An Approach for Measuring Reductions in

Construction Worker Illnesses and Injuries:

Baseline Measures of Construction Industry

Practices for the National Construction Goals

Robert E. Chapman

Sponsored by:

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

and

Subcommittee on Construction and Building

Committee on Civilian Industrial Technology

National Science and Technology Council

September 2000

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary

TECHNOLOGY ADMINSTRATION

Dr. Cheryl L. Shavers, Under Secretary for Technology

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLGOY

Raymond G. Kammer, Director

NISTIR 6473 U.S. Department of Commerce

Technology Administration

National Institute of Standards and Technology
ii
iii

Abstract

The Construction and Building Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology

Council is developing baseline measures of current construction industry practices and

measures of progress with respect to each of the seven National Construction Goals. The

seven National Construction Goals are concerned with: (1) reductions in the delivery time

of constructed facilities; (2) reductions in operations, maintenance, and energy costs; (3)

increases in occupant productivity and comfort; (4) reductions in occupant-related

illnesses and injuries; (5) reductions in waste and pollution; (6) increases in the durability

and flexibility of constructed facilities; and (7) reductions in construction worker

illnesses and injuries. Baseline measures and measures of progress are being produced

for each of the four key construction industry sectors. The four sectors are: (1)

residential; (2) commercial/institutional; (3) industrial; and (4) public works. This report

provides a detailed set of baseline measures for National Construction Goal 7 (reductions

in construction worker illnesses and injuries). As such, it describes data sources, data

classifications, and the metrics used to develop the baseline measures. Extensive use of

charts and tables is made throughout this document to illustrate the process by which the

baseline measures were developed.

Keywords

benchmarking; building economics; construction; construction safety and health; costs;

economic analysis; metrics; occupational illnesses; occupational injuries
iv
v

Preface

This study was conducted by the Office of Applied Economics in the Building and Fire

Research Laboratory (BFRL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST). The study was sponsored by the Construction and Building Subcommittee of the

National Science and Technology Council. The BFRL project, of which this study is a

part, seeks to develop baseline measures and measures of progress with respect to each of

the seven National Construction Goals. These measures are to be disseminated both

through publications and, ultimately, electronically via the World Wide Web. The

intended audience for this report is the Construction and Building Subcommittee member

organizations as well as construction industry representatives, the occupational safety and

health community, and other interested parties.
vi
vii

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank all those who contributed so many excellent ideas and

suggestions which he has attempted to incorporate into this report. The author wishes to

thank Dr. Jack E. Snell and Mr. John Talbott, Co-Chairs of the Construction and Building

Subcommittee, and Dr. Andrew J. Fowell, Secretariat of the Construction and Building

Subcommittee, for their guidance, suggestions, and support. The author wishes to thank

the Construction Industry Institute (CII) for providing an aggregated, project-level data

set covering the commercial/institutional, industrial, and public works sectors. Special

thanks are extended to Dr. Kirk Morrow, formerly with CII, and Dr. Stephen Thomas,

CII Assistant Director for Benchmarking, for their stimulating discussions on the uses of

these data. Special appreciation is extended to Drs. Harold E. Marshall and Sieglinde K.

Fuller of the Office of Applied Economics at NIST’s Building and Fire Research

Laboratory (BFRL) for the thoroughness of their reviews and for their many insights and

to Ms. Catherine Linthicum for her assistance in preparing the manuscript for review and

publication. Special appreciation is also extended to Mr. Matt Gillen, Senior Scientist,

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and to the members of

the NIOSH Construction Steering Committee for their many helpful comments. Special

appreciation is also extended to Dr. Earl S. Pollack, Senior Statistical Advisor, The

Center to Protect Worker's Rights (CPWR) and to the staff at CPWR for their many

helpful comments. Special appreciation is also extended to Mr. Daniel Cardy, formerly

with BFRL’s Office of Applied Economics, who helped immensely with the data

collection and analysis effort during his summer internship. Thanks are also due to Ms.

Christine Izzo of BFRL's Office of Applied Economics for her comments on the earlier

drafts of this report and for her assistance in interpreting the results of the data analysis

effort.
viii
ix

Table of Contents

Abstract .........................................................................................................................iii

Preface ............................................................................................................................ v

Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................vii

List of Figures................................................................................................................ xi

List of Tables............................................................................................................... xiv

List of Exhibits............................................................................................................. xvi

List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................... xvi

Executive Summary .................................................................................................... xvii

1. Introduction................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Scope and Approach.............................................................................................. 3

2. The National Construction Goals: A Tool for Promoting Competitiveness Within the

Construction Industry ................................................................................................5

2.1 Description of the National Construction Goals..................................................... 5

2.2 Baseline Measures................................................................................................. 8

2.3 Measures of Progress............................................................................................. 8

2.4 Interactions Between the National Construction Goals, the Baseline Measures, and

the Measures of Progress....................................................................................... 9

2.5 Criteria for Data Selection ................................................................................... 10

2.6 Special Requirements Due to Data Classification Issues...................................... 11

2.7 How This Document Helps.................................................................................. 12

3. Baseline Measures of Construction Worker Illnesses and Injuries Data .................... 13

3.1 Data Considerations: Sources, Availability, and Constraints................................ 13

3.2 Baseline Measures: Key Incidence Rates for Construction Worker Illnesses and

Injuries................................................................................................................ 15

3.3 Trends in Key Incidence Rates for Construction Worker Illnesses and Injuries.... 35

3.4 Synthesis of Industry-Wide and Sector Specific Baseline Measures .................... 40

4. How Safety Practice Use Affects Performance ........................................................ 43

4.1 Overview of Safety Practices............................................................................... 44

4.2 Empirical Consideration Based on Construction Industry Institute Data .............. 51

4.2.1 Construction Industry Institute Annual Safety Report................................. 51
x

4.2.2 The Construction Industry Institute Benchmarking and Metrics Database... 54

4.3 Lessons Learned.................................................................................................. 95

5. Summary and Suggestions for Further Research...................................................... 97

5.1 Summary............................................................................................................. 97

5.2 Suggestions for Further Research ........................................................................ 98

Appendix Overview of the Construction Industry ..................................................... 101

A.1 Value of Construction Put in Place.................................................................... 101

A.2 Nature of Construction Activity ........................................................................ 106

A.3 Employment in Construction ............................................................................ 119

References .................................................................................................................. 125
xi

List of Figures

Figure 3-1. Nonfatal Occupational Injury and Illness Incidence Rates per 100 Full-Time

Workers by Industry, 1994 ............................................................................. 17

Figure 3-2. Nonfatal Occupational Illness Incidence Rates per 10,000 Full-Time Workers

by Industry, 1994 ........................................................................................... 29

Figure 3-3. Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries per 100,000 Employed Workers by

Industry, 1994 ................................................................................................ 32

Figure 3-4. Percent of Construction Worker Fatalities by Type of Incident, 1994 ............. 33

Figure 3-5. Recordable Incidence Rate and Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Years

1989-1997...................................................................................................... 35

Figure 3-6. Rate of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the Construction

Industry by Employment Size Group for Years 1994-1997............................. 37

Figure 3-7. Illness Incidence Rate for Years 1989-1997.................................................... 38

Figure 3-8. Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries in the Construction Industry for Years

1992-1997...................................................................................................... 39

Figure 3-9. Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries in the Construction Industry by Class of

Worker for Years 1992-1997.......................................................................... 40

Figure 4-1. Recordable Incidence Rate for Years 1989-1997 ............................................ 53

Figure 4-2. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Years 1989-1997 ............................... 53

Figure 4-3. CII Database by Respondent Type.................................................................. 57

Figure 4-4. CII Database by Industry Type ....................................................................... 57

Figure 4-5. CII Database by Cost of Project...................................................................... 58

Figure 4-6. CII Database by Nature of Project .................................................................. 59

Figure 4-7. CII Database by Craft Workhours................................................................... 59

Figure 4-8. Recordable Incidence Rate by Respondent ..................................................... 61

Figure 4-9. Recordable Incidence Rate by Industry Group................................................ 62

Figure 4-10. Recordable Incidence Rate by Cost Category ................................................. 63
xii

Figure 4-11. Recordable Incidence Rate by the Nature of the Project.................................. 64

Figure 4-12. Recordable Incidence Rate by Craft Workhours ............................................. 65

Figure 4-13. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Respondent ........................................ 66

Figure 4-14. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Industry Group................................... 67

Figure 4-15. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Cost Category .................................... 68

Figure 4-16. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by the Nature of the Project..................... 69

Figure 4-17. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Craft Workhours ................................ 70

Figure 4-18. Zero Accident Performance by Respondent Type ........................................... 72

Figure 4-19. Zero Accident Performance by Industry Group .............................................. 73

Figure 4-20. Zero Accident Performance by Cost Category................................................ 73

Figure 4-21. Zero Accident Performance by Nature of Project ........................................... 74

Figure 4-22. Zero Accident Performance by Craft Workhours............................................ 75

Figure 4-23. Safety Practice Use for All Projects................................................................ 81

Figure 4-24. Safety Practice Use by Industry Group........................................................... 81

Figure 4-25. Safety Practice Use by Cost Category............................................................. 82

Figure 4-26. Safety Practice Use by Nature of Project........................................................ 83

Figure 4-27. Safety Practice Use by Craft Workhours ........................................................ 83

Figure 4-28. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for All Projects................ 85

Figure 4-29. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Heavy Industrial

Projects .......................................................................................................... 86

Figure 4-30. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Projects Costing Less

Than $15 Million............................................................................................ 86

Figure 4-31. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Projects Costing

Between $15 and $50 Million......................................................................... 87
xiii

Figure 4-32. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Projects Costing More

Than $50 Million............................................................................................ 88

Figure 4-33. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Grass Roots Projects .. 88

Figure 4-34. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Additions ................... 89

Figure 4-35. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Modernization

Projects .......................................................................................................... 89

Figure 4-36. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for All Projects... 91

Figure 4-37. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Heavy

Industrial Projects........................................................................................... 91

Figure 4-38. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Projects

Costing Less Than $15 Million....................................................................... 92

Figure 4-39. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Projects

Costing Between $15 and $50 Million............................................................ 92

Figure 4-40. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Projects

Costing More Than $50 Million ..................................................................... 93

Figure 4-41. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Grass Roots

Projects .......................................................................................................... 94

Figure 4-42. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Additions ...... 94

Figure 4-43. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for

Modernization Projects................................................................................... 95

Figure A-1. Value of New Construction Put in Place ......................................................... 105

Figure A-2. Total Value of Construction Work: Comparison of Value Put in Place and

1992 Census of the Construction Industry....................................................... 114

Figure A-3. Distribution of Total Construction Expenditures in 1992 by Nature of

Construction Activity ..................................................................................... 114

Figure A-4. Annual Expenditures for Maintenance and Repair Activities by Sector........... 115

Figure A-5. Annual Expenditures for Additions and Alterations by Sector ........................ 115
xiv

Figure A-6. Comparison of Derived Data and Household Survey Data for Total

Expenditures on Improvements and Maintenance and Repairs in the

Residential Sector........................................................................................... 117

Figure A-7. Total Value of Construction Work.................................................................. 117

Figure A-8. Construction Employment as a Proportion of the Total US Civilian

Workforce ...................................................................................................... 119

Figure A-9. Number of Establishments with Payroll by Two-Digit SIC Code: 1992.......... 122

Figure A-10. Number of Employees for Establishments with Payroll by Two-Digit SIC

Code: 1992..................................................................................................... 122

Figure A-11. Value of Construction Work for Establishments with Payroll by Two-Digit

SIC Code: 1992.............................................................................................. 123

Figure A-12. Value Added for Establishments with Payroll by Two Digit SIC Code: 1992 . 124

Figure A-13. Value Added per Employee for Establishments with Payroll: 1992................. 124

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Value of New Construction Put in Place in Millions of 1992 Dollars: Sector

Totals and Sum Total...................................................................................... xix

Table ES-2. Summary of the Baseline Measures for the Construction Industry Overall and

for Each Sector............................................................................................... xxi

Table 3-1. Nonfatal Occupational Injury and Illness Incidence Rates per 100 Full-Time

Workers by Industry, 1994 ............................................................................. 16

Table 3-2. Percentage of Construction Establishments and Employees by Establishment

Size, 1994 ...................................................................................................... 19

Table 3-3. Nonfatal Occupational Injury and Illness Incidence Rates per 100 Full-Time

Workers in the Construction Industry, 1994.................................................... 22

Table 3-4. Recordable Incidence Rates per 100 Full-Time Workers in the Construction

Industry by Employment Size Group, 1994 .................................................... 23

Table 3-5. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rates per 100 Full-Time Workers in the

Construction Industry by Employment Size Group, 1994 ............................... 24
xv

Table 3-6. Nonfatal Occupational Illness Incidence Rates per 10,000 Full-Time Workers

by Industry and Illness Category, 1994........................................................... 28

Table 3-7. Rate of Nonfatal Construction-Related Illnesses by Illness Category, 1994..... 30

Table 3-8. Number of Nonfatal Construction-Related Illnesses by Illness Category,

1994............................................................................................................... 30

Table 3-9. Number, Percent, and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries by Industry, 1994.. 31

Table 3-10. Construction-Related Fatalities for Private Sector Wage and Salary Workers,

Government Workers, and Self-Employed Workers, 1994.............................. 34

Table 3-11. Rate of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the Construction

Industry by Two-Digit SIC Code for Years 1989-1997................................... 36

Table 3-12. Rate of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the Construction

Industry by Employment Size Group for Years 1994-1997............................. 37

Table 3-13. Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries in the Construction Industry

by Class of Worker for Years 1992-1997........................................................ 39

Table 3-14. Summary of Baseline Measures...................................................................... 41

Table 4-1. Recordable Incidence Rate by Respondent ..................................................... 61

Table 4-2. Recordable Incidence Rate by Industry Group................................................ 62

Table 4-3. Recordable Incidence Rate by Cost Category ................................................. 63

Table 4-4. Recordable Incidence Rate by the Nature of the Project.................................. 64

Table 4-5. Recordable Incidence Rate by Craft Workhours ............................................. 65

Table 4-6. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Respondent ........................................ 66

Table 4-7. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Industry Group................................... 67

Table 4-8. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Cost Category .................................... 68

Table 4-9. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by the Nature of the Project..................... 69

Table 4-10. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Craft Workhours ................................ 70

Table A-1. Value of New Construction Put in Place ......................................................... 104
xvi

Table A-2. Four-Digit SIC Codes for the Construction Industry ....................................... 109

Table A-3. Comparison of Derived Data and Household Survey Data for Total

Expenditures on Improvements and Maintenance and Repairs in the

Residential Sector........................................................................................... 116

Table A-4. Value of Construction Work: 1992 - 1996 ...................................................... 118

Table A-5. Employment and Output Figures for the Construction Industry: 1992............. 121

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 4.1. CII Zero Accidents Safety Practice: The Five Zero Injury Elements and

Their Most Significant Techniques............................................................ 77

Exhibit 4.2. CII Procedure for Calculating the Safety Practice Use Index ..................... 78

Exhibit 4.3. Example of Safety Practice Use Index Calculation .................................... 79

List of Acronyms

Acronym Definition

AFL-CIO American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations

BFRL Building and Fire Research Laboratory

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

C&B Construction and Building

CCI Census of the Construction Industry

CCIT Committee on Civilian Industrial Technology

CII Construction Industry Institute

CPS Current Population Survey

CPWR Center to Protect Workers' Rights

DIA Denver International Airport

GDP Gross Domestic Product

IIR Illness Incidence Rate

LWCIR Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

NCG National Construction Goal

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

OM&E Operations, Maintenance, and Energy

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

RD&D Research, Development, and Deployment

RIR Recordable Incidence Rate

SIC Standard Industrial Classification

VIP Value of Construction Put in Place
xvii

Executive Summary

The National Science and Technology Council, a cabinet-level group chaired by the

president, is charged with setting federal technology policy and coordinating R&D

strategies across a broad cross-section of public and private interests. It has established

nine research and development committees, including the Committee on Civilian

Industrial Technology (CCIT), to collaborate with the private sector in developing a

comprehensive national technology policy. The purpose of CCIT is to enhance the

international competitiveness of US industry through federal technology policies and

programs. The Construction and Building Subcommittee of CCIT coordinates and

defines priorities for federal research, development, and deployment related to the

industries that produce, operate, and maintain constructed facilities, including buildings

and infrastructure.i

The mission of the Construction and Building Subcommittee is to enhance the

competitiveness of US Industry, public safety, and environmental quality through

research and development, in cooperation with US industry, labor, and academia, for

improvement of the life cycle performance of constructed facilities. To accomplish its

mission, the Construction and Building Subcommittee has established seven National

Construction Goals in collaboration with a broad cross section of the construction

industry.ii

Data describing current practices of the US construction industry are needed to establish

baselines against which the industry can measure its progress towards achieving the

seven National Construction Goals. The Goals are: (1) reductions in the delivery time of

constructed facilities; (2) reductions in operations, maintenance, and energy costs; (3)

increases in occupant productivity and comfort; (4) reductions in occupant-related

illnesses and injuries; (5) reductions in waste and pollution; (6) increases in the durability

and flexibility of constructed facilities; and (7) reductions in construction worker

illnesses and injuries. Baseline measures and measures of progress will be produced for

each National Construction Goal in each of the four key construction industry sectors.

The four sectors are: (1) residential; (2) commercial/institutional; (3) industrial; and (4)

public works.

This document is the third in a series of studies prepared by NIST’s Building and Fire

Research Laboratory.iii It provides a detailed set of baseline measures for National

 

i

 Wright, Richard N. 1995. "Government and Industry Working Together." Construction Business Review

(January/February): pp. 44-49.

ii Wright, Richard N., Arthur H. Rosenfeld, and Andrew J. Fowell. 1995. Construction and Building:

Federal Research and Development in Support of the US Construction Industry. Washington, DC:

National Science and Technology Council.

iii Two earlier companion documents focused on National Construction Goals 1 and 2. For information on

reductions in delivery time (Goal 1), see Chapman, Robert E., and Roderick Rennison. 1998. An

Approach for Measuring Reductions in Delivery Time: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry

Practices for the National Construction Goals. NISTIR 6189. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of

Standards and Technology. For information on reductions in operations, maintenance, and energy costs

(Goal 2) see Chapman, Robert E., and Roderick Rennison. 1998. An Approach for Measuring Reductions
xviii

Construction Goal 7, reductions in construction worker illnesses and injuries. The

baseline measures characterize current industry performance for Goal 7. Industry

performance in 1994 is used as the reference point from which the values of the baseline

measures are calculated. Goal 7 was identified as one of the highest priority National

Construction Goals by the construction industry.

The intended audience for this document includes both the construction community and

the occupational safety and health community as a whole. This includes the Construction

and Building Subcommittee member organizations, the four organizations that provided

industry input on the National Construction Goals,iv construction industry managers from

companies large and small, unions and trade associations, academic researchers,

construction industry customers from the private and public sectors, insurance carriers

providing workers compensation coverage for construction projects, and safety and

health specialists working for and with the construction industry. In addition, because

this document includes both detailed information on the baseline measures for National

Construction Goal 7 and a compilation of statistics on the four sectors and the

construction industry as a whole, it is anticipated that this document will serve as a

resource reference for readers with a wide variety of interests in the construction industry.

The construction industry is a key component of the US economy. A key indicator of

construction activity is the value of new construction put in place. Data published by the

US Bureau of the Census establish the composition of construction expenditures by type

of construction.

Table ES-1 summarizes both the annual sector totals and the sum total. Since 1992, the

value of new construction put in place has risen slightly from $393.8 billion in 1992 to

$435.5 billion in 1996 in constant 1992 dollars. The largest component of new

construction over this period was in the residential sector (about 34 percent of the total),

with the smallest component in the industrial sector (about 7 percent).

This document has five chapters and an appendix. Chapter 1 explains the purpose, scope,

and general approach. Chapter 2 introduces the National Construction Goals and

describes how a well-defined set of metrics is used to develop the baseline measures and

measures of progress. Chapter 3 presents the baseline measures. Chapter 4 analyzes the

impact of safety practice use on reducing construction worker illnesses and injuries.

Chapter 5 concludes the document with a summary and suggestions for further research.

The appendix provides an overview of the construction industry.

 

in Operations, Maintenance, and Energy Costs: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry Practice for

the National Construction Goals. NISTIR 6185. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and

Technology.

iv The four organizations that provided industry input are: (1) National Association of Home Builders

Research Center (residential); (2) National Institute of Building Sciences (commercial/institutional); (3)

Construction Industry Institute (industrial); and (4) American Public Works Association (public works).
xix

Table ES-1. Value of New Construction Put in Place in Millions of 1992 Dollars:

Sector Totals and Sum Total

Sector Value of Construction Put in Place ($ Millions)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Residential 133,658 141,076 156,576 146,167 157,846

Commercial/Institutional 122,960 125,770 128,116 137,006 149,445

Industrial 30,902 27,212 28,161 30,391 29,219

Public Works 106,311 103,762 103,360 101,593 98,973

Total – All Sectors 393,831 397,820 416,213 415,157 435,483

Source: US Bureau of the Census, Current Construction Reports: Value of Construction Put in Place, C30.

Chapter 2 provides perspective on the overall effort to develop baseline measures and

measures of progress for each of the seven National Construction Goals. First, each

National Construction Goal is introduced and described. Next, the process for

developing baseline measures for each Goal is described. This process involves: (1)

specifying data relationships; (2) collecting and compiling the key data and supporting

information for the base year, 1994; (3) defining metrics for each goal/sector

combination; and (4) producing the metrics in a summary form (i.e., figures and tables to

depict the metrics). The methods for measuring progress use the baselines as their

reference point. Because the National Construction Goals may be specified as targets

measured against baseline values, “gap analysis” is the preferred method for defining the

measures of progress. The advantage of this measure of performance is that it employs

the same values for each measure as used in computing the baselines. The gap analysis

method measures how much of the initial gap (i.e., between the baseline value and the

goal value) has been closed by some future date. Criteria are then presented which

ensure that the data selected for analysis are well-defined, consistent, and replicable.

Chapter 3 presents the baseline measures. These measures are based on data published

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Section 3.1 describes the BLS data. The

baseline measures are reported and described in Section 3.2. Time-series data are

presented in Section 3.3 to highlight trends in construction worker health and safety.

The BLS data cover both non-fatal construction worker illnesses and injuries and

construction-related fatalities. Non-fatal illnesses and injuries are classified into three

case types: (1) recordable; (2) lost workday; and (3) illness.v BLS produces incidence

rates for each case type. These ratesvi are: (1) the recordable incidence rate (referred to

 

v

 A recordable incident is a work-related death or illness and any injury which results in: loss of

consciousness, restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job, or medical treatment beyond first aid.

An incident is defined as a lost workday case if it results in days away from work or restricted work

activity.

vi The incidence rates for recordable and lost workday cases represent the number of injuries and illnesses

per 100 full-time workers and are calculated as: (N/EH) x 200,000, where N = the number of injuries and

illnesses, EH = the total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year, and 200,000 = the base

for 100 equivalent full-time workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). The incidence rates

(i.e., the denominator) for illnesses represent the number of illnesses per 10,000 full-time workers.
xx

hereafter as the RIR); and (2) the lost workday case incidence rate (referred to hereafter

as the LWCIR); and (3) the illness incidence rate (referred to hereafter as the IIR). BLS

also produces incidence rates for fatalities.vii

Table ES-2 shows general information on the construction industry as a whole along with

sector-specific information compiled from the BLS data. Note that the BLS data are for

the year 1994. Thus, the BLS data report safety-related results for the base year (i.e.,

1994).

Table ES-2 records the baseline values for each of the four key incidence rates. These

rates are: (1) the RIR; (2) the LWCIR; (3) the IIR; and (4) the fatality incidence rate. The

first row of the table records the value of each incidence rate for the construction industry

as a whole. The next four rows record the value of each incidence rate for each sector

(i.e., residential, commercial/institutional, industrial, and public works). The last row

records the value of each incidence rate for special trade contractors (i.e., Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 17). Special trade contractors are reported separately

because they serve all four sectors of the construction industry. Unfortunately, it is not

possible to “redistribute” incidents from SIC Code 17 to any of the other construction

industry sectors. Therefore, SIC Code 17 is treated as if it were a “sector.” The

information on each of the four types of incidents (i.e., recordable, lost workday, illness,

and fatality) for SIC Code 17 is incorporated into the incidence rates for the construction

industry as a whole.

Table ES-2 includes a series of explanatory notes to help understand both what is

included and what is not included in the sector-specific baseline values of the key

incidence rates. Note “a” indicates that the baseline values of the RIR and the LWCIR

for the residential sector are estimated. Estimates for the RIR and the LWCIR for the

residential sector are produced by combining information from two, three-digit SIC

Codes (152 and 153). Specifically, information on the incidence rate and the number of

incidents is used to estimate craft workhours for each three-digit SIC Code. The number

of incidents are then added together (e.g., the number of recordables in SIC Code 152 and

the number of recordables in SIC Code 153) to get the numerator and the number of craft

workhours are added together to get the denominator in the formula used to calculate the

RIR and the LWCIR, respectively (see the definitions of the terms “N” and “EH” in

footnote v). Each resultant (i.e., the value returned by dividing N by EH) is then

multiplied by 200,000 to get the estimated value for the RIR and for the LWCIR in the

residential sector (see footnote vi). Note “b” indicates that sector-specific values for the

commercial/institutional and industrial sectors require information on two, four-digit SIC

Codes (1541 and 1542). In the absence of such information, the value for the three-digit

SIC Code 154 is used. Thus, the commercial/institutional sector and the industrial sector

have the same value for the RIR as SIC Code 154 and the same value for the LWCIR as

SIC Code 154. Note “c” indicates that additional information on SIC Code 15 is needed

 

vii The incidence rates for fatalities represent the number of fatal occupational injuries per 100,000

employed workers. Note that the denominator used in calculating the incidence rates for fatalities is the

number of workers rather than full-time workers. Since many of these workers have worked only a small

fraction of a year, the rates will be lower than they would be if they were based on full-time workers.
xxi

in order to develop sector-specific values for the IIR for the residential, commercial/

institutional, and industrial sectors. Because in 1994 information on the IIR was only

published at the two-digit SIC Code level, three of the four sectors (i.e., residential,

commercial/institutional, and industrial) have the same baseline values for the IIR. Note

“d” indicates that sector-specific fatality incidence rates can not be generated because

information on the number of self-employed construction workers is only reported for the

construction industry as a whole.

Table ES-2. Summary of the Baseline Measures for the Construction Industry

Overall and for Each Sector

Incidence Rate

per 100 per 100 per 10,000 per 100,000 Sector

Recordable Lost

Workday Illness Fatality

All 11.8 5.5 21.8 14.8

Residential 10.3a 5.0a 22.6c 14.8d

Commercial/Institutional 11.5b 5.1b 22.6c 14.8d

Industrial 11.5b 5.1b 22.6c 14.8d

Public Works 10.2 5.0 23.4 14.8d

Special Trade Contractors 12.5 5.8 21.2 14.8d

Source: US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and

Characteristics, 1994, Bulletin 2485, and Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1994: A Collection of Data and

Analysis, Report 908.

a Estimated.

bRequires information on the number of incidents and the number of craft work hours in SIC Codes 1541

 and 1542.

c Requires information on the number of incidents and the number of craft work hours in SIC Codes 152,

 153, 1541, and 1542.

d

 Requires information on the number of construction workers in SIC Codes 152, 153, 1541, 1542, 16, and

 17.

Chapter 4 presents an analysis of the impact of safety practice use on reducing

construction worker illnesses and injuries.viii Chapter 4 contains three sections. The first

section introduces the concept of a safety practice and gives several examples of safety

practices currently in use within the construction industry. A discussion of safety

practices is included because safety practices are a vehicle for reducing constructionrelated illnesses and injuries. A full discussion of safety practices is beyond the scope of

this report. However, sufficient descriptive material is presented to make the case that

safety practices capable of serving the needs of different types of construction firms exist

and that these practices will promote progress towards achieving the National

Construction Goal of reducing construction-related illnesses and injuries by 50 %.

 

viii The term practice as used in this document refers to a formal process for implementing and documenting

performance improvements.
xxii

The second section of the chapter presents project-based empirical evidence on how

safety practice use translates into reductions in the RIR and the LWCIR. The empirical

evidence presented in this chapter and its analysis uses data provided to NIST by the

Construction Industry Institute (CII).ix The CII data are noteworthy because they are

recorded on a project basis and therefore include information on both the prime

contractor and all subcontractors. Although the prime contractor is usually a member of

CII, and hence a fairly large construction establishment, the subcontractors are often

smaller construction establishments. CII classifies each project in its database into a

unique category under each of four major headings. One of these headings, industry

group, has four categories: buildings, heavy industrial, light industrial, and infrastructure.

These industry group categories are easily mapped into the three non-residential

sectors—commercial/institutional, industrial, and public works—used by the

Construction and Building Subcommittee. In addition, the CII data may be classified

according to each of the three remaining major headings and evaluated further to

determine the impact of this new classification dimension on the calculated values of the

RIR and of the LWCIR. The three remaining major headings are: project cost, project

nature (i.e., new construction or additions and alterations), and craft workhours.

The results of analyzing the impact of using CII's Zero Accidents safety practice on

reducing the values of the RIR and of the LWCIR are very encouraging. In all cases (i.e.,

for all the data classification categories examined), the mean values of the RIR and of the

LWCIR were reduced significantly—often by as much as 75 percent—as the degree of

safety practice use moved from the lowest level to the highest level. It is also very

encouraging to note that even modest increases in the degree of safety practice use can

translate into significant reductions (e.g., 30 to 50 percent) in the mean values of the RIR

and of the LWCIR.

The third section discusses how the more intensive use of safety practices can be

expected to translate into significant reductions in construction-related illnesses and

injuries. Several key practice implementation and intervention effectiveness issues are

then discussed (e.g., why the CII Zero Accidents safety practice might not be particularly

well-suited for small construction firms). The section concludes with a discussion of why

the aggressive use of safety practices is a key instrument in achieving the 50 percent

reduction in construction worker illnesses and injuries set forth in National Construction

Goal 7.

Chapter 5 discusses additional areas of research that might be of value to government

agencies and private sector organizations who are concerned about reducing construction

worker illnesses and injuries. These areas of research are concerned with: (1) the

dissemination of more detailed illness and injury data by the BLS that would facilitate the

construction of sector-specific measures as opposed to general measures; (2) the

development of an action plan for disseminating information on safety practices and for

establishing guidelines on how to adapt safety practices for use by small and mid-sized

construction firms; (3) the collection of additional project-level data to analyze the

 

ix All data provided to NIST by CII have been aggregated in a manner that precludes identification of an

individual company's or project's performance.
xxiii

relationships between practice use and reductions in construction worker illnesses and

injuries; (4) the role of the Construction and Building Subcommittee member

organizations in promoting the achievement of National Construction Goal 7; and (5) the

measurement and evaluation of progress toward achievement of National Construction

Goal 7.

