Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 

PREVENTION’S EDUCATIONAL 

RESOURCE CENTERS 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 

amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 

programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This 

statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and 

inspections conducted by three OIG operating components: the Office of Audit Semi=, the 

Office of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG also informs 

the Secretary of HHS of program and management problems and recommends courses to 

correct them. 

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES 

The OIGS Office of Audit SeMces (OAS) provides all auditing semices for HHS, either by 

conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 

Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in 

carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 

assessments of HHS programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 

The OIGS Office of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 

investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of 

unjust enrichment by providers. The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions, 

administrative sanctions, or civil money penalties. The 01 also ovecsees State Medicaid fraud 

control units which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 

OFFICE OF EVALUATION AND INSPECI’IONS 

The OIGS Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and


program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department,


the Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection


reports generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability,


and effectiveness of departmental programs.


OEI’S Atlanta Regional Office prepared this report under the direction of Jesse J. Flowers,


Regional Inspector General, and Christopher Koehler, Deputy Regional Inspector General.


Principal OEI staff included:


Atlanta Retzion Headmmrtem


Pegg Daniel, Project Leader Mary Beth Clarke, Program Specialist


Ron Kalil, Team Leader Dave Wright, Program Specialist


Paula Bowker, Program Analyst


Tammy Bonney, Program Analyst


To obtain a copy of this report, call the Atlanta Regional Office at 404-331-4108.

Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENEML 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND


PREVENTION’S EDUCATIONAL


RESOURCE CENTERS


psSERVIC&8 

~d+ “ba 

7 

JUNE GIBBS BROWN ~w 

: 

s

% 

Inspector General 

~

%+-- MARCH19% 

%’d~a > OEI-04-92-00900 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


PURPOSE 

To determine the extent that Educational Resource Center graduates, supported by 

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, pursued careers in the 

occupational safety and health field. 

BACKGROUND 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), provides grant funds to 14 university-affiliated 

centers that provide training on occupational safety and health. The centers, known as 

Educational Resource Centers (ERCS), were initiated in 1977 in response to the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The Act mandated that the Secretary of 

Health and Human Semites “ensure an adequate supply of trained professionals for 

the occupational safety and health field.” NIOSH funding for the Centers was $9 

million in FY 1994. 

We surveyed all 14 ERCS to determine the extent that Educational Resource Center 

graduates, supported by NIOSH, pursued occupational safety and health careers. All 

14 ERCS responded to our survey. We also randomly sampled 205 graduates to 

obtain their perception on the overall effectiveness of training they received. About 

55 percent (112) of the 205 sampled graduates completed and returned our survey 

instrument. 

FINDINGS 

Most NIOSH-supprted gradiutmpureed occupationalsafetyand healthcareen 

According to both our survey of ERCS and graduates, at least eighty-two percent of 

the graduates obtained work in the occupational safety and health field. At 9 of the 

14 ERCS, over 90 percent of NIOSH-supported graduates pursued occupational safety 

and health careers. Of those students who graduated during the 5-year period (1989-

1994), 80 percent are still working in their chosen occupational safety and health field. 

About halfof the NIOSH-supportedgraduatespumuedoccupationalsafetyand heakh 

careersiiaprivateogantitions 

Of the 928 NIOSH-supported ERC graduates pursuing occupational safety and health 

careers between 1989-1994, about 52 percent pursued careers in private organizations. 

Forty-five percent of the graduates pursued careers in government or academia. A 

very small percentage of graduates are in settings other than private, government, or 

academia. 

i 
NIOSH-suppti graduutesconsiiikredEkihcatkmdResoume Cen&rtminbzgto be high 

Pm’ 

Seventy percent of the responding graduates rated the quality of educational resource 

center training as excellent. Ninety-four percent of graduates told us that the ERC 

training adequately prepared them for an occupational safety and health career. 

CONCLUSION 

As mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, ERCS successfully 

train and graduate students for careers in occupational safety and health. We are 

making no recommendations but have included in our report a number of suggestions 

from graduates for improving the curriculum. 

AGENCY COMMENTS 

The CDC/NIOSH concurred with the findings of our report. Appendix C shows the 

full text of CDC’S comments. 

