Detailed Information on the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Grant Program Assessment

Continue to encourage States to apply annually for grant funds which can be utilized to reduce motorcycle fatalities and injuries. Throughout the duration of SAFETEA-LU (FYs 2005-2009), the Agency has, and will continue to encourage States to apply annually for grant funds (Sections 402, 410, and 2010) which can be utilized to reduce motorcycle fatalities and injuries (ONGOING THROUGH FY 2009). NHTSA will attempt to increase the number of grant recipients annually. In both FY 2007 and FY 2008, NHTSA sent a memo to the Regions encouraging states to use Section 410 funds to address impaired motorcycle riding. During FY 2008 and FY 2009, all NHTSA regional offices conferences will feature sessions on state-by-state motorcycle fatality trends and emerging and proven countermeasures. States will be urged to consider such countermeasures via sections 402 and 406, and, for impaired riding countermeasures, section 410.

Enable States, through Section 408 grants, to promote effective use of vehicle registration and rider licensing files to identify individuals likely to operate a motorcycle without a proper license. By linking the motorcycle registration files with the rider licensing files, a State could show measurable progress in linking highway safety and traffic records systems and thus satisfy a component for Section 408 funding. Throughout the duration of SAFETEA-LU (FYs 2005-2009), NHTSA has, and will continue to, attempt to maximize the number of Section 408 grant recipients annually (ONGOING THROUGH FY 2009). In both 2007 and 2008, NHTSA supported the FHWA-led initiative to improve collection of motorcycle vehicle miles of travel, to support more accurate problem identification and effective countermeasures, for use of Section 408 funds by States. During FY 2008 and 2009, NHTSA will continue to encourage States to utilize Section 408 and other appropriate funds to adopt emerging technology to capture motorcycle vehicles miles traveled as a means of improving the completeness of their traffic records system.

Provide funding to States through Motorcycle Safety Incentive Grants to train motorcycle riders and educate the public on motorcycle awareness. Motorcycle Safety Incentive Grants (Section 2010) provide funding to help States train motorcyclists and educate the public on motorcycle awareness. Throughout the duration of SAFETEA-LU (FYs 2005-2009), NHTSA has, and will continue to, attempt to increase the number of grant recipients annually (ONGOING THROUGH FY 2009).

Measure: Highway fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (CY).

Explanation:

The 2006 fatality rate of 1.41 equates to 42,642 lives lost from motor vehicle crashes. USDOT's original fatality goal began as a 1998 NHTSA and FHWA goal to reduce the number of transportation deaths by 20 percent, which equated to achieving an absolute number of 33,500 annual motor vehicle fatalities by 2008. The number was changed to an equivalent rate in 2002. The original goal was based on overly optimistic behavioral assumptions??a 90% seat belt usage rate and alcohol-related fatalities falling to 11,000 annually. Current figures indicate that the national seat belt usage rate is at 82% and that there are over 17,000 alcohol-related highway fatalities annually. Additionally, an unpredictable, and sustained spike in motorcycle rider fatalities began when the original goals were set??from a historic low of 2,116 in 1997 to 4,810 in 2006 (a 127% increase).

The Administration remains committed to reducing highway fatalities and fully supports the goal of reducing fatalities to a rate of 1.0 per 100 million VMT. DOT realizes it will not reach this goal by 2008 as originally planned, and has revised the target date from 2008 to 2011, to account for the dramatically changing nature of highway safety challenges. The Department has established four fatality sub-measures??passenger vehicles, nonoccupants, motorcycle riders, and large-truck- and bus-related fatalities??which represent the breadth of all highway users. This enables DOT to more closely examine the fatality rates of these different segments of highway users, in order to develop new strategies to combat sub-measure trends that are impeding progress to the overall 1.0 goal. These four fatality sub-measures have been raised from agency specific goals to Departmental metrics to highlight the overall commitment by the Department and the three respective surface transportation modes (NHTSA, FHWA, and FMCSA) that directly support the overall 1.0 fatality rate goal and the four supporting sub-measures.

Measure: Rate of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities per 100 M passenger VMT (CY).

Explanation:The fatality rate for 2005 was 1.14 per 100M passenger VMT. The rate for 2004 was 1.17. Since the implementation of TEA-21 in 1999, the passenger vehicle fatality rate has steadily improved, decreasing from 1.30 to 1.14 in 2005. This measure was re-baselined in 2008 when it became a DOT sub-metric. The nonoccupant fatality rate uses overall VMT data to calculate the rate since pedestrian, pedalcyclist, and other nonoccupant miles traveled are not available - meaning the numerator is much smaller in comparison to the denominator and changes in the rate are minuscule.

Measure: Rate of non-occupant highway fatalities per 100 M VMT (CY).

