National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST)

NSC Safety Barometer Results

December 2022 - February 2023

Section 1
Understanding Your Results: NSC Safety Barometer

This page provides you with foundational information about the NSC Safety Barometer items and six safety performance categories. 

NSC Safety Barometer (click to view your Safety Barometer Form)

NSC Employee Perception Surveys provide comprehensive, sensitive leading indicator metrics to assess your safety culture, identify strengths and

opportunities, and gaps in your safety management system that can assist in prioritizing continuous improvement efforts. The NSC Safety Barometer is 

a validated safety survey, asking respondents to indicate their level of agreement with 50 standardized general safety statements (Q01-Q50) assessing 

safety management system health and safety culture. These statements describe activities or conditions related to the administrative, operational,

technical, and cultural elements of the safety management system, representing six fundamental safety performance categories or areas of safety

excellence: Management Commitment (7 items), Supervisor Engagement (9 items), Employee Involvement (9 items), Safety Support Activities (10

items), Safety Support Climate (10 items), Organizational Climate (5 items). Descriptions of the six performance categories and their respective

standard items are below. 

Management Commitment 

Management Commitment items describe ways in which top & middle 

management demonstrate their leadership and commitment to safety in

the form of words, actions, organizational strategy, and personal 

engagement. 

Q07 Management’s views on the importance of safety are seldom stressed in employee communications.

Q14 Management has published a written policy that expresses their attitude about employee safety.

Q21 Management has provided adequate staff to manage and support its safety program.

Q31 Management sets a positive safety example through their words and actions.

Q34 Management regularly participates in safety program activities.

Q40 It is well known that management ignores a person’s safety performance when determining raises and 

promotions.

Q49 Management annually sets safety goals for which all employees are held accountable.

Supervisor Engagement

Supervisor Engagement items consider primary roles through which

supervisors communicate their support for safety: leader, manager, 

controller, trainer, organizational representative, and advocate for 

employees.

Q05 My supervisor maintains a high standard of job safety performance.

Q12 My supervisor’s behavior often goes against safe job procedures.

Q19 My supervisor enforces safe job procedures.

Q24 My supervisor understands the job safety problems I face.

Q28 My supervisor seldom acts on employee safety suggestions.

Q32 My supervisor has successfully fit safety into the work routine.

Q38 The training or guidance provided through my supervisor (or principal investigator, or senior 

practitioner/mentor) helps me do my job safely.

Q43 Employees are afraid to report safety problems to their supervisors.

Q44 My supervisor is involved in safety incident investigations.

Employee Involvement

Employee Involvement items specify selected actions and reactions that

are critical to making a safety program work. Emphasis is given to

personal engagement, responsibility, and compliance. 

Q01 It is common for employees to take part in identifying and eliminating worksite hazards.

Q04 Employees often get involved in developing or revising job safety and health policies and procedures

(e.g., NIST Safety Suborders, Safe Operating Procedures, etc.).

Q11 I can protect myself and coworkers through my actions while on the job.

Q18 I understand the safety and health regulations relating to my job.

Q20 The same basic precautions are used by employees who deal with hazardous materials.

Q25 Designated employees are familiar with and follow procedures to isolate hazardous energy sources,

such as regular lockout/tagout procedures.

Q37 Employees take part when accident or incident investigations occur.

Q46 Many employees don’t use the personal protective equipment necessary to do their jobs safely.

Q50 Employees rarely take part in the development of safety requirements for their jobs (e.g., safe

operating procedures and hazard reviews).

Safety Support Activities

Safety Support Activities items probe the presence or quality of various

safety program practices, with a focus on communications, training,

inspection, maintenance, and emergency response.

Q06 Detailed safety inspections of work areas, including government-owned vehicles, are made at regular, 

frequent intervals.

Q08 Safety meetings are held less often than they should be.

Q13 Designated employees are well trained in emergency practices, including for example, hazard review

emergency response procedures and building evacuations.

Q15 Near miss incidents are thoroughly investigated.

Q22 Awards and recognition programs used in this organization are not good at promoting safe employee 

behavior.

Q26 Safety training is part of every new employee’s onboarding.

Q29 Emergency response procedures are almost never tested to make sure they are working.

Q30 The work of committees like the ESC (Executive Safety Council), SAC (Safety Advisory Committee),

and OU safety councils improve safety conditions.

Q33 The system of preventive maintenance for facilities, work areas (including vehicles), equipment, tools,

and machinery operates poorly.

Q41 The safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative, etc.) are readily 

available to provide advice and assistance.

Safety Support Climate

Safety Support Climate items ask employees across an organization for 

general beliefs, impressions, and observations about management’s 

commitment and underlying values with regard to safety.

Q03 Safety takes a back seat to productivity. 

Q10 Management shows that it cares about employee safety.

Q17 Management does no more than the law requires to keep employees safe.

Q23 Job performance standards for production/work output are higher than safety performance standards.

Q27 I believe management is sincere in its efforts to ensure employee safety.

Q35a The safety office has high status in this organization.

Q35b The safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative, etc.) has high 

status in this organization.

Q36 Hazards that are not fixed right away by supervisors are often ignored.

Q39 Medical resources are sufficient for treating the injuries that occur.

Q45 Ventilation, lighting, noise, and other environmental conditions are kept at a good level (Includes 

facilities and other work areas such as vehicles, remote offices, worksites). 

Q48 Management insists that supervisors think about safety when doing their jobs.

Organizational Climate

Organizational Climate items probe general conditions that interact with

the safety program to affect its ultimate success, such as teamwork, 

morale, and employee turnover.

Q02 There is frequent contact and communication between employees and management.

Q09 Good teamwork exists among departments (OUs, Divisions, Groups, etc.).

Q16 Employee morale is poor.

Q42 This organization has a stable workforce.

Q47 Job stress is a significant problem for me and my coworkers.

Customized Items

Safety program items that are of special concern to your organization.

Q51 All hazardous activities I perform have an associated hazard review.

Q52 Hazard reviews (or JHAs) are revised and re-reviewed when process changes or new hazards are introduced

Q53 The hazard reviews (or JHA) process reduces risk associated with my work.

Q54 NIST has a positive safety culture.

Q55 The safety culture at NIST is improving.

Q56 The safety requirements are consistently followed in my work area.

Q57 Supervisors encourage the reporting of unsafe/unhealthful conditions.

Q58 Supervisors create a comfortable environment for raising safety concerns.

Q59 I receive enough job-specific safety training to perform my work activities safely.

Q60 Incidents that happen at NIST and lessons learned are discussed in my work area.

Q61 If you experienced a safety-related incident, how likely would it be for you to report it?

Q62 If you experienced a near miss while working, how likely would it be for you to report it?

Section 2
Understanding Your Results: Benchmarking

This page provides you with key information about benchmarking: how we calculate average scores, interpreting percentile scores, why benchmarking

is important, and the NSC Database. 

Average Response Scores

To ensure the quality of survey responses, two-thirds of the NSC Safety Barometer statements are positively phrased while other statements are 

negatively phrased. Respondent agreement with a positive statement or disagreement with a negative statement has a positive safety implication for the

safety culture. Disagreement with a positive statement or agreement with a negative description has a negative implication. For each statement,

average response scores were calculated by assigning the following values to responses:

+2 = strongly positive response 

(strongly agreeing with positively phrased item/strongly disagreeing with negatively phrased item); 

+1 = positive response 

(agreeing with positively phrased item/disagreeing with negatively phrased item);

 0 = neutral response; 

-1 = negative response 

(disagreeing with positively phrased item/agreeing with negatively phrased item);

-2 = strongly negative response 

(strongly disagreeing with positively phrased item/strongly agreeing with negatively phrased item).

Benchmarking

Average response scores are compared with the NSC Database for each of the 50 NSC Safety Barometer items and each of the six safety 

performance categories. A percentile score expresses the percentage of NSC Database businesses with a lower average response score than your

business. Possible percentile scores range from 0 to 100, with 0 representing the lowest score in the NSC Database and 100 representing the highest. 

For example, a percentile score of 100 indicates that all of the businesses in the NSC Database received a lower average response score than your

business; a percentile score of 50 indicates that half of the businesses were lower than your business.

A percentile score above 50, the NSC Database average, indicates above average performance, whereas a score below 50 indicates below average

performance when compared to NSC Database organizations. Scores below 20 are considered low, while scores of 80 or above are described as 

high. Scores of 90 or above indicate very high safety performance, as derived from employee perceptions.

Value of Benchmarking

The true value of benchmarking in employee survey analysis is it neutralizes inaccuracy in the survey results, allowing organizations to compare

scored items and take action. Inherent in all survey work, every survey item has its own natural performance. Some items tend to be answered more

positively or negatively than other items. This has to do with the wording of the item, topic being addressed, or both. Benchmarking is a unit of analysis

that will allow you to easily identify high and low scores across items and prioritize areas for action planning. The following is an example comparing

two NSC Safety Barometer survey items. 

Two survey items: 

Q01) It is common for employees to take part in identifying and eliminating worksite hazards 

NSC Database average score of 1.137 and a standard deviation of .27

Q47) Job stress is a significant problem for me and my coworkers 

 NSC Database average score of -.208 and a standard deviation of .36

If survey results were provided with only average response scores (on a scale of -2 to +2) and your organization produced the same average response

score for both of these items, this result can be interpreted that these items are performing rather equally. However, applying our NSC Benchmark can 

clarify on the true status of this safety component in your safety culture, as derived from employee perceptions. In this example, benchmarking actually

reveals that despite garnering the same average score, (Q47) would produce a percentile score of 99 and would be identified as a strength, whereas

(Q1) would be performing below average, producing a percentile score of 7. Ultimately, benchmarking enables your organization to correctly interpret 

and take action based on more accurate survey results. See image below for visual on benchmarking in action. 

NSC Database

NSC Database includes millions of employee responses from 

businesses across various industries and countries. The businesses in

the NSC Database do not represent a national average. NSC Database

businesses tend to be high performing, safety culture focused 

organizations with emerging and mature safety systems. 

Average response scores were compared with the same 1,400 

businesses in the NSC Database as at the time of the 2020 survey for

each of the 50 NSC Safety Barometer items and each of the six safety 

performance categories. This allows direct comparison to previous 

survey results, when available. Given the components assessed with the

NSC Safety Barometer are key for all businesses in building and 

maintaining a positive safety culture, we compare you to the entire NSC

Database to ensure the most accurate and precise results. Although

specific risk may vary by industry, the six areas of excellence and their 

respective components are applicable to all organizations. 

Estimated Database Profile

Section 3
National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST)

NSC Safety Barometer Results

Executive Summary

Your Survey

These results build on employee survey responses to the 

NSC Safety Barometer survey. The NSC Safety 

Barometer elicits employee responses to 50 statements 

regarding foundational safety elements. These components 

are grouped into six performance categories of safety 

excellence: Management Commitment (7 items), 

Supervisor Engagement (9 items), Employee Involvement 

(9 items), Safety Support Activities (10 items), Safety 

Support Climate (10 items), Organizational Climate (5 

items).

  Your NSC Safety Barometer survey was conducted 

in December 2022 to February 2023.

Survey administered via anonymous online link.

  38% of respondents provided improvement feedback 

in the comments section.

Overall Response Rate 

2022: 49.7%

Response Count

N: 2022

2,259

1,000

2,000

3,000

Responses by Federal Employee Status

Yes 92.12% (2,081)

No 7.88% (178)

Responses by Primary Work Location

Gaithersburg Boulder Other

80% (1,669) 15% (314) 5% (105)

NSC Database Benchmark

1,530 Businesses

To generate comparative percentile scores, 2022 average response 

scores were compared with the 1,530 businesses in the NSC 

Database. 

Overall Percentile Score

64.3 Percentile

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

Management Commitment Percentile Score

58.1

Supervisor Engagement Percentile Score

86.8

Employee Involvement Percentile Score

51.6

Safety Support Activities Percentile Score

53.3

Safety Support Climate Percentile Score

58.4

Organizational Climate Percentile Score

72.6

Top Strengths

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee safety suggestions (SE)

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with safe job procedures (SE)

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees fear of reporting safety problems

(SE)

Q50 Employees taking part in the development of safety requirements

(EI)

Q07 Management stressing the importance of safety in

communications (MC)

Q24 Supervisors understanding employees job safety problems (SE)

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into work routine (SE)

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high safety performance standard (SE)

Q17 Belief that management does more than law requires (SSC)

Q47 Significance of job stress for employees (OC)

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

94.8

93.6

87.3

83.2

82.3

81.1

80.8

80.0

79.6

79.3

Focus Areas

Q20 Employees using basic precautions for hazardous materials (EI)

Q49 Management setting annual safety goals (MC)

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee (like ESC, SAC, and OU) in

improving safety conditions (SSA)

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance system operation (SSA)

Q45 Perception that good environmental conditions are kept (SSC)

Q21 Management providing adequate safety staff (MC)

Q14 Management publishing a policy on the value of employee safety

(MC)

Q23 Safety standards relative to production/work output standards

(SSA)

Q39 Perception that medical resources are sufficient (SSC)

Q25 Employees following procedures to isolate hazardous energy

sources (EI)

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

5.9

21.4

25.4

29.7

33.4

35.7

35.9

36.2

37.9

38.5

Section 4
Overall & Safety Performance Category

This page contains overall percentile score and safety performance category percentile scores.

Your NSC Safety Barometer Survey

These results build on 2,259 employee survey responses to the NSC Safety Barometer survey, a response rate of approximately 50%. In addition, 

38% of respondents also provided open-ended feedback in the comments section.

Your current NSC Safety Barometer survey was conducted from December 2022 - February 2023. Employees participated in your 2022-2023 NSC 

Safety Barometer through an anonymous online link. 

Benchmarked percentile scores for Employee Status groups are also available across this dashboard, as well as Industry-Specific results. Use the 

Employee Status filter at the top of each applicable page to view results by a specific reporting group. Use the Benchmark Group filter to adjust the 

benchmark group. In order for results to display properly, please ensure only one variable is selected from each filter at a time. Please note, 

narrative text will not update and will always reflect analysis of 1-NIST overall results at the full "All Industries" benchmark. 

You can also view percentile score comparisons on the Percentile Scores pages of this dashboard. 

Overall

For a broad measurement of the survey results, a relative 

overall score (includes all the responses across all 50 

items) is included to provide an overall snapshot of your 

safety management system health and culture. 

The overall percentile score in 2022 is a moderately high 

score of 64.3, indicating that you scored higher than 64.3% 

of the NSC Database businesses, overall. 

Overall Percentile Score

2022

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

64.3

Safety Performance Category

All 50 NSC Safety Barometer items are associated with 

one of the six safety performance categories: Management 

Commitment (7 items), Supervisor Engagement (9 items), 

Employee Involvement (9 items), Safety Support Activities 

(10 items), Safety Support Climate (10 items), and 

Organizational Climate (5 items). Performance category 

percentile scores are generated by comparing performance 

category average response scores (calculated from 

employee responses to the corresponding NSC Safety 

Barometer items) to the NSC Database. 

Percentile scores by performance area highlight broad 

strengths and opportunities. If a specific performance 

category is underperforming compared with other 

performance categories, specific components from the 

lowest-performing performance category should be 

considered for action planning. Typically, high performing 

safety cultures will see consistency among performance 

category scores. 

In 2022, all of the six performance category percentile 

scores were above the NSC Database average of 50. 

Supervisor Engagement received the highest percentile in 

2022 with a score of 86.8. Employee Involvement received 

the lowest performance category score of 51.6 in 2022.

Additionally, average response scores (scale -2 to +2) by 

performance category are displayed below along with 

another table that provides the average response score 

(scale -2 to +2) for the 0, 50th, and 100th percentile for all 

the businesses in the NSC Database. This gives you an 

idea of the distribution of the scores for each performance 

category and how your average response score compares. 

Percentile Scores of Performance Categories

Management Commitment

Supervisor Engagement

Employee Involvement

Safety Support Activities

Safety Support Climate

Organizational Climate

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

58.1

86.8

51.6

53.3

58.4

72.6

Percentile Scores of Performance Categories by Year

2022

Management Commitment 58.1

Supervisor Engagement 86.8

Employee Involvement 51.6

Safety Support Activities 53.3

Safety Support Climate 58.4

Organizational Climate 72.6

Average Scores of Performance Categories

2022 0.71 1.10 0.84 0.61 0.71 0.61 0.77

Year Management Commitment Supervisor Engagement Employee Involvement Safety Support Activities Safety Support Climate Organizational Climate Overall

Average Scores of NSC Database

Section 5
50 Standard NSC Safety Barometer Components

This page contains percentile scores, average response scores, and percent distributions for each NSC Safety Barometer component. 

Note: Two variations on Q35 were presented to respondents. Both versions are represented in the Scores by Safety Component table provided below. 

Component Q35b was used to generate the Safety Support Climate performance category average response score, as well as the Overall average

response score. 

2022 Best Performing Components 

The ten highest-performing components received scores 

ranging from 79.3.0 to 94.8. 

Of the best performing components identified by 

employees

6 are from the Supervisor Engagement category; and 

1 each is from the Management Commitment, 

Employee Involvement, Safety Support Climate and 

Organizational Climate categories. 

There were no items from the Safety Support Activities 

category in this group of best-performing components. To 

view safety component results by performance category, 

please refer to specific performance category pages. 

Best Performing Components (Top Strengths)

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee

safety suggestions (SE)

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with

safe job procedures (SE)

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees

fear of reporting safety problems (SE)

Q50 Employees taking part in the

development of safety requirements (EI)

Q07 Management stressing the

importance of safety in communications

(MC)

Q24 Supervisors understanding

employees job safety problems (SE)

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into

work routine (SE)

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high

safety performance standard (SE)

Q17 Belief that management does more

than law requires (SSC)

Q47 Significance of job stress for

employees (OC)

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

94.8

93.6

87.3

83.2

82.3

81.1

80.8

80.0

79.6

79.3

2022 Lower-Performing Components 

Thirty-six of the 50 standard components (including both 

variations of Q35 only counted once) scored at or above 

the 50th percentile. Although components with below 

average percentiles (below 50) are usually identified as 

potential target areas, the ten lowest-ranking components 

with scores of 38.5 or below can be used to establish initial 

improvement opportunities. 

