Performance audit. Governor's Office of Highway Safety

PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Governor's Office of Highway Safety
March 2003

Performance Audit Operations Division 254 Washington St., SW

Russell W. Hinton, State Auditor Department of Audits and Accounts

Atlanta, GA 30334

Background
The mission of the Governor's Office of Highway Safety is to educate the public on highway safety issues and [to] facilitate the implementation of programs that reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities on Georgia roadways (2003 Highway Safety Plan). The Office seeks to accomplish its mission by using federal monies to fund state and local programs that address specific highway safety issues. The federal funds are provided through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
The 26-person Office is headed by a Director who, per state law, is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Governor. The legislation that established the Office also specifies that the Office is attached to the Department of Public Safety for administrative purposes only.
As specified in federal regulations, the Office is responsible for: preparing an annual Highway Safety Plan based on an evaluation of highway accidents
and safety problems within the state; establishing priorities for federally funded highway safety programs within the state; providing information and assistance to prospective grant recipients on program benefits,
procedures for participation, and development of plans; encouraging and assisting local units of government to improve their highway safety plan-
ning and administration efforts; reviewing the implementation of state and local highway safety plans and programs
(regardless of fund source) and evaluating the implementation of those plans and programs funded under the federal Highway Safety Act; monitoring the progress of activities and expenditures of federal funds as outlined in the Highway Safety Plan; assuring that independent audits are made of the financial operations of the Office and of the use of federal Highway Safety funds by subrecipients; coordinating the Highway Safety Plan with other highway safety programs; and, assessing program performance through analysis of data relevant to highway safety. The Office also prepares an Annual Report each year highlighting its accomplishments.
For fiscal year 2003, the Office is budgeted to expend $24.7 million in federal funds and $609,229 in state funds.

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 1

Highway Safety Programs
The Highway Safety programs funded by the Office are designed to address major highway safety problems that are of national concern and for which effective countermeasures have been identified (known as National Priority Program Areas). These areas include:
Alcohol and Other Drug Countermeasures; Occupant Protection; Traffic Records; Emergency Medical Services; Motorcycle Safety; Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety; Roadway Safety; Speed Control; Police Traffic Services; and, Community Traffic Safety Programs (including Safe Communities Programs).
States are free to choose which of these areas they want to address in awarding grants and contracts. Exhibit 1 below shows the types of programs funded by the Office in federal fiscal year 2002 and the dollar amount of funding provided for each type of program.

Exhibit 1 FUNDING BY PROGRAM AREA (FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2002)

Other Programs1 $1,474,502 (7%)

Community
Traffic Safety $2,912,382 (14%)

Occupant Protection $4,277,904 (21%)
Police Traffic Services
$866,799 (4%)

Alcohol and Other Drug Countermeasures $11,177,563 (54%)

Source: Program Records 1 Includes Traffic Records ($613,572), Speed Control ($441,480), Pedestrian Safety ($300,450) and Roadway Safety ($119,000).

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 2

Highway Safety grants are awarded to other state agencies, including colleges and universities, and to local government agencies, including city police departments and county sheriffs' offices. The written grant agreements that are signed by both the recipient and the Office Director specify the purpose of the grant and the maximum grant amount. The Office uses a portion of its federal funding for in- house grants to administer statewide programs.
Highway Safety projects are also funded through contracts with non- governmental agencies, including service organizations, churches, and other groups. The contracts specify the services to be provided and the maximum reimbursement amount.
Federal regulations specify that at least 40% of the funds received under certain sections of the Highway Safety Act must be used by or for the benefit of the state's political subdivisions. Funds from these sections comprise about 66% of the total federal funding received by the Office. Examples of the types of Highway Safety programs funded by the Office include the following (as described in the Office's 2003 Highway Safety Plan):
Alcohol and Other Drug Countermeasures: provide a $168,068 grant to Whitfield County for a DUI task force;
Occupant Protection: contract with a private firm (at a cost of $38,086) to present educational programs on safety belt use and high-risk driving to high school students in targeted counties across the state;
Police Traffic Services: provide $300,000 in small grants to local law enforcement agencies to purchase equipment and supplies for traffic enforcement and highway safety activities;
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety: use $66,100 in federal funds to provide pedestrian safety educational materials and bicycle helmets to agencies requesting them for specific events;
Speed Control: provide a $180,000 grant to the Savannah Police Department for a speed and aggressive driving task force;
Traffic Records : provide $200,000 in grants to enable 48 Georgia courts to install an automated system of transmitting traffic citations electronically to the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety;
Community Traffic Safety: provide a $76,100 grant to the Safe Communities Project in Columbus, Georgia (the Columbus Police Department oversees the Project and the Urban League of Greater Columbus coordinates the day-to-day activities).
For federal fiscal year 2003, the Office also planned to conduct several statewide campaigns to promote highway safety. These campaigns include: Click It or Ticket (to promote seat belt use) and Operation Zero Tolerance (to combat drinking and driving).
The Office is responsible for identifying potential grant recipients, reviewing grant applications, monitoring the progress of grant- funded projects, and reviewing grantees' monthly programmatic reports and reimbursement requests. Office personnel are also responsible for developing the contracts for highway safety projects, monitoring contractors' activities, and reviewing contractors' requests for payment.

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 3

Grant Management
Grantee Selection
As described in the Grantee's Manual developed by the Office, grantees are selected through a ranking system, through responses to Requests for Proposals (RFPs), and through unsolicited submissions. For federal fiscal year 2003, most grant recipients were selected through the RFP process.
It should be noted that prior to federal fiscal year 2003, the Office used the ranking system extensively to identify cities and counties with significant traffic safety problems. The system (developed by Georgia State University) ranked cities and counties based on the number and the rate of alcohol- and speed-related crashes during the most recent three-year period for which complete data was available. After adjusting the rankings to account for such factors as the capacity to implement a project, the Office would contact the highest-ranking cities and counties and suggest they apply for a grant.
The Office had to reduce its reliance on the ranking system when comprehensive, up-to-date accident statistics were no longer available. This situation occurred when the responsibility for maintaining the state's accident data (compiled from accident reports throughout the state) was transferred from the Department of Administrative Services to the Department of Public Safety in 1998. Through programming and procedural errors, the accident data was not entered and compiled as required, with the result that complete accident statistics (other than fatality data) were not available for any year after 1998. In 2001, the newly created Department of Motor Vehicle Safety was assigned the responsibility for maintaining the state's accident data. In addition to entering and compiling data for 2002, the Department is re-entering and re-compiling the data for previous years (starting with 2001 and working backward through 1999).
For federal fiscal year 2003, the Office sent out a general Request for Proposals (RFP) inviting cities, counties, schools, colleges, churches, and other interested organizations throughout the state to submit applications for highway safety projects that would address one or more of the following: occupant safety, speeding and impaired driving (including underage drivers and young adults), pedestrian safety, teenage driving, and older drivers. The Office also sent more specific RFPs to local law enforcement agencies inviting them to submit applications for $5,000 small-dollar grants to purchase supplies and equipment and for $10,000 small-dollar grants to participate in the Office's traffic enforcement network (which provides training, networking, and communication opportunities to local law enforcement agencies). School systems were also sent an RFP inviting them to submit applications to receive a $2,000 mini- grant to establish, or enhance, a Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) program to reduce injuries and fatalities involving teenage drivers.
As outlined in the Grantee's Manual, potential recipients (other than those applying for small-dollar grants or mini- grants) are required to submit an application that includes: a statement of the traffic safety problem; a statement of the resources currently being used to address the problem; objectives that clarify the expected accomplishments of the project;

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 4

a step-by-step description of the project (proposed solution plan); a media plan for keeping the public informed regarding the project; an implementation schedule for the project activities; a listing of the personnel, equipment, and supplies needed to complete the project; an indication of how the project will be continued without federal funding; a milestone chart showing completion of planned objectives; a plan for evaluating the project's effectiveness in reaching each objective; and, detailed budget and cost information.
As outlined in the general RFP distributed by the Office for fiscal year 2003, the grant applications were reviewed and given a numerical score based on an evaluation of the problem statement, the project objectives, the planned activities, the media plan, the evaluation plan, and the budget. Additional points were awarded for projects that were innovative and addressed the problem creatively.
Grantee Requirements
As a condition of receiving a Highway Safety grant, recipients are subject to specific requirements contained in the Grantee's Manual prepared by the Office. It should be noted, however, that some of the requirements do not apply to every grantee. The state's colleges and universities, for example, are not required to provide any matching funds as a condition of receiving a grant. As outlined in the Manual: projects are normally eligible for continuous funding for a maximum of three years; projects are evaluated for performance annually; grant recipients must submit a new application each year; recipients must provide a cash match equal to 20% of the project cost in the second year
of the project and a cash match equal to 40% of the project cost in the third year (no cash match is required in the first year); grant funds are provided on a reimbursement basis, with recipients required to submit invoices and other types of source documentation on a monthly basis; grantees are required to submit a final report on project performance within 45 days after the close of the grant period; and, each project that receives more than $25,000 in grant funds is subject to a minimum of one on-site visit per year; on-site visits will also be conducted for 30% of the projects that receive between $10,000 and $20,000 in grant funds and for 20% of the projects that receive $10,000 or less in grant funds.
For federal fiscal year 2002, the Office awarded grants totaling $16.3 million, of which $4.2 million (26%) was provided to other state agencies, $5.5 million (34%) was provided to local governments, $194,000 (1%) was provided to private colleges, and $6.4 million (39%) was for statewide projects administered by the Office. A complete listing of the grant recipients and the dollar amount of the grants awarded for federal fiscal year 2002 is provided in Appendix A.

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 5

Contract Management
In addition to awarding grants, the Office also contracts with private firms, churches, and other organizations to conduct Highway Safety projects. In fiscal year 2002, for example, the Office entered into a $7,500 contract with a church in Lowndes County to develop a neighborhood coalition to promote the use of child safety seats. To educate teenagers regarding the dangers of drinking and driving, the Office contracted with a private firm to stage a theatrical production at local high schools demonstrating the dangers of drunk driving. Contractors are paid on a reimbursement basis and must submit invoices and other documentation to support their payment requests. Appendix B provides a listing of the contractors and the dollar amount of the contracts for federal fiscal year 2002 (which totaled $1,234,746).
Staffing and Administration
The 26-person Office of Highway Safety is headed by a Director and consists of five sections. The organizational structure of the Office is shown in Exhibit 2 below; the number of persons in each section is shown in parentheses. (A more detailed organization chart is on page 24.)
Exhibit 2 OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY

The Office's Program Planning and Development Section is responsible for identifying areas of the state with significant traffic safety problems, soliciting grant proposals, working with grant recipients to develop a project plan, and monitoring the implementation of the plan.
The Intergovernmental and Public Affairs Section monitors the status of legislation affecting traffic safety and works to keep legislators informed regarding the potential impact of proposed legislation. The Section also handles media campaigns and conducts community outreach programs. The Section contracts with four regional coordinators (each of whom is paid $1,500 per month) to develop neighborhood safety coalitions in different regions of the state.

