Detailed Information on the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Grant Program Assessment

Commit partners to working toward same long-term/annual goals and link State and Federal program goals.

Utilize SAFETEA reauthorization proposals to effectively distribute $227 million in grants to States to reward them for implementing CMV safety measures and reduce State fatalities rates.

Measure: Large Truck Fatalities per 100 Million Truck Vehicle Miles Traveled (TVMT)

Explanation:The goal is to reduce the rate of large truck-related fatalities per 100 million Truck Vehicle Miles Traveled (TVMT) 41% from 1996 to 2008, resulting in a rate of 1.65 per 100 million TVMT.

Measure: Large Truck Fatalities per 100 million per Truck Vehicle Miles Traveled (TVMT)

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) is consistent with authorizing legislation to reduce commercial motor vehicle (CMV)-involved crashes, fatalities, and injuries through consistent, uniform, and effective state CMV safety programs and is in close alignment with the agency mission of saving lives and reducing injuries by preventing truck and bus crashes.

Evidence: Motor carrier safety grant program was authorized by the Surface Transportation Safety Act of 1982 (STAA), and reauthorized by Section 4003 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21, 112 Stat. 395-398) and Section 103 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA). (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31100-31104, 31108, 31136, 31140-31141, 31161, 31310-31311, 31502; and 49 CFR 1.48. Regulation: 49 CFR Part 350.) MCSAP is consistent with authorizing legislation to reduce commercial motor vehicle (CMV)-involved crashes, fatalities, and injuries through consistent, uniform, and effective state CMV safety programs. MCSAP aligns closely with the agency mission of saving lives and reducing injuries by preventing truck and bus crashes and DOT Highway Safety performance and Safety strategic goals reflected in the DOT Strategic and Performance Plans.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Trucks are over-represented in fatal highway crashes. About 12% of all people killed in motor vehicle incidents are involved in a crash with a large truck, yet trucks represent only 4 percent of registered vehicles and about 7 percent of the vehicle-miles of travel.

Evidence: Aspects of Large Truck Safety have been identified as management challenges by GAO and DOT/OIG. DOT OIG recommendations (TR-1999-01) are specifically addressed in sections 206, 208, 217, and 222 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA, 1999).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Enlisting the efforts of state agencies greatly expands the resources available for and broadens the reach of safety enforcement. FMCSA authorization includes regulation of interstate (and foreign/border) motor vehicle transportation. State involvement extends enforcement to intrastate commerce. The MCSAP maintenance of effort requirements (see 49 CFR Part 350.301) ensure these federal grant funds do not supplant state funds for commercial vehicle safety efforts.

Evidence: GAO (GAO-02-495) confirms the complementarity of federal and MCSAP-supported state programs. FMCSA is the only federal agency that addresses and remediates the causes of commercial motor vehicle crashes and resulting injuries and fatalities. Prior to 1982, few states and no federal agencies focused on commercial vehicle safety issues including vehicle defects, motor carrier compliance or special driver requirements. Unlike NHTSA's state grant program that focuses on educational traffic safety efforts, MCSAP grants provide for direct state motor carrier enforcement activities.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: In 2003, FMCSA harmonized its CMV safety goal in a consolidated Department of Transportation's highway safety goal with NHTSA and FHWA. MCSAP has been a key contributor to reversing the trend in commercial motor vehicle fatalities in recent years. Results and evidence support the program's effectiveness. Program initiatives aimed at improving the focus and effectiveness of the MCSAP program are being considered in the context of surface transportation reauthorization.

Evidence: Despite significant progress, motor carrier safety continues to be a persistent national problem. In recent years, approximately 5,000 people a year have been killed in highway incidents involving large trucks. MCSAP has proven effective at marshalling state enforcement activity, providing a safety multiplier, and encouraging consistency of enforcement protocols; extending enforcement of FMCSRs and safe practices.

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: MCSAP is a central element in a coordinated strategy to reduce fatalities in crashes involving large trucks. Without MCSAP and coordinating strategies, it could be expected that fatalities would increase along with the increases in traffic and exposure. The program's impact is evidenced in the difference between potentially increasing fatalities and the actual reductions realized, the delta represents lives saved.

