The page contains questions about the location of the HSO within the DOT or another agency, followed by a request for the HSO website link. It asks who the DOT HSIP manager reports to, offering options such as the head of the DOT, executive staff, the state highway safety engineer, or other division heads. It lists selectable job duties for the HSIP manager, including completing reports, approving, evaluating, identifying, and selecting projects, leading education or outreach, and tracking budgets. The page ends with a question about who the state head of HSO reports to, with choices such as the governor, directors of public safety, motor vehicles, or the DOT, along with other state departments or division heads.

The page asks which entities have organizational charts and requests links to any HSIP or HSO charts. It includes a table for estimating staff counts for HSIP and HSO across several number ranges. It asks which agency serves as custodian of the SHSP. The page ends with a rating table where respondents score coordination between HSIP and HSO for activities such as funding allocation, crash data analysis, behavioral safety efforts, and emergency medical coordination on a scale from low to high.

The page continues a rating table where respondents score coordination between HSIP and HSO across a wide set of activities, including law enforcement coordination, development of plans and reports, engagement with local agencies, identifying delivery methods, safety focus areas and strategies, evaluating projects, screening and selecting projects, public participation, road safety audits, outreach, and safety planning. An option for other activities is included. A second table asks respondents to rate coordination for specific programs such as high risk rural roads and railroad at-grade crossings, using a scale from low to high, with an option for not applicable.

The page presents additional programs such as safe routes to school, use of penalty funds, and vulnerable road user assessment, asking respondents to rate coordination between HSIP and HSO on a scale from low to high, with an option for not applicable. It then provides a table to identify the lead agency for each program, offering choices for HSIP, HSO, or another program lead. Below the table, the page lists the same programs again with blank spaces for respondents to specify the lead agency for any programs where other is selected.

The page asks how the state uses penalty funds, offering choices such as alcohol impaired driving programs, eligible activities under HSIP, emergency medical services, or other uses. It then provides a rating table for estimating coordination between HSIP and HSO across safety focus areas including aggressive driving, commercial vehicles, distracted and impaired driving, crashes at intersections and lanes, motorcyclist safety, occupant protection, older and teen drivers, speeding, vulnerable road users, work zones, and any other specified areas. It ends with a list of selectable methods the state may use to coordinate HSIP and HSO activities, including decision rules, designated liaison personnel, and formal agreements.

The page provides additional methods for coordinating HSIP and HSO activities, including regular or irregular meetings, sharing documents, using standard procedures, forming a steering committee, or selecting another method. It asks whether the state has developed resources such as guidance or policy documents to support coordination and requests links if they exist. It then asks which agency serves as custodian of the state’s crash data, offering the DOT, the state highway patrol, or another specified agency. A rating table follows, asking respondents to estimate how strongly HSIP and HSO share various information and resources, including analysis tools, artificial intelligence analyses, crowd sourced data, crash data, dashboards, data collection practices, data from local agencies, and data prepared for public sharing.

The page continues the rating table by asking how strongly HSIP and HSO share additional resources such as law enforcement feedback, public participation feedback, performance metrics, safety analysis results, and any other specified information. It then provides a table for identifying which entity maintains different dashboard types, including crash statistics, project status, funding allocation, and other data collection efforts, with options for HSIP only, HSO only, both, another state agency, or not developed. A section below lists dashboard types selected as maintained by another state agency and provides blank fields for respondents to name the responsible agency for each.

The page asks which dashboard types maintained by the state are publicly available, including crash statistics, project status, funding allocation, other data collection efforts, or none. It then lists methods used to share information between HSO and HSIP, such as regular data pushes, requests as needed, data sharing agreements, shared servers, or other methods. Another question asks which entity typically leads public participation and engagement efforts, with choices for HSIP, HSO, either depending on context, or another specified option. The page ends with options describing how HSIP and HSO collaborate on public participation and engagement, including joint activities, sharing results as needed, or sharing results on a regular basis, website sharing, or other means.

The page asks respondents to choose up to three challenges that hinder coordination between HSIP and HSO, offering issues such as data availability, differing data practices, structural differences, evaluating performance, funding limits, partner coordination needs, staffing limits, or stakeholder concerns. It then asks whether the DOT has other opportunities to discuss safety efforts with the HSO if they do not coordinate during the HSIP process. Another question asks whether the agency is interested in participating in a case example that involves an interview and review of a written summary. The page ends by asking which statement best describes how HSIP and HSO collaborated to complete the survey, with options indicating joint completion or sharing survey questions for input, that the DOT completed the survey and the HSO reviewed the responses, that the DOT completed the survey without any HSO input, or that another collaboration approach was used, with space provided to describe it.