Employer-based work injury 

recordkeeping: Data from four states

Sara Wuellner

2015 ASA/NSF/BLS Research Fellow

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 

Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention (SHARP) Program

Polly Phipps

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Office of Survey Methods Research

ASA/NSF/BLS Fellowship Final Report

March, 2017

This research was conducted with restricted access to BLS data. 

The views here do not necessarily reflect the views of the BLS.
i 
ii

Acknowledgements 

Funding for the study was provided in part by the ASA/NSF/BLS Fellowship program.

The authors wish to thank the researchers from Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and 

Washington who collaborated on survey design and were instrumental in data collection: 

Brian Zaidman, Bill Boyers, Karen Cummings, Nathan Johnson, and David Bonauto. 

Additionally, they gratefully acknowledge the statistical guidance provided by BLS staff 

including Brooks Pierce, Patrick Bobbitt, and Daniell Toth, and the thoughtful comments 

from Jeffrey Gonzalez on an earlier draft. The authors assume full responsibility for any 

errors that may be present in the report. 

This research was conducted with restricted access to BLS data. The views here do not 

necessarily reflect the views of the BLS.
iii
iv

Contents 

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ v

List of Figures (classification trees) ............................................................................................................ vii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ ES-1

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

2 Methods................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Survey design ................................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Sample selection ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Data collection .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.4 Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 4

3 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Response rates ............................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Establishment characteristics based on survey responses ............................................................. 9

3.2.1 Workers’ compensation, union workforce, OSHA exemption ............................................. 9

3.2.2 Participant recordkeeping and reporting experience ............................................................. 9

3.2.3 Establishment use of workplace injury and illness data ...................................................... 11

3.3 Compliance with OSHA recordkeeping requirements ................................................................ 13

3.3.1 Estimates of compliance by state ........................................................................................ 13

3.3.2 Characteristics associated with noncompliant recording practices ..................................... 18

3.4 Sources of workplace injury and illness data .............................................................................. 25

3.4.1 Estimates of data source use by state .................................................................................. 25

3.4.2 Characteristics associated with use of workers’ compensation data for OSHA and SOII .. 28

3.5 Knowledge of OSHA recordkeeping requirements .................................................................... 32

3.5.1 Estimates of OSHA recordkeeping knowledge by state ..................................................... 32

3.5.2 Characteristics associated with OSHA recordkeeping knowledge ..................................... 34

3.6 OSHA recordkeeping knowledge by compliance ....................................................................... 37

3.7 Classification trees ...................................................................................................................... 41

3.7.1 Classification trees: Compliance with OSHA recordkeeping regulations .......................... 41

3.7.2 Classification trees: Knowledge of OSHA recordkeeping regulations ............................... 41

3.7.3 Classification trees: Participants trained in OSHA recordkeeping requirements ................ 43

4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 53

5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 55

References ................................................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix: Worker estimates ....................................................................................................................... 57
v 

List of Tables

Table 1. Response rate by state.................................................................................... 7 

Table 2. Response rate by state and select establishment characteristics.................................... 8 

Table 3. Establishment and record-keeper characteristics by state, based on survey 

responses................................................................................................. 10 

Table 4. Establishment use of workplace injury and illness data by state................................. 12 

Table 5. Workplace injury and illness recordkeeping practices by state................................... 15 

Table 6. Reliance on temporary workers obtained through a staffing agency and reporting of injuries 

among such workers by state...........................................................................17 

Table 7. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratio for no logs maintained by establishment..................19 

Table 8. Adjusted odds ratio for noncompliant OSHA recordkeeping practices......................... 21 

Table 8-A. Adjusted odds ratio for state*trained interaction term for use of noncompliant case 

definition................................................................................................................................. 22 

Table 9. Adjusted odds ratio for omitting temporary worker injuries from host establishment’s injury 

and illness reports....................................................................................... 24 

Table 10. Source of OSHA log information by state........................................................... 25 

Table 11. Source of SOII data by state........................................................................... 27 

Table 12. Adjusted odds ratios for use of workers’ compensation claims data for OSHA log .......... 29 

Table 13. Adjusted odds ratios for use of data other than OSHA for completing SOII................... 31 

Table 14. Responses to hypothetical recordkeeping scenarios by state..................................... 33 

Table 15. Adjusted odds ratios for incorrect responses to hypothetical OSHA recordkeeping 

scenarios..................................................................................................35 

Table 15-A. Adjusted odds ratios for state*trained interaction terms for incorrect responses to two 

hypothetical OSHA recordkeeping scenarios....................................................... 36 

Table 16. Answers to hypothetical recording scenarios by whether or not OSHA logs were maintained 

for the establishment.................................................................................... 37 

Table 17. Answers to hypothetical recording scenarios by compliant and non-compliant case criteria 

for determining log eligibility......................................................................... 38 

Table 18. Answers to hypothetical recording scenarios by compliant and non-compliant timing of case 

recording................................................................................................. 39 
vi

Table 19. Answers to hypothetical recording scenarios by compliant and non-compliant methods of 

counting days of missed work........................................................................ 40 

Tables in the Appendix (Worker Estimates)

Table A-1. Estimated workers at establishments by select establishment and record-keeper 

characteristics............................................................................................57 

Table A-2. Estimated workers at establishments by use of injury and illness data in establishment 

performance measures..................................................................................58 

Table A-3. Estimated workers at establishments by OSHA recordkeeping compliance.................... 59 

Table A-4. Estimated workers at establishments by source of OSHA injury and illness data, among 

establishments where OSHA log maintained by the study participant........................... 60 

Table A-5. Estimated workers at establishments by source of SOII data, among establishments where 

the study participant completed SOII................................................................ 60 

Table A-6. Estimated workers at establishments by OSHA recordkeeping knowledge, as assessed by 

correct responses to hypothetical recordkeeping scenarios........................................ 61 
vii

List of Figures (classification trees)

Figure 1. Compliance with requirement to maintain OSHA logs, by establishment 

characteristic............................................................................................. 44 

Figure 2. Compliance with use of OSHA case criteria, by establishment characteristic.................. 45 

Figure 3. Compliance with counting calendar days of missed work, by establishment 

characteristic.............................................................................................46 

Figure 4. Knowledge of requirement to record work injury resulting in stitches, by establishment 

characteristic.............................................................................................. 47 

Figure 5. Knowledge of requirement to record work injury resulting from horseplay, by establishment 

characteristic............................................................................................. 48 

Figure 6. Knowledge that cases limited to diagnostic services are not required to be recorded, by 

establishment characteristic........................................................................... 49 

Figure 7. Knowledge that weekend days are counted as missed work, by establishment 

characteristic............................................................................................. 50 

Figure 8. Knowledge that OSHA logs are updated to reflect delayed or eventual work absence, by 

establishment characteristic............................................................................51 

Figure 9. Establishments with trained record-keepers, by establishment characteristic.................. 52
ES-1 

Executive Summary

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In publishing annual estimates of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses for the US and most states, 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides a key data source for monitoring the burden of workplace 

injuries across the country. Estimates are based on employer-reported data, collected through the Survey 

of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII). Employers sampled for participation in SOII are instructed 

to submit data based on their OSHA injury and illness records. Compared to other sources of occupational 

injury data, employers appear to underreport cases in SOII. Recent research identified several 

noncompliant employer-based work injury recordkeeping practices that may contribute to underreporting, 

but did not estimate the extent of the recordkeeping errors. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of 

compliant and noncompliant recordkeeping practices in several states, and to characterize practices by 

establishment and record-keeper characteristics.

METHODS

A follow-back telephone survey was conducted in 2013-2014 with 3,342 SOII respondents in four states 

– Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Washington – to gather data on employer-based work injury 

recordkeeping practices. Participant recruitment and survey administration were conducted at the state 

level; survey responses were aggregated for analysis. We estimated state-wide prevalence of: compliance 

with OSHA and SOII reporting requirements; sources of employer injury data (e.g., workers’ 

compensation claims data and OSHA injury and illness records); and knowledge of OSHA injury and 

illness recordkeeping requirements. Patterns in employer recordkeeping were explored through regression 

analyses. 

RESULTS 

Few participants were experienced workplace injury and illness record-keepers. 

• 19% participated in SOII in multiple years (four states combined, no difference by state). 

• 22% received formal OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping training (four states combined, no 

difference by state). 

• Participants with at least one year of OSHA recordkeeping experience ranged from one-third in 

New York, one half in Minnesota and Washington, and two-thirds in Oregon. 

COMPLIANCE WITH OSHA INJURY AND ILLNESS RECORDING REQUIREMENTS

OSHA 300 logs were maintained in less than half of establishments in any of the four states. Among 

establishments with logs, compliance was greatest for recording cases within the seven-day requirement, 

and less so for use of the OSHA case definition to determine eligibility and counting calendar days an 

injured worker was unable to work. Establishments were least compliant with the requirement to record 

injuries among temporary help workers hired through staffing agencies. Percentages of compliant 

establishments differed by state. Although New York had the lowest percent of establishments that 
Executive Summary

ES-2 

maintained OSHA logs, New York log-maintaining establishments reported the highest percent of 

compliant recording practices. 

• The percent of establishments with OSHA 300 logs ranged from 29% in New York to 48% in 

Oregon. 

• Among establishments maintaining logs: 

o Recording cases within seven days ranged from 59% of Washington establishments to 

85% of New York establishments.

o The OSHA recordable case definition was used by as little 30% of establishments in 

Washington and as much as 58% of establishments in New York. 

o Counting calendar days of work disability occurred in 29% of Oregon establishments to 

58% of New York establishments.

o Establishments where injuries among temporary workers obtained through a staffing 

agency would be included on the host’s OSHA log ranged from 17% in Minnesota to 

39% in New York. 

Controlling for establishment and record-keeper characteristics, the following characteristics were 

associated with noncompliant OSHA recording practices, based on logistic regression models controlling 

for establishment and record-keeper characteristics: 

Characteristics associated with absent OSHA logs: 

• 10 or fewer employees 

• Leisure and Hospitality industry

• Private or state-funded workers’ compensation insurance (vs. self-insured)

• Single-site employers

• Respondents whose SOII participation was limited to a single survey year (first-time respondent) 

• 0 recordable cases reported in SOII

• Washington and Oregon establishments usually exempt from maintaining OSHA injury records 

(compared to non-exempt establishments within each respective state)

• New York establishments required to maintain OSHA records annually regardless of SOII 

participation (compared to non-exempt establishments in other states)

Factors associated with noncompliance with the recordable case definition differed from the factors 

associated with noncompliance with the rules for counting days of disability.