Evidence: MCSAP supports state-conducted motor carrier safety activities to ensure compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), including compliance reviews, roadside inspections, and traffic enforcement. MCSAP grants to states contribute, with other safety mitigation strategies/programs (including partnership, outreach, information/research, education, rulemaking, compliance, and enforcement), as an integral part of a coordinated strategy to increase compliance with FMCSRs and reduce crashes, fatalities, and injuries. MCSAP-supported state-level motor carrier safety interventions have contibuted to reduced fatalities each of the past five years (1997-2002), a reduction of more than 9% over the timeframe. This improvement has been accomplished in the face of annual increases in commercial motor vehicle miles traveled (VMT), estimated at approximately 3.4% per annum. The large truck fatality rate has been reduced from 2.7 per million CVMT to 2.28* over the same period.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has one specific long-term goal - to reduce the rate of fatalities in crashes involving large trucks. This long-term goal has been translated into specific performance targets and is directly tied to the DOT's Safety strategic goal and Highway Safety performance goal.

Evidence: The program's ambitious long-term goal is to reduce the rate of large truck fatalities to 1.65 fatalities per 100 million CVMT by 2008. This goal translates to a 41% reduction in the number of fatalities between 1996 and 2008. Related to this overarching goal, the agency also tracks as indicators the number of fatalities and persons injured in crashes involving large trucks, and the rate of persons injured in crashes involving large trucks.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The agency manages to annual targets for reduction of fatality rate, and monitors fatalities and injuries and injury rate as leading indicators. The agency also establishes and tracks its progress toward accomplishment of annual performance targets for programmatic outputs, including federal- and state-conducted compliance reviews and roadside inspections. Annual performance targets are established for combined federal/state roadside inspections and federal compliance reviews. State recipients of the MCSAP program are required to create Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans (CVSPs) that must address 5 essential MCSAP performance elements, which contribute to the agency's long-term goals, including roadside inspections, compliance reviews, traffic enforcement, data, and public education. Data timelines and quality standards are established and tracked.

Evidence: The FMCSA's long-term safety objective is to reduce the rate of truck related fatalities to 1.65 per 100 million Commercial Vehicle Miles Traveled (CVMT), by the year 2008. This goal equates to a 41% reduction in rate of fatalities from those experienced in 1996. FMCSA sets annual performance targets for achieving this reduction and is on track towards achieving the 1.65 long-term goal, having reduced the number of truck related fatalities and rate of truck-related fatalities every year for the past five years. Targets for essential operational program outputs, including those supported by the MCSAP program, are addressed in the agency's annual performance plan and budget.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: States address five MCSAP safety performance elements in their Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans (CVSPs)/grant applications. In addition, in order to qualify for incentive funding, states agree to specific safety performance objectives ("Reduce the number of fatal accidents involving large trucks" and "Reduce the large-truck-involved fatal accident rate", among others) that link to agency goals. The FMCSA tracks the performance of each state with regard to the outcome goal of reducing truck-related fatalities and accidents in each state, and tracks their progress in achieving these goals.

Evidence: GAO (GAO-02-495) confirms that annual state plans include quantifiable performance objectives and measures and strategies and specific activities for achieving the objectives. The MCSAP program office sends out an annual planning memorandum to its state partners that outline the performance goals for the upcoming fiscal year. Since 2000, all state MCSAP CVSPs were required to be prepared in a performance-based format. Risk-based training has been and remains readily available for any state in prioritizing goals and assigning resources. In addition, qualification for special incentive funding requires state adoption of specific performance objectives for: reduction of fatal accidents, reduction of CMV-involved fatality rate, CDL verification, and inspection and accident data timelines.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: The baselines and targets that the MCSAP program contributes to are contained in the FMCSA's annual integrated performance budget and performance plans and reports.

Evidence: The ambitious target for the program is to reduce the rate of truck related fatalities to 1.65 per 100 million Commercial Vehicle Miles Traveled (CVMT), by the year 2008. This goal equates to a 41% reduction in rate of fatalities from the baseline fatality rate of 2.81 fatalities per 100 million CVMT in 1996.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: States address five MCSAP safety performance elements in their Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans (CVSPs)/grant applications. In addition, in order to qualify for incentive funding, states agree to specific safety performance objectives ("Reduce the number of fatal accidents involving large trucks" and "Reduce the large-truck-involved fatal accident rate", among others) that link to agency goals. The FMCSA tracks the performance of each state with regard to the outcome goal of reducing truck-related fatalities and accidents in each state, and tracks their progress in achieving these goals.