The appendix provides a snapshot of the US construction industry and the context within

which the baseline measures are developed. An extensive set of statistics has been

compiled on each sector; many of these statistics are included in the appendix. These

statistics are useful not only as a tool for defining the baseline measures but also as a

resource reference for readers with a wide variety of interests in the construction industry.

The appendix contains three sections. Each section deals with a particular topic. First,

information on the value of construction put in place is provided to show the size of the

construction industry and each of its four sectors—residential, commercial/institutional,

industrial, and public works. Second, information on the nature of construction activity

for each sector of the industry is presented. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

Codes for the construction industry are introduced and described as a means for

organizing construction activity. Information on the nature of construction activity

includes breakouts between new construction activities, maintenance and repair activities,

and additions and alterations. Third, information on employment in the construction

industry is summarized and a series of employment-related statistics are presented. The

SIC Codes for the construction industry are used as a means for organizing key

employment-related information.
xxiv
1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The National Science and Technology Council, a cabinet-level group chaired by the

president, is charged with setting federal technology policy and coordinating R&D

strategies across a broad cross-section of public and private interests. It has established

nine research and development committees, including the Committee on Civilian

Industrial Technology (CCIT), to collaborate with the private sector in developing a

comprehensive national technology policy. The purpose of CCIT is to enhance the

international competitiveness of US industry through federal technology policies and

programs. The Construction and Building Subcommittee of CCIT coordinates and

defines priorities for federal research, development, and deployment related to the

industries that produce, operate, and maintain constructed facilities, including buildings

and infrastructure.1

The mission of the Construction and Building Subcommittee is to enhance the

competitiveness of US Industry, public safety, and environmental quality through

research and development, in cooperation with US industry, labor, and academia, for

improvement of the life cycle performance of constructed facilities. To accomplish its

mission, the Construction and Building Subcommittee has established seven National

Construction Goals in collaboration with a broad cross section of the construction

industry.2

Data describing current practices of the US construction industry are needed to establish

baselines against which industry can measure its progress towards achieving the seven

National Construction Goals. The seven National Construction Goals are concerned

with: (1) reductions in the delivery time of constructed facilities; (2) reductions in

operations, maintenance, and energy costs; (3) increases in occupant productivity and

comfort; (4) reductions in occupant-related illnesses and injuries; (5) reductions in waste

and pollution; (6) increases in the durability and flexibility of constructed facilities; and

(7) reductions in construction worker illnesses and injuries.

Although information having relevance to the seven goals is available, for the most part,

this information has such a narrow focus that a consistent set of baseline measures and

associated measures of progress cannot be produced without first conducting a significant

research effort. Specifically, information from a wide variety of data sets needs to be

collected, reviewed, analyzed, and critiqued to ensure that the resulting baseline measures

and measures of progress are:

 

1 Wright, Richard N. 1995. "Government and Industry Working Together." Construction Business Review

(January/February): pp. 44-49.

2 Wright, Richard N., Arthur H. Rosenfeld, and Andrew J. Fowell. 1995. Construction and Building:

Federal Research and Development in Support of the US Construction Industry. Washington, DC:

National Science and Technology Council.
2

(1) adequate (i.e., they not only capture the complexities of the US construction

industry but also represent a consensus among experts in the field); and

(2) suitable for dissemination to the public.

It is essential to have baseline data and associated measures of progress to determine the

success of actions taken to improve the competitiveness of the US construction industry.

In addition, baselines and measures of progress will make it possible to demonstrate the

benefits of advanced technologies and practices, and to guide decision makers in

prioritizing potential programs.

The goal of this project is to develop a suite of products that support the measurement

and attainment of the National Construction Goals by the four key construction industry

sectors. The four industry sectors are: (1) residential; (2) commercial/institutional; (3)

industrial; and (4) public works. Three basic sets of products are envisioned:

(1) Baseline Measures: Develop baseline measures that characterize current industry

performance with respect to each of the seven goals. The averages of current

practice (defined in this document as industry performance in 1994) will become

the baselines for measuring progress towards achieving each of the goals.

(2) Measures of Progress: Develop methods for measuring progress. These

“results” measures are envisioned as a composite of performance measures

offering a means not only for monitoring actual performance but also for

marshaling support for improving results.

(3) Periodic Reports: Provide information on each of the seven goals. This

information will be made available to interested parties both through publications

and, ultimately, electronically via the World Wide Web. Potential outlets for the

baselines and measures of progress include the Construction and Building

Subcommittee member organizations3 and the four organizations that provided

industry input on the National Construction Goals.4

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this document is twofold. First and foremost, this document provides a

detailed set of baseline measures for National Construction Goal 7 (reductions in

construction worker illnesses and injuries). As such, it describes data sources, data

 

3 The following Federal Agencies are members of The Construction and Building Subcommittee:

Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Education, Department of Energy,

Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department

of Interior, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, Department of Veterans Affairs,

Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, National Science Foundation.

4

 The four organizations that provided industry input are: (1) National Association of Home Builders

Research Center (Residential); (2) National Institute of Building Sciences (Commercial/Institutional); (3)

Construction Industry Institute (Industrial); and (4) American Public Works Association (Public Works).
3

classifications, and the metrics used to develop the baseline measures. Extensive use of

charts and tables is made throughout this document to illustrate the process by which the

baseline measures were developed. This document is the third in a series of studies

prepared by NIST’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL). The earlier

companion documents focus on National Construction Goal 1, reductions in delivery

time,5 and National Construction Goal 2, reductions in operations, maintenance, and

energy costs.6

The second purpose of this document is to analyze the impact of safety practice use on

reducing construction worker illnesses and injuries. This analysis is based on data

provided to NIST by the Construction Industry Institute (CII).

1.3 Scope and Approach

This document has four chapters and an appendix in addition to the Introduction.

Chapter 2 introduces the National Construction Goals and describes how a well-defined

set of metrics is used to develop the baseline measures and measures of progress.

Chapter 3 presents the baseline measures. All of the baseline measures are based on data

published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the US Department of Labor.

Chapter 4 introduces the concept of a safety practice and gives several examples of safety

practices currently in use within the construction industry. How the use of the CII Zero

Accidents safety practice affects safety performance is then analyzed. Chapter 5

concludes the document with a summary and suggestions for further research. The

appendix provides an overview of the construction industry.

Because this document is part of a series and each document is designed to stand alone

within the series, there is some repetition of material provided in the earlier companion

documents. These materials are located in Chapter 2 and the appendix. Chapter 2 has

been condensed considerably whereas the material presented in the appendix has been

edited and revised slightly.7 Thus, readers familiar with the material contained in the

earlier companion documents may skip directly to the baseline measures contained in

Chapter 3.

 

5 Chapman, Robert E., and Roderick Rennison. 1998. An Approach for Measuring Reductions in Delivery

Time: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry Practice for the National Construction Goals. NISTIR

6189. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

6 Chapman, Robert E., and Roderick Rennison. 1998. An Approach for Measuring Reductions in

Operations, Maintenance, and Energy Costs: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry Practice for the

National Construction Goals. NISTIR 6185. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and

Technology.

7

 The material contained in the appendix was originally published as Sections 3.1 through 3.3 of Chapter 3

in NISTIRs 6189 (see Chapman and Rennison, An Approach for Measuring Reductions in Delivery Time.)

and 6185 (see Chapman and Rennison, An Approach for Measuring Reductions in Operations,

Maintenance, and Energy Cost.).
4
5

2. The National Construction Goals: A Tool for Promoting

Competitiveness Within the Construction Industry

2.1 Description of the National Construction Goals

The Construction and Building (C&B) Subcommittee has studied research priorities

expressed by the construction industry. These priorities translate into the following seven

National Construction Goals:

1. 50 % Reduction in Delivery Time

2. 50 % Reduction in Operation, Maintenance, and Energy Costs

3. 30 % Increase in Productivity and Comfort

4. 50 % Fewer Occupant-Related Illnesses and Injuries

5. 50 % Less Waste and Pollution

6. 50 % More Durability and Flexibility

7. 50 % Reduction in Construction Worker Illnesses and Injuries

To make the National Construction Goals operational, their values are based on the

values of a well-defined set of baseline measures. As noted in the Introduction, the

values of the baseline measures for each goal are averages of industry performance in

1994. The year 1994 was established as the basis for computing the values of the

baseline measures because it was the year when the National Construction Goals were

first formulated.8

Two priority thrusts, better constructed facilities and health and safety of the construction

work force, were defined as the focus of C&B-related research, development, and

deployment (RD&D) activities. The objective of the C&B-related RD&D activities is to

make technologies and practices capable of achieving the goals under the two priority

thrusts available for general use in the construction industry by 2003.

Achievement of the National Construction Goals will: (1) reduce the first costs and lifecycle costs of constructed facilities in the four key construction industry sectors (i.e.,

residential, commercial/institutional, industrial, and public works); (2) result in better

constructed facilities; and (3) result in improved health and safety for both construction

workers and occupants of constructed facilities. Achievement of the goals will convey

benefits to each of the four construction industry sectors (e.g., housing will become more

affordable through reductions in first costs and life-cycle costs). However, depending on

the goal and the construction industry sector, the beneficial impacts are expected to vary.

To gain a better appreciation of the importance of the National Construction Goals, both

individually, and taken together, and of their relationship to the four key construction

 

8 Wright, Richard N., Arthur H. Rosenfeld, and Andrew J. Fowell. 1994. Rationale and Preliminary Plan

for Federal Research for Construction and Building. NISTIR 5536. Washington, DC: National Science

and Technology Council.
6

industry sectors, a brief description of each goal follows. The descriptions are patterned

after those given in the report by Wright, Rosenfeld, and Fowell.9

Goal 1: 50 % Reduction in Delivery Time

Delivery time is defined as the elapsed time from the decision to construct a new facility

until its readiness for service. Delivery time issues affect both industrial competitiveness

and project costs. During the initial planning, design, procurement, construction, and

start-up process, the needs of the client are not being met. Furthermore, the client’s needs

evolve over time, so a facility long in delivery may be uncompetitive or unsuitable when

it is finished. Delays almost always translate into increased project costs due to

inflationary effects, higher financial holding costs, and reduced productivity.

Furthermore, the investments in producing the facility cannot be recouped until the

facility is operational. Owners, users, designers, and constructors are among the groups

calling for technologies and practices to reduce delivery time.

Goal 2: 50 % Reduction in Operation, Maintenance, and Energy Costs

Operations, maintenance, and energy (OM&E) costs are a major factor in the life-cycle

costs of a constructed facility. In some cases, OM&E costs over the life of a facility

exceed its first cost. However, because reductions in OM&E costs are often associated

with increased first costs, facility owners and managers may underinvest in cost saving

technologies. Furthermore, undue attention on minimizing first costs may result in a

facility which is expensive to operate and maintain, wastes energy resources, is

inflexible, and rapidly becomes obsolete. Finally, because OM&E costs tend to increase

more rapidly than the general rate of inflation, facility owners and operators are often

forced to reallocate funds to cover OM&E costs. Reductions in OM&E costs will

produce two types of benefits. First, constructed facilities will become more affordable

because facility owners and operators are making more cost-effective choices among

investments (e.g., design configurations) which affect life-cycle costs. Second, these

same facilities will better conserve scarce energy resources.

Goal 3: 30 % Increase in Productivity and Comfort

Industry and government studies have shown that the annual salary costs of the occupants

of a commercial or institutional building are of the same order of magnitude as the capital

cost of the building.10 Occupant comfort depends largely on the nature of buildings,

building furnishings, and indoor environments. The quality of indoor environments also

has a large impact on occupant health and productivity. Improvement of the productivity

of the occupants (or for an industrial facility, improvement of the productivity of the

 

9

 Wright, Richard N., Arthur H. Rosenfeld, and Andrew J. Fowell. 1995. Construction and Building:

Federal Research and Development in Support of the US Construction Industry. Washington, DC:

National Science and Technology Council.

10 Building Owners and Managers Association. 1994. Experience Exchange Report, National CrossTabulations, 1994. Washington, DC: Building Owners and Managers Association.
7

process housed by the facility) is an important performance characteristic for most

constructed facilities.

Goal 4: 50 % Fewer Occupant-Related Illnesses and Injuries

Buildings are intended to shelter and support human activities, yet the environment and

performance of buildings can contribute to illnesses and injuries for building users.

Examples are avoidable injuries caused by fire or natural hazards, slips and falls, disease

from airborne microbes, often associated with a workplace environment, and building

damage or collapse from fire, earthquakes, or extreme winds. Reductions in illnesses and

injuries will increase building users’ productivity as well as reduce the costs of medical

care and litigation.

Goal 5: 50 % Less Waste and Pollution

Improvement of the performance of constructed facilities provides major opportunities to

reduce waste and pollution at every step of the delivery process, from raw material

extraction to final demolition and recycling of the facility and its contents. Additional

reductions come from reduced energy use, reduced water consumption, and reductions in

waste water production, which are considered in part by Goal 2.

Goal 6: 50 % More Durability and Flexibility

Durability denotes the capability of the constructed facility to continue (given appropriate

maintenance) its initial performance over the intended service life. Flexibility denotes

the capability to adapt the constructed facility to changes in use or users’ needs.

Increased durability and flexibility of constructed facilities reduces life-cycle costs and

prolongs the economic life of the facility (i.e., the period of time over which an

investment in the original facility is considered to be the least-cost alternative for meeting

a particular objective).

Goal 7: 50 % Reduction in Construction Worker Illnesses and Injuries

Health and safety issues exert a major effect on the competitiveness of the US

construction industry. Construction workers die as a result of work-related trauma at a

rate which is higher than all other industries except mining and agriculture. Construction

workers also experience a higher incidence of nonfatal injuries resulting in days away

from work than workers in other industries do. Although the construction workforce

represents less than 6 percent of the nation’s workforce, it is estimated that the

construction industry pays about 15 percent of the nation’s workers’ compensation.11

 

11 The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights. 1997. The Construction Chart Book: The US Construction

Industry and Its Workers. Report D1-97. Washington, DC: The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights.
8

2.2 Baseline Measures

As noted earlier, the baseline measures for each goal are averages of industry

performance in 1994. Thus, with regard to the baseline measures, 1994 is the “base

year.” Consequently, data from 1994 drive the data collection effort culminating with the

development of the baseline measures for each National Construction Goal.

The process for developing baseline measures used in this project involves: (1) specifying

data relationships; (2) collecting and compiling the key data and supporting information

for the base year, 1994;12 (3) defining metrics for each goal/sector combination; and (4)

producing the metrics in a tabular summary form and, where appropriate, producing

charts and graphs to depict the metrics. If the goal/sector combination has components

and subcomponents, then metrics are defined for each. This process is employed because

the metrics represent not only a statement of current construction industry performance,

but tools for measuring an individual organization’s performance as well. By providing a

small set of well-defined metrics, individual organizations can construct their own

performance baselines. For example, individual organizations can see how a collection

of their projects performs vis-à-vis the “national” data. To summarize, the basic

philosophy behind the baseline measures is that they are not a static tool whose sole

purpose is quantifying the value of the goal but a means for driving performance

improvement within individual organizations.

2.3 Measures of Progress

The methods for measuring progress use the baselines as their reference point. The

measures of progress employ a method that makes use of both key outputs (i.e., summary

measures) and interlinking metrics (i.e., a composite of performance measures including

constituent parts and functional relationships). Because the National Construction Goals

may be specified as targets measured against baseline values, “gap analysis” is an

appropriate method for defining the measures of progress.

To gain a better understanding of how gap analysis may be applied, consider the

following case illustration. One component of Goal 7, Construction Worker Illnesses and

Injuries, is the recordable incidence rate.13 If Goal 7 targets a 50 % reduction in

construction worker illnesses and injuries, we may adopt an across-the-board reduction of

50 % for all components of that goal. Therefore, for this component, the goal is to reduce

the recordable incidence rate by 50 %. Denote the industry average in 1994 by BR94 (i.e.,

the Baseline value for the Recordable incidence rate). Denote the goal for the recordable

incidence rate for 2003 by GR03; it is equal to 0.5*BR94. Denote the difference between

 

12 If data are available for years in addition to 1994 (e.g., 1989 through 1997), then these data are collected

at the same time as the base year data and used to illustrate trends; these data are also used to compute the

associated measures of performance.

13 A recordable incident is a work-related death or illness or any injury, which results in: loss of

consciousness, restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job, or requires medical treatment beyond

first aid. The incidence rate represents the number of recordable incidents per 100 full-time workers.
9

the baseline and the goal (i.e., BR94 - GR03) by dR94. This difference may be thought of as

a gap (i.e., the difference between the actual level and the desired level). Similarly, for

some given year, say 1997, whose actual value is R97, the gap becomes dR97 (i.e., R97 -

GR03).

This method also enables us to measure how much of the initial gap has been closed.

One measure of performance is the percent of the initial gap which has been closed by

some given date, say 1997. Denote this amount as P(dR97), where:

P(dR97) = ( 1 - (dR97 / dR94 ) ) * 100

The advantage of this measure of performance is that it employs the same values for each

measure used in computing the baselines. Although the gap analysis method is simple

and straightforward, it offers considerable flexibility. Consequently, it is the

recommended method for generating measures of progress.14

2.4 Interactions Between the National Construction Goals, the Baseline Measures,

and the Measures of Progress

As noted earlier, the objective of the C&B-related RD&D activities is to have

technologies and practices capable of meeting the goals available in 2003. This objective

raises an important issue, namely, the relationships between the baseline measures, the

measures of progress, and the goals. Several relationships that warrant consideration are

the following. First, it is important to recognize that the goal can always be represented

as a function of the baseline measure. Thus, given a baseline “value,” a target or goal

“value” can be specified. Second, for baseline measures to be most beneficial, they need

to be tied to specific “metrics” that are well-defined and able to be used by interested

parties (e.g., a specific government agency could substitute its own data into the metric

and use it to establish its own “baseline” values). Finally, the measures of progress need

to make explicit the relationship between the baseline, the goal, and the current level of

improvement.

 

14The gap analysis method has another advantage in that priorities can be easily incorporated. For example,

recordable incidents can be separated into two, mutually exclusive categories: (1) lost workday cases; and

(2) cases without lost workdays. Consequently, progress towards closing the gap on one component (e.g.,

lost workday cases) could be viewed as more important than progress on another component (e.g., cases

without lost workdays) for that Goal. Multiattribute decision analysis (MADA) provides a well-established

tool for assigning priorities to components. (See, American Society for Testing and Materials. 1998.

Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of

Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems. E 1765. West Conshohocken, PA: American

Society for Testing and Materials.) MADA may also be used to develop a hierarchical relationship among

components (i.e., a composite of performance measures including constituent parts and functional

relationships). Such an approach would help to analyze how changes in individual metrics (i.e.,

components at a lower level within the hierarchical relationship) affect the level and rate of change of key

outputs (i.e., the highest level metric in the hierarchical relationship).
10

The previous discussion implies that the form of the baseline measure is important as a

“facilitator” of performance (i.e., a linkage to performance-improving technologies and

practices). Two forms of baseline measures that may serve as facilitators are point

estimates (i.e., an average value) and a distribution of values. Although an average value

is a good baseline measure, it collapses a great deal of information into a single reference

point. An alternative way to think about a baseline measure is as the distribution of

values of industry performance in 1994. This approach, while more data intensive, is a

great deal more flexible. Over the long term, the key stakeholders (e.g., researchers,

innovators, owners, and contractors) can focus on pushing the entire distribution towards

a more competitive position (e.g., faster delivery time) rather than just focusing on

improving the average value of some “unknown” distribution. It is important to

recognize that the distribution of values contains not only the mean or average value of

the metric that defines the baseline measure, but the highest and lowest values as well.

For example, if the percentiles of the distribution are available, an individual organization

(e.g., government agency, construction firm, etc.) could calculate a representative set of

values and, hence, determine their location within the distribution. This information

could then be used for goal setting and for developing measures of progress within a

particular organization.

2.5 Criteria for Data Selection

Criteria are needed to ensure that the data selected for analysis are well defined,

consistent, and replicable. Because data are so important to the baseline measures for

each goal, BFRL reviewed many potential sources (e.g., journals, technical publications,

electronic media) of baseline-related data/information. This review suggested three

criteria that must be met by any data in order to be accepted for analysis. These criteria

are:

(1) Published by a reliable, nationally recognized organization and available to the

public;

(2) Updated on a regular basis; and

(3) Able to be normalized to account for changes in the building stock and the level

of construction activity.

Clearly, the data used to produce the baseline measures must be reliable, accessible to the

public, and updated on a regular, preferably an annual, basis. Thus, the requirement for

the first two criteria items is self evident. The requirement for the third criteria item is

more complex and stems from the fact that the construction industry tends to be cyclical

in nature. The cyclical nature of the construction industry is discussed in some detail in

the appendix to this report. To better understand the need for the third criteria item,

consider the case of a recordable incident. If the number of recordable incidents is

declining, does this imply that the rate at which such incidents are occurring in the

construction industry is also declining? The answer to this rhetorical question is "no,"
11

because in the construction industry both the level of employment and the total number of

craft work hours varies considerably over the business cycle (see Section A.3). Thus, the

relevant metric for computing the baseline measure for recordable incidents is not the

number of recordable incidents but the recordable incidence rate, or RIR. The calculation

of the RIR is normalized because it is based on 100 full-time workers, each working 40

hours per week, 50 weeks per year. Although reducing the number of recordable

incidents is a desirable outcome, improved health and safety for construction workers

will only result when the recordable incidence rate is reduced.

The previous discussion demonstrates why each of the three criteria items are appropriate

for establishing the baseline measures for each goal. These criteria are also appropriate

for any data associated with measures of progress for each goal.

2.6 Special Requirements Due to Data Classification Issues

Construction projects are carried out by a prime contractor usually with the assistance of

one or more subcontractors (e.g., an excavation contractor). Construction projects by

their nature (e.g., single-family residence, high-rise office building, manufacturing

facility, and highway bridge) can be assigned to one of the four sectors used by the

Construction and Building Subcommittee (i.e., residential, commercial/institutional,

industrial, and public works).

The data used to establish the baseline measures are published by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS). These data are classified in three different ways: (1) for the entire

construction industry; (2) by two-digit SIC Code; and (3) by three-digit SIC Code. The

data for the entire construction industry are the most complete. However, these data can

not be broken down by sector. The two-and three-digit SIC Code data are too aggregated

to match exactly the four sectors defined by the Construction and Building

Subcommittee. Thus, the baseline measures for each sector presented in the next chapter

have associated with them a number of caveats. An additional problem is posed by the

way BLS collects information on special trade contractors.

Special trade contractors are often subcontractors on a construction project. Thus, for the

same construction project, the prime contractor maintains information on their safety

performance and each subcontractor maintains information on their safety performance.

When BLS surveys construction establishments (see Section 3.1), the prime contractor

and the subcontractors are surveyed separately. Consequently, there is no linkage back to

the construction project, say a single-family residence, where the prime contractor was a

home builder that managed the job and performed most of the construction tasks and the

subcontractors carried out excavation, plumbing, and electrical work. In this case, any

construction-related illnesses and injuries associated with the prime contractor would fall

under the residential sector and any construction-related illnesses and injuries associated

with the subcontractors would fall under the heading of special trades. For this reason, a

fifth sector, special trades, is used in reporting the baseline measures.
12

Although the North American Industrial Classification System introduced in 1997, will

result in a better match to the Construction and Building Subcommittee sectors, BLS is

not yet reporting construction-related illnesses and injuries data using the new

classification system. In addition, the problem of how to assign special trade contractors

will remain. Only at the industry level will BLS report data on all construction

establishments.

2.7 How This Document Helps

This document is part of a series. As such, it provides perspective on the overall effort to

develop baseline measures and measures of progress for each of the seven National

Construction Goals. It also serves to highlight how these measures and their associated

metrics can be used to drive performance improvement.

On a deeper level, this document provides step-by-step descriptions of how to construct a

well-defined set of baseline measures, their components, and associated metrics for a

specific goal for each of the four construction industry sectors. Information on data

relationships, data sources, and data collection and analysis provide the underpinnings for

the results presented in this document. It is anticipated that once users of this document

have understood the vital role of metrics as a process improvement tool, they will see

how the National Construction Goals will benefit both their organization and the US

construction industry.
13

3. Baseline Measures of Construction Worker Illnesses and Injuries

Data

This chapter traces the development of the baseline measures for construction worker

illnesses and injuries. Data sources are described and matched to the key types of safety

and health-related information. The safety and health-related baseline measures are then

derived from the source data. Time-series data are then presented to highlight trends in

construction worker health and safety. The chapter concludes with a summary of the key

safety and health-related baseline measures.

3.1 Data Considerations: Sources, Availability, and Constraints

Preliminary data searches for safety and health-related information identified the US

Department of Labor (USDL), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as the primary source for

the baseline measures. The BLS data are primary in that BLS collects data via survey,

analyzes the data, and publishes the results of their analyses annually. BLS data are the

most comprehensive national data available to the public.

The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (CPWR) was identified as an additional,

secondary data source. CPWR focuses on safety and health in construction and related

economics issues. CPWR is the research and development arm of the Building and

Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. CPWR publishes The Construction Chart Book.

15

The Chart Book is designed to summarize statistics on construction industry and

employment trends. The intent of the Chart Book is to define key characteristics of the

industry, while providing information about sources of data. The Chart Book was helpful

in identifying ways to summarize and present health-related information.

This report provides a sampling of the type of data available from the BLS on fatal and

nonfatal injuries and illnesses. The BLS disseminates data in a continuous series of

annual releases from the BLS safety and health statistical series. These releases cover

• Workplace Injuries and Illnesses and Characteristics of Injuries and Illnesses

Resulting in Absences from Work, from the Survey of Occupational Injuries and

Illnesses.

• Fatal Occupational Injuries, from the National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries.

The Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses provides data on injuries and illnesses

that are derived from a two-stage sample selection process. The first stage involves

selecting establishments. The second stage involves selecting the sample of cases

involving days away from work which is derived from the sample establishments. The

 

15 The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights. 1997. The Construction Chart Book: The US Construction

Industry and Its Workers. Report D1-97. Washington, DC: The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights.
14

National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries provides actual, verifiable data on

fatalities.

Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses

The sample data on nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses used in this report came

from the 1994 Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses of the BLS.16 In

cooperation with State agencies, BLS collects information from employers17 on the

number and incidence18,19 of nonfatal work-related injuries and illnesses. The survey

sample selected by BLS consists of approximately 250,000 establishments in private

industry. Survey data are solicited from employers having 11 employees or more in

agricultural production, and from all employers in agricultural services, forestry, and

fishing; oil and gas extraction; construction; manufacturing; transportation and public

utilities; wholesale trade; retail trade; finance, insurance and real estate; and services

(except private households). Data for employees covered by other Federal safety and

health legislation are provided by the Mine Safety and Health Administration of the U.S.

Department of Labor.

Each year the Survey provides estimates by industry and by State of the number of

workplace injuries and illnesses, and also by the number of injuries and illnesses that

involve lost work time. The average number of days away from work and the percent

distribution of days away from work by industry are also given.

By recording the days away from work, the Survey provides a measure of the

“seriousness” of injuries and illnesses. The majority of recorded illness cases are new

illness cases that are recognized, diagnosed, and reported during the year. Long-term

latent illnesses are believed to be understated in the Survey’s illness measures because

they are difficult to relate directly to workplace activity.

For workers with injuries and illnesses involving time away from work, the Survey

estimates the number and percent distribution of injuries and illnesses by occupation, sex,

age, race, and length of service. Numbers, percent distributions, and incidence rates are

also calculated by detailed nature of injury and illness, part of body affected, source of

the injury or illness, and type of event or exposure leading to the incident. Cross

tabulations of the worker characteristics and injury/illness circumstances are also

 

16 US Department of Labor. 1997. Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and Characteristics,

1994. Bulletin 2485. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

17 Construction establishments with no employees (i.e., self-employed construction workers) are not

covered by the Survey.

18 Three broad categories—the recordable incidence rate (RIR), the lost workday case incidence rate

(LWCIR), and the illness incidence rate (IIR)—are used to specify the incident rate.

19 The incidence rates for the RIR and the LWCIR represent the number of injuries and illnesses per 100

full-time equivalent workers and were calculated as: (N/EH) x 200,000, where N = the number of injuries

and illnesses, EH = the total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year, and 200,000 = the

base for 100 equivalent full-time workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). The incidence

rate for the IIR represents the number of illnesses per 10,000 full-time equivalent workers.
15

available. The median and percent distribution of days away from work are estimated for

each worker and case characteristic.

National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries

The National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries collects a systematic, verifiable

count of all fatal work injuries as well as detailed information on how these events

occurred. Multiple data sources are used to identify, verify, and profile fatal work

injuries. These records include death certificates, State and Federal workers’

compensation reports, OSHA fatality reports, news media, coroner/medical examiner

reports, and autopsy reports. The method of cross-referencing source documents assures

that the counts are as complete and accurate as possible.

In addition to providing frequency counts and incidence rates,20 the Census provides

information on the type of incident and machinery or equipment involved; nature of

injury and part of body affected; occupation, age, race, and sex of the worker; and

industry of the employer. Profiles of fatalities occurring to specific groups of workers,

for specific types of events, and for cases involving certain types of equipment or

machinery are also possible. Summary tables of the Census are released approximately

eight months after the end of the reference year. This report uses data from the 1994

Census.

21

3.2 Baseline Measures: Key Incidence Rates for Construction Worker Illnesses and

Injuries

The baseline measures presented in this section are based on data published by BLS. The

BLS data cover both nonfatal construction worker illnesses and injuries and constructionrelated fatalities. Nonfatal illnesses and injuries are classified into three case types: (1)

recordable; (2) lost workday; and (3) illness. BLS produces incidence rates for each case

type. These rates are: (1) the recordable incidence rate (RIR); (2) the lost workday case

incidence rate (LWCIR); and (3) the illness incidence rate (IIR). BLS also produces

incidence rates for fatalities.

A total of 6.8 million injuries and illnesses were estimated in private industry workplaces

during 1994, resulting in a rate of 8.4 cases for every 100 full-time workers. The rate

varied widely by industry, ranging from slightly more than 12 injuries and illnesses for

every 100 full-time manufacturing workers to slightly less than 3 in finance, insurance,

and real estate. Table 3-1 records the incidence rates for the nine major industry

 

20 The fatality incidence rate represents the number of fatal occupational injuries per 100,000 employed

workers and was calculated as follows: (N/W) x 100,000, where N = the number of fatal work injuries, and

W = the number of employed workers. Note that the denominator, W, used in calculating the fatality

incidence rate is the number of workers rather than full-time workers. Since many of these workers have

worked only a small fraction of a year, the fatality incidence rate will be lower than it would be if it was

based on full-time workers.

21 US Department of Labor. 1996. Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1994: A Collection of Data and Analysis.

