Office of Inspector General—Office of Audit 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND 

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 

OSHA HAS NOT DETERMINED IF STATE OSH 

PROGRAMS ARE AT LEAST AS EFFECTIVE IN 

IMPROVING WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

AS FEDERAL OSHA'S PROGRAMS 

Date Issued: March 31, 2011 

Report Number: 02-11-201-10-105 
 

 

 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Audit 

BRIEFLY... 

Highlights of Report Number 02-11-201-10-105, to the 

Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health 

WHY READ THE REPORT 

The role of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) is to promote workers’ safety 

and health. Through its programs and partners, OSHA 

claimed it reduced work-related fatalities, injuries, and 

illnesses. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 4,340 

fatalities and 965,000 non-fatal injuries and illnesses for 

2009. Liberty Mutual Annual Workplace Safety Index 

reported over $53 billion in workers compensation costs 

for 2008. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH 

Act) authorizes States to assume some responsibilities 

to develop and enforce safety and health standards, 

and authorizes grants of up to 50 percent of costs to 

States with programs at least as effective as the 

Federal program. Since 1972, States were granted 

$2.4 billion to develop and operate effective 

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) programs. 

WHY OIG CONDUCTED THE AUDIT 

In 2009, complaints filed with OSHA and congressional 

interest prompted OSHA to conduct a special review of 

Nevada OSH. Prior to the review, Nevada OSH 

received favorable monitoring reports while it was 

sharply criticized in media coverage on the handling of 

25 fatalities. The special review revealed significant 

operational issues. Subsequently, OSHA expanded 

monitoring of other States’ programs to include on-site 

case reviews. 

The objective of this audit was to answer the question: 

Has OSHA ensured that State Plans operate OSH 

programs that are at least as effective as Federal 

OSHA? The audit covered OSHA’s monitoring of all 27 

State Plan programs operating in Fiscal Year 2010. 

READ THE FULL REPORT 

To view the report, including the scope, methodology, 

and full agency response, go to: 

http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2011/02-11-

201-10-105.pdf 

March 2011 

OSHA HAS NOT DETERMINED IF STATE OSH 

PROGRAMS ARE AT LEAST AS EFFECTIVE IN 

IMPROVING WORKPLACE SAFETY AND 

HEALTH AS FEDERAL OSHA'S PROGRAMS 

WHAT OIG FOUND 

OSHA has not yet designed a method to examine the 

impact of State OSH programs to ensure they are at 

least as effective as Federal programs. State officials 

generally believed their programs were effective, but 

there was no quantifiable data to demonstrate 

effectiveness. OSHA officials acknowledged that 

effectiveness measures would be desirable, but difficult 

to develop. As a result, OSHA lacks critical information 

needed to make informed decisions. 

•	 Defining Effectiveness. State officials expressed 

concerns regarding the lack of clear expectations 

for effective programs and that some program 

changes required by OSHA may not necessarily 

increase effectiveness of their states’ programs. 

•	 Measuring Effectiveness. OSHA officials admitted 

OSHA does not have outcome measures to gauge 

effectiveness. States were evaluated on activitybased data, which OSHA officials stated would 

provide valuable operational information and proxy 

measures of effectiveness. 

•	 Establishing Minimum Criterion. OSHA has not 

evaluated the impact of its own enforcement 

program in order to establish the minimum criterion 

to evaluate state programs. 

•	 Monitoring Effectiveness. In 2009, OSHA expanded 

monitoring to include on-site case file reviews, but 

had neither changed nor expanded the measures it 

used to evaluate performance. 

WHAT OIG RECOMMENDED 

We made four recommendations to the Assistant 

Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to define 

effectiveness, design measures to quantify impact, 

establish a baseline for State Plan evaluations, and 

revise monitoring to include an assessment of 

effectiveness. 

In responding to our report, OSHA agreed with the 

intent of the recommendations, but had concerns that 

defining effectiveness by relying exclusively on impact 

or outcome measures would be extremely problematic. 

 

 
 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Table of Contents 

Assistant Inspector General’s Report ......................................................................... 1
	

Results In Brief.............................................................................................................. 2
	

Objective — Has OSHA ensured that State Plans operate OSH programs 

that are at least as effective as Federal OSHA?.................................... 3
	

OSHA has not determined the effectiveness of State OSH programs.................. 3
	

Finding — OSHA Has Not Determined If State OSH Programs Are at 

Least as Effective in Improving Workplace Safety and 

Health as Federal OSHA Programs. ................................................ 3
	

Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 9
	

Exhibits 

Exhibit 1 Comments of State OSH Officials on OSHA Monitoring...................... 13
	

Exhibit 2 Data Used by OSHA in Annual Review of State Plans ........................ 15
	

Appendices 

Appendix A Background ..................................................................................... 19
	

Appendix B Objective, Scope, Methodology, and Criteria .................................. 21
	

Appendix C Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................... 23
	

Appendix D OSHA Response to Draft Report .................................................... 25
	

Appendix E Acknowledgements ......................................................................... 29
	

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 


 

 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

March 31, 2011 

Assistant Inspector General’s Report 

Dr. David Michaels 

Assistant Secretary for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

The role of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is to promote 

workers’ safety and health by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, 

outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process 

improvement. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) authorizes 

States1 to assume some responsibilities to develop and enforce safety and health 

standards, and provides for grants of up to 50 percent of operational costs to States 

with programs at least as effective as Federal OSHA. Over a period of nearly 40 

years, OSHA granted $2.4 billion to States to develop and operate effective 

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) programs. 

In Fiscal Year 2010, OSHA granted $104 million for State OSH programs. We audited 

OSHA’s monitoring of all 27 State Plan programs to answer the question: 

•	 Has OSHA ensured that State Plans operate OSH programs that are at least as 

effective as Federal OSHA? 

For the audit, we evaluated internal controls over the monitoring of State Plan 

programs. We reviewed OSHA policies and procedures, and related audit reports from 

OIG and Government Accountability Office (GAO), and OSHA internal monitoring 

reports. We tested compliance with monitoring procedures through interviews and 

examination of documents in two regions (New York City and Philadelphia). We 

interviewed officials at OSHA National and 10 Regional Offices, and the states of New 

Jersey and Maryland. We surveyed all 27 State Plan administrators regarding OSHA 

monitoring. 

