WORKPLACE 

SAFETY AND 

HEALTH

Further Steps by 

OSHA Would Enhance 

Monitoring of 

Enforcement and 

Effectiveness

Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2013

GAO-13-61

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-61, a report to 

congressional requesters 

January 2013

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

Further Steps by OSHA Would Enhance 

Monitoring of Enforcement and Effectiveness

Why GAO Did This Study

OSHA is responsible for overseeing 

occupational safety and health for 

more than 130 million workers. In 

about half the states, OSHA sets and 

enforces compliance with safety and 

health standards. The remaining 

states set and enforce their own 

standards under OSHA-approved 

plans. In fiscal year 2010, OSHA 

strengthened its monitoring of staterun programs following a dozen 

worker deaths in one of those states. 

Questions have since been raised 

about how closely OSHA monitors its 

own enforcement efforts. GAO 

examined 1) how OSHA’s monitoring

of its own and state enforcement

efforts compares, and 2) recent 

steps OSHA has taken to evaluate 

the effectiveness of federal and state 

enforcement efforts. GAO reviewed 

OSHA’s monitoring policies and 

procedures and relevant federal laws

and regulations; analyzed federal 

and state audits; visited three OSHA 

regional offices; and interviewed 

OSHA officials and other experts.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that OSHA 

standardize guidance for its audit 

practices, include outcomes in its 

assessments of its enforcement 

initiatives, better use data from its 

audits, and ensure national office

participation in audits. OSHA 

generally agreed with the 

recommendations but expressed 

concern about overuse of outcomes 

to assess effectiveness. GAO 

continues to believe the 

recommendations are valid as 

discussed later in the report. 

What GAO Found

The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) provides more frequent monitoring and more consistent guidance for its 

federal enforcement activities than for state enforcement activities. More 

specifically, OSHA regional officials review performance reports on federal 

activities at least every other week but review reports on state-run program

activities quarterly. In addition, OSHA’s guidance for audits of its regional and 

area offices is more consistent than the guidance for its audits of state-run 

programs. Guidance for audits of its offices requires that regional offices conduct 

a comprehensive audit with on-site review of inspection case files at least once 

every 4 years and other audits focused on more specific activities in all other 

years. In contrast, guidance for regional office audits of state-run programs 

changes from year to year and does not include a regular schedule for 

comprehensive audits with on-site case file reviews. While the frequency of

OSHA’s monitoring of state-run programs is necessarily different because of the 

independent enforcement authority of participating states, OSHA’s lack of 

consistent guidance for audits of these state-run programs may allow 

enforcement deficiencies to go undetected, increasing the risk of worker injuries, 

illnesses, or death. In addition, there is little participation by OSHA’s national 

office in comprehensive audits of its regional offices despite a 2010 directive to 

do so. As a result, OSHA cannot ensure that the results of regional audits are 

impartial.

OSHA is taking steps to better assess the effectiveness of both its federal 

enforcement efforts and of state enforcement efforts, but it is often not clear how 

these steps will help OSHA demonstrate what efforts result in better outcomes 

for workers, such as reduced worker injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. For 

example, OSHA recently revised some of the measures it uses to assess staterun programs by adding acceptable ranges of performance. However, the revised 

measures still largely focus on outputs—such as the average number of 

violations per inspection—rather than outcomes. OSHA is also conducting 

studies to examine the results of specific enforcement activities, including one 

designed, in part, to evaluate the effect of OSHA providing additional educational 

support to employers. While tracking progress in meeting performance goals—

such as the annual number of conducted inspections—is useful, the lack of focus 

on outcomes makes it difficult for OSHA to determine which specific enforcement 

activities are most effective or to convince states to implement changes designed 

to improve outcomes. For example, only two state-run programs raised their 

penalty amounts in fiscal year 2011 as recommended by OSHA; state-run 

program representatives stated that OSHA lacked evidence to show that higher 

penalties are more effective in deterring future employer violations. OSHA also 

does not use data already in hand to assess the effectiveness of federal and 

state enforcement efforts. For example, OSHA does not use data from its annual 

audits of its regional and area offices or of state-run programs to inform its 

planning or share information across regions. Additionally, OSHA annually 

collects data on activities conducted under emphasis programs that focus on 

national safety and health issues, but it does not evaluate these data to 

determine whether these programs are responsible for desired outcomes.

View GAO-13-61. For more information, 

contact Revae Moran at (202) 512-7215 or 

moranr@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

Letter 1 

Background 3

OSHA’s Monitoring Is More Frequent and Its Guidance Is More 

Consistent for Federal than State Enforcement 8

OSHA Is Taking Steps to Better Assess Effectiveness but Does Not 

Focus on Outcomes 15

Conclusions 22

Recommendations for Executive Action 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 26

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Labor 29

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 33

Related GAO Products 34

Figures

Figure 1: Federal and State Responsibilities for Enforcement in 

OSHA’s 10 Regions, FY 2012 5

Figure 2: OSHA’s Enforcement Monitoring Structure 7

Figure 3: OSHA Inspections by Region, FY 2012 9

Figure 4: Enforcement Activities for State-Run Programs and 

OSHA, FY 2012 11

Figure 5: Average Current Penalty Amounts for Serious Violations 

for State-run Programs Compared to OSHA’s Average 

Penalty (in dollars), FY 2012 18

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

Abbreviations

EFAME Enhanced Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation

FAME Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

Labor Department of Labor

MAP Management Accountability Program

NACOSH National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and 

Health

NEP National Emphasis Program

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSH Act Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSHSPA Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

January 24, 2013

The Honorable John Kline

Chairman

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Tim Walberg

Chairman

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

In an 18-month period from 2006 to 2008, a dozen workers died on 

construction sites in Las Vegas, Nevada, prompting a congressional 

investigation into the Department of Labor’s (Labor) Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration’s (OSHA) oversight of worker safety in that 

state. OSHA has responsibility under the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970 (OSH Act) to assure safe and healthful working conditions for 

the nation’s workers.1 Under the act, OSHA sets and directly enforces 

occupational safety and health standards in about half the states. The 

remaining states, including Nevada, have chosen to set and enforce their 

own standards, as permitted by the OSH Act, under an OSHA-approved 

state plan.2

In fiscal year 2010, as a result of the problems identified in Nevada, 

OSHA strengthened its annual reviews of all state-run programs. Unlike 

prior reviews, these reviews included on-site examination of state 

inspection case files by OSHA officials. In this context, we examined 1) 

how OSHA’s monitoring of its own and state enforcement efforts 

OSHA, in turn, monitors enforcement by these state-run 

programs. Nevada had previously received favorable annual reviews from 

OSHA of its occupational safety and health program. However, a special 

review of Nevada by OSHA in 2009—after the construction deaths—

revealed significant problems in the state’s enforcement program.

