2004 annual report

Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I GHSA Annual Report Template
Revised 5.01.05
Message from the Director ................................................................................................... 5 Contact Information .............................................................................................................. 6 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 6 Accomplishments .................................................................................................................. 7 Challenges.............................................................................................................................. 8 Crash Data / Trends ..............................................................................................................10 Performance Goals and Trends..............................................................................................11 Financial Summary ...............................................................................................................16 Impaired Driving Overview...................................................................................................17 Occupant Protection Overview .............................................................................................20 Paid Media Report Overview ................................................................................................22 Noteworthy Practices: Georgia Highway Safety Programs Evaluation ................................26 Noteworthy Practices: A Demonstration Project on Effective DUI Adjudication ................28 Noteworthy Practices: Highway Enforcement Against Aggressive Traffic (H.E.A.T.) .......31 Looking to the Future ............................................................................................................34
2

Section II
Georgia Highway Safety Programs Evaluation
Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 37 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 39
I. Overview.................................................................................................................... 39 II. Methods ..................................................................................................................... 42
A. Initial Database Construction ........................................................................ 42 B. Initial Review of Grants................................................................................. 42 C. Communication with Grantees Introduction ................................................. 43 III. Overview of Evaluation Results ................................................................................ 44 A. Grantee Evaluation Results............................................................................ 44 B. GOHS Evaluation Results ............................................................................. 46
1. GOHS Goals ................................................................................... 47 2. GOHS Objectives ........................................................................... 59 IV. Evaluator's Response to 2003 Performance Audit.................................................... 80 A. Findings on Grantee Effectiveness ................................................................ 80 B. Findings on Grant Management .................................................................... 85 C. Findings on Contract Management................................................................ 89 D. Findings on Staffing and Administration ...................................................... 90 E. Findings on "Other"....................................................................................... 92 V. Procedural Recommendations ................................................................................... 95 VI. Summary.................................................................................................................... 100 VII. References.................................................................................................................. 102 VIII. Appendices A. Highway Safety Plan Goals and Objectives Cross Reference Table............. 104 B. Cost Description Report ................................................................................ 109 C. Steer It and Clear It Survey, Methodology and Questionnaire...................... 116 D. Steer It and Clear It Data Analysis ................................................................ 123
3

SECTION I
4

We are pleased to present the 2004 Georgia Highway Safety Program Annual Report. This document provides an overview of the state's highway safety efforts during the 2004 Federal Fiscal Year (FFY 2004). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires state highway safety offices to produce an Annual Report that details the accomplishments and challenges set forth in state's Highway Safety Plan. The 2004 Annual Report summarizes activities funded by the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) in FFY 2004. All GOHS programs are conducted within the context of the agency's mission:
To educate the public on highway safety issues and facilitate the implementation of programs that reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities on
Georgia roadways.
GOHS develops partnerships with law enforcement departments, educational institutions, state and local agencies, and community coalitions to influence traffic safety behaviors. Many of these partnerships address the necessity of safety belt use, the detriments of impaired driving, the importance of bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the consequences of speeding because poor decision making related to these behaviors contribute heavily to the state's annual losses in lives and economics. To improve the effectiveness of Georgia highway safety programs, GOHS has taken a prominent role in a number of critical programs, including the reconstitution of the Georgia Traffic Records Coordinating Committee and the implementation of Safety Conscious Planning in nontraditional partnership efforts.
Keeping Georgia's motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians safe is challenged by the state's continual increases in population and vehicle miles traveled. Georgia has the 10th largest state population in the United States and was ranked 4th in numeric population change between 1990 and 2000 (only California, Texas, and Florida added more citizens). There were 1,610 traffic fatalities in Georgia in 2003, a 5.6% increase from 2002. However, over the past five (5) years, unrestrained fatalities have decreased six (6) percentage points, from 43% to 37%, and alcohol-related fatalities have dropped four (4) percentage points, from 34% to 30%. In 2003, Georgia had the second lowest alcohol-related fatality percentage in the United States, after Utah and equal to Kentucky. Georgia has focused heavily in the areas of occupant safety and impaired driving over the past several years and this data shows the dedication and efforts of GOHS and its many partners.
GOHS is committed to ensuring all highway safety projects in Georgia are driven by data on the numbers and rates of crashes, injuries, deaths, and safety belt use in all 159 counties and over 500 cities and towns. This commitment to data-driven initiatives guarantees that communities across Georgia, regardless of location, receive appropriate assistance to address local issues. We are grateful to our numerous partners throughout the state for their commitment to making the GOHS mission a reality.
Robert F. Dallas, Director Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety
5

Contact Information

Street: Suite: City: State: Zip Code:

34 Peachtree Street 1600 Atlanta Georgia 30303

Phone: (404) 656-6996 Fax: (404) 651-9107 Web: www.gahighwaysafety.org

Introduction
Crash Summary: - In addition to statewide programmatic data, Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) collects statewide data on highway crashes, injuries, and fatalities. Over the past five (5) years, unrestrained fatalities have decreased six (6) percentage points, from 43% to 37%, and alcohol-related fatalities have dropped four (4) percentage points, from 34% to 30%. In 2003, Georgia had the second lowest alcohol-related fatality percentage in the United States, after Utah and equal to Kentucky. In 2003, 3.1% fewer pedestrians were killed on Georgia's roads than in 2002, and the pedestrian fatality rate per 100,000 population dropped from 1.88 to 1.80. There were 1,610 traffic fatalities in Georgia in 2003, a 5.6% increase from 2002 and a 6.8% increase from 1999. Of those, 37% were unrestrained, 30% were alcohol-related and 20% were speed-related. Among motorcyclists, eighteen (18) more were killed in 2003 than in 2002, of which 11.6% were reportedly not wearing a helmet. These numbers suggest that GOHS programs are effective in bringing down the percentages of crashes, injuries, and fatalities in jurisdictions where they are implemented. However, the number of deaths continues to rise, thereby establishing a need for continued program implementation especially in the areas of occupant restraint use, impaired driving, speed-involvement and motorcycle safety.

6

Accomplishments: - In FFY 2004, Georgia: 1. Increased safety belt usage from 84.5% in 2003 to 86.7% in 2004. 2. Experienced a 28.5% decrease in impaired driving-related crashes that resulted in injuries and a 45.9% decrease in impaired driving-related crashes that resulted in fatalities in reporting jurisdictions where GOHS implemented programs. 3. Experienced decreases in crashes, injuries and fatalities in jurisdictions where GOHS implemented programs, which reported traffic crash statistics. 4. Focused on improving traffic records by implementing the pilot test of TraCS in Cobb County and reconstituting the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee. 5. Implemented the "100 Days of Summer H.E.A.T." campaign, a massive multijurisdictional and multi-state campaign designed to reduce speeding, impaired driving, and occupant protection violations in metro Atlanta counties and the entire state resulting in lower holiday fatalities than predicted. 6. Implemented a DUI Court pilot project in three counties. 7. Facilitated communication with grantees through Bidders Conferences and Project Directors Meetings. 8. Addressed issues enumerated in the 2003 performance and financial audit through revised procedures at the GOHS offices and through contract agreements and consultations with the University of Georgia Program Evaluation Team. 9. Adopted an epidemiological focus on traffic safety problems, which included adding a full time epidemiologist to the GOHS staff. 10. Began implementation of a plan to streamline the grant writing, reporting, and management process via the Internet by hiring a vendor for electronic submission of data. 11. Grantees submitted final reports: 79.6% had achieved at least half of the stated objectives and 31.1% had achieved all the stated objectives.
7

Challenges: - In FFY 2004 Georgia: 1. Maintained the pick-up truck exemption from the primary safety belt law. State law exempting pick-up trucks from the safety belt laws continues to challenge GOHS efforts to reduce fatalities in rural Georgia. 2. Experienced many legal issues. Georgia has numerous legislative challenges that prevent all DMVS officers from enforcing and using all traffic enforcement tools. 3. EMS system analysis needed. Data is needed regarding the EMS response to traffic injury. Georgia's EMS system needs to be assessed for potential improvements. 4. Experienced high teenage driver crash rates. Despite gains attributable to Georgia's Teenage and Adult Driver Responsibility Act ("TADRA"), younger drivers continue to be over-represented in Georgia's crash statistics. Data is needed to determine other opportunities for improving the driving performance of drivers under 25 years of age. The greatest challenge is posed by drivers over 18 years of age who have completed the Graduated Drivers License (GDL) system; drivers in this age group are experiencing high crash and fatality rates. 5. Showed a need for increased Public Information and Education (PI&E) campaigns. Because of limited law enforcement resources, PI&E is an important part of effective reductions in speeding, impaired driving, and increases in safety belt usage. The public perception of an increased risk of arrest as a result of illegal driving behavior could be increased through comprehensive and effective PI&E programs. GOHS stepped up efforts in this area in FFY 2004, particularly during the Summer H.E.A.T. Campaign. 6. Showed a need for epidemiological data to guide program planning. A thorough epidemiological study for a four or five year period is needed to identify traffic safety factors contributing to the incidence and prevalence of traffic crashes. This study should address speeding, impaired driving, and occupant protection. It should include demographic factors, particularly with regard to the incidence and prevalence of crashes among younger drivers. Such data would allow more effective program planning in critically important areas of the state.
8

7. Strived for grantee quality. Since GOHS must rely on the caliber of its grantees to produce successful traffic safety programming, it is imperative that there be a sufficient statewide pool of effective grant-writers and implementation of well written grants. GOHS' efforts to place programs in areas of the state where they are critically needed are often hampered by not having a sufficient number of grantees with a proven project director and with sufficient implementation resources.
8. Strived for grant quality. GOHS seeks to implement only model grant programs, but is sometimes hampered by large numbers of sub-standard grant proposals.
9. Evaluated traffic record and crash data reporting systems. There are serious systemic problems within Georgia's traffic records system and its system for reporting and publishing crash data, particularly with regard to the timeliness of the data.
10. Examined traffic engineering issues. Work is needed to coordinate planning efforts with engineers to improve problem identification and engineering remedies.
9

Crash Data / Trends
Fatalities (Actual) Fatality Trend
Fatality Rate /100 million VMT Fatality Rate Trend
Injuries (Actual) Injury Trend
Fatality & Serious Injury Rate/(100 million VMT) Fatality & Serious Injury Rate Trend
Fatality Rate/100K Population Fatality Rate Trend/100K Population
Fatal & Serious Injury Rate/100K population Fatal & Serious Injury Rate Trend /100K population
Alcohol Related Fatalities Alcohol Related Fatality Trend
Proportion of Alcohol Related Fatalities Alcohol Proportion Trend
Alcohol Related Fatality Rate/100M VMT Alcohol Fatality Rate Trend
Percent of Population Using Safety Belts* Safety Belt Use Trend

Baseline Data 1994-1997 1994 1995 1996 1997

1998

Progress Report Data 1998-2000

1999 2000 2001

2002

2003

1994 1,425

1995 1,488 1457

1996 1,573 1495

1997 1,577 1516

1998 1,568 1526

1999 1,508 1523

2000 1,541 1526

2001 1,647 1541

1994 1.72

1995 1.74 1.7

1996 1.76 1.7

1997 1.68 1.7

1998 1.62 1.7

1999 1.53 1.7

2000 1.47 1.6

2001 1.53 1.6

1994 0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 0 142,890 139,400 134,770 123,588 130,608 132,305 0 47,630 70,573 83,412 90,108 95,894 100,445

2002

2003

1,524 1,610

1539

2002 1.41 1.6

2003 1.48

2002 100,445

2003 132,879

1994 16.8

1995 15.9 16.4

1996 14.8 15.8

1997 14 15.4

1998 13.5 15.0

1999 12.6 14.6

2000 12.1 14.2

2001 12 14.0

1994 20.22

1995 20.7 20.5

1996 21.45 20.8

1997 21.07 20.9

1998 20.53 20.8

1999 19.36 20.6

2000 18.71 20.3

2001 19.59 20.2

1994 176.9

1995 170.5 173.7

1996 161.8 169.7

1997 157.9 166.8

1998 156.2 164.7

1999 150 162.2

2000 140.1 159.1

2001 128.5 155.2

1994 540

1995 531 535.5

1996 577 549.3

1997 586 558.5

1998 528 552.4

1999 524 547.7

2000 585 553.0

2001 558 553.6

1994 38.0

1995 36.0 37.0

1996 37.0 37.0

1997 37.0 37.0

1998 34.0 36.4

1999 35.0 36.2

2000 38.0 36.4

2001 34.0 36.1

1994 0.48

1995 0.51 0.50

1996 0.48 0.49

1997 0.41 0.47

1998 0.36 0.45

1999 0.32 0.43

2000 0.31 0.41

2001 0
0.36

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 52.80% 50.00% 57.80% 65.10% 73.60% 74.20% 73.60% 79.00%
51.40% 53.53% 56.43% 59.86% 62.25% 63.87% 65.76%

2002
14.0 2002
20.2 2002
155.2 2002 533 551.3 2002
36.1 2002
0.36 2002 84.50% 67.84%

2003
2003
2003
2003 488
2003 30.0
2003 0.73
2003 86.70%

10

Performance Goals and Trends

Goal: Fatalities Baseline

To reduce the total number of fatalities. Baseline Data from FY 2003: 1,610 total fatalities

Goal: Fatality Rate/VMT Baseline

Reduce the mileage death rate to 1.0 Baseline Data from FY 2002: mileage death rate was 1.41

11

Goal: Injuries Baseline

To reduce total motor vehicle related injuries. Baseline Data from FY 2003: Total injuries 132,879

Goal: Fatal and Injury Rate/VMT Baseline

To reduce overall fatal and injury rate. Baseline data for FY 2003 Injury rate was 1.48 and fatality rate in FY 2002 was 1.41

12

Goal: Fatality Rate/100K Population To reduce fatality rate per 100K of the population.

Baseline

Baseline Data rate for FY 2003 was 20.2

Fatality Rate/100K Population

Goal: Fatal/Injury Rate/100K Population
Baseline

To reduce motor vehicle traffic crashes, injuries and fatalities.
Baseline Data fatal rate in FY 2003 was and injury rate 155.2

13

Goal: Alcohol Fatalities Baseline

To reduce the number of overall traffic related fatalities on Georgia roadways resulting from impaired driving, speeding, occupa violations, and other high-risk behavior.
Baseline Data from FY 2003: 488 alcohol fatalities.

To reduce the number of overall traffic related fatalities on Georgia roadways resulting from impaired driving, speeding,
Goal: Alcohol Fatality Proportion occupant protection violations, and other high-risk behavior.

Baseline

Baseline Data from FY 2003: Alcohol fatality proportion was 30.0.

14

Goal: Alcohol Fatality Rate/VMT Baseline

To reduce alcohol/drug related motor vehicle crashes, injuries and fatalities.
Baseline Data from FFY 2003 was 0.36.

Goal: Safety Belt Use Baseline

To increase the use of safety belts statewide. Baseline Data from FY 2003: seat belt usage rate including trucks was 84.5%.

15

Financial Summary
Total = $16,664,532.00

Paid Media 9.42% Roadway Safety 9.69%

P&A 1.11%

EMS 0.00%
Police Traffic Services 17.80%
Motorcycles 0.06%
CTSP/ Safe Communities 6.82% Bicycles 0.41%

Pedestrians 1.37%

Traffic Records 14.77%
Impaired Driving 20.68%
Occupant Protection 17.86%

P&A Pedestrians Police Traffic Services

Traffic Records Bicycles EMS

Impaired Driving CTSP/ Safe Communities Paid Media

Occupant Protection Motorcycles Roadway Safety

16

Impaired Driving
Program Overview for Georgia Impaired Driving Programs Objectives:
1. To provide funding to jurisdictions that make up 50% of the impaired driving fatalities in the state of Georgia.
2. To implement three (3) impaired driving enforcement mobilizations in FFY 2004 with 50% of the law enforcement community participating.
3. To identify and implement a community DUI system improvement project in three (3) jurisdictions in Georgia in FFY 2004.
4. To provide funding to 10% of Georgia high schools and provide public information and education to 100% of Georgia high schools to implement programs to encourage safety belt use and discourage drinking, especially while driving.
5. To provide funding to a minimum of seven (7) colleges and universities to implement a "peer education" program to prevent driving and encourage safety belt use (i.e. BACCHUS/GAMMA grant programs).
6. To train a minimum of 1,200 law enforcement officers in impaired driving countermeasures.
Results: 1. Funding was provided to jurisdictions that made up 50% of the impaired driving
fatalities in the state. 2. Three impaired driving enforcement mobilizations in FFY 2004 were implemented
and 50% of the law enforcement community participated. 3. A "DUI Adjudication" program was implemented in FFY 2004. Three County
State Courts established DUI courts and enrolled a total of 317 participants. Of those, 161 participants completed the DUI School. 4. Funding was provided to 11% of Georgia high schools, to encourage safety belt use, discourage drinking while driving and promote safe driving habits. Information was made available to 100% of Georgia High Schools. 5. There were 7 colleges and universities funded in FFY 2004 to encourage safety belt use and to prevent impaired driving. 6. Total officers trained through the Georgia Public Safety Training Center for impaired driving countermeasures in FFY 2004 was 1,224.
17

Noteworthy Programs: 1. "Demonstration Project on Effective DUI Adjudication"-A pilot project to
determine the effectiveness of DUI Courts in Georgia; implemented in three counties. 2. "Highway Enforcement Against Aggressive Traffic (H.E.A.T.)"-A law enforcement program within ten agencies that aims at reducing aggressive traffic violations and DUIs. Since October of 2001, GOHS has utilized this innovative grant program to provide teams of specially designated officers committed to enforcing traffic safety laws to metropolitan jurisdictions with high numbers of traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities. In FFY 2004, of those H.E.A.T. jurisdictions that have submitted a final report, 25% have achieved all of their objectives, and 75% have achieved at least 50% of the stated objectives. 3. "Operation Zero Tolerance"- A model statewide initiative, which features highly publicized sobriety checkpoints and the resulting increased impaired-driver contacts. Participation in this program is solicited through GOHS' Regional Traffic Enforcement Networks and required of all the FFY 2004 law enforcement grants targeting impaired drivers and for all of the educational grantees as well. "Operation Zero Tolerance"- In FFY 2004, concentrated statewide efforts coordinated by GOHS produced 5,703 safety belt citations; 974 child passenger restraint citations; 29,890 citations for speeding; 375 citations for reckless driving; 2,401 uninsured motorist citations; 1,746 impaired driving citations; 2,738 suspended/revoked license citations; 791 drug arrests; 748 other felony arrests; and 34,417 other citations. There were 579 fugitives apprehended and 226 stolen vehicles recovered. There were 143 media events, 518 educational events and 3,458 road checks. 4. "Students Against Destructive Decisions" ("SADD") grant program- Letters were sent to all 356 high schools in Georgia making them aware of available funds for safety belt and impaired driving programs. GOHS provided significant resources for schools that elected to participate, including a statewide traffic safety summit and banquet for chapter leaders and members. 5. BACHUS/GAMMA grant program- GOHS funded seven peer-education programs through BACCHUS and GAMMA chapters at colleges and universities. These programs focused primarily in reducing impaired driving among young adult
18

drivers. Of those schools reporting, 20% achieved all of the stated objectives and 80% achieved two-thirds of the stated objectives for FFY 2004. 6. Training for law enforcement officers - through a grant to the Georgia Public Safety Training Center, funding was provided to train law enforcement officers in impaired driving countermeasures including the administration of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and certification as Drug Recognition Experts. 7. Creation of a new video for training statewide in DUI case preparation and courtroom presentations. Future Strategies 1. 'DUI Adjudication' - Future strategies include implementing DUI courts
statewide based on the results of the DUI Adjudication pilot project. 2. "H.E.A.T." - Future strategies include heightened publicity for this aggressive
driving program and increased law enforcement presence. 3. "Operation Zero Tolerance" - Future strategies include holiday wave
implementation, increased media campaigns, and utilization of the Regional Traffic Enforcement Networks to ensure law enforcement agency coordination. 4. "SADD" - Future strategies include increasing high school participation in the SADD program by decreasing administrative procedures and increasing coordination with GOHS.
19