1 Includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Trust Territory 

of the Pacific Islands 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

1 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objective. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

OSHA is responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of State OSH programs. While it 

collects statistics on program activities, this is not sufficient to assess a state’s 

effectiveness in protecting workers. OSHA has not designed a method to determine that 

State Plans are at least as effective as Federal OSHA in reducing injuries and illnesses. 

Moreover, OSHA has not evaluated the impact of its own enforcement program in order 

to arrive at minimum criterion to evaluate state programs. State officials generally 

believed their programs were effective, but there was no quantifiable data to 

demonstrate program effectiveness. OSHA required States to make program changes, 

but did not explain how the changes would improve effectiveness. 

In an attempt to ensure quality State programs, OSHA made several revisions to its 

monitoring procedures and measures reviewed. Monitoring was enhanced to include 

on-site reviews of case files. OSHA’s enforcement programs (both State and Federal 

OSHA) were evaluated on (1) injury and illness data, and (2) fatality data. Individual 

States were evaluated on activity-based data including inspection counts, penalty 

amounts, injury and fatality rate trends, Integrated Management Information System 

(IMIS) and recordkeeping, measures for timeliness and completion of inspections, 

violation classification, staffing benchmarks, and timely adoption of standards. Officials 

stated these activity-based measures can be valuable in assessing program operations 

– especially when coupled with on-site reviews. However, OSHA has not developed 

measures to address the core issue of whether State Plans are or are not at least as 

effective as Federal OSHA. State-level injury and illness data were not sufficient for 

comparing outcomes for State Plans with outcomes for states covered by Federal 

OSHA. Also, according to OSHA, injury, illness, and fatality data are unpredictable and 

may be impacted by economic and other factors. 

As a result, OSHA lacks evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of State Plans and 

the merits of any program changes which may impact its decisions on policies, 

enforcement priorities, and funding. OSHA officials admitted to not currently having 

extensive, quantitative performance measures to evaluate the State Plans. They 

acknowledged these measures would be desirable, but difficult to develop. Officials 

agreed that many measures were, by necessity, activity-based rather than outcome 

measures. This was, in part, because outcome data were lacking. 

We made four recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and 

Health: (1) define effectiveness; (2) design measures to quantify impact; (3) establish a 

baseline using Federal OSH programs to evaluate State Plans; and (4) revise 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

2 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

monitoring processes to include assessments about whether State Plans are at least as 

effective as Federal OSHA programs. 

In response to the draft report, the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and 

Health agreed with the intent of the recommendations, and stated OSHA will continue to 

develop additional impact measures for both Federal OSHA and the States. However, 

the Assistant Secretary expressed concern that attempting to define the effectiveness of 

State Plans by relying exclusively on a system of impact or outcome measures is not 

only extremely problematic, but would not fulfill the more specific and extensive 

requirements of the OSH Act. 

We agree with the Assistant Secretary that OSHA should continue to develop impact 

measures to ensure that State programs are effective, and that these measures should 

be used in conjunction with activity-based measures to ensure compliance with OSH 

Act requirements. The Assistant Secretary’s response is included in its entirety as 

Appendix D. 

RESULTS AND FINDINGS 

Objective — Has OSHA ensured that State Plans operate OSH programs that are 

at least as effective as Federal OSHA? 

 OSHA has not determined the effectiveness of State OSH programs. 

Finding — OSHA Has Not Determined If State OSH Programs Are at Least as 

Effective in Improving Workplace Safety and Health as Federal OSHA 

Programs. 

Through FY 2010, OSHA granted $2.4 billion to States to develop and operate effective 

OSH programs. Section 23(g) of the OSH Act authorizes grants for up to 50 percent of 

total operational costs to States with standards and enforcement programs that are at 

least as effective as the Federal OSHA program. However, OSHA has not yet designed 

a method to examine the impact of State programs on workplace safety and health to 

ensure they are effective, and to fully evaluate the merits of any program changes. This 

was identified as an issue by 70 percent of States surveyed. As a result, OSHA lacks 

critical information on performance, which may impact its decisions on policies, 

enforcement priorities, and funding. 

Occupational injuries and illnesses significantly impact worker lives in addition to profits 

and employment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported 4,340 work-related 

fatalities and 965,000 major non-fatal injuries and illnesses for 2009. According to the 

2010 Liberty Mutual Annual Workplace Safety Index, the cost of the most disabling 

workplace injuries and illnesses in 2008 amounted to $53.42 billion in workers 

compensation costs, averaging more than one billion dollars per week.2 Through its 

2 Annual Workplace Safety Index is published by Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety to provide scientific, 

business-relevant knowledge in workplace and highway safety, and work disability. 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

3 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

programs and partners, OSHA claimed it impacted workplace safety and health by 

reducing work-related fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. However, OSHA has not 

quantified the extent of impact, and therefore lacks the requisite information needed to 

make informed decisions. 

States need to maintain valuable and efficient OSH programs with the current strain on 

resources. Both state and local governments are facing budget crises, and must target 

resources more efficiently without sacrificing quality. The majority of the states 

(63 percent) are concerned about recent challenges over budgets and resources. The 

association representing the State Plan states reported for 2009 that the budget for 

State Plans has remained stagnant since 2001 and the ‘real dollars’ available to states 

significantly decreased considering inflation. According to OSHA officials, 2010 State 

Plan funding was increased by $11.8 million in response. 

Defining Effectiveness 

OSHA has not defined effectiveness in the context of State Plan programs. Without 

qualitative factors defining effectiveness, OSHA cannot ensure that State Plans are 

operating in an effective manner. Moreover, OSHA needs to define when State 

programs would be deemed as performance failures, to serve as a basis for using its 

ultimate authority to revoke State Plan approval. 

State Plan Administrators are concerned about a lack of clear expectations, which has 

led to confusion. Federal OSHA has not provided the states the evidence to show that 

their activity-based framework (i.e. number of inspections) correlates to effectiveness. 

Although states think their plans are effective, without an outcome-based framework, 

they cannot show that their activities have improved workplace safety and health. 

