SUMMARY
Coordination of Highway Safety Improvement Program and Highway Safety Office Activities

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and the State Highway Safety Program are federal initiatives seeking to improve highway safety and reduce fatal and serious injuries on the nationʼs roadways through the implementation of education, emergency services, enforcement, and engineering safety countermeasures. States administer these programs to select and implement projects and programs in accordance with their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). HSIPs are typically administered by state departments of transportation (DOTs) and may have different structures (e.g., centralized versus decentralized) within each DOT. The State Highway Safety Program is managed by Highway Safety Offices (HSOs) in each state, which may be housed in the DOT or in another state agency. There is a need for review of state practices for coordinating their HSIPs and HSOs.

The objective of the synthesis was to review and document DOT practices for coordinating HSIP and HSO management, practices, and associated funding in both their program structures, and their processes for planning, implementation, data sharing, evaluation, and reporting. The synthesis scope included various topics related to HSIP and HSO coordination [e.g., organizational structures, coordination of activities, sharing of data and resources, and public participation and engagement (PP&E) efforts].

Attainment of the synthesis objectives involved the following three major tasks: a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and follow-up interviews with selected states. Various sources such as guidance documents (general and DOT-specific), research reports, SHSPs, HSIP reports, Highway Safety Plans (HSPs), HSO annual reports, and HSO annual grant applications were reviewed. An online survey questionnaire was distributed to all 50 state DOTs and the District of Columbia DOT. Survey responses were received from 46 DOTs (a response rate of 90%). After completion of the survey, case examples for six DOTs (i.e., Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and Tennessee) were developed through follow-up interviews. These six DOTs were selected for case example interviews based on willingness to participate and diversity with respect to organizational structure, geography, and whether the HSIP and HSO are in the same agency.

Synthesis findings indicate that, although HSIPs and HSOs tend to function independently, they collaborate on a wide range of activities. The HSOs tend to focus primarily on behavioral safety, while the HSIPs focus on infrastructure improvements for safety. Survey results show that the activities with the highest average level of coordination (on a scale of 1 to 5) between HSIPs and HSOs are SHSP development (average score of 4.5), identification of safety focus areas (average score of 4.2), and analysis of crash data (average score of 4.0), while the activities with the lowest average level of coordination are identification of project delivery methods (average score of 2.3), project screening and selection (average score of 2.3), and project evaluation after construction (average score of 2.2). The most frequently used

coordination methods are regular meetings (29 responding DOTs) and document sharing (28 responding DOTs), suggesting that structured communication is a key component of cross-program integration.

For safety planning and reporting, 41 of the responding DOTs are the custodians of their SHSPs, with 5 responding DOTs indicating that another state agency is the SHSP custodian. DOTs collaborate with the HSO and other stakeholders [e.g., metropolitan planning organizations, local municipalities, law enforcement, emergency medical services (EMS), tribal agencies, academia, FHWA, and NHTSA] on developing SHSPs, HSPs, and HSIPs. Many states have committees to oversee their SHSP and other safety plans. In most instances, HSIP and HSP strategies and performance measures align with the SHSP. The level of collaboration between HSIPs and HSOs in developing the HSIP report and HSP varies by state. Coordination often involves data sharing, attending meetings, stakeholder engagement, and alignment of program areas.

HSIPs and HSOs also collaborate on emphasis areas and various programs. States use emphasis area teams to champion specific safety priority topics and develop strategies. Regarding safety emphasis areas, the average coordination level is highest for vulnerable road users (VRUs) (average score 3.7 out of 5) and speeding (average score of 3.5) and lowest for aggressive driving (average score of 2.9) and commercial vehicles (average score of 2.8). For coordination of programs, the average coordination level is highest for VRU Safety Assessment (VRUSA) (average score of 3.5) and lowest for railroad at-grade crossings (average score of 1.8). Most states assign leadership for infrastructure-heavy programs (e.g., VRUSA and HRRR) to the HSIP, while the HSO most often leads behavioral programs (e.g., NHTSA penalty fund use).

HSIPs and HSOs also collaborate on funding. Although HSIP funds and NHTSA penalty funds are used in different ways, in some cases, they are shared between the HSIP and HSO by mutual agreement. Programs related to alcohol-impaired driving and HSIP-eligible activities are the most common uses of NHTSA penalty funds—each reported by 23 responding DOTs—showing a balanced investment in behavioral and infrastructure safety. HSIP funds are allocated using different methods (e.g., SHSP emphasis area data, benefit-cost criteria, distribution to districts based on fatalities and serious injuries, and competitive application processes). HSIP funds typically are used for infrastructure improvements but may be used for other purposes (e.g., outreach campaigns).

Although the literature review identified various general resources for HSIPs, HSOs, and interagency coordination, the review did not find any resources specifically focused on HSIP-HSO coordination. Seven responding DOTs indicated that their states have developed formal guidance or policy documents to support coordination between the HSIP and HSO.