Occupant Protection
Program Overview for Georgia Occupant Protection Programs Objectives:
1. To maintain a statewide safety belt usage rate of 84.5% or higher in FFY 2004. To increase the use of child safety restraint systems for children under the age of five to 95% by the end of FFY 2004.
2. To increase safety belt use rate by 5% for citizens sixteen years and older in rural Georgia by 2004.
3. To maintain a statewide child safety seat usage rate of 93.5% or higher in FFY 2004.
4. To implement a two CIOT education and enforcement campaigns. Results
1. Increased safety belt usage from 84.5% in 2003 to 86.7% in 2004. 2. The current safety belt usage rate for rural areas is 84.6%, a 6.7% increase
from FFY 2003. 3. The percentage of children in child safety seats in FFY 2004 was 92.6%, a
2.1% increase from FFY 2003. 4. "Click It or Ticket"- In FFY 2004 there were two "Click It or Ticket"
campaigns. GOHS required its grantees, both law enforcement and educational, to participate in these statewide initiatives, resulting in major statewide initiatives to reduce occupant protection violations. Noteworthy Programs GOHS made a concerted, statewide effort to increase safety belt use in Georgia, requiring the majority of its grantees to include at least one objective related to occupant protection. As a result of this effort, out of 194 funded GOHS grants, 160 include a component related to occupant protection at some level. The following are noteworthy programs: 1. "Georgia Traffic Injury Prevention Institute (GTIPI)"- A statewide educational outreach system of the University of Georgia that continues to build infrastructure for enhanced traffic safety. Educational emphasis includes child passenger safety, safety belt use, and teen driving.
20

2. "Click It or Ticket" - The "Click It or Ticket" Campaigns are highly visible Strategic Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEP) designed to increase safety belt usage by Georgia motorists.
3. "Union County Occupant Protection"- A program that provides occupant and child safety seat education to the community of Union County. In FFY 2004, they distributed 424 car seats and conducted 25 child safety seat checkpoints during this grant period. This grant provided occupant and child safety seat education throughout the community by distributing car seats, working with law enforcement, publicizing grant achievements and presenting education materials.
Future Strategies 1. 'GTIPI' - Future strategies include continuing certification courses for the members of the Atlanta Fire Department at their training facility and continued data collection of the use of safety belts and child safety seats through the UGA Survey Research Center to track statewide usage rates. Also, future strategies will include credible evaluation of all implemented programs. 2. 'GOHS' - Continue to increase safety belt usage through "100 Days of Summer H.E.A.T.", "Click It or Ticket" and "Operation Zero Tolerance" campaigns, law enforcement programs, and legislative initiatives. Increase emphasis on teen drivers and drivers in rural communities.
21

Paid Media Report
Program Overview for Georgia Paid Media Report Paid media programs represent a major component of GOHS' efforts to reduce the incidence and prevalence of traffic crashes, injuries and fatalities on Georgia's roadways. GOHS employs a variety of innovative paid media programs with memorable names designed both to remind motorists of their need to obey traffic safety laws for their own and others' protection and to remind them of the sanctions for disobedience of those laws in Georgia. Crashes, injuries and fatalities are higher during vacation periods when large numbers of motorists take to Georgia's roadways, so many GOHS campaigns target those holiday periods. GOHS has frequently enjoyed reductions in traffic crash morbidity and mortality during those periods by coupling media and enforcement campaigns.
To accomplish its broad PI&E goals, GOHS allocated funding in two fashions. First, GOHS provided directions to NTHSA for funds to be expended on its behalf in Georgia on national campaigns. This allocation allowed GOHS to enjoy significant economies of scale in purchasing state-of-the-art advertisements and media buys from a national distributor. This year, GOHS expended $1.2 million through NHTSA to purchase paid media for Georgia's version of the "Click It or Ticket" Campaign that began in May 2004. Second, GOHS purchased paid media directly and through contractors. GOHS funded approximately $950,000 in this manner to publicize its programs during FFY 2004, making its total expenditures for paid media approximately $2.15 million. These included the following:
In the November, 2003 "Click It or Ticket" initiative, GOHS obtained significant statewide coverage of its occupant protection message for a relatively modest investment of $20,000 through a radio campaign. Through the Georgia News Network, GOHS reached a cumulative audience of 1,134,600 listeners with over 5,305,800 gross impressions over a two-week period, about six impressions per listener. Campaign spots aired on 115 stations for a total of 6,444 times.
22

In the December 2003 "Operation Zero Tolerance" impaired driving campaign, GOHS spent approximately $300,000 for paid media in the Atlanta, Macon, Augusta, Columbus, Savannah and national cable markets. These spots combined to form a media blitz that reached television audiences throughout the most populous regions of the state, reaching the majority (60%) of persons in targeted metropolitan households with almost four impressions in each household.
GOHS purchased approximately $1.2 million worth of radio, television and cable paid media through NHTSA and its consulting firm the Tombras Group for its Memorial Day, 2004 Click It or Ticket Campaign. Additionally, more than 90% of Georgia's law enforcement agencies participated in the mobilization. Messages were delivered to all major metropolitan areas and various rural communities throughout Georgia targeting the high-risk population of 18 to 35. The data on the scope and reach of this campaign is maintained with the Tombras Group and has been submitted to NHTSA.
For the 4th of July, 2004 "Operation Zero Tolerance" initiative, GOHS purchased radio, television, and cable paid media for approximately $375,000. These messages were delivered statewide and to major metropolitan areas including Atlanta, Augusta, Albany, Columbus, Macon, Savannah, Valdosta and Chattanooga. GOHS documented 14,660,000 impressions, this media registered in more than 85% of households in targeted markets approximately fifteen times each.
For the Labor Day, 2004 "Operation Zero Tolerance" initiative, GOHS purchased more than $106,000 worth of television advertising in Atlanta, Augusta, Chattanooga, Macon, Savannah, and statewide. While data for the majority of these expenditures is not yet available, statewide 20% of households were reached 6 times each, and in Atlanta 70% of households were reached with 4 impressions each.
23

This year, the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety created a new program, "100 Days of Summer H.E.A.T.," designed to link several traffic safety campaigns into a meta-campaign that could magnify their impact during the important summer driving season. Working with feedback from law enforcement officers and data from previous paid media campaigns, GOHS internal staff created a combined Public Information and Education ("PI&E") and enforcement campaign. This campaign was designed to overlay a sustained speedingreduction initiative on programs that included occupant protection and impaireddriving components. This plan received approval from NHTSA and was adopted in its first year by several other Southeastern states. It has received regional acclaim in the Southeast and may be adopted nationally in the future as a combined program model with broad impacts on aggressive and impaired driving and on occupant protection violations. For the "100 Days of Summer H.E.A.T." sustained education and enforcement campaign, GOHS earmarked almost $126,000 for paid media. Radio and television spots ran in Atlanta, Albany, Augusta, Chattanooga, Columbus, Macon, Savannah, and statewide. While data for the majority of these markets is not yet available, radio advertisements in the Atlanta metropolitan area alone reached 76% of the market with more than four impressions for each listener reached, while television spots reached 56% of the market with two impressions for each viewer. Statewide, one of the television networks utilized reached 30% of the market with four impressions for each viewer.
Two other additional major paid media programs during the FFY 2004 were The Atlanta Bicycle Campaign (ABC) and Georgians for Better Transportation (GBT). The ABC provided PI&E on bicycle traffic safety and GBT publicized Georgia's `Steer It and Clear It' law. Target populations were statewide as well as specific sub-populations. GBT was able to achieve a much more significant impact than initially planned by disseminating the GOHS Public Service Announcements (PSAs) developed through a special program with the Georgia Association of Broadcasters that allowed them to be aired statewide at a significantly reduced cost and to a much broader audience than initially envisioned in the grant. However, there was not a measurable change in
24

awareness determined by a random digit dialing survey regarding the "Steer It and Clear It" law campaign. In summary, GOHS' media campaigns effectively reached the entire state with traffic safety messages that emphasized occupant protection, speeding reduction and impaired-driving reduction initiatives. Overall, GOHS' paid advertisements registered more than 27,300,000 impacts in households across the state that has been documented at the time of this writing.
25

Noteworthy Practices
Project Title: Georgia Highway Safety Programs Evaluation Target: Establish a statewide highway safety programmatic database and evaluate program outcomes of all GOHS funded projects in FFY 2004. Program Area: Evaluation Problem Statement: In the past, grantees often submitted proposals for funding that did not clearly identify the objectives of the programs and/or had weak or incomplete evaluation plans. Additionally, grantees were not submitting data to GOHS that could be utilized in categorical statewide program evaluation. There was no system in place to allow GOHS to objectively evaluate each of the grantees' effectiveness. Objectives:
1. Develop and implement a process whereby the data related to the GOHS funded programs will be compiled and analyzed.
2. Submit a report to GOHS by October 31, 2004 that includes a summary and interpretation of all preliminary data that has been collected during the FFY 2004 funding period.
3. Determine Georgia drivers' attitudes and behaviors related to traffic safety issues. Strategies/Results: All the objectives have been met; the following are programmatic achievements:
1. Obtained a copy of each funded project; read each project proposal; submitted and released press release; established data submission process; established database; grouped programs; tracked data.
2. Determined programmatic services/programs, personnel, equipment; assessed objective achievements; compiled and analyzed cost-benefit data; submitted cost-description report; determined innovative programs status/recommended further funding options; submitted quarterly reports; submitted final report; tracked media hits; established a process whereby program objectives are ranked by order of priority to facilitate evaluation of effectiveness; designed a standardized tool for use by grantees; submitted finalized tool; distributed survey tool to grantees; performed an overall evaluation of the state's highway safety plan; submitted evaluation report; developed and submitted final report template; submitted monthly reports.
26

3. Conducted a random digit dialing survey consisting of 800 Georgia drivers; analyzed survey results for Georgia drivers; submitted survey reports.
4. Assisted GOHS in planning regional data coordinator pilot project. Cost: $93,100 Funding Sources: Section 402 Contact Information: Name: Carol P. Cotton, Ph.D. Title: Project Director Agency: The University of Georgia Phone: (706) 542-2804 E-mail address: ccotton@coe.uga.edu
27

Noteworthy Practices
Project Title: A Demonstration Project on Effective DUI Adjudication Target: Serves as a pilot project to determine the effectiveness of DUI Courts in Georgia. Program Area: Alcohol and other drug countermeasures (AOD) Problem Statement: For many reasons, DUI enforcement systems often fail to maintain drinking-driving risk within tolerable limits. Over the years, Georgia has implemented a number of DUI countermeasures, which are research-based and proven to be effective. However, there is a lack of coordination between the courts, criminal justice agencies, and providers of services. The current Georgia system is not standardized and each jurisdiction handles the case management differently. As a result, there is a lack of consistency among agencies and many offenders do not complete their probation requirements. Objectives:
1. Establish a planning committee consisting of judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, court clerks and administrators.
2. Select three County State Courts to serve as the pilot project participants for the demonstration. Hire DUI court coordinators and case management clerks.
3. Evaluate the sentencing structures imposed by the pilot sites during at 12month period.
4. Conduct special training opportunities during the planning phase of the project with support from NHTSA.
5. Establish data collection systems for the periodic monitoring of driver histories, and the DUI tracking systems that will be developed as a component of this project.
6. Analyze data obtained from the assessment instrument to determine the level of addiction of DUI offenders who participate in the DUI Court.
7. Evaluate DUI recidivism data of offenders completing individualized sanction programs compared to those who received traditional sentences.
8. Measure the effectiveness of the judges' individualized sentencing and intensive case management systems versus the judges' traditional sanctions
28

in terms of DUI recidivism, conviction rates and offender follow-up methods. 9. Conduct a process evaluation to document activity during all phases of the project to include success and failures. Strategies/Results: All the objectives have been met; the following are programmatic achievements: 1. DUI Court teams have been established consisting of the judge, DUI court coordinator, case management clerk, treatment case manager and provider(s), prosecutor, public defender, and probation officer. 2. Specific screening criteria can vary slightly among the courts, but all courts serve multiple DUI offenders, meaning at least two DUIs in five years (legal definition for multiple offender in Georgia law), at least two or three DUIs in past ten years (if not two in last five years) or in a small number of instances, a combination of criminal behavior and substance abuse for first time DUI offenders that indicates an enhanced level of supervision is needed to redirect behavior high BAC, crash, or other alcohol or drug related offenses. The courts work with the prosecutor and public defender (or private attorney) to screen offenders for eligibility. Offenders referred to the court must live in the county or close enough to participate in treatment and court sessions. 3. Each court has developed a protocol that requires meeting of the driver's license sanctions as a condition of progressing to a higher phase in the treatment program. Probation also tracks these requirements. 4. Each DUI Court has contracted with one or two private treatment providers to provide outpatient treatment services to DUI Court participants at a negotiated discounted fee that ranged from $45-$50 per week. These providers are all on the Department of Human Resources (DHR) approved list for the state-mandated DUI Multiple Offender Program for driver's license reinstatement. If it is determined that a participant needs a greater intensity of treatment, the treatment coordinator works through the publicly funded treatment system to locate appropriate services for the participant. DUI participants have been placed in public intensive outpatient and residential services. Some participants have been referred to the public
29

system for mental health evaluations and treatment. Hall County has a large Spanish speaking population and has a Hispanic treatment provider for Spanish speaking offenders. However, publicly funded services through the DHR are limited, insurance coverage for a participant may be very limited and most offenders cannot afford private treatment beyond the cost of the outpatient services offered by the court providers. Therefore, finding appropriate and affordable comprehensive substance abuse treatment services remains a challenge. This is a statewide problem, not a problem exclusive to the DUI Courts, which are doing an excellent job with the resources available to them. Each private probation provider for the DUI Courts has assigned a designated probation officer to the court. That probation officer attends each team staffing and court session and monitors participants for compliance. They report data to the NEEDS Tracking System. 5. Court began data collection using the Access-based NEEDS tracking system. All courts have converted to the NEEDS web-based tracking system, which provides superior functionality and ease of use over the desktop-based Access NEEDS tracking system. A daylong training session conducted by ADE, Inc. and AOC DUI Court staff was held in Macon in June.
Cost: $474,138 Funding Sources: Section 403 Contact Information: Name: Spencer R. Moore Title: Division Director of Planning & Programs Agency: Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety Phone: (404) 656-6997 E-mail address: smoore@gohs.state.ga.us
30

Noteworthy Practices
Project Title: Highway Enforcement Against Aggressive Traffic (H.E.A.T.) Target: To reduce aggressive traffic violations and DUIs in ten jurisdictions. Program Area: Speed and aggressive driving countermeasures Problem Statement: Ten agencies provide law enforcement in counties with the highest rates of traffic-related problems. Such problems include speeding, crashes, crashes involving alcohol and fatalities. Sample Objectives: (These objectives are not exhaustive but are representative of all H.E.A.T. grant objectives.)
1. H.E.A.T. programs will maintain fulltime traffic enforcement officers and commander(s). H.E.A.T. will be deployed during times/days where the most occurrences of DUI, speeding and aggressive driving take place.
2. H.E.A.T. officers will conduct at least three seatbelt safety presentations and two safety belt checkpoints per month.
3. H.E.A.T. DUI arrests will have at least an 85% conviction rate, which will be tracked through the court system.
4. H.E.A.T. officers will conduct speed campaigns each month and set a goal of driver contacts each month.
Sample Strategies/Results: All the objectives have been met, the following are programmatic achievements:
1. The City of Atlanta H.E.A.T. / DUI Task Force targeted areas after completing a traffic analysis. From October 1st, 2003 through September 30th, 2004, 20,551 speeding citations were issued, and 1,876 DUI citations were issued. Of these citations, the Atlanta H.E.A.T. Unit contributed 512 DUI arrests and 6,761 speeding and other traffic related charges.
2. The City of Atlanta's H.E.A.T. Unit and DUI Task Force conducted 33 joint efforts with Metro jurisdictions and zones in the past project year. The units adjusted schedules to work Sundays and Mondays for aggressive/impaired driving concerns and to assist other metro agencies that are experiencing the same traffic issues.
3. Metro Atlanta Multi-Jurisdictional DUI Task Force participated in 12 multijurisdictional activities during the year, exceeding the original objective.
31

4. Metro Atlanta Multi-Jurisdictional DUI Task force surpassed the objective of
1,000 contacts per month, exceeding well over 12,000 contacts for FFY 2004.
5. Forty percent of the H.E.A.T. grantees reported a high level of coordination
between law enforcement agencies. Another 20% reported some coordination
or some partnering between other law enforcement agencies.
6. All H.E.A.T grants are considered innovative.
7. In FFY 2004, of those H.E.A.T. jurisdictions that have submitted a final report
25% have achieved all of the objectives as written in the final reports, and 75%
have achieved at least 50% of the stated objectives.
Cost: Total H.E.A.T. grants; $1.2 million.
Funding Sources: Sections 163, 402 and 164.
However, these grants were conceptually structured so that, for every two officers
provided by GOHS, one officer was dedicated to the project by the grantee agency as
an in-kind match.
1. Contact Information: Name: Alex Cabral Title: Planner Agency: GOHS Phone: (404) 656-6996 E-mail address: acabral@gohs.state.ga.us
2. Contact Information: Name: Lt. Terry Pierce Title: Police Lieutenant Agency: City of College Park Phone: (404) 761-3131 E-mail address: tpierce001@aol.com
3. Contact Information: Name: Lt. Terry Lunsford Title: Project Director Agency: Henry County Police Department Phone: (770) 954-2900 E-mail address: mtlunsford@co.henry.ga.us
4. Contact Information: Name: Derek L. Edmunds Title: Major Agency: Gwinnett County Police Department Phone: (770) 513-5822 E-mail address: edmundsr@co.gwinnett.ga.us
32

5. Contact Information: Name: R.P. Flemister Title: Police Major Agency: DeKalb County Police Department Phone: (404) 294-2637 E-mail address: rpflemis@co.dekalb.ga.us
6. Contact Information: Name: Dewayne Morris Title: Adjutant Agency: Cobb County Commission Phone: (770) 499-3988 E-mail address: dmorris@cobbcounty.org
7. Contact Information: Name: Dale Tate Title: Budget Officer Agency: Fulton County Phone: (404) 730-7107 E-mail address: dale.tate@co.fulton.ga.us
8. Contact Information: Name: Calvin Moss Title: Commander, Special Operations Section Agency: City of Atlanta Phone: (404) 209-5260 E-mail address: cmoss@atlantapd.org
9. Contact Information: Name: Alan Holloway Title: Lieutenant Agency: Clayton County Police Department Phone: (770) 477-3764 E-mail address: alan.holloway@co.clayton.ga.us
10. Contact Information: Name: Brad Freeman Title: Sergeant Agency: Monroe County Sheriff's Office Phone: (478) 994-7046/7043 E-mail address: N/A
11. Contact Information: Name: Pat Banks Title: Sergeant Agency: Paulding County Phone: (770) 443-3015 E-mail address: csusergeant@aol.com
33

Looking to the Future
Significant challenges to be addressed: In conjunction with the 2005 GOHS Highway Safety Plan Goals, the following challenges will be addressed:
1. Pick-up truck exemption from primary seat belt law. Continue to advance law regulating safety belts usage in pick-up trucks.
2. Legal issues. Continue to understand legislative issues regulating law enforcement, such as speed and radar enforcement.
3. EMS system analysis needed. Continue to examine EMS needs statewide. 4. High teenage driver crash rates. Continue to focus efforts on teenage driving
problems. 5. Traffic record and crash data reporting systems. Continue to upgrade
traffic record maintenance and retrieval systems. Continue to work closely with NHTSA Region IV to ensure timely and complete traffic records data. Also, in the reconstitution of the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee, the work of the committee is vital in the overall effort to reduce traffic-related injuries and fatalities.
Significant training, technical assistance, expertise and other resources necessary for success:
1. Electronic grantee submission and revision capability. 2. Evaluation consultation expertise. 3. Train grantees/GOHS personnel on programmatic planning, including writing
measurable goals and objectives. 4. Law enforcement training. 5. Occupant safety observational survey implementation.
34

SECTION II
35

2004-587-402CP

March 25, 2005

Georgia Highway Safety Programs Evaluation
Final Report Draft
Submitted by: Carol P. Cotton, Ph. D.
Stuart Fors, Ed.D. Wayd Walker, J.D., M.Ed.
Brook Snoddy, B.A. Erin Kirkbride, B.A.
Dept. of Health Promotion and Behavior University of Georgia, Athens, GA