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 6

The Special Operations Section is primarily responsible for the 16 regional traffic enforcement networks the Office has established. These 16 networks, which encompass all 159 counties, are designed to enhance traffic enforcement activities by providing a forum for traffic enforcement personnel to share their ideas with their counterparts from other law enforcement agencies in their region. The networks are open to all sworn law enforcement officers, judges, and prosecutors. The Section also has contracts with five law enforcement personnel who are paid $1,500 per month to work as liaisons between the Office and the traffic enforcement networks.
The Research and Evaluations Section compiles statistical data regarding traffic safety and works with the state's Traffic Records Coordinating Committee that is responsible for developing the state's system for compiling accurate and timely traffic safety data. The Section also contracts with a person to serve as the state traffic records coordinator for $54,000 per year.
The Administrative Services Section performs duties involving personnel administration, accounting, payroll, and inventory control and is responsible for the Office's management information system. The actual payments to grantees and contractors are made by the Department of Public Safety upon receipt of vouchers from the Office.
Financial Information
The Office expended $12.8 million in fiscal year 2002 and was budgeted to expend $25.3 million in fiscal year 2003. Exhibit 3 on the following page shows the Office's budgeted and actual expenditures and sources of funds for fiscal year 2002 and budgeted expenditures for fiscal year 2003. It should be noted that the $7.7 million shown in the Exhibit as being expended for Highway Safety grants in fiscal year 2002 is substantially less than the $16.3 million in grant funds awarded for federal fiscal year 2002. The $7.7 million only includes grant amounts for which reimbursement claims were paid for expenses incurred during the state fiscal year ending June 30. Expenses incurred and claimed during the federal fiscal year (which ends September 30) but after June 30 will be included in the Office's expenditures for fiscal year 2003. Any grant monies that remain unexpended at the end of the federal fiscal year are retained by the Office and can be carried over to the following year for making additional grants. The $7.7 million also does not include grant funds used by the Office to cover its planning and administrative expenses.
The Office receives federal funds through the Highway Safety Act and the Transportation Equity Act. As shown in Appendix C, approximately 46% of the federal funds received by the Office each year is provided under Section 402 of the Highway Safety Act that established the Highway Safety Programs in each state. These funds are allocated to the states based on their populations (75%) and their public road mileage (25%). As shown in the Appendix, the Office also receives funds that are provided to states as incentive grants for implementing specific types of highway safety programs or for passing specific legislation (such as mandatory seat belt laws).

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 7

Exhibit 3 SOURCES OF FUNDS AND EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 2002 AND 2003

FY 2002

FY 2002

FY 2003

(BUDGETED) (ACTUAL) (BUDGETED)

FUND SOURCE

Federal

$18,509,018 $12,075,317 $24,687,367

State1

653,220

645,508

609,229

Governor's Emergency Fund 2

37,500

37,500

0

$19,199,738 $12,758,325 $25,296,596

EXPENDITURES

Personal Services

$2,051,294 $1,795,619

$2,336,452

Regular Operating

1,452,476 1,447,152

1,819,276

Travel

116,700

86,859

129,000

Motor Vehicle Purchases

78,987

75,965

0

Equipment

24,976

20,510

22,776

Computer Charges

70,561

33,418

60,361

Real Estate Rentals

123,500

108,000

171,987

Telecommunications

64,044

57,386

67,044

Per Diem and Fees

519,500

316,954

342,500

Contracts

1,172,500 1,147,440

1,272,000

Highway Safety Grants

13,525,200 7,669,022

19,075,200

$19,199,738 $12,758,325 $25,296,596
1 The federal Highway Safety Act requires the state to provide funds equal to 50% of the amount the Office spends for planning and administration. 2 These funds were provided to the Office from the Governor's Discretionary Fund for two specific contracts. Source: Budget Comparison Reports

Audit Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
This performance audit was conducted in response to a written request from the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety. An Executive Order issued in 2001 made the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety responsible for coordinating the activities of the Office (as well as those of other law enforcement agencies) and specified that the Commissioner had the authority to oversee individual agencies' efforts involving personnel issues, employment and promotion practices, and program area effectiveness and to coordi-

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 8

nate and review individual agency budget proposals, contracts, grant procurements ... and legislative proposals. Prior to the release of this report, however, the Executive Order was rescinded.
The Commissioner's request indicated that the audit was needed to provide a good understanding of the Office's purpose and mission, its overall performance, and its use of good business practices in the administration of the federal funds that it receives. In addition to addressing these specific areas, the audit also examined:
the Office's effectiveness in reducing the number of traffic-related fatalities in the state; the Office's procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of the individual grants and con-
tracts that it awards each year; the extent to which the grants awarded by the Office are targeted at those geographic ar-
eas with the most serious traffic-related problems; the Office's internal controls for ensuring that grantees and contractors meet the terms of
their grant awards and contracts, respectively; and, the Office's staffing and personnel procedures.
The audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards for performance audits and focused on fiscal year 2002. The audit methodology included interviews with personnel in the Office of Highway Safety, in the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Transportation, and in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Files and records maintained by the Office were also reviewed and analyzed.
This report has been discussed with the Director and other Office of Highway Safety personnel. A draft copy was provided for their review and comment; pertinent responses have been included in the report as appropriate.

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 9

Findings and Agency Responses

Summary Finding

The Office should take action to provide

increased accountability for the state and

federal funds that it spends (or distrib-

utes in the form of grants) each year.

Our review of the Office found that it needs

to implement effective internal controls to

provide reasonable assurances that funds

are being used in

Effective internal con- the most cost-

trols need to be imple- effective manner to

mented to provide reduce traffic-

reasonable assurances related injuries and

that state and federal fatalities. While a

funds are being used substantial number

in the most costeffective manner to reduce traffic-related injuries and fatalities.

of grants and contracts are awarded each year (281 in

fiscal year 2002),

summary data is not maintained for evaluat-

ing their overall effectiveness or the effec-

tiveness of the individual grants and con-

tracts.

From calendar year 1999 to calendar year 2001 (the most recent year for which data is available), the number of traffic fatalities in the state increased 7.1%, from 1,508 to 1,615. During this same time period, the number of traffic fatalities in the rest of the U.S. increased by less than 1%. The rate of traffic fatalities in the state during this time period, however, declined from 1.53 to 1.50 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). While this rate is in line with the U.S. average, 24 states had lower fatality rates in 2001, ranging from 0.9 to 1.49 fatalities per 100 million VMT.

A more detailed review of the state's fatality data indicated that the Office had mixed success in reducing specific types of fatal accidents and in reducing fatalities among

specific age groups. The number of alcohol-related fatalities increased from 524 in 1999 to 557 in 2001 but the rate of alcohol fatalities decreased from 0.53 to 0.52 per 100 million VMT. The number of fatalities among 16-24 year-olds, however, increased from 323 in 1999 to 399 in 2001, a 24% increase (the fatality rate per VMT was not available). Seat belt usage increased from 74.2% in 1999 to 79% in 2001 (according to an 18-county survey conducted by the University of Georgia).
The number of pedestrian fatalities decreased from 159 in 1999 to 146 in 2001. Similarly, the number of bicycle fatalities decreased from 22 in 1999 to 20 in 2001.
Our review identified a number of areas in which the Office needs to improve its operations in order to provide more effective stewardship of the public monies that are entrusted to it. Each of these areas is briefly discussed below and is addressed more fully in the remainder of this report.
The Office should formally evaluate its overall effectiveness or the effectiveness of all of the individual grants and contracts that it awards each year.
Summary documentation should be maintained for determining if grantees met the specific objectives outlined in their grant agreements.
The Office should take steps to ensure that Highway Safety grants are equitably distributed among those areas of the state with the most serious highway safety problems.
The Office needs to implement effective

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 10

internal controls for ensuring that contractors fully comply with the terms of their contracts as a condition of being paid.
The Office should establish a coherent personnel system with job titles, job descriptions, and pay ranges that reflect actual duties and responsibilities.
By taking action to address these areas, the Office of Highway Safety could provide reasonable assurances that taxpayers' monies are being spent in an efficient and effective manner. These and other areas in which improvements are needed are addressed in the remainder of this report.
In its written response to the audit report, the Office listed a number of documents and procedures that it feels provide the necessary internal controls to ensure that funds are being used in the most cost-effective manner. As listed by the Office, these include: Highway Safety Plan, Annual Report, strategic plan, grant eligibility and selection procedures, ranking reports, general requests for proposals (RFPs), grant review process, and grant monitoring.
Effectiveness
Finding No. 1 Procedures should be implemented by the Office for measuring its overall effectiveness and the effectiveness of all of the individual grants and contracts that it awards each year. As required by NHTSA, the Office prepares a detailed Highway Safety Plan every year that contains numerous goals and objectives, including specific objectives for individual grants and contracts. (The Plan for federal fiscal year 2003 is 123 pages long

and contains 51 different goals and objec-

tives.) No summary document is ever prepared, however, to determine if all of the goals and objectives included in the Plan were ac-

A new Highway Safety Plan is prepared each year without complete information regarding the effectiveness of the projects undertaken in prior years.

tually achieved. A new Highway Safety

Plan is prepared each year without complete

information regarding the effectiveness of

the projects undertaken in prior years.

The Office should take steps to document its overall effectiveness as well as the effectiveness of individual grants and contracts. The Office also needs to revise its overall goals and objectives to more accurately assess its performance. These recommendations are addressed in more detail in the following Findings.

In its written response, the Office noted that its overall effectiveness is assessed in the Annual Report it submits to NHTSA each year. The Office also indicated that the effectiveness of individual grants and contracts is measured through the final progress reports that grantees and contractors are required to submit.

Our review of the Office's 2001 Highway Safety Plan with the corresponding Annual Report found that the Annual Report could not be used to determine the extent to which all of the goals and objectives cited in the Plan had been achieved. The Annual Report is due at NHTSA 90 days after the end of the federal fiscal year (by December 31st). The accident data, however, used to measure the Office's effectiveness is compiled on a calendar year basis and is not available for inclusion in the Annual Report prior to the Report's due date. Problems with assessing the effectiveness of individ-

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 11

ual grants and contracts are discussed in Finding No. 4 on page 14.

Finding No. 2 The Office needs to develop annual goals and objectives that provide accurate benchmarks for measuring its overall performance. Although the Highway Safety Plan prepared by the Office each year includes a number of goals and objectives, they are of limited value in evaluating the Office's effectiveness. Our review of the goals and objectives contained in the Highway Safety Plans for federal fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 identified several areas in which improvements are needed.