Explanation:The fatality rate for 2005 was 0.20 per 100M VMT. The rate for 2004 was 0.19. Since the implementation of TEA-21 in 1999, the non-occupant fatality rate has minimally improved, decreasing from 0.22 to 0.20 in 2005. This measure was re-baselined in FY 2007 to realign with current trends. Measure was re-baselined in 2008 when it became a DOT sub-metric. The nonoccupant fatality rate uses overall VMT data to calculate the rate since pedestrian, pedalcyclist, and other nonoccupant miles traveled are not available.

Measure: Rate of motorcycle rider highway fatalities per 100,000 motorcycle registrations (CY).

Explanation:Starting in FY 2008, this measure replaces motorcycle rider fatalities per 100M VMT. The fatality rate for 2005 was 73.12 per 100,000 registrations. The rate for 2004 was 69.83. Since the implementation of TEA-21 in 1999, the motorcycle fatality rate has continued to increase, from 59.80 to 73.12 in 2005, along with a continuing increase in annual motorcycle sales. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), new unit motorcycle sales continued to climb in 2004 (latest data available), marking the 12th consecutive year of growth and resulting in the sale of 725,000 new-on-highway motorcycle units in 2004. As a result, State operator training programs continue to have difficulty meeting the increased demand for their services. Additionally, motorcycle ridership (i.e. State registration), is itself dependent on high oil prices and successful marketing. For FY 2008, the Department re-baselined this measure to reflect a change of focus from fatalities per 100 million VMT to fatalities per 100,000 registrations, setting the target motorcycle rider fatality rate for FY 2008 at 76. This measure was changed in 2008 when it became a DOT sub-metric to reflect a shift in focus from fatalities per 100 million VMT to fatalities per 100,000 registrations. Targets are ambitious and were set below actual projected fatality rates given recent significant increases in registrations and fatalities. Between 1997 and 2006, motorcycle registrations increased by 75 percent. However, fatalities have far outpaced the increase in registrations. Thus, reducing the motorcycle fatality rate given this increase in exposure has kept reaching set targets very ambitious to achieve.

Measure: Rate of .08+ Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) crashes per 100M VMT (CY).

Explanation:Recognizing fatalities in crashes with .08+ BAC (i.e. over the legal limit) make up 85 percent of the alcohol problem, NHTSA created a new goal to reduce the rate of fatalities in .08+ BAC crashes for 2006 and beyond. In 1996 the .08+ BAC crash fatality rate per 100M VMT amounted to 0.61 and decreased significantly to 0.49 in 2005. The fatality rate for both 2004 and 2005 was 0.49 per 100M VMT. Since the implementation of TEA-21 in 1999, the .08+ BAC fatality rate has improved, decreasing from 0.53 to 0.49 in 2005. It is the agency's hope that alcohol-related fatalities, specifically .08+ BAC crash fatalities, will continue to decline in the coming years, especially with the enactment of .08 BAC legislation in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Measure: Percentage of front seat occupants using shoulder harness seat belts (CY).

Explanation:The seat belt usage in 2005 was 82%. The usage for 2004 was 80%. Since the implementation of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1999, the use of seat belts has steadily improved, increasing from 67% to 82% in 2005.

Measure: Percentage of improperly licensed motorcyclists killed in fatal crashes (CY).

Explanation:The percentage of improperly licensed motorcycle operators killed was 25% for 2004 and 24% for 2005. Since the implementation of TEA-21 in 1999, the percentage had been slowly improving, decreasing from 28% to 24% in 2005. However, the increase to 26% in 2006 is consistent with the 12 year trend of an increase in motorcycle rider fatalities. With motorcycle rider fatalities now accounting for 11 percent of total fatalities, and dramatically affecting the overall highway fatality rate, in November 2007 DOT released a Motorcycle Action Plan. In addition, SAFETEA-LU created a dedicated motorcycle safety incentive grant program to assist States in combating current fatality trends.

Measure: Restraint use among 0 through 7 year olds (CY).

Explanation:Previously, the agency's child restraint goal was to reduce the number of child occupant fatalities, 0-4 years old. In 2002, child occupant fatalities dropped to 474, surpassing the agency's 2005 goal for 0-4 year olds. For this reason, the agency set a new annual target to increase restraint use among children 0-7 years of age. NHTSA adopted a target of 91 percent for restraint use 0-7 years old for 2005, based on the one (2002) data point available (this data point was not collected in 2003). Past targets were based on that one available data point. In subsequent years, additional data became available, allowing the agency to better forecast and project future restraint use in setting out-year targets. The agency re-baselined its restraint use target for 2007 after additional data showed a significant decline from 88 percent in 2002 to 82 percent in 2004. The use of restraints for 0-7 year olds for both 2004 and 2005 was 82%.

Measure: Average time (in days) spent to distribute the allocation of Section 402 formula grant funds from the release of the advice of funds (FY).