Of the components identified as focus areas:

3 each are from the Management Commitment and 

Safety Support Activities categories,

2 each are from the Employee Involvement and Safety 

Support Climate categories, and

There were no items from the Supervisor Engagement or 

Organizational Climate categories in this group of lowerperforming components. To view safety component results 

by performance category, please refer to specific 

performance category pages. 

Component Clustering

Three or more components from the same performance 

category in the bottom ten indicates the performance 

category is an opportunity area. It is recommended to 

choose at least one component from the cluster as a future 

action item. 

Lower-Performing Components (Focus Areas)

Q20 Employees using basic precautions

for hazardous materials (EI)

Q49 Management setting annual safety

goals (MC)

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee

(like ESC, SAC, and OU) in improving

safety conditions (SSA)

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance

system operation (SSA)

Q45 Perception that good environmental

conditions are kept (SSC)

Q21 Management providing adequate

safety staff (MC)

Q14 Management publishing a policy on

the value of employee safety (MC)

Q23 Safety standards relative to

production/work output standards (SSA)

Q39 Perception that medical resources

are sufficient (SSC)

Q25 Employees following procedures to

isolate hazardous energy sources (EI)

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

5.9

21.4

25.4

29.7

33.4

35.7

35.9

36.2

37.9

38.5

2022 Summary

Percentile scores for each of the standard 50 NSC Safety Barometer components were generated. Average performance compared to the NSC 

Database is indicated by the 50th percentile. The following table is color-coded with components scoring in the top quartile shaded green (76th

percentile and above), components scoring in the third quartile shaded yellow (the 50th to 75th percentile range), components scoring in the second

quartile shaded orange (25th to 49th percentile range), and components scoring in the bottom quartile shaded red (below the 25th percentile). 

The majority of employee responses regarding the NIST safety program are above average compared to the NSC Database participants. Thirty-six of

the 50 standard components (including both variations of Q35 only counted once) received percentiles at or above the 50th percentile, which is

considered the NSC Database average. 

Further examination shows: 13 components achieved percentile scores at or above the 76th percentile, 22 components (including both variations of 

Q35 only counted once) received percentiles from the 50th to 75th percentile, 13 components earned percentiles from the 25th to the 49th percentile,

and 2 components generated percentiles below the 25th percentile.

Scores by Safety Component

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee safety suggestions (SE) 94.8 38.4% 43.2% 14.4% 2.9% 1.1% 1.15

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with safe job procedures (SE) 93.6 60.0% 32.4% 4.8% 1.8% 1.0% 1.49

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees fear of reporting safety problems (SE) 87.3 29.5% 50.0% 14.8% 4.2% 1.5% 1.02

Q50 Employees taking part in the development of safety requirements (EI) 83.2 19.2% 38.9% 28.9% 11.0% 2.0% 0.62

Q07 Management stressing the importance of safety in communications (MC) 82.3 28.2% 46.4% 14.0% 9.0% 2.4% 0.89

Q24 Supervisors understanding employees job safety problems (SE) 81.1 32.2% 50.1% 13.5% 3.4% 0.7% 1.10

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into work routine (SE) 80.8 30.4% 47.7% 17.7% 3.6% 0.6% 1.04

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high safety performance standard (SE) 80.0 44.9% 40.5% 12.1% 1.6% 0.9% 1.27

Q17 Belief that management does more than law requires (SSC) 79.6 24.2% 43.2% 20.3% 9.0% 3.3% 0.76

Q47 Significance of job stress for employees (OC) 79.3 8.9% 32.8% 25.7% 24.0% 8.6% 0.09

Q16 Condition of employee morale (OC) 79.0 21.3% 42.0% 19.9% 11.4% 5.5% 0.62

Q27 Belief that management is sincere in safety efforts (SSC) 77.7 46.1% 41.8% 7.3% 3.4% 1.5% 1.27

Q41 Availability of safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety

representative, etc.) to provide assistance (SSA) 76.4 27.1% 47.4% 20.1% 4.0% 1.4% 0.95

Q44 Supervisors involved safety incident investigations (SE) 73.3 19.7% 39.6% 35.7% 3.7% 1.3% 0.73

Q37 Employees take part when accident/incident investigations occur (EI) 72.4 15.0% 43.9% 35.2% 4.6% 1.3% 0.67

Q31 Management setting a positive safety example (MC) 72.2 25.4% 50.9% 17.6% 4.1% 2.0% 0.93

Q19 Supervisors enforcing safe job procedures (SE) 70.8 36.5% 48.9% 11.8% 2.0% 0.7% 1.19

Q40 Management including safety in job promotion reviews (MC) 70.6 20.2% 37.3% 31.5% 7.6% 3.4% 0.63

Q10 Belief that management shows it cares for employee safety (SSC) 69.6 39.9% 43.2% 11.0% 3.7% 2.1% 1.15

Q36 Belief that hazards not fixed right away will still be addressed (SSC) 67.0 16.7% 43.3% 26.7% 11.3% 2.0% 0.61

Q03 Priority of safety relative to productivity (SSC) 66.6 28.7% 43.4% 15.9% 8.1% 3.9% 0.85

Q38 Supervisors providing helpful safety training or guidance (SE) 66.3 22.2% 53.2% 19.3% 4.4% 1.0% 0.91

Q06 Frequency of detailed and regularly scheduled inspections (SSA) 65.5 23.8% 42.9% 25.8% 5.8% 1.7% 0.81

Q34 Management participating in safety activities on a regular basis (MC) 64.5 19.2% 45.0% 27.7% 6.0% 2.2% 0.73

Q29 Occurrence of emergency response procedures testing (SSA) 64.2 16.8% 42.1% 29.5% 9.6% 2.1% 0.62

Q02 Frequency of employee/management interactions (OC) 63.8 27.6% 47.6% 15.5% 7.0% 2.2% 0.92

Q09 Condition of departmental teamwork (OC) 61.7 17.6% 44.5% 25.3% 8.4% 4.2% 0.63

Q35 Perception that the safety office has high status (SSC) 60.5 18.6% 37.7% 32.5% 8.4% 2.8% 0.61

Q42 Stability of workforce (OC) 60.0 21.4% 48.6% 17.0% 9.7% 3.2% 0.75

Q46 Employees using necessary personal protective equipment (EI) 57.8 19.5% 43.9% 30.5% 5.5% 0.7% 0.76

Q48 Belief that management insists supervisors think about safety (SSC) 54.7 24.2% 49.9% 22.2% 2.7% 0.9% 0.94

Q13 Designated employees well trained in emergency practices (SSA) 54.4 17.9% 46.1% 27.7% 6.7% 1.5% 0.72

Q35b Perception that the safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety

representative, etc.) has high status (SSC) 53.6 16.8% 36.6% 33.6% 9.8% 3.1% 0.54

Q15 Thoroughness of near miss incident investigations (SSA) 53.4 20.1% 42.0% 31.7% 4.9% 1.4% 0.75

Q22 Effectiveness of award and recognition programs in promoting safe behavior (SSA) 52.4 9.1% 26.4% 42.2% 17.2% 5.0% 0.17

Q01 Employees identifying and eliminating hazards (EI) 50.0 36.1% 48.4% 10.8% 3.7% 0.9% 1.15

Q11 Employees believing that their actions can protect coworkers (EI) 49.6 45.2% 47.8% 5.7% 1.0% 0.4% 1.37

Q18 Belief that employees understand safety and health regulations (EI) 48.2 34.8% 55.5% 6.6% 2.5% 0.6% 1.21

Q26 Presence of safety training in new employee onboarding (SSA) 47.9 39.0% 41.3% 15.1% 3.7% 0.9% 1.14

Q04 Employees being involved in safety and health practices (EI) 45.3 15.7% 36.6% 32.6% 12.5% 2.5% 0.50

Q08 Frequency of safety meeting occurrence (SSA) 40.9 13.6% 35.2% 32.3% 15.2% 3.6% 0.40

Q25 Employees following procedures to isolate hazardous energy sources (EI) 38.5 20.0% 38.2% 38.1% 3.0% 0.7% 0.74

Q39 Perception that medical resources are sufficient (SSC) 37.9 12.8% 36.2% 42.2% 6.8% 1.9% 0.51

Q23 Safety standards relative to production/work output standards (SSA) 36.2 9.3% 28.8% 32.1% 23.6% 6.2% 0.11

Q14 Management publishing a policy on the value of employee safety (MC) 35.9 22.1% 43.8% 27.0% 5.8% 1.3% 0.80

Q21 Management providing adequate safety staff (MC) 35.7 16.7% 40.4% 27.4% 11.6% 3.8% 0.54

Q45 Perception that good environmental conditions are kept (SSC) 33.4 12.2% 42.5% 19.3% 17.8% 8.2% 0.33

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance system operation (SSA) 29.7 8.1% 27.3% 36.7% 17.2% 10.6% 0.05

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee (like ESC, SAC, and OU) in improving safety conditions

(SSA) 25.4 13.0% 37.5% 41.4% 5.5% 2.6% 0.53

Q49 Management setting annual safety goals (MC) 21.4 12.6% 34.9% 37.1% 12.2% 3.2% 0.42

Q20 Employees using basic precautions for hazardous materials (EI) 5.9 13.7% 32.3% 45.1% 7.1% 1.8% 0.49

Statement Number, Component (Performance Category) Percentile

Score

Strongly

Positive Positive Neutral Negative StronglyNegative Average

Average Response Scores and Response Distribution 

of Safety Components

The primary focus in interpreting your survey results should be placed

on benchmarked percentile scores. 

Components with the highest average response scores or a high 

percentage of positive responses are not necessarily the best 

performing elements. Since some statements tend to be answered more

positively or negatively than others, comparing results against the NSC

Database automatically adjusts for and minimizes these types of 

naturally occurring biases. However, average response scores and 

response distributions can provide supplemental information to elicit

additional insights into your survey data. 

Elevated neutral responses (≥30.0%)

Elevated neutral response rates may indicate that components or their 

related programs are not sufficiently visible from the employee 

perspective, increased communication, education, or awareness may be 

key. 

17 components had elevated levels of neutrals in 2022 (including 

both variations of Q35, only counted once).

Negative Average Response Scores

Negative average response scores indicate that employees have 

negative perceptions of that particular component and should be 

considered along with percentile score when determining action planning

priorities. 

None of the components generated a negative average response 

score in 2022.

Section 6
Management Commitment Components

This page displays another view of the NSC Safety Barometer component percentile scores, average response scores, and percent distributions for

only Management Commitment components. 

Percentile Scores of Management Commitment Components

Q07 Management stressing the importance of safety in communications 82.3

Q14 Management publishing a policy on the value of employee safety 35.9

Q21 Management providing adequate safety staff 35.7

Q31 Management setting a positive safety example 72.2

Q34 Management participating in safety activities on a regular basis 64.5

Q40 Management including safety in job promotion reviews 70.6

Q49 Management setting annual safety goals 21.4

Component 2022

Average Response Scores of Management Commitment Components

Q07 Management stressing the importance of safety in communications 0.8893

Q14 Management publishing a policy on the value of employee safety 0.7963

Q21 Management providing adequate safety staff 0.5450

Q31 Management setting a positive safety example 0.9342

Q34 Management participating in safety activities on a regular basis 0.7302

Q40 Management including safety in job promotion reviews 0.6330

Q49 Management setting annual safety goals 0.4168

Component 2022

Response Distributions of Management Commitment Components

Strongly Negative Negative Neutral Positive Strongly Positive

Q07 Management stressing the importance of safety in

communications

Q14 Management publishing a policy on the value of employee safety

Q21 Management providing adequate safety staff

Q31 Management setting a positive safety example

Q34 Management participating in safety activities on a regular basis

Q40 Management including safety in job promotion reviews

Q49 Management setting annual safety goals

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

4%

2%

3%

3%

9%

6%

12%

4%

6%

8%

12%

14%

27%

27%

18%

28%

32%

37%

46%

44%

40%

51%

45%

37%

35%

28%

22%

17%

25%

19%

20%

13%

Section 7
Supervisor Engagement Components

This page displays another view of the NSC Safety Barometer component percentile scores, average response scores, and percent distributions for

only Supervisor Engagement components. 

Percentile Scores of Supervisor Engagement Components

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high safety performance standard 80.0

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with safe job procedures 93.6

Q19 Supervisors enforcing safe job procedures 70.8

Q24 Supervisors understanding employees job safety problems 81.1

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee safety suggestions 94.8

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into work routine 80.8

Q38 Supervisors providing helpful safety training or guidance 66.3

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees fear of reporting safety problems 87.3

Q44 Supervisors involved safety incident investigations 73.3

Component 2022

Average Response Scores of Supervisor Engagement Components

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high safety performance standard 1.2684

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with safe job procedures 1.4880

Q19 Supervisors enforcing safe job procedures 1.1858

Q24 Supervisors understanding employees job safety problems 1.0963

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee safety suggestions 1.1508

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into work routine 1.0382

Q38 Supervisors providing helpful safety training or guidance 0.9124

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees fear of reporting safety problems 1.0190

Q44 Supervisors involved safety incident investigations 0.7292

Component 2022

Response Distributions of Supervisor Engagement Components

Strongly Negative Negative Neutral Positive Strongly Positive

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high safety performance standard

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with safe job procedures

Q19 Supervisors enforcing safe job procedures

Q24 Supervisors understanding employees job safety problems

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee safety suggestions

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into work routine

Q38 Supervisors providing helpful safety training or guidance

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees fear of reporting safety problems

Q44 Supervisors involved safety incident investigations

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

3%

3%

4%

4%

4%

4%

12%

5%

12%

14%

14%

18%

19%

15%

36%

40%

32%

49%

50%

43%

48%

53%

50%

40%

45%

60%

37%

32%

38%

30%

22%

30%

20%

Section 8
Employee Involvement Components

This page displays another view of the NSC Safety Barometer component percentile scores, average response scores, and percent distributions for

only Employee Involvement components. 

Percentile Scores of Employee Involvement Components

Q01 Employees identifying and eliminating hazards 50.0

Q04 Employees being involved in safety and health practices 45.3

Q11 Employees believing that their actions can protect coworkers 49.6

Q18 Belief that employees understand safety and health regulations 48.2

Q20 Employees using basic precautions for hazardous materials 5.9

Q25 Employees following procedures to isolate hazardous energy sources 38.5

Q37 Employees take part when accident/incident investigations occur 72.4

Q46 Employees using necessary personal protective equipment 57.8

Q50 Employees taking part in the development of safety requirements 83.2

Component 2022

Average Response Scores of Employee Involvement Components

Q01 Employees identifying and eliminating hazards 1.1504

Q04 Employees being involved in safety and health practices 0.5049

Q11 Employees believing that their actions can protect coworkers 1.3651

Q18 Belief that employees understand safety and health regulations 1.2149

Q20 Employees using basic precautions for hazardous materials 0.4898

Q25 Employees following procedures to isolate hazardous energy sources 0.7364

Q37 Employees take part when accident/incident investigations occur 0.6665

Q46 Employees using necessary personal protective equipment 0.7604

Q50 Employees taking part in the development of safety requirements 0.6233

Component 2022

Response Distributions of Employee Involvement Components

Strongly Negative Negative Neutral Positive Strongly Positive

Q01 Employees identifying and eliminating hazards

Q04 Employees being involved in safety and health practices

Q11 Employees believing that their actions can protect coworkers

Q18 Belief that employees understand safety and health regulations

Q20 Employees using basic precautions for hazardous materials

Q25 Employees following procedures to isolate hazardous energy

sources

Q37 Employees take part when accident/incident investigations occur

Q46 Employees using necessary personal protective equipment

Q50 Employees taking part in the development of safety requirements

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

3%

4%

13%

2%

7%

3%

5%

5%

11%

11%

33%

6%

7%

45%

38%

35%

30%

29%

48%

37%

48%

56%

32%

38%

44%

44%

39%

36%

16%

45%

35%

14%

20%

15%

19%

19%

Section 9
Safety Support Activities Components

This page displays another view of the NSC Safety Barometer component percentile scores, average response scores, and percent distributions for

only Safety Support Activities components. 

Percentile Scores of Safety Support Activities Components

Q06 Frequency of detailed and regularly scheduled inspections 65.5

Q08 Frequency of safety meeting occurrence 40.9

Q13 Designated employees well trained in emergency practices 54.4

Q15 Thoroughness of near miss incident investigations 53.4

Q22 Effectiveness of award and recognition programs in promoting safe behavior 52.4

Q26 Presence of safety training in new employee onboarding 47.9

Q29 Occurrence of emergency response procedures testing 64.2

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee (like ESC, SAC, and OU) in improving safety conditions 25.4

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance system operation 29.7

Q41 Availability of safety coordinator to provide assistance 76.4

Component 2022

Average Response Scores of Safety Support Activities Components

Q06 Frequency of detailed and regularly scheduled inspections 0.8111

Q08 Frequency of safety meeting occurrence 0.4004

Q13 Designated employees well trained in emergency practices 0.7207

Q15 Thoroughness of near miss incident investigations 0.7451

Q22 Effectiveness of award and recognition programs in promoting safe behavior 0.1737

Q26 Presence of safety training in new employee onboarding 1.1382

Q29 Occurrence of emergency response procedures testing 0.6188

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee (like ESC, SAC, and OU) in improving safety conditions 0.5279

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance system operation 0.0508

Q41 Availability of safety coordinator to provide assistance 0.9490

Component 2022

Response Distributions of Safety Support Activities Components

Strongly Negative Negative Neutral Positive Strongly Positive

Q06 Frequency of detailed and regularly scheduled inspections

Q08 Frequency of safety meeting occurrence

Q13 Designated employees well trained in emergency practices

Q15 Thoroughness of near miss incident investigations

Q22 Effectiveness of award and recognition programs in promoting

safe behavior

Q26 Presence of safety training in new employee onboarding

Q29 Occurrence of emergency response procedures testing

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee (like ESC, SAC, and OU) in

improving safety conditions

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance system operation

Q41 Availability of safety coordinator to provide assistance

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

4%

5%

3%

11%

6%

15%

7%

5%

17%

4%

10%

5%

17%

4%

26%

32%

28%

32%

42%

15%

29%

41%

37%

20%

43%

35%

46%

42%

26%

41%

42%

38%

27%

47%

24%

14%

18%

20%

9%

39%

17%

13%

8%

27%

Section 10
Safety Support Climate Components

This page displays another view of the NSC Safety Barometer component percentile scores, average response scores, and percent distributions for

only Safety Support Climate components. 