Among establishments with OSHA logs, use of the OSHA case definition was less likely among: 

• Respondents whose SOII participation was limited to a single survey year (first time respondent)

• Minnesota and New York respondents with no recordkeeping training (compared to trained 

respondents within each respective state)

• Untrained record-keepers in Minnesota, New York, and Washington (compared to untrained 

Oregon record-keepers) 

• Trained record-keepers in Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington (compared to trained New York 

record-keepers) 
Executive Summary

ES-3 

Establishments that disclosed OSHA injury and illness data in competitive bids for contract work 

were more likely to use the OSHA recordable case definition

Among establishments with OSHA logs, counting calendar days away from work was less likely

among:

• Record-keepers with ≤1 year of OSHA recordkeeping experience 

• Single-site employers

• Nonunion workforce 

• Private or state-funded workers’ compensation insurance (vs. self-insured)

• Record-keepers with no formal OSHA recordkeeping training 

• Establishments with 11-249 employees (compared to larger establishments)

SOURCES OF EMPLOYER INJURY DATA REPORTED IN SOII

Despite instructions to report OSHA injury and illness records for SOII, less than half of establishments 

in any of the four states reported using OSHA data for SOII. Additionally, the source of SOII data 

reported by employers varied by state. Among participants who recalled responding to SOII:

• OSHA data was used in as little as 22% of New York establishments to as much as 49% of 

Oregon establishments

• Use of workers’ compensation data, in the absence of OSHA data, ranged from 10% of 

Minnesota and Oregon establishments to 19% of New York establishments

• Internal company data that was neither OSHA data nor workers’ compensation data was used in 

6% of Oregon establishments, 20%-23% of Minnesota and Washington establishments, and 54% 

of New York establishments 

• It is unclear what data sources were used in the more than one-third of establishments in 

Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington that claimed to have no injuries, used some other source not 

classified as OSHA, WC, or internal, or didn’t know what data were used. 

Controlling for establishment and record-keeper characteristics, the following characteristics were 

associated with reporting workers’ compensation claims data instead of OSHA injury data in SOII, based 

on an adjusted logistic regression model: 

• New York establishments

• Single-site employers

• Record-keepers with no formal OSHA recordkeeping training 

• Record-keeper with ≤1 year of OSHA recordkeeping experience 

• Establishments usually exempt from OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping based on industry 

• Record-keepers whose job performance evaluation is not based on OSHA injury data. 
Executive Summary

ES-4 

KNOWLEDGE OF OSHA INJURY AND ILLNESS RECORDING REQUIREMENTS

Based on responses to hypothetical recordkeeping scenarios, most participants: considered all incidents 

recordable even when they did not meet the OSHA case criteria; indicated that they would update the 

OSHA log as a case develops over time; and would limit the number of days of missed work to scheduled 

shifts. Correct responses for each of the five scenarios are as follows (estimated prevalence did not differ 

by state):

• 70% of establishments would record injuries resulting in stitches

• 68% of establishments would record injuries resulting from horseplay

• 68% of establishments would update the OSHA log with days of missed work that did not occur 

until a week after the initial injury

• 27% of establishments would count an unscheduled weekend as days of missed work 

• 22% of establishments would omit from the log a case limited to diagnostic services

The large percentages of incorrect responses to the questions about counting unscheduled weekend days 

and omitting diagnostic services from the log suggest that many SOII respondents are potentially overreporting minor cases (those limited to diagnostic services) and underreporting cases involving days of 

missed work as well as the duration of missed work.

Controlling for establishment and record-keeper characteristics, the following characteristics were 

associated with incorrect responses to at least three of the five recordkeeping scenarios based on adjusted 

logistic regression models: 

• Establishments in Administrative Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services + 

Other Services

• Respondents with no formal OSHA recordkeeping training 

• Washington establishments

• Record-keepers with ≤1 year of OSHA recordkeeping experience 

• 0 recordable cases reported in SOII 

Disclosure of OSHA injury and illness data in competitive bids for contract work was associated with 

correct responses to three scenarios, including the two more challenging questions answered 

incorrectly by most participants (i.e., counting weekend days as missed work and omitting cases 

limited to diagnostic services).

CONCLUSIONS

While some workplace injury and illness record-keepers at SOII-participating establishments exhibit 

comprehensive knowledge of the injury and illness recording requirements, many record-keepers possess 

a limited understanding of those requirements. Misperceptions of the reporting requirements suggest that 

many establishments over-report minor cases yet under-report duration of work disability and the number 

of cases involving disability. Underreporting cases involving missed work is particularly relevant for 

SOII data as DAFW cases are the basis of injury and illness estimates by worker and injury characteristics 

(e.g., age of injured worker, nature of injury, body part injured).

Knowledge of and compliance with OSHA injury reporting requirements differed by establishment and 

record-keeper characteristics. Participants with minimal OSHA recordkeeping knowledge and 

noncompliant recordkeeping practices share many of the same characteristics of participants who use data 
Executive Summary

ES-5 

other than OSHA data when completing SOII. State differences in recordkeeping practices and 

knowledge persisted after controlling for establishment and record-keeper characteristics. While state 

differences such as OSHA activity or workers’ compensation systems may contribute to recordkeeping 

patterns at the state level, state-based survey administration procedures for this survey may also explain 

observed differences.

The accuracy of the BLS estimates of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses is dependent on the 

quality of the data reported by employers. Since record-keeper characteristics were found to be associated 

with better compliance and knowledge, focusing on SOII respondents may be an effective means of 

improving data accuracy, including: identification of first time SOII respondents (individuals, not 

establishments) and increased communication between the SOII data collection staff and all respondents 

throughout the survey period to facilitate an improved understanding of the reporting requirements; 

enrollment of establishments in SOII for a multi-year period instead of one year to increase familiarity 

with recordkeeping; and development and dissemination of effective training materials, in collaboration 

with OSHA, that address common recordkeeping misperceptions. 
ES-6 
1 

1 Introduction

Data that quantify and characterize work-related injuries and illnesses are fundamental to workplace 

injury prevention efforts by informing the prioritization, implementation, and evaluation of such efforts. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides an important source of occupational health and safety data, 

publishing annual estimates of nonfatal work-related injuries and illnesses for the US and most states. 

BLS estimates are based on employer-reported data, collected from a sample of establishments through 

the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII). Sampled employers are instructed to submit data 

based on their OSHA injury and illness records, with detailed worker and injury data collected on more 

serious injuries, defined as those involving one or more days of missed work (Wiatrowski, 2014). 

Research suggests that, compared to other sources of occupational injury data, employers underreport 

missed work cases in SOII (Boden and Ozonoff, 2008; Rosenman et al., 2006). Additional studies have 

identified systematic biases in reporting, with greater underreporting found for difficult to diagnosis nonacute conditions (Nestoriak and Pierce, 2009), Hispanic workers (Dong et al., 2011), and larger 

establishments in high hazard industries as well as smaller establishments in less hazardous industries 

(Wuellner et al., 2016). Finally, based on the findings from a study comparing SOII cases to workers’ 

compensation claims in six states (Boden, 2014), and another study comparing nonfatal SOII data to fatal 

workplace injury data for all SOII participating states (Mendeloff and Burns, 2013), underreporting of 

SOII eligible cases may be greater in some states than others.

In an effort to better understand the injury and illness data submitted by employers for SOII, recent 

studies have focused on the workplace injury recordkeeping practices of SOII respondents to explore 

whether respondents follow the OSHA injury and illness recording regulations during their participation 

in SOII as instructed. Interviews with SOII respondents have identified recordkeeping practices 

noncompliant with the OSHA regulations including: use of eligibility criteria other than the OSHA 

recordable case criteria; failure to accurately assess and document case severity and update records to 

reflect changes in the case; and an absence of workplace injury and illness records in any form (Phipps 

and Moore, 2010; Rappin et al., 2016; Wuellner and Bonauto, 2014). Although these studies identified 

recordkeeping errors that impact the accuracy of SOII data, they were not designed to estimate the extent 

of such practices, nor were they designed to identify patterns in recordkeeping errors by establishment 

characteristics. 

Establishment differences in recordkeeping errors may arise from, among other reasons, the frequency of 

recordkeeping activities and the use and oversight of the establishment injury and illness data. For 

example, record-keepers in establishments with few injuries and infrequent opportunities to apply their 

recordkeeping knowledge may possess a poor understanding of the reporting requirements, while recordkeepers in establishments with greater recording needs (i.e., more frequent injuries) or where the injury 

data are used internally to evaluate job performance or award prizes may have a greater familiarity with 

the requirements. Unions, having the right to review workplace OSHA injury and illness records, may 

provide oversight of the records and notify the employer of any inaccuracies identified while recordkeepers may take steps to improve their recording skills, knowing that the union will be reviewing the 

injury records.
Introduction 

2 

This study, building on previous research into the workplace injury recordkeeping practices of SOII 

respondents, aims to: 

• Estimate state-wide occurrence of compliant and noncompliant OSHA injury and illness 

recordkeeping practices and correct and erroneous OSHA recordkeeping knowledge

o Estimates of compliant practices: section 3.3.1 

o Estimates of knowledge: section 3.5.1 

• Identify establishment and record-keeper characteristics associated with compliance and 

knowledge 

o Characteristics associated with compliant practices: section 3.3.2

o Characteristics associated with knowledge: section 3.5.2

• Assess patterns in recordkeeping compliance and knowledge by state independent of 

establishment characteristics

o State comparisons of compliant practices: section 3.3.2

o State comparisons of knowledge: section 3.5.2 

• Identify sources of workplace injury and illness data that may be submitted for SOII 

o Sources of establishment work-related injury data: section 3.4 

To address these aims, we analyzed telephone survey data collected from SOII respondents in several 

states. Survey questions assessed workplace injury recordkeeping knowledge and practices among 

establishments whose data are used in BLS estimates of occupational injuries and illnesses. 
3 

2 Methods

Details on the survey design, sample selection, and data collection are provided in the final reports 

prepared by each of the four states, available on the BLS’s Undercount Research webpage.

1 They are 

summarized below. 

2.1 Survey design 

In collaboration with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, occupational safety and health researchers from the 

Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, New York State Department of Health, Oregon 

Department of Consumer and Business Services, and Washington State Department of Labor and 

Industries developed a telephone questionnaire to assess workplace injury recordkeeping knowledge and 

practices among SOII respondents. Largely patterned after similar survey tools used in semi-structured 

interviews (Phipps and Moore, 2010; Wuellner and Bonauto, 2014), the 30-minute telephone 

questionnaire was adapted for quantitative survey data collection by framing questions as Yes/No or 

multiple choice responses. The questionnaire included a core set of seven topic areas: 1. Establishment

demographics, 2. Employee roles in workplace injury and illness records, 3. Establishment processes for 

tracking workplace injuries and illnesses, 4. OSHA recordkeeping practices, 5. SOII reporting practices, 

6. Establishment use of workplace injury and illness data, and 7. Hypothetical recordkeeping scenarios. 

Each state’s survey included the core set of questions, plus a limited number of state-specific questions.