Report 908. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
16

divisions. The table includes four types of information: (1) total cases, referred to as the

RIR; (2) total lost workday cases (i.e., those resulting in days away from work or

restricted work activity), referred to as the LWCIR; (3) cases with days away from work;

and (4) cases without lost workdays. Total cases (i.e., the RIR) is equal to the sum of

total lost workday cases (i.e., the LWCIR) and cases without lost workdays. The 1994

average incidence rates (i.e., RIR and LWCIR) for each major industry division are

recorded in a bar chart format in Figure 3-1. The RIR for each industry division is shown

as a lightly shaded bar; the LWCIR for each industry division is shown as a darkly

shaded bar.

Table 3-1. Nonfatal Occupational Injury and Illness Incidence Rates per 100 FullTime Workers by Industry, 1994

Lost Workday Cases

Industry Total

Cases1

Total2

With Days

Away

from

Work3

Cases

Without

Lost

Workdays

Agriculture, forestry, and

fishing4 10.0 4.7 3.9 5.2

Mining56.3 3.9 3.3 2.4

Construction 11.8 5.5 4.9 6.3

Manufacturing 12.2 5.5 3.2 6.8

Transportation and public

utilities5 9.3 5.5 4.2 3.9

Wholesale trade 7.7 3.8 2.8 3.9

Retail trade 7.9 3.3 2.6 4.6

Finance, insurance, and real

estate 2.7 1.1 0.9 1.6

Services 6.5 2.8 2.2 3.7

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and

Characteristics, 1994, Bulletin 2485, pp. 11-24.

1

 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers and are

calculated as: (N/EH) x 200,000, where N = the number of injuries and illnesses, EH = the total hours

worked by all employees during the calendar year, and 200,000 = the base for 100 equivalent full-time

workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year).

2

 Total lost workday cases equals cases involving restricted work activity only plus Days-Away-fromWork cases with or without restricted work activity.

3

 Days-Away-from-Work cases include those which result in days away from work with or without

restricted work activity.

4

 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees.

5

 Data conforming to OSHA definitions for mining operators in coal, metal, and nonmetal mining and for

employers in railroad transportation and provided to BLS by the Mine Safety and Health Administration,

U.S. Department of Labor; and the Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Independent mining contractors are excluded from the coal, metal, and nonmetal mining industries.
17

Figure 3-1. Nonfatal Occupational Injury and Illness Incidence Rates per 100 Full-Time Workers by Industry, 1994

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and Characteristics, 1994, Bulletin 2485, pp. 11-24

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Agriculture,

forestry, and

fishing

Mining Construction Manufacturing Transportation

and public

utilities

Wholesale trade Retail trade Finance,

insurance, and

real estate

Services

Industry Division

Illness and Injury Rate

Total Cases Total Lost Workday Cases

National Average Without Government = 8.4 Total Cases

= 3.8 Total Lost Workday Cases
18

The national average incidence rate for private industry (i.e., without government) fell

from 8.9 cases per 100 full-time workers in 1992 to 8.5 cases in 1993 and 8.4 cases in

1994. The number of injuries and illnesses estimated in any given year can be influenced

by changes in the level of economic activity, working conditions and work practices,

worker experience and training, and the number of hours worked. More serious injuries

(i.e., the LWCIR) had an incidence rate of 3.8 in 1994.

In the construction industry, there were about 529 thousand injuries and illnesses

estimated in 1994, resulting in an RIR of 11.8 cases for every 100 full-time workers. The

RIR has decreased from 13.1 in 1992 and 12.2 in 1993 to 11.8 cases in 1994. During a

recent 10 year period, the RIR has steadily decreased from a rate of 15.5 in 1984 to 11.8

cases per 100 full-time workers in 1994. By 1997, the RIR had declined to 9.5 (see

Section 3.3).

The steady decline in the RIR for the construction industry broke new ground in 1994.

For the first time in the more than 20-year history of the Survey, the injury and illness rate

in construction fell below the rate in manufacturing. The overall rates for these two

industry divisions continued to be higher than the rates in other industry divisions.

Although the steady decline in the estimated value of the RIR in the construction industry

is encouraging, a number of independent studies22, 23 indicate that the RIR values based

on the Survey underestimate injury rates in the construction industry. The primary source

of the discrepancy is under-reporting by construction establishments. Persuasive

evidence exists that firms with fewer than 50 employees under report occupational

injuries to BLS.24 Glazner et al25 advance three reasons why under-reporting is a

significant factor in the construction industry: (1) the construction industry includes many

small firms relative to other industries, and most evidence points to small firms as those

most likely to under report; (2) the construction industry, made up almost entirely of

firms that must compete with others to work on projects, has a strong incentive to under

report because of the use of experience modification ratings (i.e., ratings based on

workers' compensation claims data) by construction project managers and prime

contractors in the bidding process; and (3) construction is one of the riskiest industries,

with concomitly high workers' compensation premiums and, therefore, an economic

disincentive to make claims.26 Finally, for the construction industry in particular, BLS

 

22 Glazner, Judith F., Joleen Borgerding, Jan T. Lowery, Jessica Bondy, Kathryn L. Mueller, and Kathleen

Kreiss. 1998. "Construction Injury Rates May Exceed National Estimates: Evidence from the

Construction of the Denver International Airport." American Journal of Industrial Medicine (Vol. 24): pp.

105-112.

23 Oleinick, Arthur, Jeremy V. Gluck, and Kenneth E. Guire. 1995. "Establishment Size and Risk of

Occupational Injury." American Journal of Industrial Medicine (Vol. 28): pp. 1-21.

24 Ibid. pp. 19-20.

25 Glazner et al., p.111.

26 Workers' compensation premiums are usually calculated individually for each firm, while health

insurance premiums, for all but the largest firms, are calculated by pooling the experience of many likesized firms. Thus, if costs were shifted from workers' compensation to health insurance, a firm's workers'

compensation premium could be kept artificially low without an offsetting rise in health insurance

premiums, because those premiums would be subsidized by companies sharing the firm's health insurance

pool.
19

rates likely underestimate risk for workers on construction sites by including off-site

workers, such as office staff.27

The previous paragraph served to highlight an important factor, namely, the size of

construction establishments. Issues related to construction establishment size reappear

throughout this chapter. Construction establishment size is important because the

construction industry is very fragmented. This complicates efforts to disseminate

information on ways to improve safety performance (see Section 5.2). To better

understand the importance of construction establishment size, Table 3-2 has been

compiled from Census data. Table 3-2 presents information on construction

establishments with employees classified by establishment size. Reference to the table

shows that more than 80 % of all construction establishments have less than 10

employees. Approximately 98 % of all construction establishments have less than 50

employees. Construction establishments with less than 50 employees employ

approximately two-thirds of wage and salary construction workers. On the other hand,

construction establishments with 50 or more employees account for approximately 2 % of

all construction establishments. These, larger establishments, employ approximately onethird of wage and salary construction workers.

Table 3-2. Percentage of Construction Establishments and Employees by

 Establishment Size, 1994

Establishment Percent of All

Size Establishments Employees

1 to 9 82.70 28.39

10 to 49 15.23 38.34

50 to 249 1.93 22.92

250 to 999 0.13 7.06

1000 or more 0.01 3.29

Source: US Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns, 1994.

 See also http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cbp/national.html

Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5 summarize the Survey data for 1994 on nonfatal occupational

injury and illness incidence rates for the construction industry as a whole, by two-digit

SIC Code, and by three-digit SIC Code. In each table, the rows are arranged by industry

(i.e., the construction industry as a whole, by two-digit SIC Code, and by three-digit SIC

Code). Table 3-3 provides two types of information: (1) on injuries and illnesses

combined; and (2) on injuries only. Table 3-3 provides a frame of reference from which

to view more detailed information on the RIR, on the LWCIR, and on constructionrelated illnesses. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 are constructed to promote a better understanding of

how construction establishment size, as measured by the number of employees, affects

the key incidence rates. Table 3-4 focuses on one column of data from Table 3-3; it

provides information on how the value of the RIR varies as a function of construction

establishment size, classified by employment size group. Table 3-5 focuses on another

 

27 Glazner et al, p. 106.
20

column of data from Table 3-3; it provides information on how the value of the LWCIR

varies by employment size group.

Table 3-3 builds on the same format employed in Table 3-1. The first row of data

recorded in Table 3-3—Construction—provides a direct link back to Table 3-1, where

the construction industry was but one of the major industry divisions for which data were

reported. Note that Table 3-3 provides an additional breakout of data, since it records

information not only for injuries and illnesses but also for injuries only. Because the

same column headings are included both under the major headings of Injuries and

Illnesses and Injuries, any differences can be attributed to construction-related illnesses.

The key incidence rates—RIR and LWCIR—are found under the first two column

subheadings Injuries and Illnesses/Total Cases and Lost Workday Cases Total,

respectively. These values are 11.8 for the RIR and 5.5 for the LWCIR. Additional

information is recorded under the next two column subheadings under the major heading

of Injuries and Illnesses. These four values are identical to the four values recorded in

Table 3-1 for the construction industry as a whole.

Table 3-3 serves to highlight both the wealth of information published by BLS on

nonfatal occupational illnesses and injuries in the construction industry and the challenge

in using this information to produce sector-specific baseline measures. The BLS data

recorded in Table 3-3 and in other tables and figures in this section provide many insights

into construction worker health and safety issues. In addition, BLS formulates and

publishes their information in a way that enables researchers to “drill down” on a

particular data element. This approach is employed with the RIR, linking Tables 3-3 and

3-4, and with the LWCIR, linking Tables 3-3 and 3-5. When the full range of health and

safety information published by BLS is considered, the ways in which researchers can

“slice” and analyze that information multiplies greatly.

However, when attempting to produce sector-specific baseline measures, one is

confronted with two significant challenges. First, BLS neither collects nor publishes data

on the construction industry at the four-digit SIC Code level. BLS does publish

information on nonfatal occupational illnesses and injuries for manufacturing at the fourdigit SIC Code level. Information at the four-digit SIC Code level is necessary in order

to produce sector-specific baseline measures for the industrial sector and the commercial/

institutional sector. This is because the three-digit SIC Code 154 combines information

on all non-residential buildings (see Section A.2). At the four-digit SIC Code level,

industrial buildings and warehouses are classified under SIC Code 1541 and nonresidential buildings other than industrial buildings and warehouses are classified under

SIC Code 1542. Thus, the four-digit SIC Code 1541 maps into the industrial sector and

the four-digit SIC Code 1542 maps into the commercial/institutional sector. In the

absence of information on SIC Codes 1541 and 1542, no distinction can be made

between the rate of construction worker illnesses and injuries in either the industrial

sector or the commercial/institutional sector. Therefore, the baseline values for the

commercial/institutional sector and the industrial sector have the same value for the RIR

as SIC Code 154 and the same value for the LWCIR as SIC Code 154. Second, although

the information associated with SIC Codes 15 and 16 can be mapped into individual
21

sectors, special trade contractors, SIC Code 17, serve all four sectors of the construction

industry. Unfortunately, it is not possible to “redistribute” recordable or lost workday

cases from SIC Code 17 to any of the other construction industry SIC Codes. As a result,

the synthesis of sector-specific baseline measures (see Section 3.4) has to treat SIC Code

17 as if it were a “sector” and assign information from the other SIC Codes to the four

construction industry sectors.

Examination of the Survey data for the three two-digit SIC Codes recorded in Table 3-3

shows that special trade contractors have higher values of both the RIR and the LWCIR

than do general building contractors or contractors engaged in heavy construction, except

building. Going down one more level to the three-digit SIC Codes, shows that the value

of the RIR ranges from a low of 7.6 for painting and paper hanging to 17.5 for roofing,

siding, and sheet-metal work. Furthermore, five of the nine three-digit SIC Codes for

special trade contractors—171, 174, 175, 176, and 179—exceed the mean value of the

RIR (i.e., 11.8) for the construction industry as a whole, whereas none of the three-digit

SIC Codes associated with the other types of construction exceed the mean value.

Turning to the LWCIR, Table 3-3 reveals that severe injuries have higher incidence rates

for special trade contractors than for other types of construction. For example, six of the

nine three-digit SIC Codes for special trade contractors—174, 175, 176, 177, 178, and

179—exceed the mean value of the LWCIR (i.e., 5.5) for the construction industry as a

whole. Further examination of Table 3-3 demonstrates that the same patterns occur when

injuries only are considered.

Table 3-4 takes a closer look at the RIR data recorded in Table 3-3. Two characteristics

are of particular importance in interpreting the RIR data. First, a direct link back to Table

3-2 is included under the Employment Size Groups subheading of All. Specifically, for

each grouping of the construction industry (i.e., the construction industry as a whole, by

two-digit SIC Code, or by three-digit SIC Code) the overall mean value of the RIR for

that grouping is recorded under the subheading All. Second, each construction

establishment’s data is classified under one of the five Employment Size Groups

headings. These headings are: (1) 1 – 10; (2) 11 – 49; (3) 50 – 249; (4) 250 – 999; and

(5) 1,000 or more. Examination of the values for the RIR recorded under each

Employment Size Group heading reveals two interesting patterns. First, if a particular

three-digit SIC Code has a relatively high value for the RIR under the All subheading,

then it remains relatively higher across all Employment Size Groups. Second, the

Employment Size Group that tends to have the highest mean values for the RIR

corresponds to establishments with 50 to 249 employees.
22

Table 3-3. Nonfatal Occupational Injury and Illness Incidence Rates per 100 Full-Time Workers in the Construction

Industry, 1994

Injuries and Illnesses Injuries

Lost Workday

Cases

Lost Workday

Cases

Industry

SIC

Code

1994

Annual

Average

Employment

(1000’s)

Total

Cases Total

With

Days

Away

from

Work

Cases

Without

Lost

Workdays

Total

Cases Total

With

Days

Away

from

Work

Cases

Without

Lost

Workdays

Construction 5,010.0 11.8 5.5 4.9 6.3 11.5 5.4 4.8 6.2

General building contractors 15 1,200.5 10.9 5.1 4.5 5.8 10.7 5.0 4.4 5.7

 Residential building construction 152 608.9 10.3 5.1 4.7 5.3 10.2 5.0 4.6 5.1

 Operative builders 153 28.2 9.5 3.3 3.0 6.3 9.4 3.2 2.9 6.1

 Nonresidential building construction 154 563.4 11.5 5.1 4.3 6.4 11.2 5.0 4.2 6.2

Heavy construction, except

building 16 736.4 10.2 5.0 4.2 5.3 10.0 4.9 4.2 5.1

 Highway and street construction 161 225.8 10.7 5.0 4.1 5.7 10.5 4.9 4.0 5.5

 Heavy construction, except highway 162 510.6 10.0 5.0 4.3 5.1 9.8 4.9 4.2 4.9

Special trade contractors 17 3,072.8 12.5 5.8 5.2 6.7 12.3 5.6 5.1 6.6

 Plumbing, heating, air conditioning 171 687.4 13.2 5.3 4.6 7.9 13.0 5.2 4.6 7.8

 Painting and paper hanging 172 173.3 7.6 4.3 4.0 3.3 7.3 4.1 3.8 3.2

 Electrical work 173 566.3 10.8 4.3 3.8 6.5 10.6 4.2 3.8 6.4

 Masonry, stonework, and plastering 174 429.5 14.0 7.1 6.6 6.9 13.8 7.0 6.5 6.8

 Carpentry and floor work 175 210.0 13.5 6.8 6.2 6.7 13.4 6.7 6.2 6.6

 Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work 176 206.2 17.5 9.1 8.4 8.4 17.2 8.9 8.2 8.3

 Concrete work 177 — 11.3 6.0 5.4 5.3 11.0 5.8 5.3 5.2

 Water well drilling 178 — 9.7 5.7 5.2 3.9 9.5 5.7 5.1 3.8

 Miscellaneous specialty contractors 179 — 12.2 5.7 5.0 6.5 11.9 5.6 4.9 6.3

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and Characteristics, 1994, Bulletin 2485, pp. 11-12.
23

Table 3-4. Recordable Incidence Rates per 100 Full-Time Workers in the Construction Industry by Employment Size

Group, 1994

Employment Size Groups

Industry SIC

Code ALL 1 - 10 11 - 49 50 - 249 250 -

999 1,000+

Construction 11.8 7.7 13.0 14.6 10.2 4.6

General building contractors 15 10.9 8.6 11.9 13.7 — —

 Residential building construction 152 10.3 8.5 10.9 15.4 13.5 —

 Operative builders 153 9.5 — 12.1 8.7 — —

 Nonresidential building construction 154 11.5 — 12.7 13.3 6.6 —

Heavy construction, except

building 16 10.2 5.4 11.7 11.5 8.6 4.7

 Highway and street construction 161 10.7 5.2 9.9 11.4 — —

 Heavy construction, except highway 162 10.0 5.4 12.4 11.5 — —

Special trade contractors 17 12.5 7.5 13.6 16.3 — —

 Plumbing, heating, air conditioning 171 13.2 7.2 14.6 17.3 13.2 —

 Painting and paper hanging 172 7.6 6.2 7.4 11.7 — —

 Electrical work 173 10.8 6.7 11.8 12.8 10.4 10.5

 Masonry, stonework, and plastering 174 14.0 6.0 16.0 18.1 9.9 —

 Carpentry and floor work 175 13.5 7.8 13.7 22.1 36.0 —

 Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work 176 17.5 13.7 16.8 22.2 25.6 —

 Concrete work 177 11.3 5.8 12.3 16.7 15.8 —

 Water well drilling 178 9.7 7.2 14.7 9.6 — —

 Miscellaneous specialty contractors 179 12.2 9.0 13.4 14.3 — —

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/special.requests/ocwc/oshwc/osh/os/ostb0252.txt
24

Table 3-5. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rates per 100 Full-Time Workers in the Construction Industry by Employment

Size Group, 1994

Employment Size Groups

Industry SIC

Code ALL 1 - 10 11 - 49 50 - 249 250 -

999 1,000+

Construction 5.5 4.0 6.1 6.4 4.5 2.3

General building contractors 15 5.1 4.5 5.6 5.8 — —

 Residential building construction 152 5.1 4.5 5.3 6.9 5.1 —

 Operative builders 153 3.3 — 4.6 2.6 — —

 Nonresidential building construction 154 5.1 — 5.8 5.6 3.0 —

Heavy construction, except

building 16 5.0 2.6 6.0 5.5 3.7 2.5

 Highway and street construction 161 5.0 2.5 4.8 5.3 —

 Heavy construction, except highway 162 5.0 2.6 6.5 5.6 — —

Special trade contractors 17 5.8 3.9 6.3 7.0 — —

 Plumbing, heating, air conditioning 171 5.3 3.5 5.8 6.4 5.7 —

 Painting and paper hanging 172 4.3 3.8 4.3 5.7 — —

 Electrical work 173 4.3 3.0 4.5 4.8 4.8 6.1

 Masonry, stonework, and plastering 174 7.1 3.6 7.8 9.1 5.8 —

 Carpentry and floor work 175 6.8 4.5 6.9 10.4 14.9 —

 Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work 176 9.1 6.4 9.6 11.0 12.9 —

 Concrete work 177 6.0 3.5 6.7 8.3 6.6 —

 Water well drilling 178 5.7 5.1 7.3 4.7 — —

 Miscellaneous specialty contractors 179 5.7 4.6 6.4 6.2 — —

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/special.requests/ocwc/oshwc/osh/os/ostb0254.txt
25

Although the first pattern is to be expected, the second pattern bears a closer examination.

What the data are telling us is that medium sized construction establishments tend to have

higher recordable incidence rates. Very small establishments (i.e., 1 to 10 employees)

and very large establishments (i.e., 1,000 or more employees) exhibit the best safety

performance, as measured by the mean value of the RIR for that Employment Size

Group. Relatively better safety performance should be expected for very large

establishments, since they are more likely to have formal construction worker safety

programs in place, to conduct safety-related training activities, and to use the superior

safety performance of their workforce as a marketing tool. To interpret the rates for

smaller construction establishments requires recognition of the potential for underreporting by those establishments. Studies of the Denver International Airport (DIA)

construction project by Glazner et al28 and by Lowery et al,29 revealed significant

differences in the RIR both between the annual industry averages published by BLS and

the annual averages for the DIA project and between the BLS rates for each employment

size group and the rate for the DIA project for the same size group. Differences in the

LWCIR were more modest, and generally fell in line with the incidence rates published

by BLS.

The DIA project's overall total injury rates were over twice those published by BLS for

the construction industry for each year of DIA construction. Total injury rates for the

DIA project were consistently higher than the BLS rates across all employment size

groups. However, the injury rate pattern by company size at DIA differed from BLS's in

that small firms had injury rates that were higher or comparable to most other size

categories. Lowery et al assert that the reporting procedures established under DIA's

Owner Controlled Insurance Program coupled with its on-site medical clinic facilitated

the complete reporting of injuries, thereby virtually eliminating the potential for reporting

bias by company size. The results of the Lowery et al study indicate that employees of

smaller companies are at higher risk of injury than those of large companies when

controlling for job risk and other predictors of injury. These findings are in conflict with

the BLS estimates. Lowery et al conclude that the lower RIR estimates published by

BLS are probably due to under reporting.30

Table 3-5 takes a closer look at the LWCIR data recorded in Table 3-3. As before, two

characteristics are of particular importance in interpreting the LWCIR data. First, a direct

link back to Table 3-3 is included under the Employment Size Groups subheading of

All. Thus, for each grouping of the construction industry the overall mean value of the

LWCIR for that grouping is recorded under the subheading All. Second, each

construction establishment’s data is classified under one of the five Employment Size

Groups headings. Examination of the values for the LWCIR recorded under each

Employment Size Group heading reveals the same two patterns that were associated

with the RIR. First, if a particular three-digit SIC Code has a relatively high value for the

 

28 Glazner et al., 1998, op.cit.

29 Lowery, Jan T., Joleen A. Borgerding, Boguaug Zhen, Judith E. Glazner, Jessica Bondy, Kathleen

Kreiss. 1998. "Risk Factors for Injury Among Construction Workers at Denver International Airport."

American Journal of Industrial Medicine (Vol. 34): pp. 113-120.

30 Ibid., p. 118.
26

LWCIR under the All subheading, then it remains relatively higher across all

Employment Size Groups. Second, the Employment Size Group that tends to have the

highest mean values for the LWCIR corresponds to establishments with 50 to 249

employees. As was the case for the RIR, the data are telling us that medium sized

construction establishments tend to have higher LWCIRs. Once again, very small

establishments (i.e., 1 to 10 employees) and very large establishments (i.e., 1,000 or more

employees) exhibit the best safety performance, as measured by the mean value of the

LWCIR for that Employment Size Group. As noted earlier, relatively better safety

performance should be expected for very large establishments, since they are more likely

to have formal construction worker safety programs in place, to conduct safety-related

training activities, and to use the superior safety performance of their workforce as a

marketing tool. Why very small establishments have lower LWCIRs is likely due to

under-reporting.

Of the 529 thousand nonfatal injuries and illnesses estimated in the construction industry

in 1994, over 519 thousand were injuries that resulted in either lost work time, medical

treatment other than first aid, loss of consciousness, restrictions of work or motion, or

transfer to another job. The remainder of the construction industry cases (about 10

thousand) were illnesses.

The BLS classifies nonfatal occupational illnesses into seven categories. These

categories are: (1) skin diseases or disorders; (2) dust diseases of the lungs; (3)

respiratory conditions due to toxic agents; (4) poisoning; (5) disorders due to toxic

agents; (6) disorders associated with repeated trauma; and (7) all other occupational

illnesses. Tables 3-6 through 3-8 summarize Survey data by category of illness.

A total of 514.7 thousand nonfatal occupational illnesses were estimated in private

industry workplaces during 1994. Table 3-6 records information on the rate of nonfatal

occupational illnesses in total and by category of illness and industry division for 1994.

Reference to the first column of Table 3-6 Total Illness Cases, shows that the IIR varies

considerably across the nine industry divisions. For example, the IIR in manufacturing is

178.6, more than three times the next highest rate of 54.0 in agriculture, forestry, and

fishing. The IIR for construction is 21.8, a rate that is significantly below the national

average rate of 63.7. The 1994 average illness incidence rate (IIR) for each major

industry division is recorded in a bar chart format in Figure 3-2.

Table 3-6 shows clearly the effects of disorders associated with repeated trauma.

Disorders associated with repeated trauma account for nearly two thirds of all nonfatal

occupational illnesses (332.1 thousand of 514.7 thousand). These disorders include, but

are not limited to, carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis. In recent years, increased

emphasis has been placed on preventing carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis cases

because their effects, in terms of lost workdays, are disproportionately large. The second

leading cause of nonfatal occupational illnesses is skin diseases and disorders (65.7

thousand of 514.7 thousand). The category of skin diseases and disorders includes

eczema, chemical burns and inflammations, and rashes caused by primary irritants and

sensitizers or poisonous plants (e.g., poison ivy). The BLS list of skin diseases and
27

disorders does not include frostbite or sunburn, for which construction workers are at

risk.

Before turning our attention to construction-related illnesses, it is worth noting that the

estimated values for the IIR recorded in Table 3-6 are subject to under-reporting.31

Researchers at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and

elsewhere recognize the potential for under-reporting occupational illnesses. To remedy

this problem, NIOSH is aggressively pursuing a research program aimed at helping

health care providers to recognize occupational illnesses and to obtain adequate

information on a patient’s work and exposure history.32

Tables 3-7 and 3-8 record information on nonfatal construction-related illnesses by

category of illness. Information is provided for the construction industry as a whole and

by two-digit SIC Code. Table 3-7 records values for the IIR. Table 3-8 records the

number of illnesses in thousands. Reference to Tables 3-7 and 3-8 demonstrates that

disorders associated with repeated trauma and skin diseases or disorders are the leading

causes of construction-related illnesses. Although illnesses caused by disorders

associated with repeated trauma are not as significant for the construction industry as

they are for private industry workplaces in general, they are the leading cause of illnesses

for the construction industry as a whole and for two of the three, two-digit SIC Codes.

Skin diseases or disorders are the leading cause of illnesses in SIC Code 16 (Heavy

construction, except building).

 

31 Chronic occupational illnesses of long latency are almost entirely unreported (e.g., work-related cases of

cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancers). In addition, there is also severe underreporting of most non-latent and acute illnesses as well (e.g., work-related musculoskeletal disorders,

asthma, irritant and allergic dermatitis, reproductive disorders). Readers interested in obtaining additional

information on the subject of under-reported, work-related illnesses are referred to Leigh et al (see, Leigh,

J. Paul, Steven B. Markowitz, Marianne Fahs, Chonggak Shin, and Philip J. Landrigan. 1997.

"Occupational Injury and Illnesses in the United States." Arch Intern Med (Vol. 157): pp. 1557-1568.) and

to Herbert and Landrigan (see, Herbert, Robin, and Philip J. Landrigan. 2000. "Work-Related Death: A

Continuing Epidemic." American Journal of Public Health (Vol. 90): pp. 541-545.).

32 Research on exposure assessment methods is one component of NIOSH's National Occupational

Research Agenda (see US Department of Health and Human Services. 1999. National Occupational

Research Agenda: 21 Priorities for the 21st Century. Publication No. 99-124. Washington, DC: National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.).
28

Table 3-6. Nonfatal Occupational Illness Incidence Rates per 10,000 Full-Time Workers by Industry and Illness Category,

1994

Industry Total

Cases1

Skin

Diseases

or

Disorders

Dust

Diseases

of the

Lungs

Respiratory

Conditions

Due to

Toxic

Agents

Poisoning

Disorders

Due to

Physical

Agents

Disorders

Associated

With

Repeated

Trauma

All Other

Occupational

Illnesses

Agriculture, forestry, and

fishing 54.0 25.0 .3 1.8 1.5 5.7 12.1 7.4

Mining 26.1 3.0 6.6 1.2 - 1.8 11.8 1.4

Construction 21.8 5.8 .5 1.9 .5 2.6 6.2 4.3

Manufacturing 178.6 18.3 .5 6.0 1.9 6.4 136.2 9.3

Transportation and public

utilities 38.7 5.1 .5 3.0 1.6 2.1 21.1 5.3

Wholesale trade 28.1 4.5 .2 1.5 - 1.1 15.6 4.6

Retail trade 20.1 2.5 .1 1.4 .4 .8 11.2 3.7

Finance, insurance, and real

estate 29.8 1.5 .1 1.2 .3 1.3 21.0 4.5

Services 35.7 7.1 .2 3.3 .5 1.8 11.7 11.1

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and Characteristics, 1994, Bulletin 2485, pp. 44-46.

1

 The incidence rates represent the number of illnesses per 10,000 full-time workers and are calculated as: (N/EH) x 20,000,000,

where N = the number of illnesses, EH = the total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year, and 20,000,000 =

the base for 10,000 equivalent full-time workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year).
29

Figure 3-2. Nonfatal Occupational Illness Incidence Rates per 10,000 Full-Time Workers by Industry, 1994

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and Characteristics, 1994, Bulletin 2485, pp. 44-46.

National Average Without Government = 63.7 Total Cases

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Agriculture,

forestry, and

 fishing

M ining Construction Manufacturing Transportation

and public

utilities

Who lesale trade Reta il trade F inance, 

insurance, and

real estate

Services

Industry Division

Illness Rate

Total Cases
30

Table 3-7. Rate of Nonfatal Construction-Related Illnesses by Illness Category, 1994

Incidence Rates per 10,000 Full-time Workers

Industry SIC

Code

Total

Illness

Cases

Skin

Diseases

or

Disorders

Dust

Diseases

of the

Lungs

Respiratory

Conditions

Due to

Toxic

Agents

Poisoning

Disorders

Due to

Physical

Agents

Disorders

Associated

With

Repeated

Trauma

All Other

Occupational

Illnesses

Construction 21.8 5.8 .5 1.9 .5 2.6 6.2 4.3

 General building contractors 15 22.6 5.0 - 1.2 - 4.4 6.6 4.7

 Heavy construction, except

 building

16 23.4 9.3 - - .8 3.2 5.4 3.7

 Special trade contractors 17 21.2 5.3 .7 2.5 .4 1.8 6.2 4.3

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics: Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and Characteristics, 1994, Bulletin 2485, p. 44.

Table 3-8. Number of Nonfatal Construction-Related Illnesses by Illness Category, 1994

Number of Illnesses in Thousands

Industry SIC

Code

Total

Illness

Cases

Skin

Diseases

or

Disorders

Dust

Diseases

of the

Lungs

Respiratory

Conditions

Due to

Toxic

Agents

Poisoning

Disorders

Due to

Physical

Agents

Disorders

Associated

With

Repeated

Trauma

All Other

Occupational

Illnesses

Construction 9.8 2.6 .2 .9 .2 1.2 2.8 1.9

 General building contractors 15 2.4 .5 - .1 - .5 .7 .5

 Heavy construction, except

 building

16 1.7 .7 - - .1 .2 .4 .3

 Special trade contractors 17 5.8 1.4 .2 .7 .1 .5 1.7 1.2

Source: US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Occupational Injuries, Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and Characteristics, 1994, Bulletin 2485, p. 44.
31

Of the 6,588 fatal work injuries reported in 1994, 1,027 occurred in the construction

industry. This represents 15.6 percent of the fatality total, which is nearly three times

greater than the share of construction employment (6 percent) of total employment.