 

1

Pub. L. No. 91-596, 84 Stat. 1590, codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 553, 651-78.

2

Although OSHA refers to states with approved state plans as “state-plan states,” in this 

report, we refer to them as “state-run programs.” 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

compares, and 2) recent steps OSHA has taken to evaluate the 

effectiveness of federal and state enforcement efforts.

To answer our research questions, we reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations as well as Labor and OSHA policies and procedures for 

monitoring federal and state enforcement efforts. We analyzed OSHA 

audits of its regional and area offices and of state-run programs.3

In addition, we interviewed officials from Labor and OSHA’s national 

office responsible for enforcement, evaluation, strategic planning, and 

monitoring of state-run programs about their roles in monitoring 

enforcement and measuring effectiveness. To obtain information from 

outside parties about OSHA’s oversight of federal and state enforcement, 

we interviewed officers of the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan 

Association (OSHSPA), which represents the interests of states with 

state-run programs, and officials at the Department of Health and Human 

Services’ National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

We 

conducted site visits to three OSHA regional offices: Region 5 in Chicago, 

Illinois, Region 3 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Region 8 in Denver, 

Colorado. In selecting regional offices for site visits, we took into account 

region size based on the total number of worksite inspections conducted 

annually, geographic location, and the mix of states with state-run 

programs and those for which OSHA enforces compliance in each region. 

At each office, we interviewed regional officials about their oversight of 

federal enforcement efforts and those of states, and visited two area 

offices. Within each of the three regions, we visited two area offices: one 

responsible for overseeing federal enforcement and one responsible for 

overseeing state enforcement. For the area offices that oversee state-run 

program(s), we selected states with a range of total number of annual 

worksite inspections: Virginia (a large number), Indiana (a medium 

number), and Wyoming (a small number). We interviewed regional 

officials in the remaining seven regional offices by phone to obtain similar 

information. We also collected key documents from each region, including 

recent audits of OSHA federal and state enforcement efforts and 

inspection activity tracking reports.

4

 

3

In this report, we refer to federal audits and state audits, although state audits are more 

commonly called evaluations in OSHA documents.

4

NIOSH was created by the OSH Act to conduct research, experiments, and 

demonstrations relating to occupational safety and health, among other responsibilities. 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

We also discussed with academic experts and other stakeholders Labor 

and OSHA’s performance in conducting and monitoring enforcement, 

challenges faced by states with state-run programs, and current research 

on these issues.5

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 through 

January 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix I provides more information on our scope and 

methodology.

OSHA and state-run programs are responsible for protecting the safety 

and health of an estimated 130 million private- and public-sector workers 

at approximately 8 million worksites. One of the primary ways OSHA 

carries out its responsibilities is by setting and enforcing occupational 

safety and health standards.6

 

5

We selected academic experts and stakeholders for interviews based on the results of a 

literature search, the recommendations of other academicians and experts versed in 

OSHA and labor issues, and the recommendations of OSHA and NIOSH officials. 

States with state-run programs typically 

adopt standards identical to federal standards, according to OSHA, but 

they may set standards that are more stringent or that address hazards 

not covered by federal standards. For example, according to OSHA, 

California, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington have standards that are 

different from federal standards. To approve a state-run program, OSHA 

must determine that the state’s plan meets certain criteria specified in the 

OSH Act, including the development and enforcement of standards that 

are “at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment” as 

6

See 29 U.S.C. §§ 655, 657-59, 666. The OSH Act also authorizes states to assume 

responsibility for setting and enforcing their own standards by submitting a state plan to 

OSHA for approval. 29 U.S.C. §§ 667(b). Under the OSH Act, “state” is defined to include 

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. See 29 U.S.C. § 652(7).

Background 

Federal and State 

Responsibilities 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

the federal standards.7 As required by the act, OSHA also conducts 

continuing evaluations of states’ implementation of their plans.8 When 

evaluating state-run programs, OSHA considers a program to be “at least 

as effective as” the federal program if it is making reasonable progress 

toward meeting established performance goals and fulfilling mandated 

responsibilities. OSHA enforces standards for private sector workplaces 

not covered by a state-run program, and conducts inspections at federal 

workplaces in all states.9 Most states with a state plan enforce employer 

compliance with safety and health standards for the private sector as well 

as state and local public-sector workplaces in their state; however, some 

have chosen to provide such enforcement only for public-sector 

workplaces (see fig.1).10

 

7

29 U.S.C. § 667(c).OSHA’s regulations further specify various “indices of effectiveness” 

that OSHA will use in making this determination. 29 C.F.R. § 1902.4.

There are currently 27 state-run programs 

responsible for providing enforcement to protect about 40 percent of U.S. 

workers.

8

29 U.S.C. § 667(f), 29 C.F.R. part 1954. If OSHA determines that a state-run program 

fails to comply substantially with any provision of the state plan, including the criteria 

required by the OSH Act, it may withdraw approval of the plan. 29 U.S.C. § 667(f); 29 

C.F.R. § 1955.3(a)(3).

9

OSHA does not enforce standards for state and local public-sector workplaces in any 

state because the OSH Act does not apply to state and local government employers. 29 

U.S.C. § 652(5). Federal agencies, with some exceptions, are generally required to 

establish and maintain their own comprehensive occupational safety and health programs 

consistent with OSHA’s regulations. OSHA is generally authorized to conduct inspections 

of federal workplaces, although it does not impose fines for violations of occupational 

safety and health standards. 29 U.S.C. § 668, 29 C.F.R. part 1960, Executive Order 

12196, 45 Fed. Reg. 12,769 (Feb. 26, 1980).

10States that choose to operate their own state-run programs are required to cover state 

and local government workers. 29 U.S.C. § 667(c)(6). Five states (Connecticut, Illinois, 

New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands) have state plans that only include state 

and local government workers, not those in the private sector. 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

Figure 1: Federal and State Responsibilities for Enforcement in OSHA’s 10 Regions, FY 2012

Note: In all states, OSHA generally has authority to conduct inspections of federal agencies.

OSHA provides grants to states with state-run programs of up to 50 

percent of state-run program costs to assist with each state’s operating 

costs.11

 

11Section 23(g) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to provide these grants to states to 

assist with the administration and enforcement of state-run programs. See 29 U.S.C. § 

672(g).

In fiscal year 2012, Congress appropriated just over $104 million 

for the purposes of providing these grants to states. OSHA requires each 

state to submit in its grant application an annual performance plan for 

approval. The annual performance plan includes a detailed enforcement 

plan describing how the state intends to meet its inspection and other 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

goals and must be approved by OSHA before a state receives its federal 

grant. OSHA assesses the performance of a state-run program against 

the goals in the state’s performance plan, as well as on mandated 

activities, such as program administration and investigation of 

complaints.12 In a recent congressional hearing, an OSHA official said 

state-run programs provide a number of advantages in helping OSHA 

carry out its enforcement efforts. These advantages include adding 

resources to the federal program that would not otherwise be available, 

providing enforcement for state and local public-sector workers in those 

states, and addressing workplace hazards that are sometimes not 

addressed by OSHA.