2.2 Sample selection 

The study sample was selected from each state’s population of SOII respondents (i.e., establishments that 

submitted data for SOII and used in final BLS estimates of occupational injuries and illnesses). BLS 

provided guidance on selecting establishments that allowed for inference to each state’s SOII-eligible 

population while accommodating state-specific research aims. Each state stratified the SOII establishment 

micro data by ownership, NAICS industry sector, and size group.2 Washington oversampled small 

establishments in high hazard industries; the other three states sampled proportionally from the strata. 

Minnesota and Oregon selected establishments from the 2010 and 2011 SOII data, while New York and 

Washington limited selection to the 2011 SOII data. Establishments were randomly selected from each 

sample cell, and weighted to be proportional to the state distribution. Final survey weights were adjusted 

for non-response (by industry, size, and ownership), and, in Washington, for oversampling.

2.3 Data collection 

Like sample selection, participant recruitment and survey administration procedures were developed 

jointly but executed independently by each state. Using the SOII contact data to reach sampled 

establishments, states sent an introductory letter via email or postal mail, and followed up with a phone 

call. The survey was conducted with the individual listed in the SOII contact data as the SOII respondent 

or, if unavailable, the person currently responsible for the establishment’s occupational injury and illness 

recordkeeping. 

Study participants were informed that participation was voluntary, and consent was obtained verbally in 

three states; in Minnesota, the IRB determined that the study was exempt and informed consent was thus 

 

1 See http://www.bls.gov/iif/undercount.htm 2 There were slight differences in how each state grouped ownership, industry, and size class, e.g., depending on 

the state, ownership was defined as two groups (1. Private; 2. State + local government combined), or as three 

groups (1. Private; 2. State government; 3. Local government). Details can be found in the state reports, available 

at: http://www.bls.gov/iif/undercount.htm#p2 
Methods 

4 

not required. In addition to approval from the Washington State IRB (which approved both the 

Washington and Oregon study sites) and the New York State IRB, study approval was also obtained from 

the Office of Management and Budget.

Telephone interviews were conducted in 2013-2014. Survey responses collected by each state were 

aggregated at BLS for analysis. Aggregation allowed for increased statistical power to detect differences 

in recordkeeping practices by respondent or establishment characteristics. 

2.4 Analysis 

Categorical variables for establishment size, industry and ownership were collapsed to the least detailed 

sample group defined by any one state. Industry was collapsed further to increase cell sizes for the 

analysis.

For the time period that included the telephone survey data collection, exemption status from annual 

OSHA injury and illness recordkeeping (requiring certain establishments to maintain records only when 

asked to do so by OSHA or by BLS for participation in SOII) was based on Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) system codes; however, establishment SIC codes are not captured in SOII data and 

were not otherwise available for this study. Instead, North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) codes were used as a proxy indicator of partial exemption status at the time of the telephone 

survey. Establishments were classified as partially exempt based on the NAICS codes used by OSHA to 

define exemption status effect January 1, 2015.3

 The OSHA definition was applied to all establishments 

and did not account for state-specific exemption regulations in Minnesota, where all establishments are 

required to maintain injury records regardless of industry,

4

 and Washington, where health care offices, 

public schools and libraries join the list of industries required to maintain annual OSHA injury records.5

 

Based on a review of the completed survey elements, it was determined that individual missing values 

should have been recorded by the interviewer as “Don’t know”. In general, missing values were grouped 

with DK responses in the analysis. “Don’t know” responses were grouped with incorrect or noncompliant responses.

The survey included several skip patterns (e.g., some survey participants did not maintain OSHA injury 

and illness records and were therefore skipped out of the section related to OSHA recording practices). 

Certain analyses were limited to subgroups of establishments to account for the skip patterns.

Frequency tables were constructed using the SAS surveyfreq procedure to account for the sample design. 

The domain statement was used to analyze subpopulations (e.g., recordkeeping practices among 

establishments that use temporary workers obtained through a staffing agency). The Rao-Scott chi-square 

was used to test the association between variables. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. 

Tabulations presented in the main body of the report are based on estimated numbers of establishments. 

The appendix provides tabulations for select outcomes based on estimated numbers of workers. 

Logistic regression models were used to identify associations between recordkeeping practices and 

establishment characteristics, and were estimated using the SAS surveylogistic procedure, using the 

domain statement to conduct analyses of subpopulations. Outcomes included in the regression models 

were defined as compliant vs. non-compliant practices, and correct answers to the hypothetical 

recordkeeping scenario vs. incorrect. Binomial outcomes were preferred based on sample size 

 

3 See https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/ppt1/RK1exempttable.html accessed on March 30, 2016. 4 See http://www.dli.mn.gov/osha/FedState.asp accessed on June 28, 2016. 5 See http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=296-27-00105 accessed on March 20, 2013. 
Methods 

5 

considerations. Unadjusted and adjusted models were estimated for each aspect of recordkeeping 

compliance and hypothetical recording scenario. In the interest of brevity, unadjusted odds ratios are only 

presented for one aspect of recordkeeping compliance; adjusted odds ratios are presented for each 

outcome, and control for establishment and record-keeper characteristics. 

Classification trees were developed to create groups of establishments with similar recordkeeping 

practices. Trees were generated from the Classification and Regression Tree (CART) algorithm using the 

rpart program in R and unweighted survey data. 

Establishment characteristics evaluated for associations with recordkeeping practices included: state, 

ownership, industry, number of employees, number of worksites, OSHA total recordable injury and 

illness rate (as reported in SOII), workers’ compensation insurer, unionized workforce, and OSHA 

recordkeeping exemption status. Record-keeper characteristics included: prior SOII experience, years of 

OSHA recordkeeping experience, and whether or not they had been trained on OSHA recordkeeping 

regulations. Establishment uses of OSHA injury and illness data included: a measure of the recordkeeper’s job performance, a measure of supervisors’ job performance, a measure of worker performance 

in workplace safety incentive programs, and a component of competitive bid packages for contract work. 

By estimating the magnitude of noncompliant recordkeeping practices among SOII respondents in four 

states, and by identifying within and between state differences in recordkeeping practices and knowledge, 

the analyses presented here address the questions posed in my ASA/NFS/BLS fellowship proposal.
6 
Results: Response rates

7 

3 Results 

3.1 Response rates 

Response rates were calculated as the percent of establishments that participated in the telephone survey 

out of the total number of sampled establishments still in business at the time of contact.

There were significant differences in participation by state, size class, industry class, and reported cases of 

occupational injuries. Among the four states, Oregon saw the highest participation (70%), whereas there 

was little difference among the remaining three states, where approximately half of establishments 

participated (table 1). Table 2 presents response rates by state and establishment characteristics. Larger 

establishments were more likely to participate compared with smaller establishments. By industry, 

participation was lower among Retail Trade and higher among State and Local Government. 

Establishments that reported any cases in SOII were more likely to participate compared with 

establishments that reported zero total cases, or zero cases with days away from work (DAFW). Patterns 

of participation by establishment characteristics were similar across the four states.

Table 1. Response rate by state (unweighted establishment data). 

MN NY OR WA

Total establishments sampled 1204 1500 2077 1506

Participating establishments 581 690 1368 701

Non-responding establishments 528 743 583 716

Out of business establishments 95 67 126 89

Response rate by state 52% 48% 70% 49%

Note: Response rate = (number of participating establishments/(Total establishments sampled – out of 

business establishments)*100%
Results: Response rates

8 

Table 2. Response rate by state and select establishment characteristics (unweighted establishment data). 

MN NY OR WA

Size

1-10 employees 32% 37% 60% 46%

11-49 employees 54% 44% 65% 47%

50-249 employees 61% 52% 76% 47%

250+ employees 60% 51% 80% 60%

Industry

Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 54% 28% 62% 46%

Wholesale Trade + Transp, Warehousing + Utilities 47% 57% 74% 46%

Manufacturing 58% 48% 69% 48%

Retail Trade 37% 36% 75% 35%

Information, Financial, Real Estate, Prof, Mgmt Svc 43% 42% 59% 43%

Admin, Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation + Oth 

Svc 49% 33% 62% 46%

Education + Health Care, Social Assistance 48% 54% 70% 56%

Leisure and Hospitality 48% 48% 64% 44%

State and Local Government 69% 62% 91% 70%

Total OSHA recordable case ratea

0 cases 42% 43% 62% 45%

1+ cases 63% 52% 76% 52%

DAFW case ratea

0 cases 46% 45% 65% 46%

1+ cases 64% 51% 79% 53% a

Based on SOII data reported by establishment.
Results: Establishment demographics 

9 

3.2 Establishment characteristics based on survey responses 

Table 3 presents establishment and record-keeper characteristics by state. (See Appendix for tabulations 

based on estimated number of workers.)

3.2.1 Workers’ compensation, union workforce, OSHA exemption

There were substantial differences in workers’ compensation insurer by state: in Minnesota, over twothirds of establishments had coverage through a private insurer, in Oregon and New York approximately 

one-third of establishments has private insurance, and in Washington an estimated 1% had private 

insurance (although, given the state’s monopolistic WC system, this was likely a self-insured 

establishment whose claims were managed by a third party administrator). Conversely, the percent of 

state funded establishment ranged from less than 10% in Minnesota to almost 90% in Washington. Selfinsured establishments were least common in Washington (4%) and most common in New York (18%). 

The estimated percent of establishments where some portion of the workforce was unionized was similar 

across the four states (7%).

Based on OSHA’s NAICS-based list of establishments partially exempt from OSHA recordkeeping, half 

of the establishments across all four states are required to maintain OSHA injury and illness records only

when selected for SOII. (Provisions for establishment size likely increase the number of establishments 

partially exempt from OSHA recordkeeping.) 

3.2.2 Participant recordkeeping and reporting experience

For many study participants, the SOII year from which the telephone survey sample was drawn (i.e., 2010 

or 2011, depending on the state) was the first time they participated in the SOII. In three of the four states, 

this represented approximately 40% of establishments, while participants from an estimated 20% of 

establishments were SOII respondents for multiple years. Participants in the remaining establishments did 

not complete the SOII (generally, these were new hires and had not been responsible for recordkeeping 

during SOII data collection) or did not know if they were first-time or repeat SOII respondents. 

In any state, few participants had received formal training on the OSHA recordkeeping requirements; 

trained record-keepers were present in an estimated 22% of all establishments. 