GAO had already highlighted many of these issues in their 1988 report, OSHA’s 

Monitoring and Evaluation of State Programs, report number GAO/T-HRD-88-13: 

OSHA Needs to Know the Impact of State Programs on Worker Safety 

and Health 

OSHA’s legislation does not specifically define ‘effectiveness,’ but it does 

require that the states’ standards and their enforcement should be at least 

as effective as those of the federal government ‘in providing safe and 

healthful employment and places of employment.’ OSHA, however, 

defines the effectiveness of state programs in terms of program activities, 

giving little attention to determining what characteristics of state programs 

have contributed to the reduction (or lack of reduction) in workplace 

injuries and illnesses so that program improvements could be made. 

According to OSHA’s State Plan Policies and Procedures Manual, a State OSH 

program is judged to be at least as effective as Federal OSHA if the State is making 

reasonable progress toward meeting its established performance goals and is fulfilling 

its mandated responsibilities. OSHA officials stated that effectiveness “... is not a static 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

4 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

expectation but rather one that changes as the Federal OSHA program changes. 

Whenever a new standard, a new policy, a new emphasis program is implemented, the 

States must respond.” OSHA (1) has not developed fundamental principles of 

effectiveness, and (2) is not required to justify program changes imposed on states, 

while requiring states to do so. In comments to the Federal Register, OSHA stated: 

OSHA believes it would not be practicable or advisable to issue guidance 

defining the term ‘at least as effective.’ ... OSHA must and should 

continue to rely on the States to demonstrate that particular Statedeveloped alternative standards or procedures are ‘at least as effective.’ 

... if OSHA disagrees, it must institute an adjudicatory rejection 

proceeding in which the burden of proof rests with OSHA, not the State.3 

State Plan Administrators expressed concerns that OSHA’s “moving target” approach 

resulted in a lack of clear expectations for programs to be at least as effective, and that 

some of OSHA’s required program changes, such as increasing penalty amounts, may 

not necessarily increase the effectiveness of their states’ programs. Officials for 21 of 27 

states generally believed their programs were effective, based on comprehensive 

knowledge of local employers. (See Exhibit 1 for detailed survey responses from the 

State officials.) 

Most of the States (63 percent) questioned the impact of some of OSHA’s required 

program changes – whether the changes necessarily increased effectiveness. Many 

states claimed to have created unique safety and health initiatives; however, they, along 

with OSHA, lack the data to adequately evaluate the merits of these innovations. As one 

state administrator commented: 

State programs believe that a national dialogue must be undertaken about 

the OSHA paradigm itself, including how OSHA and the state programs 

can come to a clearer understanding of what it means for a state program 

to be at least as effective as OSHA, and how to move cooperatively 

forward to improve workplace safety and health. ... If state programs and 

Federal OSHA have disparate views of effectiveness, and what 

constitutes effectiveness, then a significant philosophical disagreement 

exists. 

Measuring the Effectiveness of State Plan Programs 

Refining the expectation for effectiveness, the Federal Chief Performance Officer (CPO) 

in September 2010 emphasized that government needed to work better, faster, and 

more efficiently. To achieve these goals the CPO stated that “Empirical evidence is an 

essential ingredient for assessing whether government programs are achieving their 

intended outcomes and guiding continuous improvement.” The current administration’s 

strategy for performance management was described in the FY 2012 Analytical 

3 Federal Register, volume 67, number 186, 25 Sep 2002, pp 60123 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

5 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Perspectives Budget Chapter 7 – Delivering High Performance Government,4 as 

follows: 

... Federal agencies must adopt an evidence-based culture in which 

decisions are made using information collected in a timely and consistent 

manner about the effectiveness of specific policies, practices, and 

programs. Strategies for developing evidence exist along a continuum 

from the basic collection of program and outcomes information, to more 

sophisticated performance measurement and formative evaluation 

methods, to rigorous evaluation techniques that measure program and 

practice impacts against a comparison group. 

Transparent, coherent performance information contributes to more 

effective, efficient, fair, inclusive, and responsive government. 

Communicating performance information can support public 

understanding of what government wants to accomplish and how it is 

trying to accomplish it. It can also support learning across government 

agencies, stimulate idea flow, enlist assistance, and motivate performance 

gain. 

In an attempt to measure the quality of state programs, OSHA evaluates individual 

states using activity-based data including inspection counts, penalty amounts, injury and 

fatality rate trends, IMIS/recordkeeping, measures for timeliness and completion of 

inspections, violation classification, staffing benchmarks, and timely adoption of 

standards. However, OSHA has not developed measures to address the core issue of 

whether State Plans are or are not at least as effective as Federal OSHA. This was 

identified as an issue by 70 percent of States surveyed. (See Exhibit 2 for details on 

data collected during OSHA’s annual review of State Plans.) 

OSHA needs to develop measures that can quantify the effect of State Plan programs 

activities on occupational safety and health. OSHA officials admitted to not currently 

having extensive, quantitative performance measures to evaluate the State Plans. The 

officials agreed that many measures were by necessity activity-based because outcome 

data were lacking. Officials stated that activity measures provided valuable information 

on State program operations and were helpful proxy measures of effectiveness. 

Officials from 17 states (63 percent) commented that OSHA’s performance measures 

needed to be re-evaluated. As one state plan administrator stated: 

In the end, the gold standard for success is the reduction of workplace 

fatalities, injuries, and illnesses, as well as fostering concrete changes in 

workplace behavior to increase safety performance, and we will not be 

able to address effectiveness adequately until we have metrics in place 

that tell us how much progress we are making in these areas. ...neither 

4 Source – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives/ Chapter 7-2012 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

6 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

OSHA nor any of the state plans have yet progressed to the point of 

having metrics like these in place. 

Establishing a Minimum Criterion for State Plan Effectiveness 

OSHA has not evaluated the impact of its own enforcement program in order to arrive at 

a minimum criterion to evaluate state programs. Since 1993, the Federal Government 

required effectiveness to be measured through the Government Performance Results 

Act (GPRA) where Federal agencies had to establish objective quantifiable performance 

goals and to measure program results. With its goal to improve workplace safety and 

health, OSHA measures its results using rates for injuries and illnesses, and fatalities. 

However, these measures are not sufficient to conclude on program effectiveness 

because the data are incomplete, unverified, and may be impacted by economic factors. 