OSHA uses directorates in its national office, as well as 10 regional 

offices and 87 area offices, to implement and oversee enforcement.13

 

12These activities, among others, are required by the OSH Act and OSHA’s regulations.

See generally 29 U.S.C. § 667(c) and 29 C.F.R. parts 1902, 1953, 1954, and 1956.

The 

national office includes the Directorate of Enforcement Programs, which 

provides guidance to OSHA inspectors on how to enforce safety and 

health standards and how employers are to comply with them; the 

Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, which analyzes safety and health 

data; and the Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, which 

develops policy and oversees the grants provided to state-run programs. 

The directorates provide guidance to the regions and to states. At the 

same time, OSHA affords significant autonomy to its 10 regions to both 

conduct enforcement activities through their area offices and to monitor 

enforcement by state-run programs within their regions. While OSHA’s 

regional offices work with OSHA’s national directorates, they report to the 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (see fig. 

2).

13OSHA also has four district offices that are subordinate to an area office.

OSHA Monitoring and 

Enforcement 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

Figure 2: OSHA’s Enforcement Monitoring Structure

As part of enforcement efforts, OSHA and states conduct programmed 

and unprogrammed inspections of employer worksites to ensure 

compliance with safety and health standards. OSHA’s programmed 

inspections are scheduled inspections that target specific worksite 

hazards or high-hazard industries and worksites. OSHA’s unprogrammed 

inspections are conducted in response to imminent danger, fatalities or 

catastrophes (death of one or more workers or in-patient hospitalization of 

three or more workers), complaints, referrals, and as follow-up and 

monitoring of prior inspections. In fiscal year 2012, OSHA’s federal 

inspectors conducted about 41,000 inspections, and state-run programs 

conducted about 52,000 inspections. Fifty-six percent of the federal and 

state inspections were programmed. OSHA also conducts outreach to 

educate employers and workers about safe worksite practices; supports 

employers in reducing safety and health risks; and works with other 

agencies, unions, businesses, and stakeholders to address occupational 

safety and health issues.

OSHA also requires its regions and state-run programs to participate in or 

respond to periodic National Emphasis Programs (NEP) that target 

outreach and enforcement to specific hazards or industries, such as 

preventing amputations or reducing hazardous exposures in 

manufacturing. According to OSHA, a state-run program may adopt the 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

federal program, or it may adopt an equivalent state program if it can 

document that it is “at least as effective.” In addition to these NEPs, 

regional offices and state-run programs may develop regional or local 

emphasis programs to address safety and health issues prevalent in their 

mix of businesses and industries.

OSHA uses a variety of methods to monitor the progress of federal and 

state enforcement efforts, and monitors federal enforcement efforts more 

frequently than those of states. For federal enforcement, OSHA national 

officials monitor regional office activities based on the goals it sets in 

collaboration with regional officials each year—including the number of 

worksite inspections each region is expected to complete—and report 

progress quarterly to the Department of Labor. OSHA national officials 

monitor regional offices’ progress toward meeting these goals by

reviewing their performance measures and holding weekly conference 

calls with regional administrators to discuss performance and other 

issues. Regional officials generally monitor their area offices’ progress 

toward meeting goals by also reviewing inspection activity reports 

submitted weekly by each area office, and through meetings, typically by 

phone, with area office managers held at least every other week to review 

the data. Inspection activity reports provide information on, among other 

things, the number and type of inspections completed, violations found, 

and penalties assessed. Some regions also hold in-person meetings a 

few times a year with all area office managers to review their progress. 

These reports and meetings are the primary ways officials keep track of 

each region’s progress toward meeting its goals. For example, in fiscal 

year 2012, 7 out of 10 OSHA regional offices met or exceeded their 

annual goal for conducting inspections (see fig. 3).

OSHA’s Monitoring Is 

More Frequent and Its 

Guidance Is More 

Consistent for Federal 

than State 

Enforcement 

OSHA Monitors Federal 

Efforts More Frequently 

than State Efforts
 

Page 9 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

Figure 3: OSHA Inspections by Region, FY 2012 

To monitor state enforcement efforts, OSHA regional and area officials 

also review performance reports and meet with state officials to monitor 

their progress toward meeting their inspection and other goals, but they 

do so less frequently for state-run programs than for federal enforcement 

efforts. OSHA regional and area offices work directly with states to set 

inspection goals, taking into account staffing and funding levels in each 

state. Regional officials told us that some state-run programs face funding 

challenges. For example, Hawaii recently reported problems in carrying 

out its program due to lack of state staffing resources and funds. States 

generally have primary responsibility for monitoring the performance of 

their state-run programs, subject to oversight by OSHA. States are 

afforded flexibility in setting their own goals as long as they report their 

activities across a range of performance measures, such as the 

percentage of programmed inspections that find certain types of 

violations, and the average number of violations per inspection. Regional 

and area officials also meet quarterly with state managers to review 

states’ performance, whereas regional officials meet with area officials at 

least once every other week to review their performance. For state-run 

programs, regional officials look for outliers or significant variations from 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

the national averages or a state’s own performance goals.14

During these quarterly meetings with the states, OSHA regional and area 

officials review several types of reports that compare a state’s progress 

with federal and national data on multiple measures for the same period. 

The State Indicator Report tracks the percentage of state-run program 

inspections completed by type and compares them to the percentage of 

federal inspections, typically by quarter. The State Activity Mandated 

Measures report tracks a state’s performance across various measures, 

such as the amount of time it takes a state to begin an inspection after 

receiving a complaint about a safety or health hazard, and the percentage 

of programmed inspections conducted by the state for which serious, 

willful, or repeat violations are found. In addition, OSHA officials review 

aggregate data on inspections, violations, and penalties as a part of their 

annual audits of states. OSHA’s regional offices have transitioned to a 

new data system, the OSHA Information System, which officials said 

should allow for more sophisticated data runs and evaluation of outputs. 

State-run programs have not yet adopted the new system and are still 

using the Integrated Management Information System, or compatible 

systems, to report results to OSHA. OSHA offices now manually merge 

data from the two systems to produce totals for their enforcement 

activities. For fiscal year 2012, inspectors in state-run programs 

conducted more inspections and cited more violations than federal OSHA 

inspectors, but cited fewer serious violations and assessed lower 

penalties overall (see fig.4).

When 

variations are found, OSHA’s regional officials and state-run program 

officials discuss how the state will address them. For example, state-run 

program officials could work with OSHA regional officials to develop a 

corrective action plan that specifies steps the state will take to improve its 

program.