Explanation:With a target of 21 days, fund distribution was completed in an average of 21 days in 2006, as compared to 22.5 days in 2005, and 3.5 days in 2004.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the grant program is outlined in public law. Section 402: This program was established "to reduce traffic accidents and deaths, injuries and property damage resulting therefrom." Section 405: "The Secretary shall make grants under this section to States that adopt and implement effective programs to reduce highway deaths and injuries resulting from individuals riding unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor vehicles." Section 410: "The Secretary shall make grants to States that adopt and implement effective programs to reduce traffic safety problems resulting from individuals driving while under the influence of alcohol." Section 411: "The Secretary shall make grants to States that adopt and implement effective programs to improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, and accessibility of data of the State that is needed to identify priorities for national, State, and local highway and traffic safety programs." 2003(b): TEA-21 established a program of incentive grants to encourage States to implement child passenger protection programs. A State may use these grant funds to implement programs that are designed to prevent deaths and injuries to children; educate the public concerning the proper installation of child restraints; and train child passenger safety personnel concerning child restraint use.

Evidence: 23USC Chapter 4, Revised June 9, 1998; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 405; 23 CFR Part 1345; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 410; 23 CFR Part 1313; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 411; 23 CFR Part 1335; P. L. 105-178, Section 2003(b).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program addresses the problem of traffic related fatalities and injuries on the Nation's highways. In 2005, motor vehicle crashes claimed the lives of 43,443 individuals and injured nearly 2.7 million. Of those killed, 16,885 were alcohol-related and 55 percent were unbelted.

Evidence: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Data 2005 FARS Reports.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Agency's highway safety grant program is unique in that it is the only program solely dedicated to behavioral safety and is the only program covering a full range of highway safety activities that are designed to reduce traffic injuries and death among all populations. The Section 402 funds are the only Federal funds available to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the territories (American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands) and the Native American tribes (through the Bureau of Indian Affairs) to support the broad range of highway safety programs. Additional funding from Sections 405, 410, 411 and 2003(b) supplement Section 402 and are used to address specific high priority highway safety problems.

Evidence: 23USC Chapter 4, Revised June 9, 1998; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 405; 23 CFR Part 1345; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 410; 23 CFR Part 1313; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 411; 23 CFR Part 1335; P. L. 105-178, Section 2003(b).

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The Agency has measures in place that continually look at program effectiveness and efficiency through review of annual performance and highway safety plans, annual reports, liquidation rates and draw-downs of grant funds, desk and on-site fiscal reviews, review of State project agreements and monitoring practices, and program assessments. In addition, Management Reviews (MR) are conducted every three years in every state and Special Management Reviews (SMR) are conducted when a state shows a lack of progress in meeting safety goals, and program assessments. Currently, there is no evidence that a more efficient model exists to manage the grant program.

Evidence: 23USC Chapter 4 1200, Revised June 9, 1998; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 405; 23 CFR Part 1345; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 410; GAO Report GAO-03-474. Additionally, 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 412 requires NHTSA to conduct additional accountability checks in the form of Triennial State Management Reviews and Special Management Reviews.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The Agency continually strives to ensure that resources are targeted effectively and reach the States, our intended beneficiaries. The States in turn funnel the money to subgrantees (State and local) to implement programs that will help the agency meet long term goals and annual outcomes. To provide direction, States are annually issued a program guidance memo that highlights NHTSA's safety program priorities. Additionally, through the services of a data contractor, NHTSA provides States with data and data analyses assessing State performance in relation to the Nation using critical highway safety indicators such as alcohol, speed, motorcycles, and seat belt use. States use this information along with State and local data to develop the annual highway safety performance plan which includes State goals, targets and performance measures, a budget and a description of how money will be obligated. At the completion of the fiscal year, States are required to provide NHTSA with an annual report highlighting both their progress in meeting performance goals and their accomplishments and challenges. NHTSA staff provide technical assistance and guidance throughout the year to ensure resources are targeted in the most effective and beneficial manner.

Evidence: 23USC Chapter 4, Revised June 9, 1998; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 405; 23 CFR Part 1345; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 410; 23 CFR Part 1313; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 411; 23 CFR Part 1335; TIC Management Guidance Memo, (2004 and 2005); http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/810623.pdf; http://webster.nhtsa.dot.gov/Nhtsa/admin/PolicyOperations/NCSA/docs/QuickfactsFebruary2007.pdf. NHTSA Strategic Guidance Process.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The major highway safety grant programs, authorized by Congress to assist States and local communities and managed by NHTSA, have specific, readily identifiable and quantitative long term measures which are directly focused on reducing death and injury caused by motor vehicle crashes on the nation's roadways. These quantitative long term measures include: rate of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities per 100M passenger VMT, which reflects some or all of the impact of 402, 405, 410, and 2003(b); rate of non-occupant (e.g. pedestrians, pedalcyclists, and occupants of motor vehicles not in transport and of non-motor vehicle transport devices) fatalities per 100M VMT, which reflects some or all of the impact of 402 and 410; and rate of motorcycle rider highway fatalities per 100,000 motorcycle registrations, which reflects some or all of the impact of 402. Section 411 applies to all three long-term performance measures by improving the availability, accuracy and accessibility of the data used to calculate the measures. Additionally, Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU established a new program of incentive grants to encourage States to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce the number of single and multi-vehicle crashes involving motorcycle riders.