Processes for sharing data and information tend to be informal—the most common method for sharing data and information is as-needed data requests (28 responding DOTs), followed by routine data pushes (23 responding DOTs). Formal agreements (11 responding DOTs) and shared servers (7 responding DOTs) are less common. Crash data was reported as the most shared information between HSIPs and HSOs, with an average rating of 4.7 on a 5-point scale, followed by performance metrics (4.3) and dashboards (4.1). In contrast, crowdsourced data and artificial intelligence (AI) analyses received the lowest ratings (2.1 and 1.7, respectively), reflecting limited use and/or sharing of these emerging technologies. There is a wide range of custodians for crash data. While 21 responding DOTs identified the DOT as the custodian of crash data, the remaining respondents indicated custodianship was split between the State Highway Patrol (8 responding DOTs) and other state agencies (17 responding DOTs). Traffic Records Coordinating Committees (TRCCs), which consist of staff from various agencies such as DOTs, HSOs, police, and public health, serve as the backbone for crash data coordination and quality improvement for many states.

HSIPs and HSOs also collaborate on performance measures and dashboards. HSIPs and HSOs coordinate heavily on the five required performance measures (i.e., number of fatalities, number of serious injuries, fatality rate, serious injury rate, and nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries) and other safety performance measures. Although HSIPs and HSOs maintain various types of internal and public-facing dashboards, the dashboards tend to focus most on crash statistics. Dashboards for crash statistics are the type of dashboard most often maintained jointly by HSIPs and HSOs (25 responding DOTs). Funding allocation dashboards are less common, with 14 responding DOTs indicating that they are maintained by the HSIP or the HSIP and HSO. Dashboards for crash statistics are also the most publicly accessible type of dashboard (34 responding DOTs). Public-facing dashboards include such options as viewing crash statistics and making queries (e.g., mapping crashes and lists of high-crash locations).

Regarding PP&E efforts, 28 responding DOTs indicated that leadership for PP&E efforts varies depending on the context, with responsibilities typically shared between the HSIP and HSO. The most reported method for collaboration on PP&E efforts was sharing results on an as-needed basis (25 responding DOTs). HSIPs and HSOs often collaborate on various public outreach and engagement efforts. Example outreach strategies include community events, surveys, websites, and coordinating with local agencies.

For organizational structure, synthesis findings indicate that the distribution of HSOs between DOTs and other state agencies is relatively balanced. In the survey, 24 responding DOTs reported that their HSO is housed in the DOT, while 21 indicated that their HSO is in another state agency (e.g., State Police, Department of Public Safety, Department of Safety and Homeland Security, and Department of Motor Vehicles) (1 DOT did not answer the question). Regarding the existence of organizational charts for HSIPs and HSOs, the most common survey responses were organizational charts for HSO only (13 responding DOTs) and organizational charts for both HSIP and HSO (11 responding DOTs).

Organizational structures for HSOs vary widely. The most common HSO reporting structures are where the HSO director reports to an intermediate division head (e.g., Bureau Chief of Policy and Planning, Planning Division Administrator, and Assistant Commissioners) (13 responding DOTs), followed by where the HSO director reports to the State Director for the Department of Public Safety (8 responding DOTs).

HSIP staff sit in various DOT divisions—Operations, Engineering, Planning, Traffic Engineering, Safety, Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO), and Programming. HSIP managers most commonly report to a division head (18 responding DOTs), followed by the State Highway Safety Engineer (12 responding DOTs). DOTs use a wide range of structures for their HSIPs, with differences in the extent of centralization and use of staff. Example DOT approaches to HSIP structure include highly centralized, use of collaborative efforts between personnel in the central office and regions or districts, use of committees, and dedicating staff to the HSIP. The most common job responsibilities for HSIP managers are completing the HSIP annual report (45 responding DOTs) and project evaluation (42 responding DOTs). HSIPs tend to be small (25 responding DOTs reported from 1 to 6 employees). HSOs generally have more staff, with 11 responding DOTs indicating 21 or more employees.

This synthesis identified some challenges and opportunities for HSIP and HSO coordination. The most-common challenges to HSIP and HSO coordination are staffing constraints (23 responding DOTs), structural or procedural differences (18 responding DOTs), and funding limitations (14 responding DOTs). Differences in data collection practices or standards (4 responding DOTs) and stakeholder concerns (2 responding DOTs) are the

least common. In the case example interviews, employee turnover, aligning different goals, and working with crash data were also mentioned as challenges.

States are interested in learning more about the practices of other states, including HSIP and HSO organizational structure, coordination, and integration of the Safe System Approach into strategic planning. Example research needs noted by DOTs during the case example interviews include developing tools to help new employees get up to speed and a short guide explaining the central points of HSIP and HSO responsibilities and federal requirements.

This synthesis identified some gaps in existing knowledge along with future research needs to enhance practices for HSIP and HSO coordination in the United States. Suggestions for future research include the following:

• Creation of a guide, to support coordination between HSIPs and HSOs, that discusses coordination and staffing strategies and explains the HSIP and HSO responsibilities and federal requirements
• Development of training materials (e.g., videos, fact sheets, and manuals) to help orient new employees to the HSIP and HSO and to facilitate succession planning
• Development of guidance on the sharing of data and resources for new technologies (e.g., AI, crowdsourced data)
• Identifying opportunities for easing staffing constraints noted by many of the states (e.g., consolidating or streamlining processes)
• Enhanced understanding of how states approach PP&E requirements (e.g., formal NHTSA-required PP&E meetings and other project-specific engagement activities)
• Development of a handbook on state safety funding (e.g., source, use type, how funding is shared by the HSIP and HSO, and the level and type of collaboration on use)