Table 3-7 records information on the number, percent, and rate of fatal occupational

injuries by industry. The fatality incidence rate is calculated based on 100,000 employed

workers. Table 3-9 includes the nine major industry divisions plus government. The

national average fatality incidence rate for the nine major industry divisions combined is

6 fatalities per 100,000 employees. If government data are included, then the fatality

incidence rate falls to 5 fatalities per 100,000 employees. Note that the fatality incidence

rate varies considerably. The rate for construction is the third highest (15 fatalities per

100,000 employees); it is exceeded only by mining (27 fatalities per 100,000 employees)

and agriculture, forestry, and fishing (24 fatalities per 100,000 employees). The 1994

average fatality incidence rates for each major industry division plus government are

recorded in bar chart format in Figure 3-3.

Table 3-9. Number, Percent, and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries by

Industry, 1994

Fatalities

Industry Number Percent

Employed1

(in

thousands)

Fatalities

per 100,000

employed2

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 847 12.9 3,496 24

Mining 180 2.7 668 27

Construction 1,027 15.6 6,948 15

Manufacturing 787 11.9 20,050 4

Transportation and public utilities 944 14.3 7,069 13

Wholesale trade 269 4.1 4,702 6

Retail trade 797 12.1 20,909 4

Finance, insurance, and real estate 112 1.7 7,900 1

Services 844 12.8 33,012 3

Government 665 10.1 19,715 3

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1994: A Collection of Data and

Analysis, Report 908, p. 121.

1

 The employment figures are annual average estimates of employed civilians 16 years of age and older,

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey (CPS), 1994. A resident military figure,

derived from resident and civilian population data from the Bureau of the Census, was added to the CPS

employment total and figures for government. CPS data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for

1993 and earlier years because of the introduction of a major redesign of the survey questionnaire and

collection methodology, and the introduction of 1990 census based population controls adjusted for the

estimated undercount. For additional information see “Revision in the Current Population Survey Effective

January 1994,” in the February 1994 issue of Employment and Earnings.

2

 The rate represents the number of fatal occupational injuries per 100,000 employed workers and was

calculated as follows: (N/W) x 100,000, where N = the number of fatal work injuries, and W = the number

of employed workers, as described in the previous footnote. There were 25 fatally injured workers under

the age of 16 years that were not included in the rate calculations to maintain consistency with the CPS

employment.
32

Figure 3-3. Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries per 100,000 Employed Workers by Industry, 1994

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1994: A Collection of Data and Analysis, Report 908, p. 121.

National Average = 5

National Average Without Government = 6

24

27

15

4

13

6

4

1

3 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Agriculture,

forestry, and

fishing

Mining Construction Manufacturing Transportation

and public

utilities

Wholesale

trade

Retail trade Finance,

insurance, and

real estate

Services Government

Industry Division

Fatality Rate
33

Table 3-10 provides a detailed picture of construction-related fatalities. The table

includes both the number of fatalities and the percentage of construction-related fatalities

to the national total of 6,588 fatalities. The table includes information on private sector

wage and salary workers, government workers, and self-employed workers. As a result

of including construction-related fatalities affecting government workers, the total for

construction-related fatalities is increased by 47 from 1,027 (see the Construction row

entry in Table 3-9) to 1074. Note that more than half of all construction-related fatalities

(592 out of 1,074) are associated with special trade contractors. Self-employed workers

accounted for 146 of all construction-related fatalities.

Figure 3-4 records fatal occupational injuries in the construction industry by type of

incident. Six types of incidents are shown in the figure: (1) falls; (2) transportation

incidents; (3) exposure to harmful substances or environments; (4) contact with objects

and equipment; (5) fires and explosions: and (6) assaults and violent acts. Figure 3-4

shows that in the construction industry falls to a lower level (316 fatalities) led all other

ways in which construction workers were fatally injured in 1994. Falls accounted for

nearly one third of all construction-related fatalities. Transportation incidents were

responsible for 265 fatalities; 129 of these fatalities were highway incidents.

Electrocutions were responsible for 140 construction-related fatalities. 86 constructionrelated fatalities resulted from being struck by an object (e.g., falling object, flying object,

or swinging object). Fires and explosions and assaults and violent acts each accounted

for three percent of the total.

Figure 3-4. Percent of Construction Worker Fatalities by Type of Incident, 1994

Electrocutions

14%

Highway

Incidents

13%

Falls to

Lower Level

 31%

Struck by

Object 8%

Other

13%

Other 4%

Other

10%

32%

26%

18% 18%

3% 3%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Falls Transportation

incidents

Exposure to

harmful

substances and

environments

Contact with

objects and

equipment

Fires and

explosions

Assaults and

violent acts

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1994: A Collection of Data and

Analysis, Report 908, p. 38.
34

Table 3-10. Construction-Related Fatalities for Private Sector Wage and Salary Workers, Government Workers, and SelfEmployed Workers, 1994

Fatalities Private Sector Wage

and Salary Workers Government Workers Self-Employed

Industry Workers

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Construction 1,074 16.3 881 18.9 47 7.1 146 11.7

General building contractors 191 2.9 159 3.4 — — 30 2.4

 Residential building construction 83 1.3 63 1.3 — — 19 1.5

 Nonresidential building construction 97 1.5 88 1.9 — — 8 0.6

Heavy construction, except building 291 4.4 236 5.1 44 6.6 11 0.9

 Highway and street construction 115 1.7 75 1.6 39 5.9 — —

 Heavy construction, except highway 171 2.6 156 3.3 5 0.8 10 0.8

Special trade contractors 592 9.0 486 10.4 — — 105 8.4

 Plumbing, heating, air conditioning 71 1.1 57 1.2 — — 14 1.1

 Painting and paper hanging 40 0.6 31 0.7 — — 9 0.7

 Electrical work 79 1.2 63 1.3 — — 15 1.2

 Masonry, stonework, tile setting, and plastering 53 0.8 42 0.9 — — 11 0.9

 Carpentry and floor work 31 0.5 20 0.4 — — 11 0.9

 Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work 89 1.4 77 1.6 — — 12 1.0

 Concrete work 34 0.5 30 0.6 — — 4 0.3

 Water well drilling 8 0.1 4 0.1 — — 4 0.3

 Miscellaneous specialty contractors 182 2.8 158 3.4 — — 24 1.9

 Structural steel erection 52 0.8 51 1.1 — — — —

 Excavation work 47 0.7 39 0.8 — — 8 0.6

 Special trade contractors, n.e.c. 46 0.7 36 0.8 — — 10 0.8

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1994: A Collection of Data and Analysis, Report 908, p. 67.

Note: The percentages recorded in Table 3.10 are all based on the national total of 6,588 fatalities. Thus, the 1,074 construction-related fatalities account for

16.3 percent of the national total.
35

3.3 Trends in Key Incidence Rates for Construction Worker Illnesses and Injuries

The purpose of this section is to highlight trends in the key incidence rates for

construction worker illnesses and injuries. Specifically, time-series data are presented on

the RIR, LWCIR, IIR, and the fatality incidence rate. We begin with a review of the two

core incidence rates, the RIR and the LWCIR. The core incidence rates for construction

worker illnesses and injuries have been declining in recent years. Figure 3-5 shows that

both the RIR and the LWCIR have declined between 1989 and 1997. During this period,

the RIR has declined from 14.3 to 9.5, a drop of almost 34 % and a compound rate of

improvement of 5.25 % per annum. During the same period, the LWCIR has declined

from 6.8 to 4.4, a drop of more than 35 % and a compound rate of improvement of 5.6 %.

Figure 3-5. Recordable Incidence Rate and Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for

 Years 1989-1997

Source: http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/work.html

Additional information on the RIR is recorded in Tables 3-11 and 3-12. Table 3-11

expands the information recorded in Figure 3-5 by adding the calculated values for the

RIR for the three, two-digit SIC Codes in the construction industry (i.e., SIC Codes 15,

16, and 17). Table 3-12 expands the information recorded in Figure 3-5 by adding the

calculated values for the RIR as a function of employment size group. Both tables

provide a direct linkage back to Figure 3-5 by recording the value of the RIR in each year

under the All Establishments column heading.

9.5 9.9

10.6

11.8 12.2

13.0 13.1

14.3 14.2

4.5 4.4 4.9

5.5 5.5 5.8 6.1

6.8 6.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Incidence Rate

RIR

LWCIR
36

Reference to Table 3-11 reveals that the RIR for each of the two-digit SIC Codes in the

construction industry has also declined significantly between 1989 and 1997. Recall

from the previous section that for the base year, 1994, SIC Code 17 had higher values for

the RIR than either SIC Codes 15 or 16 (see Table 3-3). Reference to Table 3-11

demonstrates that SIC Code 17 exceeds the average for all establishments in every year

between 1989 and 1997. In addition, the rate of improvement for the RIR between 1989

and 1997 for SIC Code 17 is less than for either SIC Code 15 or SIC Code 16. Thus, the

gap in safety performance between establishments within SIC Code 17 and

establishments within SIC Codes 15 and 16 is not being closed.

Table 3-11. Rate of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the Construction

 Industry by Two-Digit SIC Code for Years 1989-1997

SIC Code

Year

All

Establishments 15 16 17

1989 14.3 13.9 13.8 14.6

1990 14.2 13.4 13.8 14.7

1991 13.0 12.0 12.8 13.5

1992 13.1 12.2 12.1 13.8

1993 12.2 11.5 11.1 12.8

1994 11.8 10.9 10.2 12.5

1995 10.6 9.8 9.9 11.1

1996 9.9 9.0 9.0 10.4

1997 9.5 8.5 8.7 10.0

Source: http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/work.html

Reference to Table 3-12 reveals that the RIR is improving across all employment size

groups. Note that the time series recorded in Table 3-12 is shorter than in Table 3-11,

since it begins in the base year 1994. This is because prior to 1994 BLS reported nonfatal

illnesses and injuries using a different set of employment size groups (e.g., 1 to 19

employees prior to 1994 versus 1 to 10 employees since 1994). Recall from the previous

section that for the base year, 1994, establishments with 50 to 249 employees had the

highest values for the RIR and establishments with 1,000 or more employees had the

lowest RIR (see Table 3-4). Reference to Table 3-12 demonstrates that establishments

with 50 to 249 employees have the highest RIR in each year whereas establishments with

1,000 or more employees have the lowest RIR in each year. In addition, the rate of

improvement for the RIR between 1994 and 1997 for establishments with 50 to 249

employees is less than for establishments with 1,000 or more employees. These

differences are highlighted in Figure 3-6, where the overall RIR for the construction

industry is used as a reference point for the best and worst performing employment size

groups.
37

Table 3-12. Rate of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the Construction

 Industry by Employment Size Group for Years 1994-1997

Employment Size Groups

Year

All

Establishments 1 - 10 11 - 49 50 - 249 250 - 999 1,000+

1994 11.8 7.7 13.0 14.6 10.2 4.6

1995 10.6 6.5 12.3 12.5 9.7 3.1

1996 9.9 6.2 11.4 12.0 8.2 3.3

1997 9.5 6.4 10.3 11.3 8.4 2.8

Source: http://www.bls.gov/oshsumyy.htm, where yy designates the last two digits of the year.

Figure 3-6. Rate of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the

 Construction Industry by Employment Size Group for Years 1994-1997

9.9 9.5

10.6

11.8

12.5

14.6

12.0 11.3

4.6

3.1 3.3

2.8

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Incidence Rate

Overall

50 - 249

1,000+

Source: http://www.bls.gov/oshsumyy.htm, where yy designates the last two digits of the year.

Figure 3-7 records information on the IIR. Reference to the figure shows that after

reaching a peak in 1992 the IIR has tended to decline. For example, the IIR in 1994 was

21.8. By 1997, the IIR had declined by nearly 40 percent to 13.2.

Table 3-13 records information on the number of construction-related fatalities and the

fatality incidence rate for the construction industry as a whole and by class of worker.

Table 3-13 includes data from 1992 through 1997. These data record the number of

fatalities for all private construction workers, private wage and salary workers, and selfemployed workers. Since 1992, the fatality incidence rate in the construction industry

has hovered between 14 and 15 per 100,000 workers (see Figure 3-8). Reference to

Table 3-13 and Figures 3-8 and 3-9 reveals an underlying pattern. When fatalities are
38

broken down into cases involving wage and salary workers and self-employed workers,

the incidence rate for wage and salary workers has declined from 16.2 in 1994 to 14.5 in

1997 whereas the incidence rate for self-employed workers has increased from 9.8 to

12.7 (see Figure 3-9). It is important to note that among the nonagricultural industries,

construction has the highest proportion of self-employed workers. Since 1992, the

proportion of self-employed workers in the construction industry has ranged between

18.0 % and 21.5 %.33

Figure 3-7. Illness Incidence Rate for Years 1989-1997

18.9 19.1

15.6

20.8

26.4

21.8

13.2

17.0

17.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Incidence Rate

IIR

Source: http://www.bls.gov/oshsumyy.htm, where yy designates the last two digits of the year.

The two traces in Figure 3-9 raise an important safety-related issue. Recall that the

Survey of Nonfatal Occupational Illnesses and Injuries covers only establishments with

employees. Thus, the fatality incidence rate for wage and salary workers is the direct

analogue of the incidence rates for the three cases of nonfatal occupational illnesses and

injuries (i.e., all four use the same class of workers). The fact that the fatality incidence

rate for wage and salary workers is declining, as was the case for the RIR, LWCIR, and

IIR, is very encouraging. This downward trend in all four incidence rates suggests that

construction establishments with employees are paying increasing attention to safetyrelated issues, a subject which is covered in some detail in Chapter 4. However, the

upward trend in the fatality incidence rate for self-employed workers raises a note of

caution. Unless the fatality incidence rate for self-employed workers can be turned

around, fatalities in the construction industry may continue at a rate nearly three times the

national average. The upward trend in the fatality incidence rate for self-employed

 

33 The January issue of Employment and Earnings reports tabulations of employed civilians in

nonagricultural industries by class of worker (e.g., wage and salary workers and self-employed workers).

US Department of Labor. Employment and Earnings. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor and Statistics.
39

workers also raises a cautionary note on whether the incidence rates for nonfatal

occupational illnesses and injuries among self-employed workers are also rising or, at

least, not declining.

Table 3-13. Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries in the Construction

 Industry by Class of Worker for Years 1992-1997

Class of Worker

Total Private

Industry

 Wage and Salary

Workers

Self-employed

 Workers

Year

Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate

1992 919 14.2 781 15.6 138 9.4

1993 923 13.8 778 15.1 145 9.3

1994 1,027 14.8 881 16.2 146 9.7

1995 1,048 14.7 888 15.6 160 11.0

1996 1,039 14.0 887 14.9 152 10.2

1997 1,107 14.1 918 14.5 189 12.7

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, and

http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/work.html

Figure 3-8. Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries in the Construction Industry for

 Years 1992-1997

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, and

http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/work.html.

14.2 13.8 14.0

14.8 14.7

14.1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Private Industry
40

Figure 3-9. Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries in the Construction Industry by

 Class of Worker for Years 1992-1997

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, and

http://www.osha.gov/oshstat/work.html.

3.4 Synthesis of Industry-Wide and Sector Specific Baseline Measures

Table 3-14 shows general information on the construction industry as a whole and by

sector compiled from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Note that the BLS data are

for the year 1994. Thus, the BLS data report safety-related results for the base year (i.e.,

1994).

Table 3-14 records the baseline values for each of the four key incidence rates. These

rates are: (1) the RIR; (2) the LWCIR; (3) the IIR; and (4) the fatality incidence rate. The

first row of the table records the value of each incidence rate for the construction industry

as a whole. The next four rows record the value of each incidence rate for each sector

(i.e., residential, commercial/institutional, industrial, and public works). The last row

records the value of each incidence rate for special trade contractors (i.e., SIC Code 17).

Special trade contractors are reported separately because they serve all four sectors of the

construction industry. Unfortunately, it is not possible to “redistribute” incidents from

SIC Code 17 to any of the other construction industry sectors. Therefore, SIC Code 17 is

treated as if it were a “sector.” The information on each of the four types of incidents

(i.e., recordable, lost workday, illness, and fatality) for SIC Code 17 is incorporated into

the incidence rates for the construction industry as a whole.

15.6 15.6

9.4 9.3 9.7

14.5

16.2 15.1 14.9

12.7

11.0

10.2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Wage & Salary

Workers

Self-Employed

Workers
41

Table 3-14. Summary of Baseline Measures

Incidence Rate

per 100 per 100 per 10,000 per 100,000 Sector

Recordable Lost

Workday Illness Fatality

All 11.8 5.5 21.8 14.8

Residential 10.3a 5.0a 22.6c 14.8d

Commercial/Institutional 11.5b 5.1b 22.6c 14.8d

Industrial 11.5b 5.1b 22.6c 14.8d

Public Works 10.2 5.0 23.4 14.8d

Special Trade Contractors 12.5 5.8 21.2 14.8d

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and

Characteristics, 1994, Bulletin 2485, and Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1994: A Collection of Data and

Analysis, Report 908.

a Estimated.

b Requires information on the number of incidents and the number of craft work hours in SIC Codes 1541

 and 1542.

c Requires information on the number of incidents and the number of craft work hours in SIC Codes 152,

 153, 1541, and 1542.

d

 Requires information on the number of construction workers in SIC Codes 152, 153, 1541, 1542, 16, and

 17.

Table 3-14 includes a series of explanatory notes to help understand both what is

included and what is not included in the sector-specific baseline values of the key

incidence rates. Note “a” indicates that the baseline values of the RIR and the LWCIR

for the residential sector are estimated. Estimates for the RIR and the LWCIR for the

residential sector are produced by combining information from two, three-digit SIC

Codes (152 and 153). Specifically, information on the incidence rate and the number of

incidents is used to estimate craft workhours for each three-digit SIC Code. The number

of incidents are then added together (e.g., the number of recordables in SIC Code 152 and

the number of recordables in SIC Code 153) to get the numerator and the number of craft

workhours are added together to get the denominator in the formula used to calculate the

RIR and the LWCIR, respectively (see the definitions of the terms “N” and “EH” in Note

1 of Table 3-1). Each resultant (i.e., the value returned by dividing N by EH) is then

multiplied by 200,000 to get the estimated value for the RIR and for the LWCIR in the

residential sector (see Note 1 of Table 3-1). Note “b” indicates that sector-specific values

for the commercial/institutional and industrial sectors require information on two, fourdigit SIC Codes (1541 and 1542). In the absence of such information, the value for the

three-digit SIC Code 154 is used. Thus, the commercial/institutional sector and the

industrial sector have the same value for the RIR as SIC Code 154 and the same value for

the LWCIR as SIC Code 154. Note “c” indicates that additional information on SIC

Code 15 is needed in order to develop sector-specific values for the IIR for the

residential, commercial/institutional, and industrial sectors. Because in 1994 information

on the IIR was only published at the two-digit SIC Code level, three of the four sectors
42

(i.e., residential, commercial/institutional, and industrial) have the same baseline values

for the IIR. Note “d” indicates that sector-specific fatality incidence rates can not be

generated because information on the number of self-employed construction workers is

only reported for the construction industry as a whole.
43

4. How Safety Practice Use Affects Performance

Good safety performance requires planning, training, and commitment. The key

stakeholders in the construction industry—both the contractors performing the

construction tasks and the owners who commission the work—recognize this but are

often unclear on how to address the safety performance issue. Because firms in the

construction industry are often project centered, ways to address the safety performance

issue need to reflect this perspective. Both in the construction industry and elsewhere,

firms interested in performance improvement are increasingly turning to formalized

procedures and the use of metrics to help them track, analyze, and improve their

performance. Safety practices are one type of formalized procedure designed to help

construction firms address safety-related issues. Ideally, construction firms will put in

place a safety practice and use it to collect safety-related information on individual

projects and to document experiences resulting in either particularly good or poor safety

performance. By using a safety practice as a means of focusing on facts and data,

construction firms can learn from their experiences, improve their safety performance,

and reduce the costs associated with poor safety performance.

The goal of this chapter is twofold. First, it introduces the concept of a safety practice

and gives several examples of safety practices currently in use within the construction

industry. A discussion of safety practices is included because safety practices are a

vehicle for reducing construction-related illnesses and injuries. A full discussion of

safety practices is beyond the scope of this report. However, sufficient descriptive

material is presented to make the case that safety practices capable of serving the needs

of different types of construction firms exist and that these practices will promote

progress towards achieving the National Construction Goal of reducing constructionrelated illnesses and injuries by 50 %. Second, this chapter presents project-based

empirical evidence on how safety practice use translates into reductions in the recordable

incidence rate (RIR) and the lost workday case incidence rate (LWCIR). The empirical

evidence presented in this chapter and its analysis uses data collected by the Construction

Industry Institute (CII). Information collected by CII as part of an annual survey and

compiled in the CII Benchmarking and Metrics Database on the use of the CII Zero

Accidents safety practice34 is used to perform the analysis. The CII Zero Accidents

safety practice was developed by a research team composed of a broad cross-section of

CII members and outside subject matter experts. The CII Zero Accidents safety practice

was designed for use both by CII member firms and by the construction industry at large.

Although the construction firms that are members of CII tend to be fairly large, all of the

data recorded in the CII Benchmarking and Metrics Database is project based and hence

includes craft workhours and injury data for the prime contractor and all subcontractors.

The same is true for project data provided by CII members that are building/facility

owners. Thus, the results presented in Section 4.2 do not apply solely to the very largest

firms in the construction industry but also to the subcontractor tier serving these large

firms. However, since in all cases the prime contractor is, relatively speaking, a large

 

34 Construction Industry Institute. 1993. Zero Injury Techniques. Research Summary 32-1. Austin, TX:

Construction Industry Institute.
44

construction firm, the analysis does not imply that smaller construction firms using the

CII Zero Accidents safety practice would achieve similar results or that the CII Zero

Accidents safety practice would be particularly well-suited for them.

4.1 Overview of Safety Practices

This section describes briefly three general-purpose safety practices and provides

information on two special-purpose safety practices. The three general-purpose safety

practices are: (1) the OSHA Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines;35 (2)

ANSI Standard A10.38, Basic Elements of an Employer Program to Provide a Safe and

Healthful Work Environment;36 and (3) the CII Zero Accidents safety practice.37 The

two special-purpose safety practices are: (1) ANSI A10.33, Construction and Demolition

Operations—Safety and Health Program Requirements for Multi-Employer Projects;38

and (2) the Federal Highway Administration’s Work Zone Best Practices Program.39

OSHA Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines

Effective management of worker safety and health protection is a decisive factor in

reducing the extent and severity of work-related injuries and illnesses and related costs.

In 1989, OSHA issued recommended guidelines for the effective management and

protection of worker safety and health. The OSHA guidelines are summarized in the

following paragraphs; they are excerpted from material contained on the OSHA web

site.40

Employers are advised and encouraged to institute and maintain in their establishments a

program that provides adequate systematic policies, procedures, and practices to protect

their employees from, and allow them to recognize, job-related safety and health hazards.

An effective program includes provisions for the systematic identification, evaluation,

and prevention or control of general workplace hazards, specific job hazards, and

potential hazards that may arise from foreseeable conditions. Although compliance with

the law, including specific OSHA standards, is an important objective, an effective

program looks beyond specific requirements of law to address all hazards. It will seek to

prevent injuries and illnesses, whether or not compliance is at issue. The extent to which

the program is described in writing is less important than how effective it is in practice.

As the size of a worksite or the complexity of a hazardous operation increases, however,

 

35 Federal Register 54(18): pp. 3094-3916, January 26, 1989.

36 American National Standards Institute, Inc. 1991. Basic Elements of an Employer Program to Provide a

Safe and Healthful Work Environment. ANSI A10.38-1991. Itasca, IL: National Safety Council.

37 Construction Industry Institute. 1993. Zero Injury Techniques. Research Summary 32-1. Austin, TX:

Construction Industry Institute.

38 American National Standards Institute, Inc. 1992. Construction and Demolition Operations—Safety and

Health Program Requirements for Multi-Employer Projects. ANSI A10.33-1992. Itasca, IL: National

Safety Council.

39 US Department of Transportation. 1998. Meeting the Customer’s Needs for Mobility and Safety During

Construction and Maintenance Operations. HPQ-98-1. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.

40 See, http://www.osha-slc.gov/Publications/Const_Res_Man/1926_C_S&H_guide.html
45

the need for written guidance increases to ensure clear communication of policies and

priorities as well as a consistent and fair application of rules.

An effective occupational safety and health program will include the following four main

elements: (1) management commitment and employee involvement; (2) worksite

analysis; (3) hazard prevention and control; and (4) safety and health training.

1. Management Commitment and Employee Involvement

The elements of management commitment and employee involvement are

complementary and form the core of any occupational safety and health program.

Management’s commitment provides the motivating force and the resources for

organizing and controlling activities within an organization. In an effective program,

management regards worker safety and health as a fundamental value of the organization

and applies its commitment to safety and health protection with as much vigor as to other

organizational goals. Employee involvement provides the means by which workers

develop and/or express their own commitment to safety and health protection for

themselves and for their fellow workers. In implementing a safety and health program,

there are various ways to provide commitment and support by management and

employees. Some recommended actions are described briefly as follows:

• State clearly a worksite policy on safe and healthful work and working conditions, so

that all personnel with responsibility at the site (and personnel at other locations with

responsibility for the site) fully understand the priority and importance of safety and

health protection in the organization.

• Establish and communicate a clear goal for the safety and health program and define

objectives for meeting that goal so that all members of the organization understand

the results desired and measures planned for achieving them.

• Provide visible top management involvement in implementing the program so that all

employees understand that management’s commitment is serious.

• Arrange for and encourage employee involvement in the structure and operation of

the program and in decisions that affect their safety and health so that they will

commit their insight and energy to achieving the safety and health program's goal and

objectives.

• Assign and communicate responsibility for all aspects of the program so that

managers, supervisors, and employees in all parts of the organization know what

performance is expected of them.

• Provide adequate authority and resources to responsible parties so that assigned

responsibilities can be met.
46

• Hold managers, supervisors, and employees accountable for meeting their

responsibilities so that essential tasks will be performed.

• Review program operations at least annually to evaluate their success in meeting the

goals and objectives so that deficiencies can be identified and the program and/or the

objectives can be revised when they do not meet the goal of effective safety and

health protection.

2. Worksite Analysis

A practical analysis of the work environment involves a variety of worksite examinations

to identify existing hazards and conditions and operations in which changes might occur

to create new hazards. Unawareness of a hazard stemming from failure to examine the

worksite is a sign that safety and health policies and/or practices are ineffective.

Effective management actively analyzes the work and worksite to anticipate and prevent

harmful occurrences. The following measures are recommend to identify all existing and

potential hazards:

• Conduct comprehensive baseline worksite survey for safety and health and periodic

comprehensive update surveys and involve employees in this effort.

• Analyze planned and new facilities, processes, materials, and equipment.

• Perform routine job hazards analyses.

• Assess risk factors of ergonomics applications to workers’ tasks.

• Conduct regular site safety and health inspections so that new or previously missed

hazards and failures in hazard controls are identified.

• Provide a reliable system for employees to notify management personnel about

conditions that appear hazardous and to receive timely and appropriate responses and

encourage employees to use the system without fear of reprisal. This system utilizes

employee insight and experience in safety and health protection and allows employee

concerns to be addressed.

• Investigate accidents and “near miss” incidents so that their causes and means of

prevention can be identified.

• Analyze injury and illness trends over time so that patterns with common causes can

be identified and prevented.

3. Hazard Prevention and Control

Where feasible, workplace hazards are prevented by effective design of the job site or

job. Where it is not feasible to eliminate such hazards, they must be controlled to prevent
47

unsafe and unhealthful exposure. Elimination or control must be accomplished in a

timely manner once a hazard or potential hazard is recognize. Specifically, as part of the

program, employers should establish procedures to correct or control present or potential

hazards in a timely manner. These procedures should include measures such as the

following:

• Use engineering techniques where feasible and appropriate.

• Establish, at the earliest time, safe work practices and procedures that are understood

and followed by all affected parties. Understanding and compliance are a result of

training, positive reinforcement, correction of unsafe performance, and if necessary,

enforcement through a clearly communicated disciplinary system.

• Provide personal protective equipment when engineering controls are infeasible.

• Use administrative controls, such as reducing the duration of exposure.

• Maintain the facility and equipment to prevent equipment breakdowns.

• Plan and prepare for emergencies, and conduct training and emergency drills, as

needed, to ensure that proper responses to emergencies will be “second nature” for all

persons involved.

• Establish a medical program that includes first aid onsite as well as nearby physician

and emergency medical care to reduce the risk of any injury or illness that occurs.

4. Safety and Health Training

Training is an essential component of an effective safety and health program. Training

helps identify the safety and health responsibilities of both management and employees at

the site. Training is often most effective when incorporated into other education or

performance requirements and job practices. The complexity of training depends on the

size and complexity of the worksite as well as the characteristics of the hazards and

potential hazards at the site.

Employee Training

Employee training programs should be designed to ensure that all employees understand

and are aware of the hazards to which they may be exposed and the proper methods for

avoiding such hazards.

Supervisory Training

Supervisors should be trained to understand the key role they play in job site safety and to

enable them to carry out their safety and health responsibilities effectively. Training

programs for supervisors should include the following topics:
48

• Analyze the work under their supervision to anticipate and identify potential hazards.

• Maintain physical protection in their work areas.

• Reinforce employee training on the nature of potential hazards in their work and on

needed protective measures through continual performance feedback and, if

necessary, through enforcement of safe work practices.

• Understand their safety and health responsibilities.

ANSI Standard A10.38

ANSI Standard A10.38 is intended to list those minimum elements for a safety and health

program for a construction employer. ANSI recommends that each employer adapt the

elements to the needs of the construction organization and activity. ANSI Standard

A10.38 is one in a series of standards formulated by the Accredited Standards Committee

on safety in construction and demolition operations, A10. It is expected that the series of

standards will find a major application in industry, serving as a guide to contractors,

labor, and equipment manufacturers.

ANSI Standard A10.38 sets forth 12 elements that a construction employer’s safety and

health program should include. These 12 elements are:

1. A statement of the construction employer’s commitment to providing a safe and

healthful workplace for all employees.

2. A statement of the construction employer’s ultimate responsibility for the

implementation of the safety and health program.

3. New hire safety and health orientation training at the time of the initial hire of each

new employee.

4. Periodic safety and health training meetings for supervisors and employees.

5. Specific assignment of responsibilities for jobsite safety and health inspections.

6. At least daily inspections for the detection of hazardous conditions or hazardous work

performance.