Percentile Scores of Safety Support Climate Components

Q03 Priority of safety relative to productivity 66.6

Q10 Belief that management shows it cares for employee safety 69.6

Q17 Belief that management does more than law requires 79.6

Q23 Safety standards relative to production/work output standards 36.2

Q27 Belief that management is sincere in safety efforts 77.7

Q35 Perception that the safety coordinator has high status 53.6

Q36 Belief that hazards not fixed right away will still be addressed 67.0

Q39 Perception that medical resources are sufficient 37.9

Q45 Perception that good environmental conditions are kept 33.4

Q48 Belief that management insists supervisors think about safety 54.7

Component 2022

Average Response Scores of Safety Support Climate Components

Q03 Priority of safety relative to productivity 0.8491

Q10 Belief that management shows it cares for employee safety 1.1514

Q17 Belief that management does more than law requires 0.7594

Q23 Safety standards relative to production/work output standards 0.1147

Q27 Belief that management is sincere in safety efforts 1.2744

Q35 Perception that the safety coordinator has high status 0.5437

Q36 Belief that hazards not fixed right away will still be addressed 0.6127

Q39 Perception that medical resources are sufficient 0.5119

Q45 Perception that good environmental conditions are kept 0.3275

Q48 Belief that management insists supervisors think about safety 0.9390

Component 2022

Response Distributions of Safety Support Climate Components

Strongly Negative Negative Neutral Positive Strongly Positive

Q03 Priority of safety relative to productivity

Q10 Belief that management shows it cares for employee safety

Q17 Belief that management does more than law requires

Q23 Safety standards relative to production/work output standards

Q27 Belief that management is sincere in safety efforts

Q35 Perception that the safety coordinator has high status

Q36 Belief that hazards not fixed right away will still be addressed

Q39 Perception that medical resources are sufficient

Q45 Perception that good environmental conditions are kept

Q48 Belief that management insists supervisors think about safety

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

4%

2%

3%

6%

3%

8%

8%

4%

9%

24%

3%

10%

11%

7%

18%

3%

16%

11%

20%

32%

7%

34%

27%

42%

19%

22%

43%

43%

43%

29%

42%

37%

43%

36%

43%

50%

29%

40%

24%

9%

46%

17%

17%

13%

12%

24%

Section 11
Organizational Climate Components

This page displays another view of the NSC Safety Barometer component percentile scores, average response scores, and percent distributions for

only Organizational Climate components. 

Percentile Scores of Organizational Climate Components

Q02 Frequency of employee/management interactions 63.8

Q09 Condition of departmental teamwork 61.7

Q16 Condition of employee morale 79.0

Q42 Stability of workforce 60.0

Q47 Significance of job stress for employees 79.3

Component 2022

Average Response Scores of Organizational Climate Components

Q02 Frequency of employee/management interactions 0.9153

Q09 Condition of departmental teamwork 0.6299

Q16 Condition of employee morale 0.6215

Q42 Stability of workforce 0.7518

Q47 Significance of job stress for employees 0.0923

Component 2022

Response Distributions of Organizational Climate Components

Strongly Negative Negative Neutral Positive Strongly Positive

Q02 Frequency of employee/management interactions

Q09 Condition of departmental teamwork

Q16 Condition of employee morale

Q42 Stability of workforce

Q47 Significance of job stress for employees

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

4%

5%

3%

9%

7%

8%

11%

10%

24%

16%

25%

20%

17%

26%

48%

44%

42%

49%

33%

28%

18%

21%

21%

9%

Section 12
Custom Items

The custom item(s) address safety aspects that are of special interest to your organization. On this page, a description of the item(s), percent

distribution of responses, and average response score (scale -2 to +2) are shown. Unlike the standardized components, percentile scores compared to

the NSC Database cannot be generated for custom items.

Custom Item Percent Distribution of Responses and Average Response Scores (Q51-Q60)

Custom items Q51-Q60 utilize an agreement scale of strongly agree (+2) to strongly disagree (-2) to evaluate employee responses to safety program

items that are of special concern to NIST. Examination of the average response scores for these ten customized items show that all ten generated 

positive average response scores in 2022, ranging from +0.60 to +1.17. Supervisors create a comfortable environment for raising safety concerns (Q58)

had the most positive average response score (+1.17) with 87% of participants responding positively, 9% providing a neutral response, and 

approximately 4% responding negatively. Hazard reviews (JHA) reduce risks related to my work (Q53) had the least positive average response score 

(+0.60), with 53% providing a positive response, 40% providing a neutral response, and approximately 7% reacting negatively. 

Custom Item Percent Distribution of Responses and Average Response Scores (Q51-Q60)

Q58 Supervisors create environments for raising safety concerns 36.3% 50.4% 9.2% 2.9% 1.2% 1.17

Q57 Supervisors encourage reporting unsafe conditions 34.5% 51.5% 10.7% 2.3% 1.0% 1.16

Q59 Adequate job-specific training to perform work activities safely is provided 34.2% 51.3% 11.3% 2.5% 0.7% 1.16

Q56 Safety requirements are followed in work areas 25.8% 55.4% 14.5% 3.5% 0.8% 1.02

Q54 There is a positive safety culture at NIST 27.6% 50.2% 14.1% 6.2% 1.8% 0.96

Q55 NIST's safety culture is improving 20.1% 47.3% 25.2% 5.5% 2.0% 0.78

Q60 Incidents and lessons learned are disccused in work areas 22.1% 46.1% 19.3% 10.2% 2.4% 0.75

Q51 Hazardous activities performed have hazard review 23.0% 34.4% 37.9% 3.8% 0.9% 0.75

Q52 Hazard reviews (JHAs) revised and reviewed when process change 16.9% 36.1% 41.2% 4.9% 1.0% 0.63

Q53 Hazard reviews (JHA) reduce risks related to my work 15.7% 37.3% 39.9% 5.4% 1.7% 0.60

Customized Items (Q51 - Q60) Strongly Positive Positive Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree

2022

Average

Custom Item Top Box (Positive)/ Bottom Box (Negative) Comparisons (Q51-Q60)

Custom Item Top Box ...

Negative Response To...

Q51 Hazardous activities performed have hazard review

Q52 Hazard reviews (JHAs) revised and reviewed when process

change

Q53 Hazard reviews (JHA) reduce risks related to my work

Q54 There is a positive safety culture at NIST

Q55 NIST's safety culture is improving

Q56 Safety requirements are followed in work areas

Q57 Supervisors encourage reporting unsafe conditions

Q58 Supervisors create environments for raising safety concerns

Q59 Adequate job-specific training to perform work activities safely is

provided

Q60 Incidents and lessons learned are disccused in work areas

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%

57.5%

53.0%

53.0%

77.8%

67.3%

81.2%

86.0%

86.6%

85.5%

68.2%

4.6%

5.9%

7.1%

8.0%

7.5%

4.3%

4.2%

12.6%

Custom Item Percent Distribution of Responses and Average Response Scores (Q61-Q62)

Custom items Q61-Q62 utilize a likelihood scale of very likely (+2) to very unlikely (-2) to evaluate employee responses to safety program items that are 

of special concern to NIST.

Examination of the average response scores generated for these items shows that on average employees are likely to report both safety related

incidents and near-misses. The likelihood of reporting safety-related incidents generated the most positive average response score of 1.47 with 92% of

respondents indicating that they are likely to report safety-related incidents, of which 59% indicated that they are very likely to report safety-related

incidents. In contrast, 78% of respondents indicated that they are likely to report near-misses, of which 37% indicated that they are very likely to report

near-misses. 

Custom Item Percent Distribution of Responses and Average Response Scores (Q61-Q62)

Q61 Likliehood of reporting safety-related incidents 59.2% 32.5% 5.7% 2.0% 0.7% 1.47

Q62 - Liklihood of reporting a near miss while working 37.4% 40.3% 13.5% 7.0% 1.8% 1.05

Customized Items (Q51 - Q60) Very Likely Likely Neutral Unlikely Very Unlikely 2022 Average

Custom Item Top Box (Positive)/ Bottom Box (Negative) Comparisons (Q61-Q62)

Custom Item Top Box ...

Negative Response To...

Q61 Likliehood of reporting safety-related incidents

Q62 - Liklihood of reporting a near miss while working

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

91.7%

77.7% 8.8%

Custom Item Analysis by Role

The visualizations below segment responses to the customized items by role.

Custom Item Average Response Scores by Role (Q51-Q60)

Manager Supervisor Non-management

Q51 Hazardous activities performed have hazard review

Q52 Hazard reviews (JHAs) revised and reviewed when process

change

Q54 There is a positive safety culture at NIST

Q55 NIST's safety culture is improving

Q56 Safety requirements are followed in work areas

Q57 Supervisors encourage reporting unsafe conditions

Q58 Supervisors create environments for raising safety concerns

Q60 Incidents and lessons learned are disccused in work areas

Q53 Hazard reviews (JHA) reduce risks related to my work

Q59 Adequate job-specific training to perform work activities safely is

provided

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

0.85

0.61

0.97

0.80

1.15

1.41

1.35

0.90

0.82

1.25

0.86

0.77

0.97

0.78

1.14

1.23

1.26

0.75

0.69

1.19

0.72

0.61

0.97

0.80

1.00

1.14

1.16

0.76

0.57

1.16

Custom Item Percent Distribution of Responses and Average Response Scores by Role (Q51-Q60)

Average Strongly

Positive Positive Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree Count

Manager

Q51 Hazardous activities performed have hazard review 0.85 27.27% 33.06% 37.19% 2.48% 0.00% 121

Q52 Hazard reviews (JHAs) revised and reviewed when process change 0.61 15.57% 36.89% 40.98% 6.56% 0.00% 122

Q53 Hazard reviews (JHA) reduce risks related to my work 0.82 18.85% 48.36% 29.51% 2.46% 0.82% 122

Q54 There is a positive safety culture at NIST 0.97 28.57% 50.00% 11.90% 8.73% 0.79% 126

Q55 NIST's safety culture is improving 0.80 21.43% 47.62% 21.43% 8.73% 0.79% 126

Q56 Safety requirements are followed in work areas 1.15 28.57% 57.94% 13.49% 0.00% 0.00% 126

Q57 Supervisors encourage reporting unsafe conditions 1.41 48.41% 45.24% 5.56% 0.79% 0.00% 126

Q58 Supervisors create environments for raising safety concerns 1.35 44.00% 48.80% 6.40% 0.00% 0.80% 125

Q59 Adequate job-specific training to perform work activities safely is

provided 1.25 36.51% 54.76% 7.14% 0.79% 0.79% 126

Q60 Incidents and lessons learned are disccused in work areas 0.90 24.00% 51.20% 16.00% 8.00% 0.80% 125

Non- management

Q51 Hazardous activities performed have hazard review 0.72 21.79% 34.42% 38.72% 4.04% 1.03% 1,560

Q52 Hazard reviews (JHAs) revised and reviewed when process change 0.61 16.52% 34.83% 42.54% 4.95% 1.16% 1,556

Q53 Hazard reviews (JHA) reduce risks related to my work 0.57 15.21% 35.95% 41.43% 5.61% 1.80% 1,552

Q54 There is a positive safety culture at NIST 0.97 28.37% 49.81% 14.31% 5.73% 1.78% 1,572

Q55 NIST's safety culture is improving 0.80 20.17% 47.80% 25.34% 4.85% 1.85% 1,567

Q56 Safety requirements are followed in work areas 1.00 25.51% 54.53% 14.99% 4.02% 0.96% 1,568

Q57 Supervisors encourage reporting unsafe conditions 1.14 33.82% 50.89% 11.66% 2.42% 1.21% 1,570

Q58 Supervisors create environments for raising safety concerns 1.16 36.11% 50.00% 9.43% 2.99% 1.46% 1,570

Q59 Adequate job-specific training to perform work activities safely is

provided 1.16 34.57% 50.77% 11.10% 2.81% 0.77% 1,568

Q60 Incidents and lessons learned are disccused in work areas 0.76 22.16% 46.55% 18.90% 10.03% 2.36% 1,566

Supervisor

Q51 Hazardous activities performed have hazard review 0.86 28.19% 33.83% 34.12% 3.26% 0.59% 337

Q52 Hazard reviews (JHAs) revised and reviewed when process change 0.77 19.88% 41.54% 34.42% 3.56% 0.59% 337

Q53 Hazard reviews (JHA) reduce risks related to my work 0.69 17.51% 41.25% 35.31% 5.04% 0.89% 337

Q54 There is a positive safety culture at NIST 0.97 26.92% 52.66% 12.43% 6.51% 1.48% 338

Q55 NIST's safety culture is improving 0.78 20.54% 46.73% 25.00% 5.95% 1.79% 336

Q56 Safety requirements are followed in work areas 1.14 28.02% 59.29% 10.91% 1.77% 0.00% 339

Q57 Supervisors encourage reporting unsafe conditions 1.23 34.91% 56.21% 6.51% 2.07% 0.30% 338

Q58 Supervisors create environments for raising safety concerns 1.26 36.69% 55.03% 6.21% 1.78% 0.30% 338

Q59 Adequate job-specific training to perform work activities safely is

provided 1.19 33.33% 53.69% 11.80% 1.18% 0.00% 339

Q60 Incidents and lessons learned are disccused in work areas 0.75 23.60% 43.07% 20.65% 10.03% 2.65% 339

Custom Item Average Response Scores by Role (Q61-Q62)

Manager Supervisor Non-management

Q61 Likliehood of reporting safety-related incidents

Q62 - Liklihood of reporting a near miss while working

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

1.75

1.25

1.54

1.06

1.45

1.04

Custom Item Percent Distribution of Responses and Average Response Scores by Role (Q61-Q62)

Average Strongly

Positive Positive Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree Count

Manager

Q51 Hazardous activities performed have hazard review 0.85 27.27% 33.06% 37.19% 2.48% 0.00% 121

Q52 Hazard reviews (JHAs) revised and reviewed when process change 0.61 15.57% 36.89% 40.98% 6.56% 0.00% 122

Q53 Hazard reviews (JHA) reduce risks related to my work 0.82 18.85% 48.36% 29.51% 2.46% 0.82% 122

Q54 There is a positive safety culture at NIST 0.97 28.57% 50.00% 11.90% 8.73% 0.79% 126

Q55 NIST's safety culture is improving 0.80 21.43% 47.62% 21.43% 8.73% 0.79% 126

Q56 Safety requirements are followed in work areas 1.15 28.57% 57.94% 13.49% 0.00% 0.00% 126

Q57 Supervisors encourage reporting unsafe conditions 1.41 48.41% 45.24% 5.56% 0.79% 0.00% 126

Q58 Supervisors create environments for raising safety concerns 1.35 44.00% 48.80% 6.40% 0.00% 0.80% 125

Q59 Adequate job-specific training to perform work activities safely is

provided 1.25 36.51% 54.76% 7.14% 0.79% 0.79% 126

Q60 Incidents and lessons learned are disccused in work areas 0.90 24.00% 51.20% 16.00% 8.00% 0.80% 125

Non- management

Q51 Hazardous activities performed have hazard review 0.72 21.79% 34.42% 38.72% 4.04% 1.03% 1,560

Q52 Hazard reviews (JHAs) revised and reviewed when process change 0.61 16.52% 34.83% 42.54% 4.95% 1.16% 1,556

Q53 Hazard reviews (JHA) reduce risks related to my work 0.57 15.21% 35.95% 41.43% 5.61% 1.80% 1,552

Q54 There is a positive safety culture at NIST 0.97 28.37% 49.81% 14.31% 5.73% 1.78% 1,572

Q55 NIST's safety culture is improving 0.80 20.17% 47.80% 25.34% 4.85% 1.85% 1,567

Q56 Safety requirements are followed in work areas 1.00 25.51% 54.53% 14.99% 4.02% 0.96% 1,568

Q57 Supervisors encourage reporting unsafe conditions 1.14 33.82% 50.89% 11.66% 2.42% 1.21% 1,570

Q58 Supervisors create environments for raising safety concerns 1.16 36.11% 50.00% 9.43% 2.99% 1.46% 1,570

Q59 Adequate job-specific training to perform work activities safely is

provided 1.16 34.57% 50.77% 11.10% 2.81% 0.77% 1,568

Q60 Incidents and lessons learned are disccused in work areas 0.76 22.16% 46.55% 18.90% 10.03% 2.36% 1,566

Supervisor

Q51 Hazardous activities performed have hazard review 0.86 28.19% 33.83% 34.12% 3.26% 0.59% 337

Q52 Hazard reviews (JHAs) revised and reviewed when process change 0.77 19.88% 41.54% 34.42% 3.56% 0.59% 337

Q53 Hazard reviews (JHA) reduce risks related to my work 0.69 17.51% 41.25% 35.31% 5.04% 0.89% 337

Q54 There is a positive safety culture at NIST 0.97 26.92% 52.66% 12.43% 6.51% 1.48% 338

Q55 NIST's safety culture is improving 0.78 20.54% 46.73% 25.00% 5.95% 1.79% 336

Q56 Safety requirements are followed in work areas 1.14 28.02% 59.29% 10.91% 1.77% 0.00% 339

Q57 Supervisors encourage reporting unsafe conditions 1.23 34.91% 56.21% 6.51% 2.07% 0.30% 338

Q58 Supervisors create environments for raising safety concerns 1.26 36.69% 55.03% 6.21% 1.78% 0.30% 338

Q59 Adequate job-specific training to perform work activities safely is

provided 1.19 33.33% 53.69% 11.80% 1.18% 0.00% 339

Q60 Incidents and lessons learned are disccused in work areas 0.75 23.60% 43.07% 20.65% 10.03% 2.65% 339

Section 13
Percentile Scores by Employee Status

Survey respondents were asked to provide demographic information at the conclusion of the NSC Safety Barometer. These responses were used to 

conduct analyses and provide these comparisons. Percentile scores are not generated for groups with less than 30 respondents.

This page displays comparisons of NSC Safety Barometer results for both benchmarked groups. 

Responses by Federal Employee Status

2,081

178

Count

Federal Employee

Non-Federal Employee

Q69 - Federal Employee Status

2022: Overall and Performance Category Results by Employee Status

For a broad measurement of the survey results a relative overall score (includes all the responses across all 50 items) and the percentile scores by

performance category highlight the broad similarities and differences between employee status groups. The figure below lists the overall percentile 

scores for both benchmarked employee status groups for 2022. Additional tables and figures display the percentile scores overall and by each

respective performance category in 2022. 