OSHA has incomplete information on Federal OSHA states, and consequently lacks the 

requisite baseline against which to gauge state performance. 

For 2009 GPRA reporting, OSHA used two nationwide measures for performance – the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) – Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART)5 rate 

from the Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses; and a fatality rate using 

data from the OSHA Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) and BLS’ 

Current Employment Statistics. For 2010, OSHA used measures from their IMIS on 

fatalities associated with the four leading causes of workplace death. 

However, 2009 and 2010 GPRA data are not adequate measures to determine 

effectiveness. 

•	 State-level DART rate data is not sufficient to present a complete picture of 

injuries and illnesses for comparing outcomes for State Plans with outcomes for 

states covered by Federal OSHA. Private sector state-level DART data was not 

available for 10 states – 20 percent of workplaces and employees covered by 

Federal OSHA. According to BLS, the number of States with available data 

varies from year to year because not all States have sample sizes sufficient to 

generate specific estimates of workplace injuries and illnesses. Industry specific 

data within states also varies, primarily due to the differences in industry 

concentration and sample size from one State to the next. 

•	 Fatalities are also not adequate measures. As stated by OSHA in the FY 2010 

Performance Report, fatalities cannot be predicted and lower fatality numbers 

may be related to economic conditions. 

GAO reported on the lack of program impact data in their 1994 report, Changes Needed 

in the Combined Federal-State Approach, report number GAO/HEHS-94-10: 

5 Source – http://www.bls.gov/iff/oshState.htm. Data set included 41 states and 3 territories for 2009. 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

7 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

The experience in these states, as well as the results of several empirical 

studies, lead us to believe that using worksite-specific data in addition to 

industry-aggregated data could improve OSHA’s inspection targeting, 

education and training efforts, and evaluations of program impact. 

Since OSHA has not established a baseline to evaluate its own program, OSHA’s 

current measures to conclude on state program effectiveness are not sufficient. 

Consequently, OSHA lacks the clear understanding of the impact of State programs on 

safety and health. 

Monitoring for Effectiveness 

The Act does not specifically require OSHA to monitor for effectiveness, but it is implied 

in its requirements, such as the criterion that grants are to be awarded to States with 

plans at least as effective as Federal OSHA. The State Plan Policies and Procedures 

Manual states the purpose of Chapter 9 -- Evaluation of State Performance and Annual 

Reports, is to describe the methods used to evaluate States' effectiveness. However, 

these guidelines require that States progress toward their activity goals, and these goals 

are not tied to maintaining effective programs. As a result, OSHA lacks procedures to 

evaluate the effectiveness of State Plans and the merits of any program changes. 

The OSH Act required continuing evaluations of states operating under approved plans 

to ensure that the programs are at least as effective as Federal OSHA. Additionally, the 

Assistant Secretary will determine whether the State plan provides an adequate method 

to assure that its standards will continue to be at least as effective as Federal 

standards, including Federal standards relating to issues covered by the plan, which 

become effective subsequent to any approval of the plan. OSHA is required to 

determine potential outcomes of departures from the Federal program, and if the 

differences have an adverse impact on the “at least as effective as” status of state 

programs. 

Over the years, OSHA's monitoring has changed from a system of measuring the states 

against Federal performance on various indicators to the current reviews that measure 

state performance against the state's own goals. OSHA also varied its level of oversight 

between desk and on-site reviews. In the 1970s, monitoring was on-site, intensive, and 

included reviews of state enforcement case files, accompanying inspectors to observe 

their work, and manual data gathering. In the mid-1980s, OSHA discontinued routine 

accompanied visits and case file reviews. In the mid-1990s, oversight was again 

reduced to a goal-based system whereby states developed 5-year strategic and annual 

performance plans that included goals of reducing workplace injuries, illnesses and 

fatalities. OSHA evaluated state performance in relation to the planned goals by 

performing the following tasks: (1) verifying state-supplied data with data from BLS; 

(2) tracking timely adoption of new Federal OSH standards by the States; and (3) 

meeting quarterly with State OSH officials. 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

8 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 

 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

In 2009, OSHA initiated significant changes in monitoring to increase comprehensive 

oversight of all state programs due to problems found in the Nevada program. In 2008, 

Nevada OSH received favorable monitoring reports. While in media coverage, Nevada 

OSH was sharply criticized on the handling of 25 fatalities. Complaints filed with OSHA 

and congressional interest prompted OSHA to conduct a special on-site review of the 

state program, which revealed significant operational issues. Congressional staffers 

expressed concern that OSHA’s Federal monitoring reports were inadequate since 

Nevada OSH received glowing reviews despite having serious problems. 

Subsequently, OSHA decided to conduct special on-site reviews of the other State 

Plans. These Enhanced Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation (EFAME) reviews 

provided detailed findings and more than 650 recommendations on the structure and 

processes for 25 of the 27 State Plan OSH programs.6 The EFAME reviews required 

more on-site monitoring that focused on compliance with Federal OSHA program 

structure and procedures. Generally, State officials considered OSHA recommendations 

to be feasible, but some commented on the substance of the recommendations. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health: 

1. Define effectiveness in terms of the impact of State OSH programs on workplace 

safety and health. 

2. Design measures to quantify the impact of State OSH on workplace safety and 

health. 

3. Measure Federal OSH program to establish a baseline to evaluate State OSH 

effectiveness. 

4. Assure effectiveness by revising the monitoring processes to include comparison 

of the impact of State OSH and Federal OSHA. 

We appreciate the cooperation and courtesies that OSHA personnel extended to the 

Office of Inspector General during this audit. OIG personnel who made major 

contributions to this report are listed in Appendix E. 

Elliot P. Lewis 

Assistant Inspector General for Audit 

6 Illinois was excluded from the process due to the fact that it is a developmental program. Nevada was excluded due 

to the fact that the EFAME process was triggered by issues discovered in the State. 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

9 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

10 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 


 


 


 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Exhibits 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

11 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

12 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 

Comment 

Number 

of States 

Percent 

of States 

State OSH Program Background 

1 State plans are more tailored / responsive to needs of the State. 21 78% 

2 Concern over recent challenges with staffing/training/funding. 17 63% 

Federal Monitoring 

3 Federal OSHA does not define effectiveness. 19 70% 

4 Mandated activities have little impact/no added-value to program 

effectiveness. 