Currently, the Office's goals regarding

alcohol-related accidents, speed-related

accidents, and teenage drivers are to re-

duce the num-

The Office should ber of trafficconsider revising its related fatalities

annual goals to focus in each cate-

on the rate of traffic- gory. These

related fatalities in- goals, however,

stead of the number do not account

of fatalities.

for the annual

increase in the

number of vehicle miles traveled in the

state each year. From 1999 through

2001, for example, the number of traffic-

related fatalities in the state increased

7.1%; the rate of fatalities per vehicle

mile traveled, however, decreased from

1.53 to 1.50 per 100 million vehicle

miles traveled. Goals that focus on re-

ducing the rate of traffic-related fatalities

would provide more appropriate meas-

ures of the Office's effectiveness.

The objectives that are established by the Office should be benchmarks of future performance. Currently, the Office develops multi- year objectives that include

prior years, with the result that they cannot be used to measure future performance. The 2003 Highway Safety Plan, for example, includes an objective to reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities by 5% from 2000 to 2003. Although the Office was not aware of the 5% reduction that was achieved in 2001 when it prepared the 2003 Highway Safety Plan, the Office will meet its 2003 objective even if there is no reduction in fatalities in 2002 or 2003.
The Office should also take steps to formally document the reasons for the substantial changes in its objectives from one year to the next. The objective for alcohol-related fatalities, for example, has been revised from a 5% reduction in one year (2001 Plan) to a 6% reduction over three years (2002 Plan) to a 5% reduction over three years (2003 Plan). Similarly, the objectives regarding young drivers have also changed substantially from year to year. For 2002, the Office's objective was to reduce the number of fatalities in crashes involving drivers ages 21-24 by 5% in one year; for 2003, the objective was to reduce the number of fatalities involving drivers ages 21-24 by 5% in three years.
It should be noted that the Governor's Budget Report for fiscal year 2003 only contains two objectives for the Office of Highway Safety: reduce the fatality and injury rates for speed-related crashes involving persons ages 16-24 from .25 (in 2002) to .23 per 100 million VMT; and increase the percentage of drivers using safety belts to 85%. Objectives are not included for such issues as driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, pedestrian safety, or bicycle safety.
Annual goals and objectives should be es-

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 12

tablished by the Office that provide more accurate benchmarks for evaluating its effectiveness. Objectives should focus on future performance and should be reasonably consistent from year to year.
In its written response, the Office indicated that its goals are focused on reducing the number of fatalities (instead of the rate) because "only through counting numbers of lives saved can the actual picture be obtained." The Office also indicated that its constituents can relate better to numbers.
Finding No. 3 The Office needs to implement long-term data analysis procedures for evaluating the overall effectiveness of the Highway Safety grants it provides to Georgia's cities and counties. Although the Office awards millions of dollars in grants each year, it does not maintain summary information for evaluating the impact the grants have on the number of traffic-related injuries and fatalities. As a means of evaluating the grants that were

awarded for federal fiscal years 1999 and 2000 (October 1, 1998 September 30, 2000), the audit team reviewed fatality data for the five-calendar- year-period preceding the grants and for the two-calendar-yearperiod following the grants.
A fatality rate was computed for each county during the two time periods by dividing the number of traffic fatalities by the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The counties were then categorized based on their annual fatality rates during the period 1994-1998 and whether they (and the cities within the counties) had received significant grant amounts (more than $25,000) in federal fiscal years 1999 and 2000. (Grants received by colleges and universities within the counties were not included in the amounts received by the counties.)
As shown by Exhibit 4, counties that had below-average rates of traffic fatalities (less than 1.71 fatalities per 100 million VMT) did not (as a group) experience a substantial change in their fatality rates. This was true

Exhibit 4 CHANGE IN HIGHWAY FATALITY RATES BY COUNTY

FATALITY NUMBER RATE PER 100
OF MILLION VMT COUNTIES CY 1994-1998

HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANTS RECEIVED
FFY 1999-2000

15

1.15 1

$2,193,556

($25,000 or more per county)

25

1.45 1

$76,964

(less than $25,000 per county)

11

2.02

$1,227,952

($25,000 or more per county)

FATALITY RATE PER 100 MILLION VMT CY 2000-2001
1.14
1.47
1.57

CHANGE IN FATALITY RATE PER 100 MILLION VMT
(1.1%)
1.2%
(22.2%)

108

2.67

$390,294

2.02

(less than $25,000 per county)

(24.3%)

1 Less than the statewide average of 1.71 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Source: Fatality data maintained by the federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System; VMT data maintained by the Georgia Department of Transportation

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 13

for the counties that received a significant amount of Highway Safety grants ($25,000 or more) and those that received little if any Highway Safety grants. Conversely, counties that had above-average fatality rates experienced (as a group) substantial reductions in their fatality rates regardless of whether they received a significant amount Highway Safety grants ($25,000 or more).

Although the preceding analysis only focuses on fatality data, it raises questions regarding the impact of the Highway Safety grants and indicates the need for the Office to monitor the effectiveness of its grants on a long-term basis. By compiling long-term data, the Office would be better able to ensure that grant monies are used to fund programs that work and are provided to areas of the state where they are most likely to have the greatest impact. Providing grant funds to counties whose fatality rates are among the lowest in the state, for example, may not be the most cost-effective means of reducing traffic fatalities.

Finding No. 4

The Office should maintain summary

documentation for determining if grant-

ees and contractors met the specific ob-

jectives outlined in their grants and con-

tracts.

Although the Highway Safety Plan includes

specific objectives for the grants and con-

tracts that will be awarded during the year,

summary informa-

Summary data tion is not mainshould be main- tained by the Office

tained for determin- to determine if the

ing if grantees and objectives were sub-

contractors met the sequently achieved.

objectives cited in In an effort to obtain

the Highway Safety this information, the

Plan.

audit team was di-

rected to review grant files and payment

records, interview Office personnel, and

review documents located in the offices of former employees. In two cases, staff persons had to contact a contractor to determine if the objectives had been met.
A sample of 44 grant-specific objectives contained in the Office's 2001 Highway Safety Plan was reviewed by the audit team to determine if complete information was available for measuring the grantees' effectiveness in meeting the specified objectives. (The sample was selected from the 2001 Highway Safety Plan to increase the likelihood of complete data being available to make an assessment.) Of the 44 grant-specific objectives reviewed, 14 (32%) could not be analyzed due to incomplete information. For the remaining 30 objectives, the audit team was able to piece together sufficient information to determine that 16 objectives had been met, 10 had not been met, and four had been partially met.
It should be noted that our review identified cases in which grant recipients, such as state agencies, are carrying out specific activities that would be more conducive to a contractual arrangement than to a grant agreement. For example, a grant was awarded in 2001 to the University of Georgia to train 100 child safety technicians and 620 safety advocates and to conduct four media campaigns. Because there are specific deliverables involved, having a contract (instead of making a grant) would better enable the Office to ensure that the services are provided as required. (It should be noted that our review found that the University of Georgia had met the objectives stated in the 2001 Highway Safety Plan.)
A review of contracts awarded by the Office for federal fiscal year 2002 also found that summary information was not

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 14

always available to determine if the objectives included in the 2002 Highway Safety Plan had been achieved. For example, the Office indicated in the Plan that it would award a $39,600 contract to a private firm to create training opportunities for 25 youth highway safety ambassadors. Although the contractor was paid, the Office did not have any information regarding the number of youth highway safety ambassadors that were trained. In response to the audit team's query, a staff member offered to e-mail the contractor.
The Office should take steps to maintain summary data for determining if the grantees and contractors met the objectives cited in the annual Plan. The Office should use this information to hold grantees and contractors accountable for the effectiveness of their publicly funded projects.
In its written response, the Office indicated that it had determined that 12 (27%) of the 44 grant-specific objectives could not be analyzed due to incomplete information and that 20 of the objectives had been met and five had been partially met. The Office also indicated that during the course of the performance audit, it had implemented a Post project Programmatic Evaluation plan to compare grant objectives (as stated in the grant proposals) with the outcome data included in the grantees' final reports.
Grant Management
Finding No. 1 The Office should take steps to ensure that Highway Safety grants are equitably distributed to cities and counties throughout the state, based on the severity of their traffic safety problems. Although the primary purpose of the Office

is to reduce traffic-related injuries and fatalities, the grant amounts it awards are not always in line with the number or rate of injuries and fatalities experienced by Georgia's cities and counties. Our review found that counties with similar injury and fatality statistics received substantially different grant amounts.
(A) One of the reasons for the disparity in the grant amounts received by the counties is the Office's decision that cities and counties would not be capable of managing certain types of grants if they had less than a certain population. As a result, cities and counties were not eligible to receive a law enforcement grant: to address speed-related crashes if they had a population less than 45,000; to reduce alcohol-related crashes if less than 35,000 population; or for community traffic safety programs if less than 40,000 population.
It should be noted that the ranking system historically used by the Office to determine cites' and counties' eligibility for these types of grants was specifically designed by Georgia State University to enable smaller cities and counties to qualify for a grant. A ranking for each city and county was computed by giving equal weight to both the number of accidents and the rate of accidents per vehicle mile traveled (VMT).
Overall, about 133 (84%) of Georgia's 159 counties were excluded from receiving these types of law enforcement grants regardless of their accident statistics (based on their having a population less than 35,000). For example, Spalding County (with a population of 32,656) was not eligible to receive a law enforcement grant to reduce alcohol-related accidents in federal fiscal year 2001 even though it had an average of 184 alcohol-related accidents a year and one of the highest rates of alcohol-