36

A. Executive Summary
The Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) developed a comprehensive Highway Safety Plan for FY 2004. It contained 16 different goals and 38 unique objectives. One hundred percent of the grantees have submitted final reports, and the final analysis of the grants has been completed. From those final reports, determination of achievement of goals and objectives is possible. GOHS reached 7 (43.75%) of its stated goals, it did not reach only 1 (6.25%) of those goals, it partially reached 3 (18.75%) of its stated goals, and it is not possible to assess achievement of 5 (31.25%) of its goals. Non-determination of goal assessment is predicated on impact data being unavailable. Complete determination of the achievement of these remaining goals is anticipated and expected within one year of the submission of this report.
However, GOHS achieved the majority of its stated objectives. Thirty four (89.5%) percent of the planned GOHS objectives were completely met. The primary reason for this high achievement rate is that GOHS implemented programs that were well designed and that were implemented with fidelity in jurisdictions where a need was documented. In addition, statewide support was provided consistently by GOHS to all programs. Four objectives (10.5%) were not achieved. Most of these objectives focused on safety belt usage rates. These objectives are the critical foundations of GOHS grant funding and GOHS can be proud of its achievement levels in this area.
In the FY 2004, GOHS funded 193 grants. These projects were spread across the state and focused on all the high priority areas noted by NHTSA. GOHS funded law enforcement liaisons, SADD programs, equipment purchases by law enforcement agencies, media campaigns, impaired driving campaigns, programs focused on teen drivers, pedestrian safety programs and Safe Community projects. Based on this analysis of data currently available traffic crash statistics from reporting jurisdictions
37

where GOHS implemented programs, it is possible to say that a positive impact on highway fatalities, injuries and crashes was affected in jurisdictions where GOHSfunded programs were implemented.
In the FY 2004, GOHS also responded to a performance audit. The response to this audit is included in this final report.
38

Introduction
This final report is presented in six sections. First, the Overview identifies the issues that led to the award of the University of Georgia (UGA) program evaluation project and provides details about its general goals and objectives. Second, the Methods section outlines how the evaluation team established its data collection strategies and procedures and maintains the database. Third, the Grantee Performance section evaluates the impact/outcomes of the GOHS grantee programs. The evaluation team analyzed the performance of each grantee or, when appropriate, group of grantees, then analyzed the collective results of GOHS programming efforts. The team addressed each of the agency's Performance Goals and Objectives based upon the data submitted to the evaluation team according to funding categories and to the goals and performance objectives established by GOHS in its 2004 Highway Safety Plan. Fourth, the Response to the Findings in the Performance Audit of GOHS section documents the steps GOHS has made to improve its performance and meet the concerns of the auditors. Examples of these steps, including grantee program results and impact measures are embedded in the discussions that compose this section. Fifth, the Procedural Recommendations section addresses a variety of issues that were encountered throughout the grant evaluation process. Lastly, all deliverables are provided in Appendices B-D.
I. Overview
Each year, the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) awards grants to qualified organizations in the state in order to fund programs to reduce the morbidity and mortality that result from traffic crashes. This funding provides agencies with resources they have requested for the purpose of development, implementation, maintenance and evaluation of programs to reduce crash-related injuries and deaths.
39

GOHS sets overarching goals, and grantees set objectives that, if accomplished through cooperative and statewide efforts, will allow GOHS to reach its goals.
GOHS required all grant proposals to include project objectives and evaluation plans. GOHS has historically sought to structure the grant application and approval process in order to create documents that would logically lead, step-by-step, to the achievement of clearly stated objectives through concrete and measurable activities. However, until this project was undertaken, GOHS had no process in place to systematically evaluate the results of the programs that it funded either on an individual, grant-by-grant basis, or through an overall analysis of traffic safety outcomes. GOHS did, through its planners, collect process evaluation data on individual grantee performance, and did require a summary of outcomes from all grantees in their final reports. Likewise, GOHS made strategic decisions on resource allocations based on statewide and county crash, injury, and fatality data. But both a comprehensive review of individual grantee effectiveness and a systematic review of overall grantee effectiveness were missing. Thus, the Performance Audit by the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts (2003) issued a summary finding indicating that GOHS needed to increase accountability for funds expended and establish procedures to evaluate grantee performance.
Given its limited resources and the need to allocate those resources for essential functions GOHS elected to employ an external program evaluator to respond to the Audit's summary and specific findings. Therefore, in its "FY 2004 Innovative Grants" Request for Proposals (RFP) (2003, p. 5), GOHS issued an RFP for Highway Safety Evaluation Programs. That RFP read as follows:
GOHS awards grants to qualified entities for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and fatalities in Georgia. These grants have the potential of
40

contributing to significant public benefits related to mortality, health and economics. GOHS solicits applications from colleges, universities, or governmental agencies to conduct evaluations of highway safety grants awarded during the 2004 federal fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2003-Sept. 30, 2004). The purpose of the project is to determine the extent to which grants were successful in reaching stated objectives accomplishing overall goals within established financial and programmatic guidelines. Eligibility is limited to colleges, universities, or governmental agencies that have a successful record of program evaluation. (GOHS, FY 2004 RFP, p. 5)(emphasis added).
The UGA evaluation team, which had evaluated the effects of the 1997 Teenage and Adult Driver Responsibility Act and the GOHS' acclaimed program Operation Zero Tolerance, responded to this RFP and received an award to establish an evaluation process and to review and evaluate individual and collective grantee accomplishments.
This evaluation project represents a response by GOHS to the concerns raised in the Audit and to other data management concerns. GOHS funded the program evaluation team at the University of Georgia to develop and implement a program evaluation strategy because GOHS did not possess the internal capability to conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of the projects it funded through annual Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and because, given the findings of the Audit, a review by an objective external evaluator was more appropriate. This report is the primary deliverable of that evaluation process. In it, the UGA evaluation team reports on the performance of individual GOHS grantees as well as the overall performance of GOHS in achieving the goals and objectives it set for itself in its 2004 Highway Safety Plan. Deliverables provided to GOHS by the UGA evaluation team include a complete grantee database utilizing SPSS 12.0, a cost-description report (Appendix B), a final report template
41

submitted July 29, 2004, and a Steer It and Clear It survey questionnaire (Appendix C) and data analysis (Appendix D).
II. Methods
A. Initial Database Construction
The UGA program evaluation team was charged with developing and implementing a process to compile and analyze data related to all GOHS programs funded in FY 2004. To accomplish this objective, the evaluation team members first obtained a copy of each funded project from GOHS, either electronically or in hard copy (n=193). As each grant was received, data was entered into a database (SPSS 12.0). This data included codes for the agency funded, the project title, the type of project and levels of funding, its time frame, its objectives and activities, its milestones, its evaluation plan, level of collaboration and coordination and status of innovation, and categories as listed in the RFP.1 The primary concern about the database was that it maintain maximum utility and flexibility as fields were added. These characteristics were ensured by constantly revising data fields to more accurately reflect the grantee information and by referring to the original stakeholder questions.
B. Initial Review of Grants
After the database was established, the evaluation team performed a number of ongoing tasks and analyses. The initial tasks were time intensive. No baseline review of objectives, activities, and evaluation strategies by a program evaluator had been performed previously. Therefore, the evaluation team read, analyzed and discussed each and every grant. The review focused upon the clarity and measurability, from an evaluation perspective, of all grantee objectives, activities and evaluation strategies.
1 The RFP categories for FY 2004 were Underage Drinking Prevention Programs; Young Adult Drinking and Driving Programs; Judges and Prosecutorial Programs; Law Enforcement Programs; Occupant Protection Programs; Pedestrian Safety Programs; Older Drivers and Passengers Programs; Motorcycle Safety Programs; and Highway Safety Evaluation Programs. (GOHS, FY 2004 RFP, pp. 3-5).
42

During this review it became apparent that, while by and large the grants were well drafted and thus could be implemented as written, some troubleshooting (including revisions) was needed to facilitate the evaluation process. Of the 193 grants, 56 (29%) required revision.
C. Communication with Grantees
The evaluation team had a mandate from the GOHS administration to provide
consultation resources to grantees whose objectives were in need of revision. Feedback
was provided to grantees via email or, if a grantee had no email address on file, through FAX and/or US mail. All external2 grantees that were not template grants3 received
some level of feedback. For many (22 out of 78 [28%]), the feedback was an email from
the evaluation team stating that a review had been performed and no revisions were
needed or requested. For the other 56 (72%), the evaluation team, in conjunction with
and under the authority of the Planning and Programs Division Director, suggested some
level of revision. Most of the revisions involved straightforward amendments or
clarifications to the milestone charts or activities list. A few, however, needed rewriting
of some or all objectives to make them more specific and measurable.
The evaluation team provided consultation resources for grantees in making necessary re-drafts. This included written feedback and, when requested, teleconferences or faceto-face meetings. During such conferences and meetings, the suggested revisions were clearly outlined and grantee questions were answered. Discussions often included an explanation by the grantee of the genesis of the original objectives and activities and a presentation of barriers to the requested changes. Most often, grantees were open to the requested revisions and agreed to immediately make the changes. Cooperation between the UGA evaluation team and the grantees was paramount and these teleconferences and
2 The "external" grantees included all funded grants other than the ten internal grants to GOHS to administer its programs and the D.O.T. Transfer Penalty Funds grant. 3 "Template" grants in FY 2004 were standardized grants for small amounts for such grantees as Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) chapters. Since the evaluation team reviewed the objectives for these grants with GOHS planners, correspondence with grantees regarding these grants was unnecessary.
43

meetings ultimately proved to be an excellent way to provide support to the grantees from GOHS.
III. Overview of Evaluation Results

A. Grantee Evaluation Results

Table 1. Grantee Objective Achievement (n=193 [100%])

Impact Percent Objectives Achieved Percent Critical Objective Achieved Process Percent Milestones Met at Midpoint Percent Milestones Med at Endpoint

66.3% 57.6%
50.3% 52.8%

Final analysis has been completed for all 193 FY 2004 grants. Table 1

summarizes the work of these grants. The number of objectives between grant

categories varies and the number of objectives within the non-standardized grant

category varies; however, across all 193 grants, 66.3% of all objectives were achieved.

Subsets of grants were analyzed for milestone achievement to further illuminate

grantee performance. Subsets based on grant purpose, type of organization, funding

amount, federal funding type, and GOHS programmatic categories were selected. Chart

1 presents these findings.

Chart 1. Percent Milestones Achieved by Grant Type or Funding Amount/Type

(n=number of grants per category)

GOHS Grant Type

UGA Grant Type

Safe Communities (5)

51.5%

RFP-Government (61)

67.2%

H.E.A.T. (10)

78.7%

RFP-University/College (10) 77.6%

BACCHUS/GAMMA (7) 74.2%

RFP-Nonprofit (2)

50.0%

PI&E (2)

28.5%

RFP-For Profit (4)

72.7%

Small Grants (67)

57.4%

Schools (30)

72.5%

Network/LEL (18)

64.0%

Law Enforcement-LESG (67) 57.4%

SADD/STAR (30)

72.5%

Law Enforcement-NET (15) 61.7%

LE Personnel (not HEAT)(7) 44.5%

Law Enforcement-LEL (4)

72.2%

Federal Funding Amount

Federal Funding Type

<$5,000 (59)

69.1%

154 (1)

100%

$5,000-$9,999 (42)

52.9%

157 (3)

81.8%

44

$10,000-$49,999 (45)

68.4%

163 (12)

$50,000-$99,999 (13)

68.2%

164 (3)

$100,000-$149,999 (16)

64.7%

402 (115)

$150,000-$199,999 (6)

53.3%

403 (3)

$200,000-$399,999 (5)

86.2%

405 (2)

>$400,000 (7)

79.3%

410 (53)

2003 (1)

GOHS Programmatic Category

Underage Drinking Prevention (57)

Young Adult Drinking and Driving Program (16)

Judges and Prosecutorial Program (6)

Law Enforcement Program (127)

Occupant Protection Program (159)

Pedestrian Safety Program (10)

Older Drivers and Passengers (1)

Motorcycles Safety Program (1)

Highway Safety Evaluation Program (1)

No Program Category from RFP (5)

71.4% 71.4% 61.1% 100% 100% 71.6% 66.0%
72.5% 69.8% 38.9% 62.7% 85.5% 64.6% 80.0% 33.0% 100% 62.5%

In each set of objectives per grantee, one or more objectives were deemed as critical to the completion of the project by the evaluation team. These objectives were labeled critical objectives and 57.6 % of these objectives were achieved. This is an outstanding achievement and it shows how focused and on-task these grantees were.
There were many more milestone activities than there were objectives. Many of these milestone activities were small process tasks. Overall, 50.3% of milestones were met at midpoint and 52.8% of the milestones were achieved by the close of the fiscal year. This demonstrates that the number of milestone activities should be limited as much as possible to ensure the highest percent completion possible. Grantees should be given consistent feedback by GOHS regarding the level of appropriate milestone detail that will enhance program planning and objective achievement. These results also demonstrate a consistent milestone achievement level throughout the grant period. Work toward milestone completion was on-going throughout this period.

45

Table 2. Grantee Crash, Injury and Fatality Data

Grantees Reporting Zero Total Crashes OR

49 (59.8%)

a Decrease in Total Crashes over Two-Year

Period (n = 82)

Grantees Reporting Zero Crashes with Injuries

47 (61.8%)

OR a Decrease in Crashes with Injuries over

Two-Year Period (n = 76)

Grantees Reporting Zero Crashes with

55 (71.4%)

Fatalities OR a Decrease in Crashes with

Fatalities over Two-Year Period (n = 77)

Grantees report crash data for their jurisdiction in their final report.4 The summary of these figures is presented in Table 2. Based on reports from law enforcement agencies that provided crash data, the majority of grantees reported that the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities decreased or remained at zero where GOHS funded programs over a two-year period. B. GOHS Evaluation Results
Within its 2004 Highway Safety Plan, GOHS set for itself both goals and objectives. Goals are broad statements of long-range program purposes that are not time constrained. They should be simple and concise and include who will be affected by the program and what will change as a result of the program. In its 2004 Highway Safety Plan, GOHS outlines 16 goals across various program funding categories to achieve its overall mission of reducing the morbidity and mortality caused by traffic crashes on Georgia's roadways.
Objectives, on the other hand, are specific and measurable. Good objectives in public health programming, for example, outline in measurable terms the specific

4 Of 111 law enforcement grantees, 97 (87.4%) reported crash and/or citation statistics. However, because impact evaluation required data for both FY 2003 and FY 2004, and because reported statistics were often incomplete, the number of grantees providing complete information for each measurement varies by the statistic in question. For example, the evaluation team had data from 79 grantees (71.2% of total) for evaluating changes in total motor vehicle crashes, but only 72 grantees (64.9% of total) provided both sufficient information to evaluate changes in motor vehicle crashes with injuries.
46

changes that will occur in the target population over a given period of time as a result of exposure to the program. GOHS also enumerates 38 objectives, which, as they are achieved, should synergistically lead to the accomplishment of the goals.
This section of the Evaluator's report will outline the program outcomes. The section is divided into two sub-sections. The first enumerates each goal and evaluates progress toward it. The second presents each of GOHS' objectives and evaluates overall program outcomes toward achieving those objectives. The goals and objectives are listed in the order in which they are written in the GOHS 2004 Highway Safety Plan, with duplicate5 goals and objectives presented only once, in the order that they first appear. The page number(s) in the 2004 Highway Safety Plan on which each goal or objective appears can be found in Appendix A.

1. GOHS Goals

Goal #1:

To fund statewide comprehensive safety programs designed to reduce motor vehicle related traffic crashes, injuries, fatalities and other associated costs.

The First Goal, under the "Planning and Administration" section of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was reached. In FY 2004, $16,659,532.50 was distributed to implement traffic safety programs. These projects included awareness campaigns, educational strategies, research projects, law enforcement equipment, training, personnel, and tailored projects.

Goal #2:

To reduce alcohol/drug related motor vehicle crashes, injuries and fatalities through the systematic delivery of effective program countermeasures.

5 Duplication of some goals and objectives is an artifact of federal funding categories, which require GOHS to draft its Highway Safety Plan in sections that often overlap. For example, the same objective for maintaining 84.5% or higher seatbelt use appropriately appears under "Section 402 Occupant Protection" and "Section 2003B Protecting Our Children." It appears only once here.
47

The preliminary finding regarding the Second Goal, under the "Section 402 Alcohol and Other Drugs Countermeasure and Young Drivers" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was that it was partially reached through GOHS' systematically delivered program countermeasures. Based upon preliminary data, even though statewide impaired driving mobilizations were implemented, community DUI systems improvement projects were implemented, high schools programs and pilot projects were all implemented, and officers were trained and task forces were convened, the numbers of alcohol/drug related motor vehicle crashes and fatalities rose during FY 2004.

Table 3. Grantee Impaired Fatality Data

Grantees Reporting Zero Fatalities OR a

64 (87.7%)

Decrease in Fatalities over Two-Year Period

(n = 73)

Grantees Reporting No Change in Fatalities

3 (4.1%)

over Two-Year Period (n = 73)

Grantees Reporting Increase in Fatalities

6 (8.2%)

over Two-Year Period (n = 73)

Impaired crashes resulting in fatalities decreased in reporting jurisdictions where GOHS funded intervention programs in FY 2004 (see Table 3). For such jurisdictions, there was a decrease of impaired-driving fatalities in 19 (26.0%) of total reporting jurisdictions, while there was an increase in only 6 (8.2%) of total reporting jurisdictions. When coupled with the 45 (61.6%) jurisdictions where there were no impaired driving fatalities, in 87.7% of reporting jurisdictions where GOHS funded law enforcement initiatives, there were either no impaired-driving fatalities or a decrease in such fatalities in FY 2004. These results evidence a strong emphasis by GOHS on the impaired driving issue in Georgia and highlights the efforts in place to combat impaired driving. Further study is warranted in the jurisdictions that showed an increase in impaired driving fatalities.
48

Table 4. Grantee Impaired Crash Injury Data

Grantees Reporting Zero Injuries OR a

48 (75.0%)

Decrease in Injuries over Two-Year Period

Zero (n = 64)

Grantees Reporting No Change in Injuries

1 (1.6%)

over Two-Year Period (n = 64)

Grantees Reporting Increase in Injuries

15 (23.4%)

over Two- Year Period (n = 64)

Likewise, impaired driving-related crashes resulting in injuries decreased in reporting jurisdictions where GOHS implemented highway safety programs. For such jurisdictions, there was a decrease of impaired-driving related injuries in 32 (50%) of total reporting jurisdictions, while there was an increase of such injuries in 15 (23.4%) of total reporting jurisdictions. When coupled with the 16 (25.8 %) jurisdictions in which there were no impaired driving injuries, in three quarters (75%) of reporting jurisdictions where GOHS funded law enforcement initiatives, there were either no impaired-driving injuries or a decrease in such injuries in FY 2004.
This suggests that, while a core group of impaired drivers remain resistant to programmatic interventions, progress is being made on reducing impaired driving in the state. Since the most seriously impaired drivers cause the majority of the fatal collisions, this hard-to-reach population may be resistant to messages designed to reduce impaired driving. Since, based on reporting jurisdictions' data, GOHS programs appear effective at reducing the incidence of impaired driving related injuries and fatalities in jurisdictions where they are implemented, systematic efforts by GOHS to expand its programming to more jurisdictions should be encouraged.

Goal #3:

To reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities among teenage drivers on the highways of Georgia by developing a comprehensive, coordinated effort statewide that includes these young drivers in the program.

49

The GOHS did develop a comprehensive, coordinated effort statewide to reduce

crashes, injuries and fatalities among teenage drivers by including young drivers in its

programs. The Third Goal, under the "Section 410 Young Drivers" of the 2004

Highway Safety Plan, was reached based upon data from jurisdictions where GOHS

implemented programs.