Evidence: The agency's specific strategic goal is to reduce the overall highway fatality rate to 1.37 deaths per 100 million miles of vehicle traveled (100M VMT) by FY2008. DOT 2006 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR); NHTSA FY 2008 Budget Submission to Congress; Year 2005 Traffic Safety Facts.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: NHTSA has developed specific quantifiable targets relative to its long term performance measures with ambitious targets and timeframes to promote continual improvement. With transportation safety as DOT's highest priority, the Department is firmly committed to meeting the fatality rate goal of 1.0 deaths per 100M VMT. To continue making our roads safer, a cross-modal working group (NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA, and OST) was established to identify new strategies and technologies that will reduce highway fatalities. New performance targets were established in key areas to focus the Department's efforts on the critical factors responsible for the overall highway fatality rate increase in 2005. These key focus areas include passenger vehicle occupants (of passenger cars, light trucks and vans), non-occupants (pedestrians, cyclists, etc.), motorcycle riders, and large trucks and buses. They were chosen in part to cover the breadth of all road users. In addition to the establishment of new performance measures for these focus areas, each mode will continue to maintain their agency-specific intermediate outcome measures, many of which serve as a subset to the Department's accountability measures. Early estimates show that the number of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities decreased in 2006 to 30,850 from 31,415 in 2005, a reduction of 1.8%. A further reduction in occupant fatalities and the passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate can be achieved by increased availability of front and side airbags, increased seat belt use, a reduction of alcohol and drug impaired driving and increased use of age-appropriate child safety seats. Motorcycle rider fatalities have increased each year for the past 9 years, since reaching a historic low of 2,116 fatalities in 1997. The 2006 motorcycle rider fatalities are projected at 4,798 which is a 5.4 percent increase in just one year and accounts for 11 percent of the 43,300 total fatalities in motor vehicle crashes in 2006. NHTSA recently published the 2006 Motorcycle Safety Program Plan, which is currently being implemented by the States. Additionally, Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU established a new program of incentive grants to encourage States to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce the number of single and multi-vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists, consisting of motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist awareness programs, including improvement of training curricula, delivery of training, recruitment or retention of motorcyclist safety instructors, and public awareness and outreach programs. According to the 2006 early projections, the number of non-occupants of all types (pedestrians, pedalcyclists and occupants of motor vehicles not in transport and of non-motor vehicle transport devices) killed in motor vehicle crashes decreased by 1.8 percent, primarily due to a 2.3 percent decrease in pedestrian fatalities. The targets established by the cross-modal working group are predicated upon previous years' FARS data with the goal to beat the trend with continuous improvement for each performance measure in support of attaining DOT's long-term goal to reduce the highway fatality rate to 1.0 deaths per 100M VMT by 2011.

Evidence: NHTSA FY 2008 Budget Request to Congress; DOT 2006-2011 Strategic Plan; NHTSA's 2006 Motorcycle Safety Program Plan (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/MotorcycleSafety2006.pdf).

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The various grant programs to support State and local highway safety have annual performance goals that inform states and NHTSA about progress toward the national goals. The authorized purpose of these grants is to reduce the traffic safety toll annually in each State and thereby contribute to achieving the national highway goals. The Agency also has targets and timeframes which are reviewed annually after the FARS data analysis and in preparation for the next year's budget. Annual performance measures that help measure progress towards achieving long term goals include: reduce the rate of .08+ BAC crashes per 100M VMT, increase the percentage of front seat occupants using shoulder harness seat belts, reduce the percentage of improperly licensed motorcyclists killed in fatal crashes, and increase restraint use among 0-7 year olds.