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 15

related accidents in the state. While the population criteria also excluded about 98% of Georgia's 539 cities from receiving a law enforcement grant, most of the cities had relatively few alcohol- or speed-related accidents.
It should be noted that in applying the population criteria, the Office used population data for 1990 instead of the available population estimates for 1998. An additional six counties would have potentially been eligible for a law enforcement grant if the more recent population data had been used.
(B) Office personnel have indicated that counties' reluctance to apply for a grant has also contributed to the disparity in the grant amounts received by each county. According to the Office, counties' reluctance to apply for federal funds often involves local politics, the inability to provide funds upfront for reimbursement, or the jurisdiction's assessment that they are not in a position to utilize funds at the time. It should be noted, however, that the current grant requirements, including the requirement that applicants complete a lengthy, detailed application, were established by the Office. If counties are hesitant to apply for a grant, the Office should consider ways in which the grant requirements could be simplified to enable funds to be directed at those areas of the state in which there are significant traffic safety problems.
(C) Of the $16.3 million the Office awarded to cities and counties for federal fiscal years 1999-2003, 90% ($14.7 million) was awarded to 48 Georgia counties (including grants awarded to cities within the counties). These 48 counties accounted for 77% of the injuries and fatalities that had occurred during the preceding three years (1996-1998). Further analysis disclosed

substantial differences among the counties in terms of the dollar amount of grant funds received per injury and fatality, examples of which are presented in Exhibit 5 on the following page.
As shown in the Exhibit, for example, Whitfield and Lowndes Counties both had about 4,800 injuries and fatalities during calendar years 1996-1998, or about 1.3 injuries and fatalities per million VMT. For federal fiscal years 1999-2003, the Office awarded grants to Whitfield County totaling $464,160, or about $96 per injury and fatality. During the same time period, Lowndes County received grants totaling $45,290, or about $9 per injury and fatality. Similarly, Liberty and Tift Counties had about 1,900 injuries and fatalities or about 1.1 injuries and fatalities per million VMT. For federal fiscal years 1999-2003, the Office awarded grants to Liberty County totaling $189,673, or about $100 per injury and fatality. During the same time period, Tift County received grants totaling $11,978, or about $6 per injury.
For fiscal year 1999-2003, Wayne County received grants totaling $91,975, or about $118 for each of the 781 injuries and fatalities recorded in the county during calendar years 1996-1998. Fannin County did not receive any Highway Safety grants during the period 1999-2003 even though it had both a higher number of injuries and fatalities (849) and a higher rate of injuries and fatalities than Wayne County.
From 1996-1998, both Spalding County and Carroll County had about 4,500 injuries and fatalities; Spalding County's rate of injuries and fatalities, however, was about twice Carroll County's rate (2.9 v 1.5 per million VMT). While Carroll County was subsequently awarded grants totaling $664,183 (or about $147 per injury and fatality),

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 16

Exhibit 5 GRANT AMOUNTS AWARDED TO SELECTED COUNTIES

County Whitfield Lowndes

CY 1996-1998

Injuries and Fatalities

Number

Rate 2

4,852

1.3

4,847

1.3

FFY 1999-2003

Grant Amounts Awarded1

Total Per Injury and Fatality

$464,160

$95.66

$45,290

$9.34

Liberty Tift

1,876 1,989

1.1

$189,673

1.1

$11,978

$101.11 $6.02

Spalding Carroll

4,482 4,519

2.9

$20,000

1.5

$664,183

$4.46 $146.98

Forsyth Rockdale

3,352 3,242

1.3

$368,935

1.3

$29,738

$110.06 $9.17

Walton Walker

2,266 2,383

1.5

$9,000

1.7

$272,618

$3.97 $114.40

Wayne

781

0.9

$91,975

Fannin

849

1.4

$0

1 Includes grants awarded to cities within each county. 2 Rate of injuries and fatalities per million vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Source: Records maintained by the Office of Highway Safety

$117.77 $0

Spalding County was awarded grants totaling $20,000 (or about $4 per injury and fatality).
Due to the absence of comprehensive, upto-date accident statistics (as discussed on page 4), the Office temporarily reduced its reliance on the ranking system for federal fiscal year 2003. For 2003, the Office solicited proposals for grant-funded projects from every city and county which enabled

additional cities and counties to receive grant awards. When the Office again has access to current accident statistics, it should develop a better system for ensuring that grant awards are directed at those areas of the state with the most serious traffic safety problems.
In its written response, the Office noted that, using information compiled by the audit team, there was a positive correlation

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 17

(r= 0.66) between pre-award crash deaths and funding, indicating that grants are going to areas of greatest need. The Office also indicated that it felt that all cities and counties in the state had the opportunity to obtain a Highway Safety grant.
Finding No. 2 Steps should be taken to ensure that onsite reviews of grantees are conducted as required. The Grantee's Manual specifies that Office personnel will conduct a minimum of one onsite visit per year with each grantee receiving more than $25,000 in grant funds. However, a review of the Office's computer records found that on-site visits had not been conducted in federal fiscal year 2002 for 27 (68%) of a sample of 40 grants (each valued at more than $25,000). The on-site reviews are designed to enable the Office to: identify problems related to the achievement of project goals and objectives; verify the number of project personnel and equipment funded through the grant; review the accuracy of reimbursement claims and financial records; and, evaluate the effectiveness of the grantee's public information and education efforts.
As part of its response, the Office provided information to indicate that on-site visits of an additional 17 grantees had been conducted. The documentation provided by the Office revealed that one of the 17 on-site reviews was conducted after the close of the grant period and one was conducted by a NHTSA representative. Five grantees were "reviewed" together at a single meeting.
The extent to which the Office can conduct a thorough on-site review of inventory, payroll documentation, etc. of five grantees in a group setting away from the grantees' offices is questionable.

Finding No. 3 The Office should take steps to establish a streamlined process for grantees to re apply for grant funds. Although Office policy allows grantees to receive grant awards over a three-year period, there is no streamlined re-application process for grantees applying for continued funding in the second and third years. The re -application Grantees seeking a process should be second or third year simplified to reduce of funding are re- paperwork. quired to satisfy the same grant application requirements as first-time grantees. For example, the City of Savannah's first-year grant application for a project funded in fiscal year 2001 was 34 pages; its second-year grant application for the same project was 36 pages. In addition to creating additional paperwork of questionable value, this re-application process requires additional time and effort on the part of the grantee (to prepare the application) and Office staff (to review it).
In its written response, the Office indicated that it would take steps to update the grant renewal application procedure to save grantees and Office personnel considerable time and manpower.
Finding No. 4 The Office should be commended for ensuring that grantees submit proper documentation with their reimbursement requests. A review of 15 grants awarded in federal fiscal year 2001 revealed that reimbursement claims paid by the Office were supported by adequate documentation. With only one exception, the grantees had submitted the appropriate timesheets, payroll reports, invoices, purchase orders, and receipts to support their claims.

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 18

Contract Management
Finding No. 1 The Office should revise its contract management procedures to provide increased accountability over the expenditure of public monies. Although the Office spends about $1.2 million a year for contract services, it has not implemented the internal controls necessary to ensure that contractors fully comply with the terms of their contracts as a condition of being paid. Our review of fiscal year 2002 contracts found that while the Office generally ensured that contractors documented their payment requests, it did not ensure that they had provided the level of services specified in the contracts. In some cases, the contractors had not met their contractual obligations and in other cases they did not provide sufficient information to determine if the obligations had been met. Examples of the different problems uncovered by our review are presented below.
In fiscal year 2002, the Office contracted with a production firm to stage a theatrical production to educate young drivers regarding the dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The $150,000 contract called for the firm to make a minimum of 90 presentations of the production at 18 high schools. The Office, however, paid the invoices received from the firm without ensuring that the firm was on track to fulfill its contractual obligations. As a result, the firm was paid almost the full amount of the contract ($149,166) even though the firm made only 56 (62%) of the required presentations (and made the presentations at only 15 schools). It should be noted that the Office was unaware of the actual number of presentations the firm had made until the questions was raised by the audit team. The

Office subsequently obtained the information by contacting the firm.
The Office initiated a $7,500 contract with a private service organization to organize a Chatham County Neighborhood Coalition to promote the use of child safety seats. The organization was subsequently paid $5,398 even though there was no evidence that a coalition had actually been established. Of the $5,398 paid the organization, $3,944 was spent for the purchase and temporary storage of 95 car safety seats (as allowed by the contract). The organization has a $14,740 contract from the Office for fiscal year 2003.
The Office contracted with a private firm (at a cost of $200,000) to conduct safe driving presentations at public schools and other schools ... that offer Driver's Education. Although the contract included a listing of the state's public high schools, the Office paid the contractor $101,247 (55% of the total $185,419 that was paid) for making 75 presentations at private driving schools that, per the contractor, provided driver's education courses for local high schools. The 75 presentations cost the Office an average of $1,350 and were attended by an average of only 22 students, resulting in an average perstudent cost of $62. The Office also paid the firm $22,763 for making 16 presentations to groups other than high schools (such as libraries and elementary schools). Although the Office raised questions regarding some of the firm's presentations, it took no action to terminate the contract (which, per the contract, required only 14 days' notice).
It should also be noted that the Office paid the contractor a total of $185,419

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 19

without any independent verification that all of the presentations were actually conducted. The Office also did not require the contractor to submit the documentation necessary to determine if the amount charged was in accordance with the terms of the contract. The invoices submitted to the Office only listed the date and location of each presentation, the number of students attending, and the amount charged. The contract, however, specified that the payment amount would be based on the number of vehicles (trucks) used in the presentation, the number of presenters and assistants, and the number of miles driven by the trucks and the presenters. The firm has a $199,645 contract for fiscal year 2003 for a different project.

In fiscal year 2002, the Office contracted with a firm to, among other duties, translate brochures from English to Spanish and provide public relations services. The contract indicated the maximum amount that would be paid but did not specify the per-hour or perpage payment rates. The firm subsequently billed the Office (and was paid) $5,050 for translation services at a rate of $50 per page and $3,600 for public relations services at a rate of $75 per hour. These per-page and per-hour rates were not specified in the contract.

The Office entered into a $15,800 con-

tract with a firm to arrange for the pro-

duction and dis-

tribution of 5,500

Of the $15,800 posters to pro-

paid the firm, 56% mote prom safety

($8,900) was management penses.

for ex-

among high school students. Of the $15,800

paid the firm, 56% ($8,900) was for

management expenses; the cost of de-

signing, printing, and mailing the posters was only $6,900.
The Office contracted with five law enforcement officers to work part-time as law enforcement liaisons at a per-person cost of $1,500 per month. The officers were required to submit monthly activity reports but were not required to report the number of hours they worked each month. The contracts with the officers, however, specify that they will be paid up to $1,500 per month based on working 20 hours per week.
In its written response, the Office indicated that it was in the process of developing a better reporting process for the law enforcement liaisons and was reviewing the language for future contracts to ensure that the requirements of the contracts are more accurately documented.
The Office contracted with four persons to serve as community regional coordinators to organize, supervise, monitor, and support neighborhood coalitions in a number of specified counties. Only two of the four contracts included a timeframe for establishing the neighborhood coalitions as a contractual requirement; these contracts indicated that two coalitions should be established during the first year. Two of the contractors' monthly activity reports, however, did not provide sufficient documentation to determine if any neighborhood coalitions were being established. The Office paid the contractors $1,500 per month regardless of the level of detail provided in their monthly reports.
The Department of Audits strongly recommends that the Office take steps to establish the internal controls necessary to ensure