In 2022, both benchmarked employee status groups earned overall percentile scores over the NSC Database average of 50. Non-Federal employees

generated the highest percentile score of 75.7, while Federal employees generated an overall score of 63.6. While specific strengths and opportunities 

vary between employee status groups and merit individual consideration, Supervisor Engagement and Organization Climate appeared as the highestperforming categories for both groups, while Employee Involved surfaced as an area of opportunity. 

Overall Percentile Score by Federal Employee Status

2022 NIST Overall 2022 Overall Score

Non-Federal Employee Federal Employee

75.7

63.6

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Percentile Scores of Performance Categories

Non-Federal

Employee 62.0 91.7 58.7 66.2 70.0 87.4 75.7

Federal

Employee 57.6 86.1 50.8 51.5 57.4 70.9 63.6

Federal

Employee Status

Management

Commitment Supervisor Engagement Employee Involvement Safety Support Activities Safety Support Climate Organizational Climate Overall

Management Commitment Percentile Scores

2022 NIST Overall 2022 Management Commitment Score

Non-Federal Employee Federal Employee

62.0

57.6

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Supervisor Engagement Percentile Scores

2022 NIST Overall 2022 Supervisor Engagement Score

Non-Federal Employee Federal Employee

91.7

86.1

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Employee Involvement Percentile Scores

2022 NIST 2022 Employee Involvement Score

Non-Federal Employee Federal Employee

58.7

50.8

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Safety Support Activities Percentile Scores

2022 NIST Overall 2022 Safety Support Activities Score

Non-Federal Employee Federal Employee

66.2

51.5

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Safety Support Climate Percentile Scores

2022 NIST Overall 2022 Safety Support Climate Score

Non-Federal Employee Federal Employee

70.0

57.4

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Organizational Climate Percentile Scores

2022 NIST Overall 2022 Organizational Climate Score

Non-Federal Employee Federal Employee

87.4

70.9

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

2022: 50 Standard Safety Components by Employee Status

Safety component percentile scores for overall and both benchmarked employee status groups are presented in the table widget below. This table can 

be used to determine which employee status group has a particular strength or opportunity regarding each of the survey components. The table is colorcoded with components scoring in the top quartile shaded green (at or above the 76th percentile), components scoring in the third quartile shaded

yellow (the 50th to 75th percentile range), components scoring in the second quartile shaded orange (25th to 49th percentile range), and components

scoring in the bottom quartile shaded red (below the 25th percentile). 

The top three performing components identified for NIST employees overall, supervisors acting on employee safety suggestions (Q28), supervisors

behaving in accord with safe job procedures (Q12), and supervisors reducing employees fear of reporting safety problems (Q43), were identified as topperformers for both benchmarked employee status groups. Conversely, both employee status groups identified employees using basic precautions for 

hazardous materials (Q20), management setting annual safety goals (Q49) and the effectiveness of safety committees (like ESC, SAC, and OU) in 

improving safety conditions (Q30) as lower-performing opportunities.

These results indicate that employees recognize consistent safety management system strengths and opportunities between employee status and that

there is some degree of consensus status groups regarding better-performing and lower-performing components. While both employee status groups

identified similar strengths and opportunities there were exceptions. For example, supervisors providing helpful safety training or guidance (Q38) was

identified as a top-performing component by Non-Federal respondents, but it was lower-scoring for Federal employees. This indicates that the

employees in each employee status group demonstrate a unique perspective on the safety management system, which warrants separate examination

of how the program is administered. The table in the widget below can be used at a high level to identify which employee status group might share 

information on a particular better-performing component with other areas for which that component might be an opportunity for further improvement

efforts.

Percentile Scores by Federal Employee Status

Q01 Employees identifying and eliminating hazards (EI) 50.0 50.2 48.8

Q02 Frequency of employee/management interactions (OC) 63.8 64.5 60.1

Q03 Priority of safety relative to productivity (SSC) 66.6 66.9 62.4

Q04 Employees being involved in safety and health practices (EI) 45.3 44.2 58.0

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high safety performance standard (SE) 80.0 79.3 85.7

Q06 Frequency of detailed and regularly scheduled inspections (SSA) 65.5 65.1 69.4

Q07 Management stressing the importance of safety in communications (MC) 82.3 83.4 68.4

Q08 Frequency of safety meeting occurrence (SSA) 40.9 40.8 43.2

Q09 Condition of departmental teamwork (OC) 61.7 61.1 65.0

Q10 Belief that management shows it cares for employee safety (SSC) 69.6 68.9 76.5

Q11 Employees believing that their actions can protect coworkers (EI) 49.6 49.4 52.0

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with safe job procedures (SE) 93.6 93.5 94.8

Q13 Designated employees well trained in emergency practices (SSA) 54.4 54.2 57.6

Q14 Management publishing a policy on the value of employee safety (MC) 35.9 35.3 46.4

Q15 Thoroughness of near miss incident investigations (SSA) 53.4 53.7 47.5

Q16 Condition of employee morale (OC) 79.0 77.8 92.2

Q17 Belief that management does more than law requires (SSC) 79.6 79.7 78.4

Q18 Belief that employees understand safety and health regulations (EI) 48.2 47.5 57.5

Q19 Supervisors enforcing safe job procedures (SE) 70.8 70.6 72.6

Q20 Employees using basic precautions for hazardous materials (EI) 5.9 5.6 10.6

Q21 Management providing adequate safety staff (MC) 35.7 34.7 52.1

Q22 Effectiveness of award and recognition programs in promoting safe behavior (SSA) 52.4 49.6 77.6

Q23 Safety standards relative to production/work output standards (SSA) 36.2 34.1 66.0

Q24 Supervisors understanding employees job safety problems (SE) 81.1 80.1 91.3

Q25 Employees following procedures to isolate hazardous energy sources (EI) 38.5 37.0 55.2

Q26 Presence of safety training in new employee onboarding (SSA) 47.9 46.7 66.7

Q27 Belief that management is sincere in safety efforts (SSC) 77.7 77.2 83.7

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee safety suggestions (SE) 94.8 94.8 94.9

Q29 Occurrence of emergency response procedures testing (SSA) 64.2 63.7 73.0

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee (like ESC, SAC, and OU) in improving safety conditions (SSA) 25.4 24.7 34.9

Q31 Management setting a positive safety example (MC) 72.2 71.9 77.5

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into work routine (SE) 80.8 80.2 88.1

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance system operation (SSA) 29.7 27.3 75.0

Q34 Management participating in safety activities on a regular basis (MC) 64.5 64.5 63.5

Q35b Perception that the safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative, etc.) has high status (SSC) 53.6 53.3 61.4

Q36 Belief that hazards not fixed right away will still be addressed (SSC) 67.0 65.4 84.2

Q37 Employees take part when accident/incident investigations occur (EI) 72.4 74.1 58.8

Q38 Supervisors providing helpful safety training or guidance (SE) 66.3 64.4 86.6

Q39 Perception that medical resources are sufficient (SSC) 37.9 38.7 27.5

Q40 Management including safety in job promotion reviews (MC) 70.6 70.2 76.1

Q41 Availability of safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative, etc.) to provide assistance (SSA) 76.4 76.9 69.1

Q42 Stability of workforce (OC) 60.0 58.1 81.0

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees fear of reporting safety problems (SE) 87.3 86.4 95.6

Q44 Supervisors involved safety incident investigations (SE) 73.3 74.0 61.3

Q45 Perception that good environmental conditions are kept (SSC) 33.4 31.3 69.2

Q46 Employees using necessary personal protective equipment (EI) 57.8 57.2 65.4

Q47 Significance of job stress for employees (OC) 79.3 77.0 96.7

Q48 Belief that management insists supervisors think about safety (SSC) 54.7 54.7 54.3

Q49 Management setting annual safety goals (MC) 21.4 21.0 29.7

Q50 Employees taking part in the development of safety requirements (EI) 83.2 83.2 85.3

Group - Standard Questions

1-

NIST

Federal

Employee

Non-Federal

Employee

Section 14
Comparison by Tenure

Survey respondents were asked to provide demographic information at the conclusion of the NSC Safety Barometer. 

These responses were used to conduct analyses and provide these subgroup comparisons.

In order to protect respondent anonymity and to avoid making inaccurate generalizations based on an inadequate sample size, comparisons were not

computed for groups with fewer than five respondents.

Responses by Tenure 2,082

Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 21 years and over

8% (164) 20% (424) 18% (379) 25% (529) 28% (586)

2022: Average Response Scores by Tenure

Average response scores, on a scale of -2 to +2, were calculated for tenure. The following tables and figures reflect these comparisons across the 50 

standard items, six performance categories, and overall. For tenure comparisons by the six performance categories and overall, a blue ^ indicates that 

the tenure group's perceptions were significantly higher than the other tenure groups', whereas a red v indicates perceptions from that particular tenure 

group were significantly lower than the other tenure groups'.

Safety perceptions are positive for all five groups. Employees with 21 years and over of experience achieved more positive perceptions across four of

the six performance categories and overall, while employees with 1-10 years of tenure generated the least positive safety perceptions overall and for

each of the six performance categories. This indicates that targeted efforts to increase safety-related communication and participation opportunities

across tenure groups may be beneficial.

Overall Average Response Score

21 years and over Less than 1 year 11-20 years 1-5 years 6-10 years

0.84 0.81 0.78 0.72 0.72

0.50

1.00

1.50

Overall and Performance Category Average Response Scores

Management Commitment Supervisor Engagement Employee Involvement Safety Support Activities Safety Support Climate Organizational Climate Overall

21 years and over Less than 1 year 11-20 years 1-5 years 6-10 years

0.50

1.00

1.50

Overall and Performance Category Average Response Scores

21 years and over  0.78  1.13  0.93  0.71  0.79  0.67

0.84 

Less than 1 year 0.75 1.14 0.81 0.63  0.78  0.79

0.81 

11-20 years 0.73  1.13 0.86 0.61 0.70  0.56 0.78

1-5 years  0.66  1.06  0.76  0.54  0.67 0.61

0.72 

6-10 years  0.64  1.07  0.79  0.58  0.65  0.50

0.72 

Q63 - Tenure Management Commitment Supervisor Engagement Employee

Involvement

Safety Support

Activities

Safety Support

Climate

Organizational

Climate Overall

Safety Component Average Response Scores

Q01 Employees identifying and eliminating hazards (EI) 1.04 1.18 1.26 1.13 1.12

Q02 Frequency of employee/management interactions (OC) 0.91 0.87 0.98 0.87 0.99

Q03 Priority of safety relative to productivity (SSC) 0.78 0.82 0.97 0.83 0.97

Q04 Employees being involved in safety and health practices (EI) 0.48 0.51 0.60 0.45 0.45

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high safety performance standard (SE) 1.23 1.31 1.27 1.24 1.37

Q06 Frequency of detailed and regularly scheduled inspections (SSA) 0.58 0.91 0.96 0.84 0.59

Q07 Management stressing the importance of safety in communications (MC) 0.81 0.95 1.02 0.81 0.88

Q08 Frequency of safety meeting occurrence (SSA) 0.26 0.45 0.52 0.39 0.38

Q09 Condition of departmental teamwork (OC) 0.62 0.60 0.69 0.53 0.87

Q10 Belief that management shows it cares for employee safety (SSC) 1.15 1.15 1.23 1.07 1.23

Q11 Employees believing that their actions can protect coworkers (EI) 1.33 1.38 1.46 1.34 1.27

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with safe job procedures (SE) 1.46 1.50 1.52 1.49 1.51

Q13 Designated employees well trained in emergency practices (SSA) 0.59 0.76 0.81 0.70 0.74

Q14 Management publishing a policy on the value of employee safety (MC) 0.76 0.84 0.89 0.67 0.88

Q15 Thoroughness of near miss incident investigations (SSA) 0.69 0.73 0.88 0.71 0.67

Q16 Condition of employee morale (OC) 0.73 0.57 0.63 0.51 0.90

Q17 Belief that management does more than law requires (SSC) 0.73 0.80 0.91 0.66 0.72

Q18 Belief that employees understand safety and health regulations (EI) 1.14 1.31 1.29 1.14 1.16

Q19 Supervisors enforcing safe job procedures (SE) 1.15 1.23 1.21 1.12 1.25

Q20 Employees using basic precautions for hazardous materials (EI) 0.45 0.53 0.47 0.49 0.54

Q21 Management providing adequate safety staff (MC) 0.48 0.54 0.66 0.46 0.56

Q22 Effectiveness of award and recognition programs in promoting safe behavior (SSA) 0.09 0.14 0.28 0.13 0.28

Q23 Safety standards relative to production/work output standards (SSA) -0.02 0.08 0.20 0.08 0.42

Q24 Supervisors understanding employees job safety problems (SE) 1.01 1.13 1.13 1.09 1.19

Q25 Employees following procedures to isolate hazardous energy sources (EI) 0.64 0.69 0.81 0.79 0.78

Q26 Presence of safety training in new employee onboarding (SSA) 1.10 1.11 1.20 1.05 1.33

Q27 Belief that management is sincere in safety efforts (SSC) 1.28 1.32 1.31 1.20 1.30

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee safety suggestions (SE) 1.10 1.20 1.18 1.12 1.18

Q29 Occurrence of emergency response procedures testing (SSA) 0.53 0.62 0.70 0.63 0.64

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee (like ESC, SAC, and OU) in improving safety conditions (SSA) 0.56 0.51 0.58 0.46 0.61

Q31 Management setting a positive safety example (MC) 0.95 0.94 0.98 0.86 0.99

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into work routine (SE) 1.00 1.05 1.08 1.00 1.14

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance system operation (SSA) 0.14 -0.10 0.06 0.02 0.36

Q34 Management participating in safety activities on a regular basis (MC) 0.65 0.75 0.82 0.70 0.63

Q35 Perception that the safety office has high status (SSC) 0.54 0.63 0.71 0.54 0.59

Q35b Perception that the safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative, etc.) has high

status (SSC) 0.51 0.51 0.63 0.49 0.58

Q36 Belief that hazards not fixed right away will still be addressed (SSC) 0.52 0.65 0.69 0.54 0.67

Q37 Employees take part when accident/incident investigations occur (EI) 0.59 0.71 0.82 0.53 0.57

Q38 Supervisors providing helpful safety training or guidance (SE) 0.94 0.92 0.88 0.89 1.05

Q39 Perception that medical resources are sufficient (SSC) 0.47 0.53 0.61 0.48 0.39

Q40 Management including safety in job promotion reviews (MC) 0.64 0.65 0.68 0.54 0.71

Q41 Availability of safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative, etc.) to provide

assistance (SSA) 0.84 1.00 1.09 0.92 0.70

Q42 Stability of workforce (OC) 0.65 0.77 0.90 0.61 0.81

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees fear of reporting safety problems (SE) 1.03 1.00 1.08 0.95 1.05

Q44 Supervisors involved safety incident investigations (SE) 0.63 0.81 0.82 0.68 0.53

Q45 Perception that good environmental conditions are kept (SSC) 0.38 0.21 0.36 0.31 0.58

Q46 Employees using necessary personal protective equipment (EI) 0.68 0.74 0.85 0.73 0.82

Q47 Significance of job stress for employees (OC) 0.12 -0.02 0.17 -0.01 0.40

Q48 Belief that management insists supervisors think about safety (SSC) 0.89 0.96 1.01 0.88 0.93

Q49 Management setting annual safety goals (MC) 0.35 0.42 0.40 0.45 0.58

Q50 Employees taking part in the development of safety requirements (EI) 0.46 0.66 0.79 0.55 0.57

Standard Components 1-5

years

11-20

years

21 years and

over

6-10

years

Less than 1

year

Section 15
Comparison by Primary Work Location

Survey respondents were asked to provide demographic information at the conclusion of the NSC Safety Barometer. 

These responses were used to conduct analyses and provide these subgroup comparisons.

In order to protect respondent anonymity and to avoid making inaccurate generalizations based on an inadequate sample size, comparisons were not

computed for groups with fewer than five respondents.

Responses by Primary Work Location

Gaithersburg Boulder Other

80% (1,669) 15% (314) 5% (105)

2022: Average Response Scores by Primary Work Location

Average response scores, on a scale of -2 to +2, were calculated for primary work location. The following tables and figures reflect these comparisons 

across the 50 standard items, six performance categories, and overall. For location comparisons by the six performance categories and overall, a blue ^

indicates that the location group's perceptions were significantly higher than the other location groups', whereas a red v indicates perceptions from that 

particular location group were significantly lower than the other location groups'.

Safety perceptions are positive across locations. Employees who indicated 'Other' reported the most positive perceptions in four of the six performance 

categories and overall. Boulder held the second highest overall score and the highest scores in the Supervisor Engagement and Employee Involvement

categories. In contrast, Gaithersburg held the lowest overall average response score. Differences between higher- and lower-scoring locations were 

meaningful indicating that increased safety-related communications among locations may be beneficial in reducing gaps in perceptions.