15

 

14The national average is an average of state-run program and federal data combined.

15For purposes of assessing penalties, the OSH Act provides that a serious violation exists 

if there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result, unless 

the employer did not, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the 

presence of the violation. 29 U.S.C. § 666(k). 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

Figure 4: Enforcement Activities for State-Run Programs and OSHA, FY 2012 

OSHA also monitors the significant cases it identifies—those that involve 

a fatality, inspections in which the total proposed penalty is $100,000 or 

more, and those in which citations are issued for violating the general 

duty clause of the OSH Act16

 

16The general duty clause requires employers to provide a workplace free from 

recognized hazards that are causing, or are likely to cause, death or serious physical 

harm to their employees. 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1). In certain circumstances, OSHA may 

issue citations to employers for violating this requirement, even if no specific health or 

safety standard applies. 29 U.S.C. § 658(a). States operating state-run programs may 

also enact and enforce analogous provisions under state law.

—more closely than significant cases in 

state-run programs. Before citations are issued by federal inspectors for 

these types of cases, OSHA’s national office requires a higher level of 

review and approval than for other cases. For example, regional office 

officials must carefully and critically review high penalty cases and notify 

national OSHA in advance of the citations. Because states with state-run 

programs have independent enforcement authority, OSHA’s national 

office does not require this type of review of significant state cases before 

citations are issued. National officials said they encourage regional 

officials to review cases involving fatalities during their annual audits of 

state-run programs.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

While the guidance OSHA provides for auditing its regional and area 

offices is fairly consistent, its guidance for auditing state-run programs 

has varied significantly each year since 2009. Under OSHA’s 

Management Accountability Program (MAP), OSHA regional offices 

conduct annual audits of their own offices and their area offices. These 

audits are either comprehensive audits or focused audits of the office’s 

inspections and administrative functions. Comprehensive audits, which 

are conducted at least once every 4 years, cover a full range of 

enforcement and administrative topics. Focused audits, which are 

conducted in the years between comprehensive audits, evaluate one or 

more selected enforcement or administrative topics. The purpose of MAP 

audits is to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of both OSHA’s 

regional and area offices’ enforcement field activities in relation to 

established policies and procedures and to identify best practices and 

deficiencies in order to improve performance. During comprehensive 

audits, OSHA conducts on-site case file reviews and addresses 41 

different topics on enforcement activities and administrative issues, such 

as timekeeping and the appropriate use of government vehicles. 17

MAP audits of OSHA’s regional offices are conducted with little 

participation on the part of OSHA’s national office, despite a 2010 

directive issued by OSHA for national staff to take a more direct role in 

overseeing and participating in the comprehensive audits of its regional 

offices. Regional officials generally assign staff to audit their own office, 

so these audits do not provide an independent review of regional offices’ 

performance. Providing for such an independent review is an important 

aspect of an effective audit program and a key aspect of generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Government Auditing 

Standards describe the criteria for independence as follows:

Topics 

for focused audits are determined by the regional officials based on areas 

of concern for them or the national office. Although focused audits of area 

offices are normally conducted by OSHA’s regional offices, area office 

managers may conduct focused audits of their own offices and report 

back to the regional office. Area office managers may not, however, 

conduct comprehensive audits of their own offices—these audits can only 

be conducted by regional offices and must be done on site.

 

17During a case file review, OSHA officials select a sample of inspection case files and 

review the documents in each to ensure case file policy was followed and to identify any 

issues with the inspection process and follow-up.

Guidance Is More 

Consistent for Audits of 

Federal Enforcement than 

State Enforcement
 

Page 13 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

“The audit organization and the individual auditor, whether government or public, 

must be independent...Auditors and audit organizations maintain independence so 

that their opinions, findings, conclusions, judgments, and recommendations will be 

impartial and viewed as impartial by reasonable and informed third parties. Auditors 

should avoid situations that could lead reasonable and informed third parties to 

conclude that the auditors are not independent and thus are not capable of exercising 

objective and impartial judgment on all issues associated with conducting the audit 

and reporting on the work.”

18

Instead of adhering to these criteria, regional officials organized, 

managed, and conducted their own audits, as well as audits of their area 

offices. For the most recent comprehensive audits of OSHA’s 10 regional 

offices, none of the audit summaries or our interviews with regional 

officials indicated participation by national office staff.19

OSHA’s regional offices also conduct annual audits of state-run programs 

called Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation (FAME) audits. The 

purpose of these audits is to assess the performance of states in meeting 

their established goals and complying with statutory and regulatory 

requirements, as well as identify areas of concern and excellence, among 

other things. During these audits, regions evaluate state-run programs 

using certain performance measures, such as the average number of 

days it takes to begin an investigation after receiving a complaint. OSHA 

officials may also examine case files or accompany inspectors to 

worksites to verify that proper procedures are being followed. In 

November 2009, after significant problems were identified in Nevada’s 

occupational safety and health program, OSHA strengthened its audits of 

all state-run programs and called them Enhanced Federal Annual 

Monitoring and Evaluation (EFAME) audits. OSHA’s guidance for its fiscal 

year 2009 EFAME audits required that OSHA conduct site visits to states 

and inspect their case files. According to OSHA, prior to beginning the 

During our review, 

a national office official verified that no national office staff has 

participated in any of the comprehensive audits of regional offices to date, 

and the official was unsure whether there were any plans to involve 

national office staff in the audits next year.

 

18GAO, Government Auditing Standards, 2011 Revision, GAO-12-331G, Sections 3.02 

and 3.04 (Washington, D.C.: December 2011).

19In fall 2010, OSHA’s national office began requiring its regional offices to submit the full 

audit report to the national office rather than a summary. Previously, OSHA required 

regional offices to submit a summary of their audit findings to the national office.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

EFAME audits, the agency generally did not include these elements in the 

annual FAME audits, which may have limited its ability to identify and 

address performance problems in some states. The EFAME audits 

increased the requirements for OSHA’s audits of states, aligning them 

with some of its requirements for the comprehensive MAP audits it 

performs, which require regular on-site case file reviews. However, 

beginning in 2009, OSHA guidance on what must be included in audits of 

state-run programs has changed each year. For fiscal year 2009, OSHA 

established the EFAME audits. For fiscal year 2010, OSHA issued 

guidance that required only a follow-up to the fiscal year 2009 reviews. In 

2011, OSHA issued guidance that required EFAME audits with on-site 

case file reviews, and which included a special emphasis on the 

whistleblower protection program.20

Regional officials told us EFAME audits have value in detecting problems 

in the administration of state-run programs that might not otherwise be 

identified. They have also resulted in multiple corrective actions for each 

state. Indeed, officials in one regional office said the region has seen 

improvements in states as these corrective actions have been 

implemented, such as improved case file documentation. Officials from 

OSHSPA, the organization that represents states with state-run 

programs, stated that the 2009 EFAME audits contained a number of 

recommendations that were useful, although they said the summaries in 

some reports did not clearly represent the audit findings and did not 

include the positive aspects of the state-run programs. OSHA national 

officials said they plan to conduct EFAME audits every other year, with 

Yet, OSHA’s guidance does not 

include a timetable for conducting future EFAME audits of state-run 

programs. Not having consistent guidance on audits of state-run 

programs and no set schedule for when OSHA will conduct these more 

comprehensive audits can make it difficult for officials in state-run 

programs to prepare for these audits, and limits OSHA’s ability to identify 

problem areas and help states address them.