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 20

that contractors fully meet their contractual obligations as a condition of being paid. The Office should consider the potential for recouping monies from contractors who did not fully meet the terms of their contracts.
The Office indicated in its written response that it had the necessary internal controls and that it would review its contracts "to determine where the breakdown occurred and take measures to solve the problem."
Finding No. 2 The Office should reevaluate each of its contractual agreements based on the need for and the cost effectiveness of the services provided. Our review of the Office's contracts in place for fiscal year 2002 found that the Office was contracting for services that were of questionable value in reducing the number of traffic-related injuries and fatalities. It should be noted that each of these questionable contracts was renewed by the Office for fiscal year 2003.
In fiscal year 2002, the Office contracted with a service organization to establish a DeKalb County Neighborhood Coalition to increase child safety seat usage. The need for this $7,500 contract is questionable since DeKalb County already has the highest rate of child safety seat usage among the 18 counties surveyed by the University of Georgia. Office personnel indicated that they believed the $7,500 contract was necessary to enable DeKalb County to maintain its high rate of child safety seat usage. The contract with the service organization was renewed for fiscal year 2003 at a cost of $14,825.
It should also be noted that during fiscal year 2002, the Office paid the contractor $1,645 for the contractor's purchase

of a sound system. Office personnel have indicated that the system was needed by the contractor to conduct safety seat programs. The invoice submitted by the contractor, however, indicated that the system was sold to and shipped to a local middle school.
The Office contracted with a public affairs law firm at a cost of The need for the Of$224,400 to fice to pay a private facilitate and firm $35,000 to aro r g a n i z e range 10 luncheon roundtable dis- meetings is questionc u s s i o n s able. ($49,500), briefing sessions ($49,500), meetings ($33,000), training sessions ($20,000), and planning sessions ($7,000). In addition, the firm was to be paid $35,000 to arrange and facilitate 10 ... working lunch meetings for the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee. The need for the Office to pay a private firm $35,000 to arrange 10 luncheon meetings attended by 20-25 persons could not be determined.
The Office also agreed to pay the firm $16,500 to work with Office personnel to enhance the organizational structure of the NETS (Network of Employers for Traffic Safety) Program and arrange one statewide NETS meeting. The need for this is questionable since the Office has a full-time employee whose primary duty is to manage the NETS Program.
The contract also obligated the Office to pay the firm $13,900 for general consulting. In March 2002, the $13,900 was paid by the Office for arranging two meetings regarding the state's trauma network. These payments were made without formally amending the

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 21

contract, however.
It should be noted that the law firm contracted with by the Office is headed by an attorney who lobbies the General Assembly on behalf of a number of companies, including an insurance firm and automobile distributors. A 2000 Senate Resolution cited the attorney for his expertise to influence public policy, his work as a representative of the Governor's Office of Highway Safety, and for his dedication to promoting highway safety in the state.
The Office contracted with a church at a cost of $7,500 to organize a Marion County Coalition to promote the use of car safety seats. Although no ongoing coalition was established, the church organized mini-summits at which child safety seats were distributed (the seats were donated by Ford Motor Company) and organized one road check of seatbelt usage. The minister was paid $2,800 for organizing the four events and $999 in meal and mileage expenses, of which $301 was for meal expenses that were not allowable under the Statewide Travel Regulations (as required per the grant agreement). The remaining $3,700 was paid for such expenses as refreshments and t-shirts.
The Office indicated that this contract was necessary as part of the Office's efforts to increase the use of child safety seats among African-Americans. Census data for 2000 indicates, however, that Marion County has an AfricanAmerican population of only 2,434, less than 115 other Georgia counties, most of which have not been targeted by the Office for the establishment of neighborhood coalitions. The Office has a $14,769 contract with the church

for fiscal year 2003.
In its written response, the Office indicated that the church was also responsible for working to increase seat belt usage among rural persons and Latinos.
The Office should ensure that all of its contractual agreements are in line with the Office's overall mission of reducing the number of traffic-related injuries and fatalities on Georgia's roadways. The costeffectiveness of each contract should be formally evaluated as a condition of being renewed for another year.
Staffing and Administration
Finding No. 1 The Office cannot provide reasonable assurances that its employees' job titles and salaries are in line with their actual duties and responsibilities. Although the Office has 26 employees and an annual payroll of approximately $1.4 million, it does not have a coherent system of personnel administration. Instead of The Office does not establishing an organ- have a coherent sysizational structure tem of personnel with clearly defined administration. position descriptions, the Office has created job titles on an ad hoc basis. From information available through the Georgia Merit System, the Office selects job titles, position descriptions, and salary ranges that have been developed by other state agencies and applies them to its own personnel. These job titles are used by the Office even though they may not reflect the actual duties and responsibilities of the position within the Office of Highway Safety. Our review also found cases in which the employees did not appear to meet all of the qualifications for their current po-

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 22

sition. These points are discussed below.
As shown by Exhibit 6 on the following page, 14 of the Office's 26 employees have job titles that imply some level of managerial or supervisory responsibility, including nine directors, four managers, and one administrator. Of these 14 positions, only seven supervise or manage more than one employee; five (including three directors) do not supervise any personnel. The job title for one of the director positions, for example, was selected from two of the state's technical colleges where it is used to describe a position with multiple duties and supervisory responsibilities. The Office of Highway Safety uses the job title for a position with no supervisory duties.
The job title for another managerial position was taken from the Department of Juvenile Justice and includes responsibilities on a scale much broader than those at the Office of Highway Safety. The position at the Department of Juvenile Justice (which has an annual budget of $280.7 million) is responsible for directly supervising six employees and is indirectly responsible for the staff at each of the Department's facilities, such as the youth detention centers. The position at the Office of Highway Safety (which has an annual budget of $25.3 million) directly supervises only three employees.
Because job titles have been created on an ad hoc basis, persons performing similar functions have a number of different job titles. For example, the nine staff members who manage highway safety grants and contracts (referred to internally as "planners") have eight different job titles and six different, but

overlapping, pay grades. (The annual salary midpoint for each of these positions ranges from approximately $34,000 to $66,000.) Overall, only two of the Office's 26 positions have the same job title.
It should also be noted that the use of different job titles for employees with similar job duties prevents employees from having any sort of career path. The requirements for advancing from one position to another are not specified.
A review of the salaries currently paid the different positions also indicated a lack of a coherent system. The program director 1 is paid more than the program director 2 (who was hired after the program director 1).
Our review also identified two cases in which the persons' qualifications were not in line with their job title. One of the Office's division directors is currently paid $70,400 per year for managing a staff of four. The Office has not prepared an official job description of the position outlining the experience and education requirements for the position. Documentation on file with the Office, however, indicates that the employee attended cosmetology school in 1973, took some general college courses in 1977, and has worked as a secretary and administrative assistant.
In another case, the employee's job description indicates that the position requires an undergraduate degree in business administration or public administration and three years' experience in grant and contract analysis, development, or administration. The employee has the required undergraduate degree

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 23

Exhibit 6 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 24

but does not have any prior experience with grants or contracts (per a job application on file at the Office).
The Office should take steps to develop a coherent personnel system with appropriate job titles, job descriptions, and pay ranges. The Department of Public Safety should have the Georgia Merit System conduct a personnel audit of the Office.
In its written response, the Office indicated that its organizational structure was welldefined, with 26 positions that had distinct and clearly defined responsibilities. The Office also indicated that its use of job descriptions from other agencies was appropriate and was encouraged by the state Merit System. The Office indicated that its job descriptions/job titles reasonably reflected the duties and responsibilities of the positions. The Office noted that the five persons with managerial job titles who did not supervise anyone were program managers.
With regard to the division director with a clerical background, the Office indicated that the job title was appropriate based on the employee's experience and job duties. With regard to the employee with no grants or contracts experience, the Office noted that this was not required by the job description at the time the person was hired. The Office indicated that the job title taken from the Department of Juvenile Justice was appropriate based on the level of responsibility. The Office also indicated that other organizations used the job title taken from the Department of Juvenile Justice and that one of them had a smaller budget than the Office's budget.
Finding No. 2 The Office's expenditure of public funds to have 42 communications devices (such as wireless radios and cell phones) for 26

persons cannot be justified.

A review of the Office's expenditures re-

vealed numerous payments to vendors for

communications

devices

and The need for the 26-

monthly service plans that are unnecessary given the Office's relatively small size

person Office to have 42 communications devices (such as cell phones and wireless radios) is questionable.

and its overall re-

sponsibilities. Exhibit 7 on the following

page provides a description of the types of

communications devices that have been

purchased by the Office and the cost of the

monthly service plans. Specific problems

with these expenditures are discussed in

more detail below.

Information provided by the Office indicated that 23 staff persons, with responsibilities ranging from administrative secretary to the director, are assigned a pager. Based on our review, at least 13 of these staff persons have administrative responsibilities that require them to be in the office on a daily basis, and do not require them to be immediately accessible outside of normal work hours. For example, pagers are assigned to the accounting manager, the director of research and evaluation, the library director, and two secretaries. The monthly service cost of each pager ranges from $7 to $24.95.

The need for eight Office personnel to have wireless Internet devices (i.e., small devices no larger than a cell phone that provide instant access to e- mail and the Internet) is questionable. Three of the eight staff with wireless Internet devices do not have responsibilities that require them to be away from the office on a routine basis or require them to be immediately accessible outside of work hours.

