RR 23-19 | October 2023

IMPLEMENTING SLSI-PROVIDED OPPORTUNITIES

CONTINUES TO SUPPORT SAFETY CULTURE

GROWTH

SUMMARY

The Short Line Safety Institute (SLSI) measures 

short line and regional railroads’ safety culture 

using a multi-method assessment process that 

examines safety culture performance across the 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Safety 

Council’s 10 Core Elements of a Strong Safety 

Culture (Morrow & Coplen, 2017). This 

document summarizes findings from an analysis 

of safety culture growth across 20 short line 

railroads that completed both an initial (Time 1) 

and follow-up (Time 2) Safety Culture 

Assessment (SCA) by SLSI.

In this analysis, the Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) staff 

established Time 1 and Time 2 safety culture 

scores for each railroad, using outputs from 

SLSI’s SCA process. Volpe staff then measured 

railroads’ safety culture growth within the 10 

Core Elements. While the analysis revealed 

safety culture growth across all railroads and 

within all 10 Core Elements, the magnitude of 

improvement varied by railroad and Core 

Element. 

BACKGROUND

Numerous factors can affect a railroad’s safety 

outcomes. A strong safety culture can help

reduce the frequency and severity of accidents

by creating a safer, more accountable work 

environment. The DOT Safety Council defines 

safety culture as “the shared values, actions, 

and behaviors that demonstrate a commitment 

to safety over competing goals and demands”

(Morrow & Coplen, 2017). 

In 2014, with support from the Federal Railroad 

Administration’s (FRA) Office of Research, 

Development, and Technology, the American 

Short Line and Regional Railroad Association 

established SLSI, an organization focused on

strengthening safety culture in the short line and 

regional rail industry. SLSI uses the 10 Core 

Elements of a Strong Safety Culture as a

theoretical framework to operationalize its

definition of safety culture. Figure 1 shows the 

10 Core Elements, as adapted by SLSI. 

Figure 1. The 10 Core Elements of a Strong Safety 

Culture

SLSI conducts voluntary, non-punitive, 

confidential SCAs for short line and regional 

railroads across the United States. SCAs 

provide a diagnostic appraisal of a railroad’s 

safety culture at a given point in time, with 

documented Opportunities for Improvement.
RR 23-19 | October 2023

RESEARCH RESULTS 2 | Page

SLSI began industry-wide implementation of its 

SCA model in 2016. The SCA model uses

teams of Assessors and a multi-method, datafocused, site-customized process that involves 

observations, interviews, document inventories, 

and surveys (surveys are only used at railroads 

with at least 25 employees.) At the end of each 

SCA, SLSI provides the participating railroad 

with a final report that summarizes Findings 

about the railroad’s safety culture and suggests

Opportunities for Improvement that may 

strengthen the railroad’s safety culture, if 

implemented. 

In 2019, SLSI developed its Time 2 Assessment 

process to measure changes in a participating 

railroad’s safety culture over time. To date, SLSI 

has conducted 20 Time 2 Assessments, 

representing approximately 20 percent of the 

railroads that have received an SCA.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the current analysis was to

measure safety culture changes among 20 

railroads that completed Time 1 and Time 2 

Assessments with SLSI between 2016 and 

2023. This research provides updates to a 

previous FRA report that summarized safety 

culture growth across ten participating railroads

(Kidda & Howarth, 2022).

METHODS

First, the Volpe team systematically compared 

each railroad’s Time 1 SCA report with its Time 

2 SCA report, with a focus on identifying positive 

and negative safety culture indicators under 

each of the 10 Core Elements of a Strong Safety 

Culture. Using these indicators, analysts 

estimated whether the safety culture under a 

particular Core Element strengthened, stayed 

about the same, or weakened. To support the 

interpretation of the SCA reports, analysts

documented assumptions and reviewed areas of 

uncertainty with SLSI.

The Volpe team implemented a scoring system 

to support quantitative analysis of the railroads’ 

safety culture growth. For each Finding in a 

railroad’s Time 1 report, the Volpe team 

assigned a Time 1 score of 1, 2, or 3 (where 1 = 

no evidence of a particular safety culture 

indicator; 2 = evidence with noted room for 

improvement; and 3 = evidence with no noted 

room for improvement), based on the language 

in the Finding and the presence of an associated 

Opportunity for Improvement. 

Similarly, for each associated Time 2 Finding in 

a railroad’s Time 2 report, the Volpe team 

calculated a Time 2 score by adding 

corresponding Time 1 scores to ratings of the 

degree of safety culture change (-1 = worsened; 

0 = no change; 1 = improved). Resulting Time 2 

scores totaled 1, 2, 3 (as above), or 4, where 4

indicates improvement to a previous Time 1 

rating, despite no noted need for improvement. 

This scoring system enabled the team to 

investigate how much each railroad’s safety 

culture changed by Core Element and by 

railroad. 

RESULTS

The time between SCAs varied between 23 and 

65 months with an average of 46 months. The 

20 railroads fully implemented an average of 47 

percent of the Opportunities for Improvement

recommended by SLSI. In order to assess 

safety culture growth, the Volpe team subtracted

Time 1 ratings from Time 2 scores; this resulted 

in a change score for each railroad, plotted in 

Figure 2. 