17 63% 

5 Findings and recommendations were either not supported; not 

applicable to the State; or changed in post-monitoring process. 

16 59% 

Suggestions for Improving Federal Monitoring 

6 OSHA's effectiveness measures need to be re-evaluated and 

more outcome, rather than, output-oriented. 

17 63% 

7 Federal OSHA should be more knowledgeable of State Plans, so 

that monitors can be flexible and account for their uniqueness. 

15 56% 

8 States want more consistency/direction in monitoring, so 

expectations are made clear. 

12 44% 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Exhibit 1 

Comments of State OSH Officials on OSHA Monitoring 

A. Narrative Comments Expressed by the Majority of State Officials Surveyed 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

13 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 
Number Percent 

Survey Multiple Choice Questions of States of States 

1. What are the advantages to having your own State OSH? (Check all that apply) 

More flexibility in response to specific needs of the workforce in the 27 100% 

state. 

Maintaining state autonomy over worker safety and health 

programs. 

25 93% 

Federal funding to assist with program costs 21 78% 

More comprehensive safety and health program in comparison to 

Federal OSHA. 

21 78% 

Federal technical assistance in setting enforcing standards 14 52% 

Creating employment within state 14 52% 

2. What are the disadvantages to having your own State OSH? (Check all that apply) 

Mandated activities and programs do not apply to state needs 17 63% 
 

3. From the most recent annual report, how feasible are recommendations from 

Federal OSHA? (Check one) 

Very feasible (i.e. feasible 75% - 100% of the time) 5 19% 

Usually feasible (i.e. feasible 50% - 74% of the time) 15 56% 

Usually not feasible (i.e. feasible 25% - 49% of the time) 4 15% 

Unacceptable (i.e. feasible 1% - 24% of the time) 1 4% 

Unfeasible (i.e. never feasible) 1 4% 

No Response 1 4% 

4. What challenges does your State face in addressing the recommendations? 

(Check all that apply) 

Not necessary - disagree with OSHA about problem 17 63% 
 

5. What is your overall opinion of Federal OSHA monitoring of your State OSH 

program? (Check one) 

Excellent 2 7% 

Very Good 5 19% 

Neutral opinion 4 15% 

Needs improvement 13 48% 

Needs a total revamp 3 11% 


 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

B. Selected Answers to Survey Multiple Choice Questions 

For questions 1, 2, and 4, only the top (over 50 percent) answers for advantages, disadvantages and 

challenges are summarized below. For questions 3 and 5 rating the feasibility of recommendations 

and overall opinion of monitoring, all answers are included. 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

14 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Exhibit 2 

Data Used by OSHA in Annual Review of State Plans 

A. Enforcement Activity – Compare the State; all state plans; and Federal OSHA 

1. Total Inspections - Number 

a. Safety Inspections – Number and Percent 

b. Health Inspections – Number and Percent 

c. Construction Inspections – Number and Percent 

d. Public Sector Inspections – Number and Percent 

e. Programmed Inspections – Number and Percent 

f. Complaint Inspections – Number and Percent 

g. Accident Inspections - Number 

h. Inspections with Violations Cited – Number and Percent 

i. Inspections with Violations Cited – Percent with Serious Violations 

2. Total Violations - Number 

a. Serious Violations – Number and Percent 

b. Willful Violations - Number 

c. Repeat Violations - Number 

d. Serious/Willful/Repeat Violations – Number and Percent 

e. Failure to Abate - Number 

f. Other than Serious – Number and Percent 

g. Average # Violations per Initial Inspection 

3. Total Penalties – Dollar Value 

a. Average Current Penalty/Serious Violation 

b. Average Current Penalty/Serious Violation -Private Sector Only 

c. Percent Penalty Reduced 

4. Percent Inspections with Contested Violations 

a. Average Case Hours per Inspection - Safety 

b. Average Case Hours per Inspection - Health 

c. Lapsed Days from Inspection to Citation Issued – Safety 

d. Lapsed Days from Inspection to Citation - Health 

e. Open, Non-Contested Cases with Incomplete Abatement Over 60 days 

B. State Activity Mandated Measures – Compare State with standard/negotiated goal 

1. Average number of days to initiate Complaint Inspections 

2. Average number of days to initiate Complaint Investigations 

3. Percent of Complaints where Complainants were notified on time 

4. Percent of Complaints/Referrals responded to within 1 day –Imminent Danger 

5. Number of Denials where entry not obtained 

6. Percent of Serious/Willful/Repeat Violations verified (Private/Public 

7. Average calendar days from Opening Conference to Citation Issue (Safety/Health) 

8. Percent of Programmed Inspections with Serious/Willful/Repeat Violations
	

(Safety/Health) 

9. Average Violations per Inspection with Violations (Serious/Willful/Repeat and Other) 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

15 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 

10. Average Initial Penalty per Serious Violations (Private Sector Only) 

11. Percent of Total Inspections in Public Sector 

12. Average Lapse Time from Receipt of Contest to First Level Decision 

13. Percent of 11c (Whistleblower) Investigations Completed Within 90 Days 

14. Percent of 11c (Whistleblower) Complaints that are Meritorious 

15. Percent of Meritorious 11c Complaints that are Settled 

C. State Indicator Report – Compare State against Federal OSHA 

1. Enforcement (Private Sector) 

a. Programmed Inspections – Safety/Health (number and percent) 

b. Programmed Inspections with Violations – Safety/Health (number and percent) 

c. Serious Violations – Safety/Health (number and percent) 

d. Abatement Period for Violations – Safety > 30 days and Health > 60 days 

e. Average Penalty – Other than Serious – Safety/Health 

f. Inspections per 100 hours – Safety/Health 

g. Violations Vacated (number and percent) 

h. Violations Reclassified (number and percent) 

i. Penalty Retention (number and percent) 

2. Enforcement (Public Sector) 

a. Programmed Inspections – Safety/Health (number and percent) 

b. Serious Violations – Safety/Health (number and percent) 

3. Review Procedures 

a. Violations Vacated (number and percent) 
 

b. Violations Reclassified (number and percent) 
 

c. Penalty Retention (number and percent) 
 