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 25

Cellular Phones Pagers

Exhibit 7 COMMUNICATIONS DEVIC ES AND EXPENSES

Number of

Total Cost

Monthly Total Monthly

Devices Cost per Device of Devices Service Cost Service Costs

5

$21.38-$128.31

$427.69 $39.99-$49.99

$219.95

23

(1)

n/a $7.00-$24.95

$250.20

Wireless Internet

8

$399.00

$3,192.00

$39.95

$319.60

Wireless Radios

6

$159.95

$959.70

$72.00

$432.00

42

$4,579.39

$1,221.75

(1) All of the pagers are rented and the rental cost is included in the monthly service cost. Source: Office documents and invoices

It should also be noted that all eight staff persons are also assigned at least one other communications device, such as a pager or cellular phone. The cost of each wireless Internet device was $400 with a monthly service cost of $40 each.
Information provided by the Office also indicated that 10 staff persons have two or more communications devices assigned to them, including two staff persons who are assigned a pager, a cellular phone, a wireless Internet device, and a digital wireless radio. While it may be useful to be able to access some of these individuals immediately, the assignment of multiple communications devices to 38% of the staff is unnecessarily duplicative and wasteful. The estimated cost of monthly service plans for individuals with more than one communications device ranges from $46.95 to $186.89; the one-time equipment cost ranged from $128.31 to $687.26.
As shown in Exhibit 7, the Office's total monthly service plan expenses are estimated to be $1,222, or $14,660 annually.
The Office should reevaluate the need for all its communications devices based on

each staff person's responsibilities.
The Office indicated in its written response that it would take steps to reduce the number of communications devices assigned to its personnel, including two wireless Internet devices, one cell phone, four wireless radios, and an undetermined number of pagers.
Finding No. 3 The Office should take steps to improve the accuracy and completeness of its management information. Although the Office is responsible for managing about 250 grants each year, it does not have a centralized system which contains all of the programmatic and financial information necessary to track the grants from application to implementation to evaluation. Different pieces of information regarding grants are maintained in two manual filing systems, two computerized grants management systems, and various spreadsheets created and maintained by individual staff persons. As a result, Office management lacks the summary data needed to monitor and evaluate its activities. Specific limitations of the current system include the following:

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 26

The Office maintains paper files for each grant and contract. Each file is supposed to contain a copy of the grant application or contract, a log of contacts made with grantees, and monthly and year-end milestone reports submitted by the grantee. However, as indicated in a previous finding, these files are not always complete or up-to-date. It should be noted that programmatic files are stored in one location, separate from the related financial files.
Although the Office has an internal grant management system, and another internetbased system supplied by NHTSA, neither system is designed to track grant applications prior to their award. Additionally, grants funded through three of the Office's 10 funding sources cannot be tracked with either system because they have not been adapted to reflect the unique characteristics of these funds. As a result, neither system allows all outstanding grants to be managed in a central location. The internal grant management system also has a limited number of management reports that can be run, and little capability for creating ad hoc queries to the database.
To work around the limitations of the grant management systems, multiple additional files have been created by various Office staff. For example, the Office's planning staff have created a spreadsheet file to track applications as they are received, which is updated as applications are processed and funding decisions are made. A second spreadsheet is used by planning support staff to track which planners are assigned to manage individual projects, and to analyze the total dollar amount and number of grants managed by each staff member.
It should be noted that during the course

of the audit, situations were identified in which common data elements in these disparate files did not agree. For example, the grant amount sometimes varied from one file to another. In addition, no consistent naming conventions were followed when identifying the recipient of the grant. In order to evaluate the Office's grant awards, the audit team created a comprehensive data file which included all of the information pertinent to each grant and contract awarded in 2002. Validating the data in this file required referencing 11 different sources of financial or programmatic information.
The Office should ensure that accurate and complete data is available to make programmatic and operational management decisions. Office staff have indicated that their request to purchase an updated grants management system was denied by the Georgia Technology Authority.
Absent a new system, the Office could take steps to improve the accuracy and comprehensiveness of management data using its current resources. The Office could, for example, use available desktop software and its internal computer network to combine all required information into a single database or spreadsheet. Policies could be established regarding consistent identification of grant recipients, and controls could be placed on the modification of critical data elements (such as the amount of the grant award).
In its written response, the Office noted that it has made many enhancements to the present grants management information system since it was denied the opportunity to obtain a new system.
Finding No. 4 The Office should continue its efforts to

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 27

ensure that comprehensive traffic data is available for planning and evaluating its highway safety initiatives. Although the individual components of a comprehensive data system are present in varying degrees, the state is not currently able to link highway safety data in files maintained by different state agencies such as the Department of Transportation and the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety. As recommended by federal guidelines, a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee has been created representing the principal users and custodians of the state's highway safety data, including the Office.
The Office should take steps to facilitate the linkage of the data maintained by the various agencies to allow all highway safety data to be used to its fullest potential. According to the Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs, [a] complete and comprehensive traffic records program is essential for the development and operation of ...effective traffic-related injury control efforts. It is also essential for the performance of planning, problem identification, operational management and control, tracking of safety trends, and the implementation and evaluation of highway safety countermeasures and activities. It is the key ingredient to safety effectiveness and management.
Finding No. 5 The Office should take steps to ensure that its annual Highway Safety Plans and its grants management policy manual accurately reflect its current procedures. Our review of the Grantee's Manual developed by the Office and the 2003 Highway Safety Plan found that they do not always reflect current procedures and, in some cases, include procedures that should be revised. Areas in which improvements are needed are discussed below.

The Manual and the 2003 Highway Safety Plan indicate that the Office identifies potential recipients for law enforcement grants based on their speed- and alcohol-related crash statistics. Neither document, however, indicates smaller cities and counties were ineligible for certain types of law enforcement grants (e.g., cities and counties with less than 45,000 population were ineligible for a law enforcement grant to reduce speedrelated crashes).
The Manual specifies that grant recipients are required to submit copies of financial audit reports prepared in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. While the Office does not enforce this requirement, it is of questionable value. As currently worded, this requirement would result in the Office receiving financial audit reports from every city, county, and school system in the state that received a Highway Safety grant (regardless of the amount of the grant). Currently, any audit reports that are received by the Office are sent to the Department of Public Safety for review.
The current Manual does not differentiate between the different types of grants awarded by the Office and the different requirements that apply to the grantees. The Manual indicates, for example, that grant recipients are subject to a matching requirement and that they must demonstrate how they will keep the project going after the grant period has ended. These requirements, however, do not apply to most of the grants awarded by the Office, including grants awarded to state agencies and small-dollar grants awarded to school systems and law enforcement agencies. For federal fiscal year 2003, for example, only six grant recipients are providing matching funds as described in

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 28

the Manual.
The Grantee's Manual and the Highway Safety Plans should be updated to reflect the Office's current procedures. In updating the Manual, the Office should revise its requirements regarding audit reports. Instead of requiring every grantee to submit copies of audit reports, the Office should only require annual audit reports to be submitted by those grantees who expend $300,000 or more in Highway Safety grants in a single year. Under federal regulations, entities that expend less than $300,000 in federal awards (from any source) are not required to have an annual audit conducted. Similarly, the Office is not responsible for ensuring that entities that expend less than $300,000 in Highway Safety grants but more than that amount in total federal funds have the required audit conducted.
The Office indicated in its written response that the Plan and the Manual are up-todate and reflect current procedures. The Office agreed, however, that the submission of audit reports from grantees should be reevaluated.
Other
Finding No. 1 The Office should reconsider the need for two Highway Safety Institutes. In the past three years, the Office has awarded grants totaling approximately $750,000 to Paine College, a private, church-affiliated school in Augusta, and to Georgia Southwestern University in Americus. The schools have been awarded the grants to serve as Highway Safety Institutes, or as mini-Offices of Highway Safety.
In addition to serving as resource centers

for highway safety information (such as

brochures and fact sheets), the schools are

responsible for helping to increase the num-

ber of BACCHUS AND GAMMA chapters

on college campuses throughout the state.

(BACCHUS AND GAMMA is an international association of college- and university-based peer education pro-

The need for Highway Safety Institutes at Paine College and Georgia Southwestern is questionable.

grams dedicated to alcohol abuse preven-

tion and related health and safety issues.)

Paine College is responsible for increasing

the number BACCHUS AND GAMMA

chapters at predominately black colleges;

Georgia Southwestern is responsible for

increasing the number of chapters at other

colleges. As discussed below, the need for

the Institutes and their overall cost-

effectiveness is questionable.

As noted in Paine College's grant application for 2003, there are a number of organizations in the Augusta-Richmond County area that are involved with highway safety issues, including Safe Communities Coalition of Augusta, the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, Safe Kids, and the Georgia Traffic Enforcement Network. (Two of these agencies Safe Communities and the Traffic Enforcement Network - are funded by the Office.) Instead of contracting with Paine College, the Office could utilize these existing organizations to disseminate information.

In Paine College's grant applications for 2002, it indicated that it would establish four BACCHUS AND GAMMA chapters. At the time of its 2003 application, however, the college had established only two chapters.

Reviews of reports filed by Georgia

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 29

Southwestern University indicate that the school has disseminated highway safety materials and participated in and organized highway safety activities. The extent to which the college has met two of its grant objectives, however, could not be readily determined. The school's grant applications for 2001 and 2002 indicated that it would help to establish an additional 30 BACCHUS AND GAMMA chapters. Office personnel have indicated that the school has helped to establish only five additional BACCHUS and GAMMA chapters.
In addition, the school's 2002 grant application indicated that 250 peer educators would be certified. However, a review of milestone reports submitted by the University revealed no indication of how many peer educators were actually certified.
The Office should take steps to justify the expense associated with the two Institutes to ensure that the Institutes are a good use of public funds.
In its written response, the Office indicated that existing agencies (such as Safe Communities Coalition of Augusta, the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, and Safe Kids) lacked the capacity to provide the services rendered by Paine College and Georgia Southwestern University. The Office also indicated, however, that it would continue to review and assess the need for the Institutes and make funding decisions based on need.
Finding No. 2 The Office should be commended for its efforts to coordinate the highway safety efforts of law enforcement agencies throughout the state. Through the creation of its Traffic Enforce-

ment Network, the Office has achieved the

participation of 100% of Georgia's traffic

enforcement agencies in recent statewide

campaigns such as Click it or Ticket and

Operation Zero

Tolerance. The The Office should be

Network, which began in 1997, has also provided opportunities for

commended for its efforts to create a statewide Traffic Enforcement Network.

greater communi-

cation between law enforcement agencies.

For example, the Network's e-mail discus-

sion group is used by hundreds of traffic

enforcement officers, by judges and prose-

cutors, as well as by Office staff. Members

discuss training opportunities, pending leg-

islation and interpretation of current law;

announce network meetings; solicit partici-

pation in multi- jurisdictional enforcement

events; and, use the discussion group to

compare departmental policies and proce-

dures as well as share experiences in traffic

enforcement.

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 30

LEGISLATIVE ISSUES

Recommendation No. 1 Consideration should be given to amending current law to make the Department of Public Safety (or another agency or commission) responsible for overseeing the operations of the Office of Highway Safety. Under current law, the Office is attached to the Department of Public Safety for administrative purposes only. The law does not provide for any type of formal oversight or accountability. If a board or commission were established that was composed of representatives of state agencies involved in highway safety, it could also serve as a means of creating a more coordinated approach to the state's highway safety issues.

The Office indicated in its response that oversight and accountability are provided by its being attached to the Department of Public Safety. The Office also indicated, however, that it supports the establishment of a strong interagency committee comprised of agencies with highway safety responsibilities and highway safety advocates. The Office indicated that it was reviewing the Traffic Safety Management System Committee to determine how the Office could enhance the Committee's involvement in creating a more coordinated approach to highway safety.