The years of OSHA recordkeeping experience differed by state, although percentages suggested limited 

experience among most establishment record-keepers. New York had the least amount of OSHA 

recordkeeping experience (67% of establishments were represented by a study participant with less than 

one year of experience, and 11% by a participant with ten or more years of experience), and Oregon 

establishments were most experienced (33% of establishments were represented by a study participant 

with less than one year of experience and 32% by a participant with ten or more years of experience). 

Most participants with less than one year of experience had, in fact, no OSHA recordkeeping experience 

and did not maintain any OSHA Injury and illness records. 
Results: Establishment demographics 

10

Table 3. Establishment and record-keeper characteristics by state, based on survey responses.

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 581 690 1368 701 3340

Estimated establishments 179,391 342,596 216,152 131,395 869,533

Establishment demographics

Workers' compensation insurer

Private 71.7 (5.1) 30.2 (5.5) 32.4 (3.6) 1.1 (0.5) 34.9 (2.7) <0.0001

Self-insured 14.4 (2.7) 18.3 (4.8) 6.9 (1.5) 4.0 (0.9) 12.5 (2.0)

State funded 7.7 (3.5) 27.5 (5.5) 46.9 (3.6) 87.9 (2.9) 37.4 (2.8)

Other 6.3 (3.6) 23.9 (5.7) 13.8 (2.7) 7.0 (2.7) 15.2 (2.6)

Unionized workforce

Yes 7.1 (1.4) 8.4 (2.3) 4.8 (0.6) 4.3 (0.7) 6.6 (0.9) 0.0935

No 92.9 (1.4) 91.6 (2.3) 95.2 (0.6) 95.7 (0.7) 93.4 (0.9)

Exempt from OSHA recordkeepinga

Partially exempt 39.8 (5.3) 56.3 (6.1) 49.0 (3.4) 52.1 (4.9) 50.5 (2.8) 0.1285

Required annually 60.2 (5.3) 43.7 (6.1) 51.0 (3.4) 47.9 (4.9) 49.5 (2.8)

Survey participant recordkeeping experience

SOII experience

First time 41.8 (5.6) 23.8 (4.8) 40.8 (3.6) 44.4 (5.3) 34.8 (2.7) <0.0001

Repeat 18.8 (3.6) 21.1 (4.3) 14.5 (2.5) 22.7 (3.7) 19.2 (2.0)

Did Not Complete SOII 16.3 (4.2) 32.3 (6.1) 15.2 (2.3) 4.5 (1.9) 20.5 (2.8)

DK + Other 23.1 (5.1) 22.8 (5.8) 29.5 (3.3) 28.4 (4.7) 25.4 (2.7)

OSHA recordkeeping training received by the participant or the person responsible for the OSHA records

Yes 26.5 (4.6) 18.7 (4.3) 24.8 (3.1) 20.4 (3.6) 22.1 (2.2) 0.1922

No 64.5 (5.3) 66.7 (6.3) 71.0 (3.3) 71.6 (4.3) 68.1 (2.9)

DK 9.0 (3.5) 14.6 (5.9) 4.2 (1.6) 8.0 (2.5) 9.8 (2.6)

Years of OSHA recordkeeping experience

<=1 year 53.0 (5.5) 67.4 (5.4) 33.0 (3.5) 48.0 (5.3) 52.9 (2.9) <0.0001

2 - 9 years 23.3 (4.0) 21.3 (5.0) 28.1 (3.3) 23.5 (3.5) 23.7 (2.3)

10+ years 23.7 (4.2) 10.9 (2.5) 32.0 (3.3) 23.5 (4.1) 20.7 (1.8)

DK . (.) 0.5 (0.3) 7.0 (2.0) 5.0 (1.9) 2.7 (0.6)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments by state (SE) unless otherwise noted. a

Based on OSHA’s list of partially exempt NAICS codes; does not account for exemption based on 

number of employees, or state-based exemption rules. 
Results: Establishment demographics 

11

3.2.3 Establishment use of workplace injury and illness data 

The telephone survey assessed four establishment uses of workplace injury and illness data6: 

As a performance measure of:

(1) Record-keeper’s job performance, 

(2) Supervisors’ job performance, and 

(3) Worker safety incentive programs

and 

(4) Inclusion in competitive bid packages for contract work. 

Table 4 presents, by state, establishment use of work injury and illness data. (See Appendix for 

tabulations based on estimated number of workers.) Most establishments did not use workplace injury and 

illness data for any of the measures assessed.

Injury-based performance measures were most common in Minnesota, where 17% of establishments used 

injury data to measure the job performance of the record-keeper (5% used OSHA data, 12% used other 

injury data), 22% of establishments used it in performance evaluations of supervisors (7% used OSHA 

data, 15% used other injury data), and 15% of establishments used injury data for worker safety incentive 

programs (4% used OSHA data, 11% used other injury data). In the remaining three states, less than 11% 

of establishments employed any of the three injury-based performance measures.

Use of OSHA data in performance measures differ by state, but never exceeded 7% of establishments (in 

Minnesota, where it was used in the job performance evaluation of supervisors). For each of the three 

injury-based performance measures, use of OSHA data was greatest in Minnesota and lowest in New 

York.

Inclusion of workplace injury and illness data in bid packages for contract work was the least common 

use of workplace injury; participation ranged from 2% of New York establishments to 7% of Washington 

establishments. However, among the establishments that did include workplace injury data in competitive 

bids, OSHA data was the type injury data used by most establishments. 

Of the four measures assessed, use of OSHA data in bid packages was most likely to be an 

establishment’s only use of OSHA data. Conversely, using OSHA data to evaluate performance in worker 

safety incentive programs and record-keeper job performance were usually one of multiple applications of 

OSHA data within an establishment (data not shown). 

 

6 A fifth practice – use of workplace injury data to compare multiple worksites – was also assessed, and 

was estimated to be among the most common establishment uses of workplace injury data. As many as 

40% of multi-site establishments in New York reported using worksite injury data to compare multiple 

sites (the practice was somewhat less common in the other states). However, because responses were 

missing for over 15% of Oregon establishments, use of workplace injury data in the comparisons of 

multiple worksites was not analyzed further.
Results: Establishment demographics 

12

Table 4. Establishment use of workplace injury and illness data by state.

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishment 581 690 1368 701 3340

Estimated establishments 179,391 342,596 216,152 131,395 869,533

Used to evaluate the job performance of the record-keeper

 OSHA data 5.3 (2.5) 0.5 (0.3) 4.8 (1.4) 3.3 (1.6) 3.0 (0.7) <0.0001

 Other data 11.8 (3.0) 4.3 (0.9) 4.7 (1.2) 3.6 (1.1) 5.8 (0.8)

 None 81.4 (4.0) 88.5 (3.7) 88.8 (2.0) 90.3 (2.3) 87.4 (1.8)

 DK 1.6 (0.9) 6.8 (3.6) 1.7 (0.8) 2.7 (1.3) 3.8 (1.5)

Used to evaluate job performance of supervisors

 OSHA data 7.0 (2.7) 2.1 (1.6) 6.2 (1.2) 4.2 (1.6) 4.5 (0.9) 0.0038

 Other data 15.0 (3.5) 8.1 (2.0) 4.7 (1.0) 5.3 (1.6) 8.3 (1.2)

 None 74.0 (4.5) 75.3 (5.0) 81.3 (2.5) 80.1 (3.4) 77.3 (2.3)

 DK 4.0 (1.3) 14.5 (4.5) 7.8 (2.0) 10.4 (2.6) 10.0 (1.9)

Used to evaluate performance in worker safety incentive program

 OSHA data 3.8 (2.3) 0.1 (0.0) 2.1 (0.5) 0.7 (0.2) 1.5 (0.5) 0.0099

 Other data 11.1 (2.8) 6.9 (2.3) 5.9 (1.2) 7.3 (1.6) 7.6 (1.1)

 None 83.9 (3.7) 91.4 (2.5) 89.7 (1.6) 88.9 (2.0) 89.0 (1.3)

 DK 1.2 (0.7) 1.6 (0.8) 2.3 (0.9) 3.1 (1.2) 1.9 (0.4)

Included in competitive bids for contract work

 OSHA data 3.9 (1.3) 1.9 (0.5) 5.9 (1.7) 6.5 (1.6) 4.0 (0.6) 0.0163

 Other data 0.3 (0.2) 0.4 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1)

 None 89.4 (2.0) 88.2 (3.2) 89.5 (2.0) 88.6 (2.2) 88.8 (1.4)

 DK 6.4 (1.5) 9.4 (3.1) 4.3 (1.0) 4.7 (1.5) 6.8 (1.3)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted. 
Results: OSHA compliant recordkeeping practices

13

3.3 Compliance with OSHA recordkeeping requirements 

3.3.1 Estimates of compliance by state

3.3.1.1 OSHA injury and illness 300 logs maintained for establishment

OSHA injury and illness 300 logs were maintained (during the SOII year or in other years) in 41% of all 

establishments, although participation may have been greater, depending on the practice of the 

participants who answered ‘don’t know’, which ranged from an estimated 4% of Minnesota 

establishments to 32% of New York establishments (table 5). Establishments that maintained OSHA logs 

generally did so every year, regardless of participation in SOII. Of the establishments that maintained logs 

either during SOII or some other year, 93% indicated that they maintained logs even when not 

participating in SOII. 

Overwhelmingly, logs were maintained, at least in part, by the study participant interviewed; 

establishments where someone other than the participant maintained the logs represented less than 2% of 

establishments in Minnesota, New York, and Oregon, and 8% of establishments in Washington. A 

location manager or the human resources department was usually cited as having responsibility for 

maintaining OSHA logs when responsibility fell to someone other than the interviewed participant. 

Analyses of three remaining aspects of compliance with OSHA injury recordkeeping requirements (case

criteria, timing of recording, and method for counting days of missed work) were limited to

establishments where the study participant was involved, at least in part, in maintaining the 

establishment’s OSHA logs, electing to have participants speak on their own behalf and no one else’s 

(and minimize ‘don’t know’ responses). The percent of establishments where the study participant 

maintained the establishment’s OSHA logs ranged from 29% of establishments in New York to 48% of 

establishments in Oregon.

3.3.1.2 Case criteria used to determine eligibility for log

The criteria used to determine which incidents would be recorded on the logs reflected a wide range of 

case definitions. Within each state, the OSHA recording criteria was the most frequently reported criteria 

used, although use of the OSHA case criteria ranged from 30% among log-maintaining Washington 

establishments to 58% among log-maintaining New York establishments. All cases requiring medical 

treatment was the second most common criteria used by establishments in Minnesota, Oregon, and 

Washington. In New York, recording all injuries regardless of severity was the most common criteria 

reported after the OSHA recording criteria. The practice of recording workers’ compensation claims7 was 

most common in Washington, where almost 10% of establishments with logs used workers’ 

compensation claim status as shorthand for OSHA eligibility. 