Overall Average Response Score

Other Boulder Gaithersburg

0.83 0.79 0.77

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Overall and Performance Category Average Response Scores

Management Commitment Supervisor Engagement Employee Involvement Safety Support Activities Safety Support Climate Organizational Climate Overall

Other Boulder Gaithersburg

0.83

0.70 0.71

1.12

1.18

1.09

0.78

0.93

0.83

0.68

0.61 0.62

0.83

0.70 0.71

0.67

0.60 0.61

0.83 0.79 0.77

0.50

1.00

1.50

Overall and Performance Category Average Response Scores

Other  0.83 1.12  0.78  0.68  0.83 0.67

0.83 

Boulder 0.70  1.18  0.93 0.61 0.70 0.60

0.79 

Gaithersburg 0.71  1.09  0.83 0.62 0.71 0.61

0.77 

Q64 - Primary Work Location Management

Commitment

Supervisor

Engagement

Employee

Involvement

Safety Support

Activities

Safety Support

Climate

Organizational

Climate Overall

Safety Component Average Response Scores

Q01 Employees identifying and eliminating hazards (EI) 1.20 1.15 1.13

Q02 Frequency of employee/management interactions (OC) 0.85 0.92 1.04

Q03 Priority of safety relative to productivity (SSC) 0.95 0.84 1.01

Q04 Employees being involved in safety and health practices (EI) 0.65 0.48 0.55

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high safety performance standard (SE) 1.38 1.25 1.31

Q06 Frequency of detailed and regularly scheduled inspections (SSA) 0.80 0.83 0.82

Q07 Management stressing the importance of safety in communications (MC) 0.92 0.90 0.97

Q08 Frequency of safety meeting occurrence (SSA) 0.43 0.41 0.47

Q09 Condition of departmental teamwork (OC) 0.54 0.65 0.63

Q10 Belief that management shows it cares for employee safety (SSC) 1.12 1.16 1.26

Q11 Employees believing that their actions can protect coworkers (EI) 1.48 1.36 1.33

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with safe job procedures (SE) 1.56 1.48 1.50

Q13 Designated employees well trained in emergency practices (SSA) 0.67 0.74 0.82

Q14 Management publishing a policy on the value of employee safety (MC) 0.85 0.79 0.88

Q15 Thoroughness of near miss incident investigations (SSA) 0.74 0.76 0.78

Q16 Condition of employee morale (OC) 0.80 0.59 0.87

Q17 Belief that management does more than law requires (SSC) 0.84 0.77 0.83

Q18 Belief that employees understand safety and health regulations (EI) 1.30 1.22 1.20

Q19 Supervisors enforcing safe job procedures (SE) 1.25 1.18 1.25

Q20 Employees using basic precautions for hazardous materials (EI) 0.64 0.48 0.27

Q21 Management providing adequate safety staff (MC) 0.57 0.54 0.67

Q22 Effectiveness of award and recognition programs in promoting safe behavior (SSA) 0.19 0.17 0.28

Q23 Safety standards relative to production/work output standards (SSA) 0.06 0.11 0.39

Q24 Supervisors understanding employees job safety problems (SE) 1.21 1.08 1.14

Q25 Employees following procedures to isolate hazardous energy sources (EI) 0.82 0.73 0.69

Q26 Presence of safety training in new employee onboarding (SSA) 1.23 1.12 1.15

Q27 Belief that management is sincere in safety efforts (SSC) 1.26 1.28 1.41

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee safety suggestions (SE) 1.28 1.13 1.15

Q29 Occurrence of emergency response procedures testing (SSA) 0.47 0.65 0.67

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee (like ESC, SAC, and OU) in improving safety conditions (SSA) 0.43 0.56 0.55

Q31 Management setting a positive safety example (MC) 0.90 0.94 1.08

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into work routine (SE) 1.13 1.03 1.11

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance system operation (SSA) 0.19 0.00 0.32

Q34 Management participating in safety activities on a regular basis (MC) 0.68 0.74 0.80

Q35 Perception that the safety office has high status (SSC) 0.40 0.64 0.76

Q35b Perception that the safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative, etc.) has high status (SSC) 0.43 0.56 0.66

Q36 Belief that hazards not fixed right away will still be addressed (SSC) 0.64 0.61 0.71

Q37 Employees take part when accident/incident investigations occur (EI) 0.65 0.68 0.58

Q38 Supervisors providing helpful safety training or guidance (SE) 1.03 0.89 0.98

Q39 Perception that medical resources are sufficient (SSC) 0.19 0.58 0.52

Q40 Management including safety in job promotion reviews (MC) 0.64 0.62 0.80

Q41 Availability of safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative, etc.) to provide assistance (SSA) 0.98 0.95 0.92

Q42 Stability of workforce (OC) 0.66 0.77 0.84

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees fear of reporting safety problems (SE) 1.02 1.02 1.05

Q44 Supervisors involved safety incident investigations (SE) 0.81 0.72 0.63

Q45 Perception that good environmental conditions are kept (SSC) 0.58 0.27 0.58

Q46 Employees using necessary personal protective equipment (EI) 0.84 0.76 0.64

Q47 Significance of job stress for employees (OC) 0.12 0.09 -0.01

Q48 Belief that management insists supervisors think about safety (SSC) 0.97 0.94 0.88

Q49 Management setting annual safety goals (MC) 0.37 0.42 0.60

Q50 Employees taking part in the development of safety requirements (EI) 0.76 0.60 0.63

Standard Components Boulder Gaithersburg Other

Section 16
Comparison by Organizational Unit

Survey respondents were asked to provide demographic information at the conclusion of the NSC Safety Barometer. 

These responses were used to conduct analyses and provide these subgroup comparisons.

In order to protect respondent anonymity and to avoid making inaccurate generalizations based on an inadequate sample size, comparisons were not

computed for groups with fewer than five respondents.

Responses by Organizational Unit

68 - Physical Measurement Laboratory 428

63 - Material Measurement Laboratory 367

77 - Information Technology Laboratory 198

73 - Engineering Laboratory 168

18 - Office of Information Systems Management 127

67 - Communications Technology Laboratory 124

61 - NIST Center for Neutron Research 107

19 - Office of Facilities and Property Management 99

16 - Office of Financial Resource Management 73

13 - Management Resources 69

00 - Director's office 59

14 - Office of Acquisition and Agreements Management 53

15 - Office of Safety, Health, and Environment 47

60 - Laboratory Programs 46

17 - Office of Human Resource Management 37

40 - Innovation and Industry Services 17

48 - Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program 15

45 - Baldrige Performance Excellence Program 12

49 - Office of Advanced Manufacturing 6

Q65 - Organizational Unit (OU) Count

2022: Average Response Scores by Organizational Unit

Average response scores, on a scale of -2 to +2, were calculated for organizational unit. The following tables and figures reflect these comparisons 

across the 50 standard items, six performance categories, and overall. For organizational unit comparisons by the six performance categories and 

overall, a blue ^ indicates that the organizational unit's perceptions were significantly higher than the other organizational units', whereas a red v

indicates perceptions from that particular organizational unit were significantly lower than the other organizational units'.

In general, perceptions were positive across organizational units. The Office of Advanced Manufacturing held the highest overall average response

score, followed closely by Balrdrige Performance Excellence Program, Communications Technology Laboratory, and Information Technology 

Laboratory. In contrast, the Office of Safety, Health, and Environment generated the lowest overall average response score, followed by the Office of 

Facilities and Property Management, and Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. Differences in the scores of higher- and lower-scoring 

organizational units were significant indicating an opportunity to better align employee safety perceptions across organization units. All organizational

units should be represented in future action planning efforts to ensure a cohesive application of the safety management system.

Overall Average Response Score 49 - Office of Advanced Manufacturin 45 - Baldrige Performance Excellence ... 67 - Communicati ons ... 77 -

Information

Laborator

68 - Physical

Measurement

Laboratory

73 -

Engineering

Laboratory

18 - Office of

Information

Systems ...

61 - NIST

Center for

Neutron ...

16 - Office of

Financial

Resource ...

40 -

Innovation

and ...

60 -

Laboratory

Programs

63 - Material

Measurement

Laboratory

00 -

Director's

office

17 - Office of

Human

Resource ...

13 -

Management

Resources

14 - Office of

Acquisition

and ...

48 - Hollings

Manufacturin

g ...

19 - Office of

Facilities and

Property ...

15 - Office of

Safety,

Health, ...

1.00 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.89 0.86 0.84 0.81 0.78 0.77 0.74 0.74

0.67 0.67 0.67

0.56

0.46 0.42

0.35

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Overall and Performance Category Average Response Scores

49 - Office of Advanced Manufacturing  1.07 1.31 0.94 0.73  1.07 0.80

1.00 

45 - Baldrige Performance Excellence Program  1.06  1.39 0.75 0.74  0.97 0.68

0.95 

67 - Communications Technology Laboratory  0.86  1.28  0.97  0.79  0.84  0.76

0.92 

77 - Information Technology Laboratory  0.92  1.23  0.76  0.77  0.86  0.91

0.90 

68 - Physical Measurement Laboratory  0.79  1.21  1.04  0.73  0.81  0.67

0.89 

73 - Engineering Laboratory  0.86 1.12  0.96  0.72  0.80 0.68

0.86 

18 - Office of Information Systems Management  0.83 1.13  0.73 0.65  0.85  0.90

0.84 

61 - NIST Center for Neutron Research 0.74 1.11  1.03  0.73 0.77  0.27

0.81 

16 - Office of Financial Resource Management  0.81  1.02  0.62 0.66 0.76  0.84 0.78

40 - Innovation and Industry Services 0.81 1.19 0.72 0.60 0.62 0.67 0.77

60 - Laboratory Programs 0.63 1.04 0.77 0.56 0.73 0.70

0.74 

63 - Material Measurement Laboratory  0.60 1.09  0.91  0.58  0.63  0.54

0.74 

00 - Director's office  0.63  1.03  0.61  0.45 0.71 0.55

0.67 

17 - Office of Human Resource Management 0.72  1.00  0.53  0.51 0.67 0.58

0.67 

13 - Management Resources  0.60  1.01  0.62  0.48 0.66 0.63

0.67 

14 - Office of Acquisition and Agreements

Management  0.62  0.84  0.50  0.41  0.55  0.42

0.56 

48 - Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Program  0.36  0.78  0.39  0.43  0.42  0.28

0.46 

19 - Office of Facilities and Property Management  0.35  0.75  0.63  0.24  0.40  0.00

0.42 

15 - Office of Safety, Health, and Environment  0.16  0.98  0.58  0.06  0.10  0.30

0.35 

Q65 - Organizational Unit (OU) Management

Commitment

Supervisor

Engagement

Employee

Involvement

Safety Support

Activities

Safety Support

Climate

Organizational

Climate Overall

Safety Component Average Response Scores

Q01 Employees

identifying and

eliminating hazards (EI)

0.95 1.06 0.81 0.81 1.07 0.92 1.17 0.93 1.18 1.50

Q02 Frequency of

employee/management

interactions (OC)

1.07 1.01 0.91 0.51 1.03 1.08 1.14 0.52 1.24 1.83

Q03 Priority of safety

relative to productivity

(SSC)

0.85 0.71 0.85 -0.11 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.67 0.71 0.92

Q04 Employees being

involved in safety and

health practices (EI)

0.15 0.13 0.06 0.21 0.22 0.16 0.18 -0.02 0.53 0.42

Q05 Supervisors

maintaining a high

safety performance

standard (SE)

1.17 1.14 0.94 1.30 1.26 1.19 1.37 0.89 1.41 1.67

Q06 Frequency of

detailed and regularly

scheduled inspections

(SSA)

0.24 0.59 0.30 0.17 0.53 0.62 0.84 0.23 0.29 0.58

Q07 Management

stressing the

importance of safety in

communications (MC)

0.76 0.75 0.77 0.23 0.85 0.84 0.79 0.60 0.47 1.50

Q08 Frequency of

safety meeting

occurrence (SSA)

0.07 -0.04 0.15 -0.26 0.53 0.38 0.33 0.13 0.47 0.92

Q09 Condition of

departmental teamwork

(OC)

0.69 0.86 0.58 0.28 1.08 0.89 0.90 0.16 0.71 0.17

Q10 Belief that

management shows it

cares for employee

safety (SSC)

1.07 1.00 0.94 0.53 1.34 1.22 1.35 0.62 1.24 2.00

Q11 Employees

believing that their

actions can protect

coworkers (EI)

1.14 1.30 1.15 1.36 1.11 1.19 1.27 1.31 1.65 1.58

Q12 Supervisors

behaving in accord with

safe job procedures

(SE)

1.56 1.46 1.32 1.34 1.47 1.49 1.44 1.12 1.41 1.67

Q13 Designated

employees well trained

in emergency practices

(SSA)

0.52 0.84 0.67 0.36 0.89 0.57 0.70 0.24 1.06 0.75

Q14 Management

publishing a policy on

the value of employee

safety (MC)

0.66 0.54 0.83 0.66 0.77 0.68 0.84 0.56 0.76 1.00

Q15 Thoroughness of

near miss incident

investigations (SSA)

0.66 0.61 0.53 0.11 0.66 0.49 0.77 0.62 0.76 1.00

Q16 Condition of

employee morale (OC) 0.47 0.50 0.38 0.17 0.89 0.51 0.93 -0.32 0.76 1.17

Q17 Belief that

management does

more than law requires

(SSC)

0.66 0.81 0.48 0.15 0.67 0.59 0.83 0.33 0.76 1.50

Q18 Belief that

employees understand

safety and health

regulations (EI)

1.20 1.25 0.92 1.21 1.16 1.03 1.26 1.13 1.29 1.25

Q19 Supervisors

enforcing safe job

procedures (SE)

1.12 1.16 0.92 1.17 1.19 1.16 1.21 0.87 1.24 1.50

Q20 Employees using

basic precautions for

hazardous materials

(EI)

0.05 0.20 0.33 0.21 0.24 0.19 0.42 0.42 0.06 0.09

Q21 Management

providing adequate

safety staff (MC)

0.41 0.41 0.60 0.00 0.82 0.59 0.80 -0.04 0.94 0.92

Q22 Effectiveness of

award and recognition

programs in promoting

safe behavior (SSA)

0.10 0.14 0.02 -0.66 0.36 0.35 0.27 -0.22 0.12 -0.25

Q23 Safety standards

relative to

production/work output

standards (SSA)

0.16 0.22 -0.04 -0.72 0.23 -0.08 0.38 0.09 0.00 0.08

Q24 Supervisors

understanding

employees job safety

problems (SE)

0.95 1.09 0.83 0.96 0.87 0.95 1.14 0.82 1.24 1.42

Q25 Employees

following procedures to

isolate hazardous

energy sources (EI)

0.37 0.65 0.33 0.30 0.50 0.32 0.71 0.66 0.41 0.36

Q26 Presence of safety

training in new

employee onboarding

(SSA)

0.68 0.55 0.68 0.64 0.90 0.92 0.98 0.81 0.82 1.00

Q27 Belief that

management is sincere

in safety efforts (SSC)

1.24 1.26 1.19 0.62 1.38 1.24 1.39 0.69 1.35 1.75

Q28 Supervisors acting

on employee safety

suggestions (SE)

1.02 1.07 0.91 1.11 1.08 1.05 1.03 0.66 1.24 1.33

Q29 Occurrence of

emergency response

procedures testing

(SSA)

0.64 0.79 0.60 0.21 0.97 0.70 0.69 0.24 0.76 1.17

Q30 Effectiveness of

safety committee (like

ESC, SAC, and OU) in

improving safety

conditions (SSA)

0.78 0.64 0.57 0.19 0.74 0.54 0.69 0.07 0.59 1.00

Q31 Management

setting a positive safety

example (MC)

0.97 0.91 0.68 0.15 1.15 1.08 1.11 0.47 0.94 1.67

Q32 Supervisors

integrating safety into

work routine (SE)

0.98 0.94 0.73 0.96 0.92 0.84 1.18 0.72 1.29 1.58

Q33 Quality of

preventive

maintenance system

operation (SSA)

0.03 -0.01 0.00 -0.79 0.30 0.08 0.31 -0.32 0.24 -0.08

Q34 Management

participating in safety

activities on a regular

basis (MC)

0.75 0.57 0.60 0.19 0.67 0.65 0.81 0.32 0.82 1.08

Q35 Perception that

the safety office has

high status (SSC)

0.73 0.87 0.62 -0.15 0.85 0.65 0.80 0.21 0.71 1.25

Q35b Perception that

the safety coordinator

(OU safety program

coordinator, division

safety representative,

etc.) has high status

(SSC)

0.47 0.55 0.38 -0.02 0.53 0.38 0.74 0.11 0.53 1.08

Q36 Belief that hazards

not fixed right away will

still be addressed

(SSC)

0.71 0.57 0.60 -0.28 0.81 0.70 0.77 0.13 0.35 0.75

Q37 Employees take

part when

accident/incident

investigations occur (EI)

0.69 0.42 0.44 0.53 0.67 0.58 0.63 0.40 0.35 0.58

Q38 Supervisors

providing helpful safety

training or guidance

(SE)

0.90 0.72 0.62 0.68 0.84 0.86 1.00 0.58 1.06 1.08

Q39 Perception that

medical resources are

sufficient (SSC)

0.63 0.36 0.60 0.45 0.72 0.76 0.58 0.42 0.41 0.83

Q40 Management

including safety in job

promotion reviews

(MC)

0.53 0.58 0.55 0.04 0.78 0.70 0.78 0.38 0.82 0.83

Q41 Availability of

safety coordinator (OU

safety program

coordinator, division

safety representative,

etc.) to provide

assistance (SSA)

0.80 0.71 0.60 0.57 0.71 0.46 0.98 0.62 0.88 1.33

Q42 Stability of

workforce (OC) 0.80 0.71 0.57 0.47 1.05 0.65 1.15 -0.13 0.94 1.08

Q43 Supervisors

reducing employees

fear of reporting safety

problems (SE)

0.97 0.88 0.77 0.30 1.10 0.84 1.18 0.71 1.13 1.42

Q44 Supervisors

involved safety incident

investigations (SE)

0.64 0.61 0.48 1.00 0.49 0.65 0.57 0.33 0.69 0.83

Q45 Perception that

good environmental

conditions are kept

(SSC)

0.46 0.32 0.00 -0.02 0.18 0.11 0.62 0.31 0.06 -0.42

Q46 Employees using

necessary personal

protective equipment

(EI)

0.51 0.46 0.38 0.32 0.44 0.16 0.52 0.62 0.50 0.58

Q47 Significance of job

stress for employees

(OC)

-0.27 0.04 -0.36 0.06 0.12 -0.22 0.40 -0.22 -0.31 -0.83

Q48 Belief that

management insists

supervisors think about

safety (SSC)

0.85 0.78 0.49 0.37 0.83 0.86 0.88 0.66 0.75 1.17

Q49 Management

setting annual safety

goals (MC)

0.37 0.41 0.30 -0.19 0.61 0.51 0.69 0.16 0.94 0.42

Q50 Employees taking

part in the

development of safety

requirements (EI)

0.40 0.06 0.11 0.23 0.13 0.22 0.37 0.21 0.44 0.33

Standard Components

00 -

Director's

office

13 - Management

Resources

14 - Office of

Acquisition

and

Agreements

Management

15 - Office of

Safety,

Health, and

Environment

16 - Office of

Financial

Resource Management

17 - Office of

Human

Resource Management

18 - Office of

Information

Systems

Management

19 - Office of

Facilities and

Property

Management

40 -

Innovation

and

Industry

Services

45 - Baldrige

Performance

Excellence

Program

48 Man

P

Section 17
Comparison by Division

Survey respondents were asked to provide demographic information at the conclusion of the NSC Safety Barometer. 

These responses were used to conduct analyses and provide these subgroup comparisons.

In order to protect respondent anonymity and to avoid making inaccurate generalizations based on an inadequate sample size, comparisons were not

computed for groups with fewer than five respondents.