7. Procedures for recording and reporting of incidents in accordance with OSHA

requirements.

8. Procedures for the investigation of job-related accidents and illnesses to determine

possible cause.
49

9. Specific designation of management person responsible for review of injuries and

illness reports.

10. An emergency response plan that sets forth the procedures to be followed upon the

occurrence

11. A policy with procedures for disciplinary action for the enforcement of the

construction employer’s safety and health program.

12. Reference to all applicable federal, state, and local safety and health laws and

regulations.

In addition, ANSI Standard A10.38 recommends that procedures be established to: (1)

ensure the correction or abatement of all hazardous conditions; (2) monitor the

implementation of the construction employer’s safety and health program; (3) monitor to

determine that accident, injury, and illness records are accurate and complete; (4)

maintain all safety and health records required by OSHA; and (5) provide each employee

with a summary of the construction employer’s safety and health program.

CII Zero Accidents Safety Practice

As indicated earlier, the CII Zero Accidents safety practice was developed by a research

team composed of a broad cross-section of CII members and outside subject matter

experts. The CII Zero Accidents safety practice was designed for use both by CII

member firms and by the construction industry at large. The CII Zero Accidents safety

practice contains 18 elements and 170 techniques. Readers interested in obtaining

additional information on the 170 techniques are referred to the CII source document.41

The 18 elements that comprise the CII Zero Accidents safety practice are:

1. Total Commitment to Zero Accidents

2. Project Safety Manual

3. Pre-Hire and Pre-Assignment Screening and Placement to Match Need

4. Safety Responsibility and Accountability

5. Use of Safety Statistics for Awareness, Accountability, and Process

6. Awareness and Tracking of Direct and Indirect Safety-Related Costs

7. Safety-Related Meetings

8. Hazard Analysis Prior to Project, Work, Task

 

41 Construction Industry Institute, Zero Injury Techniques, pp. 28-35.
50

9. Designated Person On-Site to Coordinate Safety

10. Contractor Safety Pre-qualification (Including Subcontractors)

11. Safety Incentive Program

12. New Employee Orientation

13. Formal Classroom Safety Training

14. Accident/Near Miss Investigations

15. Substance and Alcohol Abuse Program

16. Safety Performance Reviews, Inspections, and Audits

17. Empowerment of Employee to Act on Safety

18. Post-Injury Case Management

Additional information on the CII Zero Accidents safety practice is presented in Section

4.2.2, where data linking the use of this practice to reductions in the calculated values of

the RIR and the LWCIR are analyzed.

ANSI Standard A10.33

Investigations of major construction failures and individual injuries indicate that in a

majority of instances a lack of coordination between the owner, construction manager,

general contractor, and/or subcontractors was a primary contributing factor. ANSI

Standard A10.33 sets forth the minimum elements that defines the duties and

responsibilities of construction employees working on a construction project where a

single project manager supervises and controls the project. The standard is a composite

of the most effective policy and program elements taken from examples provided by

industry. The focus of these elements is on: (1) implementation; (2) responsibilities and

authority; (3) combined responsibilities; (4) program assignments; (5) assessment of

qualifications; (6) hazard reporting; (7) special safety and health plan; (8) monthly status

report; and (9) critical structures and complex processes.

Federal Highway Administration’s Work Zone Best Practices Program

The Federal Highway Administration’s research on best practices was driven by concerns

over fatalities in work zones (i.e., sites where roadway construction and maintenance take

place). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in collaboration with the various

state departments of transportation and construction industry and safety experts identified

266 best practices. The best practices are designed to minimize delay and/or enhance

safety during construction and maintenance operations. Some practice focus on both
51

issues (e.g., portable lighting for critical lane closures) while others affect construction

worker safety (e.g., highly visible reflectorized flagger vest) and others affect motorists

(e.g., providing real-time traffic information to the public). Readers interested in

additional information are encouraged to visit the FHWA work zone best practices web

site (http://www.fwha.dot.gov/quality/bestprac.htm).

4.2 Empirical Consideration Based on Construction Industry Institute Data

CII is an internationally recognized research consortium focused on advancing the capital

projects industry.42 CII draws its membership primarily from companies involved in the

operation (owners) or construction (contractors) of chemical manufacturing, oil refining,

pulp and paper, or similar industrial facilities. Because these facilities also include

infrastructure and commercial/office type operations, CII member companies span all

three non-residential sectors. In addition, CII contractor members often perform

substantial amounts of work in the commercial/institutional and public works sectors as

well as in the industrial sector. CII membership is nearly equally split between owner

members and contractor members.

CII’s role as a catalyst within the capital projects industry promotes a belief that these

project-oriented data are likely to become widely recognized throughout the nonresidential sectors of the construction industry as benchmarks by which to measure the

improvement of the industry. In addition, CII’s mission to improve the safety, quality,

schedule, and cost effectiveness of the capital investment process—not only through

research but also through a systematic implementation process—should ensure the broad

dissemination of findings from the annual data collection cycle. Finally, CII’s Goal 2000

initiative closely parallels the aims of National Construction Goals 1 and 7.43 To achieve

Goal 2000, CII will perform research that will help reduce total project costs by 20

percent, reduce total project duration by 20 percent, and improve project safety by 25

percent by the year 2000.

4.2.1 Construction Industry Institute Annual Safety Report

Each year since 1990, CII has published a Safety Report. Each year’s Safety Report (e.g.,

1999) is based on the immediate prior year’s performance data (e.g., 1998). The

calculated values for the RIR and the LWCIR provided in the Safety Report are based on

aggregated totals for owners, contractors, and for both (i.e., total number of recordable

incidents, total number of lost workday incidents, and total work hours). Since the

issuance of the Safety Report for 1998,

44 CII has also collected information on

construction-related fatalities. Unfortunately, CII has not collected information on the

 

42 The focus of the capital projects industry is on the delivery of new plants and equipment (e.g., buildings,

structures, and infrastructure).

43 Jortberg, Robert F., and Thomas R. Haggard. 1993. CII: The First Ten Years. Austin, TX: Construction

Industry Institute.

44 Thomas, Stephen R. 1998. Safety Report for 1998. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
52

total number of workers. Thus, a fatality incidence rate for the CII member organizations

that is consistent with the BLS definition can not be calculated. CII has been informed of

this deficiency and is exploring ways to incorporate information on the total number of

workers into future Safety Reports beginning with the 2001 edition.45

The data upon which the annual Safety Report is based are provided to CII by its member

companies via a survey questionnaire. Although response to the safety questionnaire is

voluntary, a significant majority of CII members respond. Over the past several years, a

core group of approximately 50 CII members has consistently responded to the safety

questionnaire. The safety questionnaire requests information on all projects, regardless

of size, that the CII member carried out during the previous calendar year. This

information includes total craft workhours, the number of recordable incidents, the

number of lost workday cases, and, since 1998, the number of fatalities. The safety

questionnaire breaks out information on prime contractors and subcontractors into

separate categories. Information is requested on all subcontractors, regardless of size.

The safety data provided to CII by member companies are representative of their safety

performance because these data cover the entire population of projects carried out during

the previous year. In addition, having information on both prime contractors and

subcontractors, provides a more complete picture of safety performance at the individual

project level. Beginning with the Safety Report for 1999,

46 CII also provided respondents

with a confidential key report. The key report compares individual company

performance to industry rates. For non-respondents and for other interested parties, the

Safety Report for 1999 includes a sample key report based on aggregated rates.

Each new Safety Report incorporates information from past Safety Reports. Thus, the

latest Safety Report results in an extended time series of computed values for both the

RIR and the LWCIR. The RIR data are plotted in Figure 4-1; the LWCIR data are

plotted in Figure 4-2. Each of the time series plotted in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 aggregates

data from CII owner and contractor respondents. To provide a frame of reference,

national construction industry averages as reported by BLS are also included in each

figure. Data for 1989 through 1997 are shown as traces in each figure—one trace for CII

respondents and one trace for the national construction industry average. Figures 4-1 and

4-2 demonstrate clearly that the construction industry is improving its safety

performance. CII companies, however, continue to set the pace for these improvements.

In 1989, CII companies reported an average RIR that was approximately 50 percent of

the national average. By 1997, CII companies had improved to only 17 percent of the

national average, indicating performance nearly six times as good as the construction

industry in general. A similar trend is confirmed by the LWCIR; CII companies

improved from 28 percent of the national average in 1989 to only seven percent of the

national average in 1997.

 

45 CII does collect information on total craft workhours. This information may be used to estimate the

number of full-time workers. Using the number of full-time workers rather than the total number of

workers to calculate the fatality incidence rate would result in a higher incidence rate since some

construction workers work only a small part of the year.

46 Thomas, Stephen R. 1999. Safety Report for 1999. BMM99-4. Austin, TX: Construction Industry

Institute.
53

Figure 4-1. Recordable Incidence Rate for Years 1989-1997

Source: Construction Industry Institute, Safety Report for 1999, BMM99-4.

Figure 4-2. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Years 1989-1997

Source: Construction Industry Institute, Safety Report for 1999, BMM99-4.

7.19

6.12

5.32

4.31

3.44 3.00

2.30

1.60

9.5 9.9

10.6 11.8 12.2

13.0 13.1

14.3 14.2

2.66

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Recordable Incidence Rate

Industry

CII

1.90

1.55 1.45 1.14

0.63 0.81 0.55 0.45 0.31

4.5 4.4

4.9

5.5 5.5 5.8 6.1

6.8 6.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

Industry

CII
54

4.2.2 The Construction Industry Institute Benchmarking and Metrics Database

Data from the Construction Industry Institute (CII) Benchmarking and Metrics Database

are used as a reference point from which to measure performance improvements due to

the use of the CII Zero Accidents safety practice for the three non-residential sectors.

These data result in a "specialized" set of baseline measures. The CII data are used in this

document because CII has committed itself to an annual cycle of surveying its member

companies, collecting data on an individual project basis, analyzing these data, and

publishing its findings.

Research by the author indicates that CII is one of the few organizations in the US that is

systematically collecting construction project data in a manner conducive to the

formulation of performance improvement measures for all three non-residential sectors.

CII has agreed to provide NIST with aggregated data from its database, which will enable

NIST to develop broad-based, industry-wide performance improvement measures for

reductions in construction worker illnesses and injuries.47 At the same time, NIST’s

analyses of the CII data will provide CII with valuable insights into the safety

performance of its member companies, which will be of direct benefit to its membership.

Several private companies also collect some construction project data for one or more of

the three non-residential sectors. However, these data are often specific to a particular

segment of the construction industry (e.g., petrochemicals) and thus cannot be used to

develop the broad-based, industry-wide measures associated with the National

Construction Goals. Furthermore, there may be no fixed reporting intervals or broadbased data collection effort that would provide confidence that these data are

representative. In addition, it is likely that such data could only be obtained on a fee-forservice basis.

Therefore, it is considered to be appropriate to make use of data from CII to analyze how

safety practice use affects safety performance. The frequency for publishing these data

and the methods of data collection meet the criteria established in Chapter 2. However,

there are several limitations of the CII data that should be kept in mind. These

limitations, when taken together, raise a concern that CII data may not be representative

of construction industry “averages” for the three non-residential sectors. This caveat is

based on three potential limitations. First, the CII members tend to be large companies.

Because the construction industry is dominated by smaller construction firms, the

performance of prime contractors on CII projects—both the CII member contractors and

any non-member contractors selected by CII owners—should be expected to be better

than the construction industry as a whole. However, since the CII Benchmarking and

Metrics Database includes information on all subcontractors, the safety performance

results presented in this section are not based solely on the performance of large

construction establishments. Second, the projects included in the database are selfselected and thus may not be representative of each member firm’s safety performance.

CII requests their members to submit “typical” projects. However, what is typical to one

 

47 All data provided to NIST by CII have been aggregated in a manner that precludes identification of an

individual company’s or project’s performance.
55

CII member may not be typical to another. Fortunately, the annual Safety Report

includes information that is representative of each member’s projects, since it includes

safety performance data on all their projects. Because approximately 60% of the

members who provide projects to the Benchmarking and Metrics Database are a subset of

those who respond to the annual safety questionnaire, the Safety Report serves as a

convenient reference point for purposes of comparison. As will be shown later, the

similarity between the reported values for the RIR and the LWCIR between the two data

sets is very encouraging. Finally, CII member companies may be more aggressively

pursuing performance improvement measures than companies that are not members of

CII. Thus the measures of safety performance derived from these data may be skewed

towards the “best practice” end of the non-residential construction project spectrum.

However, since the objective is to analyze how safety practice use affects safety

performance, the CII data are considered to be both appropriate and of value for

establishing the performance improvement measures presented in this document.

A key resource in CII’s effort to achieve Goal 2000 is the Benchmarking and Metrics

Program. The purposes of the Benchmarking and Metrics Program are: (1) to provide

information to member companies on the net impact in overall project performance

associated with using CII practices; and (2) to assist member companies in statistical

measurements that can improve their own capital project effectiveness. The vehicle

through which the purposes of the Benchmarking and Metrics Program are implemented

is CII’s Benchmarking and Metrics Committee. The Benchmarking and Metrics

Committee was chartered by CII’s Board of Advisors in November 1993. The

Benchmarking and Metrics Committee is composed of representatives from both owner

and contractor companies; it met for the first time in February 1994.

To provide quantitative measures of project performance, the CII Benchmarking and

Metrics Committee established a benchmarking database in 1996. The benchmarking

database is based on survey data collected from CII member companies. The

Benchmarking and Metrics Committee is responsible for the design of the survey

instrument, the training of benchmarking associates from member companies, and the

compilation and analysis of respondent data.

The survey instrument focuses on information on project size, cost, schedule, overall

performance, as well as on details of project execution. The survey instrument is

designed to collect information both on performance metrics—cost, schedule, and

safety—and on the use of CII practices. Perhaps most importantly, CII’s analysis of

respondent data seeks to quantify the impacts of CII practice usage on the values of

performance metrics (e.g., how the use of CII practices translates into reductions in

construction worker illnesses and injuries). Detailed information is collected on 6 of the

23 CII practices, including the following: (1) safety;48 (2) pre-project planning;49 (3) team

 

48 Safety practices include the site-specific program and efforts to create a project environment and state of

consciousness embracing the concept that all accidents are preventable and that zero accidents is an

obtainable goal.

49 Pre-project planning involves the process of developing sufficient strategic information with which

owners can address risk and decide to commit resources to maximize the chance for a successful project.
56

building;50 and (4) constructability.51 These data are used to construct a series of indices

for measuring the degree of usage both for individual practices (e.g., team building) and

for the overall set. Having data which links practice use to reductions in construction

worker illnesses and injuries is a valuable tool for identifying performance improvement

opportunities. Thus, the inclusion of these data provides a valuable additional dimension

to our effort to develop additional, specialized baseline measures for construction worker

illnesses and injuries in the three non-residential sectors.

Safety-related information from 279 projects totaling $14.6 billion (installed cost) has

been collected, compiled, analyzed, and made available to NIST. These project data

provide the basis for all of the tables in this chapter (i.e., Tables 4-1 through 4-10) and for

Figures 4-3 through 4-43. Consequently, the titles of the tables and figures throughout

Section 4.2.2 are used to qualify the source as either the entire set of 279 projects (e.g.,

Figure 4-3) or a selected subset of the 279 projects (e.g., Figure 4-29). Therefore, a

separate recounting of the source at the bottom of the table or figure was considered

redundant and has been omitted. Figure 4-3 summarizes the project data received from

both CII owners and contractors. Note that the number of projects is almost equally split

between owners and contractors.

The Benchmarking and Metrics Committee uses four construction industry groups and

allows for categorization of the database by these groups. The four industry groups are:

(1) buildings; (2) heavy industrial; (3) infrastructure; and (4) light industrial. Figure 4-4

reports the distribution of projects in the database by industry group. Data on both owner

respondent projects and contractor respondent projects are shown in Figure 4-4. The

heavy industrial group comprises approximately 60 percent of the database. The

remainder of the projects are fairly equally distributed among the other three industry

groups. Throughout this document buildings are classified under the commercial/

institutional sector, both heavy industrial projects and light industrial projects are

classified under the industrial sector, and infrastructure projects are classified under the

public works sector.

The CII database currently represents a broad range of project size as measured by cost.

As shown in Figure 4-5, approximately one-third of the projects have a cost of less than

$15 million, one-third have a cost between $15 and $50 million, and one-third have a cost

in excess of $50 million. The individual project costs range from slightly below $5

million to in excess of $500 million, with an average cost of approximately $50 million.

Data on both owner and contractor respondent projects are shown in Figure 4-5.

 

50 Team building is a process that brings together a diverse group of project participants and seeks to

resolve differences, remove roadblocks, and proactively build and develop the group into an aligned,

focused, and motivated work team that strives for a common mission for shared goals, objectives, and

priorities.

51 Constructability practices seek to achieve overall project objectives through the optimum use of

construction knowledge and experience in planning, design, procurement, and field operations.

Constructability is achieved through the effective and timely integration of construction input into planning

and design as well as field operations.
57

Figure 4-3. CII Database by Respondent Type

Figure 4-4. CII Database by Industry Type

279 Projects

$14.6 Billion

Contractors

143 Projects

Owners

136 Projects

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Buildings Heavy Industrial Infrastructure Light Industrial

Industry Group

Number of Projects
58

Projects in the CII database can be identified and categorized by the nature of the project.

Project nature indicates to which of the three categories a project belongs: (1) grassroots;

(2) addition; and (3) modernization. The survey instrument defined grass roots as a new

facility. An addition was defined as a new facility component that ties in to an existing

facility, often intended to expand capacity. Modernization was defined as a facility for

which a substantial amount of the equipment or structure is replaced or modified, and

which may expand capacity. For purposes of this document, grassroots projects are

classified under the heading of new construction, and addition and modernization projects

are classified under the heading of additions and alterations (See Section A.2). Figure 4-

6 shows how the projects in the database are distributed among the three categories of

project nature. The projects are approximately equally distributed among all three

categories. Data on both owner respondent projects and contractor respondent projects

are shown in Figure 4-6.

Projects in the CII database can be identified and categorized by number of craft hours.

The number of craft work hours expended during the execution of a project is of

particular importance when looking at safety performance data. Figure 4-7 shows how

the projects in the database are distributed among the four categories of craft workhours.

Projects with less than 100,000 workhours and more than 500,000 workhours are

approximately equally distributed in the database. The two remaining categories have

fewer projects. Data on both owner and contractor projects are shown in Figure 4-7.

Figure 4-5. CII Database by Cost of Project

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

<$15 $15 - $50 $50 - $100 >$100

Cost Category ($Million)

Number of Projects
59

Figure 4-6. CII Database by Nature of Project

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Addition Grass Roots Modernization

Nature of Project

Number of Projects

Figure 4-7. CII Database by Craft Workhours

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

<100,000 100,000 - 250,000 250,000 - 500,000 >500,000

Craft Workhours

Number of Projects
60

Data from CII are used to produce estimates for the RIR and the LWCIR for the three

non-residential sectors. The CII data used in this document include estimated values for

four key statistical measures: (1) the 75th percentile; (2) the mean; (3) the median; and (4)

the 25th percentile. Because these four measures cover the full interquartile range (i.e.,

the middle 50 percent of the data) for each subset of the overall CII data set, they provide

a wealth of information. The mean—the arithmetic average—and the median—the

middle value—are statistical measures of central tendency. These measures of central

tendency provide opportunities for comparing the CII data to the Census data described

in the previous chapter. The 75th and 25th percentiles provide a measure of variability.

They also serve to point out opportunities for performance assessment. For example,

users of this document can plot their own project data on the figure of interest to measure

their projects’ performance against the performance of similar projects in the CII data set.

The material presented in the remainder of this section is drawn from the CII

Benchmarking and Metrics Database. As such, it represents both a different set of data

and a more detailed frame of reference than the results presented in the annual Safety

Report. Furthermore, because each respondent’s benchmarking associate is trained on

how to complete the Benchmarking and Metrics Database questionnaire prior to

submitting it to CII and all entries to the Benchmarking and Metrics Database are

rigorously screened, these data are considered more comprehensive than the results

published in the annual Safety Report. Consequently, differences do result between the

computed values for the RIR and the LWCIR published in the annual Safety Report and

those derived from the Benchmarking and Metrics Database. Therefore, explanations are

given whenever such differences are considered to be significant.

The first set of safety-related information serves to further characterize the types of data

subsets contained in the CII Benchmarking and Metrics Database and to report on the

calculated values for the RIR and the LWCIR for each data subset. This information is

organized around a series of figures and tables. To facilitate comparisons among the

various CII data subsets, Figures 4-8 through 4-17 are arranged in a sequence and use an

identical format for data representation. The CII data subset sequence used in this

subsection employs the following four major headings: (1) industry group subsets (i.e.,

buildings, heavy industrial, light industrial, and infrastructure); (2) cost categories

($million) subsets (i.e., <$15, $15 - $50, $50 - $100, and >$100); (3) project nature

subsets (i.e., grass roots, addition, and modernization); and (4) craft workhours (in

thousands) subsets (i.e., <100, 100 – 250, 250 – 500, >500). Within each figure, the CII

data subsets for each major heading are listed on the horizontal axis. The vertical axis

records the corresponding value of a response variable, such as the recordable incidence

rate. For each subset, four key statistical measures are plotted on the figure: (1) the 75th

percentile, represented by a diamond (u); (2) the mean, represented by a square (n); (3)

the median, represented by a triangle (s); and the 25th percentile, represented by an x (×).

The data plotted on Figures 4-8 through 4-17 are recorded in Tables 4-1 through 4-10.

Calculated values for the RIR for each data subset are presented first. The same data

subset sequence is then repeated for the calculated values of the LWCIR. Figures 4-8

through 4-12 and Tables 4-1 through 4-5 record information on the calculated values of
61

the RIR. Figures 4-13 through 4-17 and Tables 4-6 through 4-10 record information on

the calculated values of the LWCIR. The tables also include information on the number

of projects in each data subset, as well as the minimum and maximum values for the RIR

and the LWCIR.

Figure 4-8 presents the interquartile range of values for the RIR by respondent type. The

data used to construct Figure 4-8 are recorded in Table 4-1. Reference to the figure

reveals that the interquartile range is much wider for contractors than for owners. In

addition, at least 25 percent of all owner projects resulted in zero recordable incidents.

Reference to the maximum values column of Table 4-1 reveals that the distribution of

RIR values for contractors is more highly skewed than the distribution of RIR values for

owners. Note that both distributions are skewed because the minimum value of the RIR

is zero. On average, the RIR for owners is 3.64 whereas the RIR for contractors is 6.22.

The average computed value for the RIR for owners and contractors combined is 4.96.

Figure 4-8. Recordable Incidence Rate by Respondent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Owner Contractor

Respondent

Recordable Incidence Rate

75th Percentile

Mean

Median

25th Percentile

Table 4-1. Recordable Incidence Rate by Respondent

Recordable Incidence Rate by Respondent

Statistical Measure Respondent

Number

of

Projects Minimum 25th

Percentile Median 75th

Percentile Maximum Mean

Owner 136 0.00 0.00 2.31 4.82 21.72 3.64

Contractor 143 0.00 1.35 3.22 8.58 77.76 6.22
62

Figure 4-9 presents the interquartile range of values for the RIR by industry group. The

data used to construct Figure 4-9 are recorded in Table 4-2. Reference to the figure

reveals that the interquartile range is tighter for heavy industrial projects than for

buildings, infrastructure, and light industrial projects. Note that for all four industry

groups the mean exceeds the median. This is due to the influence of relatively high

values (i.e., values between the 75th percentile and the maximum) on the mean. This

influence is most evident in the case of buildings and heavy industrial projects, where the

mean value is “pulled up” almost to the value of the 75th percentile. The mean values

recorded in Table 4-2 are used to define the baseline values for the RIR (i.e., the

additional, specialized baseline measures) for each of the four CII data sets. The mean

value of the RIR for all industrial projects (i.e., heavy industrial and light industrial

combined) is 4.40.

Figure 4-9. Recordable Incidence Rate by Industry Group

Table 4-2. Recordable Incidence Rate by Industry Group

Recordable Incidence Rate by Industry Group

Statistical Measure Industry Group

Number

of

Projects Minimum 25th

Percentile Median 75th

Percentile Maximum Mean

Buildings 37 0.00 0.00 2.04 6.30 50.00 6.14

Heavy Industrial 175 0.00 1.08 2.63 5.82 77.76 4.49

Infrastructure 30 0.00 2.34 5.90 10.76 22.04 7.15

Light Industrial 36 0.00 0.00 2.98 6.28 21.72 3.98

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Buildings Heavy Industrial Infrastructure Light Industrial

Industry Group

Recordable Incidence Rate

75th Percentile

Mean

Median

25th Percentile
63

Figure 4-10 presents the interquartile range of values for the RIR by cost category. The

data used to construct Figure 4-10 are recorded in Table 4-3. Reference to the figure

reveals that the interquartile range is much tighter for projects costing between $50

million and $100 million than for the other cost categories. Note also that the value of

the 25th percentile tends to rise as the cost of the project is increased. This reflects the

increasing difficulty of achieving zero recordables on large and complex projects.

Figure 4-10. Recordable Incidence Rate by Cost Category

Table 4-3. Recordable Incidence Rate by Cost Category

Recordable Incidence Rate by Cost Category

Cost Category Statistical Measure

($Million)

Number

of

Projects Minimum 25th

Percentile Median 75th

Percentile Maximum Mean

<$15 102 0.00 0.00 2.76 6.02 77.76 5.20

$15-$50 86 0.00 1.21 3.65 7.72 22.04 5.19

$50-$100 48 0.00 1.22 2.52 3.93 16.06 3.64

>$100 43 0.34 1.77 3.84 8.56 21.72 5.42

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

<$15 $15-$50 $50-$100 >$100

Cost Category ($Million)

Recordable Incidence Rate

75th Percentile

Mean

Median

25th Percentile
64

Figure 4-11 presents the interquartile range of values for the RIR by the nature of the

project. The data used to construct Figure 4-11 are recorded in Table 4-4. Reference to

the figure reveals that the interquartile range is much tighter for additions than for grass

roots and modernization projects. The figure also illustrates an interesting relationship

between the value of the 25th percentile and the proportion of zero recordable incidents.

Because a large proportion of modernization projects are relatively small (e.g., less than

$15 million total installed cost), at least 25 percent of all modernization projects result in

zero recordable incidents. The value of the 25th percentile for both grass roots projects

and additions is greater than zero. On the other hand, the calculated value of the mean

for modernization projects is “pulled up” due to the presence of a few relatively high RIR

values. Note also how much wider is the spread between the mean and the median values

for modernization projects versus additions. A similar pattern is evident for grass roots

projects.

Figure 4-11. Recordable Incidence Rate by the Nature of the Project

Table 4-4. Recordable Incidence Rate by the Nature of the Project

Recordable Incidence Rate by Nature of Project

Nature of Statistical Measure

Project

Number

of

Projects Minimum 25th

Percentile Median 75th

Percentile Maximum Mean

Grass Roots 104 0.00 1.45 3.17 8.43 50.00 5.57

Addition 89 0.00 1.06 2.64 5.58 22.04 3.79

Modernization 84 0.00 0.00 2.85 7.25 77.76 5.36

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Grass Roots Addition Modernization

Nature of Project

Recordable Incidence Rate

75th Percentile

Mean

Median

25th Percentile
65

Figure 4-12 presents the interquartile range of values for the RIR by craft workhours.

The data used to construct Figure 4-12 are recorded in Table 4-5. Reference to the figure

reveals that the interquartile range tightens slightly as the number of craft workhours is

increased. This tightening of the interquartile range reflects two countervailing effects.

First, as craft workhours increase, project managers place increased emphasis on safety.

These efforts tend to reduce the likelihood of particularly bad safety performance as

measured by the value of the 75th percentile. Second, as craft workhours are increased it

becomes increasingly difficult to achieve zero recordable incidents. This effect is

reflected through the increasing values of the 25th percentile as the number of craft

workhours is increased.

Figure 4-12. Recordable Incidence Rate by Craft Workhours

Table 4-5. Recordable Incidence Rate by Craft Workhours

Recordable Incidence Rate by Craft Workhours

Statistical Measure Craft

Workhours

(Thousands)

Number

of

Projects Minimum 25th

Percentile Median 75th

Percentile Maximum Mean

<100 78 0.00 0.00 2.20 7.35 77.76 5.79

100 – 250 65 0.00 1.00 3.08 6.52 16.06 4.53

250 – 500 54 0.00 1.52 2.79 6.59 22.04 5.03

>500 82 0.00 1.73 2.85 6.36 16.56 4.49

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

<100 100 - 250 250 - 500 >500

Craft Workhours (Thousands)

Recordable Incidence Rate

75th Percentile

Mean

Median

25th Percentile
66

Figure 4-13 presents the interquartile range of values for the LWCIR by respondent type.

The data used to construct Figure 4-13 are recorded in Table 4-6. Reference to the figure

reveals that the interquartile range is much wider for contractors than for owners. In

addition, at least 50 percent of all projects (i.e., both owner and contractor projects)

resulted in zero lost workday incidents. On average, the LWCIR for owners is 0.78

whereas the LWCIR for contractors is 1.06. Note that the calculated mean value for

owners falls outside of the interquartile range. This is due to the presence of relatively

high values (i.e., values between the 75th percentile and the maximum). The average

computed value for the LWCIR for owners and contractors combined is 0.93.

Figure 4-13. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Respondent

Table 4-6. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Respondent

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Respondent

Statistical Measure Respondent

Number

of

Projects Minimum 25th

Percentile Median 75thPercentile Maximum Mean

Owner 134 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 23.02 0.78

Contractor 144 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 12.90 1.06

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Owner Contractor

Respondent

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

75th Percentile

Mean

Median

25th Percentile
67

Figure 4-14 presents the interquartile range of values for the LWCIR by industry group.

The data used to construct Figure 4-14 are recorded in Table 4-7. Reference to the figure

reveals that the interquartile range is much tighter for heavy industrial projects than for

buildings, infrastructure, and light industrial projects. Note that the calculated mean

values for heavy industrial and infrastructure projects fall outside of the interquartile

range. This is due to the presence of relatively high values (i.e., values between the 75th

percentile and the maximum) associated with both industry groups. The mean values

recorded in Table 4-7 are used to define the baseline values for the LWCIR (i.e., the

additional, specialized baseline measures) for each of the four CII data sets. The mean

value of the LWCIR for all industrial projects (i.e., heavy industrial and light industrial

combined) is 0.66.

Figure 4-14. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Industry Group

Table 4-7. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Industry Group

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Industry Group

Statistical Measure Industry Group

Number

of

Projects Minimum 25th

Percentile Median 75th

Percentile Maximum Mean

Buildings 36 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.75 12.90 1.66

Heavy Industrial 176 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 23.02 0.67

Infrastructure 29 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.74 10.72 1.98

Light Industrial 36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 6.27 0.62

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Buildings Heavy

Industrial

Infrastructure Light Industrial

Industry Group

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

75th Percentile

Mean

Median

25th Percentile
68

Figure 4-15 presents the interquartile range of values for the LWCIR by cost category.

