At the federal level, NHTSA provides guidelines,  recommendations, and technical assistance to help states improve their  crash data systems and is responsible for overseeing state highway safety  programs. Quality of Data Systems Varied Greatly, with All States Examined Showing a Need for Improvement

The 9 states we examined in detail varied considerably in the extent to  which their traffic safety data systems met NHTSA’s recommended criteria  for the quality of crash information. However, relatively little is known  about the extent to which they made progress in improving their traffic  safety data systems for the years of the grant. However, the required documents filed with NHTSA  yielded little or no information on what states had achieved. Case-study States Conducted a Variety of Activities Ranging from One Specific Project to a Variety of Activities

Our visits to 8 of the states that participated in the 411 grant program  yielded additional information and documentation about their grant  activities, the nature of their efforts, and the extent of progress made. According to officials at the state department of  transportation, however, improvements in the crash information did not  effectively serve to facilitate the state’s use of crash data to identify unsafe  roadways because the state department of transportation was not fully  engaged in the coordinating committee’s process. In  addition, the agency did not have an effective process for monitoring  progress and ensuring that grant monies were being spent as intended. For  example:
Some states provided brief descriptions of the activities completed or  under way, while others did not. As the previous proposed bills were drafted, however, they omitted one  requirement that will be important in tracking state progress—the  requirement for a state to have an assessment of its traffic safety data  system no more than 5 years prior to participating in the 411 grant program. If the program is reauthorized,  NHTSA should develop an oversight process that does a better job of (1)  tracking state activities to their strategic plans and assessments, (2)  providing information about progress made in improving safety data, and  (3) ensuring that NHTSA can adequately manage the documentation it is  requiring. Finally, one requirement present in the earlier program—up-to-date  assessments of state traffic safety data systems—was not included in  recent proposals to reauthorize the 411 grant program. Second, department officials noted that their oversight  of the 411 grant program was in accordance with the statutory  requirements. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives in this report were to identify (1) the quality of state crash  information; (2) the activities states undertook using 411 grant funds to  improve their traffic safety data systems, and progress made using the data  improvement grants; and (3) the National Highway Traffic Safety  Administration’s (NHTSA) oversight of the grant program, including what  changes in oversight, if any, might help encourage states to improve traffic  safety data systems and ensure accountability under a reauthorized  program. We found these thresholds differed from state to state. Even for states that collected information about uninjured  passengers, the information may be incomplete. One element relates to whether the officer suspects  alcohol or drug use, and the other to an actual test for alcohol or drugs.
Why GAO Did This Study

Auto crashes kill or injure millions of people each year. Information about where and why such crashes occur is important in reducing this toll, both for identifying particular hazards and for planning safety efforts at the state and federal levels. Differences in the quality of state traffic data from state to state, however, affect the usability of data for these purposes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a grant program to help states improve the safety data systems that collect and analyze crash data from police and sheriff's offices and other agencies, and the Congress is considering whether to reauthorize and expand the program. The Senate Appropriations Committee directed GAO to study state systems and the grant program. Accordingly, GAO examined (1) the quality of state crash information, (2) the activities states undertook to improve their traffic records systems and any progress made, and (3) NHTSA's oversight of the grant program.

What GAO Found

States vary considerably in the extent to which their traffic safety data systems meet recommended criteria used by NHTSA to assess the quality of crash information. These criteria relate to whether the information is timely, consistent, complete, and accurate, as well as to whether it is available to users and integrated with other relevant information, such as that in the driver history files. GAO reviewed systems in 9 states and found, for example, that some states entered crash information into their systems in a matter of weeks, while others took a year or more. While some systems were better than others, all had opportunities for improvement. States reported carrying out a range of activities to improve their traffic safety data systems with the grants they received from NHTSA. Relatively little is known about the extent to which these activities improved the systems, largely because the documents submitted to NHTSA contained little or no information about what the activities accomplished. The states GAO reviewed used their grant funds for a variety of projects and showed varying degrees of progress. These efforts included completing strategic plans, hiring consultants, and buying equipment to facilitate data collection. NHTSA officials said their oversight of the grant program complied with the statutory requirements, but for two main reasons, it does not provide a useful picture of what states were accomplishing. First, the agency did not provide adequate guidance to ensure that states provided accurate and complete data on what they were accomplishing with their grants. Second, it did not have an effective process for monitoring progress. The agency has begun to take some actions to strengthen oversight of all its grant programs. If the Congress decides to reauthorize the program, however, additional steps are needed to provide effective oversight of this particular program. GAO also noted that in proposing legislation to reauthorize the program, one requirement was omitted that may be helpful in assessing progress--the requirement for states to have an up to date assessment of their traffic data systems.