D. BLS Rates/Data 

1. Days, Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART) rate and related trends. 
 

2. On-the-job Total Recordable Case rate and related trends. 
 

E. Information Management 

1. Types of reports and frequency of use for IMIS generated forms. 
 

2. Quantification of the upkeep of IMIS forms. 
 

F. Staffing Benchmarks and Training 

1. Staffing levels for both safety and health personnel (actual versus goal). 
 

2. Compliance with OSHA's training requirements for OSH personnel. 
 

G. Standards adoption tracking 

1. Time elapsed by state to adopt new OSHA standards. 

2. Tracking of standards not adopted within the requisite 6 months. 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

16 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 


 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendices 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

17 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

18 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix A 

Background 

The role of OSHA is to promote the safety and health of workers by setting and 

enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing 

partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and 

health. The OSH Act of 1970 authorizes States to assume some responsibilities to 

develop and enforce safety and health standards, and provides for grants of up to 50 

percent of operational costs to States with programs at least as effective as Federal 

OSHA. With OSH Act funding match, Congress encouraged States to operate effective 

OSH programs and develop innovative approaches to safety and health. By 2011, 

22 States and Territories operated OSH plans covering public and private employees, 

while 5 States and Territories operated OSH plans covering only public employees. 

Table 1: State Plans – Covered Sectors and Approval Dates 

Covered Sectors 

State Plans 

Public / Public 

Private Only9 

Initial 

Approval 

Date 

Certified7 Final 

Approval8 

Alaska X 7/31/73 9/09/77 9/28/84 

Arizona 

California10 

X 

X 

10/29/74 

4/24/73 

9/18/81 

8/12/77 

6/20/85 

Connecticut X 10/02/73 8/19/86 

Hawaii 

Illinois 

X 

X11 

12/28/73 

9/01/09 

4/26/78 4/30/84 

Indiana X 2/25/74 9/24/81 9/26/86 

Iowa X 7/20/73 9/14/76 7/02/85 

Kentucky X 7/23/73 2/08/80 6/13/85 

Maryland 

Michigan10 

X 

X 

6/28/73 

9/24/73 

2/15/80 

1/16/81 

7/18/85 

Minnesota X 5/29/73 9/28/76 7/30/85 

Nevada X 12/04/73 8/13/81 4/18/00 

New Jersey 

New Mexico10 X 

X 1/11/01 

12/04/75 12/04/84 

New York X 6/01/84 8/18/06 

North Carolina X 1/26/73 9/29/76 12/10/96 

Oregon 

Puerto Rico10 

X 

X 

12/22/72 

8/15/77 

9/15/82 

9/07/82 

5/12/05 

South Carolina X 11/30/72 7/28/76 12/15/87 

Tennessee X 6/28/73 5/03/78 7/22/85 

Utah X 1/04/73 11/11/76 7/16/85 

Vermont10 X 10/01/73 3/04/77 

X12 Virgin Islands 7/01/03 

Virginia X 9/23/76 8/15/84 11/30/88 

Washington10 X 1/19/73 1/26/82 

Wyoming X 4/25/74 12/18/80 6/27/85 

7 OSHA determined that developmental steps were satisfactorily completed.
	 8 OSHA relinquished concurrent Federal jurisdiction.
	 9 Plan covered State and local government employees only. 10 OSHA accepted operational status agreement and suspended concurrent Federal jurisdiction.
	 11 State received developmental plan covering State and local government employees only.
	 12 State granted final approval in 1984, but voluntarily withdrew from private sector jurisdiction (68 FR 43457, 7/23/03)
	

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

19 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 


 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

The following describes the basic steps for developing and approving State Plans. 

Developmental Plans – States must assure that all the structural elements for 

an operational OSH program will be in place within 3 years. These elements 

include: appropriate legislation; standards and procedures for standard setting, 

enforcement, appeal of citations and penalties; and a sufficient number of 

competent enforcement personnel. Appropriate state legislation must be enacted 

and matching Federal funds available prior to OSHA approval. 

Certified Plans – States have completed and documented its developmental 

steps. Certification does not include decisions on actual performance. 

Operational Status Agreement – OSHA may offer to States that appear 

capable of independently enforcing standards. OSHA voluntarily limits 

discretionary Federal enforcement in all or certain activities covered by the plan. 

Final Approval Plans – OSHA relinquishes its authority to cover OSH matters 

covered by the plan. After at least 1 year of certification, the state may request 

final approval. OSHA determines whether the State program is providing worker 

protection at least as effective as the Federal program. State also must meet 

established staffing benchmarks13 and participate in IMIS. 

For FY 2010, States were granted funding between $201,000 (Virgin Islands) and 

$23,013,900 (California). Total funding over the last 5 years is summarized below. 

Table 2: State Plan Funding 

FY Funding14
	

2010 $104.4 million 

2009 $92.6 million 

2008 $89.5 million 

2007 $91.1 million 

2006 $91.1 million 

According to OSHA officials, State Plans were originally approved and funded at 

whatever level the State requested. Over a period of time, some States increased their 

funding contribution, but OSHA no longer had sufficient grant funds to match the States' 

expanded contribution. A funding formula was developed by a Federal/State task group 

with the goal of moving toward more equitable, consistent funding nationwide – to 

establish a uniform base and help the "under-funded" without taking money away from 

the other states. OSHA used the DART rate as objective criterion and granted the 

largest allocations to “under-funded” states with highest rates. The funding formula was 

used on rare occasions when Congress allocates additional funds, beyond a cost-ofliving adjustment, and was applied only to the increase. 

13 In the 1978 decision AFL-CIO v. Marshall, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the court 

ruled that States must provide sufficient compliance personnel for a “fully effective” program. 14 Excludes Recovery Act funds of $1.5 million to 7 States for ARRA-related inspections (7/09-9/10) 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

20 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix B 

Objective, Scope, Methodology, and Criteria 

Objective 

Has OSHA ensured that State Plans operate OSH programs that are at least as 

effective as Federal OSHA? 

Scope 

The audit covered 27 States with OSH programs in FY 2010 – 22 States cover both 

public and private sectors employers, and 5 States cover only public sector employers. 

OSHA granted $2.4 billion to develop and operate State OSH programs since 1972. 

