CHAPTER 5
Summary of Findings

Synthesis Objectives, Scope, and Methods

The objective of the synthesis was to review and document DOT practices for coordinating HSIP and HSO management, practices, and associated funding in their processes, including program structure, planning, implementation, data sharing, evaluation, and reporting. The synthesis scope included various topics related to HSIP and HSO coordination, such as organizational structures, coordination of activities, sharing of data and resources, and PP&E efforts.

Methods used to achieve synthesis objectives included a literature review, survey, and follow-up interviews. Existing literature from many different sources, such as guidance documents (general and DOT-specific), research reports, SHSPs, HSIP reports, HSPs, HSO annual reports, and HSO annual grant applications were reviewed. An online survey was distributed to all 50 state DOTs and the District of Columbia DOT. Survey responses were received from 46 DOTs for a response rate of 90%. 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 within the same agency.

Summary of Key Findings by Topic

Key findings from the synthesis based on the literature review, survey results, and follow-up interviews are described in the following sections, which are organized by topic.

Coordination of Activities and Programs Between HSIP and HSO

• HSOs tend to focus primarily on behavioral safety, while HSIPs focus on infrastructure improvements for safety.
• The activities with the highest average level of coordination (scale of 1 to 5) between HSIPs and HSOs are SHSP development (average score 4.5), identification of safety focus areas (4.2), and analysis of crash data (4.0). The activities with the lowest average level of coordination are identification of project delivery methods (2.3), project screening and selection (2.3), and project evaluation after construction (2.2).
• DOTs tend to lead SHSP development, with 41 responding DOTs serving as the custodian of the SHSP, and 5 responding DOTs indicating that another state agency is the SHSP custodian. DOTs collaborate with the HSO and other stakeholders (e.g., MPOs, local municipalities, law enforcement, EMS, tribal agencies, academia, FHWA, and NHTSA) on developing the SHSP, HSP, and HSIP. Many states have developed committees to lead their SHSP and other safety plans.
• In most instances, both HSIP and HSP strategies and performance measures align with the SHSP.

• The level of collaboration between HSIPs and HSOs on developing the HSIP report and HSP varies among states. Coordination often involves data sharing, attending meetings, stakeholder engagement, and aligned program areas.
• 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 VRUs (average score 3.7 out of 5) and speeding (3.5) and lowest for aggressive driving (2.9) and commercial vehicles (2.8).
• Regarding coordination of programs, the average coordination level is highest for VRUSA (3.5) and lowest for railroad at-grade crossings (1.8). Most states assign leadership for infrastructure-heavy programs like VRUSA and HRRR to the HSIP, while the HSO most often leads behavioral programs such as NHTSA penalty fund use.
• 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.

HSIP and HSO Funding Mechanisms

• HSIP funds and NHTSA penalty funds are used in different ways, and, in some cases, are shared between the HSIP and HSO by mutual agreement.
• Alcohol-impaired driving programs 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, such as SHSP emphasis area data, benefit-cost criteria, distribution to districts based on fatalities and serious injuries, and competitive application process. HSIP funds are typically used for infrastructure improvements but are sometimes used for other purposes (e.g., outreach campaigns).

HSIP and HSO Sharing of Resources, Data, and Dashboards

• The literature review identified various general resources for HSIPs, HSOs, and interagency coordination but did not identify any resources specifically focused on HSIP and HSO coordination.
• Seven responding DOTs indicated that their state has developed formal guidance or policy documents to support coordination between HSIPs and HSOs (see table of resources in Appendix D, which can be found by searching nationalacademies.org/publications for NCHRP Synthesis 661).
• Crash data was reported as the most shared information between HSIP and HSO, 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 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 were split between the State Highway Patrol (8 responding DOTs) and other state agencies (17 responding DOTs).
• TRCCs, which consist of staff from various agencies (e.g., DOTs, HSOs, police, and public health), serve as the backbone for crash data coordination and quality improvement for many states.
• 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.
• 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.
• While 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 HSIP and HSO. Dashboards for crash statistics are also the most publicly accessible type of dashboard (34 responding DOTs). Public-facing dashboards include such functions as viewing crash statistics and making queries (e.g., mapping crashes and lists of high-crash locations).

Public Participation and Engagement Efforts

• Twenty-eight responding DOTs indicated that leadership for PP&E efforts varies depending on the context, with responsibilities typically shared between HSIPs and HSOs.
• 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 public outreach and engagement efforts. Example outreach strategies include community events, surveys, websites, and coordinating with local agencies.

Organizational Structures of HSIPs and HSOs

• The distribution of HSOs between DOTs and other state agencies is relatively balanced. Twenty-four responding DOTs reported that their HSO is 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 DMV) and 1 DOT did not answer this survey 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).
• There is a wide range of organizational structures for HSOs. The most prevalent HSO reporting structures are 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 HSO director reports to the State Director for the Department of Public Safety (8 responding DOTs).
• HSIP staff sit in various DOT divisions such as Operations, Engineering, Planning, Traffic Engineering, Safety, 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 central office and regions or districts, use of committees, and dedicating staff to 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 smaller in size, with 25 responding DOTs reporting from 1 to 6 employees. HSO programs generally have more staff, with 11 responding DOTs indicating 21 or more employees.

Challenges and Opportunities for HSIP and HSO Coordination

• The most extensive perceived 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), while differences in data collection practices or standards (4 responding DOTs) and stakeholder concerns (2 responding DOTs) are the least common perceived challenges. Employee turnover, aligning different goals, and working with crash data were also mentioned as challenges in the case example interviews.
• Examples of ways states are interested in learning more about practices of other states include 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 development of tools to help new employees get up to speed and a short guide that explains the high points of the HSIP and HSO responsibilities and federal requirements.

Suggestions for Future Research

This synthesis has identified some gaps in existing knowledge and suggests 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 of HSIPs and HSOs 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, as well as other project-specific engagement activities).
• Development of a handbook on state safety funding (e.g., source, use type, how funding is shared across HSIP/HSO, and level/type of collaboration on use).