Evidence: NHTSA FY 2008 Budget Request to Congress.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The Agency annual goals are predicated upon previous years' FARS data with the goal to beat the trend with continuous improvement for each performance measure in support of attaining DOT's long-term goal to reduce the highway fatality rate to 1.0 deaths per 100M VMT by 2011. NHTSAs intermediate performance measures support both the overall DOT Safety goal and the new key focus area performance targets. NHTSAs intermediate performance measures for 2008 and beyond include: (1) reducing the fatality rate in crashes where blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was .08+; (2) increasing the percentage of front seat occupants using shoulder harness seat belts; (3) reducing the percentage of improperly licensed motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes; and (4) increasing restraint use among 0-7 year-olds. Recognizing that fatalities in crashes with blood alcohol concentrations that are above the legal limit (i.e. BAC .08 g/dL and above) make up 85 percent of the alcohol problem, for FY 2006 NHTSA created a new goal to reduce the rate of fatalities in .08+ BAC crashes for 2006 and beyond. Since seat belts are approximately 50 percent effective in preventing fatalities in severe crashes, NHTSA strongly encourages the passage and enforcement of primary laws. Seat belt targets are achievable only with cooperation from States and local communities since enforcement of primary laws has proven to be the most effective way to ensure more vehicle occupants buckle up. By increasing restraint use among all children, the occurrences of death and injury - if the appropriate restraint systems are used correctly - should continue to decline. The agency relies on the States, local communities and other groups to encourage the use of child restraints and booster seats and discourage placing children under 13 in the front seating position. In 2005, nearly one out of four motorcycle operators (24%) involved in fatal crashes were operating their vehicles with invalid licenses at the time of the collision, while only 12 percent of drivers of passenger vehicles in fatal crashes did not have valid licenses. Motorcycle operators involved in fatal traffic crashes were 1.4 times more likely than passenger vehicle drivers to have a previous license suspension or revocation (17% and 12%, respectively). Through NHTSA's Grant programs, the Agency supports further reduction in occupant and motorcycle rider fatalities, which can be achieved by reducing alcohol and drug impaired driving, increasing the use of seat belts and child safety seats, and reducing the percentage of improperly licensed motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes.

Evidence: NHTSA FY 2008 Budget Request to Congress; DOT 2006-2011 Strategic Plan.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: NHTSA's federal partners such as FHWA, FMCSA, CDC and National partners such as GHSA, IACP, MADD, SAFE KIDS, National Safety Council, AAA, TRB and Meharry Medical College are committed to reducing injuries and fatalities on the roadways and reaching the DOT long term goal of 1.0 fatality per 100M VMT. State-specific goals and performance measures all link logically to Agency long-term goals and ultimately impact on decreasing injuries and fatalities. States prepare an annual Highway Safety Plan and Performance Plan with goals, performance measures and targets and a description of planned countermeasures. At the end of the fiscal year, States submit an annual report that describes how they meet their state-specific, highway safety goals, measures and targets.

Evidence: 23 USC Chapter 4 §402; 23 CFR Part 1200.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, Section 412(d) & (f), the agency does have an independent evaluation (by DOT OIG and GAO) to ascertain if the program could be improved and/or become more effective. These evaluations are rigorous and are in accordance with full program evaluation as mandated by Congress. Sufficient detail is provided to the auditors including the interviewing of staff of NHTSA headquarters, NHTSA Regional Offices and some States. The results of such audits are reviewed by Congress and are due prior to the expiration of the authorization. Additionally, because the agency receives funding from the Highway Trust Fund, NHTSA is subject to annual review via financial audit. The Office of the Secretary (OST) selects an independent contractor to perform these financial audits. Furthermore, the agency constantly relies on achieving performance goals to assess performance information.

Evidence: 23 USC Chapter 4 §412 (d), (f). Evaluations are scheduled by independent, non-biased parties (such as GAO & IG) with no conflict of interest, per legislation requirements. Completed audits: GAO: Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of State Highway Safety Programs [GAO-03-474: 7/3/2002 - 5/14/2003]; Improved Monitoring and Oversight of Traffic Safety Data Program Are Needed: [GAO-05-24: 12/19/2003 - 11/4/2004]; OIG: Management Review/Special Management Review audit [start 05/2006; Draft and Final report forthcoming]. In process/scheduled audits: GAO: High Visibility & NHTSA Safety Grants [started 2/2007]; GAO: (Management Review (MR)/Special Management Review (SMR) audit [projected start in 2007].

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: NHTSA's annual budget is designed to indicate how agency program and grant resources are aligned, planned and programmed in the key areas of highway safety, including grant programs, various highway safety performance and incentive grants, related research and development, and supporting safety data analysis.

Evidence: NHTSA FY 2008 Budget Request to Congress.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The agency has utilized time, performance information and the support of the States, to take the grant process through successive planning processes to reflect safety requirements and effectiveness in meeting State and local programmatic needs. Additionally, the DOT Strategic Plan sets a number of short range and long range goals that assists the agency in overcoming deficiencies. Furthermore, the grant program has evolved into a more effective, performance-based initiative that allows States to plan and administer the grants in line with both their unique safety needs and overall safety priorities while still working toward National goals. The Agency's short range goals are adjusted annually as needed based upon trends in traffic data.