Responses by Organizational Unit

610 - NIST Center for Neutron Research 77

685 - Sensor Science Division 76

642 - Materials Science and Engineering Division 67

646 - Chemical Sciences Division 63

183 - Applications Systems Division 58

684 - Quantum Measurement Division 54

644 - Biosystems and Biomaterials Division 52

643 - Materials Measurement Science Division 50

683 - Nanoscale Device Characterization Division 47

682 - Radiation Physics Division 47

680 - Physical Measurement Laboratory Office 45

645 - Biomolecular Measurement Division 44

647 - Applied Chemicals and Materials Division 42

733 - Fire Research Division 41

774 - Information Access Division 40

731 - Materials and Structural Systems Division 40

771 - Applied and Computational Mathematics Division 39

773 - Computer Security Division 37

688 - Time and Frequency Division 36

686 - Applied Physics Division 36

681 - Microsystems and Nanotechnology Division 33

141 - Acquisition Management Division 31

687 - Quantum Electromagnetics Division 30

672 - RF Technology Division 29

193 - Gaithersburg Facility Maintenance Division 28

777 - Applied Cybersecurity Division 27

107 - Public Affairs Office 27

730 - Engineering Laboratory Office 26

674 - Smart Connected Systems Division 26

735 - Intelligent Systems Division 24

190 - Office of Facilities and Property Management 24

166 - Financial Operations Division 24

673 - Wireless Networks Division 23

137 - Emergency Services Office 23

630 - Material Measurement Laboratory Office 22

195 - Gaithersburg Design and Construction Division 22

181 - Information Technology Security & Networking Division 21

167 - Financial Systems and Reporting Division 21

775 - Software and Systems Division 20

160 - Office of Financial Resource Management 20

135 - NIST Research Library and Museum 20

732 - Building Energy and Environment Division 19

675 - Spectrum Technology and Research Division 17

151 - Gaithersburg Safety, Health and Environment Division 17

175 - Operations and Strategic Programs Division 16

100 - Director's Office 16

180 - Office of Information Systems Management 15

602 - Special Programs Office 14

184 - Infrastructure Services Division 14

776 - Statistical Engineering Division 13

770 - Information Technology Laboratory Office 13

640 - Office of Reference Materials 13

176 - Compensation, Recognition, and Effectiveness Division 13

142 - Grants Management Division 13

734 - Systems Integration Division 12

671 - Public Safety Communications Research Division 12

670 - Communications Technology Laboratory HQ 12

152 - Radiation Safety Division 12

689 - Quantum Physics Division 11

601 - Standards Coordination Office 11

600 - Associate Director for Laboratory Programs 10

401 - Technology Partnerships Office 10

194 - Boulder Facilities Maintenance Division 10

182 - Customer Access and Support Division 10

150 - Office of Safety, Health and Environment 9

109 - International and Academic Affairs Office 9

196 - Boulder Design and Construction Division 8

153 - Boulder Safety, Health and Environment Division 8

192 - Facilities Services Division 7

170 - Human Resources Management Office 7

161 - Budget Division 7

140 - Office of Acquisition and Agreements Management 7

138 - Business Operations Office 7

481 - Network Agreements Management Division 6

400 - Associate Director for Innovation & Industry Services 6

641 - Office of Data and Informatics 5

450 - Baldrige Performance Excellence Program Office 5

187 - Research Services Office 5

136 - Fabrication Technology Office 5

130 - Associate Director for Management Resources 5

188 - Platform Services Division 4

132 - Equal Employment Opportunity and Accessibility Office 4

492 - Policy and Strategy Division 2

490 - Office of Advanced Manufacturing 2

485 - Outreach and External Affairs Division 2

483 - National Programs Division 2

480 - Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program Office 2

101 - Management and Organization Office 2

604 - Research Protections Office 1

493 - Partnerships and Outreach Division 1

491 - Program Operations Division 1

484 - National Platforms Division 1

111 - Congressional and Legislative Affairs Office 1

106 - Program Coordination Office 1

Q66 - Division Count

2022: Average Response Scores by Division

Average response scores, on a scale of -2 to +2, were calculated for division. The following tables and figures reflect these comparisons across the 50 

standard items, six performance categories, and overall. For division comparisons by the six performance categories and overall, a blue ^ indicates that 

the division's perceptions were significantly higher than the other divisions', whereas a red v indicates perceptions from that particular division were 

significantly lower than the other divisions'.

Among all divisions, Public Safety Communications Research Division held the highest average response scores across all six performance categories

and overall. The next highest overall score was held by the Communications Technology Laboratory HQ. In contrast, the Facilities Services Division

generated the lowest overall score, including negative perceptions in the Management Commitment, Safety Support Climate and Organizational Climate

categories. Gaithersburg Facility Maintenance Division held the second lowest overall score, also generating negative perceptions in the Management

Commitment, Safety Support Activities, and Organizational Climate categories. Differences among divisions were meaningful indicating that targeted

efforts to increase safety-related communication and participation opportunities across divisions will be beneficial.

Overall and Performance Category Average Response Scores

671 - Public Safety Communications Research

Division  1.47  1.64  1.34  1.33  1.42  1.42

1.43 

670 - Communications Technology Laboratory HQ  1.40  1.56  1.26  1.18  1.13  1.05

1.26 

776 - Statistical Engineering Division  1.18  1.44  1.00  1.02  1.12  1.17

1.14 

130 - Associate Director for Management Resources  1.11 1.34 0.89  0.98 1.02  1.24

1.08 

400 - Associate Director for Innovation & Industry

Services 1.02 1.33  1.17  1.02 0.90 1.00

1.08 

771 - Applied and Computational Mathematics

Division  1.10  1.41  0.96  0.94  1.03  1.04

1.07 

732 - Building Energy and Environment Division  1.13  1.34  1.13  0.83  0.97  0.94

1.05 

730 - Engineering Laboratory Office  1.10  1.35  1.02  0.93  0.94  1.02

1.05 

675 - Spectrum Technology and Research Division  1.00  1.37  1.09  0.82  0.98  0.94

1.03 

681 - Microsystems and Nanotechnology Division  0.93  1.37  1.14  0.86  0.96  0.89

1.03 

182 - Customer Access and Support Division  1.01  1.37  1.04 0.76  0.94  0.98

1.01 

682 - Radiation Physics Division  0.91  1.39  1.14  0.86  0.93 0.67

1.01 

735 - Intelligent Systems Division  0.92 1.18  1.02  0.84  0.92 0.73

0.95 

600 - Associate Director for Laboratory Programs 0.91 1.22 0.92 0.74  1.02 0.70

0.94 

672 - RF Technology Division  0.86  1.34  1.07 0.72  0.87  0.81

0.94 

774 - Information Access Division  0.98  1.31  0.72  0.83  0.89  0.88

0.93 

773 - Computer Security Division  0.98  1.26 0.80  0.79  0.87  0.96

0.93 

644 - Biosystems and Biomaterials Division  0.85 1.16  0.94  0.79  0.89  0.97

0.93 

181 - Information Technology Security & Networking

Division  0.90  1.31 0.81  0.75  0.93  0.890.93 

196 - Boulder Design and Construction Division  1.02 1.11 0.94 0.69  0.91  0.98

0.92 

685 - Sensor Science Division  0.85  1.19  1.11  0.75  0.88 0.68

0.92 

161 - Budget Division  1.10 1.06 0.70  0.90 0.94 0.74

0.92 

184 - Infrastructure Services Division  0.95 1.09 0.88 0.78 0.84  1.06

0.92 

684 - Quantum Measurement Division  0.87  1.21  1.06  0.73  0.84 0.72

0.91 

770 - Information Technology Laboratory Office 0.85 1.21 0.82  0.81  0.90 0.78

0.90 

689 - Quantum Physics Division 0.73  1.38 0.93 0.73 0.83 0.76

0.90 

170 - Human Resources Management Office 0.90  1.43 0.65 0.73 0.84 0.86 0.90

734 - Systems Integration Division  1.02 1.01 0.78  0.94 0.83 0.73

0.89 

683 - Nanoscale Device Characterization Division 0.81 1.19  1.01 0.69 0.82  0.80

0.88 

645 - Biomolecular Measurement Division 0.76 1.13  0.95  0.80 0.81 0.72

0.88 

180 - Office of Information Systems Management 0.76 1.10 0.89 0.60  0.95  0.97

0.87 

686 - Applied Physics Division 0.78 1.11  1.16  0.78 0.74  0.47

0.86 

109 - International and Academic Affairs Office 0.83  1.30 0.68 0.75 0.86 0.67 0.86

680 - Physical Measurement Laboratory Office 0.77 1.13  0.94  0.78 0.77 0.56

0.84 

610 - NIST Center for Neutron Research 0.75 1.14  1.04  0.75  0.82  0.35

0.84 

673 - Wireless Networks Division 0.79 1.13 0.76  0.83 0.72 0.77 0.84

138 - Business Operations Office 0.71 1.22  0.60  0.43  0.97  1.26 0.83

166 - Financial Operations Division 0.82 1.08  0.64 0.68 0.79  0.92 0.82

167 - Financial Systems and Reporting Division 0.83 1.05  0.71 0.68 0.77 0.79 0.80

195 - Gaithersburg Design and Construction Division 0.77 1.23 0.88 0.63 0.76  0.37 0.80

777 - Applied Cybersecurity Division 0.80 1.03  0.70 0.63 0.80  0.99 0.80

135 - NIST Research Library and Museum 0.74 1.03  0.63 0.63 0.85  0.94 0.79

183 - Applications Systems Division 0.81 1.06  0.62 0.64 0.81  0.89 0.79

630 - Material Measurement Laboratory Office 0.66 1.04  1.05 0.62 0.73 0.55 0.79

450 - Baldrige Performance Excellence Program

Office 0.83 1.24  0.60 0.60 0.80 0.48 0.79

733 - Fire Research Division 0.69 1.05  1.00 0.60 0.69 0.61 0.78

688 - Time and Frequency Division 0.62  1.24 0.81 0.57 0.71 0.69 0.77

643 - Materials Measurement Science Division 0.66 1.07  0.98 0.60 0.67 0.57 0.77

687 - Quantum Electromagnetics Division  0.61 1.10  1.05 0.55  0.63  0.44

0.74 

642 - Materials Science and Engineering Division  0.58 1.15  0.94  0.47  0.62 0.67

0.74 

481 - Network Agreements Management Division 0.76 0.98  0.59 0.57 0.87 0.53 0.73

601 - Standards Coordination Office 0.62 1.05  0.63  0.48 0.83 0.78 0.73

731 - Materials and Structural Systems Division 0.71  0.99 0.86  0.54 0.69  0.44

0.72 

775 - Software and Systems Division 0.66 1.07  0.53 0.58 0.65 0.77

0.70 

646 - Chemical Sciences Division  0.45 1.18  0.98  0.55  0.50  0.22

0.68 

160 - Office of Financial Resource Management 0.67  0.94  0.46 0.55 0.68 0.81

0.67 

107 - Public Affairs Office 0.66  1.01  0.55  0.40 0.74 0.62

0.66 

141 - Acquisition Management Division 0.71  0.95  0.57  0.48 0.66 0.48

0.65 

640 - Office of Reference Materials 0.57  0.82 0.82 0.57 0.58 0.45

0.65 

401 - Technology Partnerships Office 0.76 1.16  0.52  0.40  0.53 0.56

0.65 

175 - Operations and Strategic Programs Division 0.71  0.83  0.56 0.53 0.62 0.54

0.64 

137 - Emergency Services Office  0.54 1.03  0.70  0.41  0.60  0.43

0.64 

100 - Director's Office 0.57  0.99  0.69  0.45 0.66  0.29

0.63 

674 - Smart Connected Systems Division  0.47 1.10 0.75  0.50  0.56  0.27

0.63 

150 - Office of Safety, Health and Environment 0.48 1.05  0.53 0.43 0.63 0.69

0.63 

176 - Compensation, Recognition, and Effectiveness

Division 0.66 1.03  0.44  0.40 0.68 0.55

0.62 

140 - Office of Acquisition and Agreements

Management

0.63 0.94 0.64 0.40 0.59 0.31

0.60 

647 - Applied Chemicals and Materials Division  0.36  1.02  0.73  0.40  0.41  0.20

0.54 

602 - Special Programs Office  0.34  0.85  0.63  0.40  0.47 0.43

0.53 

194 - Boulder Facilities Maintenance Division  0.44  0.51  0.64  0.36  0.36  0.12

0.42 

142 - Grants Management Division  0.45  0.62  0.33  0.29  0.33 0.48

0.41 

190 - Office of Facilities and Property Management  0.34  0.78  0.63  0.18  0.29  0.07

0.40 

152 - Radiation Safety Division  0.26  0.80 0.72  0.08  0.17  0.35

0.40 

187 - Research Services Office  0.26  0.67  0.22  0.30  0.54 0.36

0.40 

641 - Office of Data and Informatics  0.31  0.52  0.29  0.22  0.14  0.08

0.25 

151 - Gaithersburg Safety, Health and Environment

Division  -0.04  0.95  0.45  -0.07  -0.05  0.19

0.21 

153 - Boulder Safety, Health and Environment

Division  -0.05 1.17  0.60  -0.18  -0.43  0.03

0.16 

136 - Fabrication Technology Office  0.09  0.44  0.36  0.16  0.06  -0.36

0.15 

193 - Gaithersburg Facility Maintenance Division  -0.04  0.39  0.47  -0.06  0.18  -0.54

0.12 

192 - Facilities Services Division  -0.22  0.49  0.10  -0.17  0.10  -0.49

0.03 

Q66 - Division Management

Commitment

Supervisor

Engagement

Employee

Involvement

Safety Support

Activities

Safety Support

Climate

Organizational

Climate Overall

Safety Component Average Response Scores

Q01 Employees

identifying and

eliminating hazards (EI)

0.63 0.89 1.44 1.20 1.20 0.80 1.26 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.38

Q02 Frequency of

employee/management

interactions (OC)

0.81 1.19 1.00 1.00 1.40 -0.20 1.00 1.71 0.86 1.03 0.92

Q03 Priority of safety

relative to productivity

(SSC)

0.69 0.85 1.00 0.80 0.75 0.80 0.65 1.43 1.00 0.84 0.85

Q04 Employees being

involved in safety and

health practices (EI)

0.06 0.15 0.22 0.00 0.30 -0.60 0.17 0.00 0.71 0.10 -0.23

Q05 Supervisors

maintaining a high

safety performance

standard (SE)

1.06 1.15 1.44 1.40 1.15 0.20 1.22 1.57 1.29 1.00 0.85

Q06 Frequency of

detailed and regularly

scheduled inspections

(SSA)

0.38 0.15 0.67 0.40 1.15 -0.20 0.48 0.57 0.86 0.29 0.15

Q07 Management

stressing the

importance of safety in

communications (MC)

0.69 0.89 0.44 1.00 1.10 0.40 0.65 0.86 0.71 0.77 0.85

Q08 Frequency of

safety meeting

occurrence (SSA)

-0.06 0.04 0.22 1.00 0.30 -0.40 -0.35 -0.14 0.29 0.16 0.08

Q09 Condition of

departmental teamwork

(OC)

0.50 0.70 1.00 1.80 1.20 0.00 0.43 1.29 0.29 0.71 0.62

Q10 Belief that

management shows it

cares for employee

safety (SSC)

0.88 1.19 1.11 1.60 1.40 0.20 0.57 1.57 0.86 1.03 0.92

Q11 Employees

believing that their

actions can protect

coworkers (EI)

1.19 1.04 1.33 1.60 1.35 0.80 1.30 1.43 1.00 1.19 1.23

Q12 Supervisors

behaving in accord with

safe job procedures

(SE)

1.50 1.56 1.56 1.80 1.50 1.00 1.39 1.71 1.57 1.35 1.23

Q13 Designated

employees well trained

in emergency practices

(SSA)

0.88 0.44 0.50 1.60 0.95 0.40 0.83 0.57 0.14 0.87 0.54

Q14 Management

publishing a policy on

the value of employee

safety (MC)

0.69 0.56 0.89 1.00 0.60 -0.40 0.70 0.71 0.71 1.00 0.54

Q15 Thoroughness of

near miss incident

investigations (SSA)

0.63 0.59 0.89 1.20 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.57 0.29 0.74 0.23

Q16 Condition of

employee morale (OC) 0.13 0.59 0.67 1.00 0.89 -0.60 0.17 1.29 0.14 0.45 0.46

Q17 Belief that

management does

more than law requires

(SSC)

0.38 0.78 1.00 1.60 1.00 0.20 0.61 1.00 0.14 0.61 0.38

Q18 Belief that

employees understand

safety and health

regulations (EI)

1.38 1.07 1.56 1.00 1.35 0.80 1.39 1.43 0.86 0.94 0.92

Q19 Supervisors

enforcing safe job

procedures (SE)

0.94 1.15 1.67 - 1.20 0.60 1.22 1.29 1.00 1.06 0.62

Q20 Employees using

basic precautions for

hazardous materials

(EI)

0.19 0.22 -0.67 0.80 0.10 0.20 0.22 0.14 0.57 0.39 0.08

Q21 Management

providing adequate

safety staff (MC)

0.31 0.37 0.67 1.40 0.45 -0.40 0.30 0.43 0.86 0.71 0.23

Q22 Effectiveness of

award and recognition

programs in promoting

safe behavior (SSA)

0.00 0.04 0.67 0.80 0.20 -0.40 0.13 -0.14 0.00 0.10 0.00

Q23 Safety standards

relative to

production/work output

standards (SSA)

0.06 0.22 0.29 0.40 0.35 -0.40 0.30 0.43 0.14 0.10 -0.23

Q24 Supervisors

understanding

employees job safety

problems (SE)

0.94 0.85 1.33 1.40 1.10 0.00 1.13 1.57 0.86 0.90 0.69

Q25 Employees

following procedures to

isolate hazardous

energy sources (EI)

0.56 0.37 0.22 1.00 0.35 0.40 1.09 0.57 0.29 0.42 0.15

Q26 Presence of safety

training in new

employee onboarding

(SSA)

0.50 0.70 0.89 1.60 0.50 0.20 0.30 0.86 0.14 0.58 1.15

Q27 Belief that

management is sincere

in safety efforts (SSC)

1.13 1.37 1.44 1.80 1.45 0.40 1.09 1.57 1.29 1.32 0.92

Q28 Supervisors acting

on employee safety

suggestions (SE)