Responses captured in the ‘Other’ category included: someone else decides, common sense, I just know, 

and we don’t have any injuries. Also captured were instances where the participant indicated multiple 

selections: all injuries and all claims. “Don’t know” responses captured in the narrative text field were 

identified via key word search and recoded as a separate category.

 

7 The questionnaire differentiated filed claims from accepted claims as possible options for cases recorded on 

OSHA logs or reported in SOII. While use of either case definition was rare, filed claims was the more prevalent of 

the two. Ultimately, filed and accepted were grouped into a single claims category for analysis.
Results: OSHA compliant recordkeeping practices

14

3.3.1.3 Timing of case recording

Among establishments where OSHA logs were maintained by the study participant, compliance with the 

timing of recording cases was high, with more than three-quarters of Minnesota, New York and Oregon 

establishments recording cases on the log within the required seven-day period, and almost 60% of 

Washington establishments doing so. In Oregon and Washington, over 10% of log-maintaining 

establishments waited until the end of the year to record cases on the log.

Responses captured in the ‘Other’ category included: as soon as possible, depends on my workload, as the 

case becomes recordable, once information from doctor has been received, and when employee returns to 

work. Several participants indicated they recorded cases at some time interval other than the existing 

categories; responses that indicated cases were recorded every few months, quarterly, or a few times a 

year were identified though a key word search and grouped with the [relatively few responses] indicating 

monthly recording. 

3.3.1.4 Counting days of missed work 

Less than half of all establishments with OSHA logs maintained by the study participant followed the 

OSHA recording rule for counting days of missed work, although percentages differed by state. 

Compliance was lowest in Oregon and Washington, where roughly thirty percent of log-maintaining 

establishments followed the OSHA requirement to count calendar days, while less than 40% of Minnesota 

establishments, and less than 60% of New York establishments counted calendar days.

To summarize, across the three aspects of OSHA recordkeeping (case criteria, timing of recording, and 

method for counting days of missed work), compliance was greatest among New York establishments 

with logs, and among the lowest in Washington establishments with logs (Oregon establishments were 

equally noncompliant in counting days of missed work). (See Appendix for tabulations based on 

estimated number of workers.) 
Results: OSHA compliant recordkeeping practices

15

Table 5. Workplace injury and illness recordkeeping practices by state. 

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 581 690 1368 701 3340

Estimated establishments 179,391 342,596 216,152 131,395 869,533

Logs maintained for the establishment

Logs maintained, at least in part, by 

survey participanta 45.2 (5.1) 29.0 (4.9) 48.5 (3.5) 37.6 (4.5) 38.5 (2.6) <0.0001

Logs maintained by othersa 1.6 (0.8) 1.7 (0.6) 1.5 (0.4) 7.6 (2.5) 2.5 (0.5)

No logs maintained for establishment 49.6 (5.2) 37.2 (6.0) 40.8 (3.6) 43.4 (5.5) 41.6 (2.8)

Unknown if logs maintained 3.6 (1.4) 32.0 (6.4) 9.3 (2.1) 11.5 (2.9) 17.4 (2.9)

Among establishments with logs maintained, at least in part, by survey participant

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 473 490 1087 539 2589

Estimated establishments 81,111 99,422 104,766 49,376 334,675

Criteria used to determine eligibility for log

OSHA criteriaa 38.1 (6.7) 58.1 (9.1) 50.5 (4.9) 29.8 (5) 46.7 (3.5) <0.0001

Medical treatment 30.9 (6.4) 4.5 (1.7) 20.9 (4.4) 22.3 (4.0) 18.7 (2.5)

All injuries (regardless of severity) 15.1 (3.6) 30.3 (9.8) 15.5 (3.4) 17.9 (5.4) 20.2 (3.5)

Claims 2.6 (1.1) 1.6 (0.7) 5.7 (2.0) 9.8 (2.3) 4.4 (0.8)

DK/Other 13.2 (3.6) 5.5 (2.5) 7.3 (2.3) 20.2 (6.5) 10.1 (1.7)

When cases are recorded on log

Weeka 79.2 (3.8) 85.0 (3.7) 77.6 (4.4) 59.4 (6.1) 77.5 (2.4) <0.0001

Monthly or Quarterly 7.4 (2.0) 2.3 (0.9) 5.4 (1.3) 6.7 (1.7) 5.2 (0.7)

End of year 6.2 (1.9) 3.9 (1.3) 11.5 (4.3) 10.3 (2.4) 7.8 (1.6)

Upon receipt of WC claim 

documentation 0.5 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2) 1.1 (0.4) 0.5 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2)

DK/Other 6.7 (2.1) 8.4 (3.0) 4.5 (1.7) 23.1 (6.4) 8.9 (1.6)

How days are counted

Calendar daysa 39.7 (6.0) 58.0 (7.9) 28.6 (4.1) 31.1 (5.6) 40.4 (3.7) 0.0004

Scheduled work days or shifts 51 (6.6) 37.5 (7.4) 60.4 (4.7) 48.3 (6.1) 49.5 (3.6)

DK/Other 9.3 (2.8) 4.4 (2.2) 11.0 (3.0) 20.6 (6.4) 10.1 (1.7)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted. a

OSHA-compliant practice.
Results: OSHA compliant recordkeeping practices

16

3.3.1.5 Injuries among temporary workers obtained through a staffing agency 

An estimated 13% of establishments across all four states supervised temporary workers hired through a 

staffing agency (table 6). Nearly all establishments that obtained temporary workers through a staffing 

agency also supervised their day-to-day activities. 

Most establishments that supervised temporary help workers would fail to record temporary worker 

injuries on an OSHA log. Among establishments that supervise temp help workers, the percent that would 

include temp help injuries on their OSHA log, as required to do so by the recordkeeping regulation, 

ranged from 17% of Minnesota establishments to 39% of New York establishments (table 6). Temp help 

injuries would fail to be documented by the host establishment for at least two reasons: the host 

establishment would omit temp help injuries from the host establishment’s log (9-51% of establishments 

that supervise temp help workers, by state), or the host establishment did not maintain an OSHA log (15-

35% of establishments that supervise temp help workers, by state). 

Among establishments that supervised temporary help workers and had a participant who completed 

SOII, less than half stated that they would include temporary worker injuries in their SOII data (table 6).
Results: OSHA compliant recordkeeping practices

17

Table 6. Reliance on temporary workers obtained through a staffing agency and reporting injuries among such workers by state.

All establishments

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 581 690 1368 701 3340

Estimated establishments 179,391 342,596 216,152 131,395 869,533

Use and supervise temporary workers 12.9 (2.9) 12.0 (3.0) 16.9 (2.8) 10.6 (2.2) 13.2 (1.5) 0.0002

Use but do not supervise temporary workers 3.7 (3.4) ̶ 0.5 (0.3) 0.3 (0.2) 1.0 (0.7)

Do not use temporary workers 81.5 (4.3) 83.5 (3.8) 81.8 (2.9) 88.6 (2.2) 83.4 (1.9)

DK if temps used or supervised 1.8 (1.2) 4.4 (2.4) 0.8 (0.5) 0.5 (0.2) 2.4 (1.0)

Among establishments that supervise temporary workers

MN NY OR WA Total

Study establishments 144 191 486 190 1011

Estimated establishments 23,205 41,132 36,566 13,922 114,825

Records temporary worker injuries on OSHA log 16.5 (4.0) 39.3 (13.0) 24.4 (6.3) 21.4 (6.4) 27.8 (5.5) 0.0292

Omits temporary worker injuries from OSHA log 22.9 (5.5) 9.2 (2.9) 31.1 (9.6) 51.1 (9.9) 24.0 (4.7)

Maintains logs, DK whether to record temp injuries 33.3 (14.5) 16.8 (5.1) 13.5 (5.2) 12.6 (7.4) 18.6 (4.0)

No logs maintained for establishment 27.3 (14.4) 34.8 (14.2) 31.0 (6.3) 14.9 (5.6) 29.6 (6.5)

Among establishments that supervise temporary workers and where the study participant completed SOII

MN NY OR WA Total

Study establishments 113 149 249 151 662

Estimated establishments 15,537 28,850 16,776 8,932 70,095

Reports temporary worker injuries in SOII 23.5 (8.2) 43.5 (16.1) 26.8 (9.8) 25.0 (6.5) 32.7 (7.6) 0.648

Omits temporary worker injuries from SOII 40.8 (11.4) 31.4 (15.5) 56.8 (13.4) 51.5 (9.8) 42.1 (8.1)

DK 35.8 (15.8) 25.0 (14.0) 16.4 (8.0) 23.6 (10.6) 25.2 (7.4)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted.

 ̶ Data do not meet publication guidelines. 
Results: OSHA compliant recordkeeping practices

18

3.3.2 Characteristics associated with noncompliant recording practices

3.3.2.1 Characteristics associated with OSHA injury and illness 300 logs 

Based on establishment-weighted unadjusted logistic regression models that estimated the relationship 

between a single establishment characteristic and whether or not OSHA logs were maintained at the 

establishment (maintained by anyone vs. no logs + don’t know), all characteristics assessed individually 

were found to be associated with failing to keep OSHA logs (table 7). Establishment size was among the 

strongest predictors of the absence of logs: establishments with 10 employees or fewer were almost 

twenty-three times more likely to fail to maintain logs compared to establishments with 250 or more 

employees, and establishments with 11-49 employees were six times more likely than the largest 

employers to not keep logs. There was no difference in logs between the two largest establishment size 

groups. 

In an adjusted logistic regression model that controlled for establishment and record-keeper

characteristics, the smallest establishments were still less likely to maintain logs, but the effect was muted 

compared to the unadjusted estimate (OR=3.87, 95% CI: 1.57–9.53). Also significantly associated with 

failure to maintain OSHA logs based on the adjusted regression model were: establishments in the leisure 

and hospitality industry, establishments with private or state-funded workers’ compensation insurance, 

employers operating a single worksite, first time SOII respondents, and establishments that reported zero 

work-related injuries or illnesses in SOII. An interaction between state and recordkeeping exemption 

status was observed: among the establishments required to maintain logs each year regardless of 

participation in SOII, New York establishments were less likely to maintain logs compared with any of 

the three other states; among the establishments usually exempt from recordkeeping, New York 

establishments were more likely to lack logs, but only in comparison to Oregon establishments. 

Note that OSHA recordkeeping training, years of recordkeeping experience, and use of OSHA injury and 

illness data as a performance measure were not included in the regression models as these characteristics 

appeared almost exclusively among establishments with logs and were almost entirely absent from 

establishments that maintained no logs.
Results: OSHA compliant recordkeeping practices

19

Table 7. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratio for no logs maintained for establishment (by study 

participant or others), four states combined (n=3340).