FY 2010 funding totaled $104 million. 

Methodology 

A performance audit includes an understanding of internal controls considered 

significant to the audit objective and testing compliance with significant laws, 

regulations, and other requirements. In planning and performing our audit, we 

considered internal controls significant to the audit were properly designed and placed 

in operation. This included reviewing OSHA’s policies and procedures for monitoring 

State Plan programs. We confirmed our understanding of these controls and 

procedures through interviews and documentation review. 

Specifically, we reviewed OSHA policies and procedures, related OIG and GAO reports, 

and OSHA internal monitoring reports. We tested compliance with monitoring 

procedures through interviews and examination of documents in two regions (New York 

and Philadelphia) and two states within the regions (New Jersey and Maryland) 

selected judgmentally based on characteristics of the state program including workers 

covered, injury rates, and funding. We interviewed officials at OSHA National and all 10 

Regional Offices. We surveyed all 27 State Plan Administrators regarding OSHA 

monitoring. 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objective. 

Criteria 

•	 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Public Law 91-596, 

December 29, 1970, as amended, Sections 6, 18, and 23 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

21 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

•	 Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR Parts 1902 and 1952 thru 1956 

•	 OSHA’s State Plan Policies and Procedures Manual, OSH directive nos. 

STP 2-0.22B and STP 2-0.22A, Change 3 

•	 Government Performance Results Act (Public Law 103-62, August 3, 1993) and 

GPRA Modernization Act (Public Law 111-352, January, 4, 2011) 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

22 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix C 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CPO Federal Chief Performance Officer 

DART Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

EFAME Enhanced Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation 

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office 

GPRA Government Performance Results Act of 1993 

IMIS Integrated Management Information System 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

State OSH State Plan Occupational Safety and Health Programs 

OSH Act Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

23 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 


 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

24 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 
u.s. Department of labor 

MAR 3 I 2011 

MEMORANDUM FOR: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

Assistant SecretaI)' for 

Occupalional Safety WId Health 

Washington, D.C. :2021 0 

ELLIOT P. LEWIS 

Assistant Inspector General r Audit 

D~~'MPH Response to OIO's Draft Audit Report 

# 02-11-201-10-105 

"OSHA Had Not Determined if State OSH Programs Were at 

Least as Effective in Improving Workplace Safety and Health As 

Federal OSHA's Programs" 

'Ibis memorandum is in response to your March 21, 2011, transmittal of the Officc of Inspector 

General (OIG) Draft Audit Report No. 02-11 -201-10-105, "OSHA Had Not Determined if Slate 

OSH Programs Were at Least as Effective in Improving Workplace Safety and Health As 

Federal OSHA's Programs." We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the lindings and 

recommendations of the oro. While we agree with the intent of the recommendations, we are 

also concemed that attempting to define the effectiveness of State plans by relying exclusively 

on a system of impact or outcome measures is not only extremely problematic, but would not 

fulfill the more specific and extensivc requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (The Act). 

As you note in this report, while Congress required OSHA to approve stale plans that are "at 

least as effective" as the federal program,--the Act does not specifically define "effective." In 

addition, the law requires federal OSHA to conduct a "continuing evaluation of the manner in 

which each Stale ... is carrying out such plan. " While we agree that outcome measures are 

desirable for evaluating the effectiveness of both the Federal OSHA program and the programs 

of the 27 States that operate their own OSHA-approved State plans, OSHA does not agree with 

the report's dismissal of activity or performance measures as ineffective or meaningless in 

determining states' effectiveness or the extent to which they are carrying out their plan. 

Congress did not simply direct OSHA to achieve a particular outcome. Section IS of the Act 

""'lllires OSHA to vlliuate all aspect~ of a State program, not only its results. There are very 

prescriptive requirements in the Act and OSHA's implementing regulations for the organization 

and operation of OSHA-approved State Plans for which Federal funding is provided. For 

example, Section l8(e)(2) of the Act requires federal OSHA to determine that State Pian 

standards and their enforcement are at least as effective as federal OSHA 's and mandates certain 

activities that constitute a system of enforcement. Section is(c)(3) requires states to provide for 


 

 
 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix D 

OSHA Response to Draft Report 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

25 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 


 


 


 

2 

employee and employer rights, protection for whistleblowcrs, the identification and citation of 

hazards, the proposal of first instance sanctions as a deterrent to non-compliance prior to 

inspection and other "activities" that arc integral elements of an effective program. These 

statutorily mandated activities must be evaluated and Section 18(f) requires federal OSHA to 

ensure that State Plans do not fail "to comply substantially with any provision of the State plan." 

We believe that activities measures are not only interim tools that can be used as the agency 

develops outcome measures, but are in themselves important indicators of program operation and 

effectiveness. An evaluation of outcomes will not necessarily reflect the quality or adequacy of 

these activities and therefore would fail as an evaluation of these activities. 

OSHA is certainly aware of the importance - and the difficulty -of using outcome measures to 

detennine the effectiveness ofthc federal or state programs. In fact, the Department of Labor's 

FY 2011·20 16 Strategic Plan commits its agencies, including OSHA, "to measuring outcomes 

that describe the effect of the agencies' activities On the day·to-day lives of working families." 

The Strategic Plan also rceognizes, however, that ~worker protection agencies face R more 

daunting task in determining whether the enforcement strategies undertaken in a given year are 

having an effect on broader outcome rates" and points to the use of"oUlcome data trends, 

analysis of annual performance, and the corresponding OUl·puts" to measure improved 

performance. 

Background 

In order to unde~tand OSHA's activities in this an:a, it is important to understand the recent 

history ufStale Plan oversight and ule cha.nges that OSHA is in the proces~ ufimplemcnting. 

The monitoring system used in the evaluations of the State Plans immediately preceding the 

Nevada Special Study in 2009 and the Enhanced FAME effort in the other States was the system 

developed during the mid-to·late· 1990's which focused on achievement oftbe State's ovro goals 

rather than extensive activities measures and on-site monitoring. 

It was the more intensive review of activities measures, in addition to ease file reviews and an 

on·sile monit~ring component conducted as part oflbe 2009 Special Study in Nevada'and 

Enhanced FAME effort in the other Slates that revealed the significant operational issues. 