1.00 1.00 1.22 1.20 1.10 0.80 0.96 1.43 0.86 1.06 0.62

Q29 Occurrence of

emergency response

procedures testing

(SSA)

0.63 0.70 0.89 - 1.00 0.40 0.78 0.57 0.86 0.58 0.54

Q30 Effectiveness of

safety committee (like

ESC, SAC, and OU) in

improving safety

conditions (SSA)

0.88 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.40 0.65 0.86 0.43 0.68 0.38

Q31 Management

setting a positive safety

example (MC)

0.75 1.07 1.33 1.20 1.25 0.40 0.78 1.00 0.57 0.84 0.54

Q32 Supervisors

integrating safety into

work routine (SE)

1.00 1.04 1.33 1.40 1.05 0.40 0.91 1.14 0.71 0.87 0.54

Q33 Quality of

preventive

maintenance system

operation (SSA)

-0.13 0.04 0.44 -0.20 0.05 -0.20 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.10 -0.23

Q34 Management

participating in safety

activities on a regular

basis (MC)

0.81 0.70 1.11 1.40 0.75 0.00 0.39 0.57 0.50 0.71 0.38

Q35 Perception that

the safety office has

high status (SSC)

0.69 0.74 0.89 1.20 1.00 0.00 0.87 0.86 0.57 0.81 0.31

Q35b Perception that

the safety coordinator

(OU safety program

coordinator, division

safety representative,

etc.) has high status

(SSC)

0.56 0.41 0.78 0.80 0.65 0.00 0.65 1.00 0.71 0.45 0.08

Q36 Belief that hazards

not fixed right away will

still be addressed

(SSC)

1.06 0.52 0.89 1.00 0.95 -0.80 0.52 0.71 0.71 0.65 0.46

Q37 Employees take

part when

accident/incident

investigations occur (EI)

0.81 0.56 0.89 0.80 0.45 0.20 0.35 0.57 0.50 0.55 0.23

Q38 Supervisors

providing helpful safety

training or guidance

(SE)

0.88 0.85 1.22 0.80 0.80 0.20 0.83 0.86 0.57 0.74 0.46

Q39 Perception that

medical resources are

sufficient (SSC)

0.63 0.67 0.56 0.40 0.60 0.20 0.35 0.57 0.71 0.74 0.31

Q40 Management

including safety in job

promotion reviews

(MC)

0.50 0.67 0.33 0.80 0.65 -0.20 0.61 0.86 0.71 0.68 0.31

Q41 Availability of

safety coordinator (OU

safety program

coordinator, division

safety representative,

etc.) to provide

assistance (SSA)

0.81 0.63 1.33 1.20 0.80 1.00 0.52 0.57 1.00 0.74 0.08

Q42 Stability of

workforce (OC) 0.38 0.93 0.89 1.40 1.10 -0.40 0.48 1.14 0.43 0.61 0.62

Q43 Supervisors

reducing employees

fear of reporting safety

problems (SE)

0.94 1.00 0.89 1.40 0.85 0.40 0.91 1.29 0.86 0.97 0.46

Q44 Supervisors

involved safety incident

investigations (SE)

0.63 0.48 1.00 1.40 0.55 0.40 0.70 0.14 0.71 0.58 0.15

Q45 Perception that

good environmental

conditions are kept

(SSC)

0.44 0.52 0.44 0.60 0.35 -0.20 0.43 0.86 0.14 0.32 -0.85

Q46 Employees using

necessary personal

protective equipment

(EI)

0.69 0.41 0.56 0.80 0.35 0.60 0.52 0.86 0.71 0.45 0.08

Q47 Significance of job

stress for employees

(OC)

-0.38 -0.30 -0.22 1.00 0.10 -0.60 0.04 0.86 -0.14 -0.42 -0.23

Q48 Belief that

management insists

supervisors think about

safety (SSC)

0.81 0.85 1.00 1.20 0.95 0.20 0.87 0.57 0.14 0.58 0.46

Q49 Management

setting annual safety

goals (MC)

0.25 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.60 0.35 0.57 0.29 0.29 0.31

Q50 Employees taking

part in the

development of safety

requirements (EI)

0.69 0.23 0.56 0.80 0.20 0.00 -0.04 -0.29 0.14 0.13 0.15

Standard Components

100 -

Director's

Office

107 -

Public

Affairs

Office

109 -

International

and

Academic

Affairs

Office

130 -

Associate

Director for Management

Resources

135 -

NIST

Research

Library

and Museum

136 -

Fabrication

Technology

Office

137 -

Emergency

Services

Office

138 -

Business

Operations

Office

140 - Office

of

Acquisition

and

Agreements

Management

141 -

Acquisition

Management

Division

142 - Grants Management

Division

Section 18
Comparison by Role

Survey respondents were asked to provide demographic information at the conclusion of the NSC Safety Barometer. 

These responses were used to conduct analyses and provide these subgroup comparisons.

In order to protect respondent anonymity and to avoid making inaccurate generalizations based on an inadequate sample size, comparisons were not

computed for groups with fewer than five respondents.

Responses by Role

Non-management Supervisor Manager

77% (1,578) 17% (340) 6% (128)

2022: Average Response Scores by Role

Average response scores, on a scale of -2 to +2, were calculated for role. The following tables and figures reflect these comparisons across the 50 

standard items, six performance categories, and overall. For role comparisons by the six performance categories and overall, a blue ^ indicates that the 

role group's perceptions were significantly higher than the other role groups', whereas a red v indicates perceptions from that particular role group were 

significantly lower than the other role groups'.

Safety perceptions are positive across roles. Management level employees reported the most positive perceptions in 2022, followed by Supervisors. In

contrast, non-management NIST employees held the lowest overall average response score. Differences in score between higher- and lower-scoring 

roles were meaningful indicating that increased safety-related communications and activities among roles may be beneficial in reducing gaps in 

perceptions.

Overall Average Response Score

Manager Supervisor Non-management

0.91

0.82

0.77

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Overall and Performance Category Average Response Scores

Management Commitment Supervisor Engagement Employee Involvement Safety Support Activities Safety Support Climate Organizational Climate Overall

Manager Supervisor Non-management

0.90

0.78

0.70

1.24

1.15

1.10

0.97

0.92

0.82

0.72

0.67

0.61

0.88

0.77

0.72 0.71

0.59 0.61

0.91

0.82

0.77

0.50

1.00

1.50

Overall and Performance Category Average Response Scores

Manager  0.90  1.24  0.97  0.72  0.88  0.72

0.91 

Supervisor  0.78  1.15  0.92  0.67  0.77 0.59

0.82 

Non-management  0.70  1.10  0.82  0.61  0.71 0.61

0.77 

Q67 - Role Management Commitment Supervisor Engagement Employee

Involvement

Safety Support

Activities

Safety Support

Climate

Organizational

Climate Overall

Safety Component Average Response Scores

Q01 Employees identifying and eliminating hazards (EI) 1.31 1.14 1.25

Q02 Frequency of employee/management interactions (OC) 1.21 0.89 0.97

Q03 Priority of safety relative to productivity (SSC) 1.05 0.85 0.97

Q04 Employees being involved in safety and health practices (EI) 0.50 0.51 0.59

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high safety performance standard (SE) 1.41 1.27 1.30

Q06 Frequency of detailed and regularly scheduled inspections (SSA) 0.85 0.80 0.95

Q07 Management stressing the importance of safety in communications (MC) 1.18 0.88 1.03

Q08 Frequency of safety meeting occurrence (SSA) 0.61 0.39 0.49

Q09 Condition of departmental teamwork (OC) 0.92 0.61 0.71

Q10 Belief that management shows it cares for employee safety (SSC) 1.44 1.13 1.26

Q11 Employees believing that their actions can protect coworkers (EI) 1.55 1.36 1.44

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with safe job procedures (SE) 1.65 1.49 1.51

Q13 Designated employees well trained in emergency practices (SSA) 0.80 0.72 0.77

Q14 Management publishing a policy on the value of employee safety (MC) 0.93 0.80 0.85

Q15 Thoroughness of near miss incident investigations (SSA) 1.01 0.72 0.85

Q16 Condition of employee morale (OC) 0.75 0.66 0.57

Q17 Belief that management does more than law requires (SSC) 1.08 0.75 0.87

Q18 Belief that employees understand safety and health regulations (EI) 1.31 1.21 1.30

Q19 Supervisors enforcing safe job procedures (SE) 1.35 1.18 1.22

Q20 Employees using basic precautions for hazardous materials (EI) 0.48 0.50 0.49

Q21 Management providing adequate safety staff (MC) 0.75 0.55 0.54

Q22 Effectiveness of award and recognition programs in promoting safe behavior (SSA) 0.28 0.18 0.22

Q23 Safety standards relative to production/work output standards (SSA) 0.27 0.10 0.20

Q24 Supervisors understanding employees job safety problems (SE) 1.20 1.11 1.09

Q25 Employees following procedures to isolate hazardous energy sources (EI) 0.78 0.72 0.84

Q26 Presence of safety training in new employee onboarding (SSA) 1.17 1.13 1.23

Q27 Belief that management is sincere in safety efforts (SSC) 1.52 1.27 1.36

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee safety suggestions (SE) 1.35 1.13 1.24

Q29 Occurrence of emergency response procedures testing (SSA) 0.69 0.63 0.63

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee (like ESC, SAC, and OU) in improving safety conditions (SSA) 0.73 0.53 0.56

Q31 Management setting a positive safety example (MC) 1.21 0.91 1.03

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into work routine (SE) 1.15 1.04 1.10

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance system operation (SSA) -0.27 0.11 -0.06

Q34 Management participating in safety activities on a regular basis (MC) 1.04 0.70 0.79

Q35 Perception that the safety office has high status (SSC) 0.91 0.59 0.66

Q35b Perception that the safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative, etc.) has high status (SSC) 0.78 0.54 0.57

Q36 Belief that hazards not fixed right away will still be addressed (SSC) 0.65 0.61 0.68

Q37 Employees take part when accident/incident investigations occur (EI) 1.01 0.62 0.81

Q38 Supervisors providing helpful safety training or guidance (SE) 0.94 0.93 0.91

Q39 Perception that medical resources are sufficient (SSC) 0.62 0.52 0.50

Q40 Management including safety in job promotion reviews (MC) 0.88 0.61 0.77

Q41 Availability of safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative, etc.) to provide assistance (SSA) 1.30 0.92 1.07

Q42 Stability of workforce (OC) 0.84 0.76 0.72

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees fear of reporting safety problems (SE) 1.25 1.01 1.09

Q44 Supervisors involved safety incident investigations (SE) 0.80 0.71 0.85

Q45 Perception that good environmental conditions are kept (SSC) 0.21 0.39 0.24

Q46 Employees using necessary personal protective equipment (EI) 1.01 0.73 0.85

Q47 Significance of job stress for employees (OC) -0.11 0.15 -0.04

Q48 Belief that management insists supervisors think about safety (SSC) 1.22 0.91 1.05

Q49 Management setting annual safety goals (MC) 0.27 0.45 0.43

Q50 Employees taking part in the development of safety requirements (EI) 0.75 0.61 0.71

Standard Components Manager Non- management Supervisor

Overall Average Response Score

2022

Manager Supervisor Non-management

0.91

0.82

0.77

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Section 19
Comparison by Work Status (JHA or HRA)

Survey respondents were asked to provide demographic information at the conclusion of the NSC Safety Barometer. 

These responses were used to conduct analyses and provide these subgroup comparisons.

In order to protect respondent anonymity and to avoid making inaccurate generalizations based on an inadequate sample size, comparisons were not

computed for groups with fewer than five respondents.

Responses by Work Status (JHA or HRA)

No, I do not perform work that falls under a JHA or HRA Yes, I do perform work that falls under a JHA or HRA

64% (1,271) 36% (708)

2022: Average Response Scores by Work Status (JHA or HRA)

Average response scores, on a scale of -2 to +2, were calculated for JHA or HRA. The following tables and figures reflect these comparisons across the 

50 standard items, six performance categories, and overall. For group comparisons by the six performance categories and overall, a blue ^ indicates 

that the group's perceptions were significantly higher than the other groups', whereas a red v indicates perceptions from that particular group were 

significantly lower than the other groups'.

Safety perceptions are positive for both groups that perform work under JHA or HRA and those who do not. Interestingly, the overall average response 

score generated by both groups is similar. However, there are meaningful differences in the scores generated in the Mangement Commitment, 

Employee Involvement, and Organizational Climate categories. In the action planning process, it may be beneficial to customize efforts in these areas of 

safety excellence to elevate the safety experience for a lower-scoring work status group.

Overall Average Response Score

Yes, I do perform work that falls under a JHA or HRA No, I do not perform work that falls under a JHA or HRA

0.78 0.78

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Overall and Performance Category Average Response Scores

Management Commitment Supervisor Engagement Employee Involvement Safety Support Activities Safety Support Climate Organizational Climate Overall

Yes, I do perform work that falls under a JHA or HRA No, I do not perform work that falls under a JHA or HRA

0.67

0.75

1.12 1.11

0.99

0.77

0.62 0.63

0.71 0.74

0.49

0.68

0.78 0.78

0.50

1.00

1.50

Overall and Performance Category Average Response Scores

Yes, I do perform work that falls under a JHA or

HRA  0.67 1.12  0.99 0.62 0.71  0.49 0.78

No, I do not perform work that falls under a JHA

or HRA  0.75 1.11  0.77 0.63 0.74  0.68 0.78

Q68 - JHA or HRA Management

Commitment

Supervisor

Engagement

Employee

Involvement

Safety Support

Activities

Safety Support

Climate

Organizational

Climate Overall

Safety Component Average Response Scores

Q01 Employees identifying and eliminating hazards (EI) 1.09 1.31

Q02 Frequency of employee/management interactions (OC) 0.98 0.79

Q03 Priority of safety relative to productivity (SSC) 0.87 0.89

Q04 Employees being involved in safety and health practices (EI) 0.39 0.75

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high safety performance standard (SE) 1.29 1.25

Q06 Frequency of detailed and regularly scheduled inspections (SSA) 0.76 0.94

Q07 Management stressing the importance of safety in communications (MC) 0.90 0.94

Q08 Frequency of safety meeting occurrence (SSA) 0.42 0.42

Q09 Condition of departmental teamwork (OC) 0.73 0.47

Q10 Belief that management shows it cares for employee safety (SSC) 1.21 1.09

Q11 Employees believing that their actions can protect coworkers (EI) 1.30 1.53

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with safe job procedures (SE) 1.52 1.46

Q13 Designated employees well trained in emergency practices (SSA) 0.74 0.72

Q14 Management publishing a policy on the value of employee safety (MC) 0.81 0.82

Q15 Thoroughness of near miss incident investigations (SSA) 0.74 0.79

Q16 Condition of employee morale (OC) 0.72 0.51

Q17 Belief that management does more than law requires (SSC) 0.77 0.82

Q18 Belief that employees understand safety and health regulations (EI) 1.22 1.26

Q19 Supervisors enforcing safe job procedures (SE) 1.20 1.20

Q20 Employees using basic precautions for hazardous materials (EI) 0.42 0.64

Q21 Management providing adequate safety staff (MC) 0.64 0.41

Q22 Effectiveness of award and recognition programs in promoting safe behavior (SSA) 0.21 0.14

Q23 Safety standards relative to production/work output standards (SSA) 0.17 0.03

Q24 Supervisors understanding employees job safety problems (SE) 1.12 1.10

Q25 Employees following procedures to isolate hazardous energy sources (EI) 0.69 0.86

Q26 Presence of safety training in new employee onboarding (SSA) 1.05 1.31

Q27 Belief that management is sincere in safety efforts (SSC) 1.32 1.25

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee safety suggestions (SE) 1.14 1.21

Q29 Occurrence of emergency response procedures testing (SSA) 0.69 0.52

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee (like ESC, SAC, and OU) in improving safety conditions (SSA) 0.60 0.44

Q31 Management setting a positive safety example (MC) 1.00 0.85

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into work routine (SE) 1.05 1.06

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance system operation (SSA) 0.14 -0.11

Q34 Management participating in safety activities on a regular basis (MC) 0.76 0.70

Q35 Perception that the safety office has high status (SSC) 0.66 0.56

Q35b Perception that the safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative, etc.)

has high status (SSC) 0.56 0.54

Q36 Belief that hazards not fixed right away will still be addressed (SSC) 0.63 0.61

Q37 Employees take part when accident/incident investigations occur (EI) 0.64 0.75

Q38 Supervisors providing helpful safety training or guidance (SE) 0.91 0.94

Q39 Perception that medical resources are sufficient (SSC) 0.54 0.50

Q40 Management including safety in job promotion reviews (MC) 0.67 0.62

Q41 Availability of safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative, etc.) to

provide assistance (SSA) 0.93 1.01

Q42 Stability of workforce (OC) 0.85 0.61

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees fear of reporting safety problems (SE) 1.05 1.03

Q44 Supervisors involved safety incident investigations (SE) 0.68 0.85

Q45 Perception that good environmental conditions are kept (SSC) 0.33 0.36

Q46 Employees using necessary personal protective equipment (EI) 0.71 0.88

Q47 Significance of job stress for employees (OC) 0.13 0.04

Q48 Belief that management insists supervisors think about safety (SSC) 0.94 0.97

Q49 Management setting annual safety goals (MC) 0.46 0.37

Q50 Employees taking part in the development of safety requirements (EI) 0.47 0.92

Standard Components No, I do not perform work that falls

under a JHA or HRA

Yes, I do perform work that falls

under a JHA or HRA

Section 20
Respondent Comment Results

National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST)

Respondents were asked to provide an open-ended response at the end of the NSC Safety Barometer survey to the following prompt: “Please suggest 

one activity, program, or change that you believe would contribute most to improving safety at your organization. Describe your idea and the problem(s) 

it would solve.” This report provides you with verbatim comments and comment theme analysis in response to this question. Please refer to the

performance category definitions pages for topic definitions provided in this report.

NOTE: Verbatim comments and comment analysis should be used only as information supplemental to the quantitative NSC Safety Barometer Results. 

In order to maintain respondent confidentiality, individual comments should not be distributed and filtering for groups with fewer than five respondents is 

disabled. Verbatim comments should only be shared with a small and specific group of leadership that will be involved in action planning. 