For additional information, please contact Paul E. Bernard, Director Performance Audit Operations Division, at 404.657.5220

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 31

APPENDIX A FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2002 HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANTS

GRANT RECIPIENT
Appling Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) Graham Police Department Surrency Police Department APPLING Total Willacoochee Police Department ATKINSON Total Bacon Co. Sheriff's Office BACON Total Newton Police Department BAKER Total Milledgeville Police Department BALDWIN Total Banks Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) BANKS Total Winder Police Department Winder-Barrow County School SADD BARROW Total Woodland High School BARTOW Total Ben Hill Co. Sheriff's Office BEN HILL Total Alapaha Police Department Berrien Co. Sheriff's Office (NETWORK) BERRIEN Total Macon Police Department Macon Teens Against Drunk Driving Southwest Magnet School (SADD) Westside High School (Bibb County) BIBB Total Bleckley Co. High School (SADD) BLECKLEY Total Bryan Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) BRYAN Total Brooklet Police Department Statesboro Police Department BULLOCH Total Butts Co. Sheriff's Office BUTTS Total Camden Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) St. Mary's Police Department CAMDEN Total

PROGRAM AREA
Occupant Protection Police Traffic Services Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services
Occupant Protection
Police Traffic Services Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services Police Traffic Services
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Occupant Protection
Police Traffic Services Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services
Occupant Protection Police Traffic Services

AMOUNT
$14,890 7,000 7,000
28,890 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
15,000 15,000
6,998 2,000 8,998 2,000 2,000 6,999 6,999 2,469 9,900 12,369 295,500 44,600 2,000 2,000 344,100 2,000 2,000 14,998 14,998 6,995 7,000 13,995 5,000 5,000 15,000 6,950 21,950

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 32

GRANT RECIPIENT
Villa Rica & Carroll Co.: Traffic Reduction Whitesburg Police Department CARROLL Total Fort Oglethorpe Police Department CATOOSA Total Charlton Co.Sheriff's Office CHARLTON Total Bloomingdale Police Department Chatham Co. Operation Walk Smart/Drive Smart Garden City Police Department Pooler Police Department Pooler Police Department (NETWORK) CHATHAM Total Chattooga High School (SADD) CHATTOOGA Total Canton Police Department Cherokee Co. School System (SADD) CHEROKEE Total Athens-Clarke County Unified Government CLARKE Total Clayton Co. Police Department Morrow Police Department Morrow, City of (Fitting Stations) CLAYTON Total Cobb Co. Board of Health (Child Seats) Cobb County BOC: Railroad Crossing Cobb County BOC: Walk In Traffic Safely Cobb County DPS: Safe Communities Cobb County Multi-Jurisdictional DUI Harrison High School (Driving Reality) John McEachern High School (SADD) Osborne High School (SADD) Pebblebrook High School (SADD) Smyrna Fire Department Sprayberry High School COBB Total Moultrie Fire Department (Fitting Station) Moultrie Police Department COLQUITT Total Adel Police Department Cook Co. Health Department (Child Seats) COOK Total Grantville Police Department COWETA Total Dade Co. Sheriff's Department DADE Total

PROGRAM AREA
Speed Control Occupant Protection
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services Pedestrian Safety Occupant Protection Police Traffic Services Police Traffic Services
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Police Traffic Services Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Police Traffic Services Occupant Protection
Occupant Protection Community Traffic Safety Pedestrian Safety Safe Communities Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Occupant Protection Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Occupant Protection Police Traffic Services
Occupant Protection Occupant Protection
Police Traffic Services
Occupant Protection

AMOUNT
211,760 15,000
226,760 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
30,000 15,000
3,445 5,000 60,445 2,000 2,000 7,000 2,000 9,000 144,640 144,640 224,300 5,000 5,770 235,070 14,950 18,000 42,100 80,000 205,000
600 2,000 2,000 2,000 9,700 2,000 378,350 10,000 7,000 17,000 15,000 15,000 30,000 7,000 7,000 7,500 7,500

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 33

GRANT RECIPIENT

PROGRAM AREA

Cross Keys High School (SADD)

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

Dekalb Co. BOH: Safe Communities

Safe Communities

Dekalb Co. Safe Kids (Child Seats)

Occupant Protection

Dekalb County DFACS (New Leaf Svcs)

Occupant Protection

Dekalb Co. Public Safety: Multi-Juris. DUI

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

Helping A Little One, Inc. (Safety Rally)

Occupant Protection

Stone Mountain Police Department

Police Traffic Services

Toney Elementary School

Occupant Protection

Tucker High School (SADD)

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

Whitefoord Community/Family Learning

Pedestrian Safety

DEKALB Total

Vienna Police Department

Police Traffic Services

DOOLY Total

Albany Police Department (NETWORK)

Police Traffic Services

Albany, City of: Safe Communities

Safe Communities

Deerfield-Windsor School (SADD)

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

DOUGHERTY Total

Douglas Co. Board of Health (Child Seats)

Occupant Protection

Douglas Co. BOC: Highway Safety Task Force

Police Traffic Services

Douglasville Police Department

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

DOUGLAS Total

Elbert Co. Comprehensive High School (SADD)

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

Elberton Police Department

Occupant Protection

Elberton Police Department (NETWORK)

Police Traffic Services

ELBERT Total

Emanuel Co. Sheriff's Office

Police Traffic Services

Swainsboro Fire Dept. (Fitting Station)

Occupant Protection

EMANUEL Total

Coosa High School (SADD)

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

FLOYD Total

Forsyth Co. BOC: DUI Task Force

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

Forsyth Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats)

Occupant Protection

FORSYTH Total

Franklin Springs Police Department

Police Traffic Services

Royston Police Department

Police Traffic Services

FRANKLIN Total

Atlanta, City of: Fire Department

Occupant Protection

Atlanta, City of: Multi-Jurisdictional DUI:

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

College Park, City of: Multi-Juris. DUI

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

Fulton Co BOC Multi-Jurisdictional DUI

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

Fulton Co. BOE: Safety Street Georgia

Pedestrian Safety

Fulton Co. Health & Wellness (Child Seats)- 2002 Occupant Protection

Fulton County BOH: Safe Communities

Safe Communities

Fulton County Sheriff's Dept.: Buckle Up GA Students Occupant Protection

Fulton Dekalb Hospital Authority

Occupant Protection

Hapeville Police Department

Police Traffic Services

Northside High School

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

Pedestrians Educating Drivers on Safety

Pedestrian Safety

Union City Police Department (NETWORK)

Police Traffic Services

Woodward Academy (SADD)

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

FULTON Total

AMOUNT
2,000 60,000 15,000 27,000 229,000 10,370
7,000 1,882 2,000 5,150 359,402 7,000 7,000 10,000 100,000 2,000 112,000 14,950 88,600 6,882 110,432 2,000 7,563 9,775 19,338 7,000 10,100 17,100 2,000 2,000 51,075 14,340 65,415 3,670 5,000 8,670 75,000 232,000 205,000 210,600 64,000 15,000 98,500 56,700 73,925 7,000 2,000 25,200 10,000 2,000 1,076,925

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 34

GRANT RECIPIENT
Gilmer Co. Sheriff's Office GILMER Total Brunswick Police Department Glynn Academy (SADD) Glynn Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) Glynn County Board of Health: Bicycle Safety GLYNN Total Grady Co. Sheriff's Department GRADY Total Butler High School (SADD) Duluth High School (SADD) Grayson High School/Duluth Police Department Gwinnett County BOH: Safe Communities Gwinnett County Police Dept. Multi-Juris. Norcross High School (SADD) GWINNETT Total Habersham Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) HABERSHAM Total Gainesville Police Department (NETWORK) Hall County Board of Commissioners HALL Total Hart Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) HART Total Franklin Police Department (NETWORK) Heard Co. EMA (Fitting Station) HEARD Total Henry Co. BOC Multi-Jurisdictional DUI Stockbridge High School (SADD) HENRY Total Centerville Fire Dept. (Fitting Station) Centerville Police Department (NETWORK) HOUSTON Total Arcade Police Department Braselton Police Department Jackson Co. Comprehensive HS (SADD) JACKSON Total Jeff Davis Health Dept. (Fatal Vision) JEFF DAVIS Total Wrens Police Department JEFFERSON Total Milner Police Department LAMAR Total Lanier High School (SADD) LANIER Total Laurens County BOC: Teen Court LAURENS Total Bradwell Institute (SADD) Liberty Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) LIBERTY Total

PROGRAM AREA
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Occupant Protection Pedestrian Safety
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Safe Communities Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Occupant Protection
Police Traffic Services Speed Control
Occupant Protection
Police Traffic Services Occupant Protection
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Occupant Protection Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services Occupant Protection Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Occupant Protection

AMOUNT
7,000 7,000 7,000 2,000 15,000 24,000 48,000 4,882 4,882 2,000 2,000 3,111 100,000 150,500 2,000 259,611 15,000 15,000 9,973 269,000 278,973 15,000 15,000 10,000 9,300 19,300 203,500 2,000 205,500 10,000 10,000 20,000 6,963 15,000 2,000 23,963 7,942 7,942 4,000 4,000 7,000 7,000 2,000 2,000 49,300 49,300 2,000 15,000 17,000

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 35

GRANT RECIPIENT
Lincoln Co. High School (SADD) LINCOLN Total Long Co. Sheriff's Department Long Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) LONG Total Lumpkin Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) LUMPKIN Total Marshallville Police Department MACON Total Buena Vista Police Department MARION Total Thomson City of: Fire Department MCDUFFIE Total McIntosh Co.Sheriff's Department McIntosh Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) MCINTOSH Total Pelham Fire Department MITCHELL Total Madison Police Department Morgan Co. Sheriff's Office MORGAN Total Urban League of Columbus: Safe Communities Hardaway High School (SADD) Spencer High School (SADD) MUSCOGEE Total Covington Police Department Covington Police Dept. (Reality Wreck) Newton Co. Sheriff's Office Oxford Police Department Porterdale Police Department NEWTON Total Paulding Co. High School (SADD) PAULDING Total Byron Police Department Fort Valley Fire Dept. (Fitting Station) PEACH Total Jasper Police Department Pickens High School (SADD) PICKENS Total Patterson Police Department PIERCE Total Pike Co. Sheriff's Office PIKE Total Rockmart Comp. High School (SADD) POLK Total Rabun Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) RABUN Total Collins Hill High School (SADD) Richmond Co. Sheriff's Office (NETWORK) Richmond County BOH: Safe Communities Savannah Police Dept: Speed Aggressive Driving Westside High School (SADD) RICHMOND Total

PROGRAM AREA
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Police Traffic Services Occupant Protection
Occupant Protection
Occupant Protection
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Occupant Protection
Police Traffic Services Occupant Protection
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Police Traffic Services Police Traffic Services
Safe Communities Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Police Traffic Services Police Traffic Services Police Traffic Services
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Occupant Protection Occupant Protection
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Occupant Protection
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Police Traffic Services Safe Communities Speed Control Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

AMOUNT
2,000 2,000 5,893 15,000 20,893 10,530 10,530 7,500 7,500 7,000 7,000 9,820 9,820 7,000 15,000 22,000 4,200 4,200 7,000 7,000 14,000 89,900 2,000 2,000 93,900 5,000 5,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 31,000 2,000 2,000 10,000 6,560 16,560 6,976 2,000 8,976 7,000 7,000 5,000 5,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 15,000 2,000 10,000 74,000 229,720 2,000 317,720