 

20OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program enforces the “whistleblower protection” 

provisions of a variety of federal laws, which generally prohibit employers from 

discriminating against employees for taking certain actions protected by these laws. 

According to OSHA, the program enforces the whistleblower provisions of 21 federal 

workplace safety, airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, 

financial reform, food safety, health care reform, nuclear, pipeline, public transportation 

agency, railroad, maritime, and securities laws. Employee actions protected by these laws 

include, but are not limited to, reporting a work-related injury or illness or reporting a 

violation of the laws. 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

follow-up audits in intervening years; however, they have not developed a 

formal written plan to implement this new schedule.

OSHA recently developed several initiatives to better assess the 

effectiveness of state and federal enforcement efforts. It is unclear, 

however, how some of these initiatives will help OSHA demonstrate 

which activities result in desired outcomes—a reduction of worker 

fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. With respect to state enforcement efforts, 

OSHA created a task force comprised of federal and state

representatives to revise state-run program performance measures, and 

in the summer of 2012 held a stakeholder meeting and solicited public 

comment on 15 revised measures—which took effect October 1, 2012.21

The task force was created, in large part, in response to a March 2011 

report by Labor’s Office of Inspector General that shows OSHA had not 

developed a method of determining whether state programs are at least 

as effective as federal programs, as required by the OSH Act.22

 

21After receiving stakeholder feedback, OSHA added three additional measures for a total 

of 18. 

The 

board chairman of OSHSPA said OSHA has inadequate guidance for 

what is needed to meet this requirement and added that, in OSHSPA’s 

view, OSHA often wrongly interprets it to mean that states’ measures, 

trends, and policies must be identical to those of federal OSHA. Some of 

the revised performance measures developed by the task force are 

modifications of measures used previously and several add a range of 

acceptable state performance. For example, the measure for the average 

number of violations found per inspection formerly assessed a state’s 

performance against a national average calculated across 3 years. The 

22U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General-Office of Audit, OSHA Has Not 

Determined If State OSH Programs Are at Least as Effective in Improving Workplace 

Safety and Health as Federal OSHA’s Programs, 02-11-201-10-105 (Washington, D.C.: 

March 31, 2011).

OSHA Is Taking Steps 

to Better Assess 

Effectiveness but 

Does Not Focus on 

Outcomes 

OSHA Has Several 

Initiatives to Assess 

Effectiveness, but Few 

Focus on Outcomes
 

Page 16 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

revised measure compares the state’s average to a range of 20 percent 

plus or minus from the national average. OSHA officials said the range 

provides a better guide for regional officials reviewing state-run programs 

on what is acceptable performance, and affords states the flexibility they 

have requested in setting their own performance and strategic goals. For 

example, one national OSHA official who oversees state-run programs 

said that if a state’s performance is outside the range it does not 

necessarily mean its performance is unacceptable, but prompts the 

reviewer to do additional work to find out why that particular mark was 

missed. However, the revised measures remain largely refinements of 

indicators previously used to track activities conducted (outputs), not 

effectiveness (outcomes). They mostly focus on outputs such as average 

penalty, average number of violations per inspection, and average 

number of days to issue citations. It is unclear how adding a 20 to 25 

percent plus-or-minus range to targets for each of these enforcement 

activities will help OSHA officials determine whether a state’s program is 

at least as effective as the federal program because neither the state’s 

range nor the federal number is linked to effectiveness—improving 

employer compliance and reducing worker fatalities, injuries, and 

illnesses. In commenting on the proposed measures, the Assistant 

Secretary said they are not pure effectiveness measures but rather 

measures of enforcement activities.

OSHA’s difficulty in demonstrating the effectiveness of its enforcement 

efforts has affected its ability to convince states to implement 

enforcement changes OSHA believes will result in better outcomes. For 

example, in 2010, the average penalty for serious violations levied by 

OSHA was approximately $1,000, and the average penalty for these 

violations in state-run programs was frequently lower—in three states, it 

was less than $500. According to the Assistant Secretary, these amounts 

were far too low to exert a credible effect in deterring employer violations. 

There were also wide discrepancies from state to state in penalty 

amounts, which one state-run program manager said raises substantial 

concerns about equal expectations of employers and protection for 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

workers across states.23 To address these concerns, OSHA increased its 

penalties in October 2010, and recommended that states match these 

increases.24 This increase more than doubled the average OSHA penalty 

by fiscal year 2012, to $2,154. Officers at OSHSPA opposed the higher 

penalties, saying OSHA had failed to provide empirical studies to show 

increased penalties were effective in deterring employer violations. They 

also said that state-run programs could achieve greater compliance with 

safety and health standards by increasing the likelihood of an inspection. 

Only two states—Nevada and Wyoming—increased their penalty 

amounts in response to OSHA’s recommendation, according to a national 

OSHA official. Average penalty amounts for all but three states 

(California, Kentucky, and Nevada) remained below the average federal 

penalty (see fig. 5).25

 

23California’s state-run program is an exception: The state has the highest penalty 

amounts in the country. According to its fiscal year 2011 State Activity Mandated 

Measures report, its average initial penalty for a serious violation was $6,390 compared to 

$1,680 for OSHA. However, state program staff have previously raised concerns that 

penalties which are appealed by employers to the California Occupational Safety and 

Health Appeals Board are significantly reduced, prompting a study by OSHA’s Region 9 

and the California Senate Office of Research. The research office reviewed appeals of a 

certain type of citation and found that in contested cases where the citation was upheld,

the appeals board judges reduced penalties more than 87 percent of the time and, when a 

penalty was reduced, it was reduced by at least 75 percent of the initial amount in over 

half the cases. 

More recently, in a memorandum dated March 27, 

2012, OSHA’s national office said states were not immediately required to 

adopt the increased penalty policy, so it is unclear how OSHA plans to 

take penalty amounts into account when evaluating state-run programs.

24Federal penalties must fall within limits specified in the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. § 666. To 

determine the amount of an individual penalty, an inspector applies a series of factors that 

can result in a reduction or an increase in the penalty. For example, a penalty for a small 

employer may be reduced based on the size of the employer or a penalty may be 

increased based on the gravity of the safety hazard identified. Effective Oct. 1, 2010, 

OSHA revised these factors to increase penalties. On April 1, 2012, OSHA readjusted one 

of the factors to reduce penalties for small (1 to 25 employees) businesses. 