Unadjusted 

Odds Ratio (95% CI)

Adjusted 

Odds Ratio (95% CI)

State (vs MN)

NY 1.98 (1.07 - 3.66) state*exempt

OR 0.88 (0.55 - 1.41)

WA 1.07 (0.62 - 1.82)

Establishment size (vs. 250+ workers)

1-10 workers 22.93 (14.21 - 37.01) 3.87 (1.57 - 9.53)

11-49 workers 6.96 (4.42 - 10.94) 1.38 (0.64 - 2.96)

50-249 workers 1.42 (0.89 - 2.27) 0.40 (0.19 - 0.83)

Industry (vs Manufacturing)

Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 1.60 (0.75 - 3.41) 1.09 (0.43 - 2.77)

Wholesale Trade + Transportation, Warehousing + Utilities 1.08 (0.48 - 2.44) 1.18 (0.46 - 3.02)

Retail Trade 2.28 (0.98 - 5.28) 1.86 (0.69 - 4.98)

State and Local Government 0.35 (0.15 - 0.80) 0.88 (0.28 - 2.82)

Admin, Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation + Other Svc 2.42 (0.92 - 6.40) 1.00 (0.34 - 2.94)

Education + Health Care, Social Assistance 1.86 (0.83 - 4.19) 0.63 (0.19 - 2.05)

Leisure and Hospitality 3.05 (1.47 - 6.34) 3.06 (1.04 - 8.99)

Information, Financial, Real Estate, Professional, Mgmt Svc 5.70 (2.64 - 12.32) 2.14 (0.72 - 6.35)

Union presence

No vs Yes 4.25 (1.62 - 11.13) 1.46 (0.52 - 4.12)

Workers' compensation insurer

Private + State Funded vs. Self-insured 4.24 (1.83 - 9.79) 4.94 (2.29 - 10.7)

Number of worksites operated by employer

Single worksite vs multiple sites 4.30 (2.83 - 6.52) 3.27 (2.03 - 5.28)

SOII experience (vs Repeat Respondent)

First time SOII respondent 2.90 (1.47 - 5.72) 2.49 (1.32 - 4.70)

Did not complete SOII/DK/Oth 6.59 (3.45 - 12.57) 5.47 (2.90 - 10.35)

Injury and illness rate (total OSHA recordable cases)

0 vs 1+ 10.29 (6.38 - 16.60) 3.70 (1.71 – 8.00)

Usually exempt from OSHA recording requirements

N vs Y 0.38 (0.24 - 0.59) state*exempt

State*usually exempt interaction

MN required vs usually exempt 0.43 (0.14 - 1.31)

NY required vs usually exempt 0.45 (0.20 - 1.02)

OR required vs usually exempt 0.36 (0.17 - 0.77)

WA required vs usually exempt 0.11 (0.03 - 0.38)

Annual records required, NY vs MN 2.70 (1.06 - 6.88)

Annual records required, NY vs OR 5.56 (2.67 - 11.58)

Annual records required, NY vs WA 6.34 (2.86 - 14.10)

Annual records required, OR vs MN 0.49 (0.22 - 1.10)

Annual records required, OR vs WA 1.14 (0.57 - 2.27)

Annual records required, WA vs MN 0.43 (0.18 - 1.03)

Usually exempt, NY vs MN 2.57 (0.96 - 6.86)

Usually exempt, NY vs OR 4.47 (1.83 - 10.92)

Usually exempt, NY vs WA 1.49 (0.40 - 5.57)

Usually exempt, OR vs MN 0.58 (0.23 - 1.45)

Usually exempt, OR vs WA 0.33 (0.09 - 1.24)

Usually exempt, WA vs MN 1.72 (0.44 - 6.72)

Note: Adjusted for all variables in table. CI=Confidence interval. 

Bold font indicates significant at p<0.05. 
Results: OSHA compliant recordkeeping practices

20

3.3.2.2 Characteristics associated with OSHA log case criteria

Table 8 presents the adjusted odds ratios for three aspects of non-compliant OSHA recordkeeping 

practices (case criteria, timing of record, methods of counting days of missed work) among 

establishments where logs were maintained by the study participant. 

Among establishments where the study participant was involved in maintaining OSHA logs, the adjusted 

logistic regression model suggested that the characteristic most strongly associated with noncompliant 

case eligibility criteria was not including OSHA injury and illness data in competitive bids for contract 

work (i.e., controlling for establishment and record-keeper characteristics, establishments that disclosed 

OSHA injury and illness data in bid packages were almost four times more likely to use the OSHA case 

criteria than non-bidding establishments). SOII experience was also associated: the odds of using a 

noncompliant case criteria were 2.3 times greater among first time SOII respondents compared with 

repeat SOII respondents (95% CI: 1.27 – 4.19), controlling for establishment and record-keeper

characteristics. By industry, Wholesale Trade + Transportation, Warehousing + Utilities were most likely 

to use the OSHA case criteria. An interaction between state and OSHA training was observed (Table 8-

A): among untrained record-keepers, New York establishments were least likely to use the OSHA criteria, 

while there was no difference among the untrained record-keepers across Minnesota, Oregon, and 

Washington. Among trained record-keepers, New York establishments were most likely to use the OSHA 

case criteria and again, there was little difference between the trained record-keepers in Minnesota, 

Oregon, and Washington. 

3.3.2.3 Characteristics associated with timing of case recording 

Among establishments with logs maintained by the study participant, after controlling for establishment 

characteristics, Washington establishments were more likely to be noncompliant with the seven-day 

recording requirement (compared with Minnesota establishments). Establishments in Construction + 

Agriculture, Forestry Fishing, and Hunting were also more likely to be noncompliant (compared with 

Manufacturing establishments), as were establishments with record-keepers with less than 1 year of 

OSHA recordkeeping experience. Controlling for establishment and record-keepers characteristics, 

establishments with 1-10 employees were more likely to record in the required time frame compared to 

establishments with 250 or more employees. 

3.3.2.4 Characteristics associated with counting days of missed work

Based on the adjusted regression model limited to establishments where the study participant was 

involved in maintaining OSHA logs, characteristics associated with noncompliant counting practices 

included: medium-sized establishments (11-249 employees), non-unionized workforce, establishments 

with private or state-funded workers’ compensation, employers that operate a single worksite, untrained 

injury record-keepers, and one year or less recordkeeping experience. Controlling for establishment and 

record-keeper characteristics, no differences by state were observed for compliance with counting days of 

missed work.
Results: OSHA compliant recordkeeping practices

21

Table 8. Adjusted odds ratio for noncompliant OSHA recordkeeping practices among establishments 

where OSHA logs maintained by the study participant, four states combined (n=2589).

Noncompliant:

Case criteria Timing of recording Counting days

Adjusted OR (95% 

CI)

Adjusted OR (95% 

CI)

Adjusted OR (95% 

CI)

State (vs MN)

NY State*trained 0.59 (0.31 - 1.12) 0.66 (0.34 - 1.30)

OR See table 8-A 1.16 (0.61 - 2.21) 1.93 (0.99 - 3.76)

WA 2.62 (1.38 - 5.00) 1.15 (0.50 - 2.63)

Establishment size (vs. 250+ workers)

1-10 workers 1.08 (0.55 - 2.10) 0.42 (0.22 - 0.77) 1.36 (0.66 - 2.81)

11-49 workers 1.64 (0.96 - 2.79) 0.74 (0.44 - 1.24) 1.78 (1.04 - 3.06)

50-249 workers 1.15 (0.74 - 1.79) 0.99 (0.65 - 1.51) 2.72 (1.59 - 4.65)

Industry (vs Manufacturing)

Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 0.85 (0.35 - 2.07) 2.94 (1.24 - 6.99) 0.85 (0.32 - 2.27)

Wholesale Trade + Transportation, Warehousing + Utilities 0.36 (0.16 - 0.81) 2.09 (0.88 - 4.95) 0.90 (0.35 - 2.30)

Retail Trade 1.33 (0.52 - 3.38) 1.02 (0.36 - 2.88) 0.65 (0.24 - 1.73)

Information, Financial, Real Estate, Professional, Mgmt Svc 0.46 (0.17 - 1.23) 1.84 (0.68 - 4.94) 2.96 (0.99 - 8.92)

Admin, Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation + Other Svc 2.05 (0.60 - 6.98) 1.66 (0.58 - 4.70) 0.80 (0.27 - 2.34)

Education + Health Care, Social Assistance 0.46 (0.19 - 1.09) 1.65 (0.62 - 4.40) 1.10 (0.40 - 3.02)

Leisure and Hospitality 1.03 (0.39 - 2.71) 1.87 (0.72 - 4.85) 2.15 (0.71 - 6.55)

State and Local Government 0.52 (0.22 - 1.23) 1.87 (0.73 - 4.78) 2.11 (0.78 - 5.73)

Union presence

No vs Yes 1.21 (0.64 - 2.28) 1.00 (0.52 - 1.93) 2.42 (1.16 - 5.04)

Workers' compensation insurer

Private + State Funded vs. Self-insured 0.92 (0.52 - 1.62) 1.32 (0.74 - 2.34) 2.06 (1.11 - 3.84)

Number of worksites operated by employer

Single worksite vs multiple sites 1.24 (0.68 - 2.25) 0.67 (0.41 - 1.11) 5.09 (2.73 - 9.49)

SOII experience (vs Repeat Respondent)

First time SOII respondent 2.30 (1.27 - 4.19) 0.86 (0.42 - 1.75) 1.30 (0.69 - 2.45)

Did not complete SOII/DK/Other 1.79 (1.00 - 3.20) 0.57 (0.28 - 1.14) 0.93 (0.48 - 1.82)

Injury and illness rate (total OSHA recordable cases)

0 vs 1+ 1.09 (0.62 - 1.93) 1.11 (0.67 - 1.83) 1.64 (0.94 - 2.87)

Usually exempt from OSHA recording requirements

N vs Y 0.68 (0.35 - 1.31) 0.87 (0.46 - 1.66) 1.36 (0.64 - 2.91)

Trained on OSHA recording

No vs Yes See table 8-A 1.38 (0.85 - 2.24) 2.07 (1.24 - 3.43)

OSHA experience (vs 2-9 years)

≤1 year 1.00 (0.43 - 2.33) 2.61 (1.11 - 6.15) 11.04 (3.44 - 35.5)

10+ years 1.22 (0.74 - 2.01) 1.08 (0.65 - 1.80) 0.80 (0.49 - 1.32)

DK 0.26 (0.06 - 1.13) 0.93 (0.14 - 6.25) 0.35 (0.06 - 1.88)

Use of OSHA injury and illness data

Competitive bids for contract work N vs Y 3.89 (1.83 - 8.26) 1.4 (0.62 - 3.13) 1.05 (0.48 - 2.32)

Job performance eval of supervisors N vs Y 0.77 (0.35 - 1.72) 1.89 (0.79 - 4.51) 1.22 (0.55 - 2.69)

Job performance eval of record-keeper N vs Y 0.66 (0.29 - 1.51) 0.76 (0.24 - 2.42) 0.77 (0.30 - 2.02)

Worker performance in safety incentive programs N vs Y 0.56 (0.19 - 1.69) 1.48 (0.58 - 3.75) 0.61 (0.21 - 1.74)

Note: Adjusted for all variables in the table. Separate multivariable regression model estimated for each 

aspect of recordkeeping. CI=Confidence Interval. Noncompliance was defined for case criteria, timing of 

recording, and counting days as, respectively: use of some criteria other than the OSHA criteria when 

determining eligibility for OSHA log, waiting >7 days after injury to record cases on log, and limiting 

counts of missed work to days of scheduled work. “Don’t know” responses were included as noncompliant. 