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 36

GRANT RECIPIENT
Rockdale Co. Sheriff's Office (NETWORK) ROCKDALE Total Oliver Police Department Screven Co. Sheriff's Department Screven Police Department SCREVEN Total Spalding Co. Sheriff's Office SPALDING Total Stephens Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) Stephenson High School (SADD) STEPHENS Total Americus High School (SADD) Americus Police Department Sumter Co. Sheriff's Department (NETWORK) SUMTER Total Talbotton Police Department TALBOT Total Taliaferro Co. Sheriff's Office TALIAFERRO Total Reidsville Police Department TATTNALL Total Terrell Co. Sheriff's Office TERRELL Total Lyons Police Department (NETWORK) TOOMBS Total Hiawassee Police Department Towns Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) TOWNS Total Danville Police Department Jeffersonville Police Department TWIGGS Total Blairsville Police Department (NETWORK) Union Co. Health Dept. (Child Seats) Union Co. High School (SADD) UNION Total Loganville Police Department Monroe Police Department WALTON Total Ware Co. Sheriff's Office Waycross Police Department WARE Total Jesup, City of (Fitting Station) Jesup Police Department (NETWORK) WAYNE Total Dalton Police Department Dalton Police Department (NETWORK) Tunnel Hill Police Department Whitfield County Sheriff's Office WHITFIELD Total

PROGRAM AREA
Police Traffic Services
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Police Traffic Services Police Traffic Services
Occupant Protection
Occupant Protection Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Occupant Protection Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services Occupant Protection
Police Traffic Services Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services Occupant Protection Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Occupant Protection Police Traffic Services
Police Traffic Services Police Traffic Services
Occupant Protection Police Traffic Services
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Police Traffic Services Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

AMOUNT
10,000 10,000
7,000 4,998 4,895 16,893 15,000 15,000 14,500 2,000 16,500 2,000 15,000 9,929 26,929 5,000 5,000 5,495 5,495 7,000 7,000 4,660 4,660 10,000 10,000 4,710 13,570 18,280 7,000 6,387 13,387 10,000 14,809 2,000 26,809 15,000 4,998 19,998 9,460 8,030 17,490 3,100 10,000 13,100 6,170 9,997 7,000 230,000 253,167

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 37

GRANT RECIPIENT
Pineview Police Department WILCOX Total Washington Police Department Washington-Wilkes Comprehensive H.S. (SADD) WILKES Total Warwick Police Department WORTH Total LOCAL Total

PROGRAM AREA
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)
Police Traffic Services

AMOUNT
7,000 7,000 6,927 2,000 8,927 4,540 4,540 $5,496,091

GOHS (157 Community Traffic Safety) GOHS (157 Pedestrian Safety) GOHS (157 Planning and Administration) GOHS (157 Police Traffic Services) GOHS (157A Occupant Protection) GOHS (157A Paid Media) GOHS (157A Roadway Safety) GOHS (157A Safe Communities) GOHS (157B Occupant Protection) GOHS (163 Community Traffic Safety) GOHS (163 Paid Media) GOHS (163 Planning and Administration) GOHS (164 Planning and Administration) GOHS (164 Planning and Administration) GOHS (2003B Occupant Protection) GOHS (402 Alcohol In-House) GOHS (402 Community Traffic Safety) GOHS (402 Occupant Protection) GOHS (402 Planning and Administration) GOHS (402 Police Traffic Services) GOHS (402 Traffic Records) GOHS (405 Occupant Protection) GOHS (410 Alcohol) GOHS (411 Traffic Records) IN-HOUSE Total

Community Traffic Safety Pedestrian Safety Planning and Administration Police Traffic Services Occupant Protection Paid Media Roadway Safety Safe Communities Occupant Protection Community Traffic Safety Paid Media Planning and Administration Planning and Administration Planning and Administration Occupant Protection Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Community Traffic Safety Occupant Protection Planning and Administration Police Traffic Services Traffic Records Occupant Protection Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Traffic Records

$130,010 60,086 94,807 86,000
116,342 250,000
44,000 87,585 431,175 424,000 300,000 141,808 200,000 200,000 384,613 178,200 819,400 141,300 541,348 122,300 93,600 660,434 617,800 292,060 $6,416,868

Abraham Baldwin Agric.College: BACCHUS & GAMMA Albany State University (Responsible Choices) Children and Youth Coordinating Council GA Dept. Motor Vehicle Services: Motorcycle Safety GA Capitol Police GA Courts Automation Commission GA DHR: Injury Prevention Section GA Dept. of Public Safety GA Emergency Management Agency GA Public Safety Training Center GA State Patrol Georgia Southwestern State University GA Bureau of Investigation Georgia Sheriff's Association North GA College & State Univ.: BACCHUS & GAMMA

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Community Traffic Safety Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Traffic Records Occupant Protection Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Occupant Protection Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Occupant Protection Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

$19,800 20,000 50,000 41,100 6,914
197,200 231,100 2,276,000
58,000 271,700
15,000 150,000 104,800
33,100 20,000

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 38

GRANT RECIPIENT
University of Georgia: Occupant Protection University of Georgia: BACCHUS & GAMMA STATE AGENCY Total
Brenau University: BACCHUS & GAMMA Morehouse College: BACCHUS & GAMMA Paine College Young Harris College: BACCHUS & GAMMA PRIVATE COLLEGES Total
Grand Total (All Grants)

PROGRAM AREA
Occupant Protection Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

AMOUNT
708,034 17,900
$4,220,648

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

$20,000 20,000
133,700 20,000
$193,700

$16,327,307

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 39

APPENDIX B FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2002 HIGHWAY SAFETY CONTRACTS

CONTRACTOR
100 BLACK MEN, INC AKA (TAU PI CHAPTER) AKA (TAU PI OMICRON) AKA SORORITY (Newnan) ANGELYN RIOS ANTHONY BOBBITT ARCH PRODUCTIONS ATLANTA LATINO, INC. CAMPUS LIVE EMERGENCY NURSES CARE (ENCARE) FAMILY CONNECTION UNLIMITED FAULKNER MOTORSPORT FOUNDATION DE MANANA GA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS GA OPERATION LIFESAVER, INC GEORGIA MOTOR TRUCKING ASSOC GEORGIA TECH-WEBSITE GREATER PLEASANT GROVE MINISTRY

PROGRAM AREA

AMOUNT

Occupant Protection

$

7,500

Occupant Protection

$

7,500

Occupant Protection

$

7,500

Occupant Protection

$

7,500

Traffic Records

$

63,000

Police Traffic Services

$

16,500

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

$ 150,000

Community Traffic Safety Programs $

4,550

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

$

39,600

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

$

25,000

Occupant Protection

$

6,500

Occupant Protection

$

38,050

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

$

15,000

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

$

5,0001

Community Traffic Safety Programs $

27,540

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

$ 200,000

Community Traffic Safety Programs $

72,706

Occupant Protection

$

7,500

GREATER PLEASANT TEMPLE OUTREACH IMAGE CONSULTING, INC. JEFF HARRIS MELVIN JOHNSON MYERS & DAVIS POMERANCE & ASSOCIATES REECE & ASSOCIATES RONALD RHODES

Occupant Protection Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Police Traffic Services Occupant Protection Occupant Protection Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures) Occupant Protection

$

7,500

$

30,000

$

18,000

$

9,000

$

40,000

$

35,800

$ 224,000

$

9,000

SAFE AMERICA FOUNDATION SHIRLEY FREEMAN T. SCOTT HUTCHENS THERESIA CARRINGTON

Teen Driver Occupant Protection Police Traffic Services Occupant Protection

$

12,500

$

8,250

$

15,750

$

9,000

TOM ISRAEL

Police Traffic Services

UNIONVILLE IMPROVEMENT ASSOC

Occupant Protection

WELLSTAR FOUNDATION, INC.

Alcohol (DUI Countermeasures)

WILLIAM PEACOCK

Occupant Protection

WILLIAM YOUNGBLOOD

Traffic Records

CONTRACTS Total 1 No payments had been made on this contract as of October 2002.

$

18,000

$

7,500

$

25,000

$

10,500

$

54,000

$ 1,234,746

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

Page 40

APPENDIX C GEORGIA HIGHWAY SAFETY FUNDING, BY GRANT SOURCE

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

U.S. Code Section, Title 23

Obligated to Georgia in FFY 2002:

Carried

Total

Forward from Available Funds,

FFY 2001:

FFY 2002

Purpose:

Requirements for Local Use:

402

$4,218,235

$1,195,252

"Address a wide range of highway safety problems At least 40% of Federal funds

$5,413,487 [and] ...contribute to the reduction of crashes, deaths must be spent by locals or desig-

and injuries."

nated for the benefit of locals.

403

0

327,959

327,959 "Engage in research on all phases of highway safety and traffic conditions."

Not required.

405

534,203

660,434

1,194,637 Incentive grants to encourage states to implement and enforce occupant protection programs.

Not required.

410

1,189,650

3,679,537

4,869,187 Incentive grants to encourage states to implement and enforce impaired driving programs.

Not required.

411

224,151

295,821

519,972 Incentive grants to encourage states to implement and enforce data improvement programs.

Not required.

154 1

0

2,136,179 2

2,136,179

Incentive program to encourage states to enact Open Container laws.

At least 40% of Federal funds must be spent by locals or designated for the benefit of locals.

164 1

0

3,784,963 2

3,784,963 Incentive program to encourage states to enact Repeat Intoxicated Driver laws.

At least 40% of Federal funds must be spent by locals or designated for the benefit of locals.

157

344,200

1,394,838

1,739,038 Incentive grants to increase seatbelt use rates.

At least 40% of Federal funds must be spent by locals or designated for the benefit of locals.

157B

986,175

0

986,175 Grants to support innovative projects designed to increase seat belt use rates

Not required.

163

1,418,082

0

Incentive grants to encourage states to establish 0.08 1,418,082 percent blood alcohol concentration (BAC) as
legal limit for DUI. Grant funds come from FHWA and are accounted for by state DOT

At least 40% of Federal funds must be spent by locals or designated for the benefit of locals.

2003(b) 3

210,658

236,775

447,433 Incentive grants to encourage states to implement child passenger protection programs.

Not required.

$9,125,354

$13,711,759

$22,837,113

1 Funds are transferred from state Federal -aid highway funds to Highway Safety 402 funds. 2 Does not include $9 million combined 154 and 164 transfer funds designated for use of Georgia DOT. 3 Part (b) of Section 405, but referred to as 2003(b) because introduced as part 2003 of the "Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century."

Page 41