25Enforcement decisions can be appealed by employers, which in some cases may result 

in reduced penalties. Citations issued by OSHA can be appealed to the Occupational 

Safety and Health Review Commission, whose rulings may then be appealed to the 

appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals. State-run programs have a similar review process, in 

which employers can appeal to a state review board or equivalent authority. 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

Figure 5: Average Current Penalty Amounts for Serious Violations for State-run Programs Compared to OSHA’s Average 

Penalty (in dollars), FY 2012

Note: Five states—Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands—are not 

shown because their state-run programs cover only state and local public employees and their 

employers (state and local governments) are generally not assessed penalties, according to OSHA. 

In these states, private sector employers are assessed penalties by OSHA. California has the highest 

penalty amounts in the country and some of the most stringent standards, but the state classifies 

fewer violations as serious, according to OSHA officials.

With respect to federal enforcement efforts, OSHA has taken additional 

steps to assess the effectiveness of enforcement efforts overall. In 

summer 2012, OSHA began discussions with the National Advisory 

Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) on ways to 

determine the outcomes of specific enforcement activities.26

 

26The 12-member NACOSH was established by the OSH Act to advise the Secretaries of 

Labor and Health and Human Services on matters relating to the administration of the 

OSH Act. 29 U.S.C. § 656. 

Labor, 

meanwhile, has called on all its agencies to intensify their focus on 

assessing outcomes. As part of its strategic planning, Labor in 2010 

announced a new approach for measuring outcomes for worker 

protection. The document states that a single numerical target, or even a 

range, fails to recognize the sustained effort required to truly change 
 

Page 19 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

behavior.27

OSHA is currently involved in several studies in an effort to address this 

knowledge gap. In fiscal year 2011, OSHA began working with 

researchers at the Rand Corporation to evaluate the ripple, or deterrent, 

effects of enforcement and of providing assistance and education to 

employers on future compliance with safety and health standards. 

Another recently issued report by Labor’s Office of Inspector General 

shows that OSHA knows little about the results of its Site Specific 

Targeting program and so cannot be sure it is effective.

It calls on OSHA to use statistical techniques such as random 

sampling and stratified random sampling, and social science research 

methods, to collect and analyze data for assessing performance. OSHA 

acknowledged in its revised fiscal year 2011 Operating Plan that it has 

not devoted substantial resources to evaluation activities in the past and, 

as a result, knows relatively little about the effectiveness of its policies, 

programs, and strategies.

28 OSHA is 

currently working with Labor’s new chief evaluation officer and a 

consulting firm to design and conduct an evaluation of this program, in 

which OSHA selects a sample of non-construction worksites for 

inspections based on their high rates of injuries and illnesses. OSHA 

plans to compare the impact of these inspections to the impact of an 

OSHA letter notifying employers of their high injury and illness rates and 

urging action, or a combination of both, on employer compliance and 

injury and illness rates. As part of this study, OSHA selected a sample of 

840 worksites for inspection in 2011 and 2012.29

 

27Department of Labor, A New Approach to Measuring the Performance of U.S. 

Department of Labor Worker Protection Agencies (June 28, 2010).

28The report, released in September 2012, shows some of the industries and worksites at 

which the most serious injuries and illnesses occurred were outside the Site Specific 

Targeting program and not always inspected. The report noted the ongoing evaluation 

study discussed here. U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General-Office of 

Audit, OSHA’s Site Specific Targeting Program Has Limitations on Targeting and 

Inspecting High-Risk Worksites, 02-12-202-10-105 (Washington, D.C.: September 28, 

2012).

29According to OSHA Directive 11-03 (CPL 02), states with state-run programs are 

expected to conduct similar targeting efforts of their own. 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

OSHA is missing opportunities to use data already in hand to assess the 

effectiveness of federal and state enforcement efforts. For example, 

OSHA does not analyze data from its audits of its offices and of state-run 

programs, and information on its emphasis programs. According to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the GPRA Modernization Act 

of 201030 serves as a foundation for creating a culture in which data and 

empirical evidence play a greater role in management decisions and 

policy. OMB also encourages agencies to adopt increasingly effective 

practices.31

OSHA does not analyze data from its MAP audits of regional and area 

offices or its FAME audits of state-run programs to inform its planning or 

to share information across regions. While OSHA summarized the most 

common findings from its fiscal year 2011 MAP audits, it provided no 

analysis of the data, and no such analysis was performed in 2010 to look 

for shared deficiencies or national trends. Similarly, according to a 

national OSHA official who oversees state-run programs, the agency has 

not analyzed the results of its annual FAME reviews of state-run 

programs to identify systemic issues. In accordance with government 

standards for internal controls, findings from audits should be used to 

identify risks, analyze their effects, and correct identified deficiencies.32

 

30The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 amended the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285, as amended by Pub. L. 

No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011).

In 

our interviews with regional officials, those in two regions said OSHA’s 

national office does not analyze the results of their MAP audits, and 

officials in two other regions said they were unaware of any such analysis 

and have not received feedback from OSHA’s national office on the 

results of their MAP audits. In September 2012, Labor’s Office of 

Inspector General issued a report that shows national OSHA’s Directorate 

of Evaluation and Analysis did not analyze and disseminate the results of 

MAP audits to inform management decision making and improve 

31OMB Circular No. A-11, Sec.200, p. 200-4. 

32GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999)

OSHA Does Not Use 

Existing Data to Assess 

Enforcement Effectiveness
 

Page 21 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

operations.33

OSHA collects information on activities conducted for NEPs each year, 

but officials said they do not evaluate these data to determine whether 

these programs were responsible for desired outcomes in regions and 

across states.

The report stated that OSHA failed to emphasize the critical 

importance of these audits in providing OSHA information on its 

performance.

34 In our previous work, we have emphasized the need for 

evaluative information to help decision makers determine whether, and 

why, a program is working well.35

 

33The report also shows that there was a lack of consistency in how audits were 

conducted region to region and a lack of training for OSHA staff on how to conduct them.

U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General-Office of Audit, OSHA Needs to 

Improve Oversight Over the Management Accountability Program, 02-12-204-10-105 

(Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2012). 