Table 5. Grantee Teenage Driver Crash Data

Grantees Reporting Zero Crashes OR a

27 (61.4%)

Decrease in Crashes over Two-Year Period

(n =44)

Grantees Reporting No Change in Crashes

1 (2.3%)

over Two-Year Period (n =44)

Grantees Reporting Increase in Crashes over

16 (36.4%)

Two-Year Period (n =44)

Fatalities, crashes and injuries in which teenage drivers were involved either remained at zero or decreased in jurisdictions where GOHS implemented programs that reported crash statistics (see Tables 5, 6, and 7). This is attributable to comprehensive planning and programming initiatives by GOHS. Unfortunately, the most likely alternative to zero crashes, injuries or deaths or to a decrease in crashes, injuries or deaths was an increase in these measures. It remains to be determined why a stasis for these data was not the second highest percentage. Nevertheless, these results again show the emphasis that GOHS put on implementing high quality impaired driving programs aimed at the teenage driver.

Table 6. Grantee Teenage Driver Fatality Data

Grantees Reporting Zero Crashes with

54 (84.4%)

Fatalities OR a Decrease in Crashes with

Fatalities over Two-Year Period (n =64)

Grantees Reporting No Change in Crashes

3 (4.7%)

with Fatalities over Two-Year Period (n =64)

Grantees Reporting Increase in Crashes with

7 (10.9%)

Fatalities over Two-Year Period (n =64)

50

Law enforcement programs included significant educational and enforcement activities directed at teenage drivers. The SADD and STAR programs targeted teenage drivers. Thirty high schools (8.4 %) in Georgia participated in the SADD/STAR grant program. Seven colleges or universities statewide participated at some level in the BACCHUS/GAMMA program.

Table 7. Grantee Teenage Driver Injury Data

Grantees Reporting Zero Crashes with

35 (76.1%)

Injuries OR a Decrease in Crashes with

Injuries over Two-Year Period (n =46)

Grantees Reporting No Change in Crashes

0

with Injuries over Two-Year Period (n =46)

Grantees Reporting Increase in Crashes with

11 (23.9%)

Injuries over Two-Year Period (n =46)

Goal #4:

To increase the use of safety belts and child safety restraint systems statewide.

The Fourth Goal, under "Section 402 Occupant Protection" of the 2004 Highway

Safety Plan, was reached. According to the Statewide Use of Occupant Restraints, An

Observational Survey of Safety Restraint Use in Georgia (Bason & Shinholser, 2004)

specific data was collected for all occupants, drivers only, passengers only, and

including and excluding trucks. The overall safety belt usage rate including trucks in

2004 was 86.7%, up from the 84.5% of vehicle occupants belted in 2003, a 2.6%

increase. Excluding trucks, 89.4% of occupants were belted in 2004, a 0.7% increase

from 2003. For drivers only, including trucks, the usage rate was 86.2% in 2004 and

passenger use of safety belts including trucks was 88.7%. This represents a 1.1%

increase from 2003. When trucks were excluded, driver usage rates remained

unchanged from 2003 to 2004, while passenger usage increased 3.8% from 88.0% in

2003 to 91.4% in 2004.

51

There was an overall 2.1% increase of child safety seat usage from 2003, where there was a 92.6% rate of observed children in child safety seats. There was a correlation between safety belt usage and child safety seats. When the driver was also wearing a safety belt, 94.9% of children were also in a child safety, while when drivers were not wearing a belt, only 60.9% of children were in a safety seat.

Goal #5:

To reduce the severity of injuries and the death rate of citizens sixteen (16) years of age and up through the establishment of community highway safety programs that will increase minority and rural citizen's safety belt and child restraint usage rate.

The Fifth GOHS goal, under "Section405 Occupant Protection" of the 2004 Highway

Safety Plan was partially reached. There are actually four goals embedded in this Goal #5:

increasing minority safety belt usage rates, increasing minority child restraint usage rates,

increasing rural citizen safety belt usage rates, and increasing rural citizen child restraint usage

rates. The first two goals were reached: minority safety belt usage rates increased 6.6% and

minority use of child restraints increased 4.3%. The last goal was also reached: rural citizen

child restraint usage increased 8.8%. However, the use of safety belts in rural areas decreased

6.7% from FY 2003 to FY 2004 (Bason & Shinholser, 2004). No data for severity of injuries is

available to determine any change in this measure; nevertheless, this goal has been partially

reached as determined by current and available data regarding safety belt use.

Goal #6:

To increase the number of drivers and passengers who use safety belts and child restraint systems through programs that focus on training, partnerships, public information and education.

The Sixth GOHS goal, under "Section 2003B Protection our Children" of the

2004 Highway Safety Plan, was reached. The overall safety belt usage rate including

trucks in 2004 was 86.7%, from the 84.5% of vehicle occupants belted in 2003, a 2.6%

increase. Excluding trucks, 89.4% of occupants were belted in 2004, a 0.7% increase

from 2003. There was an overall 2.1% increase of child safety seat usage from 2003, 52

when there was a 92.6% rate of observed children in child safety seats (Bason & Shinholser, 2004).
This achievement correlates with a massive, concerted effort on the part of GOHS to include an element of occupant protection in all of the grants funded through its office. Of the 193 total grants funded by GOHS, 159 (82.4%) contained activities or objectives designed to increase the use of safety belts and/or child safety seats. These grants represent $6,008,232.18, or approximately 36% of total funding.6 When the large grant to the Georgia DOT for the transfer of penalty funds is excluded from the total funding formula,7 the percentage of GOHS funding that is distributed to programs with occupant protection objectives or activities is approximately 53% of total funding.

Goal #7:

To assist in the statewide coordination, collection, processing, analysis, and reporting of accurate crash reports and maintain an effective traffic information system.

The Seventh GOHS goal, under "Section 402 Traffic Records" of the 2004

Highway Safety Plan, was reached. GOHS collected data from a variety of sources (law

enforcement agencies, funded grantees, and stakeholders in traffic safety) statewide and

enlisted the assistance of external evaluators to analyze the traffic safety data. In

addition, an in-house epidemiologist compiled data and provided summary reports when

requested. GOHS participated in the pilot test of TraCS in Cobb County. GOHS also

has constituted the Georgia Traffic Records Coordinating Committee comprised of lay

stakeholders, such as DMVS, DOT, DHR and others.

Goal #8:

To reduce pedestrian and bicycle risks of injury and decrease the number of pedestrians and bicyclists killed in motor vehicle crashes using training, partnerships and public information initiatives.

6 There were 193 total grants, with total funding by GOHS of $16,659,532.50 in 2004. 7 Excluding the $ 5,404,919.33 DOT transfer penalty funds, GOHS total funding is $11,254,613.17.
53

The Eighth GOHS goal, under "Section 402 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was partially reached. There is no data currently available to determine bicycle risk for FY 2003 or 2004. However, data available from FARS shows that in 2003 156 pedestrians were killed in Georgia, compared with 161 who were killed in 2002, a decrease of 3%. Unfortunately, the data for bicyclists shows a trend in the opposite direction for the same years: 2003 18 bicyclists were killed in Georgia and in 2002, 13 bicyclists were killed, an increase of 38%.

Table 8. Grantee Pedestrian Crashes Data

Grantees Reporting Zero Crashes OR a

37 (63.8%)

Decrease in Crashes over Two-Year Period

(n =58)

Grantees Reporting No Change in Crashes

5 (8.6%)

over Two-Year Period (n =58)

Grantees Reporting Increase in Crashes

16 (27.6%)

over Two-Year Period (n =58)

However, where GOHS implemented programs in law enforcement agencies which reported crash statistics, impact evaluation measures suggest that such programs were effective in reducing pedestrian crashes. In 63.8% of such jurisdictions, pedestrian crashes either were reduced from numbers in FY 2003 or remained at zero in FY 2004.

Table 9. Grantee Pedestrian Fatality Data

Grantees Reporting Zero Crashes/Fatalities

55 (78.6%)

OR a Decrease in Crashes/Fatalities

over Two-Year Period (n = 70)

Grantees Reporting No Change in

6 (8.6%)

Crashes/Fatalities over Two-Year Period (n

= 70)

Grantees Reporting Increase in

9 (12.9%)

Crashes/Fatalities over Two-Year Period (n

= 70)

54

Where GOHS implemented programs in law enforcement agencies which reported crash statistics, impact evaluation measures suggest that such programs were effective in reducing pedestrian crashes that resulted in fatalities. In 78.6% of such jurisdictions, pedestrian crashes resulting in fatalities either were reduced or remained at zero from FY 2003 to FY 2004.

Goal #9:

To reduce the motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and fatalities through the systematic delivery of effective speed/aggressive driving countermeasures.

The Ninth GOHS goal, under "Section 402 Speed and Aggressive Driving Countermeasures" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was undetermined. GOHS implemented `100 Days of Summer Heat', a speed and aggressive driving related program. This program started in May and was completed in September. Fatalities were 33% lower than predicted during this time period; however, no statewide impact statistics are currently available to adequately assess achievement of this goal.

Goal #10:

To reduce the number of overall traffic related fatalities on Georgia roadways resulting from impaired driving, speeding, occupant protection violations, and other high-risk behavior.

The Tenth GOHS goal, under "Section 402 Police Traffic Services" of the 2004

Highway Safety Plan, was undetermined. No statewide impact statistics are currently

available to adequately assess achievement of this goal.

Table 10. Grantee Speed-Related Fatality Data

Grantees Reporting Zero Crashes/Fatalities

52 (74.3%)

OR a Decrease in Crashes/Fatalities over

Two-Year Period (n =70)

Grantees Reporting No Change in

9 (12.9%)

Crashes/Fatalities over Two-Year Period (n

=70)

Grantees Reporting Increase in

9 (12.9%)

Crashes/Fatalities over Two-Year Period (n

=70)

55

Goal #11:

To reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes, injuries, fatalities and their associated costs through the establishment and maintenance of effective Safe Communities & CTSP programs.

The Eleventh GOHS goal, under "Section 402 Community Traffic Safety

Programs" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was undetermined because no impact data

is received directly from GOHS funded Safe Communities programs.

Table 11. Grantee Crash Data Grantees Reporting Zero Crashes OR a Decrease in Crashes over Two-Year Period (n = 82) Grantees Reporting No Change in Crashes over Two-Year Period (n = 82) Grantees Reporting Increase in Crashes over TwoYear Period (n = 82)

49 (59.8%)
1 (1.2%) 32 (39.0%)

The overall number of motor vehicle crashes either remained at zero (3 cases, or

3.7%) or decreased (46 cases, or 56.1%) in jurisdictions where GOHS implemented

programs (see Table 11).

Table 12. Grantee Injury Data Grantees Reporting Zero Crashes with Injuries OR a Decrease Crashes with Injuries over Two-Year Period (n = 76) No Change in Crashes with Injuries over Two-Year Period (n = 76) Increase in Crashes with Injuries over Two-Year Period (n = 76)

47 (61.8%)
3 (3.9%) 26 (34.2%)

For jurisdictions where GOHS implemented programs, the number of overall crashes with injuries either remained at zero in FY 2004 or decreased in 47 (61.8%) of the jurisdictions that reported such statistics for FY 2003. Again, the trend for crashes involving injuries is similar to the other impact measures reported, in that the majority of jurisdictions report stabilizing or decreasing the incidents, with fewer jurisdictions

56

reporting increases and the least number of jurisdictions reporting no change in number of incidents.

Table 13. Grantee Fatality Data Grantees Reporting Zero Crashes with Fatalities OR a Decrease Crashes with Fatalities over Two-Year Period (n = 73) Grantees Reporting No Change in Crashes with Fatalities over Two-Year Period (n = 73) Grantees Reporting Increase in Crashes with Fatalities over Two-Year Period (n = 73)

55 (71.4%)
7 (9.1%) 15 (19.5%)

The number of overall traffic related fatalities either remained at zero or decreased from FY 2003 numbers in 55 (71.4% of reporting) jurisdictions where GOHS funded law enforcement initiatives and which reported crash statistics.
Finally, a total of $306,900.00 (1.8% of total funding) was distributed to Safe Communities programs statewide to implement highly targeted programs.

Goal 12:

To increase public awareness and knowledge of highway safety, create a series of resource centers across the state where the highway safety materials are available, and provide a clearinghouse for materials for Georgia.

The Twelfth GOHS goal, under "Section 402 CTSP Resource Information

Centers and Clearinghouse" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was not reached. GOHS

did make traffic safety resources and materials available through its web site and its

offices in Atlanta. Additionally, a resource clearinghouse was established at the Georgia

Traffic Injury Protection Institute (GTIPI) in Conyers. However, there was no series of

traffic safety resources centers created throughout the state.

Goal 13:

To reduce pedestrian risks of injury and decrease the number of pedestrians killed in motor vehicle crashes in FY 2004.

57

The Thirteenth GOHS goal, under "Section 157A Pedestrian Safety" of the 2004

Highway Safety Plan, was undetermined in regard to pedestrians because, while ten

programs (17.5%) reported a decrease over time in the number of pedestrian crashes

involving injuries, twelve programs (21%) reported an increase in the number of

pedestrian crashes involving injuries during the same time period, yet no risk reduction

data currently is available. Conversely, eleven programs (6%) and nine programs (5%)

respectively reported decreases and increases in pedestrian crashes that results in deaths.

Table 14. Grantee Pedestrian Injury Data

Grantees Reporting Zero Pedestrian Crashes with

Injuries OR a Decrease in Pedestrian Crashes with

38 (66.7%)

Injuries over Two-Year Period (n =57)

Grantees Reporting No Change in Pedestrian Crashes

12 (21.1%)

with Injuries over Two-Year Period (n =57)

Grantees Reporting Increase in Pedestrian Crashes with

7 (12.3%)

Injuries over Two-Year Period (n =57)

Programs to educate and inform the citizens about pedestrian traffic safety issues were implemented in ten sites, including but not limited to Safety Street Georgia in Fulton County, Columbus Safe Communities, and Safe Communities of DeKalb County, City of Atlanta and Georgia State University. These programs included a strong focus on child pedestrian safety to and from school.

Goal 14:

To increase helmet use and reduce fatalities occurring to motorcyclists in Georgia.

The Fourteenth GOHS goal, under "Section 157A Motorcycle Safety" of the 2004

Highway Safety Plan, was not determined because official statewide motorcycle helmet

use and fatality data is not available. However, preliminary crash data suggest that the

number of motorcycle-related fatalities increased in FY 2004. The majority of these

fatalities involved riders who were not wearing a helmet. Most of these fatalities

occurred in rural areas of the state.

58

Goal 15:

To implement a DUI Court demonstration pilot to serve as a national model.

The Fifteenth GOHS goal, under "Section 403 Demonstration Grant" of the 2004

Highway Safety Plan, was reached. The Effective DUI Adjudication Project was

implemented in Clarke, Hall, and Chatham Counties, with a budget of $474,138. The

implementation of this project is ongoing and an outside evaluator has been hired to

provide multi-year evaluation oversight for this project.

Goal 16: To implement pilot impaired driving countermeasures. The Sixteenth GOHS goal, under "163(.08) Incentive" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was reached. GOHS provided funds statewide to agencies and organizations to implement pilot impaired driving traffic safety programs. These included funding for the Nighthawks Georgia State Patrol grant [2004-166-410J8] to create a specialized traffic enforcement unit to counter impaired driving and speeding in the metropolitan Atlanta region.

2. GOHS Objectives
Objective 1: To maintain an effective staff to deliver public information and education programs that help reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities in Georgia.
The First Objective, under the "Planning and Administration" section of the 2004
Highway Safety Plan, was met. One public information and education specialist was
hired during FY 2004. This person is an experienced media specialist, a former
television reporter, who brings more than 20 years of public information and education
experience to the GOHS office.
Paid media programs represent a major component of GOHS' efforts to reduce the
incidence and prevalence of traffic crashes, injuries and fatalities on Georgia's roadways. 59

GOHS employs a variety of innovative paid media programs with memorable names designed both to remind motorists of their need to obey traffic safety laws for their own and others' protection and to remind them of the sanctions for disobedience of those laws in Georgia. Crashes, injuries and fatalities are higher during vacation periods when large numbers of motorists take to Georgia's roadways, so many GOHS campaigns target those holiday periods. GOHS has frequently enjoyed reductions in traffic crash morbidity and mortality during those periods by coupling media and enforcement campaigns.
To accomplish its broad PI&E goals, GOHS allocated funding in two ways. First, GOHS provided guidance to NHTSA for funds to be expended on its behalf on national campaigns. This allocation allowed GOHS to enjoy significant economies of scale in purchasing state-of-the-art advertisements and media buys from a national distributor. This year, GOHS expended $1.2 million through NHTSA to purchase paid media for Georgia's version of the "Click It or Ticket" Campaign that began in May 2004. Second, GOHS purchased paid media directly and through contractors. GOHS funded approximately $950,000 in this manner to publicize its programs during FY 2004, making its total expenditures for paid media approximately $2.15 million. These included the following:
In the November, 2003 "Click It or Ticket" initiative, GOHS obtained significant statewide coverage of its occupant protection message for a relatively modest investment of $20,000 through a radio campaign. Through the Georgia News Network, GOHS reached a cumulative audience of 1,134,600 listeners with over 5,305,800 gross impressions over a twoweek period, about six impressions per listener. Campaign spots aired on 115 stations for a total of 6,444 times.
In the December 2003 "Operation Zero Tolerance" impaired driving campaign, GOHS spent approximately $300,000 for paid media in the Atlanta, Macon, Augusta, Columbus, Savannah and national cable markets. These spots combined to form a media blitz that reached
60

television audiences throughout the most populous regions of the state, reaching the majority (60%) of persons in targeted metropolitan households with almost four impressions in each household.
GOHS purchased approximately $1.2 million worth of radio, television and cable paid media through NHTSA and its consulting firm the Tombras Group for its Memorial Day, 2004 Click It or Ticket Campaign. Additionally, more than 90% of Georgia's law enforcement agencies participated in the mobilization. Messages were delivered to all major metropolitan areas and various rural communities throughout Georgia targeting the high-risk population of 18 to 35. The data on the scope and reach of this campaign is maintained with the Tombras Group and has been submitted to NHTSA.
For the 4th of July, 2004 "Operation Zero Tolerance" initiative, GOHS purchased radio, television, and cable paid media for approximately $375,000. These messages were delivered statewide and to major metropolitan areas including Atlanta, Augusta, Albany, Columbus, Macon, Savannah, Valdosta and Chattanooga. GOHS documented 14,660,000 impressions, this media registered in more than 85% of households in targeted markets approximately fifteen times each.
For the Labor Day, 2004 "Operation Zero Tolerance" initiative, GOHS purchased more than $106,000 worth of television advertising in Atlanta, Augusta, Chattanooga, Macon, Savannah, and statewide.
This year, the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety created a new program, "100 Days of Summer H.E.A.T.," designed to link several traffic safety campaigns into a media-campaign that could magnify their impact during the deadly summer driving season. Working with feedback from law enforcement officers and data from previous paid media campaigns, GOHS internal staff created a combined Public Information and Education ("PI&E") and enforcement campaign. This campaign was designed to overlay a sustained
61

speeding-reduction initiative on programs that included occupant protection and impaireddriving components. This plan received approval from NHTSA and was adopted in its first year by several other Southeastern states. It has received regional acclaim in the Southeast and may be adopted nationally in the future as a combined program model with broad impacts on aggressive and impaired driving and on occupant protection violations. For the "100 Days of Summer H.E.A.T." sustained education and enforcement campaign, GOHS earmarked almost $126,000 for paid media. Radio and television spots ran in Atlanta, Albany, Augusta, Chattanooga, Columbus, Macon, Savannah, and statewide. Radio advertisements in the Atlanta metropolitan area reached 76% of the market with more than four impressions for each listener reached, while television spots reached 56% of the market with two impressions for each viewer. Statewide, one of the television networks utilized reached 30% of the market with four impressions for each viewer.
Two other additional major paid media programs during the FY 2004 were the Atlanta Bicycle Campaign (ABC) and Georgians for Better Transportation (GBT). The ABC provided PI&E on bicycle traffic safety and GBT publicized Georgia's `Steer It and Clear It' law. Target populations were statewide as well as specific sub-populations. The Atlanta Bicycle Campaign was able to achieve success in increasing awareness for cyclists and motorists regarding appropriately sharing the roadways. Motorist's awareness of the law regarding bicycles using the roadways showed an 18% improvement in the targeted areas, while a 19% improvement in awareness was achieved in motorists' awareness of ways to safely interact with bicycles using the roadways. GBT was able to achieve a much more significant impact than initially planned by disseminating the GOHS Public Service Announcements (PSAs) developed through a special program with the Georgia Association of Broadcasters that allowed them to be aired statewide at a significantly reduced cost and to a much broader audience than initially envisioned in the grant. However, there was not a measurable change in awareness determined
62

by a random digit dialing survey regarding the "Steer It and Clear It" law campaign (Appendix D).
Objective 2: To provide operating funds to targeted communities to support the implementation of programs contained in the GOHS Highway Safety Plan.
The Second Objective, under the "Planning and Administration" section of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. A total of $3,188,121.18 was provided during FY 2004 to communities in 89 (56%) of Georgia's 159 counties, which total was increased by matching funds to $3,656,401.20.8 These communities were chosen (targeted) based on the traffic data.
Objective 3: To collect and analyze traffic crash data to ensure resources are directed to the identified problem areas.
The Third Objective, under the "Planning and Administration" section of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. Data was received from a variety of sources, including but not limited to FARS, grantees and the University of Georgia Survey Research Center. The GOHS epidemiologist analyzed this data.
Objective 4: To evaluate the effectiveness of programs and their impact upon GOHS performance goals.
The Fourth Objective, under the "Planning and Administration" section of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. GOHS hired the University of Georgia Department of Health Promotion and Behavior evaluation team to provide evaluation expertise. The UGA team received data from all grantees and established a
8 For the purpose of evaluating this objective, grants to communities included grants to schools and to counties or cities and their subdivisions. Excluded were grants to statewide agencies and private agencies.
63

comprehensive database to compile and analyze the grantee data. Achievement of objectives and completion of milestone tasks was assessed and recorded.
Objective 5: To provide funding to jurisdictions that make up 50% of the impaired driving fatalities in the state of Georgia in FY 2004.
This objective is to provide funding to combat impaired driving to counties where 50% of the impaired driving fatalities in Georgia occur during FY 2004. Based upon past data trends, and because GOHS funded programs to communities in 89 (56%) of the 159 counties in addition to several statewide objectives designed to reduce impaired driving fatalities, this objective has been met. Table 15 shows a few of GOHS' impaired-driving related grants in counties targeted because of their population and their history of high numbers of impaired driving fatalities, the number of impaired driving deaths in calendar year 2003, the implementing department and the original grant amount. There were 488 impaired driving fatalities in Georgia during calendar year 2003, so these grants alone represent funding to jurisdictions where 245 such deaths, or more than 50% of the impaired driving fatalities during calendar year 2003 occurred. Calendar year 2003 impaired driving fatalities are a proxy measure for FY 2004 impaired driving fatalities.