Evidence: DOT Strategic Plan 2006-2011, September 2006; NHTSA FY 2008 Budget Request to Congress.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: States collect timely and credible performance information in several ways. Two examples are through the Click It or Ticket (CIOT) and impaired driving mobilizations. Both mobilizations utilize high visibility enforcement and a media campaign that require reporting of performance information such as media impressions, results of knowledge and awareness pre/post phone surveys, and tickets. In FY2005, NHTSA developed and pilot tested an internet based online reporting system to improve the timeliness, uniformity and accuracy of the mobilization reporting. The pilot test was successful, and online reporting was implemented nationwide in FY2006. In addition, States conduct an annual seat belt observation survey using NHTSA approved methodology to obtain their State's seat belt use rate. States also use quarterly and annual reports from sub-grantees, management and special management reviews, and program assessments, to measure progress towards meeting annual performance measures and to make program adjustments. The Agency also conducts a National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) to determine annual seat belt use rates and publishes fatality data (Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)), which is collected from States.

Evidence: NOPUS Report, State Seat Belt Use Rate Research Note, Evaluation of May 2005 Seat Belt Mobilization; Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Reports.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Grantees are held accountable for cost (e.g. were the funds used in accordance with federal regulations); additionally, the agency encourages them to make corrections in deficient program areas by amending or creating laws that comply with the agency's incentive grant program. When a State receives one of the agency's incentive grants, they are awarded the grant based upon meeting certain law, data and/or programmatic criterion. Under TEA-21, the Agency managed Section 405 and Section 410 incentive grant programs. The passage of SAFETEA-LU created 5 new incentive grant programs: Section 406, Section 408, Section 1906, Section 2010 and Section 2011, whereby States may apply for and receive grant funds based upon meeting certain performance results. Additionally, through the agency's Special Management Review process, States are identified as candidates for Special Management Review of occupant protection and/or impaired driving programs if the State: (a) Performed worse than the national average in each of the previous three years, and (b) Registered less than half as much improvement over the three consecutive years (compared to the base year) as did the nation as a whole. Managers and program partners are held accountable to the cost, schedule and performance results.

Evidence: 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 405; 23 CFR Part 1345; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 410; OMB Circular A-87 & A-133; Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Reports; Grant Management Manual on the Web; NHTSA policy on MR and SMR http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/SAFETEAweb/pages/MgmtReviews.htm.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Federal funds are distributed to grantees within the time required by the agency efficiency measure. Through the Grants Tracking System (GTS) the agency has immediate access to see when funds are obligated and expended, and to which highway safety program area. Additionally, on a quarterly basis, NHTSA regional program managers review and discuss with States their liquidation rates and draw downs, using nationwide data as a benchmark. States, in turn, monitor liquidation of obligated funds through monthly vouchers and quarterly reports from sub-grantees.

Evidence: 23CFR Part 1200; Grants Tracking System (GTS); Grant Management Efficiency Measure.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Grants Tracking System (GTS) has helped maintain overall program efficiencies and cost effectiveness. Additionally, the GTS is reviewed quarterly by the IT Review Board in which GTS is reviewed for meeting its performance measures [number of service request calls per month (tracked through 5-HELP & email), timeframe for problem resolution, transaction volume by years (projected volume by month/day vs. actual transactions per month/day) of vouchers; advances and Highway Cost Summary (HCS)]. NHTSA's GTS is projected to start migrating in FY 2008 to one new DOT Grant Management system to help achieve efficiency and cost effectiveness, with projected completion by FY 2009. NHTSA provides oversight on expenditures through review of the annual Highway Safety Plan, Management Reviews, Special Management Reviews, assessments, as well as through routinely scheduled on-site fiscal reviews. States are also required to obtain NHTSA Regional Office approval for purchase of equipment over a $5,000 threshold. Additionally, the agency ensures that grant funds are distributed to States in accordance with the timeframe established by the Grant Management efficiency measure. Another example of efficiencies and cost effectiveness involves the important element of reporting in NHTSA's annual high visibility seat belt enforcement campaign, Click It or Ticket (CIOT). Reports from participating law enforcement agencies on hours worked, enforcement events conducted and tickets written (among other activities) help NHTSA assess the campaign's intensity, which is then correlated with observed increases in seat belt use. NHTSA relied on manual (paper and pencil) reporting from the campaign's inception through 2004, and then began to introduce an electronic (on-line) reporting system. In 2005, when the system was pilot tested in 3 of the 10 NHTSA regions, the number of law enforcement agencies reporting increased by 7.9% even though the number participating in the CIOT campaign declined by 1.8%. When the on-line system was implemented nationwide in 2006, agencies reporting through the on-line system increased another 7.8%, while agencies participating in CIOT grew by only 4.3%.