Evidence: GAO (GAO-02-495) confirms that annual state plans include quantifiable performance objectives and measures and strategies and specific activities for achieving the objectives. The MCSAP program office sends out an annual planning memorandum to its state partners that outline the performance goals for the upcoming fiscal year. Since 2000, all state MCSAP CVSPs were required to be prepared in a performance-based format. Risk-based training has been and remains readily available for any state in prioritizing goals and assigning resources. In addition, qualification for special incentive funding requires state adoption of specific performance objectives for: reduction of fatal accidents, reduction of CMV-involved fatality rate, CDL verification, and inspection and accident data timelines.

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Every year, the FMCSA engages an outside, independent organization to review the effectiveness of the activities funded by the MCSAP program and assess the contribution of these activities towards the agency's outcome goals. The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center annually evaluates and issues reports on the effectiveness of safety mitigation strategies (FMCSA Safety Program Performance Measures - Compliance Review Impact Assessment Model, February 2002; FMCSA Safety Performance Program Performance Measures - Intervention Model: Roadside Inspection and Traffic Enforcement Effectiveness Assessment, December 2001). Published reports are available on-line at: http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/ProgramMeasures/PM/PerfMeas.asp.

Evidence: Evaluation of the effectiveness of safety enforcement operations is conducted annually by the: (1) Roadside Inspection and Traffic Enforcement Intervention Model and (2) Compliance Review Impact Assessment Model. In 2001, 83% of MCSAP funding supported state-conducted safety enforcement interventions; roadside inspections (58%), traffic enforcement (18%), and compliance reviews (7%). The 2002 Roadside Inspection and Traffic Enforcement Intervention Model estimates that in 2000, 12,668 crashes were avoided, resulting in 544 lives saved and 8,681 injuries avoided as a result of roadside inspection and traffic enforcement. The 2002 Compliance Review Impact Assessment Model estimates that in 2000, 1,500 crashes were avoided, 64 lives saved, and 1,028 injuries avoided attributable to compliance reviews. MCSAP has been reviewed by GAO (GAO-02-495, Regulatory Programs: Balancing Federal and State Responsibilities, 3/02) and DOT OIG (AS-FH-4-012, 6/94 and TR-1999-091, 4/99). DOT OIG emphasizes the importance of strong enforcement to ensuring motor carrier safety.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The FMCSA has developed a set of logic models, included in its annual integrated performance budget, that details the alignment between funding for all programs, including the MCSAP program, and performance on agency strategic goals. The impact of funding, policy and legislative changes are reflected in the budget submmission. The MCSAP program has contributed to achieving reduced fatalities five consecutive years (1998-2002), despite annual increases in CVMT. Injuries have been reduced for two consecutive years.

Evidence: In the logic models contained in the agency's annual integrated performance budget, MCSAP funding aligns with the agency safety program objective "Support state enforcement, regulatory compatibility, technology deployment, and safety information capabilities" which links to the performance goal "Save lives and reduce injuries by preventing truck and bus crashes", which links, in turn, to the DOT Highway Safety performance goal and ultimately to the Safety strategic goal.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The agency has integrated its performance planning and reporting with its budget process and has a strong strategic planning process. The only potential deficiency in the strategic planning process for the MCSAP program is that the state government agencies that receive MCSAP funding are not under the agency authority since they are state, not Federal, agencies. However, the FMCSA actively works to mitigate this structural weakness by including state officials in the strategic planning process. The agency has tasked each state Division Administrator to develop specific, performance-based plans for their FMCSA Division in coordination with their state counterparts. The MCSAP program coordinated with the states is a major contributor to FMCSA's overall strategy aimed at reducing large truck-related fatalities and injuries.

Evidence: MCSAP is identified in the FMCSA's annual integrated performance budget, performance plans, and reports. Program evaluations are conducted to inform the strategic planning process, which are aimed at identifying deficiencies in the strategic planning of the program. Identified deficiencies are being addressed as part of an ongoing process to revise the agency's strategic plan. Specifically, in FY 2004, FMCSA will engage programs in a comprehensive evaluation process identifying and addressing challenges which affect the attainment of annual performance goals.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: MCSAP program managers receive monthly data quality and timeliness reports. Information is also received regarding state-level rulemaking that affects compatibility. Ensuring compatibility of state regulations with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) is a key program goal. MCSAP funding is conditioned upon state adoption and enforcement of state laws that are compatible with the FMCSRs, as such, it contributes to elevating regulatory and enforcement standards across the country.