Table 15. Funding for Law Enforcement Grants

Designed to Decrease Impaired Driving Fatalities

In Jurisdictions with High Numbers of Impaired Driving Fatalities, FY 2004

County

# of Impaired

Implementing Department

Grant Amount

Driving Deaths

in 2003

Fulton

46

City of Atlanta Police Department

$171,800.00

[2004-195-164AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

Fulton County Police Department [2004-060-164AL] (H.E.A.T. Grant)

$135,000.00

DeKalb

27

DeKalb County Police Department

[2004-044-164AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

$124,000.00

64

Cobb Gwinnett
Forsyth Bibb Chatham Clayton
Hall Bartow Dougherty Henry Thomas Paulding Whitfield Clarke Douglas Catoosa Cook Monroe

26

Cobb County Police Department

[2004-033-163AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

25

Gwinnett County Police Department

[2004-067-164AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

The Council on Alcohol and Drugs

[2004-756-410J8]

14

Forsyth County Board of Education

[2004-058-402SC]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

13

Macon Police Department

[2004-179-410J8]

13

Savannah Police Department

[2004-199-402CP]

11

City of College Park

(Fulton and Clayton)

[2004-228-163AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

Clayton County Police Department

[2004-031-163AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

8

Hall County Sheriff's Office

[2004-757-410J8]

8

City of Cartersville

[2004-181-402PT]

7

Albany Police Department

[2004-180-402AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

6

Henry County Bureau of Police

[2004-075-163AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

5

Thomasville Police Department

[2004-185-402CP]

4

Paulding County Sheriff's Office

[2004-110-402AL]

4

Whitfield County Sheriff's Office

[2004-155-402AL]

3

Athens-Clarke county Police

Department

[2004-029-410J8]

3

Douglasville Police Department

[2004-171-402PT]

1

Catoosa County Sheriff's Office

[2004-023-410J8]

1

Adel Police Department

[2004-349-402OP]

1

Monroe County Sheriff's Office

[2004-102-402AL]

$130,600.00
$65,200.00 $81,800.00 $121,500.00
$55,560.00 $157,740.00 $108,755.00
$118,500.00 $11,800.00 $3,600.00 $111,300.00
$122,000.00
$8,800.00 $154,000.00 $84,960.00 $130,200.00
$4,992.00 $78,164.00 $3,100.00 $12,200.00

65

Walker Wayne Upson

1

Walker County Sheriff's Office

[2004-146-157OP]

1

Jesup Police Department

[2004-288-163CP]

1

Upson County Sheriff's Office

[2004-145-410J8]

$150,000.00 $65,931.00 $20,700.00

Objective 6: To implement three (3) impaired driving enforcement mobilizations in FY 2004 with 50% of the law enforcement community participating.
The Sixth Objective, under "Section 402 Alcohol and Other Drugs
Countermeasure and Young Drivers" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. The
three impaired driving enforcement mobilizations were implemented based on federal
guidelines. More than fifty percent (50%) of the law enforcement community
participated in these mobilizations.

Objective 7: To identify and implement a community DUI systems improvement project in three (3) jurisdictions in Georgia in FY 2004.
The Seventh Objective, under "Section 402 Alcohol and Other Drugs Countermeasure and Young Drivers" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. GOHS funded the Effective DUI Adjudication program [403B-00-03-201], beginning November 15, 2002 and continuing through and including the 2004 FY grant period. Implementation has continued throughout this grant year, with regular milestone charts and monthly reports submitted for all three jurisdictions. The three jurisdictions are Chatham, Hall and Clarke Counties. These counties were chosen based on number of defendants eligible and normative population demographics. The collaborative efforts of the judges and courts in these counties also helped determine the sites for this implementation.

Objective 8: To provide funding to 10% of Georgia high schools and provide public information and education to 100% of Georgia high
66

schools to implement programs to encourage safety belt use and discourage drinking especially while driving.
The Eighth Objective, under "Section 410 Young Drivers" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was not met. In April, 2004, letters were sent to all 356 high schools in Georgia making them aware of available funds for safety belt and impaired driving programs. While thirty-five (9.8 %) of the high schools initially expressed interest and applied to participate in the SADD program, there was high attrition among grantees due to such issues as teacher/advisor turnover, extensive reporting requirements for small grants, and policies set by principals that, for example, prohibited students from missing class time for special events. In the end, only thirty programs were funded, or 8.4% of the total high schools in the state. Each program that was funded generally received $2,000 in funding (total of $59,550 for the SADD program).
Objective 9: To provide funding to a minimum of 7 colleges and universities to implement a "peer education" program to prevent drinking and driving and encourage safety belt use.
The Ninth Objective, under "Section 410 Young Drivers" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. The following colleges and universities were funded for FY 2004: Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, Albany State University, Brenau University, Georgia Southwestern State University, North Georgia College and State University, the State University of West Georgia, and the University of Georgia. The grant amounts ranged from $15,000 to $43,200, with a mean grant amount of $21,385.71. This reflects a commitment of $149,700.00 for peer education programs at the college/university level.
Objective 10: To train a minimum of 1,200 law enforcement officers in impaired driving countermeasures.
67

The Tenth Objective, under "Section 410 Young Drivers" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. Through a single grant to the Georgia Public Safety Training Center, funding was provided to train law enforcement officers in impaired driving countermeasures including the administration of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and certification as Drug Recognition Experts; 1,224 officers were trained through that program. Additional training was provided to law enforcement through monthly Regional Traffic Enforcement Network meetings held in sixteen (16) strategic areas across the state.
Objective 11: To provide funding for Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Testing for the purpose of reducing turnaround time for prosecution of DUI offenders.
The Eleventh Objective, under "Section 410 Young Drivers" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. A grant to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation through its Department of Forensic Toxicology [2004-165-410J8] was funded in the amount of $83,800.00. This grant was specifically designed to hire and train laboratory workers to reduce turn-around time on DUI-related laboratory samples and so to facilitate prosecution of suspect offenders.
Objective 12: To create a coordinated effort to reduce impaired driving in the Metropolitan Atlanta area through a task force approach.
The Twelfth Objective, under the "154/164 Transfer Funds" section of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. The task force was developed in FY 2004 and met initially in October, FY 2005.
Objective 13: To provide funding to the Department of Transportation for hazardous elimination programs.
68

The Thirteenth Objective, under the "154/164 Transfer Funds" section of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. In FY 2004, $5,404,919.30 was provided to DOT for hazardous elimination programs through grant 2004-163-402OP.
Objective 14: To maintain a statewide safety belt usage rate of 84.5% or higher in FY 2004.
The Fourteenth Objective, under the "402 Occupant Protection" section and the "Section 2003B Protecting Our Children" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. The 2003 safety belt usage rate was 84.5%, the highest percentage ever. The overall safety belt usage rate for 2004, including trucks was 86.7%, an increase of 2.6%, making this the highest recorded rate. The safety belt usage rate excluding trucks was 89.4%, a 0.7% increase from 2003. (Bason & Shinholser, 2004).
Objective 15: To increase the use of child safety restraint systems for children under the age of five to 95 percent by the end of FY 2004.
The Fifteenth Objective, under the "402 Occupant Protection" section of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was not met. There were 92.6% of observed children in child safety seats in 2004, a 2.1% increase from 2003. Child safety seat usage was 96.1% in the Atlanta MSA, 80.0% in other MSA's and 78.9% in rural areas of the state. (Bason & Shinholser, 2004).
Objective 16: To maintain a statewide safety belt usage rate of 85.3% or higher for minority drivers and passengers in 2004.
The Sixteenth Objective, under the "405 Occupant Protection" section of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met for non-white drivers and passengers. The driver rate was higher for non-whites (89.5%) than for whites (83.4%). For passengers, the use of safety belts was higher among non-whites (90.7%) than among whites (86.8%). (Bason & Shinholser, 2004).
69

Objective 17: To increase safety belt use rate by 5% for citizens sixteen years (16) years and older in rural Georgia by 2004.
The Seventeenth Objective, under the "405 Occupant Protection" section of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was not met. For drivers in FY 2004, the safety belt usage rate including trucks was 80.2%, a 5.8% decrease from FY 2003. However, excluding trucks, safety belt usage among drivers in rural areas was 84.6%. (Bason & Shinholser, 2004).
Objective 18: To maintain a statewide child safety seat usage rate of 93.5 percent or higher in FY 2004.
The Eighteenth Objective under "Section 2003B Protecting Our Children" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was not met. The FY 2004 statewide child safety seat usage rate was 92.6%. (Bason & Shinholser, 2004).
Objective 19: To develop and disseminate a long-range Strategic Plan for traffic records improvement in Georgia.
The Nineteenth Objective under "Section 402 Traffic Records" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan was met. The strategic plan was developed on schedule and provided useful guidance throughout the year. The Strategic Plan contains information for planning and implementing programs for all NHTSA high-priority areas.
Objective 20: To sponsor the Georgia Traffic Records Coordinating Committee for continued synchronization and cooperation among various governmental and law enforcement entities.
The Twentieth Objective under "Section 402 Traffic Records" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan was achieved. The Georgia Traffic Records Coordinating Committee has been constructed, and Director Bob Dallas was the named chair. GOHS sponsorship of this committee included membership recruitment and tasks including strategic plan revision. Key stakeholders, such as the Georgia Department of
70

Transportation (GA DOT), Division of Motor Vehicle Safety (DMVS), Department of Human Resources (DHR) and others have pledged their commitment to the success of the committee.
Objective 21: To continue support of a Georgia Traffic Records Coordinator to provide leadership in the production and implementation of the long-term strategic plan and TraCS.
The Twenty-First Objective under "Section 402 Traffic Records" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan was met. Outside coordinators were employed at $90,833.00 for FY 2004 to produce and implement TraCS, a database that provides traffic courts and law enforcement personnel with information about any driver they may encounter.
Objective 22: To field-test TraCS in selected Georgia jurisdictions. The Twenty-Second Objective under "Section 402 Traffic Records" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan was met. The field testing of TraCS in FY 2004 was in Cobb County. The results of this field testing was negative because the updated system outdated last year's citations.
Objective 23: To promote and support research initiatives related to highway safety in Georgia.
The Twenty-Third Objective under "Section 402 Traffic Records" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. A total of $591,803.00 was granted to research projects. These projects included but weren't limited to Georgia Highway Safety Programs Evaluation [2004-587-402CP] and 410 Alcohol-In-House [2004-160-410J8]. Research on teen driving initiatives and alcohol programs were central in this area.
Objective 24: To provide funds to agencies for the purpose of increasing education and awareness of pedestrian injuries and fatalities in Georgia.
71

The Twenty-Fourth Objective, under "Section 402 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. Ten grants ($1,489,911.00, approximately 9% of total) were funded that specifically addressed pedestrian issues. Educational strategies included conducting educational walks, developing materials for the Spanish population and conducting workshops and awareness strategies included increasing Safe Communities in various counties, such as DeKalb, and increasing school presentations regarding pedestrian injuries.
Objective 25: To fund agencies for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and deaths related to speed.
The Twenty-Fifth Objective, under "Section 402 Speed and Aggressive Driving Countermeasures" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. In addition to multiple programs that included components to reduce speed-related motor vehicle crashes, there were ten specific grants designed for that purpose. These H.E.A.T., or "Highway Enforcement against Aggressive Traffic" grants, were specifically designed to reduce aggressive driving and speeding on Georgia's highways in jurisdictions with high numbers of speed-related crashes, injuries and deaths. These ten grants represent a total commitment of funding of $1,208,655.00 (approximately 7.3 % of total funding). The H.E.A.T. grants are enumerated in Table 16:

County
Fulton
DeKalb

Table 16. Funding for H.E.A.T

"Highway Enforcement against Aggressive Driving"

Grants, FY 2004

# of Impaired

Implementing Department

Driving Deaths

in 2003

46

City of Atlanta Police Department

[2004-195-164AL]

Fulton County Police Department

[2004-060-164AL]

27

DeKalb County Police Department

[2004-044-164AL]

Grant Amount
$171,800.00
$135,000.00 $124,000.00

Cobb

26

Cobb County Police Department

[2004-033-163AL]

$130,600.00

72

Gwinnett Forsyth Clayton
Dougherty Henry

25

Gwinnett County Police Department

[2004-067-164AL]

14

Forsyth County Board of Education

[2004-058-402SC]

11

City of College Park

(Fulton and Clayton)

[2004-228-163AL]

Clayton County Police Department [2004-031-163AL]

7

Albany Police Department

[2004-180-402AL]

6

Henry County Bureau of Police

[2004-075-163AL]

$65,200.00 $121,500.00 $108,755.00
$118,500.00 $111,300.00 $122,000.00

GOHS has also funded a special impaired driving countermeasures unit of ten officers within the Georgia State Patrol through its Nighthawks grant. These officers perform impaired driving enforcement duties in areas with high rates of impaired driving crashes, injuries, and fatalities, primarily in the metro Atlanta area. This grant, supplemented by an overtime enforcement grant for the "100 Days of Summer H.E.A.T." initiative, represents an allocation by GOHS of $815,500 in FY 2004 (4.9% of total funding).
Objective 26: To provide funds to law enforcement agencies who will focus on decreasing the number of persons killed in impaired driving crashes in FY 2004.
The Twenty-Sixth Objective, under "Section 402 Police Traffic Services" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. The following grants (Table 17) are for law enforcement agencies, which contain in their objectives/activities a significant focus on reducing impaired driving fatalities. This is not an exhaustive list, but includes the largest grants to law enforcement agencies to reduce impaired driving fatalities.

73

County
Statewide Fulton
DeKalb Cobb Gwinnett Forsyth Bibb Chatham Clayton
Hall Dougherty Henry Thomas Paulding

Table 17. Funding for Law Enforcement Agencies

Focused upon Decreasing Impaired Driving Fatalities

# of Impaired

Implementing Department

Grant Amount

Driving Deaths

in 2003

488

Georgia State Patrol

$815,500.00

[2004-166-163AL]

46

City of Atlanta Police Department

[2004-195-164AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

$171,800.00

Fulton County Police Department [2004-060-164AL] (H.E.A.T. Grant)

$135,000.00

27

DeKalb County Police Department

[2004-044-164AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

$124,000.00

26

Cobb County Police Department

[2004-033-163AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

$130,600.00

25

Gwinnett County Police Department

[2004-067-164AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

$65,200.00

14

Forsyth County Board of Education

[2004-058-402SC]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

$121,500.00

13

Macon Police Department

[2004-179-410J8]

$55,560.00

13

Savannah Police Department

[2004-199-402CP]

$157,740.00

11

City of College Park

(Fulton and Clayton)

[2004-228-163AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

$108,755.00

Clayton County Police Department [2004-031-163AL] (H.E.A.T. Grant)

$118,500.00

8

Hall County Sheriff's Office

[2004-757-410J8]

$11,800.00

7

Albany Police Department

[2004-180-402AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

$111,300.00

6

Henry County Bureau of Police

[2004-075-163AL]

(H.E.A.T. Grant)

$122,000.00

5

Thomasville Police Department

[2004-185-402CP]

$8,800.00

4

Paulding County Sheriff's Office

[2004-110-402AL]

$154,000.00

74

Whitfield Clarke
Catoosa Cook Monroe Walker Wayne Upson

4

Whitfield County Sheriff's Office

[2004-155-402AL]

3

Athens-Clarke county Police

Department

[2004-029-410J8]

1

Catoosa County Sheriff's Office

[2004-023-410J8]

1

Adel Police Department

[2004-349-402OP]

1

Monroe County Sheriff's Office

[2004-102-402AL]

1

Walker County Sheriff's Office

[2004-146-157OP]

1

Jesup Police Department

[2004-288-163CP]

1

Upson County Sheriff's Office

[2004-145-410J8]

$84,960.00 $130,200.00
$78,164.00 $3,100.00 $12,200.00 $150,000.00 $65,931.00 $20,700.00

Objective 27: To increase by 5% the number of Georgia law enforcement personnel who receive local and national professional training opportunities in FY 2004.
The Twenty-Seventh Objective, under "Section 402 Police Traffic Services" of
the 2004 Highway Safety Plan was met. Two grants were funded specifically for law
enforcement training for $426,800.00 (2.5% of total), and there was a greater than 5%
increase in the number of officers trained compared to FY 2003.

Objective 28: To maintain and strengthen partnerships with all Georgia law enforcement agencies and increase their participation in the Traffic Enforcement Networks by 10% in FY 2004.
The Twenty-Eighth Objective, under "Section 402 Police Traffic Services" of the
2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. Of the 15 Regional Traffic Enforcement Networks
that reported participation figures for 2003 and 2004, an average increase of 36.2% in
participation was evidenced. This exceeds the 10% projected participation rate in this
objective.

Objective 29: To increase by 10% the number of corporate partners who provide support for the Governor's Office of Highway Safety's law enforcement project.
75

The Twenty-Ninth Objective, under "Section 402 Police Traffic Services" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan was met, as there was a greater than 10% increase in the number of corporate partners with GOHS in FY 2004.

Objective 30:

To create and implement public information and education strategies for the purpose of increasing public awareness of highway safety and law enforcement initiatives that reduce traffic crashes, injuries and fatalities statewide in FY 2004.

The Thirtieth Objective, under "Section 402 Police Traffic Services" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. The public information and education strategies that were created and implemented included, but were not limited to, the following: press releases, press conferences and other earned media, paid advertisements and PSAs, media "blitzes" organized around traffic safety campaigns that included billboards and radio spots, publishing a traffic safety newspaper for college campuses, posters, educational programs in schools, churches, other settings and high school activities including "ghost-outs" and rollover simulators. Every grantee was required by GOHS to include a PI&E plan in their grant and program implementation strategy.

Objective 31:

To provide support information and instruction to the existing Safe Communities programs for the purpose of identifying problems and developing effective strategies in their local communities to counter highway safety problems.