The data used to construct Figure 4-15 are recorded in Table 4-8. Figure 4-15 and Table

4-8 illustrate an interesting relationship between project cost and zero lost workday

incidents. For projects costing less than $15 million, more than 75 percent result in zero

lost workday incidents. Consequently, the mean value for the LWCIR for this cost

category falls outside the interquartile range (i.e., the mean value exceeds the value of the

75th percentile). For projects costing between $15 million and $50 million, more than 50

percent result in zero lost workday incidents. For projects costing more than $50 million,

more than 25 percent result in zero lost workday incidents.

Figure 4-15. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Cost Category

Table 4-8. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Cost Category

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Cost Category

Cost Category Statistical Measure

($Million)

Number

of

Projects Minimum 25th

Percentile Median 75th

Percentile Maximum Mean

<$15 102 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.78 0.73

$15-$50 86 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 12.90 1.11

$50-$100 48 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.81 2.83 0.56

>$100 42 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.57 23.02 1.45

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

<$15 $15-$50 $50-$100 >$100

Cost Category ($Million)

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

75th Percentile

Mean

Median

25th Percentile
69

Figure 4-16 presents the interquartile range of values for the LWCIR by the nature of the

project. The data used to construct Figure 4-16 are recorded in Table 4-9. Reference to

the figure reveals that the interquartile range is much tighter for additions than for grass

roots and modernization projects. Note, however, that all three subsets result in at least

25 percent of their projects having zero lost workday incidents. Also, for additions and

modernization projects, the proportion of projects resulting in zero lost workday incidents

exceeds 50 percent of the total.

Figure 4-16. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by the Nature of the Project

Table 4-9. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by the Nature of the Project

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Nature of Project

Nature of Statistical Measure

Project

Number

of

Projects Minimum 25th

Percentile Median 75th

Percentile Maximum Mean

Grass Roots 104 0.00 0.00 0.12 1.76 23.02 1.39

Addition 90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 9.26 0.52

Modernization 82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 8.33 0.78

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Grass Roots Addition Modernization

Nature of Project

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

75th Percentile

Mean

Median

25th Percentile
70

Figure 4-17 presents the interquartile range of values for the LWCIR by craft workhours.

The data used to construct Figure 4-17 are recorded in Table 4-10. Figure 4-17 and Table

4-10 illustrate an interesting relationship between craft workhours and zero lost workday

incidents. For projects with less than 100,000 workhours, more than 75 percent result in

zero lost workday incidents. Consequently, the mean value for the LWCIR for this craft

workhour category falls outside the interquartile range (i.e., the mean value exceeds the

value of the 75th percentile). For projects having between 100,000 and 250,000

workhours, more than 50 percent result in zero lost workday incidents. For projects

having more than 250,000 workhours, more than 25 percent result in zero lost workday

incidents. A similar relationship was seen between project cost and zero lost workday

incidents (see Figure 4-15 and Table 4-8).

Figure 4-17. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Craft Workhours

Table 4-10. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Craft Workhours

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate by Craft Workhours

Statistical Measure Craft

Workhours

(Thousands)

Number

of

Projects Minimum 25th

Percentile Median 75th

Percentile Maximum Mean

<100 78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.90 1.11

100 – 250 65 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 7.85 0.69

250 – 500 54 0.00 0.00 0.43 1.45 23.02 1.33

>500 82 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.69 9.26 0.66

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

<100 100 - 250 250 - 500 >500

Craft Workhours (Thousands)

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

75th Percentile

Mean

Median

25th Percentile
71

Before proceeding with a more detailed analysis of data on zero recordable incidents and

zero lost workday incidents, it is instructive to discuss some of the differences in the

mean values of the RIR and the LWCIR derived from the annual Safety Report and from

the Benchmarking and Metrics Database. Note that the mean values for the RIR and the

LWCIR derived from the Benchmarking and Metrics Database—4.96 and 0.93—exceed

the values given in the Safety Report for 1998—1.6 and 0.31. There are two factors

contributing to these differences. First, the values for the RIR and the LWCIR published

in each Safety Report between 1990 and 1998 include an indeterminate number of home

office hours. The values derived from the Benchmarking and Metrics Database—both

the RIR and the LWCIR—are based solely on craft workhours. Thus, the mean values

for the RIR and the LWCIR given in the annual Safety Report are biased downwards (i.e.,

are underestimates of the true values). Second, although the data from the CII

Benchmarking and Metrics Database provided to NIST were collected in 1996 and 1997,

the database includes a number of projects completed prior to 1996. Since the trend in

both the RIR and the LWCIR has been downward, the presence of “older” projects biases

upward (i.e., overestimates) the mean values of the RIR and the LWCIR derived from the

Benchmarking and Metrics Database. Both factors serve to accentuate the differences

between the two sets of mean values. Fortunately, both factors have been called to CII’s

attention; they are currently being addressed by CII. Beginning with the Safety Report

for 1999, home office and craft workhours are being tabulated separately. This enables

CII not only to continue to add to its original time series for the RIR and the LWCIR but

also to produce a new time series which more accurately reflects the true values of the

RIRs and LWCIRs for the companies submitting individual project data. In addition,

beginning with the 1998 survey of projects for the Benchmarking and Metrics Database,

the number of pre-survey- year projects has declined significantly. Consequently, data

published in the Safety Report for 1999 and data collected as part of the 1998 survey for

the Benchmarking and Metrics Database produced mean values for the RIR and LWCIR

that are remarkably close.52

Figures 4-18 through 4-22 provide information on the percent of projects achieving zero

accident performance (i.e., zero recordable incidents or zero lost workday incidents). The

figures are organized by major group heading. They use the same major group headings

and sequencing as employed in Figures 4-8 through 4-17. In each figure, the vertical axis

records the percent of projects achieving zero recordable incidents and zero lost workday

incidents. Within each figure, the CII data subsets for each major heading are listed on

the horizontal axis. All data are plotted as bars in the figure—one set of lightly shaded

bars for the RIR and one set of darkly shaded bars for the LWCIR. To facilitate

comparisons across data subsets, the percent of projects achieving zero accident

performance is recorded above each bar.

Figure 4-18 records zero accident performance by respondent type. Reference to the

figure shows that owners achieve better zero accident performance than contractors. For

example, 27 percent of all owner projects achieved zero recordable incidents while only

15 percent of contractor projects achieved zero recordable incidents. The same pattern is

 

52 Personal communication with Stephen R. Thomas, Assistant Director – Benchmarking, Construction

Industry Institute, September 15, 1999.
72

evident for lost workday incidents; owners achieved zero lost workday incidents on

nearly two thirds of their projects while contractors achieved zero lost workday incidents

on slightly more than half of their projects.

Figure 4-18. Zero Accident Performance by Respondent Type

Figure 4-19 records zero accident performance by industry group. Reference to the

figure shows that zero accident performance varies considerably across the four industry

groups. Infrastructure projects have the poorest zero accident performance; only 13

percent achieved zero recordable incidents and only 41 percent achieved zero lost

workday incidents. Heavy industrial projects had the highest percentage of projects

achieving zero lost workday incidents (63 percent), but performed rather poorly in terms

of zero recordable incidents (only 19 percent). On the other hand, light industrial projects

achieved zero lost workday incidents 61 percent of the time and zero recordable incidents

30 percent of the time. Building projects performed well for zero recordable incidents

(30 percent) but not for zero lost workday incidents (53 percent).

Figure 4-20 records zero accident performance by cost category. Reference to the figure

shows a clear pattern, as project cost goes up, zero accident performance goes down.

This outcome is to be expected, since it reflects the increasing difficulty of achieving zero

recordable/lost workday incidents on large and complex projects. However, it is

encouraging to see that 78 percent of all projects costing less than $15 million and half of

all projects costing between $50 million and $100 million result in zero lost workday

incidents.

27

15

66

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Owner Contractor

Respondent Type

Percent of Projects

Zero Recordables

Zero Lost Workdays
73

Figure 4-19. Zero Accident Performance by Industry Group

Figure 4-20. Zero Accident Performance by Cost Category

30

19

13

30

53

63

41

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buildings Heavy Industrial Infrastructure Light Industrial

Industry Group

Percent of Projects

Zero Recordables

Zero Lost Workdays

39

20

4

0

78

57

50

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

<$15 $15 - $50 $50 - $100 >$100

Cost Category ($Million)

Percent of Projects

Zero Recordables

Zero Lost Workdays
74

Figure 4-21 records zero accident performance by the nature of the project. Reference to

the figure shows that zero accident performance varies considerably across the three

types of projects. Grass roots projects have the poorest zero accident performance; only

15 percent achieved zero recordable incidents and only 48 percent achieved zero lost

workday incidents. Additions had the highest percentage of projects achieving zero lost

workday incidents (67 percent), but performed rather poorly in terms of zero recordable

incidents (only 19 percent). On the other hand, modernization projects achieved zero lost

workday incidents 65 percent of the time and zero recordable incidents 33 percent of the

time. Because a large proportion of modernization projects are relatively small (e.g., less

than $15 million total installed cost), other things being equal, they have a higher

likelihood of achieving zero accident performance.

Figure 4-21. Zero Accident Performance by Nature of Project

Figure 4-22 records zero accident performance by craft work hours. Reference to the

figure shows a clear pattern, as project craft work hours go up, zero accident performance

goes down. This outcome is to be expected, since it reflects the increasing difficulty of

achieving zero recordable/lost workday incidents on large and complex projects.

However, it is encouraging to see that 83 percent of all projects having less than 100,000

craft workhours (i.e., smaller projects) and 41 percent of all projects having 500,000 or

more craft workhours (i.e., very large projects) result in zero lost workday incidents.

Also, nearly half of all projects having less than 100,000 craft workhours (i.e., smaller

projects) result in zero recordable incidents.

Figures 4-23 through 4-27 record information on the degree to which respondents make

use of the CII safety practice. The CII safety practice, also referred to as Zero Accidents,

is one of 23 CII practices. CII has performed considerable research on these practices

15

19

33

48

67 65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Grass Roots Addition Modernization

Nature of Project

Percent of Projects

Zero Recordables

Zero Lost Workdays
75

and has defined indices for many of them, including the safety practice. These indices

are scored from 0 to 10, with a score of 0 indicating no use of the practice and a score of

10 indicating extensive or full use of the practice.

Figure 4-22. Zero Accident Performance by Craft Workhours

The CII Zero Accidents safety practice consists of 18 elements. Five of these elements

were designated as high-impact elements. Although CII research concluded that these

elements were the most significant, implementing them alone will not necessarily result

in safety performance approaching excellence.53 Therefore, CII recommends

institutionalizing a comprehensive basic safety process using the 170 safety techniques.

The five high-impact elements are: (1) pre-project/pre-task planning for safety; (2) safety

orientation and training; (3) written safety incentive program; 54 (4) alcohol and substance

abuse program; and (5) accident/incident investigations. These five elements and their

key techniques are summarized in Exhibit 4-1. A brief description of each element is

 

53 Construction Industry Institute, Zero Injury Techniques, p.6.

54Within the occupational safety and health community, there is much concern over the merits of safety

incentive programs. An OSHA-sponsored review of the literature concluded that there was no basis for

employer claims that their safety incentives programs actually make workplaces safer (see, BNAC Safety

Communicator (Winter 1999): p.5.). As reported in the BNAC Safety Communicator, OSHA’s review of

safety incentive programs also found that there is “often a chilling effect when the programs discourage the

reporting of injuries and illnesses.” These findings, coupled with a potential bias towards under-reporting

by small construction establishments, raise a concern about the appropriateness of the CII Zero Accidents

safety practice for smaller construction establishments. Although CII research has shown safety incentive

programs to be a high-impact element (see, Zero Injury Techniques, p.4.), more research is needed to

ascertain how these programs impact the subcontractor tier—especially smaller subcontractors.

49

23

7

2

83

65

44 41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

<100,000 100,000 - 250,000 250,000 - 500,000 >500,000

Craft Workhours

Percent of Projects

Zero Recordables

Zero Lost Workdays
76

given in the text that follows to provide a better understanding of the CII philosophy on

safety and its Zero Accident safety practice. Readers interested in a more detailed

description of the Zero Accidents safety practice are referred to the CII source document.

Pre-project/pre-task planning for safety includes a systematic review of the scope of the

project or task focused on identifying potentially hazardous tasks, conditions, toxic or

hazardous materials, or special training or procedures required to perform work. Safety

orientation and training activities include both the owner and the contractor. The

orientation is the “safety first” step given an employee before going out on the job site. It

is given to all personnel and visitors who wish to spend field time on the project site.

Incentives for safety performance may be stand-alone or can be part of a broader project

incentive program that includes cost, schedule, and quality. Drug and alcohol abuse

programs are often used in the construction industry. The investigation of an accident or

incident (i.e., near miss) sends a message of management concern to all employees on a

project. Failure to investigate also sends a message; one of management disinterest and

apathy toward worker safety. CII research has shown that owners and contractors who

are able to achieve zero or near zero injuries on their projects have rigorous procedures

on all aspects of accident investigations.55 Such investigations find the root causes of

accidents, result in recommendations for accident prevention, and insure that follow-up

actions do occur.

The procedure for measuring the use of the CII Zero Accidents practice is summarized in

Exhibit 4-2. A sample calculation based on responses taken from the Benchmarking and

Metrics questionnaire is shown in Exhibit 4-3. The entries in Exhibit 4-2 are extracted

from the CII Benchmarking and Metrics Questionnaire. Each row in Exhibit 4-2 is

numbered and corresponds to a question. The number of the question indicates its

placement within the CII Benchmarking and Metrics questionnaire.56 Each question has

two or more possible responses. Each response has a potential value, which reflects its

relative importance. Responses to the questions are indicated by shaded cells in Exhibit

4-3. Each response is entered in the appropriate row under the "score" column. The

sample calculation results in a raw score of 11.67. The raw score is normalized by

dividing it by 1.6. This produces a value for the safety practice index of 7.29. The raw

score must be normalized to insure that the value of the safety practice index lies between

0 and 10. It is important to note that the questions in the CII Benchmarking and Metric

Questionnaire do not cover all 18 elements of the Zero Accidents safety practice. Since

the questions in the Questionnaire focus primarily on the five high-impact elements, it is

likely that the current procedure for computing the safety practice use index

overestimates the degree to which respondents use the Zero Accidents safety practice.

NIST has recommended that CII expand the list of safety-related questions in the

Questionnaire to capture the full range of elements in the Zero Accidents safety practice.

 

55 Construction Industry Institute. Zero Injury Techniques, p. 20.

56 The first question on the CII questionnaire dealing with the Zero Accidents safety practice is question 19.

The previous 18 questions collect background information on the project. This includes company contact

information and information on: type of project (e.g., chemical manufacturing), project nature (e.g., new

construction), project budget and actual cost, the planned and actual schedule, scope changes, field rework,

and craft workhours and injury data.
77

Figures 4-23 through 4-27 are organized by major group heading. They use the same

major group headings and sequencing as employed in Figures 4-18 through 4-22. In each

figure, the vertical axis records the degree of practice use. The degree of practice use is

recorded via the computed value of the safety practice index, which ranges from 0 to 10.

Within each figure, the CII data subsets for each major heading are listed on the

horizontal axis. The degree of safety practice use is displayed by using a “modified” box

plot—a form of stacked-bar chart—that shows all four quartiles of data. The darkly

shaded box at the top of each plot depicts the upper quartile (i.e., the highest scoring

quartile of projects). The middle two boxes represent the interquartile range (i.e., the

middle 50 percent of the projects). The upper interquartile records the top half of the

projects in the interquartile range; it is designated by light shading. The lower

interquartile records the bottom half of the interquartile range; it is designated by

light/moderate shading. The moderately shaded box at the bottom of each plot depicts

the lower quartile (i.e., the lowest scoring quartile of projects). The small solid square on

each plot indicates the mean value for the index of safety practice use for each CII data

subset.

Exhibit 4-1. CII Zero Accidents Safety Practice: The Five Zero Injury Elements

 and Their Most Significant Techniques

1. Safety Pre-Project/Pre-Task

 Planning

• Safety Goals

• Safety Person/Personnel

• Pre-Placement Employee

Evaluation

• Task Hazard Analysis

• Task Training

2. Safety Orientation and Training

• Site Orientation

• Owner Involved in Orientation

• Safety Policies and Procedures

• Project Specific Orientation

• Formal Safety Training

3. Written Safety Incentive Program

• Cents per Hour for Workers

• Spot Cash Incentives Used with

Workers

• Milestone Cash Incentives

Given to Workers

• End of Project Incentives Given

to Workers

4. Alcohol and Substance Abuse

 Program (ASAP)

• Screening Done for Alcohol and

Drugs

• Screening Conducted at

Random

• Inspections for Contraband

Conducted

• Post Accident Screening Done

for All Employees

• All Project Contractors Have

ASAPs

5. Accidents/Incidents Investigations

• Incidents Investigated

• Accidents Without Injury

Investigated

• Accidents Reported to Home

Office

• Project Accident Review Team

Established for All Accidents or

Incidents

• Project Work Exposure Hours

and Safety Statistics Reported to

Home Office
78

Exhibit 4-2. CII Procedure for Calculating the Safety Practice Use Index

Yes No Score

1.00 0.00

1.00 0.00

1.00 0.00

1.00 0.00

1.00 0.00

1.00 0.00

1.00 0.00

1.00 0.00

Question Always Sometimes Seldom Never NA Score

27. Substance abuse tests were conducted after an accident: 1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00

28. Accidents were formally investigated: 1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00

29. Near-misses were formally investigated: 1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00

30. Senior management reviewed accidents: 1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00

31. Safety was a high priority topic at all pre-construction and

 construction meetings:

1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00

32. Safety records were a criterion for contractor/subcontractor 

 selection:

1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00

33. Pre-task planning for safety was conducted by contractor

 foremen:

1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00

34. Jobsite-specific orientation was conducted for new contractor and

 subcontractor employees:

1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00

TOTAL

Question

16 Questions, Maximum Score of 16 implies Divide total by 1.6 to scale to 0 - 10 point range

Safety Practice Use Index

19. This project had a written site-specific safety plan.

20. This project had a written site-specific emergency plan.

21. This project had a site safety supervisor.

22. The site safety supervisor for this project was full-time.

23. This project had a written safety incentive program for hourly craft employees.

24. Toolbox safety meetings were required.

25. This project required prehire substance abuse testing of contractor employees.

26. Contractor employees were randomly screened for alcohol and drugs.
79

Exhibit 4-3. Example of Safety Practice Use Index Calculation

Yes No Score

1.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 0.00

Question Always Sometimes Seldom Never NA Score

27. Substance abuse tests were conducted after an accident: 1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00 1.00

28. Accidents were formally investigated: 1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.67

29. Near-misses were formally investigated: 1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.33

30. Senior management reviewed accidents: 1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.67

31. Safety was a high priority topic at all pre-construction and

 construction meetings:

1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00 1.00

32. Safety records were a criterion for contractor/subcontractor 

 selection:

1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.00

33. Pre-task planning for safety was conducted by contractor

 foremen:

1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00 1.00

34. Jobsite-specific orientation was conducted for new contractor and

 subcontractor employees:

1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00 1.00

TOTAL 11.67

7.29

Question

19. This project had a written site-specific safety plan.

20. This project had a written site-specific emergency plan.

21. This project had a site safety supervisor.

26. Contractor employees were randomly screened for alcohol and drugs.

16 Questions, Maximum Score of 16 implies Divide total by 1.6 to scale to 0 - 10 point range

Safety Practice Use Index

22. The site safety supervisor for this project was full-time.

23. This project had a written safety incentive program for hourly craft employees.

24. Toolbox safety meetings were required.

25. This project required prehire substance abuse testing of contractor employees.
80

Combined owner and contractor data for safety practice use are presented in Figure 4-23.

This figure demonstrates that all projects report some use of the safety practice (i.e., the

minimum value of the safety practice index is 2.3). The mean, shown as a small black

square, indicates that the safety practice is used heavily—the safety practice index

averages 8.5 on a scale of 0 to 10. The median value of the safety practice index is 8.75

(e.g., the 50 percent of the projects that make heavy use of the safety practice produce

values of the safety practice index that equal or exceed 8.75 on a scale of 0 to 10). Note

that the greatest variability in safety practice use is in the lower quartile, which ranges

between the minimum value of the safety practice index (i.e., 2.3) and the value of the

safety practice index corresponding to the 25th percentile (i.e., 7.7). Note that the upper

quartile occupies a narrow band at the top of the chart. This is due in part to the fact that

about half of the projects in the upper quartile made full use of the safety practice (i.e.,

their value of the safety practice index was 10.0).

Figure 4-24 presents data on safety practice use by each of the four industry groups. The

figure shows considerable variation in the use of the safety practice across the four

industry groups. The range of values for the safety practice index is smallest for light

industrial projects and greatest for heavy industrial projects. However, on average, heavy

industrial projects make the most extensive use of the safety practice and building

projects make the least extensive use of the safety practice. Note that the means and the

medians are nearly identical to each other for three of the four industry group data subsets

(e.g., the mean value and the median value of the safety practice index for building

projects are nearly equal). The clear exception to this pattern is the category of heavy

industrial projects. Reference to the figure reveals that at least 25 percent of all heavy

industrial projects reported full use of the safety practice. Thus, the entire upper quartile

for heavy industrial projects is collapsed into a single value of the safety practice index of

10.0. Note also that the median value of the safety practice index for heavy industrial

projects equals or exceeds the 75th percentile for each of the other three industry group

data subsets.

Project cost and safety practice use tend to be positively correlated (i.e., as project cost

goes up, the degree to which the safety practice is used tends to go up). Figure 4-25

presents data on safety practice use by cost category. Reference to the figure shows

considerable variation in safety practice use across the four cost categories. However, a

clear relationship between project cost and safety practice use is present. Consider first

the value of the safety practice index equal to the 25th percentile (i.e., the point at which

the lower quartile meets the lower interquartile) for each cost category data subset. As

project cost goes up (i.e., moving from left to right across the four cost category data

subsets), the value of the 25th percentile increases steadily. A similar, though less welldefined, upward progression is also present for the mean, the median, and the 75th

percentile. Also note that for projects costing $100 million or more, the entire upper

quartile is collapsed into a single value of the safety practice index of 10.0.
81

Figure 4-23. Safety Practice Use for All Projects

Figure 4-24. Safety Practice Use by Industry Group

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

All Projects

Safety Practice Index

Upper Quartile

Upper Interquartile

Lower Interquartile

Lower Quartile

Mean

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Buildings Heavy

Industrial

Infrastructure Light Industrial

Industry Group

Safety Practice Index

Upper Quartile

Upper Interquartile

Lower Interquartile

Lower Quartile

Mean
82

Figure 4-25. Safety Practice Use by Cost Category

Figure 4-26 presents data on safety practice use by the nature of the project. The figure

shows less variation in the degree of safety practice use across the three data subsets as

was seen across the two previous major group data subsets (see Figures 4-24 and 4-25).

Although grass roots projects exhibit less variability in the degree of use of the safety

practice than the other two types of projects, the mean values of the safety practice index

for each of the three types of projects are nearly equal.

Craft workhours and safety practice use tend to be positively correlated (i.e., as craft

workhours go up, the degree to which the safety practice is used tends to go up). Figure

4-27 presents data on safety practice use by craft workhours. Reference to the figure

shows considerable variation in safety practice use across the four craft workhour

categories. However, a clear relationship between craft workhours and safety practice

use is present. Basically, the discussion given below follows the same pattern as for the

relationship between project cost57 and safety practice use. Consider first the value of the

safety practice index equal to the 25th percentile (i.e., the point at which the lower quartile

meets the lower interquartile) for each craft workhour category data subset. As craft

workhours go up (i.e., moving from left to right across the four craft workhour category

data subsets), the value of the 25th percentile increases steadily. A similar, though less

well-defined, upward progression is also present for the mean, the median, and the 75th

percentile. Also note that for projects having 500,000 craft workhours or more, the entire

upper quartile is collapsed into a single value of the safety practice index of 10.0.

 

57 Craft workhours and project cost tend to be highly positively correlated. Thus, the basis for the two sets

of relationships—safety practice use versus project cost/craft workhours—is essentially the same.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

<$15 $15 - $50 $50 - $100 >$100

Cost Category ($Million)

Safety Practice Index

Upper Quartile

Upper Interquartile

Lower Interquartile

Lower Quartile

Mean
83

Figure 4-26. Safety Practice Use by Nature of Project

Figure 4-27. Safety Practice Use by Craft Workhours

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Grass Roots Addition Modernization

Nature of Project

Safety Practice Index

Upper Quartile

Upper Interquartile

Lower Interquartile

Lower Quartile

Mean

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

<100 100 - 250 250 - 500 >500

Craft Workhours (Thousands)

Safety Practice Index

Upper Quartile

Upper Interquartile

Lower Interquartile

Lower Quartile

Mean
84

Figures 4-28 through 4-43 illustrate the relationship between safety practice use and the

two key safety metrics—the RIR and the LWCIR. Figures 4-28 through 4-35 illustrate

the relationship between safety practice use and the calculated values of the RIR. Figures

4-36 through 4-43 illustrate the relationship between safety practice use and the

calculated values of the LWCIR.

As has been done throughout this section, the figures are organized by major heading/

data subset. However, due to data limitations, it was necessary to modify the data subset

sequence from the sequence used earlier in this section. This step was necessary to

ensure that each data subset quartile contained at least 20 projects—the minimum number

from which meaningful statistics could be calculated. For example, because there were

relatively few projects in the buildings, infrastructure, and light industrial industry group

categories, the only industry group for which relationships are presented is the heavy

industrial category. Similarly, it was necessary to combine data from the $50 million to

$100 million cost category and the >$100 million cost category to form a new category

that satisfied the data requirements. The new cost category is designated by >$50

million.

In each figure, the vertical axis records the calculated value of the RIR or of the LWCIR

for the data subset under analysis. To help in interpreting the results presented in the

figures, lower values of either the RIR or the LWCIR are considered more desirable. The

horizontal axis provides information on safety practice use. The horizontal axis is

divided into four quartiles. The four quartiles span the entire range of the calculated

values of the safety practice use index for all projects contained in the data subset under

analysis. The quartiles measure the degree to which these projects have made use of the

safety practice. The calculated value of the practice use index is used to rank order all

projects contained in the data subset under analysis from lowest use to highest use. The

four quartiles are: (1) the lower quartile (i.e., the bottom 25 percent of practice use among

all projects contained in the data subset under analysis); (2) the lower interquartile (i.e.,

projects with practice use index values between the 25th and 50th percentiles); (3) the

upper interquartile (i.e., projects with practice use index values between the 50th and 75th

percentiles); and (4) the upper quartile (i.e., the top 25 percent of practice use). The

lower interquartile and the upper interquartile taken together are equivalent to the

interquartile range. The mean value of either the RIR or the LWCIR is plotted as a

square (n) on each figure for each safety practice use quartile.

Figure 4-28 records the relationship between the use of the safety practice and the RIR

for all owner and contractor projects combined. Reference to the figure demonstrates that

the mean value of the RIR within each safety practice use quartile declines steadily (i.e.,

moving from left to right across the four safety practice use quartiles). Projects making

the least use of the safety practice experienced on average an RIR of 7.68, whereas those

projects making the most use of the safety practice had an RIR of 2.81. Projects in the

lower interquartile for safety practice use had an RIR of 6.04. Projects in the upper

interquartile for safety practice use had an RIR of 3.58. Thus, even modest increases in

safety practice use for projects within the interquartile range are able to generate a

significant reduction in the mean value of the RIR.
85

Figure 4-28. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for All Projects

Figure 4-29 shows an even more pronounced relationship between use of the safety

practice and the RIR for heavy industrial projects than was seen for all projects.

Specifically, heavy industrial projects making the least use of the safety practice had an

RIR of 7.99, whereas those projects making the most use of the safety practice had an

RIR of 2.61. Thus, on average, moving from the lower safety practice use quartile to the

upper safety practice use quartile reduces the RIR by a factor of three.

Figure 4-30 illustrates the relationship between the use of the safety practice and the RIR

for projects costing less than $15 million. This figure demonstrates the same basic

relationship as was seen in Figures 4-28 and 4-29 with one important exception.

Reference to the figure shows that the mean value of RIR for the lower interquartile is

only marginally lower than for the lower quartile (i.e., 7.38 versus 8.01). However, once

the value of the safety practice use index exceeds the median (i.e., moves into the upper

interquartile), the mean value of the RIR drops from 7.38 to 3.88. Projects in the upper

quartile had a mean value of the RIR equal to 1.81.

Figure 4-31 illustrates the relationship between the use of the safety practice and the RIR

for projects costing between $15 million and $50 million. Figure 4-31 plots two

measures of central tendency—the mean value and the median value—for each safety

practice use quartile. The mean value is represented by a square (n); the median value is

represented by a triangle (s). Reference to the figure reveals that the median value of the

RIR within each safety practice use quartile declines steadily, whereas the mean declines

for only three of the four quartiles. This outcome is not uncommon, since it reflects the

effect that a few high values of the RIR can exert on the mean.

7.68

6.04

3.58

2.81

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Recordable Incidence Rate

Mean
86

Figure 4-29. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Heavy Industrial

Projects

Figure 4-30. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Projects Costing

Less Than $15 Million

7.99

5.08

3.09

2.61

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Recordable Incidence Rate

Mean

8.01

7.38

3.88

1.81

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Recordable Incidence Rate

Mean
87

Figure 4-31. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Projects Costing

Between $15 and $50 Million

Figure 4-32 illustrates the relationship between the use of the safety practice and the RIR

for projects costing more than $50 million. Reference to the figure reveals an interesting

outcome. Namely, the mean value of the RIR for the lower safety practice use quartile is

less than the mean value of the RIR for the lower interquartile (i.e., 4.36 versus 5.43).

Although this outcome is a bit puzzling, Figure 4-32 still exhibits the same general

relationship witnessed earlier (i.e., higher safety practice use produces a lower RIR). For

example, the lower safety practice use quartile has a mean value of the RIR of 4.36

whereas the upper safety practice use quartile has a mean value of the RIR of 1.52.

Figures 4-33 through 4-35 illustrate the relationship between the use of the safety practice

and the RIR classified by the nature of the project. Figure 4-33 covers grass roots

projects. Figure 4-34 covers additions. Figure 4-35 covers modernization projects. All

three figures exhibit the same general relationship between the use of the safety practice

and the RIR. Namely, higher safety practice use produces a lower RIR. By and large, for

each project type, the relationship between the use of the safety practice and the RIR is

clear, with a strong trend downward. The one exception is associated with modernization

projects. For modernization projects, the mean value for the RIR for the upper safety

practice use quartile exceeds the mean value for the upper interquartile (i.e., 3.63 versus

2.78). This discrepancy may be due to the presence of several high values for the RIR in

the upper quartile, which serve to “pull up” the mean value. Comparisons between the

lower safety practice use quartile and the upper safety practice use quartile for

modernization projects show a clear trend (i.e., a mean value of 8.86 for the RIR for

projects in the lower quartile and a mean value of 3.63 for projects in the upper quartile).