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGE 

ExEcumm SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..”. ”” Q””o. c””o” o.” 1


FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............”.””.0” 

Most NIOSH-Supported Graduates Pursued


Occupational SafetyandHealth Careers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...3


About Halfof NIOSH-Supported Graduates Pursued


Careers in Private Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..000”.6


NIOSH-Supported Graduates Considered Trainingto


be High Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...”” ““”.-””.*6


Educational Resource Centers Are Successful in


Supplementing NIOSHFunding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...8


CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...8


AGENCY CO Moment s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...8


APPENDICES 

NIOSH-Funded Educational Resource Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1


Analysis of Respondents vs. Non-Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1


CDC Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..C-l 
--

INTRODUCTION


PURPOSE


To determine the extent that Educational Resource Center graduates, supported by


the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, pursued occupational safety


and health careers.


BACKGROUND


The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for


Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), provides grant funds to 14 university-affiliated


centers that provide training on occupational safety and health. The centers, known as


Educational Resource Centers (ERCS), were initiated in 1977 in response to the


Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The Act mandated that the Secretary of


Health and Human Services “ensure an adequate supply of trained professionals for


the occupational safety and health field.”


The Educational Resource Centers administer four core academic programs


industrial hygiene, occupational medicine, occupational health nursing, and


occupational safety. Educational Resource Centers provide full and part-time career


training for students pursuing masters and doctoral degrees in occupational safety and


health. The Centers also provide cross-training for practitioners and for students


pursuing degrees in other, related fields.


Grant funds are awarded to either one institution or a consortia of schools which must 

meet requirements for academic training in three of the four core programs. The 

Centers must also provide continuing education for practicing professionals, an 

outreach program to other private and public educational institutions, and 

multidisciplinary interaction among students. 

Over the past three fiscal years, NIOSH funding to ERCS has remained fairly constant. 

For example, NIOSH funded the ERCS at $8.6, $9.1, and $9.0 million respectively for 

FYs 1992, 1993, and 1994. 

METHOIXXDGY 

We surveyed all 14 ERCS. We mailed survey instruments to 11 ERCS, and obtained 

information from the 3 remaining ERCS through on-site interviews. Appendix A 

identifies the 14 NIOSH-supported ERCS. 

To determine whether or not ERC graduates pursued careers in occupational safety 

and health fields, we first asked officials at all ’14 ERCS to provide data showing 

number of students graduated and their career choices over the last five years (1989-

1

1994). Westratified that data by(l) core program [Industrial Hy@ene, Occupational 

Health Nursing, Occupational Safety, and Occupational Medicine], (2) year, and 

(3)individual ERC. Wethencalculated percentage ofstudents pursuing careersin 

the occupational safety and health field. 

Next, to obtain graduates perceptions on ERC training, we randomly selected 205 

graduates from 13 of the 14 ERCS during the 5-year period (1989-1994). We excluded 

graduates from one of the 14 ERCsbecause university policy precludes release of 

student names and addresses. 

Resurveyed thegraduates in June 1995 toassess theoverall effectiveness of the 

training they received while attending an ERC. Forexample, weasked them (l)to 

rate the quality of the education they received, and (2) whether or not the training 

prepared them for an occupational safety and health career. 

One hundred twelve of the graduates we surveyed completed and returned our 

questionnaire (55 percent). At the 90 percent level of confidence, this gives us a 

precision of +/- 10 percentage points. Ninety-three graduates didnotrespond to our 

survey. We concluded from our analysis of non-respondents and respondents that 

there is no significant bias in our survey results which are related to academic core, 

year of graduation, or geographic location of the Centers. Appendix B provides 

details of this analysis. 

Finally, we obtained ERC funding data from CDC/NIOSH officials for the past three 

fiscal years. 

To develop findings for this report, we weighted graduate responses according to the 

proportion of graduates in each core program to the total ERC population. 

This inspection was conducted in accordance with Quality Standards for Iizspections 

issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

2

FINDINGS 

MOST NIOSH-SUPPORTED GRADUATES PURSUED OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH CAREERS 

Over80 PementOf NIOSH-SupportedGraduatesRusued OccupationalSafetyAnd 

H& Carom Overlhe Lust5Ym 

NIOSH-supported graduates pursuing occupational safety and health careers has 

remained fairly constant over the last five years. Table 1 shows that, according to data 

furnished by the ERCS, between 84 and 91 percent of the graduates pursued 

occupational safety and health careers over the 5 year period of our study. Likewise, 

a weighted 82 percent of the 112 graduates responding to our survey told us that upon 

graduating from an ERC they obtained work in the occupational safety and health 

field. 