The Thirty-First Objective, under "Section 402 Community Traffic Safety

Programs" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. The activities performed through

the Safe Communities grants funded by GOHS included but were not limited to the

following: developing and maintaining traffic safety coalitions, developing a child

passenger safety website, providing child safety car seats and related trainings and

program evaluation, providing elementary school traffic safety training programs,

76

participating in "International Walk to School Day" and GOHS traffic safety initiatives and partnering with other organizations to provide educational programs in high schools.
A total of $306,900.00 (1.8% of total funding) was distributed to Safe Communities programs statewide to identify problems and develop solutions to traffic safety issues in their metro Atlanta, Albany, and Columbus and surrounding communities.
Objective 32: To make highway safety materials available and accessible to all Georgia citizens.
The Thirty-Second Objective, under "Section 402 CTSP Resource Information Centers and Clearinghouse" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. Highway safety materials, such as brochures, posters, coasters, key chains and fact sheets, were made available in the following ways: at the GOHS office, via internet request, at GOHS funded events, through law enforcement and by mail and fax.
Objective 33: To provide funding to local and state jurisdictions in Georgia to create occupant safety programs designed to increase occupant safety restraint use in FY 2004.
The Thirty-Third Objective, under "Section 157A Occupant Protection" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. GOHS included an element of occupant protection in the majority of the grants funded through its office. Of the 193 total grants funded by GOHS, 159, or approximately 82%, contained activities or objectives designed to increase the use of safety belts and/or child safety seats. A cost description of GOHS programs by the Evaluation Team revealed that almost 20% of total funding, went to occupant protection programming (see Appendix B).
This objective focuses upon funding provided to local jurisdictions, which would exclude grants for GOHS' operations and many of the larger grants. Of the 153 grants to local communities, 145 (94.8%) contained objectives and activities to increase safety
77

belt usage and occupant protection through public education and information campaigns. These activities included press conferences, press releases and other earned media, paid advertisements and PSAs, media "blitzes" organized around traffic safety campaigns that included billboards and radio spots, posters, educational programs in schools, churches, and other settings and high school activities including safety belt surveys and educational campaigns.
Objective 34: To provide funding to local jurisdictions to address pedestrian safety through public education and information campaigns.
The Thirty-Fourth Objective, under "Section 157A Pedestrian Safety" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. Of the 153 grants to local communities, 6 contained pedestrian safety objectives and activities. These activities included, but were not limited to, Safe Communities' elementary school educational programs, such as participation in "International Walk Your Child To School Day" and other training programs for young pedestrians. Also included were law enforcement agency activities that increased enforcement for pedestrian safety violations and presentations in high schools and elementary schools.
Objective 35: To provide funding for motorcycle safety education and preventive countermeasures.
The Thirty-Fifth Objective, under "Section 157A Motorcycle Safety" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. In FY 2004, one grant was funded that included in its objectives the prevention of motorcycle violations. The funding for this grant was $150,000 (approximately .9% of total funding), but only one of its three objectives targeted motorcycle safety preventive countermeasures.
Objective 36: To implement effective DUI adjudication programs in three distinct jurisdictions in the State of Georgia. 78

The Thirty-Sixth Objective, under "Section 403 Demonstration Grant" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. A DUI adjudication program was implemented in three jurisdictions: Chatham, Hall and Clarke counties. Offenders have graduated from all of these DUI courts during the grant period and an outside evaluator has been hired by NHTSA to provide evaluation oversight.
Objective 37: To implement a pilot project with the Georgia State Patrol to create a specialized traffic enforcement unit to address impaired driving and speeding.
The Thirty-Seventh Objective, under "163(.08) Incentive" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. This pilot program began June 1, 2004 and involved ten `Nighthawk' officers. This grant was funded in FY 2004 for $690,500, with an additional $125,000 for overtime enforcement, for a total funding amount of $815,500 (4.9 % of total funding).
Objective 38: To implement a pilot project to study and outreach to Latinos and impaired driving crash involvement.
The Thirty-Eighth Objective, under "163(.08) Incentive" of the 2004 Highway Safety Plan, was met. Kennesaw State University was funded at $16,900 (.1 % of total funding) in FY 2004 for outreach to Hispanics in Cherokee County. This grant included the testing and development of traffic safety messages that were appropriate for Latino populations and the delivery of those messages, along with donated child safety seats and training on installation of such seats to participants in workshops and public information sessions.
IV. Evaluator's Response to 2003 Performance Audit
In March of 2003, the Performance Audit Operations Division of the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts published its Performance Audit ("Audit") of the
79

Governor's Office of Highway Safety ("Office"). That Audit included a summary finding and total of seventeen specific findings broken down into six subcategories, including (A) four findings on Effectiveness; (B) four findings on Grant Management; (C) two findings on Contract Management; (D) five findings on Staffing and Administration; and (E) two Other findings.9 While some findings were favorable to GOHS, many were critical and included suggestions for improving performance.
Response to Audit Findings on Five Subcategories on Performance As a part of its evaluation of the overall performance of GOHS, the UGA evaluation team has prepared summary responses based upon the data from grantees and from GOHS that are available as of the submission date of this report. In this section of the Final Report, each of the subcategories is discussed in turn, with the evaluator's conclusions included when appropriate.
(A) Findings on Grantee 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." (Audit, p. 11).
This first Effectiveness Finding is actually two findings. The first is that GOHS should implement procedures for measuring its overall effectiveness and the second is that GOHS should measure the effectiveness of all of its individual grants and contracts.
9 The Audit contained one "Legislative Issues" finding and made a Recommendation that the law be amended to make the Department of Public Safety responsible for overseeing GOHS operations. Since the program evaluators have no opinion on such legislative issues, no discussion of that recommendation is included. The "Legislative Issues" category is likewise omitted from this discussion.
80

A discussion of the latter is presented first, since evaluation of the grantees' overall effectiveness emerges from the evaluation of individual grantee performance.
Assessing Individual Grantee Performance GOHS has always employed planners charged with evaluation of specific grantee performance. These planners perform mainly a process evaluation, monitoring grantee achievement of specific milestones and conferencing with grantees to troubleshoot performance. These planners also dispatch emails and other correspondence to note important conversations and reinforce performance schedules, particularly when grantees fall behind. However, these planners are not evaluators and therefore are not qualified to provide impact and outcome evaluation. The planner's workload, created by management of multiple grants at the current GOHS staffing level, is intense and adding additional tasks to comprehensively review grantee performance would be problematic. Accordingly, in its FY 2004, GOHS issued an RFP that included a call for Highway Safety Evaluation Programs (GOHS, 2003, p. 5), which stated: The purpose of the project is to determine the extent to which grants were successful in reaching stated objectives and accomplishing overall goals within established financial and programmatic guidelines. The experienced University of Georgia evaluation team responded to the RFP and was awarded funds to evaluate all grantee performance. In so doing, GOHS responded appropriately to the audit finding.
Assessing Overall Grantee Performance Finding No. (1) of the audit included a finding that "No summary document is ever prepared. . . to determine if all of the goals and objectives included in the Plan were
81

actually achieved" (Audit, p. 11). GOHS has corrected this deficiency through this report, which represents an overall determination of the effectiveness of the grantees. This report will assist GOHS in overall program planning by enabling it to target funds based upon the grantee effectiveness within specific geographic niches and traffic safety areas. If a region has no effective grants and the data supports programming due to high incidence and prevalence of traffic crashes, more grantees can be solicited in that area. If a region has an established need, but previous grantees have failed to effectively achieve their objectives, GOHS now has objective data upon which to base its reasons for reallocating funds to grantees who might be more effective because they have new ideas or a better record of accomplishments.
The Audit (p. 11) reports that "A new Highway Safety Plan is prepared each year without complete information regarding the effectiveness of projects undertaken in prior years." To some extent, the Audit is requesting that GOHS perform what is in the nearterm an impossible task. It needs data to draw up its Highway Safety Plan and award its grants, but must draw up its Plan and award the grants before the best data is available.
For example, since GOHS must set statewide goals that are data-driven, and since there is a significant delay in completion of traffic crash figures, GOHS cannot reasonably be expected make decisions based on traffic statistics that are less than a year old. Further, since GOHS plans for programming on a fiscal year basis and must plan next year's grants before the current year's final reports are due, there will always be a time delay between this year's grantee performance reports and next year's grant applications, especially for grants which have objectives requiring an assessment of yearlong outcomes or performances.
This report addresses the need for data on grantee performance to drive future grants, but it cannot do so in the near term. Since grantee reports are finalized after the
82

grant period is closed, but Highway Traffic Safety Plans must be prepared and approved by NHTSA well in advance of each new year, there is an inherent delay in the availability of data for decision making. Any difficulties posed by this delay will, however, be mitigated as repeated measures of annual performance of grantees accumulate. That is, with each passing year in which there is an annual summary of grantee effectiveness, the GOHS decision-making database will become increasingly nuanced and sophisticated. Once a database is sufficiently large, no single year's data will be expected to vary significantly from the mean, thereby aiding in planning.
Further, there was an unlikely coincidence for GOHS when the Audit occurred during a time period in which there was no comprehensive traffic crash data for Georgia. As noted in the Audit (p. 4), the previous ranking system employed by GOHS could not be utilized when, after responsibility for tracking the state's crash data was transferred from the Department of Administrative Services to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) 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." The Performance Audit criticizing GOHS for its planning processes thus occurred in a year in which complete traffic crash data was not available for planning. Those administrative problems have been corrected within the DPS, and there should be appropriate and complete Georgia crash data available for future planning years.
Finding No. (2): "The Office [GOHS] needs to develop annual goals and objectives that provide accurate benchmarks for measuring its overall performance." (Audit, p. 12).
83

GOHS currently has sixteen goals and thirty-eight objectives that serve as performance benchmarks.
Finding No. (3): "The Office [GOHS] 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." (Audit, p. 13).
GOHS has funded the University of Georgia Department of Health Promotion and Behavior evaluation team for this purpose. The UGA evaluators will be performing data analysis and writing evaluation reports through FY2006.
Finding No. (4): "The Office [GOHS] should maintain summary documentation for determining if grantees and contractors met the specific objectives outlined in their grants and contracts." (Audit, p. 13).
Grantees and contractors are required to submit monthly milestone charts that provide accurate monthly data that is identical in nature to the objectives approved in original grants. In addition, all monthly reports must explain why any objectives were not achieved or why progress toward objective achievement was not moving forward. Planners receive these monthly reports and monitor grantee progress. At project end, a final report that includes a complete milestone chart and relevant text addressing each stated objective is submitted. In this way, GOHS maintains summary documentation for determining if grantees and contractors have met the specific objectives outlined in their grants and contracts.
84

(B) Findings on Grant Management There are four findings on Grant Management in the Audit, three critical of
GOHS's past management techniques and one favorable.
Finding No. (1): "The Office [GOHS] should take steps to insure that Highway Safety grants are equitably distributed to cities and counties throughout the state, based on the severity of their traffic safety problems." (Audit, p. 15).
In response to this finding, GOHS hired an epidemiologist in FY 2004 to provide accurate data to the grant review team, so that an equitable distribution of funds could be ensured.
Finding No. (2): "Steps should be taken to ensure that on-site reviews of grantees are conducted as required." (Audit, p. 18).
On-site visits for grantees are an important part of the GOHS grant management strategy. Per the 2004 Grantee's Manual (p. i-3), all grantees receiving more than $25,000 will have at least one on-site visit; at least half of all grantees of less than $25,000 but more than $5,000 will have at least one on-site visit; and ten (10%) per cent of grantees receiving $5,000 or less will have at least one on-site visit.
The Performance Audit (2003, p. 18) stressed the importance of on-site visits to identify problems hindering achievement; to verify personnel and equipment; to review the accuracy of claims and records; and to evaluate the effectiveness of grantee PI&E efforts. The Audit (p. 18) then criticized GOHS because, in its sample of 40 grantees of
85

more than $25,000 (all of whom should have received a site visit), the GOHS computers only documented that 27 (68%) had received a site visit during the audited year.
GOHS management has taken appropriate steps to meet the concerns of the Audit, as the GOHS Planning and Programs Planning Director now maintains a database documenting site visits and the dates upon which they occur. An analysis of this database confirms that, in FY 2004, all of the grantees receiving more than $25,000 received a site visit, with the majority (approximately 80%) receiving a site visit on or before May of the fiscal year.
GOHS exceeded its stated objectives for site visits for the smaller grants. Of the grants that were greater than $5,000 but less than $25,000 (n = 40), 52.5 % (21 grantees) received a site visit. For the 97 grantees receiving $5,000 or less, GOHS goal of 10% receiving a visit would have been met with only 10 site visits, when 17 grantees, or 17.5%, actually received site visits.
Accordingly, the evaluation team concludes that GOHS has responded appropriately to Finding No. (2) on grant management by instituting a single point of authority (the Division Director of Planning and Programs) and a single database to monitor site visits and insure that they are made in a timely fashion. Further, the GOHS planners employ a standardized rubric to ensure that key data is collected from all grantees during each visit. During FY 2004, GOHS met or exceeded its stated goals for site visits for each category of grant, while instituting a data collection strategy to insure that data was collected in each critical category of information outlined in the Audit (p. 18).
Finding No. (3): "The Office should take steps to establish a streamlined process for grantees to reapply for grant funding ." (Audit, p. 18).
86

The Audit (p. 18) criticized GOHS because, while grantees may receive grant awards over a three year period, there was "no streamlined re-application process for grantees applying for continued funding in the second and third years." This created additional paperwork for grantees and unnecessary administrative tasks for GOHS.
GOHS has responded to this feedback from the Audit by establishing a streamlined reapplication process. Its revised Guidelines and Instructions for Renewal Applications was issued in April 2004. When grantees are submitting renewal grants, they are processed on an entirely different basis. Sections, which would be repetitions of the initial grant, including sections on historical data, are not required. Instead, the grantee making a renewal application need only provide the most critical sections, including the budget, new objectives, activities, evaluations and new milestone charts.
This new process represents a conceptual change on GOHS' part. Instead of treating a renewal grant as an entirely new document, it is treated instead as an extension of the previous work by the grantee. Since the work of the grantee receiving a renewal grant is continuing, treating an original grant and a renewal as separate documents was an artifact of GOHS' fiscal and planning year and not related to the work of the grantee or the paperwork needed to monitor ongoing performance. As a learning organization, GOHS has made a conceptual leap: the renewal grant and the first application are, in fact, the same program. This has allowed GOHS to eliminate redundancies and decrease administrative work on the part of grantor and grantee personnel.
Finding No. (4): "The Office [GOHS] should be commended for ensuring that grantees submit proper documentation with their reimbursement requests." (Audit, p. 18).
87

The Audit commended GOHS because "A review of 15 grants awarded in federal fiscal year 2001 revealed that reimbursement claims paid by the Office were supported by adequate documentation" (p. 18). GOHS has, throughout the FY 2004 grant year, continued to require monthly documentation of claims that is thorough and extensive. GOHS planners review each claim in regards to its supporting documentation and appropriateness for reimbursement under state and federal guidelines.
Further, GOHS has gone a step beyond what was reported in the Audit, requiring that evaluation data in the form of monthly reports be attached to each claim. The rule communicated to the grantees (including the evaluation team) is simple: no monthly report, no payment of claim. The financial incentive has proven effective in motivating grantees that might not ordinarily recognize the importance of regular reporting of data for evaluation purposes.
GOHS has been as flexible as possible when working with grantees on financial issues. At the 2004 Project Director meetings on February 10 and 11, 2004, GOHS planners and management met with all project directors and provided hands-on instruction regarding claim reimbursement procedures.10 At each session, GOHS staff met with individual grantees and addressed concerns about paperwork, especially from small grantees that might have had difficulty with administrative tasks. GOHS management showed flexibility in tailoring its reporting requirements when possible to meet grantee concerns. When federal or state regulatory policy prevented such small adjustments, GOHS personnel were careful to explain why. For example, at both sessions some law enforcement grantees expressed concern that they would be unable to
10 The UGA evaluation team was present at both conferences, one of which was held in Marietta and one in Macon to facilitate attendance for all grantees in the state. GOHS requested, and the evaluation team provided, a short education session on what was needed from grantees to facilitate program evaluation at each conference.
88

provide personnel expense documentation in the manner initially requested by GOHS because of different shifts and the problems for face-to-face interaction that such scheduling posed. GOHS adjusted its requirements in a manner that, while still requiring appropriate signatures from all grant personnel as required by regulations, did not require agencies to implement overlapping schedules or schedule overtime meetings to fill out paperwork.
Thus, GOHS continues to require appropriate documentation from grantees before claims are made, for which the Office was commended in the Audit. GOHS has now gone a step further, by tying the payment of claims to the filing of regular reports. From a health promotion program evaluation perspective, this is as important to effective program implementation as are complete and accurate receipts and documents for reimbursement. "No report, no check" is a simple and effective policy. GOHS should be commended for requiring grantees to produce data that is essential for program evaluation with their financial claims for reimbursement.
(C) Findings on Contract Management
There are two findings on Contract Management, each critical of GOHS's past management techniques. Finding No. (1): "The Office [GOHS] should revise its contract management procedures to provide increased accountability over the expenditure of public monies." (Audit, p. 19).
Contractual charges are imbedded in grant budgets. Since each contractor is unique from each other contractor, a template for reporting task completion is
89

impractical. Each grantee is allowed to accommodate contractors in this regard. Each grantee manages contractors as necessary and appropriate. GOHS receives monthly and final reports that explain the work of the contractors.
Finding No. (2): "The Office [GOHS] should reevaluate each of its contractual agreements based on the need for and the cost effectiveness of the services provided." (Audit, p. 21).
GOHS has implemented a review procedure for contractors that work within grants. The new epidemiologist provided to the review team relevant data as a factor to be considered when awarding grant money. In this way, all contractors' work is scrutinized for relevance and need.
(D) Findings on Staffing and Administration There are six findings on Staffing and Administration, five critical of GOHS' past
staff and administration patterns, and one favorable.
Finding No. (1): "The Office [GOHS] cannot provide reasonable assurances that its employees' job titles and salaries are in line with their actual duties and responsibilities." (Audit, p. 22).
At GOHS' request, the personnel for the Georgia Merit System completed a Classification Study for the agency in April of 2003. Of 22 positions (excluding the Director), 17 job titles were re-classified. Seven positions were upgraded and five were
90

downgraded. Two positions required salary increases to move the position to the minimum salary range for the job classification.
Finding No. (2): "The Office's [GOHS] expenditure of public funds to have 42 communications devices (such as wireless radios and cell phones) for 26 persons cannot be justified." (Audit, p. 25).
Following an internal utilization review, GOHS reduced the number of communication devices from 42 to 15. This new efficiency was achieved, in part, by assigning three devices (two pagers and a cell phone) to be used as "floaters" on an asneeded basis.
Finding No. (3): "The Office [GOHS] should take steps to improve the accuracy and completeness of its management information."
A response to Findings No. 3 under Staffing and Administration is unavailable as of the submission date of this report.
Finding No. (4): "The Office [GOHS] should continue its efforts to ensure that comprehensive traffic data [sic] is available for planning and evaluating its highway safety initiatives." (Audit, pp. 27-28).
GOHS hired an epidemiologist in FY 2004. This employee's job is to provide comprehensive traffic safety data for planning purposes and as needed. GOHS also
91

funded the UGA evaluation team to develop evaluation strategies for all grantees. GOHS piloted TraCS and works with NHTSA to ensure good quality traffic safety data.
Finding No. (5): "The Office [GOHS] should take steps to ensure that its annual Highway Safety Plans and its grants management policy manual accurately reflect its current grant procedures." (Audit, pp. 28).
GOHS requested a new annual report template from the UGA evaluation team and received such. This new template was immediately adopted and posted on the GOHS website for use. At that same time, the grants management policy manual was edited to reflect this change.
(E) Findings on "Other"
There are two findings on "Other", one critical of GOHS past funding decisions and one favorable to the coordination of law enforcement efforts.
Finding No. (1): "The Office [GOHS] should reconsider the need for two Highway Safety Institutes." (Audit, p. 29).
The Audit criticized GOHS for funding two highway safety traffic institutes designed to increase the number of BACCHUS and GAMMA chapters on college campuses throughout the state and to serve as resource centers to disseminate highway safety information. The Audit (p.29) found that "In the past three years, the Office [GOHS] has awarded grants totaling approximately $750,000 to Paine College, a private,
92

