The sample worksheets provided in this appendix are based on the information provided in the EPM and are intended to help States document the evaluation results and record follow-up action items. They are based on the self assessment questions posed through- out the EPM. By carefully reviewing and answering the questions in these worksheets, States will gain an understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and begin to develop an action plan for strengthening their SHSP .

The worksheets are organized by EPM chapter, with one worksheet for Chapter 2 and another for Chapter 3.10 Each worksheet is composed of two parts. The first part is designed to encourage a deeper review of each of the self assessment questions with the goal of identifying action items for improving the SHSP. The second part is designed to take the action items and identify those who are responsible for completing them, and when they should be done. The end result is an action plan that includes tasks to be accom- plished, persons responsible for accomplishing them, and deadlines.

While the self-assessment questions can be simply answered with a yes or no, greater benefit is derived if they are considered and responded to in a deeper fashion. Filling in the fields next to each question fleshes out issues associated with them and helps identify next steps. The following example helps describe this process.

Example: Chapter 3

Consider a self-assessment question from Chapter 3, “the number and rate of fatalities and serious injuries tracked and reported by emphasis area and compared to previouslt set objectives?”

The worksheet provides a place to answer yes or no to this question. If each emphasis area has performance measures for fatality and serious injury magnitudes and/or rates, the answer to the question is Yes, we track the number of fatalities and serious injuries on an annual basis as data become available.

The next space in the worksheet is to provide additional information (“as evidenced by”). A possible answer to this question may be: Annual data reports by emphasis area and for the SHSP as a whole are provided to the leadership showing progress toward SHSP goals/objectives.

The third space in the worksheet is “what is the impact (positive or negative).” You are tracking and reporting on the number of fatalities and serious injuries on an annual basis and providing the information to the SHSP leadership so they can see progress. What is the positive impact of this activity; is there any negative impact? Possible answers include the following:

• Positive Impact – Emphasis area teams and SHSP leadership are regularly informed and can make course corrections when needed, not just at the end of the SHSP cycle/period of performance.
• Negative Impact – Because fatalities and serious injuries are only tracked by actual numbers and not by geographic area, it may be difficult to determine where the problem is occurring, which prevents hot spot and systemic analysis of the State’s traffic safety problems.

The fourth space in the worksheet is “opportunities” or how the State can improve its process with respect to this question. The response might consist of the following items:

• Collect and track overall fatalities by rates to allow for a comparison with other neighboring States and the national fatality rate.
• Collect and track fatalities and serious injuries by geographic area to identify problem locations.
• Provide information on SHSP progress on achieving fatality and serious injury goals/objectives to the public.

The last space in the worksheet is for action items. At this point, opportunities identified in the previous step can be transformed into tasks such as the following:

• Develop a method to collect and analyze fatalities and serious injuries by geographic area.
• Determine who should receive the data and how often.
• Decide whether the information can be used to form regional teams to assist with SHSP implementation.

This process should be repeated for each question. (Questions should be modified, added, or removed based on each State’s particular circumstances.) When completed, it will result in a list of action items. These action items should be transferred to the second part of the worksheet under “Action Item Summary.” Each action item can then be assigned to a responsible person and given a deadline. The resulting collection of action items, responsible persons, and deadlines creates a plan to enhance the SHSP process and efforts.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan Evaluation Process Model Worksheet – Chapter 2

Process Evaluation – Getting on the Right Track

Column Descriptions

As evidenced by: What is the evidence for the yes (or the no) answer?

What is the Impact: What impact, positive or negative, is this having on our SHSP process?

Opportunities: How can we improve our efforts with respect to this question?

Action Items: What steps will we take to improve our process, when should the steps be completed, and who is responsible for completing them?

The elements examined in process evaluation are: SHSP organizational structure; multidisciplinary, multimodal collaboration; goal and objective setting methods; data driven and evidence-based emphasis areas, strategies, and actions; and aligning agency priorities. For each of these elements the primary question driving the evaluation is:

What will it take to convince us our programs/
strategies/actions/investments are on the right track?

The questions below will help determine the effectiveness of current process evaluation efforts and identify areas for improvement. The EPM is based on noteworthy practices and current research and is general in nature. States should feel free to add to or modify these questions to fit their particular situation.

Action Item Summary

Strategic Highway Safety Plan Evaluation Process Model Worksheet – Chapter 3

Performance Evaluation – Outputs and Outcomes

Column Descriptions

As evidenced by: What is the evidence for the yes (or the no) answer?

What is the Impact: What impact, positive or negative, is this having on our SHSP process?

Opportunities: How can we improve our efforts with respect to this question?

Action Items: What steps will we take to improve our process, when should the steps be completed, and who is responsible for completing them?

Performance evaluation is comprised of: output evaluation and outcome evaluation. For each of these areas the primary question driving the evaluation is:

What will it take to convince us our programs/
strategies/actions/investments are getting us where we need to be?

The questions below will help determine the effectiveness of current performance evaluation efforts and identify areas for improvement. The EPM is based on noteworthy practices and current research and is general in nature. States should feel free to add to and/or modify these questions to fit their particular situation.

Action Item Summary