TABLE 1 

NIOSH-SUPPORTED GRADUATES PURSUING OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 

AND HEALTH CAREERS ANNUAUY 

Data Represents All 14 ERCS And 4 (he Pro] 

I!J!)@ 1991- 1992- 1993- Total 5-

1991 1992 1993 1994 Years 

220 193 =lEl 222 1,062

The high employment rate was obtained even though the ERCS did not provide 

“forma~’ job pla;ement services. A weighted 67 pe;cent of the graduates responding 

to our sumey told us that their ERC did not provide formal job placement services. 

They said they found occupational safety and health careers by word of mouth, 

networking, personal contacts, ads in professional journals, job bulletin boards, and 

faculty advisors. The ERCS we contacted confirmed the lack of formal job placement 

services. However, ERC officials advised that the ERCS do help graduates find career 

opportunities through “informal” means. For example, networking, faculty contacts, 

word of mouth, and posting job announcements. 

3 

II 
At 9 Of l%e 14 Educatbnal Resowce Ckn&mjOver90 Pexent Of NIOSH-Suppwted 

Gm&ates Rusued Occupdond tifety And Health Carem 

Among the 14 ERCS, the percentage of NIOSH-supported ERC graduates who 

pursued occupational safety and health careers ranged from 52 to 100 percent over 

the last 5 years. However, Figure 1 shows that between 92 and 100 percent of the 

graduates at 9 of the ERCS pursued occupational safety and health careers during the 

five year period. 

FIGURE 1


PERCENT OF GRADUATES PURSUING CAREERS 

IN OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

6-Year Period: 1989-1994


98 99 100100


92 94


84


78


68


14 Educational Resource Centers 

4

iVIOSH-SqpmtedGraduutesRusutd Ckrem In Each Of Four Cbre Occupational 

SafetyAnd Hmkh Fields 

According to data furnished by ERC officials, graduates find careers in each of the 

four occupational safety and health core programs. Table 2 shows that over the five 

year period included in our survey, graduate employment ranged from 75 percent in 

the Occupational Safety program to 92 percent in the Industrial Hygiene program. 

TABLE 2 

NIOSH-SUPPORTED GRADUATES PURSUED CAREERS IN EACH 

CORE PROGRAM 

Data Represents 5-Year Period 1989-1994 For All 14 ERCs 

Mat GraduatesT& To Clmtime OccupationalSafep And Hedh Careen 

According to the graduates who responded to our survey, a weighted 80 percent who 

graduated between 1989 and 1994 were still working in their chosen occupational 

safety and health field at the time of our survey. The ERC officials we surveyed 

corroborated the statements of the graduates. They told us that based on their followup surveys, graduates remained employed in the occupational safety and health field 

for their entire careers -- with few exceptions. 

5

ABOUT HALF OF THE NIOSH-SUPPORTED GRADUATES PURSUED 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH CAREERS IN PRIVATE 

ORGANIZATIONS 

Of the 928 NIOSH-supported ERC graduates pursuing occupational safety and health 

careers between 1989-1994, about 

b 52 percent pursued careers in private organizations, 

b 26 percent pursued careers in government, 

� 19 percent pursued careers in academia, and 

b 3 percent are in settings other than private, government, or academia. 

NIOSH-supported graduates who did not pursue an occupational safety and health 

career did not do so because they were (1) pursuing other degrees (e.g. medical, 

doctoral), (2) working in another field (e.g., home health care), or (3) staying at home 

to raise children. 

NIOSH-SUPPORTED GRADUATES CONSIDERED EDUCATIONAL 

RESOURCE CENTER TRAINING TO BE HIGH QUALITY 

Almost all graduates perceived educational resource center training to be a high 

quality academic program. Generally, they commented that the Centers used 

knowledgeable and experienced faculty and provided a comprehensive well structured 

curriculum. A weighted 70 percent of the graduates responding to our survey rated 

the quality of educational resource center training as excellent. A weighted 20 percent 

rated the quality as good, 9 percent rated it average, and about 1 percent rated it 

poor. 

lillucatiinudResoume CeratemBepared GraduatesFor OccupationalSafey And Heallh 

Cizrem 

A weighted 94 percent of graduates responding to our survey told us that the ERC 

training adequately prepared them for an occupational safety and health career. A 

weighted 75 percent of graduates we surveyed said the curriculum was appropriately 

balanced between theory and hands-on training experience. 