Evidence: 49 CFR Part 18; OMB Cost Principles; Grant Management Manual on the Web and Quarterly review of the GTS by NHTSA OCIO; Grant Management Efficiency Measure; May 2004 Click It or Ticket Safety Belt Mobilization Evaluation; Evaluation of the May 2005 Mobilization: Programs to Increase Safety Belt Use; Internal NHTSA reports on the Click It or Ticket mobilizations, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: There is effective collaboration with numerous Federal and non-federal traffic safety related programs. Some examples include: collaboration with FHWA on development of State Strategic Highway Safety Plans; collaboration with FMCSA on the Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks (TACT) program; intermodal oversight of State data systems; partnering with SAFE KIDS on child passenger safety; and partnering with BIA, ASPIRA, and Meharry Medical College to develop culturally appropriate programs; and the Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA) which is comprised of each governor's representatives for traffic safety. The Section 402 grant program effectively collaborates with the other grant programs as the monies are able to be used in coordination with other grant programs. All other grant monies received by the State must be used for their individual purpose.

Evidence: 23USC Chapter 4, Revised June 9, 1998; 23 USC and 23 CFR Part 1345; http://www.usa.safekids.org/; http://www.ghsa.org/; http://www.aamva.org/.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Grant program is included in the Single Audit of all grantees; no material internal weaknesses have been identified by the auditors. Annually, the agency's Regional Offices review select transactions of the agency's grantees to ensure validity of the payments. In addition, each year, each of NHTSA's 10 Regional Offices does a management internal control review of their offices. If any weaknesses are identified, they are immediately corrected.

Evidence: 23 CFR Part 1200, GTS System ; Eastern Region (Region 2) Risk Assessment.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: There are several processes in place to identify management deficiencies. The Grants Tracking System (GTS) was designed to replace the manual accounting system with a computerized system that would expedite transmission of financial data and reduce entry errors, which were common in the manual system. The GTS was also designed to help streamline the States' fiscal management process and reduce the workload associated with meeting Federal reporting requirements. Management Reviews are conducted to review systems, programs, and operations to improve and strengthen highway safety processes and ensure efficient administration and effective programs. If deficiencies are found, a time-framed Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is implemented. States with substandard performance are subject to Special Management Reviews and adherence to a Performance Enhancement Plan (PEP).

Evidence: 23 CFR Part 1200; ALABAMA CAP 2005 rev 1.doc; SC PEP 12-21-2005.doc; FY05 R4 SMR SB Final Rpt.doc; FY05 R4 AL MR Final Rpt.doc.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: States are required to submit an annual Highway Safety Plan detailing proposed activities. Actual expenditures are tracked through the GTS system. Regional Office staff perform management reviews, make on-site reviews to visit State offices and project sites. Competitive grant monies awarded to the States are incorporated into the Highway Safety Plan and expenditures are tracked through the GTS system. States track sub-grantee activities through regularly scheduled desk or on-site monitoring, voucher reviews and quarterly reports.

Evidence: 23 CFR Part 1200; 23 USC Chapter 4 Section 412.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Each grantee is required to submit an Annual Report on the results of their program. These are available to the public on the NHTSA website. Also, NHTSA publishes annual data from the Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and State seat belt use surveys that indicate a grantee's highway safety performance.

Evidence: 23 CFR Part 1200; Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Reports; http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/SAFETEAweb/pages/AnnualReports.htm.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: NHTSA has made progress toward reaching long term outcome goals. After two consecutive years of a decline in overall highway fatalities and the lowest recorded fatality rate in history documented in 2004, there was a fatality increase of 1.4 percent from 2004 to 2005. The increase comes from a continued dramatic rise in motorcycle fatalities and an increase in pedestrian fatalities. These increases more than offset decreases made in alcohol related fatalities and vehicle occupant fatalities. When viewing fatality changes it is important to look at larger blocks of time to see the full impact of what has been accomplished. For example, the occupant fatality rate per 100,000 population decreased 1.6 percent from 1992 to 2005 and the non-occupant fatality rate per 100,000 population decreased by 50.6 percent from 1975 to 2005. NHTSA staff work closely with States and States work closely with local jurisdictions to align goals as much as possible. Congressionally authorized funding also dictates that incentive funding includes activities that will help NHTSA reach both long term and annual goals. While firmly committed to meeting the 1.0 fatality rate goal, the Department has realized that we will not achieve the goal by FY 2008 as originally planned, despite great strides made toward the attainment of this ambitious goal. The overall fatality rate has decreased from 1.55 fatalities per 100M VMT in 1999 to 1.45 fatalities per 100M VMT in 2005. The passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate, an area where NHTSA has the greatest control, has steadily improved and is projected to reach 1.0 in 2010, especially given recent technology advancements (e.g., ESC [electronic stability control]). While great strides have been made, motorcycle fatalities continue to skyrocket (during the past 8 consecutive years), which has a significant impact on the overall fatality numbers and rates. It will take renewed commitment and support from the entire transportation community, as well as a comprehensive mix of strategies and cooperation among Federal, State, and local levels. The agency will focus on providing real incentives for States to enact stronger seat belt use laws and increase child passenger, pedestrian, and motorcycle safety.