8.16

5.49

3.26

3.81

6.45

4.20

2.44 2.09

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Recordable Incidence Rate

Mean

Median
88

Figure 4-32. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Projects Costing

More Than $50 Million

Figure 4-33. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Grass Roots

Projects

4.36

5.43

3.81

1.52

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Recordable Incidence Rate

Mean

8.60

6.00

4.99

2.94

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Recordable Incidence Rate

Mean
89

Figure 4-34. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Additions

Figure 4-35. Safety Practice Use vs. Recordable Incidence Rate for Modernization

Projects

5.65

4.49

2.51 2.32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Recordable Incidence Rate

Mean

6.21

2.78

3.63

8.86

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Recordable Incidence Rate

Mean
90

Figure 4-36 records the relationship between the use of the safety practice and the

LWCIR for all owner and contractor projects combined. Reference to the figure

demonstrates that the mean value of the LWCIR within each safety practice use quartile

declines (i.e., moving from left to right across the four safety practice use quartiles).

Projects making the least use of the safety practice experienced on average an LWCIR of

1.64, whereas those projects making the most use of the safety practice had an LWCIR of

0.18. While this difference is significant, the decline in the LWCIR is not steady.

Reference to the figure shows that the LWCIR declines in a step-wise fashion.

Specifically, the transition from the lower interquartile to the upper interquartile, is where

the “step down” in mean value occurs. Projects in the lower interquartile for safety

practice use had an LWCIR of 1.51. Projects in the upper interquartile for safety practice

use had an LWCIR of 0.45. Thus, even modest increases in safety practice use for

projects within the interquartile range are able to generate a significant reduction in the

mean value of the LWCIR.

Figure 4-37 records the relationship between the use of the safety practice and the

LWCIR for heavy industrial projects. Reference to the figure demonstrates that the mean

value of the LWCIR within each safety practice use quartile declines in a step-wise

fashion. The pattern seen in Figure 4-37—a slight decline, followed by a sharp decline,

followed by a slight decline—is essentially the same as was seen in Figure 4-36.

Figure 4-38 records the relationship between the use of the safety practice and the

LWCIR for projects costing less than $15 million. Reference to the figure demonstrates

that the mean value for the LWCIR is a constant 1.16 across the two lower safety practice

use quartiles (i.e., the bottom 50 percent of this subset of projects). For the three higher

safety practice use quartiles, there is a clear—almost linear—downward trend. Note that

the mean value for the upper safety practice use quartile is 0.05. Thus, for this class of

projects, CII’s goal of “Zero Accidents” is close to reality.

Figure 4-39 records the relationship between the use of the safety practice and the

LWCIR for projects costing between $15 million and $50 million. Reference to the

figure demonstrates a sharp drop off, followed by a gradual tailing off. For example, the

mean value of the LWCIR for the lower safety practice use quartile is 2.28. Moving to

the lower interquartile, reduces the mean value of the LWCIR by almost 50 percent to

1.15. The mean value for the LWCIR in the upper interquartile then declines less sharply

to 0.51. Finally, the mean value for the LWCIR in the upper safety practice use quartile

declines to 0.35.

Figure 4-40 records the relationship between the use of the safety practice and the

LWCIR for projects costing more than $50 million. Reference to the figure reveals a

steady decline in the mean value of the LWCIR as the use of the safety practice becomes

more extensive. Specifically, the mean value of LWCIR declines from 1.02 to 0.82 to

0.33 to 0.07.
91

Figure 4-36. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for All

Projects

Figure 4-37. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Heavy

Industrial Projects

1.64

1.51

0.45

0.18

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

Mean

1.33

1.15

0.20 0.17

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

Mean
92

Figure 4-38. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Projects

Costing Less Than $15 Million

Figure 4-39. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Projects

Costing Between $15 and $50 Million

1.16 1.16

0.59

0.05 0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

Mean

2.28

1.15

0.51

0.35

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

Mean
93

Figure 4-40. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Projects

Costing More Than $50 Million

Figures 4-41 through 4-43 illustrate the relationship between the use of the safety practice

and the LWCIR classified by the nature of the project. Figure 4-41 covers grass roots

projects. Figure 4-42 covers additions. Figure 4-43 covers modernization projects. All

three figures exhibit the same general relationship between the use of the safety practice

and the LWCIR. Namely, higher safety practice use produces a lower LWCIR. By and

large, for each project type, the relationship between the use of the safety practice and the

LWCIR exhibits a clear trend downward. However, it is worth noting that for both grass

roots projects and for additions, the mean value of the LWCIR experiences a slight “up

tic” in moving from the lower safety practice use quartile to the lower interquartile. On

the other hand, the three higher safety practice use quartiles exhibit a strong downward

trend. For modernization projects, the mean value for the LWCIR for the upper safety

practice use quartile exceeds the mean value for the upper interquartile (i.e., 0.53 versus

0.21). This discrepancy may be due to the presence of several high values for the

LWCIR in the upper quartile, which serve to “pull up” the mean value. Comparisons

between the lower safety practice use quartile and the upper safety practice use quartile

for modernization projects show a clear trend (i.e., a mean value of 1.40 for the LWCIR

for projects in the lower quartile and a mean value of 0.53 for projects in the upper

quartile).

1.02

0.82

0.33

0.07 0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

Mean
94

Figure 4-41. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for Grass

Roots Projects

Figure 4-42. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for

Additions

2.13 2.19

1.21

0.21

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

Mean

0.75

0.93

0.26

0.15

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

Mean
95

Figure 4-43. Safety Practice Use vs. Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate for

Modernization Projects

4.3 Lessons Learned

The purpose of this section is threefold. First, it reviews some of the findings from the

analysis of the CII data. A discussion of the limitations of this analysis is also included.

Second, it reviews the role of safety practices in achieving the 50 % reduction in

construction worker illnesses and injuries called for in National Construction Goal 7.

Finally, it provides the basis for a number of recommendations for further research.

The results shown in Figures 4-28 through 4-43 are very encouraging. In all cases, the

mean values of the RIR and of the LWCIR were reduced significantly—often by as much

as 75 percent—as the degree of safety practice use moved from the lower quartile to the

upper quartile. It is also very encouraging to note that even modest increases in the

degree of safety practice use can translate into significant reductions in the mean values

of the RIR and of the LWCIR. For example, moving from the lower interquartile to the

upper interquartile often results in a reduction of the mean value of the RIR/LWCIR of

30 to 50 percent. Thus, among CII member companies, the more intensive use of the CII

Zero Accidents safety practice can be expected to translate into significant reductions in

construction-related injuries and illnesses.

Although these results offer great promise for improved safety performance among CII

member companies, they can not be extrapolated to the construction industry at large.

There are two reasons supporting the previous statement. First, with 18 elements and 170

1.40

0.97

0.21

0.53

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

Lower Quartile Lower Interquartile Upper Interquartile Upper Quartile

Safety Practice Use

Lost Workday Case Incidence Rate

Mean
96

techniques, the full CII Zero Accidents safety practice is better suited for use by larger

construction companies. As was seen in Chapter 3, larger construction companies

account for only a small fraction of construction industry employees. Larger construction

companies also tend to have better safety performance (see Tables 3-4, 3-5, and 3-12).

Second, the smallest projects in the CII Benchmarking and Metrics Database range

between $2 million and $5 million. Within the construction industry, such projects

would be considered large. Thus, there would likely be a fairly large number of

subcontractors involved and coordination and communication among project participants

would be more formal than in a smaller project. Such projects would also be more likely

to have in place a formal safety practice governing all project participants. In addition,

the prime contractors for such projects would be—relatively speaking—large

construction firms. Therefore, given the preponderance of small construction firms in the

construction industry, we are led to the hypothesis that the analysis presented in Section

4.2.2 does not imply that smaller construction firms using the CII Zero Accidents safety

practice would achieve similar results.

Five different safety practices were introduced in Section 4.1. As was seen there, some

of these practices were general in nature and some were designed for a special purpose.

Because the construction industry is so diverse, there is a real need to adapt safety

practices and their associated elements to meet the differing requirements and capabilities

of smaller construction firms and special trade contractors—areas where other empirical

studies have demonstrated relatively poorer safety performance.58 Because “what gets

measured gets managed,” safety practices have a real role in reducing construction

worker illnesses and injuries by 50 %. Lowery et al have shown that the risk of worksite

injury is heightened for older workers, workers new to a site, workers on contracts for

building construction and site development, workers on contracts with sizable overtime

payroll, and contracts belonging to small and mid-sized companies. Furthermore, the

occurrence of minor injuries increases the risk of having major injuries (i.e., lost workday

cases) on the same contracts.59 These topics are integral components in many of the

elements in the safety practices introduced in Section 4.1.

The key to achieving National Construction Goal 7, and perhaps to even achieving the

superior level of safety performance enjoyed by CII member companies, is a better

understanding of implementation effectiveness. Two separate sets of analyses could help

promote such an understanding. One such analysis could focus on administrative

databases established for Owner Controlled Insurance Programs. Such databases address

the “underreporting” problem discussed in Chapter 3 and provide the means for detailed,

project-level analyses of safety performance.60 Another promising area involves

additional analyses with the CII Benchmarking and Metrics Database to determine to

what degree smaller subcontractors use the CII Zero Accidents safety practice and how it

affects their safety performance. These and other topics are explored in Section 5.2.

 

58 Lowery, Jan T., Joleen A. Borgerding, Boguang Zhen, Judith E. Glazner, Jessica Bondy, and Kathleen

Kreiss. 1998. “Risk Factors for Injury Among Construction Workers at Denver International Airport,”

American Journal of Industrial Medicine (Vol. 34): pp. 113-120.

59 Ibid., pp. 117-118.

60 Ibid., p. 119.
97

5. Summary and Suggestions for Further Research

5.1 Summary

The Construction and Building Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology

Council is developing baseline measures of current construction industry practices and

measures of progress with respect to each of the seven National Construction Goals. The

seven National Construction Goals are concerned with: (1) reductions in the delivery time

of constructed facilities; (2) reductions in operations, maintenance, and energy costs; (3)

increases in occupant productivity and comfort; (4) reductions in occupant-related

illnesses and injuries; (5) reductions in waste and pollution; (6) increases in the durability

and flexibility of constructed facilities; and (7) reductions in construction worker

illnesses and injuries. Baseline measures and measures of progress are being produced

for each of the four key construction industry sectors. The four sectors are: (1)

residential; (2) commercial/institutional; (3) industrial; and (4) public works.

This report provides a detailed set of baseline measures for National Construction Goal 7

(reductions in construction worker illnesses and injuries). As such, it describes data

sources, data classifications, and the metrics used to develop the baseline measures.

Extensive use of charts and tables is made throughout this document to illustrate the

process by which the baseline measures were developed. These baseline measures will

assist in determining the success of actions taken to improve the competitiveness of the

US construction industry.

Chapter 1 provides background information about the project, its purpose, and scope.

Chapter 2 introduces the National Construction Goals and describes how a well-defined

set of metrics is used to develop the baseline measures and measures of progress.

Chapter 3 presents the baseline measures. These measures are based on data published

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS data cover both nonfatal construction

worker illnesses and injuries and construction-related fatalities. Nonfatal illnesses and

injuries are classified into three case types: (1) recordable; (2) lost workday; and (3)

illness. BLS produces incidence rates for each case type. The incidence rates are : (1)

the recordable incidence rate (RIR); (2) the lost workday case incidence rate (LWCIR);

and (3) the illness incidence rate (IIR). BLS also produces incidence rates for fatalities.

Chapter 4 introduces the concept of a safety practice and gives several examples of safety

practices currently in use within the construction industry. An analysis of the impact of

safety practice use on reducing nonfatal construction worker illnesses and injuries is then

presented. This analysis is based on data provided to NIST by the Construction Industry

Institute (CII). The chapter concludes with a discussion of why the aggressive use of

safety practices is a key instrument in achieving the 50 percent reduction in construction

worker illnesses and injuries set forth in National Construction Goal 7.
98

5.2 Suggestions for Further Research

The work for this document uncovered five areas of research that might be of value to

government agencies and private sector organizations who are concerned about reducing

construction worker illnesses and injuries. These areas of research are concerned with:

(1) the dissemination of more detailed illness and injury data by the BLS that would

facilitate the construction of sector-specific measures as opposed to general measures; (2)

the development of an action plan for disseminating information on safety practices and

for establishing guidelines on how to adapt safety practices for use by small and midsized construction firms; (3) the collection of additional project-level data to analyze the

relationships between safety practice use and reductions in construction worker illnesses

and injuries; (4) the role of the Construction and Building Subcommittee member

organizations in promoting the achievement of National Construction Goal 7; and (5) the

measurement and evaluation of progress toward achievement of National Construction

Goal 7.

In order to be able to generate more useful baseline measures, detailed source information

is required. As this document has shown, the BLS data are not made available in a form

that is sufficiently detailed to permit the construction of definitive sector-specific

measures for each of the four sectors defined by the Construction and Building

Subcommittee. If the BLS were to make available a time series of statistics61 for the RIR

and the LWCIR for each of the four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes

in the construction industry (see Section A.2), it would be possible to better define

baselines for each sector.

Because the vast majority of firms in the construction industry are small, research is

needed on the efficacy and efficiency of the various safety practices and their associated

elements. Specifically, which practices/elements work well (i.e., deliver results) and for

which type of construction firm (e.g., small contractors involved in residential

construction). Research aimed at determining why particular practices/elements work

well can then be used to develop guidelines on how to adapt that practice and its

associated elements to a particular type/size of construction firm or for a special

requirement.

Information presented in Section 4.2 showing the relationship between the use of the CII

Zero Accidents safety practice and the RIR and the LWCIR provides an indication of the

potential of this practice for reducing construction-related injuries on large construction

projects. More research and analysis is needed in order to better understand these

relationships and to identify ways in which this understanding can be used to: (1) drive

performance improvement on large projects; and (2) promote the use of appropriate

safety elements/techniques by small and mid-sized subcontractors.

 

61 The time series needs to include not only the key incidence rates (i.e., the RIR and the LWCIR) but also

the number of recordable incidents, the number of lost workday incidents, and the total number of craft

workhours for each four-digit SIC Code. This information is necessary to enable the supporting data

associated with each four-digit SIC Code to be allocated to one of the four construction industry sectors in

such a way that an incidence rate for each sector can be computed and checked against the supporting data.
99

The federal agencies comprising the Construction and Building Subcommittee are

encouraged to take a leadership role in achieving National Construction Goal 7. As

construction industry customers with research capabilities, the agencies are well

positioned to promote both research on and the demonstration and dissemination of best

practices for construction safety. Collaboration across agencies and with the private

sector could provide a very real contribution to raising the level of safety performance

nationwide. For example, agencies could take steps to encourage the use of project level

reporting to track and promote safety performance on federally-supported construction

projects. Such projects might also provide important research opportunities to further

national understanding of construction hazards and how to best address them.

Finally, in order to be able to measure progress toward achievement of National

Construction Goal 7, periodic reports need to be produced which re-visit the same data

sources used to generate the original baselines, and refine or expand the original baselines

as necessary to meet the changing needs of the construction industry stakeholders.
100
101

Appendix Overview of the Construction Industry

The construction industry is a key component of the US economy and is vital to the

continued growth of the US economy. Investment in plant and facilities, in the form of

construction activity, provides the basis for the production of products and the delivery of

services. Investment in infrastructure promotes the smooth flow of goods and services

and the movement of individuals. Investment in housing accommodates new households

and allows existing households to expand or improve their housing. It is clear that

construction activities affect nearly every aspect of the US economy. However,

construction activities are also strongly affected by the health of the economy and the

associated business cycle.62

This appendix provides a snapshot of the US construction industry. As such, it provides

the context within which baseline measures are developed. The appendix contains three

sections. Each section deals with a particular topic.

First, information on the value of construction put in place is provided to show the size of

the construction industry and each of its four sectors--residential, commercial/

institutional, industrial, and public works. Second, information on the nature of

construction activity for each sector of the industry is presented. The Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) Codes for the construction industry are introduced and described as a

means for organizing construction activity. Information on the nature of construction

activity includes breakouts between new construction activities, maintenance and repair

activities, and additions and alterations. The challenge of developing annual estimates

for each sector by nature of construction activity is described. Examples are given which

demonstrate how different data sources result in major differences in a particular year’s

estimates. Third, information on employment in the construction industry is summarized

and a series of employment-related statistics are presented. The SIC Codes for the

construction industry are used as a means for organizing key employment-related

information.

A.1 Value of Construction Put in Place

This section provides information on a key indicator of construction activity, the value of

construction put in place. Data published by the US Bureau of the Census are used to

establish the composition of construction expenditures by type of construction/function

(e.g., non-residential/office building). These expenditures are then assigned to the four

key construction industry sectors. The reference document used throughout this section

is the Current Construction Reports series C30 publication Value of Construction Put

 

62 Readers interested in learning more about construction statistics, their sources and interpretation, are

referred to the document by Rogers (Rogers, R. Mark. 1994. Handbook of Key Economic Indicators. Burr

Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing).
102

in Place.

63 A brief description of the “C30 report” follows. Special attention is given to

the organization of the data in the C30 report and how these data map into the four key

construction industry sectors. The section concludes with tabular and graphical

summaries of the value of construction put in place.

Construction expenditures data are published monthly in the Current Construction

Reports series C30 publication Value of Construction Put in Place. Construction

expenditures refer to actual construction rather than planned or just initiated activity. It is

noteworthy that the C30 report covers both private residential and non-residential

construction activities and public sector construction activities.

The value of construction put in place is a measure of the value of construction installed

or erected at a site during a given period. For an individual project, this includes: (1) cost

of materials installed or erected; (2) cost of labor (both by contractors and force account

(i.e., construction done for own use)) and a proportionate share of construction equipment

rental; (3) contractor’s profit; (4) cost of architectural and engineering work; (5)

miscellaneous overhead and office costs chargeable to the project on the owner’s books;

and (6) interest and taxes paid during construction. Expenses do not include the cost of

land nor do they include maintenance and repairs to existing structures or service

facilities.

The C30 data are compiled via survey and through indirect estimation. In the context of

the C30 survey, construction includes the following: (1) new buildings and structures; (2)

additions, alterations, conversions, expansions, reconstruction, renovations,

rehabilitations, and major replacements (e.g., the complete replacement of a roof or a

heating system); (3) mechanical and electrical installations (e.g., plumbing, heating,

electrical work, and other similar building services); (4) site preparation and outside

construction of fixed structures or facilities (e.g., sidewalks, highways and streets, water

supply lines, sewers, and similar facilities which are built into or fixed to the land); (5)

installation of boilers, overhead hoists and cranes, and blast furnaces; (6) fixed, largely

site-fabricated equipment not housed in a building (e.g., petroleum refineries and

chemical plants); and (7) cost and installation of construction materials placed inside a

building and used to support production machinery (e.g., concrete platforms, overhead

steel girders and pipes, etc.). It is important to note that the C30 survey produces

information not only on the value of new construction put in place but also contains an

unquantified component for additions and alterations for the non-residential sectors.

The data presented in the C30 report are divided into two parts: (1) private construction;

and (2) public construction. These data are summarized in Table A-1. The table records

annual values (in millions of constant 1992 dollars) for the years 1992 through 1996.

Separate column headings showing the type of construction/function and the assigned

sector--R for residential, C for commercial/institutional, I for industrial, and P for public

works--are also included. The sector assignment was made by the author.

 

63 Throughout this appendix, reference is made to the Current Construction Reports series C30

publication. These references include both how it is used as the basis for other sets of calculations

presented in this appendix and as a vehicle for comparing calculations based on other Census publications.
103

Private construction contains two major components--residential buildings and nonresidential buildings--plus a number of subcomponents. Both the two major components

and the various subcomponents are shown as headings in the first column of Table A-1.

The residential buildings component includes new private housing and improvements.

New private housing includes new houses, apartments, condominiums, and town houses.

New private housing units are classified as “1 unit” or “2 or more units.” The value of

improvements put in place are a direct measure of the value of residential additions and

alterations activities. Consequently, improvements are not included in the “new

construction” residential sector totals recorded at the bottom of Table A-1.

The non-residential buildings component includes industrial, office buildings, hotels and

motels, and “other commercial” (e.g., shopping centers, banks, service stations,

warehouses, and other categories). Also falling under the non-residential buildings

component are religious, educational, hospital and institutional, and “miscellaneous” nonresidential buildings.

Rounding out the private construction component are farm non-residential, public

utilities, and “all other private.” These are generally of a non-residential nature but are

not part of non-residential buildings. Farm non-residential construction includes

structures such as barns, storage houses, and fences. Land improvements such as

leveling, terracing, ponds, and roads are also a part of this subcomponent. Privately

owned public utilities construction is categorized by industry rather than function of the

building or structure. This subcomponent includes expenditures made by utilities for

telecommunications, railroads, petroleum pipelines, electric light and power, and natural

gas. “All other private” includes privately owned streets and bridges, sewer and water

facilities, airfields, and similar construction.

For public construction, there are two major components--building and non-building.

Both the two major components and the various subcomponents are shown as headings in

the first column of Table A-1. The building component contains subcomponents similar

to those for private construction, with educational buildings being the largest

subcomponent. Expenditures for the non-building component overwhelmingly consist of

outlays for highways and streets, with sewer systems being a distant second

subcomponent.

To get the “new construction” sector totals, which appear in the bottom portion of Table

A-1, each subcomponent was assigned to a sector and summed. The sector assignments

are recorded in the second column of Table A-1. Reference to the bottom portion of the

table reveals that sector totals vary considerably, with residential being the largest and

industrial the smallest.
104

Table A-1. Value of New Construction Put in Place

VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION PUT IN PLACE (SERIES C30)

Type of Construction

Assigned 

Sector Constant 1992 Dollars in Millions

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Total construction 451,998 461,078 480,965 474,426 493,587

Private construction 336,126 347,851 367,265 359,411 378,150

Residential buildings 187,687 200,502 218,005 201,682 212,069

New housing units 129,522 137,243 153,250 142,413 153,965

1 unit R 116,419 126,960 140,416 126,773 136,516

2 or more units R 13,103 10,283 12,833 15,640 17,449

Improvements 58,165 63,259 64,755 59,268 58,104

Nonresidential buildings 105,615 106,729 111,416 120,627 130,394

Industrial I 29,027 25,554 26,803 29,043 28,003

Office C 20,271 20,197 20,553 22,891 24,099

Hotels, motels C 3,690 4,405 4,308 6,351 10,263

Other commercial C 29,172 31,292 34,756 38,098 41,301

Religious C 3,483 3,748 3,584 3,864 3,961

Educational C 4,475 4,484 4,471 4,908 5,790

Hospital and institutional C 11,485 12,050 11,377 10,051 10,460

Miscellaneous C 4,011 5,000 5,565 5,421 6,516

Farm nonresidential C 2,396 3,271 3,008 2,693 2,736

Public utilities P 36,859 34,120 32,074 31,767 30,842

Telecommunications P 9,005 9,468 9,785 10,071 10,420

Other public utilities P 27,854 24,652 22,289 21,696 20,422

Railroads P 2,926 3,056 3,186 3,202 4,030

Electric light and power P 17,184 15,096 13,877 12,656 11,191

Gas P 6,895 5,536 4,308 5,004 4,291

Petroleum pipelines P 849 965 918 834 910

All other private P 3,569 3,229 2,763 2,644 2,109

Public construction 115,872 113,227 113,700 115,014 115,437

Buildings 49,988 46,813 45,177 47,832 49,415

Housing and development R 4,136 3,833 3,326 3,754 3,881

Industrial I 1,875 1,658 1,358 1,348 1,216

Educational C 20,645 18,465 17,593 19,237 20,131

Hospital C 3,383 3,579 3,787 3,854 3,981

Other C 19,949 19,279 19,114 19,638 20,207

Highways and streets P 33,132 34,164 36,151 33,500 33,297

Military facilities P 2,502 2,405 2,196 2,729 2,225

Conservation and development P 5,946 5,771 6,091 5,773 5,244

Sewer systems P 9,658 8,622 8,592 8,975 9,060

Water supply facilities P 5,170 4,868 4,443 4,923 5,121

Miscellaneous public P 9,475 10,583 11,050 11,282 11,075

New Construction

SECTOR TOTALS and SUMMARY

Residential (R) 133,658 141,076 156,576 146,167 157,846

Commercial/Institutional (C) 122,960 125,770 128,116 137,006 149,445

Industrial (I) 30,902 27,212 28,161 30,391 29,219

Public Works (P) 106,311 103,762 103,360 101,593 98,973

Total for all Sectors 393,831 397,820 416,213 415,157 435,483
105

Table A-1 highlights an important distinction between the residential sector and the three

non-residential sectors. Reference to the “Residential Buildings” component of the table

(i.e., the entry immediately below the heading Private Construction) for the year 1992

produces a value of $187,687 million. This value differs from the value for the

residential sector, $133,658 million, given immediately below the heading of SECTOR

TOTALS and SUMMARY in the bottom portion of the table. The reason for the

difference is due to the exclusion of the value of private residential improvements (i.e.,

additions and alterations) and the inclusion of the value of public housing and

development. Because the values given in the bottom portion of Table A-1 are estimates

of the values of new construction put in place, it is necessary to net out the value of

residential improvements. While this is a straightforward process for the private

residential sector, no specific information on additions and alterations is published in the

C30 report for either the three non-residential sectors or for public housing and

development. Consequently, we have assumed that the values for additions and

alterations for the three non-residential sectors and for public housing and development

are zero. This implies that the sector totals for commercial/institutional, industrial, and

public works are the values of new construction put in place for each of the years 1992

through 1996. A rationale for this assumption is given in the next section, which covers

the nature of construction activities.

Figure A-1. Value of New Construction Put in Place

The Table A-1 sector totals and the overall construction industry totals for the value of

new construction put in place are shown graphically in Figure A-1. The horizontal axis

of the figure records the year, from 1992 through 1996. The vertical axis records the

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Year

Value of Construction Put in Place (Constant 

1992 Dollars in Millions)

Total (All Sectors)

Residential

Commercial/Institutional

Industrial

Public Works
106

value of new construction put in place, in millions of constant 1992 dollars. Each trace is

keyed to designate either the sector or the overall total.

A.2 Nature of Construction Activity

The nature of construction activity may be conveniently classified as either new

construction, additions and alterations, or maintenance and repair. Definitions of each

are as follows.

New construction activities include the complete original building of structures

and essential service facilities and the initial installation of integral equipment

such as elevators and plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning supplies and

equipment.

Additions and alterations include construction work which adds to the value or

useful life of an existing building or structure, or which adapts a building or

structure to a new or different use. Included are major replacements of building

systems such as the installation of a new roof or heating system and the

resurfacing of streets or highways. This contrasts to the repair of a hole in a roof

or the routine patching of highways and streets, which would be classified as

maintenance and repair.

Maintenance and repair activities include incidental construction work which

keeps a property in ordinary working condition. Excluded are trash and snow

removal, lawn maintenance and landscaping, cleaning and janitorial services.

This section presents information from three different data sources: (1) the 1992 Census

of the Construction Industry; (2) Current Construction Reports series C30, Value of

Construction Put in Place; and (3) Current Construction Reports series C50,

Expenditures for Residential Improvements and Repairs. Although each data source

provides insights into the nature of construction activity, they differ in degree of detail,

frequency of publication, and sector coverage. Brief descriptions of the 1992 Census of

the Construction Industry and the “C50 report” are given in the text that follows.

Readers seeking information on the C30 report are referred to Section A.1 of this report.

Statistics from each source are also presented and, where appropriate, comparisons are

made.

The Census of the Construction Industry is conducted every five years. The construction

industry is one of seven industries tabulated as part of the Economic Census. The

Economic Census is highly detailed. The Economic Census is performed only in years

ending with 2 or 7. Although much of the information from the 1997 Census of the

Construction Industry is currently available, material presented in this appendix uses

information from the 1992 Census of the Construction Industry. This was done to

facilitate comparisons with material presented in the two companion documents.
107

The census of the construction industry enumerates establishments with paid employees

engaged primarily in one of the following three areas: (1) constructing new homes and

other buildings; (2) heavy construction, such as highways; and (3) special trades, such

as plumbing and electrical work. Most construction establishments are described as

contractors (e.g., general contractors and special trades contractors), but the census also

includes operative builders who construct buildings or other structures on their own

account to be sold when completed.

A “construction establishment” is defined as a relatively permanent office or other place

of business where the usual business activities related to construction are conducted.

With some exceptions, a relatively permanent office is one that has been established for

the management of more than one project or job and which is expected to be maintained

on a continuing basis. Such “establishment” activities include, but are not limited to

estimating, bidding, purchasing, supervising, and operation of the actual construction

work being conducted at one or more construction sites. The census did not require

separate construction reports for each project or construction site. However, companies

with more than one construction establishment were required to submit a separate report

for each such establishment operated during all or any part of 1992.

For purposes of the census, construction establishments are classified by kind of business

according to the principal work performed. There are three major Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) groups--two-digit SIC codes--in the construction industry:

15 Building construction--general contractors and operative builders

16 Heavy construction other than building construction--contractors

17 Special trade contractors

These major SIC groups are sub-divided into 13 three-digit SIC codes which in turn are

sub-divided into 26 four-digit SIC codes. Table A-2 provides a description of each of the

26 four-digit SIC codes. Part A of the table covers the two-digit SIC codes 15 (building

construction--general contractors and operative builders) and 16 (heavy construction

other than building construction--contractors); Part B of the table covers the two-digit

SIC code 17 (special trade contractors).

Data tabulated in the 1992 Census of the Construction Industry provide information

grouped by the types of buildings, structures, or other facilities being constructed or

worked on by construction establishments in 1992. Respondents were instructed to

classify each building, structure, or other facility in terms of its function. For example, a

restaurant building was to be classified in the restaurant category whether it was designed

as a commercial restaurant building or an auxiliary unit of an educational institution. If

respondents worked on more than one type of building or structure in a multi-building

complex, they were instructed to report separately for each building or type of structure.

If they worked on a building that had more than one purpose (e.g., office and residential),

they were asked to classify the building by major purpose. In addition, all respondents
108

were requested to report the percentage of the value of construction work done for new

construction, additions and alterations, and maintenance and repair activities for each

type of building, structure, or facility.

The detailed breakout for new construction, additions and alterations, and maintenance

and repair activities provided by the 1992 census is noteworthy because prior to 1987,

construction receipts only were collected. In 1987 and 1992, the value of construction

work was collected to better measure actual construction activity done during the year.