Evidence: The Timeliness of Uploads Report and the Data Non-Match Reports from MCMIS (Motor Carrier Management Information System) are used to quickly identify upload deficiencies, thus allowing remedial action. State rulemaking information provided to the program by the state or field staff enables the agency to take appropriate action to remedy potential compatibility issues.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The MCSAP program has been strategically designed to incorporate incentive grants for those grantees that demonstrate improvement in identified safety and program performance factors. Moreover, in those instances where program partners (i.e. grantees) do not have compatible CMV safety laws and regulations pertaining to interstate commerce, mechanisms are in place to reduce and/or withhold MCSAP funding. The States' Safety Plans are scrutinized by MCSAP staff to ensure adherence to established funding eligibility criteria.

Evidence: FMCSA State Division Administrators prepare monitoring plans for each grant program. In addition, reimbursement vouchers are scrutinized to ensure that costs are reasonable and fall within the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP) budget.

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds are obligated by FMCSA State Division Administrators upon receipt of the allocation memo. MCSAP funds are spent by the states in accordance with the approved CVSP.

Evidence: MCSAP program managers monitor the obligation activity for timeliness on a regular basis. FMCSA State Division Administrators review all reimbursement vouchers to ensure that claimed expenses are in conformance with the budget submitted with the approved CVSP. Any questionable expenditures are immediately resolved with state partners.

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: In addition to formula grants, MCSAP makes available incentive grants to states adopting specific safety performance improvement objectives. Incentive funds are awarded to states demonstrating performance improvement with regard to specific performance goals. The incremental performance advances represent efficiencies in program delivery.

Evidence: GAO (GAO-02-495) recognizes MCSAP financial incentives provided to states achieving reductions in CMV fatal accident rates. State incentive grant funding requires state performance improvement with regard to the following specific safety goals: (1) reduce the number of fatal accidents involving large trucks, (2) reduce the large-truck-involved fatal accident rate or maintain a rate that is among the lowest 10% of all MCSAP recipients, (3) verify commercial driver's licenses during all roadside inspections, (4) Upload CMV inspection data in accordance with current FMCSA policy guidelines, and (5) upload CMV accident reports in accordance with current FMCSA policy guidelines.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: MCSAP grants are directly integrated into the FMCSA's coordinated motor carrier safety strategy, along with motor carrier partnership, outreach, information/research, education, rulemaking, compliance, and enforcement program activities, which all contribute to the achievement of motor carrier safety outcomes. Together, the spectrum of mitigation activities leverages the effectiveness of each individually. At the same time, FMCSA motor carrier programs complement and collaborate with highway and transportation safety programs of DOT, FHWA, NHTSA, various associations, and state partners to achieve shared safety objectives. The very purpose of MCSAP grants are to collaborate and coordinate truck-related safety activities between the Federal government and the states.

Evidence: Planning for/integration of MCSAP goals in broader agency fatality and injury outcomes is manifest in the agency performance budget and performance reports, with accountability for performance cascaded through the organization (HQ and Field) via a network of performance accountability contracts. Department of Transportation-level collaboration is reflected in the consolidated Highway Safety planning in the DOT Strategic Plan and performance metrics and monitoring in the DOT Performance Budget. In addition, MCSAP implementing regulations require states to coordinate their CVSPs with state highway safety programs under Title 23 USC (see 49 CFR 350.211).

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: There have been no internal control weakness reported by auditors. A DAFIS and voucher review process has been established to ensure payment for the appropriate purpose and prevention of erroneous payments.

Evidence: Each FMCSA program office is responsible for internally tracking all obligations and reconciling obligations against the monthly DAFIS reports. Budget and Finance division, in turn, works closely with FHWA Finance office to resolve any funding issues, report DAFIS discrepancies for correction, maintain funding codes and allotments, and ensure prompt payment of all invoices.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The effectiveness of essential program compliance/enforcement interventions is evaluated on an annual basis to inform strategy development and resource allocation decisions. Program evaluation findings are reviewed in the development of annual agency and Departmental strategic and performance plans and reports.

Evidence: The FMCSA strives for continuous improvement in its management and has an active evaluation program aimed at improving program effectiveness, efficiency and agency performance. When the MCSAP program staff identifies management deficiencies in areas such as strategic staffing management and financial resource allocation, they initiate corrections and/or modification to management plans and practices. Periodic leadership meetings, including forums with State partners and industry interest groups, are held to vet identified program issues and to develop strategies for incorporating corrections into ongoing management operations.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: FMCSA State Division Administrators establish monitoring plans to review states performance activities submitted in the CVSP. This plan includes site visits to ensure program conformance with the CVSP. States submit quarterly performance reports that document completion of projected activities and goals. Progress and final vouchers contain expenditure details which ensure resources are used for the purposes identified in the state's CVSPs.