Bold font indicates significant at p<0.05. 
Results: OSHA compliant recordkeeping practices

22

Table 8-A. Adjusted odds ratio for state*trained interaction term for use of noncompliant case definition 

among establishments where OSHA logs maintained by the study participant, four states combined 

(n=2589).

Noncompliant 

Case criteria

Adjusted OR (95% CI)

State*OSHA trained interaction

NY Trained N vs Y 18.48 (6.27 - 54.46)

OR Trained N vs Y 1.00 (0.40 - 2.48)

WA Trained N vs Y 2.32 (1.01 - 5.32)

MN Trained N vs Y 3.77 (1.32 - 10.77)

Untrained NY vs OR 2.75 (1.16 - 6.51)

Untrained NY vs WA 0.63 (0.26 - 1.56)

Untrained NY vs MN 0.73 (0.3 - 1.81)

Untrained OR vs WA 0.23 (0.11 - 0.48)

Untrained OR vs MN 0.27 (0.13 - 0.56)

Untrained WA vs MN 1.16 (0.51 - 2.66)

Trained NY vs OR 0.15 (0.05 - 0.47)

Trained NY vs WA 0.08 (0.03 - 0.22)

Trained NY vs MN 0.15 (0.05 - 0.48)

Trained OR vs WA 0.53 (0.20 - 1.42)

Trained OR vs MN 1.01 (0.32 - 3.18)

Trained WA vs MN 1.89 (0.61 - 5.79)

Note: Adjusted for all variables in table 8. CI=Confidence Interval. Noncompliance was defined for case 

criteria as use of some criteria other than the OSHA criteria when determining eligibility for OSHA log. 

“Don’t know” responses were included as non-compliant. 

Bold font indicates significant at p<0.05. 
Results: OSHA compliant recordkeeping practices

23

3.3.2.5 Characteristics associated with recording injuries among temporary workers obtained through 

a staffing agency 

There were similar establishment characteristics associated with recording temporary help worker injuries 

on the OSHA log and reporting them in SOII. Compared to Minnesota, New York was less likely to omit 

temporary worker injuries from the establishment OSHA log and SOII data (i.e., New York was more 

likely to record temporary worker injuries in both data sources) (table 9). There were no differences in 

recording temp worker injuries between Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. Two industry groups, (1) 

Wholesale Trade + Transportation and Warehousing + Utilities and (2) Information and Professional 

Services were more likely to record temp worker injuries on the OSHA log and SOII than the reference 

group Education + Health Care and Social Assistance. Nonunionized establishments and record-keepers 

with no formal OSHA recordkeeping training were more likely to omit temporary worker injuries from 

the OSHA log and from reported SOII data. 

Additional characteristics associated with failing to include temporary help worker characteristics in SOII 

data include: single worksite employers; a total recordable injury and illness case rate of zero; and using 

OSHA data in the job performance evaluation of supervisors. 
Results: OSHA compliant recordkeeping practices

24

Table 9. Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) for omitting temporary worker injuries from host establishment’s 

injury and illness reports, among establishments where temporary workers were obtained through a 

staffing agency and supervised by the host establishment. 

Omits temp help worker 

injuries from OSHA 

loga

Omits temp help worker 

injuries from SOII data

Study establishments 1011 662

Estimated establishments 114,825 70,095

State (vs MN)

NY 0.22 (0.08 - 0.62) 0.25 (0.08 - 0.79)

OR 0.86 (0.33 - 2.23) 1.10 (0.34 - 3.55)

WA 0.71 (0.26 - 1.97) 0.81 (0.28 - 2.40)

Establishment size (vs. 250+ workers)

1-10 workers 0.59 (0.16 - 2.14) 0.26 (0.06 - 1.19)

11-49 workers 1.34 (0.53 - 3.37) 1.03 (0.36 - 2.97)

50-249 workers 0.86 (0.34 - 2.17) 0.49 (0.18 - 1.35)

Industry (vs. Manufacturing) 

Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 1.21 (0.30 - 4.92) 1.17 (0.21 - 6.36)

Wholesale Trade + Transportation, Warehousing + Utilities 0.25 (0.08 - 0.82) 0.29 (0.06 - 1.34)

Retail Trade 1.02 (0.22 - 4.62) 1.04 (0.24 - 4.59)

Information, Financial, Real Estate, Professional, Mgmt Svc 0.33 (0.07 - 1.46) 0.19 (0.04 – 1.00)

Admin, Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation + Other Svc 0.55 (0.15 - 2.05) 1.61 (0.29 - 9.07)

Education + Health Care, Social Assistance 2.26 (0.61 - 8.29) 2.21 (0.47 - 10.38)

Leisure and Hospitality 0.10 (0.01 - 1.22) 0.93 (0.06 - 14.78)

State and Local Government 2.33 (0.44 - 12.18) 11.95 (0.92 - 154.89)

Union presence

No vs Yes 4.93 (1.95 - 12.46) 8.52 (3.03 - 23.97)

Workers' compensation insurer

Private + State Funded vs. Self-insured 1.03 (0.43 - 2.50) 0.83 (0.26 - 2.64)

Number of worksites operated by employer

Single worksite vs multiple sites 1.22 (0.51 - 2.93) 4.67 (1.54 - 14.12)

Trained on OSHA recording

No vs Yes 5.62 (2.63 - 12.03) 5.47 (2.06 - 14.53)

SOII experience (vs Repeat Respondent)

First time SOII respondent 0.93 (0.35 - 2.47) 0.41 (0.15 - 1.11)

Did not complete SOII/DK/Other 0.82 (0.30 - 2.23) 6.41 (2.62 - 15.67)

Injury and illness rate (total OSHA recordable cases)

0 vs 1+ 2.24 (0.86 - 5.79) 3.73 (1.25 - 11.2)

Use of OSHA data

In competitive bids for contract work N vs Y 1.34 (0.44 - 4.07) 0.52 (0.15 - 1.83)

In job performance eval of supervisors N vs Y 1.98 (0.62 - 6.36) 6.28 (1.66 - 23.78)

In job performance eval of record-keeper N vs Y 4.03 (1.23 - 13.18) 0.28 (0.06 - 1.28)

In worker safety incentive programs N vs Y 0.71 (0.22 - 2.27) 1.08 (0.28 - 4.12)

Usually exempt from OSHA recording requirements

N vs Y 0.67 (0.23 - 1.93) 0.52 (0.15 - 1.77)

OSHA experience (vs 2-9 years)

≤1 year 4.90 (1.13 - 21.26) 1.41 (0.36 - 5.58)

10+ years 1.43 (0.65 - 3.14) 1.33 (0.58 - 3.04)

DK 0.74 (0.09 - 6.26) >9999999999

Note: Adjusted for all variables in the table. CI=Confidence interval. a

Omitted because temp worker injuries not recorded or because host establishment does not maintain OSHA logs. 

Bold font indicates significant at p<0.05.
Results: Sources of workplace injury and illness data

25

3.4 Sources of workplace injury and illness data 

3.4.1 Estimates of data source use by state

3.4.1.1 Source of OSHA 300 log information

When asked where they got the information needed to complete an OSHA 300 log entry, most study 

participants involved in maintaining OSHA logs said they used internal company reports completed by 

the employee and/or supervisor (from 58% of Minnesota establishments to 88% of Oregon 

establishments). Use of workers’ compensation claim information varied by state, from less than one in 

five log-maintaining establishments in Oregon to over half the log-maintaining establishments in 

Minnesota (table 10). Minnesota also saw the largest percent of establishments that relied exclusively on 

workers’ compensation claims data (16% of establishments used only workers’ compensation data and no 

other sources of information). Responses captured in the ‘other’ field included: speaking with employees 

(vs. written reports); payroll data; and other internal company computer-based programs, data systems, 

and software. (See Appendix for tabulations based on estimated number of workers.) 

Table 10. Source of OSHA log information by state among establishments with logs maintained by the 

study participant. 

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 473 490 1,087 539 2,589

Estimated establishments 81,111 99,422 104,766 49,376 334,675

Company report completed by 

employee/supervisor 57.5 (6.7) 58.8 (9.5) 88.0 (2.6) 71.8 (6.0) 69.5 (3.8) 0.0002

Workers’ Compensation (WC) 

data 54.7 (6.5) 30.3 (10.4) 17.9 (2.9) 32.3 (4.9) 32.6 (3.7) 0.0014

WC only 15.6 (4.6) 8.1 (2.9) 7.2 (2.1) 8.3 (2.3) 9.6 (1.6)

WC+non-WC 39.2 (6.4) 22.2 (11.1) 10.8 (2.0) 24.0 (4.2) 23 (3.8)

Doctor's report 16.2 (3.9) 4.4 (1.4) 11.8 (3.2) 18.2 (3.4) 11.6 (1.6) 0.0033

Other 23.3 (6.9) 31.4 (10.2) 5.4 (2.1) 2.9 (0.9) 17.1 (4.0) <0.0001

Note: Data presented are percent of establishments within state (SE), unless otherwise noted. Percentages 

do not add to 100 as the categories are not mutually exclusive. 
Results: Sources of workplace injury and illness data

26

3.4.1.2 Source of SOII data 

When asked where they got the information needed for the BLS survey, responses also varied by state.

Among participants who completed SOII, use of OSHA data for SOII ranged from 22% of New York 

establishments to 45% of Oregon establishments (table 11). Use of workers’ compensation claims data in 

the absence of OSHA data ranged from 10% of Minnesota and Oregon establishments to 19% of New 

York establishments. There were larger differences across states in the percent of establishments using 

only internal data for SOII (e.g., information collected from the worker, supervisor, HR), from 6% of 

Oregon establishments to 55% of New York establishments. In 5% of New York establishments to more 

than 35% of Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington establishments, study participants replied that they did 

not know what data source they used, they had no injuries and therefore used no data source, or used 

some source other than internal, OSHA, or workers’ compensation claims data. These other sources 

included responses such as “from memory”, or indicated that someone else compiled the data – either a 

coworker or consultant, working onsite or offsite. 

