Through SAFETEA-LU, Congress authorized nearly $2.2 billion for 4 years,  from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, for seven programs to provide safety  grants to assist states in their efforts to reduce traffic fatalities (see   table 1). One of these criteria is to pass a safety belt law providing for primary  enforcement, which allows law enforcement officers to stop a driver for  not wearing a safety belt. With the exception of the safety belt grant program, the number of states  receiving the grants remained constant or increased from fiscal year 2006  to 2007, although the extent to which states qualified for the different  grants varied, with fewer states receiving grants that require passing a law. The decline in the  number of states receiving Safety Belt Use grants—from 22 states in  fiscal year 2006 to 18 states in fiscal year 2007—reflects the fact that states  passing a primary safety belt law for the first time received grants in a  single year, while 16 states that had the law in place prior to 2003, received  the grant over 2 years:  In fiscal year 2006, 6 states qualified for grants by enacting laws to  implement and enforce primary safety belt laws, in addition to the 16  states that had primary safety belt laws prior to 2003; these 6 states  received the full amount of their grants in fiscal year 2006, while the 16  states received a first installment of their grants. 3). NHTSA Uses Several Oversight Processes to Assess States’ Progress toward Safety Goals and Monitor States’ Use of Grant Funds

NHTSA uses several processes to determine the extent to which states are  meeting safety-related performance goals that grant-funded activities are  designed to address and monitor how the states spend grant funds. Specifically, NHTSA uses a performance-based approach to assess state  progress toward meeting safety goals and complements this assessment  with oversight processes that monitor whether states are accomplishing  the tasks that will allow the state to achieve its goals. States Are Planning and Implementing Safety Improvement Activities, but the Structure of the Grant Programs Has Created Eligibility and Management Difficulties

Using grant funds, states are planning and implementing safety  improvement activities to address the key traffic safety issues in their  states, but the structure of the grant programs has created eligibility  difficulties for states, as well as management difficulties for governors’  highway safety offices that administer the grants. These activities generally fall within five categories of activities— education and training, media and public information, enforcement, data  and technology, and infrastructure improvements (see table 2). Safety  officials we spoke with in seven selected states agree that the safety  incentive grant programs are assisting states in implementing activities  that address key safety issues. The Traffic Safety Information Systems grant program allows states to  focus activities specifically on data and technology activities. Some States Have Faced Difficulties in Passing Laws to Meet Eligibility Requirements and Manage Grants

While state safety officials we contacted during site visits agreed that the  grants are helping states address key safety issues, they also noted  difficulties in passing laws to meet eligibility requirements for some  grants, as well as managing grant applications, deadlines, and timing. NHTSA officials agree with state officials’ concerns but noted they cannot  take action to address these issues because the challenges stem from the  grant requirements built into the law itself. NHTSA Plans to Develop More Comprehensive Performance Measures; Performance Accountability Mechanisms and Issues States Face in Using Grants Raise Implications for Reauthorization

NHTSA plans to develop more comprehensive performance measures to  evaluate the results of these grant programs, but state performance is not  tied to the receipt of the grants; the absence of such performance  accountability mechanisms, as well as issues described above that states  face in using grants, raise implications for reauthorization. As previously noted, we are currently examining NHTSA’s  oversight approach and expect to issue a report on it in July 2008. DOT officials, including the Deputy Administrator of NHTSA, generally  agreed with the findings of the report and offered technical corrections  that we incorporated, as appropriate. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to evaluate five safety incentive grant programs included in  the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act  (SAFETEA-LU), specifically the Safety Belt Use, Child Safety and Child  Booster Seat Use, Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures,  Motorcyclist Safety, and State Traffic Safety Data Systems Improvement  grant programs. This report addresses (1) the National Highway Traffic  Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) status in awarding and overseeing states’  use of these grant programs, (2) 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 the programs.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) included authorizations of nearly $2.2 billion for safety incentive grant programs to assist states in their efforts to reduce traffic fatalities. Administered by the Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), five of these programs provide incentive grants to states to implement legislation governing the use of safety belts and child safety seats, and promote activities to reduce alcohol-impaired driving, improve motorcycle training and awareness, and improve traffic safety information systems. To help Congress prepare for the reauthorization of the surface transportation programs in 2009, this report provides information on (1) NHTSA's status in awarding and overseeing states' use of these five grants programs, (2) activities states have conducted using the grants and issues they have faced in applying for and implementing the grants, and (3) how NHTSA plans to evaluate the results of the grant programs and implications for reauthorizing the programs. To conduct this work, GAO interviewed DOT and state officials, analyzed safety reports from 50 states, and analyzed grant data from DOT and 7 selected states. DOT officials generally agreed with the findings of the report and offered technical corrections that were incorporated, as appropriate.

What GAO Found

In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about $575 million to states for the five safety incentive grant programs; NHTSA uses several oversight processes to determine the extent to which states are meeting safety-related performance goals and to monitor how the states spend grant funds. The number of states receiving the grants generally remained constant or increased from fiscal year 2006 to 2007, although the extent to which states qualified for the different grant programs 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 the grant programs required, while the majority of states received the other grants. To oversee states' use of grants, NHTSA uses a performance-based approach to assess state progress toward meeting safety goals and complements this assessment with oversight processes that monitor whether states are accomplishing the tasks that will allow the state to achieve its goals. This approach allows NHTSA to be involved throughout the lifecycle of state grants. In response to a mandate to evaluate the effectiveness of NHTSA's oversight process, GAO plans to issue a report in July 2008. States are planning and implementing safety improvement activities using grant funds, but the structure of the grant programs has created eligibility and management difficulties for states. The activities generally fall within five categories--education and training, media and public information, enforcement, data and technology, and infrastructure improvements. Safety officials GAO spoke with in seven selected states agree that the safety incentive grant programs are assisting states in implementing activities that address key safety issues and meeting goals and performance measures established in state highway safety plans. However, state safety officials also noted difficulties in passing laws to meet eligibility requirements for some grant programs, as well as managing grant applications, deadlines, and timing. For example, not all states have passed a primary safety belt law, which allows law enforcement officers to stop a driver for not wearing a safety belt and is required to qualify for a Safety Belt Use grant. The selected states have also had difficulty managing the multiple grant applications, which are all due within a 3-month period. NHTSA officials acknowledge state officials' concerns but noted they cannot address the concerns because the difficulties stem from the grant requirements established in SAFETEA-LU. NHTSA plans to develop additional performance measures to evaluate the results of these grant programs, but state performance is generally not tied to receipt of the grants; the absence of such performance accountability mechanisms as well as issues described above that states face in using grants raise implications for reauthorization. Congress will be faced with deciding whether the grant programs could be designed differently to allow states more flexibility in using grant funds and to focus more specifically on performance accountability, as some have advocated. However, these changes would require improved safety data and a robust accountability system.