This conceptual change was made because receipts during a calendar year may include

advance payments or payments for work done in a prior year, and thus may not

accurately reflect construction work done during the census year. For certain key

industries, such as operative builders and developers, receipts and work done may also

differ because receipts do not include work contractors perform for their own account and

use, which can be substantial.

At the time of the 1992 census, there were about 1.4 million construction establishments,

and about one third of them had paid employees. Establishments without payroll,

typically one-person operations or partnerships, were not surveyed by the US Bureau of

the Census. The Bureau of the Census did, however, obtain a limited amount of data on

self-employed construction workers from the administrative records of other Federal

agencies.

The C50 report is published quarterly; it presents improvement and repair expenditures

by property owners for residential properties. Data presented in the C50 report are based

on personal interviews obtained from household members as part of the Consumer

Expenditure Surveys conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor

Statistics. These data cover single and multi-unit structures, publicly and privately

owned structures, non-farm and farm properties, and residential properties that are

occupied by owners or renters or are vacant.64

The expenditures covered in the C50 report are those connected with construction activity

intended to maintain or improve the property. These expenditures involve expenses for

maintenance and repair, additions, alterations, and major replacements that are made to

the property by the owners. Included are all costs, for both the inside and outside of the

house, whether on the main dwelling, on other structures on the property incidental to the

residential use of the main dwellings, or for the grounds on which the structures are

erected.

 

64 Expenditures made by renters are not included in the C50 report. A study of renters’ expenditures

conducted in 1989 showed that they accounted for less than one percent of all expenditures for

improvements and repairs.
109

Table A-2. Four-Digit SIC Codes for the Construction Industry

Part A: Two-Digit SIC Codes 15 (Building Construction - General Contractors and 

Operative Builders) and 16 (Heavy Construction Other than Building

Construction - Contractors)

SIC code Label Description

1521 General contractor - single-family

houses

Includes townhouses, repair of

mobile homes on site, and assembly

of premanufactured and modular

units

1522 General contractors - residential

buildings other than single-family

Includes hotels, motels, and

dormitories

1531 Operative builders Condominiums, cooperative

apartments, and single-family

houses built by developers to sell,

instead of as contractors working for

other companies

1541 General contractors - industrial

buildings and warehouses

Includes grain elevators and

automobile assembly,

pharmaceutical manufacturing, and

aluminum plants

1542 General contractors - nonresidential

buildings, other than industrial

buildings and warehouses

Commercial, institutional, religious,

and amusement and recreational

buildings

1611 Highway and street construction,

except elevated highways

Roads, streets, alleys, public

sidewalks, guardrails, parkways,

and airports (general and specialtrade contractors)

1622 Bridge, tunnel, and elevated

highway construction

Bridges, viaducts, elevated

highways, and highway, pedestrian,

and railway tunnels (general

construction)

1623 Water, sewer, pipeline, and

communications and power-line

construction

Includes transmission towers

(general and special-trade

contractors)

1629 Heavy construction, not elsewhere

classified

For instance, athletic fields, blasting

(except building demolition), canals,

dams, hydroelectric plants, land

clearing, nuclear reactor

containment, petroleum refineries,

piers (general and special-trade

contractors)
110

Part B: Two-Digit SIC Code 17 (Special Trade Contractors)

SIC code Label Description

1711 Plumbing, heating, and air conditioning Includes drainage system installation,

cesspool, and septic tank; lawn sprinkler

system; sewer hookups for buildings; solar

heating; and related sheet metal work

1721 Painting and paper hanging Excludes roof painting

1731 Electrical work Covers work on site, including installation

of telephones and alarms

1741 Masonry, stone setting, and other stone

work

Excludes foundation digging and concrete

work

1742 Plastering, drywall, acoustical, and

insulation work

Includes installation of lathing and other

accessories to receive plaster

1743 Terrazzo, tile, marble, and mosaic work Excludes manufacture of precast terrazzo

steps, benches, and other terrazzo articles

1751 Carpentry work Includes on-site installation of cabinets,

folding doors, framing, ship joinery, store

fixtures, trim and finish, and prefab

windows and doors

1752 Floor laying, and other floor work, not

elsewhere classified

Includes laying and removal of carpet,

finishing of parquet flooring, installation of

asphalt tile. Excludes ceramic floor tile,

concrete floors

1761 Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work Includes metal ceilings skylight, gutter, and

downspout installation; roof painting and

spraying

1771 Concrete work Includes private driveways and walks of all

materials. Excludes concrete foundations,

excavations, public sidewalks, and

highways

1781 Water well drilling Excludes oil- or gas-field water intake

wells

1791 Structural steel erection (ironwork) Includes similar products of prestressed or

precast concrete and placing of concrete

reinforcement

1793 Glass and glazing work Excludes automotive

1794 Excavation work Includes grading (except for highways,

streets and airport runways) and incidental

concrete work

1795 Wrecking and demolition Includes concrete breaking for streets and

dismantling of steel oil tanks. Excludes

marine wrecking and demolition

1796 Installation or erection of building

equipment, not elsewhere classified

Includes elevators, pneumatic tube systems,

small incinerators, dust-collecting

equipment, and revolving doors. Also

includes dismantling and maintenance

1799 Special trade contractors, not elsewhere

classified

Includes construction of swimming pools

and fences, house moving, shoring work,

fireproofing, and sandblasting and

steamcleaning of building exteriors
111

As a general principle, expenses connected with items not permanently attached or

affixed to some part of the house or property are outside the scope of the C50 report.

Thus, expenses connected with the repair or replacement of household appliances (e.g.,

stoves, refrigerators, etc.) are excluded, as are costs connected with house furnishings.

While the costs of appliances are excluded, the construction costs of building in such

appliances (e.g., the cost of building in a wall oven) are included in the scope of the C50

report. Expenditures for grading, draining, fencing, and paving are included, but the

costs of landscaping are not included in the C50 report.

The kinds of expenditures included cover work done under contract or with hired labor,

and the costs of purchasing or renting tools and equipment for purposes of carrying out

jobs which fall within the scope of the C50 report. However, no attempt is made to

estimate or include the value of labor in do-it-yourself jobs.

The types of expenditures are classified broadly as either maintenance and repair or

construction improvements. Maintenance and repair expenditures represent current costs

for incidental maintenance and repair activities that keep a property in ordinary working

condition, rather than additional investment in the property. Expenditures for

construction improvements are capital expenditures that add to the value or useful life of

a property. Improvements are further classified as additions to residential structures (e.g.,

enlargement of the structure by adding a room), alterations within residential structures

(e.g., changes or improvements made within or on the structure), additions and alterations

on property outside residential structures (e.g., laying or improving walks or driveways),

and major replacements (e.g., a roof replacement).

At this point, it is useful to compare the three data sets and examine the differing values

for new construction, maintenance and repair, and additions and alterations which result

for a single year (1992) or across years for a single sector (residential). The first set of

comparisons and data summaries are for the 1992 census of the construction industry

(CCI) and the estimates for new construction, maintenance and repair, and additions and

alterations “derived” from the C30--value of construction put in place--report (VIP). The

second set of comparisons and data summaries trace annual expenditure estimates for

residential maintenance and repair and additions and alterations “derived” from the C30

report data alongside data published in the C50 report.

The Bureau of the Census recognizes that only about two-thirds of the construction as

defined in VIP is actually done by the construction industry as defined by the CCI.65

Examples of construction work included within the VIP estimates but excluded from the

CCI are architectural and engineering design and force-account construction. Also

outside the scope of the CCI is work done by non-employers (i.e., self-employed

construction workers). Thus, in developing comparisons between VIP and CCI data,

estimates and assumptions have to be made for these differences.66

 

65 US Department of Commerce. 1997. Overview of Construction Statistics Programs. Draft Mimeo.

Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.

66 Ibid., p.26.
112

The VIP, C30 report data, were used as the basis for deriving estimates for new

construction, maintenance and repair, and additions and alterations expenditures for each

sector for each year between 1992 and 1996. Information from the CCI was used to

construct a series of multipliers; one set for each sector. One component of each sector’s

set of multipliers recorded the ratio of maintenance and repair expenditures to new

construction expenditures. The other component of each sector’s set of multipliers

recorded the ratio of expenditures for additions and alterations to new construction

expenditures. To develop a framework for deriving these estimates, it was necessary to

make eight assumptions. These assumptions are as follows; they are enumerated from

A.1 to A.8.

 A.1 Expenditures for new residential construction for each year, derived from

the C30 report data, equal expenditures for private residential buildings

plus expenditures for public housing and development less expenditures

for residential improvements (see Table A-1).

 A.2 Expenditures for new non-residential construction for each year, derived

from the C30 report data, equal the unadjusted sector expenditure totals

(see Table A-1).67

 A.3 Multipliers for maintenance and repair activities for each sector for each

year are a fixed proportion equal to the ratio of that sector’s CCI

expenditures for maintenance and repair activities to that sector’s CCI

expenditures for new construction.

 A.4 Multipliers for additions and alterations for each sector for each year are a

fixed proportion equal to the ratio of that sector’s CCI expenditures for

additions and alterations to that sector’s CCI expenditures for new

construction.

 A.5 Expenditures for residential maintenance and repair activities in a given

year equal that year’s new construction value as defined in A.1 times the

fixed proportion multiplier for the residential sector defined in A.3.

 A.6 Expenditures for non-residential maintenance and repair activities for a

given sector in a given year equal that year’s new construction value as

defined in A.2 times the fixed proportion multiplier for the appropriate

non-residential sector as defined in A.3.

 A.7 Expenditures for residential additions and alterations in a given year equal

that year’s new construction value as defined in A.1 times the fixed

proportion multiplier for the residential sector defined in A.4.

 

67 Note that the C30 report data contain an unquantified component for additions and alterations.
113

 A.8 Expenditures for non-residential additions and alterations for a given

sector in a given year equal that year’s new construction value as defined

in A.2 times the fixed proportion multiplier for the appropriate nonresidential sector as defined in A.4.

Figure A-2 shows the results of applying these assumptions to the C30 report (VIP) data

for 1992 and plotting them side-by-side with the CCI data. Notice that each component--

new construction, maintenance and repair, and additions and alterations--is higher for the

“derived” VIP data than for the CCI data. The underlying assumptions, however, are

plausible because the CCI contains only about two-thirds of the construction activity

covered in the VIP (e.g., CCI only includes establishments with payroll and excludes

items such as architectural and engineering services which in 1992 amounted to

approximately $50 billion).

The “derived” total for all construction expenditures shown in Figure A-2 may be broken

down into its constituent parts. This breakdown is shown in Figure A-3 for the year

1992. Reference to Figure A-3 reveals that 61 percent, or $393.8 billion, of all

construction expenditures are associated with the value of new construction put in place.

Expenditures for additions and alterations amounted to $156.5 billion, or 24 percent of

the total. Expenditures for maintenance and repair activities amounted to $93.3 billion,

or 15 percent of the total.

When assumptions A.5 and A.6 are applied, annual estimates for the value of

maintenance and repair expenditures for each sector result. These sector estimates are

plotted, as multi-year traces keyed to each sector, in Figure A-4. These “derived”

estimates exhibit a slight upward trend. Maintenance and repair expenditures in the

commercial/institutional sector are the highest in each year while maintenance and repair

expenditures in the industrial sector are the lowest in each year.

When assumptions A.7 and A.8 are applied, annual estimates for the value of

expenditures for additions and alterations for each sector result. These sector estimates

are plotted, as multi-year traces keyed to each sector, in Figure A-5. As was the case for

maintenance and repair expenditures, expenditures for additions and alterations exhibit a

slight upward trend. Reference to Figure A-5 reveals that the dollar value of

expenditures for additions and alterations in the commercial/institutional sector are about

two to three times the amount for the other sectors.
114

Figure A-2. Total Value of Construction Work: Comparison of Value Put in Place

and 1992 Census of the Construction Industry

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

Maintenance

and Repair

Additions and

Alterations

New

Construction

Total

Nature of Construction Activities

Millions of Dollars (1992)

Based on C30 Value Put in Place

Data 1992

1992 Census of the Construction

Industry 

Figure A-3. Distribution of Total Construction Expenditures in 1992 by Nature of

Construction Activity

Maintenance and Repair

Additions and Alterations

New Construction

New Construction

$393,831 million = 61%

Maintenance and Repair

$93,335 million = 15%

Additions and Alterations

$156,455 million = 24%
115

Figure A-4. Annual Expenditures for Maintenance and Repair Activities by Sector

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Year

Constant 1992 Dollars in Millions

Commercial/Institutional

Residential

Public Works

Industrial

Figure A-5. Annual Expenditures for Additions and Alterations by Sector

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Year

Constant 1992 Dollars in Millions

Commercial/Institutional

Residential

Public Works

Industrial
116

Although information on expenditures for maintenance and repairs and additions and

alterations are not available for all four construction industry sectors, such information is

available for the residential sector via the C50 report. Figure A-6 shows these data sideby-side with the derived C30 data. Figure A-6 consists of a series of bar charts; four bars

for each year. For each year, maintenance and repair expenditures are the two leftmost

bars and expenditures for additions and alterations are the two rightmost bars. For each

two-bar set (i.e., maintenance and repair or additions and alterations), the left-hand bar

records the annual combined total for estimates derived from the C30 report data and the

CCI multipliers (i.e., based on assumptions A.1, A.3, A.4, A.5, and A.7). Similarly, for

each two-bar set, the right-hand bar records the annual combined total for data published

in the C50 report. The values underlying each year’s set of bars are given in Table A-3.

Reference to Figure A-6 and Table A-3 shows that the estimated values for the C30/CCI

derived data are about two-thirds of the expenditures resulting from the C50 report data.

There are two plausible explanations for these differences. First, the CCI does not

capture information on construction establishments without employees. Although such

establishments are not expected to be major players in the non-residential sector, they are

often very active in the residential maintenance and repair and additions and alterations

markets. These activities are captured through the C50 survey process. Second, the CCI

does not capture information on materials and equipment purchases by residential

property owners for use in maintenance and repair and additions and alterations activities.

Because the C50 survey is aimed at residential property owners, it captures information

on purchases of materials and equipment.

Table A-3. Comparison of Derived Data and Household Survey Data for Total

Expenditures on Improvements and Maintenance and Repairs in the

Residential Sector

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR Value (Millions of Constant 1992 Dollars) By Year

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Maintenance and Repair (Derived Data) 23,709 23,949 25,057 24,993 26,217

Improvements (Derived Data) 37,204 37,581 39,319 39,219 41,139

Total (Derived Data) 60,913 61,530 64,376 64,212 67,356

Maintenance and Repair (C50 Data) 45,121 40,198 39,731 37,338 32,113

Improvements (C50 Data) 58,580 64,208 66,671 61,837 67,636

Total (C50 Data) 103,734 104,405 106,402 99,733 99,749

For the non-residential sectors, it is unclear whether the estimates derived from the

C30/CCI data can be expected to exhibit a similar trend (i.e., are about two-thirds of the

value resulting from a survey of the respective sector) or not. Consequently, we have

adopted a conservative approach and opted to use the estimates derived from the

C30/CCI data for each of the four construction industry sectors. These data are plotted as

multi-year traces in Figure A-7. Detailed estimates by year, by sector, and by nature of

construction activity are recorded in Table A-4.
117

Figure A-6. Comparison of Derived Data and Household Survey Data for Total

Expenditures on Improvements and Maintenance and Repairs in the

Residential Sector

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Year

Constant 1992 Dollars in Millions

Maintenance and Repair

(Derived Data)

Maintenance and Repair

(C50 Data)

Improvements (Derived

Data)

Improvements (C50 Data)

Figure A-7. Total Value of Construction Work

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Year

Constant 1992 Dollars in Millions

Total Construction

New Construction

Additions and alterations

Maintenance and Repair
118

Table A-4. Value of Construction Work: 1992 - 1996

 Part A: Total Value of Construction Work in Millions of Constant 1992 Dollars:

1992 - 1996

DERIVED DATA - 

ALL SECTORS Total Construction New Construction Additions and alterations

Maintenance and 

Repair

1992 645,769 393,831 156,455 93,335

1993 652,310 397,820 158,040 94,280

1994 682,469 416,213 165,347 98,639

1995 680,738 415,157 164,928 98,389

1996 714,067 435,483 173,002 103,206

 Part B: Value of Construction Work by Sector and by Nature of Construction

Activity in Millions of Constant 1992 Dollars: 1992-1996

NEW 

CONSTRUCTION All Sectors Residential Commercial/ 

Institutional Industrial Public Works

1992 393,831 133,658 122,960 30,902 106,311

1993 397,820 141,076 125,770 27,212 103,762

1994 416,213 156,576 128,116 28,161 103,360

1995 415,157 146,167 137,006 30,391 101,593

1996 435,483 157,846 149,445 29,219 98,973

DERIVED DATA - 

MAINTENANCE/

REPAIR

1992 93,335 23,709 24,931 21,310 23,385

1993 94,280 23,949 25,183 21,526 23,622

1994 98,639 25,057 26,348 22,521 24,714

1995 98,389 24,993 26,281 22,464 24,651

1996 103,206 26,217 27,568 23,564 25,858

DERIVED DATA - 

ADDITIONS/ 

ALTERATIONS

1992 156,455 37,204 67,904 21,632 29,715

1993 158,040 37,581 68,592 21,851 30,016

1994 165,347 39,319 71,764 22,861 31,404

1995 164,928 39,219 71,581 22,803 31,324

1996 173,002 41,139 75,086 23,919 32,858
119

A.3 Employment in Construction

Construction tends to be a cyclical activity that can have a significant impact on the

national economy and even more so on various local economies. Construction activity

has a significant impact on local employment due to secondary effects on construction

supply and service industries.

Figure A-8 illustrates the cyclical nature of construction activity. Figure A-8 records

employment in construction as a percent of overall employment in the US civilian

workforce for the years 1980 through 1995. Because the construction workforce consists

of a large number of self-employed workers, Figure A-8 also includes multi-year traces

which divide the construction workforce into its two constituent parts. The first part

records the percentage of the US civilian workforce associated with construction

establishments with employees. The second part records the percentage of the US

civilian workforce associated with self-employed construction workers.

Figure A-8. Construction Employment as a Proportion of the Total US Civilian

Workforce

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

19801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996

Year

Percentage

All Construction Employment as

Percentage of Total US

Workforce

Payroll Construction Workers as

Percentage of Total US

Workforce

Self Employed Construction as

Percentage of Total US

Workforce

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Employment Data, and US Industrial

Outlook

Figure A-8 shows the impact of recessions very clearly, as these are years when sharp

declines in the construction workforce relative to the rest of the US civilian workforce

occur. Notice that most of the declines and increases shown in Figure A-8 are due to
120

construction establishments with employees. The percentage of self-employed workers

hovers around one percent throughout the 15 year period. The relative increase in

employment in the construction industry between 1992 and 1996 shown in Figure A-8

and its interaction with the rest of the economy can better be understood through

reference to and comparison with Figure A-1. Reference to Figure A-1 shows strong

increases in the value of new commercial/institutional construction put in place from

1994 through 1996. This upward trend was reinforced by a strong performance in 1996

for the residential sector.

Table A-5 provides detailed information for a single year, 1992. The data presented in

Table A-5 are from the 1992 census of the construction industry. Table A-5 is organized

around the three two-digit SIC codes and 26 four-digit SIC codes described earlier (see

Table A-2). The table lists a specific segment or subsegment of the construction industry

in the leftmost column. Immediately to the right is the corresponding two-digit or fourdigit SIC code for the segment or subsegment of the construction industry. The four

remaining columns record information on the number of establishments with payroll, the

total number of employees in thousands, the value of construction work in millions of

1992 dollars, and value added in millions of 1992 dollars.68 It is important to recognize

that only construction establishments with employees are included in these figures.

Consequently, the values shown in Table A-5 differ from those given in Section A.2

where data from the C30 report were used to compute the total value of construction

work (see Figure A-2 for a comparison of the two sets of totals). Data from the 1992

census of the construction industry are used here because they provide the necessary level

of detail to link employment and output information. For example, a key measure of

productivity within the construction industry is value added per employee. The

information in Table A-5 is very useful in characterizing employment and output in the

construction industry. One such characterization is illustrated through a series of four pie

charts and one bar chart.

Figure A-9 summarizes information on the number of establishments and the percentage

of all construction establishments within each of the three two-digit SIC codes. Note that

SIC code 17, special trade contractors, account for nearly two-thirds of all construction

establishments. By contrast, heavy construction contractors, SIC code 16, are only six

percent of the total number of construction establishments.

Figure A-10 summarizes information on the number of employees and the percentage of

all construction employment within each of the three two-digit SIC codes. Note that the

percentage of employment in SIC code 16, heavy construction contractors, amounts to 17

percent of the total, implying that establishments in this segment of the construction

industry tend to be larger than for SIC codes 15 and 17.

 

68 The process by which final goods and services are produced consists of many stages. Gross national

product measures the value of all final goods and services produced in the economy during a given period.

In practice, double counting is avoided by working with value added. At each stage, the value of the

commodity sold minus the cost of the inputs equals value added. Therefore, the sum of value added at each

stage equals the final value of the good or service.
121

Figure A-11 summarizes information on the value of construction work and the

percentage of the total value (i.e., $528.1 billion) within each of the three two-digit SIC

codes. Note that general building contractors, SIC code 15, and special trade contractors,

SIC code 17, each account for 41 percent of the total.

Table A-5. Employment and Output Figures for the Construction Industry: 1992

Industry SIC 

Code

Establishments 

with Payroll 

(1000's)

Total 

Employees 

(1000's)

Value of 

Construction 

Work 

(Million 

Dollars)

Value 

Added 

(Million 

Dollars)

All industries, total (X) 572.9 4,668 528,106 234,618

General building contractors 15 168.4 1,097 215,629 63,117

Single-family houses 1521 107.5 404 48,633 17,183

Other residential buildings 1522 6.5 49 7,835 2,454

Operative builders 1531 17.0 114 44,588 15,289

Industrial buildings and warehouses 1541 7.7 123 20,586 6,438

Nonresidential buildings, n.e.c. 1542 29.7 407 93,987 21,754

Heavy construction contractors 16 37.2 799 95,571 49,165

Highway and street construction 1611 10.1 257 35,332 15,711

Bridge, tunnel, and elevated highway 1622 1.0 44 7,198 3,078

Water, sewer, and utility lines 1623 10.2 194 20,205 11,734

Heavy construction, n.e.c. 1629 15.8 304 32,837 18,642

Special trade contractors 17 367.3 2,772 216,905 122,336

Plumbing, heating, air-conditioning 1711 75.4 613 56,902 29,432

Painting and paperhanging 1721 32.0 163 8,690 5,855

Electrical work 1731 54.0 487 40,259 23,548

Masonry and other stonework 1741 22.6 148 8,458 5,146

Plastering, drywall, insulation 1742 18.6 207 14,056 8,143

Terrazzo, tile, marble, and mosaic work 1743 6.5 34 2,439 1,358

Carpentry 1751 38.2 178 12,852 6,760

Floorlaying and other floor work 1752 10.2 49 4,428 2,166

Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work 1761 27.6 216 16,788 8,906

Concrete work 1771 26.1 193 14,423 7,703

Water well drilling 1781 3.6 19 1,727 995

Structural steel erection 1791 3.8 58 4,952 3,021

Glass and glazing work 1793 4.6 32 2,724 1,424

Excavation work 1794 13.9 77 6,870 4,340

Wrecking and demolition work 1795 1.0 13 1,059 775

Installing building equipment, n.e.c. 1796 3.9 83 6,611 4,494

Special trade contractors, n.e.c. 1799 25.3 204 13,667 8,270
122

Figure A-9. Number of Establishments with Payroll by Two-Digit SIC Code: 1992

SIC 17: 

367,300 

establishments

(65%)

SIC 16:

37,200 establishments

(6%)

SIC 15:

168,400 

establishments

(29%)

SIC 15: General Building

Contractors

SIC 16: Heavy Construction

Contractors

SIC 17: Special Trade Contractors

Figure A-10. Number of Employees for Establishments with Payroll by Two-Digit

SIC Code: 1992

SIC 17: 

2,772,000 employees

(59%)

SIC 16:

799,000 employees

(17%)

SIC 15: 

1,097,000 employees

(24%)

SIC 15: General Building

Contractors

SIC 16: Heavy Construction

Contractors

SIC 17: Special Trade Contractors
123

Figure A-11. Value of Construction Work for Establishments with Payroll by TwoDigit SIC Code: 1992

SIC 16: 

$95,571 million

(18%)

SIC 15: 

$215,629 milllion

(41%)

SIC 17: 

$216,905 million

(41%)

SIC 15: General Building

Contractors

SIC 16: Heavy Construction

Contractors

SIC 17: Special Trade Contractors

Figure A-12 summarizes information on value added and the percentage of the total value

added (i.e., $234.6 billion) within each of the three two-digit SIC codes. Figure A-13

factors employment into the calculation; it records value added per employee in

thousands of 1992 dollars.

Reference to Figure A-13 reveals that SIC code 16, heavy construction contractors, has

the highest average value added per employee, $61.5 thousand, and SIC code 17, special

trade contractors, has the lowest value added per employee, $44.1 thousand. That SIC

code 16 is the highest should come as no surprise. Establishments within SIC code 16

tend to be larger on the average than for SIC codes 15 and 17 and accounted for a

“relatively” larger percentage share of overall value added. For example, for SIC code

16, the percentage share of overall value added exceeded the percentage share of overall

employment. While for SIC codes 15 and 17, their percentage shares of value added

were either approximately equal or less than the percentage shares of overall

employment.
124

Figure A-12. Value Added for Establishments with Payroll by Two Digit SIC Code:

1992

SIC 17:

$122,336 million

(52%)

SIC 16: 

$49,165 million

(21%)

SIC 15: 

$63,117 million

(27%)

SIC 15: General Building Contractors

SIC 16: Heavy Construction

Contractors

SIC 17: Special Trade Contractors

Figure A-13. Value Added per Employee for Establishments with Payroll: 1992

57.53

61.53

44.13

50.26

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

ALL 15 16 17

SIC CODE

Value added per Employee in 1992 in thousands of 

dollars
125

References

American National Standards Institute, Inc. 1991. Basic Elements of an Employer

Program to Provide a Safe and Heathful Work Environment. ANSI A10.38-1991. Itasca,

IL: National Safety Council.

American National Standards Institute, Inc. 1992. Construction and Demolition

Operations3⁄4Safety and Health Program Requirements for Multi-Employer Projects.

ANSI A10.33-1992. Itasca, IL: National Safety Council.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1998. Standard Practice for Applying

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments

Related to Buildings and Building Systems. E 1765. West Conshohocken, PA: American

Society for Testing and Materials.

BNAC Safety Communicator (Winter 1999): p. 5.

Building Owners and Managers Association. 1994. Experience Exchange Report,

National Cross-Tabulations, 1994. Washington, DC: Building Owners and Managers

Association.

The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights. 1997. The Construction Chart Book: The US

Construction Industry and Its Workers. Report D1-97. Washington, DC: The Center to

Protect Workers’ Rights.

Chapman, Robert E., and Roderick Rennison. 1998. An Approach for Measuring

Reductions in Delivery Time: Baseline Measures of Construction Industry Practice for

the National Construction Goals. NISTIR 6189. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of

Standards and Technology.

Chapman, Robert E., and Roderick Rennison. 1998. An Approach for Measuring

Reductions in Operations, Maintenance, and Energy Costs: BaselineMeasures of

Construction Industry Practice for the National Construction Goals. NISTIR 6185.

Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Construction Industry Institute. 1993. Zero Injury Techniques. Research Summary 32-1.

Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.

Federal Register 54(18): pp. 3094-3916, January 26, 1989.

Glazner, Judith F., Joleen Borgerding, Jan T. Lowery, Jessica Bondy, Kathryn L.

Mueller, and Kathleen Kreiss. 1998. "Construction Injury Rates May Exceed National

Estimates: Evidence from the Construction of the Denver International Airport."

American Journal of Industrial Medicine (Vol. 34): pp. 105-112.
126

Herbert, Robin, and Philip J. Landrigan. 2000. "Work-Related Death: A Continuing

Epidemic." American Journal of Public Health (Vol. 90): pp. 541-545.).

Jortberg, Robert F., and Thomas R. Haggard. 1993. CII: The First Ten Years. Austin, TX:

Construction Industry Institute.

Leigh, J. Paul, Steven B. Markowitz, Marianne Fahs, Chonggak Shin, and Philip J.

Landrigan. 1997. "Occupational Injury and Illnesses in the United States." Arch Intern

Med (Vol. 157): pp. 1557-1568.)

Lowery, Jan T., Joleen A. Borgerding, Boguang Zhen, Judith E. Glazner, Jessica Bondy,

Kathleen Kreiss. 1998. "Risk Factors for Injury Among Construction Workers at Denver

International Airport." American Journal of Industrial Medicine (Vol. 34): pp. 113-120.

Oleinick, Arthur, Jeremy V. Gluck, and Kenneth E. Guire. 1995. "Establishment Size and

Risk of Occupational Injury." American Journal of Industrial Medicine (Vol. 28): pp. 1-

21.

Rogers, R. Mark. 1994. Handbook of Key Economic Indicators. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin

Professional Publishing.

Thomas, Stephen R. 1998. Safety Report for 1998. Austin, TX: Construction Industry

Institute.

Thomas, Stephen R. 1999. Safety Report for 1999. BMM99-4. Austin TX: Construction

Industry Institute.

US Department of Commerce. 1997. Current Construction Reports: Expenditures for

Residential Improvements and Repairs. C50. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census

US Department of Commerce. 1997. Current Construction Reports: Value of

Construction Put in Place. C30. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.

US Department of Commerce. 1997. Overview of Construction Statistics Programs.

Draft Mimeo. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.

US Department of Commerce. 1992. Census of the Construction Industry. Washington,

DC: Bureau of the Census.

US Department of Health and Human Services. 1999. National Occupational Research

Agenda: 21 Priorities for the 21st Century. Publication No. 99-124. Washington, DC:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

US Department of Labor. 1996. Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1994: A Collection of Data

and Analysis. Report 908. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
127

US Department of Labor. 1997. Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and

Characteristics, 1994. Bulletin 2485. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

US Department of Transportation. 1998. Meeting the Customer's Needs for Mobility and

Safety During Construction and Maintenance Operations. HPQ-98-1. Washington, DC:

Federal Highway Administration.

Wright, Richard N. 1995. "Government and Industry Working Together." Construction

Business Review (January/February): pp. 44-49.

Wright, Richard N., Arthur H. Rosenfeld, and Andrew J. Fowell. 1994. Rationale and

Preliminary Plan for Federal Research for Construction and Building. NISTIR 5536.

Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council.

Wright, Richard N., Arthur H. Rosenfeld, and Andrew J. Fowell. 1995. Construction and

Building: Federal Research and Development in Support of the US Construction

Industry. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council.