church-affiliated school in Augusta, and to Georgia Southwestern University in Americus." The Audit criticized the programs as duplicative of each other and the Paine College program as duplicative of services already offered in the Augusta-Richmond County area.
The UGA evaluation team has no opinion as to their merit vis--vis the Audit's criticisms because it has not reviewed the baseline grants setting up two regional Highway Safety Institutes. There are sometimes compelling reasons, from a health promotion perspective, for programs that might initially appear duplicative, especially when one such program is designed to specifically reach minority populations with critically-needed health messages.
However, GOHS has, per its response to the Audit, reviewed and assessed the need for the Institutes and has replaced them with a more modest Objective (#9) "to provide funding to a minimum of 7 colleges and universities to implement a `peer education' program to prevent drinking and driving and encourage safety belt use" (GOHS, 2004 Highway Safety Plan, p. 38). This new objective represents a change in strategy of GOHS. The GOHS 2003 Highway Safety Plan included funding for both Institutes at $120,000 apiece in order to, (1) provide a training forum for BACCHUS & GAMMA peer educators and (2) to serve as mini-resource centers to assist GOHS in distributing traffic safety materials throughout the state (p. 33). Paine College was to perform these functions for minority communities in Georgia, while Georgia Southwestern was to perform them for the southern part of the state.
GOHS has achieved significant economy by bringing in-house the two "resource centers" formerly established in Georgia Southwestern University and Paine College. The resource center functions are performed directly by GOHS, which appears to have obtained significant efficiencies by making materials available through its web site. Per
93

this evaluation report, GOHS achieved its BACCHUS and GAMMA-related objective, funding the seven colleges and universities at a cost of only $ 149,700.00. This represents savings from the 2002 funding levels cited in the Audit, when $283,700 went to the two colleges with traffic safety institutes alone.11
Finding No. (2): "The Office [GOHS] should be commended for its efforts to coordinate the highway safety efforts of law enforcement agencies throughout the state." (Audit, p. 30).
GOHS has continued to foster communication and coordination of efforts among the state's law enforcement agencies engaged in highway safety efforts. Its sixteen Regional Traffic Enforcement Networks (RTENs) cover all 159 Georgia Counties.12 Each RTEN has a network coordinator, funded by GOHS through a grant, to arrange monthly network meetings and to encourage attendance from law enforcement agencies in each region that have not recently participated. These were standardized grants for relatively small amounts (ranging from $5,000 to one grantee to $12,500.00 to ten grantees) given their impact: through a single grant in each region, GOHS was able to solicit participation from multiple stakeholders in a system that enabled GOHS to disseminate traffic safety news, innovations and programming decisions rapidly and efficiently. GOHS invested $174,400.00 (approximately 1% of total funds) in these small grants to network coordinators.
11 $150,000 went to Georgia Southwestern and another $133,700 went to Paine College in FY 2002. (Audit, pp. 38-39). 12 These RTENs are: Metro Atlanta (MATEN); Coastal Area (CATEN); Southeastern (SETEN); Northeast (NETEN); Mountain Area (MATEN II); Southern Regional (SRTEN); Western Regional (WRTEN); East Central (ECTEN); South Central (SCTEN); Piedmont Area (PATEN); Central Region (CRTEN); Middle Georgia (MGTEN); Southwestern (SWTEN); West Central (WCTEN); Coastal Georgia (CGTEN); and Appalachian Trail (ATTEN)
94

Further, the RTENs were networked at two levels, as individual regions (into the 16 RTENs themselves) and into four large super-networks. For each of these four larger networks or Regions, GOHS established a grant to fund a Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) to provide further oversight and coordination of efforts. Each LEL position is funded through a standardized grant for $15,000. Each LEL is charged with attending meetings across their region and with monitoring the traffic safety efforts within each region. LELs report directly to GOHS on a regular basis and insure that the RTEN coordinators are effectively coordinating within-region efforts. GOHS invested $60,000 (.36% of total funding) in the LELs.
V. Procedural Recommendations Throughout the grant writing, submission and reporting process, certain areas of confusion or inefficiency arose. In an effort to assist GOHS as it strives to improve its responsiveness to grantee concerns, its efficiency, and upgrade its evaluation procedures, the following observations and recommendations are offered.
1. Reporting Templates The cover page for all grants should be consistent, e.g. identical. Even though grants differ, this varied information can be accommodated on a well-designed cover page. The primary reason for a consistent cover page is ease in data entry during database construction. The grant name and number should appear on all pages of the milestone chart and as a header on each page of the monthly report. A standardized format for monthly reports should be produced and required. This format could be patterned after the new final report template. It should be easy to
95

determine what has or has not been accomplished throughout the month by directly linking activities to objectives on the monthly report. 2. Administrative Recordkeeping GOHS should keep a master list of grants that can be manipulated by project number, project title (alphabetically) and county. This allows all relevant parties equally facile access to grants as requests are received or information is added. As evaluators received requests for assistance from grantees, it was difficult to determine which grant was being discussed because the grantee did not always know their GOHS project number. However, all grantees know what county they are in and they usually know the name of their project. A cross reference of the database would be very helpful. 3. Reporting Milestone charts should always be cumulative when submitted. This requires complete training of grantees in this area. Also, planners should not accept milestone charts that aren't cumulative; this reporting error should delay claim payment. Planners should be required to send incomplete milestone charts back to grantees for resubmission. SADD grantees should be required to submit reports electronically. Optical scanners should be purchased for all SADD grantees to advance this change. All SADD data should be received and collected by one GOHS staff person. When a monthly report is not received by the 20th of the succeeding month, the planner should immediately contact the grantee and request an explanation. At no time should a missing monthly report be tolerated. Grantees should be required to write and submit a brief mid-point report. This would be a good performance maintenance tool and would allow for mid-point
96

corrections if necessary. This report could also be used to determine the next year's funding, at least in part. Timely data is always an issue in traffic safety, but in the case of a mid-grant report, the data would not suffer from this problem. Therefore, the quality of decisions about further funding would increase if those decisions were based on these reports. Also, if funding were linked to mid-grant reports, grantees would certainly take them seriously. This would also necessitate regular and in-depth communication between GOHS planners and all grantees. 4. Performance Monitoring Planners should identify non-performance each month and respond immediately to the grantee. A statement of explanation should be required by GOHS. In the event of continued non-performance during the grant period, planners should be provided with clear guidelines as to how to communicate with the grantee about expected changes in performance. There should be progressive steps in place, that are made clear to all grantees at the project director meeting, that motivate grantees to perform up to standard. At mid-point, planners should be able to approximate the objective achievement of all their grantees. A plan for delinquent grantees would be appropriately constructed at this point. 5. Staff Planners should be trained in several specific areas: evaluation needs to the extent possible, assessment of objective achievement and data submission. The UGA evaluation team could reasonably be expected to lead this training. Coordination and effective communication between planners and evaluators would greatly enhance efficiency.
97

Each planner should be allocated a specific category of grants. Allocating grants in this way would allow planners to develop an "area of expertise" in a grant category, which would improve the planning process and improve the quality of feedback given to grantees. A specific grant writing "workshop" or staff member should be provided to any law enforcement agency that needs or wants assistance in this area. This would facilitate good grant writing and would forestall many of the measurement problems that arise when grant objectives are not written correctly. As new agencies apply for, and are allocated funds, this service could be provided on a continual basis to ensure high quality grant evaluation.
6. Revisions The revision process should be detailed and clear and should be communicated to the grantees early. Whatever revision process is established, it should be implemented with high fidelity. Planners should be required, with penalties for deviation, to adhere to these procedures. The revision process could be linked to distribution of grant funds. If grants are chosen for funding contingent upon revisions, absolutely no funds should be provided until all revisions are submitted to all parties' satisfaction. GOHS must establish a process for tracking revisions and for communicating these revisions to the evaluators. At any given point a copy of the current grant should be readily available to all GOHS staff and evaluators; the assigned planner should not be the only GOHS staff member who knows about or can locate these revisions. There should be a process for GOHS to determine if required revisions are being implemented. It would be helpful if this process were as simple as possible. It is difficult and tedious, but critically important, to track all revisions; therefore, this
98

procedure should be a top-priority and should be undertaken with care. However, because the onus for accomplishing this time-consuming task will be placed on the planners, they should be involved in the design of this procedure, they should be trained in its use, and they should be rewarded for high quality work in this area. 7. Data Coding The GOHS budget sheets often group important and different budget items within one category. In order to perform a cost-description report, each budget item on each budget sheet of each grant had to be re-categorized into the relevant budget areas that really reflect programmatic priorities. To make this process easier, it is recommended that coding of budget items occur when the budget of each grant is constructed. These codes are already established and are used in the costdescription report (Appendix B). These codes could be placed on the budget sheets and determined by the grantees themselves (this would require additional training at the bidders conference), or the planner upon review of each budget could assign these codes. In an electronic submission process, this recoding would be automatic and seamless. Evaluators would be available to provide assistance to either the grantee or the GOHS staff if questions arise regarding the use of proper budget codes.
99

VI. Summary
FY 2004 provided the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) with many challenges and opportunities. Overall, the results of funded traffic safety programs were positive. While official statewide outcome data will not be available for at least one year, impact data in the form of crash statistics from reporting law enforcement jurisdictions where GOHS implemented programs indicate that, where GOHS funds programs, progress in reducing crashes, injuries, and fatalities follows. For every category of crash statistic on which data was collected, in reporting jurisdictions13 those crashes, injuries or fatalities either remained at zero or decreased from the previous fiscal year's level in FY 2004. Possible explanations include increases in safety belt usage rates, increased enforcement efforts and highly-focused and relevant educational efforts. All these factors may play a part in the general highway safety picture in Georgia.
However, the data reported by the individual jurisdictions (jurisdictions in this case is equivalent to agencies or grantees) should be viewed and used with caution because it is not reviewed for accuracy or cleanliness (in the sense of clean data) before it is submitted on the final report. Grant managers may or may not be skilled data collectors or data managers and therefore the data that is used in this report is simply the data that is submitted by individual grantees. The most important characteristic of this data is its timeliness. It is submitted immediately upon completion of the program and therefore may provide some insight into the actual impact of the program on these measures. This evaluation presents this data as the only currently available data regarding achievement of these goals and objectives.
13 97 out of 111 grantees (87.4%) reported crash statistics.
100

As an organization, GOHS responded to all federal mandates; the needs of the citizens of Georgia; and to the findings of the performance audit. GOHS achieved written traffic safety objectives and reached its goals as stated in the Highway Safety Plan. GOHS made a concerted and diligent effort to address all the issues delineated in the performance audit. Most of the decisions made by GOHS this year regarding grantee requirements and administrative and managerial processes were guided by the suggestions and concerns in the audit. The changes GOHS implemented were beneficial and should result in more efficient and effective programs.
GOHS funded two surveys this year that provided clear data regarding driver behavior and regarding knowledge of Georgia citizens about traffic safety initiatives. These data will provide important guidelines for future GOHS funding and programmatic focus. These data will provide GOHS with interesting insights into driving behaviors on Georgia's highways and thus, GOHS will be poised to address issues that may affect the lives, health and welfare of all of Georgia's citizens.
101

VII. References Bason, J., & Shinholser, K. (2004). Statewide Use of Occupant Restraints, An
Observational Survey of Safety Restraint Use in Georgia. University of Georgia: Athens, Georgia. Georgia Department of Audits and Reports (2003). Performance audit: Governor's Office of Highway Safety. Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety (2003). 2003 Highway Safety Plan. Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety (2004). 2004 Highway Safety Plan. Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety (2004). Grantee's Manual. Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety (2004). Guidelines and Instructions for Renewal Application. Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety (2003). "FY 2004 innovative grants" request for proposals (RFP).
102

Appendix A Highway Safety Plan Goals and Objectives
Cross-Reference Table
103

Highway Safety Plan Goals and Objectives Cross-Reference Table

Goal or Objective
Goal 1 [Planning and Administration Program Goal]

Page Numbers in Highway Safety
Plan
23

Goal 2 [Section 402 Alcohol and Other Drugs Countermeasures and Young Drivers]
Goal 3 [Section 410 Young Drivers]

28, 36, 45 37

Goal 4 [Section 402 Occupant Protection]

51, 98

Goal 5 [Section 405 Occupant Protection]

59

Goal 6 [Section 2003B Protecting Our Children]

63

Goal 7 [Section 402 Traffic Records]

68

Goal 8 [Section 402 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety]

74

Goal 9 [Section 402 Speed and Aggressive Driving Countermeasures]
Goal 10 [Section 402 Police Traffic Services]

80 84, 106

Goal 11 [Section 402 Community Traffic Safety Programs]

90

Goal 12 [Section 402 CTSP Resource Information Centers

92

and Clearinghouse]

Goal 13 [Section 157A Pedestrian Safety]

100

Goal 14 [Section 157A Motorcycle Safety]

103

Goal 15 [Section 403 Demonstration Grant]

111

Goal 16 [163(.08) Incentive]

114

Objective 1 [Planning and Administration]

24

Objective 2 [Planning and Administration]

24

104

Objective 3 [Planning and Administration] Objective 4 [Planning and Administration] Objective 5 [Section 402 Alcohol and Other Drugs Countermeasures and Young Drivers] Objective 6 [Section 402 Alcohol and Other Drugs Countermeasures and Young Drivers] Objective 7 [Section 402 Alcohol and Other Drugs Countermeasures and Young Drivers] Objective 8 [Section 410 Young Drivers] Objective 9 [Section 410 Young Drivers] Objective 10 [Section 410 Young Drivers] Objective 11 [Section 410 Young Drivers] Objective 12 [154/164 Transfer Funds] Objective 13 [154/164 Transfer Funds]
Objective 14 [402 Occupant Protection] Objective 15 [402 Occupant Protection] Objective 16 [405 Occupant Protection] Objective 17 [405 Occupant Protection] Objective 18 [2003B Protecting Our Children] Objective 19 [Section 402 Traffic Records] Objective 20 [Section 402 Traffic Records] Objective 21 [Section 402 Traffic Records] Objective 22 [Section 402 Traffic Records] Objective 23 [Section 402 Traffic Records]

24 24 31 31 31 38 38 38 38 46 46 54, 64, 85, 107 54 60 60 64 69 69 69 69 69
105

Objective 24 [Section 402 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety]
Objective 25 [Section 402 Speed and Aggressive Driving Countermeasures] Object 26 [Section 402 Police Traffic Services]
Object 27 [Section 402 Police Traffic Services]
Object 28 [Section 402 Police Traffic Services]
Object 29 [Section 402 Police Traffic Services]
Object 30 [Section 402 Police Traffic Services]
Objective 31 [Section 402 Community Traffic Safety Programs] Objective 32 [Section 402 CTSP Resource and Information Centers and Clearinghouse] Objective 33 [Section 157A Occupant Protection
Objective 34 [Section 157A Pedestrian Safety]
Objective 35 [Section 157A Motorcycle Safety]
Objective 36 [Section 403 Demonstration Grant]
Objective 37 [163(.08) Incentive]
Objective 38 [163(.08) Incentive]

77 80 85 85, 107 85, 107 85, 107 85, 107 91 92 98 100 103 112 114 114

106

Appendix B Cost Description Summary
107

2004-587-402CP

January 27, 2005

Preliminary Draft
Cost Description Summary FY 2004 GOHS Grants

Submitted by:
Carol P. Cotton, Ph. D. Wayd Walker, J.D., M.Ed.
Brook Snoddy, B.A.
Dept. of Health Promotion and Behavior University of Georgia, Athens, GA

108

Cost Description Summary - FY 2004 GOHS Grants Overview
The budget from each Governors Office of Highway Safety grant awarded during the 2004 Federal Fiscal Year was put into a cost category database for cost description and analysis. Each budget of the 182 grants funded by GOHS, the ten internal GOHS grants, and the Department of Transportation (DOT) flow-through grant was analyzed and allocated into the following categories: child safety seats, computer, conference registration fees, contractual services, DOT transfer funds, educational material and supplies, law enforcement equipment, law enforcement personnel, non-law enforcement personnel, promotional items, training, travel, paid media, other media, and other. These categories were not chosen randomly, but emerged as relevant categories from qualitative and quantitative analysis of the budget data provided by GOHS for each grant.
The categories break down as follows: "Child safety seats" includes expenses related to child safety car seats. "Computer" includes software, hardware, printers, and printing cartridges. "Conference registration fees" includes programmatic costs related to enrollment and
attendance in traffic safety conferences and training sessions. "Contractual services" includes outsourced or subcontracted services and contracts, e.g.
survey experts, evaluators. "DOT Transfer Funds" represent flow-through funds transferred from GOHS to the
Georgia Department of Transportation for statewide hazard elimination traffic safety construction and traffic safety records improvement. "Educational material and supplies" includes direct costs of purchasing materials for traffic safety related educational programs.
109

"Law enforcement equipment" includes direct costs of equipment for law enforcement officers engaged in traffic safety initiatives, including but not limited to motor vehicle purchase and expenses.
"Law enforcement personnel" includes personal and professional services of law enforcement officers, e.g. police officers.
"Non-law enforcement personnel" includes services of individuals and professionals who are not law enforcement officers. Please note this includes planners and administrators at the Governors Office of Highway Safety, e.g. project directors and administrators are included in this category for this analysis.
"Promotional items" include pens, key chains, posters, t-shirts, mugs, etc. "Training" includes costs for retreats, training supplies and materials, law enforcement
training, and training pamphlets. "Travel" includes costs for lodging, meals, airfare, hotels, and rental cars for grant
personnel as well as GOHS staff. "Paid media" includes any media traditionally Public Information and Education
("PI&E") campaign materials and costs, including billboards, radio and television advertising, Public Service Announcements, and traditional marketing expenses. "Other media" includes such items as Internet service, maintenance of web sites, and other expenses related to dissemination of public safety messages. "Other" is a general category that includes, but is not limited to, such diverse cost items as conference/meeting room rentals, postage, office supplies, program materials, office space, printing, envelopes, audio visual, digital cameras (if not utilized as law enforcement equipment), and telecommunications.
110

Part 1. Total Grants for FY 2004

Preliminary data for the FY 2004 shows the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway

Safety grantee budgets include $17,693,852.5 to the 193 grantees. However, $894,640.00 of

those budgets represent matching funds obtained by Grantees from other sources to obtain an

added effect for program funds, leaving $16,659,532.5 distributed by GOHS in all of its

programs.

When the percentage breakdown of all of GOHS grants is rank-ordered, the largest

categories include D.O.T. transfer funds (30.6%), non-law enforcement personnel (19.9%), law

enforcement personnel (13%), and other (8.9%). These largest four categories represent a

cumulative $12,791,916.75, or 72.4 % of amounts awarded. Table 1 includes the total sum of

each category and the percent composition of the total amount, excluding the matching funds, and shows the categories in descending order of percentages from largest to smallest:14

Category 1. DOT Transfer Funds 2. Non-law Enforcement Personnel 3. Law Enforcement Personnel 4. Other 5. Law Enforcement Equipment 6. Contractual Services 7. Travel 8. Paid Media 9. Promotional Items/Awareness 10. Child Safety Seats 11. Computer 12. Educational Materials/Supplies
13. Training
14. Conference Registration Fees 15. Other Media
Total Table 1

Total Amount

$ 5,404,919.33

$ 3,515,009.33

$ 2,298,443.57

$ 1,573,544.52

$ 1,283,721.43

$ 1,222,233.24

$ 755,867.00

$ 486,550.00

$ 480,877.01

$ 279,059.08

$ 200,576.00

$ 71,566.90

$ 53,005.00

$ 26,480.00

$

8,900.00

$ 17,660,752.16

% Of Total 30.6% 19.9% 13.0% 8.9% 7.3% 6.9% 4.3% 2.7% 2.7% 1.6% 1.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.05%
100.00%

14 The total sum of all cost categories ($17,660,752.41) does not reconcile exactly with the total of grant amounts listed on the front page of each grant ($17,693,852.50) due to rounding and other errors. The difference is not statistically significant.
111

The remaining categories, including the largest, law enforcement equipment (7.3% of total

grants), and following is contractual services (6.9%), comprise the remaining 13.4% of total

funds budgeted.

Part 2. External grants awarded for FY 2004

The following chart includes 183 of the 193 grants funded by GHS for the FY 2004.