Evidence: Narrative quarterly performance reports, provided by state, documentation of periodic site visits by division staff, and review of expense vouchers for funds used for their designated purpose.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Program performance data (inspections, crashes, and compliance reviews) are electronically uploaded to the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). This data is available to the public from the from the FMCSA website. Progress in reducing motor carrier crashes, fatalities, and injuries is reported in the FMCSA and DOT annual performance reports, and periodic press releases.

Evidence: The agency's annual report data is available through the Analysis and Information (A&I) website (http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/), including information on the number of inspection reports, crash reports, and compliance reviews submitted by the states.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: In 2003, FMCSA harmonized its CMV safety goal in a consolidated Department of Transportation's highway safety goal with NHTSA and FHWA. The agency's long-term safety goal is to reduce the large truck fatality rate 41% from 1996 to 2008, to a rate of 1.65. In the face of increased exposure owing to annual increases in commercial motor vehicle miles traveled (CVMT), fatalities involving large trucks have been reduced each of the past five years. Injuries and injury rates that the agency tracks as leading indicators have also been reduced. Robust state safety programs and enforcement interventions supported by MCSAP are important factors in saving these lives and avoiding these injuries.

Evidence: The agency achieved its target for large truck fatality rate in 2002 of 2.28 bettering the agency target of 2.32. Trends for all of the agency's leading indicators are encouraging, suggesting agency mitigation strategies are on target and having a positive impact and follows an increase of 2.6% in commercial vehicles miles traveled. This rate improvement interprets to 1,138 lives saved in 2002.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: MCSAP program goals link and contribute to the accomplishment of the motor carrier safety long-term outcome goal of reducing CMV-related fatality rate. The program is advancing in its achievement of specific program-level goals.

Evidence: The program manages to intermediate outcomes of (1) compatibility with FMCSRs, (2) quality and timeliness of state safety data, and (3) completion of motor carrier compliance reviews.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: While MCSAP grant funds have increased incrementally since establishment of the agency's baseline targets in FY 1998, overhead expenses funded under the agency's limitation on administrative expenses have not grown above annual inflation factors.

Evidence: The downward trend in large truck-related fatality rate, and achievement of the agency 2002 large truck fatality rate target in 2002, has been achieved without increasing administrative overhead costs beyond annual inflation factors.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Several agencies within the Federal government strive to reduce fatalities. Within the Department of Transportation, NHTSA, FHWA, and FMCSA share the highway fatality goal since each of the three agencies have a responsibility to improve safety on our nation's highways. With achievement of the agency large truck fatality rate target in 2002, progress toward reduction of truck-related fatalities and injuries is tracking with Departmental objectives. Data supporting DOT Highway Safety measures for all highway modal administrations are housed in NHTSA FARS.

Evidence: The agency has achieved its target for large truck fatality rate reduction in 2002. Despite annual increases in VMT and CVMT, fatalities and injuries in crashes involving large trucks have been reduced. Large-truck-related fatality and injury rates have also been reduced. Results are reflected in the DOT FY 2003 Performance Plan/FY 2001 Performance Report.

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Rigorous program effectiveness evaluations of the major operational compliance/enforcement activities supported by MCSAP are conducted annually by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center reports on the effectiveness of safety mitigation strategies (FMCSA Safety Program Performance Measures - Compliance Review Impact Assessment Model, February 2002; FMCSA Safety Performance Program Performance Measures - Intervention Model: Roadside Inspection and Traffic Enforcement Effectiveness Assessment, December 2001) are available on-line at: http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/ProgramMeasures/PM/PerfMeas.asp.

Evidence: Aspects of MCSAP have been reviewed by GAO (GAO-02-495) and DOT OIG (AS-FH-4-012, TR-1999-091). The effectiveness of compliance reviews, roadside inspections, and traffic enforcement in reducing crashes, fatalities, and injuries is evaluated on an annual basis using the: (1) Intervention Model and (2) Compliance Review Impact Assessment Model. These evaluation models yield annual estimates of crashes avoided, injuries avoided, and lives saved attributable to these interventions. Additional information about the Intervention Model and the Compliance Review Impact Assessment Model accompany this assessment as attachments.