Indeed, this demonstrates the significance of activity measures and the imponance ofrevicwing 

areas other than outcome data in determining the effectiveness of a State's program. 

OSHA's FY 2009 Enhanced Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation (EF AME) Reports and 

guidance for FY 2011 monitoring are responses to problems identified with the current system 

Ihat was developed and implemented in the mid-to-late-1990's. Tbat system, partly a response to 

recommendations by the Government Accountability Office and the Government Perfonnance 

and Results Act (GPRA), moved OSHA's federal oversight 10 a more outeome·based monitoring 

system, and focused on each Slate's own Strategic Plan and the achievement of the State's own 

goals, with minimal on·site monitoring activity. Experience under this system has demonstrated 

that some problems with State enforcement were not being identified, and that more 

FederaVState comparison measures and on-site monitoring are needed. 


 


 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

26 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 


 


 

3 

RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS 

Recommendation 1: Deline eITectiveness in terms of the impact of State OSH programs on 

workplace safety and heallh. 

OSHA Response: OSHA agrees that measuring the impact orSta!e programs on workplace 

safety and health would be useful in determining the effectiveness of State programs. That is 

why OSHA uses reductions in inju!)' and illness rates as well as reductions in fatality rales as 

outcome measures to assess the success of both the State and Federal programs. OSHA and 

DOL are continuing to develop additional impact measures for both Federal OSHA and the 

States. lbis is a difficult task, and OSHA would welcome any suggestions for such measures or 

information on studies that may bave produced such measure~. 

OSHA is concerned, however, that attempting to define the effectiveness of State plans by 

relying exclusively on a system of impact or outcome measures is not only extremely 

problematic, but, as discussed above, would not fulfill the more specific and extensive 

requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Indeed, if outcome measures, 

such as injury, illness and fatality rates had been used as an cxclusive measure of effectiveness, 

Nevada would have continued to receive an effective rating despite the serious problems that 

federal OSHA identified in its special study. OSHA believes that appfOpriate activity or 

performancc measures can be useful in determining states' efIectiveness and the extent to which 

thcyare carrying out their plan 

As a Federally funded program, States must account for the performance of the funded activities 

as well as results. In addition, OSHA's activity m~asures are not solely counts of numbers of 

inspections or other activities; thcy focus on the timeliness of responses to complaints, fatalities, 

and othcr cvents, on the preservation of employee and employer rights, including the protection 

of whistle blowers, on the ability of Slates to target their inspections to those workplaces where 

hazards are likely to occur, and on the actions taken when hazards are discovered. OSHA 

believes that these and other factors, as set out in 'e Act, must also be considered in defining 

effectiveness. The DOL Strategic Plan notes that if agencies are doing their jobs properly, 

producing outputs in a sufficient quantity should lXoduee the desired outcomes. Thus, while 

OSHA will continue to take action with regard to developing impact measures, we do not expect 

that they will be the only measuremenl of State program effectiveness. 

Recommendation 2: Design measures to quantify the impact of State OSH on workplace 

safety and hea lth. 

OSHA Response: As discussed above, OSHA is working to develop impact measures for both 

Federal OSHA and State plans. The DOL strategic planning process emphasized the 

development of outcome measures and the need to link them to impact. DOL is working with its 

enforcement agencies in the development of these measures, in addition to the continued 

development of appropriate activity measures, panicularly for the worker protection agencies. 

There are several ongoing DOL studies to this end. 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

27 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 


 


 


 

4 

Recommendation 3: Measure Federal OSH program to establish a baseline to evaluate 

Stale OSH effectiveness. 

OSHA Response: On the Federal level, the Department of Labor FY 2011·2016 Strategic Plan 

envisions a review of trends in compliance, violation, or discrimination rates as measures of 

impact.! OSHA looks at injUI)', illness, and fatality rates in selected sectors as one indication of 

OSHA's impact, while acknowledging that there are inherent problems with these data, among 

them the reliance on employer self-reporting for injury and iHness data, the data's heavy 

dependence on the level of economic activity and the changing composition oflhe economy 

from manufacturing to the service sector_ In some state plan states, BLS has noted that the 

sample Si7..e is not large enough to present a ~omplete picture of injuries and illnesses. 

Neverthcless, OSHA will continue to seek methods of addressing this issue and include State 

plans in the process as appropriate. 

Recommenda tion 4: Assure effectiveness by revising the monitoring proeesses to include 

comparison of th e impact of State OS" and Federal OSHA. 

OSHA Response: Any useful impact measures will be incorporated into a new OSHA State 

plan monitoring system which Federal OSHA is currently developing in consultation with the 

states. As finalizing this system will take some time, we plan in the interim to revise OSHA's 

monitoring system by developing more meaningful activities measures that will directly compare 

State to Fcderal perfonllance and strengthening monitoring procedures to mandatc on-site 

monitoring activities including review of State enforcement case filcs. We are also 

implementing a system to give States moce advance notice of, and input illto, changes to the 

Federal program which will impact their programs, induding National Emphasis programs and 

penalty policies. We also agree that we need to provide more explanation and justification to the 

States on why we are changing policies and programs that affect them. We will include more 

background infonnation on the reasons behind new policies and procedures in future issuances. 

We appreciate yOUT review and assistance, and thc cooperation of your staff, as we work toward 

our common goal of ensuring that State OSHA programs are at least as efIeclive as the Federd! 

program. 

'Trends, p. 16, Department or Labor FY 2011-2016 Strategic Plan 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

28 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 
 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix E 

Acknowledgements 

Key contributors to this report were Mark Schwartz (Audit Director), Rebecca Bowen, 

Danielle Brown-Buzan, Sean Ally, Enrique Lozano, Reza Noorani and Mary Lou 

Casazza. 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

29 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 


 


 

U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

OSHA Monitoring of State OSH Effectiveness 

30 Report No. 02-11-201-10-105 

 

 


 

TO REPORT FRAUD, WASTE OR ABUSE, PLEASE CONTACT: 

Online: http://www.oig.dol.gov/hotlineform.htm 

Email: hotline@oig.dol.gov 

Telephone: 1-800-347-3756 

202-693-6999 

Fax: 202-693-7020 

Address: Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Room S-5506 

Washington, D.C. 20210