6

NIOSH-Supprted GraduatesSu~d Implements For% Edkational Resource 

CknterCurkukm 

About half of the graduates suggested improvements for the ERC curriculum. The 

changes they suggested varied by core program as summarized below. The suggestions 

were not made by all graduates at all ERCS, but merely represent a sampling of 

suggested improvements. 

Occupational Health Nursing 

�	 Provide more hands-on training as well as more exposure to various 

occupational clinical sites 

�	 Add additional courses on worker’s compensation, toxicology, orthopedics, and 

epidemiology 

b	 Include more information on specific OSHA regulations and how to interpret 

those regulations 

Industrial Hwziene 

b Place more emphasis on hazardous waste management 

b	 Provide seminars that focus on current issues and new regulations currently 

affecting the industrial hygiene field 

b	 Offer courses on indoor air quality, industrial toxicology, management and 

communication, safety, analytical techniques, and sampling strategies 

Occupational Safetv 

b Focus more on the economic/loss control aspect of curriculum to better prepare 

graduates to “sell” safety to management 

b Increase instruction in industrial hygiene 

Occu~ational Medicine 

b Include toxicology and computer courses 

� Expand epidemiology course 

b Increase clinical exposure 
ERC officials told us that in many instances, the changes suggested by graduates had 

already been implemented. A few of the graduates also commented that some of 

their suggested changes had been implemented. 

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS ARE SUCCESSFULIN

SUPPUWENTING NIOSH FUNDING 

Federal regulations published by NIOSH/CDC require ERCS to use other sources of 

funds to supplement NIOSH grant funds. Sources for other support include other 

Federal grants, States and other public agencies, and the private sector, including 

grants from foundations and corporate endowments, and gifts. 

During the 1993-1994 program year, ERCS obtained $21.4 million from non-NIOSH 

sources such as Veterans Administration, Department of Energy, Chevron, Eastman 

Kodak and individual universities. For every NIOSH dollar, ERCS obtained $2.35 

from non-NIOSH sources. 

Table 3 shows that during the 1993-1994 program year, non-NIOSH funding sources 

provided 70 percent of the funding for ERCS. 

TABLE 3 

II SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS II 

1 1993-1994 Program Year - AU 14 ERCS 

I 

CDC/NIOSH I 

OTHER FEDERAL 

I 

STATE 

I 

I PRIVATE/OTHER 

IITOTAL I 

CONCLUSION 

As mandated by the Occupational 

$9,093,587 

$11,899,866 

$6,436,058 

$3,070,565 

$30,500,167 

Safety and Health 

30% I I 

3970 

I I 

21% 

1 I 

10?40 ,

I 10070 II 

Act of 1970, ERCS successfully 

train and graduate students for careers in the occupational safety and health field. We 

are making no recommendations but have included in our report a number of 

suggestions from graduates for improving the curriculum. 

AGENCY COMMENTS 

The CDC/NIOSH concurred with the findings of our report. Appendix C shows the 

full text of CDC’S comments. 

8 

1 
APPENDIX A


NIOSH-FUNDED EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS 

ERC NAME CITY, STATE 

Deep South Center for Occupational Health and Safety Birmingham, AL


(University of Alabama at Birmingham; Auburn University)


Northern California Center for Occupational and Environmental Berkeley, CA


Health


(University of California at Berkeley, Davis and San Francisco)


southern California Educational Resource Clmter Los Angeles, CA


(University of southern California, Los Angeles)


The Great Lakes Center for Occupational and Environmental Chicago, IL


Health and Safety


(University of Illinois at Chicago)


Johns Hopkins Educational Resource Center Baltimore, MD


(Johns Hopkins University)


Harvard Educational Resource Center Boston, MA


(Harvard School of Public Health and Simmons College)


Michigan Center for Occupational Health and Safety Engineering Ann Arbor, MI


(University of Michigan)


Midwest Center for Occupational Health and Safety Minneapolis, MN


(University of Minnesota, St. Paul-Ramsey Medical Center)


New York/New Jersey Educational Resource Center New York, NY


(Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Hunter College School of


Health Sciences; New Jersey Institute of Technolo~, New York


University Medical Centeq University of Medicine & Dentistry of


New Jersey)