In total, 858 (38%) of the respondents provided comments. Comment counts by employee subgroups are provided in the tables below. To filter 

comment analysis by subgroup, click on the tables below or use the filters at the top of the page. Please note, groups with fewer than five respondents

are not included to ensure respondent confidentiality.

Responses by Employee Status

Yes No

93% (798) 7% (60)

Responses by Primary Work Location

Gaithersburg Boulder Other

79% (676) 17% (143) 4% (36

Responses by Role

Non-management Supervisor Manager

616

157

68

200

400

600

Responses by Tenure

Less than 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 21 years and over

6.22% (53)

19.95% (170)

18.78% (160)

24.18% (206)

30.87% (263)

Responses by Work Status (JHA or HRA)

No, I do not perform work that falls under a JHA or HRA

Yes, I do perform work that falls under a JHA or HRA

56.36% (465)

43.64% (360)

50 Most Frequently Used Words

safety work nist

hazard

lab employee staff

review issue people

training

safe time

management

building

improve

culture

office

problem

report activity

division

working require

incident

system

group

supervise

process

equipment

level

good

space

better program

job area

focus

concern

research

laboratory

perform things

related

campus

environment

person

maintenance

years

change

Performance Category Themes

2022

Supervisor Engagement No Program Category Employee Involvement Management Commitment Organizational Climate Safety Support Climate Safety Support Activities

100

200

300

400

500

600

Verbatim Comments 858

Please suggest one activity, program, or change that you believe would contribute

most to improving safety at your organization. Describe your idea and the

problem(s) it would solve.

Non-management

Gaithersburg

Directions to go to a particular building and exit out of the NIST center should be clearer.

Sometimes, I have got lost especially in exiting out of the campus

Non-management

Gaithersburg

I do not have one

Non-management

Gaithersburg

I think NIST did a great job on safety. Thanks!

Non-management

Gaithersburg

The ventilation in some offices is not always working so there's not enough air flow. These

offices also don't have windows. The health clinic on the campus is only for federal

employees and not for associates.

Non-management

Gaithersburg

Making the primary safety officer a group leader is probably wrong. With a designated staff

member as safety officer they can focus on the job better as the GL has multiple and

increasing duties that crowd out many tasks. It is also more likely that an employee will

contact a staff member about a problem than the GL - the psychology is different. I realize

that upper management wants a manager to blame for problems, but irony rules.

Non-management

Gaithersburg

In person, regular Division Safety meetings used to be scheduled more often. Subjects

ranged from lab, office, and home safety subjects. I found these to be very informative and

helpful to have a regular time to bring up safety topics. It seems organizational changes and

the in-person work schedule for many over the last few years has affected these meetings. I

think regular division or group meetings on safety would be beneficial.

Non-management

Gaithersburg

Perhaps an annual safety discussion with group leaders to see what can be improved in

working areas and safety protocols that employees can point out.

Non-management

Gaithersburg

Better access to relevant safety related information for particular jobs, such as should

informational videos or training modules, could be a useful resource to ensure individuals

have a concrete understand of the particular safety requirements associated with their

individual lines of work

Non-management

Boulder

Briefly require groups to discuss relevant recent near misses in the regular group meetings.

Non-management

Gaithersburg

Yearly hands-on lab & office walkthrough with the supervisor: - Where is the closest AED?

(!!!!!) (Many people don't know.) - Where is the closest fire extinguisher? - What are the main

hazards to watch out for (e.g. high voltage), how to prevent, what to do if something

happens?

Non-management

Gaithersburg

Allocate more resources for facility maintenance and upgrades.

Non-management

Gaithersburg

Increased building signage listing safety Hazardous and materials for public awareness.

Non-management

Gaithersburg

in my limited time at NIST I have not seen the most basic safety concept: "ask questions"

being encouraged. feels like a robotic environment. I don't have a suggestion of how to

change it. I might be too new to see everything.

Non-management

Gaithersburg

Improved ventilation across all the offices and labs as well as garbage collection of in all the

offices (even those closed ones!) each weekday. Management should assess the ventilation

status and develop a plan to inform the personnel and improve the infrastructure.

Non-management

Verbatim Comments

Contractors 13

Safety Support Activities 493

Recognition/Awards/Incentives (SSA) 13

Safety Meetings (SSA) 32

PPE/Equipment/Repairs (SSA) 84

Safety Programs (SSA) 244

Training (SSA) 114

Safety Personnel Effectiveness (SSA) 45

Safety Committee Effectiveness (SSA) 3

Organizational Climate 145

Communication (OC) 12

Fatigue/Stress/Wellness (OC) 18

Staffing (OC) 60

Employee Morale (OC) 4

Operations (OC) 37

Climate (OC) 7

Compensation (OC) 8

Organizational Structure (OC) 2

Safety Support Climate 331

Public EHS & Sustainability (SSC) 1

Communication (SSC) 39

Environment/Working Conditions (SSC) 185

Safety Priority (SSC) 76

Rules & Enforcement (SSC) 26

Management Sincerity (SSC) 13

COVID-19 22

Employee Involvement 49

Teamwork (EI) 4

Distraction/Impairment (EI) 2

Participation (EI) 43

Supervisor Engagement 39

Accountability (SE) 10

Responsiveness (SE) 13

Involvement (SE) 12

Communication (SE) 5

Management Commitment 86

Involvement (MC) 22

Accountability (MC) 53

Communication (MC) 13

Remote Work 19

No Program Category 44

N/A, No Comment, Other 44

Very negative Negative Mixed Positive Very positive Neutral

Topics Count

Section 21
Results: Industry-Specific Benchmarked Comparisons 

(NAICS 54, 61, and 92) Businesses

The Primary NSC benchmarking should be the central focus for results interpretation and action planning development, however this page will provide

additional insights into how NIST compares to the 156 business from the Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS Sector 54), 

Educational Services (NAICS Sector 61), and Public Administration (NAICS Sector 92) businesses in the NSC Database who have taken the NSC 

Safety Barometer. 

Industry-Specific (NAICS 54, 61, 92) Trends

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS Sector 54), Educational Services (NAICS Sector 61), and Public Administration (NAICS Sector 

92) businesses broadly hold more positive overall perceptions than the comprehensive NSC Database. Performance category perceptions are generally 

higher for these industry-specific sectors in the Supervisor Engagement, Safety Support Climate, and Organizational Climate categories than the 

comprehensive NSC Database. The largest disparity between this industry-specific sector grouping and the other sectors in the NSC Database appears

in Supervisor Engagement, especially related to supervisors behaving in accord with safety job procedures (Q12) and supervisor reducing employees

fear of reporting safety problems (Q43). This industry-specific sector grouping has more positive average response scores in 23 of the 50 standard

items (when compared to most recent NSC Database count of 1,530 businesses). The charts that follow show how NIST compares to these 156 

industry-specific businesses. It is recommended that this data be used as a supplement to the primary NSC benchmarking in action planning.

Overall and Performance Categories

In 2022, scores are higher overall and in four of the six 

performance categories when NIST is compared only to 

industry-specific businesses (NAICS 54, 61, and 92). The 

most substantial change in relative scores was present in 

the Employee Involvement performance category, with a 

difference of -17.3 points or more from the full database 

comparison of 1,530 businesses to the industry-specific 

sector grouping comparison of 156 businesses. The overall 

score when compared to industry-specific businesses is 

69.5, indicating that NIST scored above average when 

compared to industry peers.

Percentile Scores of Performance Categories by Benchmark Group

Industry-Specific All Industries

Management Commitment

Supervisor Engagement

Employee Involvement

Safety Support Activities

Safety Support Climate

Organizational Climate

OVERALL

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

60.5

90.9

68.9

56.0

56.1

72.2

69.5

58.1

86.8

51.6

53.3

58.4

72.6

64.3

Percentile Scores of Performance Categories by Benchmark Group

Management Commitment Supervisor Engagement Employee Involvement Safety Support Activities Safety Support Climate Organizational Climate OVERALL

64.3 All Industries

69.5 Industry-Specific 70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

2022: Top Strengths

When compared with only the industry-specific sector 

grouping (NAICS 54, 61, and 92), many of the top 

strengths are similar to the strengths identified when 

compared to the entire NSC Database. In fact, eight 

components are top strengths in both comparisons. There 

are two components that surface as top performers only in 

this industry-specific comparison: supervisors involvement 

in safety incident investigations (Q44) and the belief that 

management is sincere in safety efforts (Q27). 

Top Strengths - Industry-Specific

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee

safety suggestions (SE)

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with

safe job procedures (SE)

Q44 Supervisors involved safety incident

investigations (SE)

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into

work routine (SE)

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high

safety performance standard (SE)

Q50 Employees taking part in the

development of safety requirements (EI)

Q17 Belief that management does more

than law requires (SSC)

Q27 Belief that management is sincere in

safety efforts (SSC)

Q24 Supervisors understanding

employees job safety problems (SE)

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees

fear of reporting safety problems (SE)

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

94.9

92.0

89.5

86.0

84.5

84.2

84.0

83.8

81.8

81.1

2021: Focus Areas

Focus areas were also similar across both sets of 

benchmarked comparisons. Nine of the bottom ten items 

were identified as improvement opportunities in both 

benchmark comparisons.

The frequency of safety meeting occurrence (Q08) was 

identified as a unique focus area when compared only to 

industry-specific businesses. Interestingly, employees 

following procedures to isolate hazardous energy sources 

(Q25) was a lower-performing item when compared to the 

entire NSC Database but is the twelfth highest performing 

item when compared to industry-specific businesses only.

Focus Areas - Industry-Specific

Q20 Employees using basic precautions

for hazardous materials (EI)

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance

system operation (SSA)

Q23 Safety standards relative to

production/work output standards (SSA)

Q45 Perception that good environmental

conditions are kept (SSC)

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee

(like ESC, SAC, and OU) in improving

safety conditions (SSA)

Q39 Perception that medical resources

are sufficient (SSC)

Q14 Management publishing a policy on

the value of employee safety (MC)

Q21 Management providing adequate

safety staff (MC)

Q08 Frequency of safety meeting

occurrence (SSA)

Q49 Management setting annual safety

goals (MC)

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

9.1

11.2

25.8

26.0

32.3

35.0

38.0

41.4

46.2

46.8

Safety Component Percentile by Benchmark

Q25 Employees following procedures to isolate hazardous energy sources (EI) 38.5 78.5 40.0

Q26 Presence of safety training in new employee onboarding (SSA) 47.9 77.8 29.9

Q49 Management setting annual safety goals (MC) 21.4 46.8 25.4

Q18 Belief that employees understand safety and health regulations (EI) 48.2 69.6 21.4

Q11 Employees believing that their actions can protect coworkers (EI) 49.6 70.5 20.9

Q01 Employees identifying and eliminating hazards (EI) 50.0 70.4 20.4

Q44 Supervisors involved safety incident investigations (SE) 73.3 89.5 16.2

Q15 Thoroughness of near miss incident investigations (SSA) 53.4 68.4 15.0

Q04 Employees being involved in safety and health practices (EI) 45.3 59.0 13.7

Q06 Frequency of detailed and regularly scheduled inspections (SSA) 65.5 78.1 12.6

Q38 Supervisors providing helpful safety training or guidance (SE) 66.3 76.8 10.5

Q35b Perception that the safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety

representative, etc.) has high status (SSC) 53.6 63.4 9.8

Q46 Employees using necessary personal protective equipment (EI) 57.8 65.8 8.0

Q10 Belief that management shows it cares for employee safety (SSC) 69.6 77.5 7.9

Q30 Effectiveness of safety committee (like ESC, SAC, and OU) in improving safety conditions (SSA) 25.4 32.3 6.9

Q42 Stability of workforce (OC) 60.0 66.7 6.7

Q34 Management participating in safety activities on a regular basis (MC) 64.5 70.6 6.1

Q27 Belief that management is sincere in safety efforts (SSC) 77.7 83.8 6.1

Q19 Supervisors enforcing safe job procedures (SE) 70.8 76.5 5.7

Q21 Management providing adequate safety staff (MC) 35.7 41.4 5.7

Q13 Designated employees well trained in emergency practices (SSA) 54.4 59.8 5.4

Q08 Frequency of safety meeting occurrence (SSA) 40.9 46.2 5.3

Q32 Supervisors integrating safety into work routine (SE) 80.8 86.0 5.2

Q37 Employees take part when accident/incident investigations occur (EI) 72.4 77.2 4.8

Q05 Supervisors maintaining a high safety performance standard (SE) 80.0 84.5 4.5

Q17 Belief that management does more than law requires (SSC) 79.6 84.0 4.4

Q48 Belief that management insists supervisors think about safety (SSC) 54.7 59.1 4.4

Q20 Employees using basic precautions for hazardous materials (EI) 5.9 9.1 3.2

Q14 Management publishing a policy on the value of employee safety (MC) 35.9 38.0 2.1

Q41 Availability of safety coordinator (OU safety program coordinator, division safety representative,

etc.) to provide assistance (SSA) 76.4 77.9 1.5

Q16 Condition of employee morale (OC) 79.0 80.5 1.5

Q50 Employees taking part in the development of safety requirements (EI) 83.2 84.2 1.0

Q24 Supervisors understanding employees job safety problems (SE) 81.1 81.8 0.7

Q28 Supervisors acting on employee safety suggestions (SE) 94.8 94.9 0.1

Q22 Effectiveness of award and recognition programs in promoting safe behavior (SSA) 52.4 51.8 -0.6

Q31 Management setting a positive safety example (MC) 72.2 70.7 -1.5

Q12 Supervisors behaving in accord with safe job procedures (SE) 93.6 92.0 -1.6

Q47 Significance of job stress for employees (OC) 79.3 77.1 -2.2

Q39 Perception that medical resources are sufficient (SSC) 37.9 35.0 -2.9

Q07 Management stressing the importance of safety in communications (MC) 82.3 77.7 -4.6

Q43 Supervisors reducing employees fear of reporting safety problems (SE) 87.3 81.1 -6.2

Q02 Frequency of employee/management interactions (OC) 63.8 57.0 -6.8

Q45 Perception that good environmental conditions are kept (SSC) 33.4 26.0 -7.4

Q36 Belief that hazards not fixed right away will still be addressed (SSC) 67.0 58.4 -8.6

Q09 Condition of departmental teamwork (OC) 61.7 53.1 -8.6

Q40 Management including safety in job promotion reviews (MC) 70.6 61.3 -9.3

Q23 Safety standards relative to production/work output standards (SSA) 36.2 25.8 -10.4

Q29 Occurrence of emergency response procedures testing (SSA) 64.2 50.3 -13.9

Q03 Priority of safety relative to productivity (SSC) 66.6 52.1 -14.5

Q33 Quality of preventive maintenance system operation (SSA) 29.7 11.2 -18.5

Group - Standard Questions All Industries

Comparison

Industry-Specific

Comparison

Difference between All Industries Comparison and

Industry-Specific Comparison

Section 22
Conclusions and Path Forward

This page provides you with a narrative overview of your NSC Safety Barometer results along with next steps on your path forward. 

Results Summary 

Your safety culture, as derived by employee perceptions, generally received moderately high ratings on the NSC Safety Barometer survey when 

compared with responses from 1,530 businesses in the NSC Database. Percentile scores for the six safety performance categories range from a

percentile score of 51.6 for Employee Involvement to a percentile score of 86.8 for Supervisor Engagement. All six performance categories had 

percentile scores above the NSC Database average of 50. The overall NSC Safety Barometer percentile score is a score of 64.3 out of 100, meaning 

that your organization scored higher than 64.3% of businesses in NSC Database.

Closer examination shows that your organization scored above the 50th percentile for thirty-six of the 50 standard components (including both variations

of Q35 only counted once). It is generally recommended that safety program components with percentiles less than 50 receive attention. However, the 

ten lowest-scoring components with percentiles at or below 38.5 may be used to establish initial improvement priorities.

Percentile score comparisons between employee status groups showed that non-federal employees generated a higher overall percentile score

compared to federal employees. 

Analysis of tenure groups shows that employees with 21 years or more of tenure held the highest overall average response score, whereas employees

with 1-10 years of tenure generated the least positive overall perceptions. Average response score comparisons by primary work location revealed 

meaningful differences in perception across the board, with employees who indicated 'Other' receiving the highest overall average response score. 

Evaluation by organizational unit showed that Office of Advanced Manufacturing held the most positive overall perceptions while the Office of Safety, 

Health, and Environment held the least positive overall perceptions. Across divisions, employees from the Public Safety Communications Research

Division generally held the most positive perceptions, while Facilities Services Division generated the lowest overall score. Among roles, managers and

supervisors reported more positive perceptions than non-management. Between work status groups, both groups generated similar overall scores but

showed differences in performance category perceptions. The more groups interact and communicate the more similar their perceptions become 

concerning common issues. A shared perspective greatly aids management in effectively driving safety program improvements.

It is recommended that you use these results as a guide for making continuous safety improvements. The data presented in this report can also be used 

to measure future progress. Employee involvement in the NSC Safety Barometer process is an important example of employees taking responsibility

for the success of the safety management system and ultimately developing and maintaining a positive safety culture. Communications efforts by 

leadership should be made as soon as possible to follow-up with employees. Thanking employees, communicating results of the survey, and involving 

employees in the decision making process are fundamental aspects of a healthy safety culture.

Path Forward - Action Planning

NSC recommends to use these results as a catalyst and guide for making future safety management system improvements. 

Leadership

Each focus area identified should be examined by leadership using a three-step process to: 

. investigate, discuss, and understand why the areas might have been identified as lower scoring priorities by survey respondents

. decide whether attention to each candidate priority component aligns with broader cultural and strategic initiatives of the organization

. select and implement specific action-oriented strategies for focus areas that are systemic or demand leadership action (e.g., Management

Commitment components or areas that require substantial resources)

Employee-led Action Planning Teams

In order to maximize use of survey results, engage in employee-led action planning that that will strengthen safety at your organization. Effective action 

plan development and management is key to real and sustained workplace safety improvement. Strong communication, timely action in response to

employee-identified priorities, and involvement from leadership and employees are essential to your success.

Build a team or teams of employees, supervisors, and leadership to interpret the survey results with the same three-step process described above

Engage to develop, champion, and execute SMART action plans

Monitor action plans and create timetable for measuring success through resurveying

Action Planning Teams should include a cross-section of employees from all levels and departments of the organization. This will allow for diverse 

perspectives and representatives from multiple teams to be part of the process, while also increasing interdepartmental cooperation.

Section 23