Figure 2. Safety Culture Growth from Time 1 to 

Time 2 by Railroad

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

18 20 7 16 10 8 6 2 5 4 14 1 12 17 9 13 3 15 19 11

Safety Culture Growth 

Railroad
RR 23-19 | October 2023

RESEARCH RESULTS 3 | Page

Each railroad in the sample demonstrated 

evidence of safety culture growth. The growth 

varied from a minimum change score of 0.08 to 

a maximum change score of 0.78, with an 

average change score of 0.34. More information 

is needed to understand the factors that 

contributed to this variation. 

The analysis provided additional insight into 

which Core Elements the railroads 

demonstrated growth. As shown in Figure 3, the 

improvement in the average SCA score for each 

Core Element varied from Time 1 to Time 2. 

Figure 3. Changes in Participating Railroads’ 

Safety Culture Scores Over Time

Figure 4 depicts the average safety culture 

growth within each of the 10 Core Elements, 

which ranged from a high of 0.52 in Core 

Element 2 (The Railroad Practices Continuous 

Learning) to a low of 0.16 in Core Element 4 

(Reporting Systems & Accountability Are Clearly 

Defined). The average change score for all 

railroads was 0.32 across Core Elements. 

Figure 4. Average Growth in Safety Culture Core 

Elements Over Time

The Volpe team also analyzed the

implementation status of the Opportunities for 

Improvement identified in the participating 

railroads’ Time 1 SCA reports. Figure 5 shows 

the percentage of Time 1 Opportunities across 

all railroads that were fully implemented, partially 

implemented, or showed no evidence of 

implementation. Forty-seven percent of 

Opportunities for Improvement were fully 

implemented, 14 percent were partially 

implemented, and 39 percent showed no 

evidence of implementation. 

Figure 5. Implementation Status of Time 1 

Opportunities for Improvement at Time 2 SCA

As part of the Opportunities analysis, the Volpe 

team examined how much time had passed 

between the railroads’ Time 1 and Time 2 SCAs. 

In contrast to the previous analysis of ten

railroads, which found a positive correlation 

(0.68) between the number of months between 

SCAs and Opportunities fully implemented, the 

current analysis showed no correlation (-0.02) 

between months lapsed and full implementation 

status. 

CONCLUSIONS

The current analysis of 20 railroads participating 

in a Time 2 SCA showed continued support for 

0.16

0.24

0.26

0.27

0.30

0.33

0.36

0.37

0.39

0.52

Reporting Systems and Accountability Are Clearly ...

Mutual Trust is Fostered between Employees and ...

Employees Feel Personally Responsible for Safety

There Is a Safety Conscious Work Environment

Leadership Is Clearly Committed to Safety

The Railroad is Fair and Consistent in Responding ...

Decisions Demonstrate That Safety Is Prioritized ...

Training and Resources Are Available to Support ...

There Is Open and Effective Communication ...

The Railroad Practices Continuous Learning

14% partially

implemented

39% no evidence 

of implementation

47% fully

implemented
RR 23-19 | October 2023

RESEARCH RESULTS 4 | Page

safety culture growth through railroads 

addressing feedback in the SCA postAssessment reports and by implementing SLSIrecommended Opportunities for Improvement. 

The average safety culture growth is similar at 

both analysis points; for ten railroads, analysts 

calculated an average growth score of 0.27, 

while the 20-railroad sample produced an 

average growth score of 0.32. 

While growth varied across railroads, the current 

descriptive analysis suggests support for the 

hypothesis that, overall, implementation of SLSIprovided Opportunities for Improvement results 

in strengthened safety culture outcomes. 

Participating railroads fully or partially

implemented over 60 percent of Time 1 

Opportunities for Improvement provided by 

SLSI. Predominantly, this supported a stronger 

safety culture by a railroad’s Time 2 SCA. For all 

railroads, however, the Assessors reported there 

was room for additional safety culture 

improvement.

This analysis continues to support the possibility 

that it may be easier for railroads to strengthen 

their safety culture under some Core Elements

and more difficult under others, as evidenced by 

the trends in safety culture growth for the 20-

railroad sample, where Core Element 4 

(Reporting Systems & Accountability Are Clearly 

Defined) continues to demonstrate low growth. 

REFERENCES

Kidda, S., & Howarth, H. D. (2022). 

Implementing SLSI-Provided 

Opportunities Supports Safety Culture 

Growth. Research Results No. RR 22-

07, Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Federal Railroad 

Administration.

Morrow, S., & Coplen, M. (2017). Safety Culture: 

A Significant Influence on Safety in 

Transportation. Technical Report No. 

DOT/FRA/ORD-17/09, Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Railroad Adminstration.

CONTACT

Starr Kidda, PhD

Chief, Human Factors Division

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Research, Development and 

Technology

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

(202) 306-2011

Starr.Kidda@dot.gov

Heidi D. Howarth, PhD

Engineering Psychologist

U.S. DOT Volpe Center

Transportation Human Factors Division

55 Broadway

Cambridge, MA 02142

(617) 494-2522

Heidi.Howarth@dot.gov

KEYWORDS

Safety culture, safety culture model, safety 

culture assessment, safety culture 

measurement, evaluation, short line 

railroads, regional railroads

CONTRACT NUMBER

RR04AB/VK293