Evidence: NHTSA FY2008 Budget Request to Congress; 2005 FARS Annual File (Aug 2006) and 2004 FARS Final File.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The Department met its annual performance target for seat belt use and when compared against the baseline, made achievements in both seat belt use and rate of alcohol related fatalities per 100M VMT. In addition, in 2005, the percentage of fatally injured motorcyclists who were improperly licensed declined. It should also be noted that in 2005 the agency shifted goals from decreasing occupant fatalities in 0-4 year-olds to decreasing occupant fatalities in 0-7 year-olds. This was based on the fact it had surpassed the 2005 goal for 0-4 year-olds in 2002. The 2005 target for 0-7 year olds was based on one year's data and has since been rebaselined to a more realistic target. Between1995 and 2005, NHTSA's work to increase child restraint and seat belt use has resulted in an estimated 219,024 lives being saved. States and local communities are actively supporting achievement of the highway fatality reduction goals even though they are not required to meet NHTSA's performance goals.

Evidence: NHTSA FY2005 Performance Plan (Feb 2004); 2005 FARS Annual File (Aug 2006); 2004 FARS Final File; 2004 and 2005 NOPUS.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: One measure used to track the success of our high visibility seat belt enforcement campaign is the total amount spent on paid advertisement. In 2004, approximately $32 million was spent on paid advertisement and the number of seat belt citations issued was 657,305. In 2005, approximately $33 million was spent on paid media: the number of seat belt citations issued was 727,271, at a reduced cost per citation. The increase in media buys, in conjunction with the number of citations produced, increased seat belt use among front seat occupants of passenger vehicles from 80% in 2004 to 82% in 2005. Additionally, the distribution of funds took an average of 22.5 days to complete in 2005, at $19.1K per day. With a target of 21 days, the distributions took an additional 1.5 days to complete, for a cost of $28.7K. (The present value to the States of receiving their allocation earlier was computed using a 3% discount factor to represent the social rate of time preference.)

Evidence: May 2004 Click It or Ticket Safety Belt Mobilization Evaluation; Evaluation of the May 2005 Mobilization: Programs to Increase Safety Belt Use; Internal NHTSA reports on the Click It or Ticket mobilizations, 2004, 2005 and 2006; GTS (dates for advice of funds and distribution of funds); Exhibit 300.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Several agencies within the Federal government strive to reduce unintentional fatalities and injuries. Within the Department of Transportation (DOT), NHTSA, FHWA, and FMCSA share responsibility for reaching a fatality rate goal of 1.0 per 100M VMT. Each of the three agencies has different areas of responsibility that contribute to the overall goal. NHTSA compares favorably in meeting a share of the responsibility. Organizations outside of DOT, such as, MADD, SAFE KIDS, the Safety Council and AAA partner with NHTSA to reduce highway fatalities. It would be very difficult to assess whether these organizations are more or less effective than NHTSA.

Evidence: NHTSA FY2005 Performance Plan (Feb 2004); FHWA 1998 National Strategic Plan; FMCSA website (Facts and Research, Office of research and Analysis).

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The results of independent and ongoing evaluations of its grant programs (GAO, OMB, OIG, Highway Trust Fund Audit) have produced changes in the agency's evaluation of its grantees, e.g. GAO Report 03-474 in which GAO recommended 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. The agency has also undertaken national evaluations of the impact of State and community grants to determine effectiveness in addressing major national safety issues and whether measurable results are being achieved. The evaluation concluded that grants were a critical part of the national strategy to reduce the highway fatality rate, playing a leadership role, assuring that State and local programs focus on key national issues, while also not supplanting the much larger (98 percent) program share allocated by States, communities and the private sector. It also reported major progress in numerous crucial safety areas, such as impaired driving, occupant protection, police enforcement, traffic records, emergency medical services and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcycle riders. The agency conducts evaluations of specific traffic safety countermeasures through its Office of Research, Evaluation and Traffic Records.

Evidence: Department of Transportation, Highway Trust Fund Independent Auditor's Report and Financial Statements September 30, 2004 and 2005; 2004 Traffic Safety Annual Assessment - Early Results A Brief Statistical Summary DOT HS 809 8972004, August 2005; GAO 05-24 Highway Safety: Improved Monitoring and Oversight of Traffic Safety Data Program Are Needed, November 4, 2004;GAO 03-474 Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of State Highway Safety Programs, April 2003 Report to Congress on Guidance and Oversight of State Highway Safety Grant Programs, April 2004; Development and Evaluation of a Comprehensive Program to Reduce Drinking and Impaired Driving Among College Students, February 2002; Identification and Referral of Impaired Drivers Through Emergency Department Protocols DOT HS 809 412, February 2002.These are just a few examples. The agency has been conducting evaluations of safety countermeasures for over 20 years.