Despite State Eligibility and Management Difficulties, GAO-08-398 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2008); Traffic Safety: Improved Reporting 
and Performance Measures Would Enhance Evaluation of High-Visibility 
Campaigns, GAO-08-477 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2008); and Traffic 
Safety: NHTSA's Improved Oversight Could Identify Opportunities to 
Strengthen Management and Safety in Some States, GAO-08-788 
(Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2008). 

[3] GAO, Older Driver Safety: Knowledge Sharing Should Help States 
Prepare for Increase in Older Driver Population, GAO-07-413 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2007). 

[4] All dollar values are in nominal dollars and not adjusted for 
inflation. 

[5] According to NHTSA, these factors overlap, in that many of the 
people killed in alcohol-related crashes were also unrestrained. In 
addition, speeding-related crashes may involve alcohol, motorcycles, 
and/or unrestrained driving. 

[6] Unrestrained fatalities are those in which the deceased was not 
wearing a shoulder belt, lap belt, lap and shoulder belt, child safety 
seat, or other restraint and were occupants (except bus passengers) of 
motor vehicles (except motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, and 
snowmobiles). 

[7] Alcohol-involved fatalities include all fatalities in a motor 
vehicle crash where one or more involved drivers, pedestrians, or 
pedalcyclists in the crash had a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or 
greater. 

[8] Under TEA-21, Congress authorized approximately $2.3 billion for 6 
years, from fiscal years 1998 to 2003. After TEA-21 expired in 2003, 
Congress authorized extensions until passing SAFETEA-LU in 2005. We are 
not including funding authorized by these extensions. 

[9] SAFETEA-LU also continued the Occupant Protection grant program 
($100 million) that provides funds for states to adopt and implement 
programs to reduce deaths and injuries from riding "unrestrained" or 
"improperly restrained." 

[10] Booster seats are intended to be used by children weighing more 
than 40 pounds who have outgrown a child safety seat. The seats serve 
as a transition to wearing a safety belt. 

[11] See App. II for the eight programmatic criteria that states can 
use to qualify. 

[12] See App. II for explanation of the six criteria that states can 
use to qualify. 

[13] See App. II for explanation of the criteria to qualify in the 
first and subsequent years. 

[14] GAO, Highway Safety: Improved Monitoring and Oversight of Traffic 
Safety Data Program Are Needed, GAO-05-24 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 4, 
2004). 

[15] To select states for a special management review, each year NHTSA 
headquarters officials compare state performance in impaired driving 
and safety belt use over the prior 3 years with average national 
performance over the same time period. States with alcohol-related 
fatality rates consistently above the national average or safety belt 
usage rates consistently below the national average can be selected to 
receive a special management review. 

[16] These areas include alcohol-impaired driving, occupant protection, 
occupant protection for children, motorcyclist safety, emergency 
medical services, traffic records, or standardized field sobriety 
testing. The Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) is a battery of 
three tests administered and evaluated in a standardized manner to 
obtain validated indicators of impairment and establish probable cause 
for arrest. SFST training programs help law enforcement officers become 
more skillful at detecting driving while intoxicated (DWI) suspects, 
describing the behavior of these suspects, and presenting effective 
testimony in court. 

[17] See GAO, Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight 
of State Highway Safety Programs, GAO-03-474 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 
21, 2003). 

[18] All 50 states; the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico; the 
territories of Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands; and the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) receive Section 402 grant funds. Moreover, all 50 states, 
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico are eligible for each of the 
safety incentive grants. The territories of Guam, Virgin Islands, 
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands 
are eligible for the Safety Belt Use, Impaired Driving, and Traffic 
Safety Information Systems grant programs. BIA is eligible for the 
Impaired Driving and Traffic Safety Information Systems grants. Dollar 
amounts in our figures include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 
Puerto Rico, the territories, and BIA, but the focus of this testimony 
is the 50 states. 

[19] Six states passed a primary safety belt law in 2003 or later and 
received a one-time Safety Belt Use grant in fiscal year 2006. Sixteen 
states had a law in place before 2003 and received this grant in two 
installments over fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

[20] States that pass or have in effect a booster seat law receive the 
Child Safety and Booster Seat grant each year under SAFETEA-LU. 

[21] American Samoa was the only state or territory that did not 
receive a management review from fiscal years 2005 through 2007. A 
NHTSA official told us that due to a limited travel budget, the 
regional office was unable to conduct an onsite management review 
during those fiscal years. The regional office plans on conducting an 
onsite visit in fiscal year 2008. American Samoa received $1.6 million 
in federal highway safety funding in fiscal year 2007, one of the 
lowest amounts of funding in the nation. 

[22] U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, 
Audit of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrationï¿½s Alcohol-
Impaired Driving Traffic Safety Program, Report No. MH-2007-036 
(Washington, D.C., Mar. 5, 2007). 

[23] DOT has changed the baseline for its motorcycle fatality rates 
from 100 million VMT to 100,000 registered motorcycles because of 
concerns that VMT did not seem valid considering the number of 
registered motorcycles. NHTSA calculates motorcycle fatality rates 
using both measures. Thus, using VMT, the motorcycle fatality rates 
increased from 20.99 per 100 million VMT in 1997 to 38.79 per 100 
million VMT in 2006. 

[23] NHTSA will begin awarding the Safety Belt Use grant in fiscal year 
2008 to states that have certified that they have achieved at least an 
85 percent safety belt use rate in the preceding 2 calendar years. 
However, a NHTSA official indicated that only five states would qualify 
for the grant based on safety belt use in fiscal year 2008 and that 
only two had a mathematical chance of qualifying under this criteria in 
fiscal year 2009. 

[24] GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability 
Provisions Could Lead to Better Results, GAO-06-1046 (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 29, 2006). 

[25] GAO, Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues, 
Despite State Eligibility and Management Difficulties, GAO-08-398 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2008); Traffic Safety: Improved Reporting 
and Performance Measures Would Enhance Evaluation of High-Visibility 
Campaigns, GAO-08-477 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2008); and Traffic 
Safety: NHTSA's Improved Oversight Could Identify Opportunities to 
Strengthen Management and Safety in Some States, GAO-08-788 
(Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2008). 

[26] GAO, Older Driver Safety: Knowledge Sharing Should Help States 
Prepare for Increase in Older Driver Population, GAO-07-413 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2007). 

[27] We used data contained in NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting 
System database and vehicle miles traveled data maintained by FHWA in 
its Highway Performance Monitoring System database. 

[28] GAO, Older Driver Safety: Knowledge Sharing Should Help States 
Prepare for Increase in Older Driver Population, GAO-07-413 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2007). 
*** End of document. ***