Unlike measuring performance, which 

focuses on whether a program achieves its objectives, program 

evaluations can be used to isolate a program’s impact from external 

factors that can influence outcomes and to identify adjustments that may 

improve results. At least one regional administrator said data from NEPs 

can be used to flag safety and health problems and to identify best 

practices to share with other employers. However, while national OSHA 

compiled information submitted by each regional office for NEP activities 

in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, it did not analyze the data or compare 

activities across regions. Officials said that variations from state to state 

make such evaluations difficult. OSHA instructions for NEPs state that 

OSHA’s national office is to disseminate information to its regional offices 

on the results of these programs. But national officials responsible for 

overseeing NEPs told us that while they collect data—primarily metrics or 

numbers—on each NEP, these are not true evaluations. In its newly 

implemented NEP for nursing homes, for example, OSHA includes a 

section on evaluation which instructs its area and regional offices to 

collect data on the NEP’s effectiveness, including outreach conducted 

and resulting new safety and health programs implemented. However, 

there is no discussion about how to evaluate whether the NEP was 

34For fiscal year 2012, OSHA had approximately one dozen NEPs, including some that 

had been in effect for several years. An OSHA official said OSHA has a preliminary report 

on its NEP on amputations. 

35We defined a program as any activity, project, function, or policy that has an identifiable 

purpose or set of objectives. GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions 

and Relationships, GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011).
 

Page 22 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

directly responsible for desired outcomes, such as a reduction in worker 

injuries caused by lifting patients or falls. This lack of evaluation hinders 

OSHA in determining whether the NEP effort was effective and in 

identifying adjustments to improve results. An academic expert and Labor 

consultant said there is a recurring lack of planning at OSHA for postinitiative evaluation, which hinders the agency’s ability to determine 

whether its enforcement efforts, including NEPs, have an impact on 

outcomes, such as reducing occupational injuries.

NIOSH, an agency that conducts research and advises OSHA on 

occupational safety and health issues, has faced challenges similar to 

OSHA’s in assessing its effectiveness. To address this challenge, NIOSH 

contracted with the National Academies to evaluate eight NIOSH 

research programs and to help NIOSH hold those programs accountable 

for real outcomes that affect life and health.36 For these evaluations, 

NIOSH devised questions to be posed by participating researchers, such 

as whether external factors affected outcomes, and the degree to which a 

NIOSH program was responsible for any improvement. The evaluation 

acknowledged the difficulty in assessing the causal relationship between 

NIOSH’s functions as a research agency and specific occupational safety 

and health outcomes, but NIOSH officials said it would be easier for 

OSHA to do this because OSHA has more concrete data, such as reports

on its worksite inspections.

OSHA and state-run programs conduct a number of enforcement 

activities to protect the nation’s workers, but OSHA knows little about their 

effectiveness. While data on the number of inspections conducted and 

violations identified at worksites are useful ways to monitor federal and 

state enforcement activities, they do not provide the type of outcomeoriented information needed to determine which enforcement activities 

 

36Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, 

Evaluating Occupational Health and Safety Research Programs: Framework and Next 

Steps (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2009). The study’s 

recommendations to NIOSH were to 1) develop a system for regular ongoing external 

evaluations to complement NIOSH’s self-assessments; 2) continue to improve its process 

for listening to workers, employers, health care providers, and others to identify needed 

intervention and get early feedback; 3) increase and improve its surveillance of workrelated injuries, illnesses, and other working conditions to inform future evaluations; and 4) 

integrate internal and external research in its strategic planning.1

GAO, Government 

Auditing Standards, 2011 Revision, GAO-12-331G, Sections 3.02 and 3.04 (Washington, 

D.C.: December 2011).

Conclusions 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

are most effective in ensuring employer compliance and reducing risks to 

workers. OSHA recently developed initiatives to better assess the 

effectiveness of federal and state enforcement activities, but few include 

the evaluative components needed to assist the agency in examining 

effectiveness. Also, national OSHA collects some relevant information 

through audits of its own offices and state-run programs, but it does not 

annually analyze that information to identify systemic problems and 

improvements. In addition, despite a 2010 directive calling for greater 

participation of the OSHA national office in regional office comprehensive 

audits, there is still minimal participation by the national office in these 

audits. Without the independent perspective of the national office, OSHA 

cannot assure that results of regional office audits of themselves are 

impartial and reasonable. Further, OSHA has not provided consistent 

guidance for conducting state EFAME audits that include on-site case file 

reviews similar to comprehensive MAP audits. Lack of such guidance 

may allow enforcement deficiencies to go undetected, increasing the risk 

of worker injuries, illnesses, and death. Enhancing monitoring of 

enforcement activities and determining which efforts work best must be a 

sustained priority if OSHA is to achieve the best results and succeed in its 

mission to protect U.S. workers.

In order to improve OSHA’s assessments of its effectiveness and its 

monitoring of federal and state enforcement efforts, we recommend that 

the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health to:

1. consistently incorporate outcomes in its assessments of enforcement 

activities;

2. annually analyze the results of its MAP and FAME audits to identify 

and address systemic problems and leading practices;

3. ensure that OSHA national staff participate in regional office 

comprehensive audits to enhance independence in accordance with 

OSHA’s MAP 2010 directive; and

4. provide consistent guidance for scheduling state EFAME audits to

ensure that they are conducted on a regular basis and include 

mandatory on-site case file reviews.

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Labor for review and 

comment. We received written comments from OSHA, which are 

reproduced in their entirety in appendix II.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 24 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

OSHA agreed with the essence of our recommendations and stated that it

would carefully consider them. However, OSHA raised some concerns 

about them. For recommendation 1, OSHA expressed concern that it may 

overemphasize the significance of outcome measurements in determining 

the effectiveness of state safety and health programs. OSHA pointed out 

that it currently uses other measures in conjunction with outcome 

measures to evaluate effectiveness. We agree that using other measures 

to evaluate state-run programs is useful but note that OSHA has not 

linked them to its assessments of effectiveness. We continue to believe 

that OSHA’s assessments would benefit from further analysis of the 

results, or outcomes, of both state and federal enforcement activities. We 

revised our report to clarify that we do not think OSHA should stop 

measuring activities. For recommendations 2 and 3, OSHA stated that it 

has taken several steps to improve its analysis of audits and enhance 

resources assigned to the program. For recommendation 4, OSHA stated 

that it updates guidance for FAME reviews each year and is updating the 

State Plan Policies and Procedures Manual to include these revisions and 

guidance for on-site case file reviews. While we agree with OSHA that 

providing annual guidance to focus audits on areas of concern is valid, 

OSHA has not yet provided formal guidance for how often enhanced 

audits of state-run programs (EFAMEs) with on-site case file reviews will 

be conducted. We revised the wording of our recommendation to refer 

specifically to the scheduling of these EFAMEs. Finally, OSHA noted that 

our draft report did not adequately acknowledge the state-plan states’

distinct role in directly and closely overseeing their own performance. We 

added further acknowledgement of the states’ authority in this area to our

report. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, the Secretary of Labor, and other interested 

parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact Revae Moran at (202) 512-7215 or moranr@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 

contributions to this report are listed in Appendix III.