North Carolina Educational Resource Center Chapel Hill, NC


(University of North Carolina, Duke University Medical Center)


University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH


Southwest Center for Occupational and Environmental Health Houston, TX


(University of Texas, Houston)


Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Salt Lake City, UT


Health


(University of Utah)


Northwest Center for Occupational Health and Safety Seattle, WA


(University of Washington)


A-1

APPENDIX B


ANALYSIS OF RESPONDEIVIll VS. NON-RESPOND= 

A consideration in surveys of this type is that the results may be biased if nonrespondents are significantly different from respondents. To determine whether 

significant differences exist in this survey, we compared academic core selection by 

graduates, year of graduation, and geographical location of the ERC’S attended by the 

112 respondents and 93 non-respondents. Our analysis revealed no significant 

difference. Therefore, the possibility of bias due to non-response is limited. 

To test for bias in respondents versus non-respondents, we used a Two-way 

Contingency Table analysis with the Chi-Square test. We calculated the expected 

values for respondents and non-respondents assuming that respondents and nonrespondents are independent. 

For our test of bias by academic core program and geographical location, we chose an 

alpha value of .05 with 3 degrees of freedom. That produced a Chi-Square value of 

7.815. 

Our test statistic was 6.15 for our analysis by core program. This leads us to a 

conclusion that classification of respondents and non-respondents are independent by 

core program. 

NON-RESPONDENT ANALYSIS 

BY CORE PROGRAM 

Occupati(malOccupmimullOcJalpationaiIndustrial TOTALS 

Sarely Health Medicine Hygiene 

Nursing 

Sample 45 52 48 60 205 

# of Respondents 19 33 30 30 112 

# of Non- 26 19 18 30 93 

Respondents 

= F 

B-1

Our test statistic for our analysis by geographical location was 2.557. This also leads 

us to a conclusion that classification of respondents and non-respondents are 

independent by geographical location. 

NON-RESPONDENT ANALYSIS


BY ERC IN FOUR GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS


sample # of Respondents # of NonRespondents 

Northeast 46 22 24 

Southeast 41 20 21 

Midwest 62 36 26 

West 56 34 22 

TOTALS 205 112 93 

For our test for bias based on year of graduation, we chose an alpha value of .05 with 

4 degrees of freedom. That produced a Chi-Square value of 9.488. We used 4 

degrees of freedom for this test because we analyzed 5 categories of data. 

Our test statistic was 1.793. This leads us to a conclusion that classification of 

respondents and non-respondents are independent by their year of graduation. 

NON-RESPONDENT ANALYSIS 

BY YEAR 

1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 W92-93 1993-94 TOTALS 

Sample 46 34 42 45 38 205 

= b 

# of 22 19 26 25 20 112 

Respondents 

# of Non- 24 15 16 20 18 93 

Respondents 

7 F 

B-2

APPENDIX C 

CDC COMMENTS 

c-1 
�

“ :0’ ID:4046390445 FEB 09’96 15:07 No .003 P.02 

/’’”’~’~ 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service 

i­

; Centers for Disease Control 

%-4 and Prevention (CDCI 

. Memorandum 

Date , FEE? 6 Igg6 

From Associate Director for Management and Operations, CDC . 

Subject CDC Comments on IG Draft Report . 

To Peggy Daniel 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Evaluations and Inspections 

The IG Draft Report: “CDCS Educational Resource Centers” ‘


has been reviewed by Dr. Linda Rosenstock, Director, NIOSH,


and by grants staff members, Jay Bainbridge, John Talty and


Bernadine Kuchinski.


There are no comments regarding any changes or additions t~ . 

the document. 

Dr. Rosenstock would like to thank the Inspector General


and her staff for the quality and quantity of work


undertaken in carrying out this inspection and producing


the final report. During the course of this project they


have been very cooperative in working with NIOSH staff to


learn about the various Center programs and their


activities. She is pleased with the results of the report


and believes they will be useful in helping NIOSH to plan 

and monitor programmatic aspects of these grants and others 

that may be supported in the future. 

Dr. Rosenstock would also be happy to cooperate on any


grant-related projects that the Inspector General’s office


would like to conduct in the future. For example, she would


be willing to meet with IG and CDC staff to discuss


innovative ways to explore the productivity of the small


training grant programs also supported by NIOSH.


%