The Department of Transportation flow-through grant, as well as the ten internal GOHS grants,

was not included in order to present the cost description for all external grantees. "External

grantees," for the purposes of this report, are organizations that responded to the GOHS

Request For Proposals ("RFP") and that provide any traffic safety services or programming to

the community. External grants are fundamentally different from the ten internal GOHS grant

budget (see figures shown in Appendix A) in that internal grants are monies that support the

GOHS planning and administrative functions and thus provide the programmatic infrastructure

for all other programs.

Ranking the grants according to their relative amounts, the top four categories, law

enforcement personnel (29.8%), non-law enforcement personnel (26%), law enforcement

equipment (12.1%) and contractual services (11.8%) comprise almost four fifths (79.6%) of

monies administered by GOHS through RFPs. Since these categories represent direct costs of

providing traffic safety education and enforcement programming, it is clear that the vast

majority of funds awarded by GOHS are applied directly toward making Georgia's roads safer

for motorists.

Category 1. Law Enforcement Personnel 2. Non-Law Enforcement Personnel 3. Law Enforcement Equipment 4. Contractual Services 5. Other 6. Travel 7. Promotional Items/Awareness 8. Computer 9. Paid Media

Total Amount $ 2,298,443.57 $ 1,836,503.33 $ 1,283,721.43 $ 835,233.24 $ 439,131.10 $ 360,159.75 $ 220,106.21 $ 33,085.00 $ 104,250.00

% Of Total 29.7% 23.8% 16.6% 10.8% 5.7% 4.7% 2.8% 0.4% 1.8%

112

10. Child Safety seats 11. Educational Materials/Supplies 12. Training 13. Conference Registration Fees 14. Other Media
Total Table 2

$ 77,029.08

$ 71,566.90

$ 33,085.00

$ 12,705.00

$

8,900.00

$ 7,723,526.61

1.3% 1.0% 0.9% 0.2% 0.1% 100.00%

Summary

In comparing all GOHS grants with only RFP grants it is clear that law enforcement

personnel and non-law enforcement personnel categories switched rankings: law enforcement

increasing from 12.4% to 29.8%, and non-law enforcement also increasing from 20.7% to

23.8%. This switch in rankings is attributable to the numerous grants that support law

enforcement personnel, without the internal GOHS salaries (i.e. non-law enforcement

personnel) to fund planning and administrative functions. This is consistent with increased

emphasis statewide on seat belt and impaired driving enforcement programs, such as Click It or

Ticket and Operation Zero Tolerance and other safety mobilizations.

There are three major components of the $17,660,752.16 budgeted by GOHS in FY

2004; the largest aggregate category, $7,723,526.61, represents money distributed to grantees

through RFPs; the next largest category, $5,404,919.33, represents DOT transfer funds, for

hazard elimination improvement to increase the safety of Georgia's roads; and the smallest of

the three main categories, $4,532,306.22, supports GOHS planning and administrative

functions. GOHS in-house expenditures for administration and planning total ($4,532,306.22)

for FY 2004 are only 71% of the $6,416,868 expended on such functions in FY 2002, a 29%

savings. In addition, the total number of internal grants has also decreased from 24 grants in

FY 2002 to ten grants in FY 2004. This suggests that GOHS has achieved considerable

increases in administrative efficiency as it is running all its programs with less money while

incurring fewer transaction costs. Further description of contractual services may be important

to determine exact resource allocations.

113

Appendix A. Break down of GOHS Internal Grants

Category
1. Non-Law Enforcement Personnel (planning and administration staff) 2. Other 3. Travel 4. Contractual Services 5. Paid Media 6. Promotional Items/Awareness 7. Child Safety Seats 8. Computer 9. Training
10. Conference Registration Fees
11. Educational Materials/Supplies
12. Law Enforcement Equipment
13. Law Enforcement Personnel
14. Other Media Total
Table 3

Total Amount
$ 1,678,506.00 $ 1,134,413.42 $ 395,707.00 $ 387,000.00 $ 382,300.00 $ 260,770.80 $ 202,030.00 $ 57,884.00 $ 19,920.00 $ 13,775.00
$ 4,532,306.22

% Of Total
37% 25% 8.7% 8.5% 8.4% 5.7% 4.5% 1.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.00%

Category DOT Transfer Funds
Total Table 4

Total Amount $5,404,919.33 $5,404,919.33

% Of Total 100%

114

Appendix C Steer It and Clear It Survey, Methodology and Questionnaire
115

GOHS Steer It and Clear It Survey
March 2004
Methods and Procedures
Between 5 and 19 March, 2004, a telephone survey of adult residents in Georgia was conducted by the Survey Research Center (SRC), under contract from Dr. Carol Cotton of the Department of Health Promotion and Behavior and the Governor's Office of Highway Safety. The purpose of the study was to learn the attitudes and opinions of respondents towards Georgia's `Steer it and Clear it Law' and other GOHS initiatives. Prior to the survey, telephone interviewers attended two three-hour training sessions that covered survey methods, standard procedures of telephone interviewing, the purpose of the survey, an in-depth explanation of the survey instrument and a practice session. In addition, at least one supervisor was present at all times during interviewing to provide quality control.
The first step in the process of conducting this study involved the development of the survey instrument. Survey Research Center, in consultation with Dr. Cotton and GOHS, developed a draft questionnaire (see attached) that was then formatted for programming into SRC's CAT. The questionnaire was pre-tested during the first night of data collection. The pretest procedure uncovered no problems with the interview schedule and data collection proceeded.
The design of the study called for conducting a total of 800 telephone interviews from a random-digit dialed (RDD) sample of households in Georgia. One half of the interviews were to be conducted in the Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area and one half in nonAtlanta MSA locations. Actual generation of the telephone numbers was the result of a stratified sampling procedure with probabilities of selection proportional to listed residential telephone numbers in the defined sample universe, the state of Georgia (Survey Sampling, Inc. 1998). The result of this procedure insures an equal and known probability of selection of sample elements. The procedures utilized were intended to ensure that all adult residents in the sample had an equal (or near equal) chance of being selected for inclusion in the sample. This provision of equal opportunity of selection is a
116

necessary requirement if a probability sample is to be obtained. Bias in response is also minimized and inferences about the general population can safely be made from the results obtained in the survey.
Assuming the sampling procedures outlined above produce a random sample of the population of interest, the estimated theoretical standard error associated with the sample estimates obtained (n=802), when the population proportion (P) is 50 percent (i.e., a "worse case scenario"), is .0200. In addition, the theoretical standard error decreases as the proportion (P) approaches 0 or 100. Thus, if 85% of the sample provides a given response, the standard error is .0100.
The standard errors are derived from the mathematical formula: Square Root of:
P * Q n
where: P = the proportion of the population exhibiting a characteristic (i.e., heard of `Steer it or Clear It');
Q = (1-P), the proportion not exhibiting the characteristic; n = size of the sample.
The standard errors can be used to estimate the sampling margin of error of the estimates (i.e., the probable difference in results between interviewing the entire population of adult Georgians versus taking a scientific sample of the population) that extend 1.96 standard error units (i.e. the 95 percent confidence interval) around that value according to the following formula:
P +/- 1.96 * (standard error)
Thus, with a random sample size of 802 and a population proportion of 50 percent, the 95% confidence interval for the estimate would be:
.50 +/- 1.96 * .0200 = .50 +/- 0.040 = 50% +/- 4.0% = 46.0% to 54.0%
The second step in the sampling process involves the selection of the respondent within the contacted household. In this case, a non-probability method known as the `Last Birthday Method' was utilized. The `Last Birthday Method' is based on the fact that
117

assignment of birthday among household members should be random, thereby resulting in a sample representative of gender and age.
Theoretically, these methods should produce a sample that is representative of the population under study. Of course, sample surveys are subject to additional sources of error besides sampling error and non-response error. Assuming a representative sample of adult Georgians was produced, sampling error is no greater than +/- 4.0 percent, with a 95 percent level of confidence. That is, if 50 percent of the sample gave a certain response to a question, we can be 95 percent certain that between 46.0 and 54.0 percent of the population would provide that same response. This expected error decreases as the sample proportion approaches 0 or 100.
Table 1 details the results of the telephone procedures. The cooperation rate* for the study was 48.7 percent. That is, of the 1,646 eligible respondents contacted, 802 yielded complete interviews. Table 1 also shows the final disposition of each of the 6,288 numbers called in the study. Table 2 displays demographic characteristics of sampled respondents, and comparison with Census data show that the survey appears to be generally representative of major demographic variables.
Once a respondent is located and cooperation obtained, quality-control procedures are set in place to ensure that high quality data are produced. Supervisors are assigned to monitor interviewers in progress; thus approximately one-fifth to one-quarter of all interviews is monitored and any interviewer errors are eliminated. Retraining of interviewers takes place, if necessary.
118

Table 1: Final Disposition of Telephone Procedures

Interview
Complete Partial Total
Eligible, Non-Interview
Final Refusal Initial Refusal Resp. Never Available Ans. Machine, No Msg Other Dead Phys/Mentally Unable Language Unable Misc. Unable Callback, Resp Not Selected Callback, Resp Selected Total Unknown Eligibility: Non-Interview Unknown if Household Busy No Answer Ans. Machine (Unsure if Household) Technical Phone Problems Unknown: No Screener Unknown: Other Total Not Eligible Out of sample Fax/Data Line Non-working number Disconnected number Technological circumstances Number changed Cell phone Call forwarding Not a household Business/government/other Institution Group quarters No eligible respondent Quota filled Total COOP 3

N
802 24 826
261 559
5 768
34 56
0 412 54 2149
121 1129
16
11 0 1
1278
0 306 110 979
35 10 24
442 2 2
123 2
2035

% Category
97.0 3.0
100.0
12.1 26.0
0.2 35.7
1.6 2.6 0.0 19.2 2.5 99.9
9.5 88.3 1.0
1.0 0.0 0.1 99.9
0.0 15.0
5.4 48.1
1.7 0.5 1.2
21.7 0.1 0.1 6.0 0.1 99.9
48.7

* Cooperation rate is computed using the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) guidelines for reporting results of survey. The rate computed here is AAPOR Cooperation Rate 3 (COOP3). COOP3 = Interviews/(Interviews +Partials + Refusals)

119

Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Sample

Gender:
Male Female TOTAL
Age:
18 24 25 44 45 64 65 and older TOTAL

%

%

N

Sample

2000 Census

290

36.1

49.2

514

63.9

50.8

804

100.0

100.0

72

9.1

36.7

298

37.8

32.4

307

38.9

21.3

112

14.2

9.6

789

100.0

100.0

120

References "Random Digit Telephone Sampling Methodology". 1998. Survey Sampling Inc.: Fairfield, Connecticut.
121

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 122

Spring 2004 Georgia Poll
Georgia Steer It and Clear It Supplement
(IRB Project Number H2004-10287-0)

Hello, my name is [NAME], and I'm calling from the University of Georgia in Athens. The Survey Research Center is conducting the annual Georgia Poll, a survey of opinions about issues and topics concerning residents of Georgia, and I'd like to interview a member of your household. Would you be willing to help us out for a few minutes this evening?
[INTERVIEWER: THE SURVEY SHOULD LAST ABOUT 5 MINUTES]
In order for the results of the survey to be representative of the state's population, I need to speak with the adult 18 years of age or older who last celebrated a birthday. Would that be you?
1. Yes [CONTINUE] 2. No [MAY I SPEAK TO HIM/HER PLEASE]
[REINTRODUCE YOURSELF AND THE STUDY OR ARRANGE TIME FOR CALLBACK AND GET THE RESPONDENT'S FIRST NAME]
Thank you. Before we begin, let me assure you that all of the information that you provide will be kept strictly confidential. The interview is voluntary, and if you don't want to answer any particular question, just tell me and we'll skip to the next one. Also, my Supervisor may listen to part of the interview for quality control purposes.

I'd like to ask you some questions about highway safety.

S1 Do you currently have a valid Georgia driver's license?

1. Yes 2. No [TERMINATE WITH "I'm sorry but we need to speak to licensed Georgia driver's
on this year's Georgia Poll", but thank you for your help"]

Q1 Have you ever heard of Georgia's `Steer it or Clear it' Law?

1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO Q3]

7 - Refused 8 Don't Know 9 Not Ascertained

123

Q2 What does the `Steer it or Clear It' law mean?

1 Enter Response ______________________ 7 Refused 8 Don't Know 9 Not Ascertained

Q3 Have you ever heard of Click it or Ticket?

1. Yes 2. No

7 - Refused 8 Don't Know 9 Not Ascertained

Q4 Are you aware of Georgia' primary safety belt law?

1. Yes 2. No

7 - Refused 8 Don't Know 9 Not Ascertained

Q5 What does Georgia's primary safety belt law mean?

1 Enter Response ______________________ 7 Refused 8 Don't Know 9 Not Ascertained

Q6 Have you heard of Operation Zero Tolerance?

1. Yes 2. No

7 - Refused 8 Don't Know 9 Not Ascertained

Q7 What do you think the current Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit currently is in Georgia for drivers under the age of 21?

_____________ [ENTER EXACT ANSWER; ALLOW 4 DIGITS WITH TWO DECIMAL PLACES]

97 Refused 98 Don't Know 99 Not Ascertained

Q8 What do you think the current Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit currently is in Georgia for drivers age 21 and over?

_____________ [ENTER EXACT ANSWER; ALLOW 4 DIGITS WITH TWO DECIMAL PLACES]

97 Refused 98 Don't Know 99 Not Ascertained

124

Q9 - Please tell me how likely the following event is to happen IF A PERSON SUCH AS YOURSELF DROVE AFTER HAVING TOO MUCH TO DRINK. How likely are you to be stopped by a police officer for driving after you have had too much to drink? Is it... [READ LIST]

1. Almost Certain 2. Very Likely 3. Somewhat Likely 4. Somewhat Unlikely 5. Very Unlikely

7 - Refused 8 Don't Know 9- Not ascertained

Q10 - How often do you see police on the roads that you normally drive? Do you see police on... [READ]

1. Every trip 2. Almost every trip 3. Most trips 4. Some trips 5. Hardly ever

7 - Refused 8 Don't Know 9 Not Ascertained

Q11 - When you drive on a Georgia highway with a posted speed limit of 55 or higher, how often would you say that you drive over the posted speed limit? Would you say most of the time, some of the time, hardly ever, or never?

1. Most of the time 2. Some of the time 3. Hardly Ever 4. Never [SKIP TO Q13]

7 - Refused 8 Don't Know 9 Not Ascertained

Q12 On average, in miles per hour, how much over the speed limit do you usually drive on highways with posted speed of 55 or higher?

________ miles per hour

97 Refused 98 Don't Know 99 Not Ascertained

Q13 - When you drive on a Georgia highway with a posted speed limit of less than 55, how often would you say that you drive over the posted speed limit? Would you say most of the time, some of the time, hardly ever, or never?

1. Most of the time 2. Some of the time 3. Hardly Ever 4. Never [SKIP TO Q15]

7 - Refused 8 Don't Know 9 Not Ascertained

125

Q14 On average, in miles per hour, how much over the speed limit do you usually drive on highways with posted speed of 55 or less?

________ miles per hour

97 Refused 98 Don't Know 99 Not Ascertained

Q15 Have you heard of the Governor's Office of Highway Safety?

1. Yes 2. No

7 - Refused 8 Don't Know 9 Not Ascertained

We're almost finished with the interview, and I appreciate your patience, but for statistical purposes, I need to ask you a few questions about yourself. Again, all of the information is confidential.

Q16 - What is your age? __________________ years old
Q17 - GENDER [ask only if unsure] 1. Male 2. Female

95 - 95 or older 97 - Refused 98 - Don't Know 99 - Not Ascertained
9 - Not Ascertained

[CATI PROGRAMMER: IMPORT MSA/non-MSA, FIPS as study variables]
[IMPORT ATLANTA MSA AS STUDY VARIABLE]
That completes the Spring 2004 Georgia Poll. You have been very helpful and we thank you for time and your participation.

126

Appendix D Steer It and Clear It
Data Analysis
127

Steer It and Clear It Data Analysis

The following figures represent the percentages of respondents that chose a particular answering option.

Q1 Have you ever heard of Georgia's `Steer it or Clear it' Law?

Pre-Test Post-Test

Yes

No

Don't Know

13.6

84.7

1.7

13.3

85.4

1.2

Q2 What does the `Steer it or Clear It' law mean?

Correct

Incorrect

n

70.9

29.1

86

Q3 Have you ever heard of Click it or Ticket?

Pre-Test Post-Test

Yes

No

Don't Know

88.3

11.2

.5

90.0

9.5

.5

Q4 Are you aware of Georgia' primary safety belt law?

Pre-Test Post-Test

Yes

No

Don't Know

87.4

11.8

.7

89.2

9.8

1.0

Q5 What does Georgia's primary safety belt law mean?

Correct

Incorrect

n

1.9

98.1

687

Q6 Have you heard of Operation Zero Tolerance?

Pre-Test Post-Test

Yes

No

Don't Know

75.4

23.1

1.5

78.9

18.9

2.2

Q7 What do you think the current Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit currently is in Georgia for drivers under the age of 21?

Pre-Test Post-Test

.02

00.0

Don't Know

5.0

25.7

37.8

3.0

26.7

42.7

Q8 What do you think the current Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit currently is in Georgia for drivers age 21 and over?

Pre-Test Post-Test

.08

1.0

Don't Know

19.5

8.2

39.3

21.6

5.8

43.9

128

Q9 - Please tell me how likely the following event is to happen IF A PERSON SUCH AS YOURSELF DROVE AFTER HAVING TOO MUCH TO DRINK. How likely are you to be stopped by a police officer for driving after you have had too much to drink? Is it...

Pre-Test Post-Test

Almost Certain
11.4 8.8

Very Likely
21.4 20.8

Somewhat Likely 32.6 33.6

Somewhat Unlikely
13.4 13.9

Very Unlikely
13.7 17.0

Q10 - How often do you see police on the roads that you normally drive? Do you see police on...

Pre-Test Post-Test

Every Trip
23.9 21.1

Almost Every Trip 25.6 29.0

Most Trips
24.8 19.5

Some Trips Hardly Ever

20.3

5.1

23.9

6.0

Q11 - When you drive on a Georgia highway with a posted speed limit of 55 or higher, how often would you say that you drive over the posted speed limit? Would you say most of the time, some of the time, hardly ever, or never?

Pre-Test Post-Test

Most of the Time 41.5 39.4

Some of the Time 31.8 33.6

Hardly Ever
16.3 17.7

Never
9.6 8.6

Don't Know
.6 .7

Q12 On average, in miles per hour, how much over the speed limit do you usually drive on highways with posted speed of 55 or higher?

Pre-Test Post-Test

5mph 36.8 39.7

10mph 23.0 24.0

15mph 5.1 3.2

20mph 1.4 .7

21+mph 1.4 .8

Q13 - When you drive on a Georgia highway with a posted speed limit of less than 55, how often would you say that you drive over the posted speed limit? Would you say most of the time, some of the time, hardly ever, or never?

Pre-Test Post-Test

Most of the Time 18.3 18.3

Some of the Time 31.6 30.3

Hardly Ever
30.0 32.3

Never
18.8 17.9

Don't Know
1.4 1.1

Q14 On average, in miles per hour, how much over the speed limit do you usually drive on highways with posted speed of 55 or less?

Pre-Test Post-Test

5mph 42.9 46.4

10mph 12.7 10.8

15mph 1.0 .5

20mph .7 .4

21+mph .6 .3

129

Q15 Have you heard of the Governor's Office of Highway Safety?

Pre-Test Post-Test

Yes

No

Don't Know

50.4

47.8

1.8

52.1

46.9

1.0

Q16 - What is your age?

<21

Pre-Test

4.2

Post-Test

2.5

21-24 4.9 4.9

25-54 60.2 60.8

Q17 - GENDER
Pre-Test Post-Test

Male 36.1 35.0

Female 63.9 65.0

55-64

65+

16.5

14.2

16.6

15.2

130

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY 34 PEACHTREE STREET, NE ONE PARK TOWER SUITE 1600 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
Office 404-656-6996 Fax: 404-651-9107 Toll Free: 1-888-420-0767 www.gahighwaysafety.org
Completed: December 29, 2004 Revised: May 1, 2005
131