Revae Moran, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 26 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

The objectives of our review were to examine 1) how the Department of 

Labor’s (Labor) Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) 

monitoring of its own and state enforcement efforts compares, and 2) 

recent steps OSHA has taken to evaluate the effectiveness of federal and 

state enforcement efforts.

To address our first objective, we reviewed Labor’s and OSHA’s policies 

and procedures for monitoring federal and state enforcement activities, 

including OSHA manuals, directives, and memoranda for its 10 regional 

offices, 87 area offices, and the 27 state-run programs. We also reviewed 

relevant federal laws and regulations. We analyzed audits of OSHA 

regional and area offices, which assess their activities in relation to OSHA 

policies and procedures and identify best practices and deficiencies in 

performance, such as in targeting and scheduling inspections; conducting 

fatality investigations; case file documentation; and outreach to 

employers, workers, and other stakeholders. We also analyzed OSHA’s 

audits of state-run programs, which assess each state’s progress toward 

meeting its individual performance goals and compliance with statutory 

and regulatory requirements. To further evaluate OSHA’s audit 

processes, we compared these processes to criteria for independent 

review in GAO’s Government Auditing Standards.1

 

1

GAO, Government Auditing Standards, 2011 Revision, 

We conducted site 

visits to three OSHA regional offices: Region 5 in Chicago, Illinois; Region 

3 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Region 8 in Denver, Colorado. We 

selected these regional offices for site visits using the following criteria: 

the size of the region based on total number of worksite inspections 

conducted annually (one region with a small number of inspections, one 

with a medium number, and one with a large number); geography (offices 

located in different parts of the country); and the mix of states with 

federal- and state-provided enforcement within the region (each region 

selected has at least two states of each type). At each regional office we 

visited, we interviewed the regional or assistant regional administrator, 

program managers for OSHA enforcement and for state-run programs, 

and administrators in two of the region’s area offices: one area office with 

oversight responsibility for state-run program(s) and one with oversight 

responsibility for state(s) for which OSHA provides enforcement. We 

selected area offices that oversee state-run programs for site visits to 

include a range of states based on total number of annual worksite 

GAO-12-331G, Sections 3.02 and 

3.04 (Washington, D.C.: December 2011).

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 27 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

inspections: Virginia (a large number of inspections), Indiana (a medium 

number), and Wyoming (a small number).2

To address our second objective, we interviewed the heads of 

directorates in OSHA’s national office about their roles in monitoring 

enforcement and in planning for greater effectiveness, including the 

directorates responsible for state-run programs, overall enforcement, 

strategic planning, and evaluation. To obtain information from outside 

parties about OSHA’s oversight of federal and state enforcement, we 

interviewed Labor officials who work with OSHA on its performance 

planning and research agenda; officers of the Occupational Safety and 

Health State Plan Association (OSHSPA), which represents the interests 

of states with state-run programs; and officials at the Department of 

Health and Human Services’ National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health (NIOSH), which conducts research, experiments, and 

demonstrations relating to occupational safety and health. In addition, we 

interviewed selected academic experts and stakeholders about Labor and 

OSHA performance. We identified these academic experts and 

stakeholders through a literature search, as well as from 

recommendations of other academic experts versed in OSHA and worker 

protection issues and the recommendations of OSHA and NIOSH 

officials. Finally, we reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, 

including the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA); and the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010.

In Region 8, we interviewed 

Denver regional office officials with direct oversight responsibility for 

Wyoming because there is no area office in that state. To obtain a 

national perspective, we conducted semi-structured phone interviews with 

the remaining seven regional office administrators or their managers 

about how they monitor and oversee enforcement efforts and each 

office’s processes for overseeing the OSHA offices and state-run 

programs in its region. From each region, we collected key documents, 

including recent audit reports on regional and area offices, interim and 

annual reviews of states, inspection tracking reports and interim tracking 

of other key measures, and logs of complaints about state-run programs.

3

 

2

Two of our six area office visits were conducted by phone: Indianapolis, Indiana in 

Region 5 and Norfolk, Virginia in Region 3.

We reviewed OSHA’s use of 

3

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-596, 84 Stat. 1590; 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285; 

and GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011).
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

performance goals and measures in accordance with criteria in Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-11, Labor’s current 5-year strategic 

plan, and other agency plans for performance.4 We also reviewed 

previous GAO reports and NIOSH’s 2004-2008 evaluation of its own 

effectiveness.5

We assessed the reliability of data we used from the OSHA Integrated 

Management Information System and OSHA Information System by (1) 

reviewing existing information about the data and the systems that 

produced them, (2) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the 

data, and (3) reviewing these data for obvious inconsistency errors. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this 

report.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 through 

January 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

4

OMB Circular N. A-11, Sect. 200.

5

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, 

Evaluating Occupational Health and Safety Research Programs: Framework and Next 

Steps (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2009).
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 29 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Labor
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 30 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 31 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 32 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 33 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

Revae E. Moran, (202) 512-7215 or moranr@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Assistant Director Mary 

Crenshaw, Matthew Alemu, Susan Aschoff, and Paul Schearf made 

significant contributions to this report. Assistance, expertise, and 

guidance were provided by James Bennett, Ted A. Burik, Sarah Cornetto, 

Meeta Engle, Gretta Goodwin, Isabella P. Johnson, Kathy Leslie, Luann 

Moy, Carol Patey, Bryan Rogowski, Linda Siegel, and Kathleen van 

Gelder.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products

Page 34 GAO-13-61 Workplace Safety and Health

Workplace Safety and Health: Multiple Challenges Lengthen OSHA’s 

Standard Setting. GAO-12-330. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2012.

Workplace Safety and Health: Enhancing OSHA’s Records Audit Process 

Could Improve the Accuracy of Worker Injury and Illness Data. 

GAO-10-10. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2009.

OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Programs: Improved Oversight and Controls 

Would Better Ensure Program Quality. GAO-09-395. Washington, D.C.: 

May 20, 2009.

Whistleblower Protection Program: Better Data and Improved Oversight 

Would Help Ensure Program Quality and Consistency. GAO-09-106. 

Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2009.

Workplace Safety and Health: Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry, 

while Improving, Could Be Further Strengthened. GAO-05-96. 

Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2005.

Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA’s Oversight of Its Civil Penalty 

Determination and Violation Abatement Processes Has Limitations. 

GAO-04-920. Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2004.

Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Can Strengthen Enforcement 

through Improved Program Management. GAO-03-45. Washington, D.C.: 

November 22, 2002.

Occupational Safety and Health: Efforts to Obtain Establishment-Specific 

Data on Injuries and Illnesses. GAO/HEHS-98-122. Washington, D.C.: 

May 22, 1998.

Occupational Safety and Health: Changes Needed in the Combined 

Federal and State Approach. GAO/HEHS-94-10. Washington, D.C.: 

February 28, 1994.

Related GAO Products

(131121)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.