Stratified by total recordable cases reported in SOII, use of OSHA data to complete SOII was greater 

among establishments that reported one or more recordable cases than among establishments reporting 

zero cases (table 11). Use of workers’ compensation claims data for SOII was similar for establishments 

that reported cases and those that did not. 
Results: Sources of workplace injury and illness data

27

Table 11. Source of SOII data by state among study participants who completed SOII. 

Among establishments where the participant completed SOII

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 422 505 742 527 2196

Estimated establishments 108,696 153,640 119,533 88,209 470,078

OSHA dataa 34.9 (4.8) 21.9 (4.1) 44.8 (5.0) 25.4 (4.1) 31.4 (2.5) <0.0001

WC data instead of OSHA data 9.7 (2.8) 18.8 (6.5) 10.4 (2.6) 15.7 (3.9) 14.0 (2.5)

Internal data only 19.8 (5.2) 54.5 (7.5) 6.1 (2.1) 23.5 (6.2) 28.3 (3.6)

No injuries, DK, Other sources 35.6 (6.9) 4.9 (3.4) 38.7 (5.0) 35.4 (6.8) 26.3 (3)

Among establishments that reported 1 or more cases in SOII

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 276 332 472 356 1436

Estimated establishments 27,483 41,102 24,213 20,941 113,738

OSHA dataa 62.5 (8.6) 29.8 (10.8) 82.6 (4.5) 48.5 (8.8) 52.4 (7.2) <0.0001

WC data instead of OSHA 9.7 (3.4) 19.7 (13.5) 12.1 (4.2) 16.5 (5.1) 15.1 (5.1)

Internal data only 14.8 (4.6) 47.7 (17.7) 4.2 (1.4) 16.0 (8.3) 24.7 (8.8)

No injuries, DK, Other 

source

12.9 (10.1) 2.9 (1.8) 1.2 (0.7) 19.0 (10.2) 7.9 (3.5)

Among establishments that reported 0 cases in SOII

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 146 173 270 171 760

Estimated establishments 81,213 112,538 95,320 67,269 356,340

OSHA dataa 25.5 (5.1) 19.0 (4.3) 35.2 (5.9) 18.2 (4.4) 24.7 (2.7) <0.0001

WC data instead of OSHA 9.7 (3.6) 18.5 (7.5) 9.9 (3.0) 15.4 (4.9) 13.6 (2.9)

Internal data only 21.5 (6.8) 56.9 (8.3) 6.6 (2.6) 25.8 (7.7) 29.5 (4.0)

No injuries, DK, Other 

source

43.3 (8.4) 5.6 (4.6) 48.3 (6.0) 40.5 (8.2) 32.2 (3.7)

Note: Data presented are percent of establishments within state (SE), unless otherwise noted. a

Includes establishments that use workers’ compensation claims data to complete the OSHA data.
Results: Sources of workplace injury and illness data

28

3.4.2 Characteristics associated with use of workers’ compensation data for OSHA and SOII 

3.4.2.1 Characteristics associated with source of OSHA 300 log information 

Based on the adjusted regression model limited to establishments where the study participant was 

involved in maintaining OSHA logs, characteristics associated with use of workers’ compensation claims

for completion of OSHA 300 log entries included: state; industry; number of worksites; SOII experience; 

and total recordable OSHA injury and illness rate (table 12). Minnesota establishments were more likely 

to report using workers’ compensation for OSHA logs than the other three states. Compared to 

Manufacturing, odds of using workers’ compensation claims data for OSHA logs was greatest among 

Retail Trade (OR=6.90). The odds of using workers’ compensation were more than three times the odds 

among Manufacturing for: Information, Financial, Real Estate, Professional, and Management Services; 

Construction and Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; and Leisure and Hospitality. Education and 

Health Care and State and Local Government were also more likely to use workers’ compensation claims 

data for OSHA logs than Manufacturing. Single site employers were less likely to use workers’ 

compensation data than multi-site employers, as were establishments with an OSHA recordable injury 

and illness rate of zero. First time SOII respondents were more than twice as likely to use workers’ 

compensation data for OSHA logs as repeat SOII respondents. 
Results: Sources of workplace injury and illness data

29

Table 12. Adjusted odds ratios for use of workers’ compensation claims data in completing OSHA log 

entries, among establishments where OSHA logs maintained by the study participant, four states 

combined (n=2589). 

Adjusted OR (95% CI)

State (vs MN)

NY 0.23 (0.11 - 0.48)*

OR 0.16 (0.08 - 0.30)*

WA 0.36 (0.18 - 0.69)*

Establishment size (vs. 250+ workers)

1-10 workers 1.87 (0.81 - 4.31)

11-49 workers 1.49 (0.85 - 2.61)

50-249 workers 1.28 (0.77 - 2.11)

Industry (vs Manufacturing)

Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 3.28 (1.23 - 8.73)*

Wholesale Trade + Transportation, Warehousing + Utilities 1.79 (0.68 - 4.71)

Retail Trade 6.90 (2.56 - 18.58)*

Admin, Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation + Other Svc 3.02 (0.97 - 9.39)

Education + Health Care, Social Assistance 2.54 (1.04 - 6.22)*

Leisure and Hospitality 3.03 (1.00 - 9.16)*

Information, Financial, Real Estate, Professional, Mgmt Svc 3.85 (1.38 - 10.76)*

State and Local Government 2.85 (1.09 - 7.48)*

Union presence

No vs Yes 0.78 (0.43 - 1.40)

Workers' compensation insurer

Private + State Funded vs. Self-insured 0.96 (0.47 - 1.97)

Number of worksites operated by employer

Single worksite vs multiple sites 0.41 (0.22 - 0.75)*

Trained on OSHA recording

No vs Yes 1.28 (0.73 - 2.26)

OSHA experience (vs 2-9 years)

≤1 year 0.51 (0.20 - 1.34)

10+ years 1.04 (0.63 - 1.72)

DK 0.07 (0.02 - 0.29)*

SOII experience (vs Repeat Respondent)

First time SOII respondent 2.13 (1.19 - 3.84)*

Did not complete SOII/DK/Other 1.62 (0.90 - 2.91)

Injury and illness rate (total OSHA recordable cases)

0 vs 1+ 0.28 (0.15 - 0.55)*

Usually exempt from OSHA recording requirements

N vs Y 0.99 (0.54 - 1.81)

Use of OSHA injury and illness data

Competitive bids for contract work N vs Y 0.49 (0.23 - 1.02)

Job performance eval of supervisors N vs Y 1.18 (0.56 - 2.49)

Job performance eval of record-keeper N vs Y 0.68 (0.28 - 1.64)

Worker performance in safety incentive programs N vs Y 0.68 (0.24 - 1.92)

Note: Adjusted for all variables in the table. CI=Confidence interval.

*Significant at p<0.05. 
Results: Sources of workplace injury and illness data

30

3.4.2.2 Characteristics associated with source of SOII data 

Based on the adjusted multinomial logistic regression model8 limited to establishments where the 

participant completed SOII, characteristics associated with use of workers’ compensation claims for SOII

were identified (table 13). Controlling for establishment and record-keeper characteristics, compared to 

Minnesota establishments, New York establishments were more likely to complete SOII using workers’ 

compensation claims than OSHA data. Single site establishments, record-keepers with no formal OSHA 

recordkeeping training, record-keepers with one year or less OSHA recordkeeping experience, and 

establishments usually exempt from annual OSHA recordkeeping were also more likely to use workers’ 

compensation claims data rather than OSHA data for completing SOII. 

Single site establishments, record-keepers with no formal OSHA recordkeeping training, record-keepers

with one year or less OSHA recordkeeping experience, and establishments usually exempt from annual 

OSHA recordkeeping were also more likely to use other data (such as internal company injury and illness 

data) rather than OSHA data for completing SOII. Also more likely to use data other than workers’ 

compensation or OSHA data for completing SOII were: first time SOII respondents, establishments selfinsured for workers’ compensation, and establishments in the industry grouping Administrative and 

Support and Waste Management and Remediation + Other Services. More likely to use OSHA data 

instead of other data included Oregon establishments (compared with Minnesota establishments) and 

Manufacturing establishments (compared with Education, Health care and Social Assistance).

 

 

8 In multinomial regression, an outcome with three mutually exclusive categories was modelled: 1) use of OSHA 

data for SOII with or without workers’ compensation data, selected as the reference category; 2) use of workers’ 

compensation data for SOII in the absence of OSHA data; and 3) use of some other data such as internal data that 

was neither OSHA data nor workers’ compensation data.
Results: Sources of workplace injury and illness data

31

Table 13. Adjusted odds ratios for use of data other than OSHA for completing SOII, multinomial 

logistic regression, among establishments where study participant completed SOII (n=2196).

Use of WC without

OSHA data for SOII

Adjusted OR (95% CI)

Use of other without

OSHA data for SOII

Adjusted OR (95% CI)

State (vs MN)

NY 2.67 (1.02 - 6.95) 2.32 (0.95 - 5.62)

OR 0.48 (0.19 - 1.19) 0.28 (0.13 - 0.61)

WA 1.60 (0.60 - 4.27) 1.23 (0.60 - 2.49)

Establishment size (vs. 250+ workers)

1-10 workers 1.68 (0.51 - 5.56) 2.49 (0.98 - 6.32)

11-49 workers 0.51 (0.19 - 1.34) 0.54 (0.22 - 1.33)

50-249 workers 1.11 (0.44 - 2.77) 0.58 (0.27 - 1.22)

Industry (vs Education + Health Care, Social 

Assistance)

Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 0.4 (0.08 - 1.92) 0.65 (0.17 - 2.52)

Wholesale Trade + Transportation, Warehousing + 

Utilities 1.04 (0.21 - 5.12) 0.57 (0.18 - 1.86)

Manufacturing 0.27 (0.05 - 1.52) 0.08 (0.01 - 0.72)

Retail Trade 2.81 (0.7 - 11.23) 0.81 (0.24 - 2.73)

State and Local Government 0.14 (0.03 - 0.67) 0.47 (0.12 - 1.80)

Admin, Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation + Other Svc 1.58 (0.34 - 7.44) 3.37 (1.13 – 10.00)

Leisure and Hospitality 1.96 (0.53 - 7.32) 1.44 (0.52 – 4.00)

Information, Financial, Real Estate, Professional, Mgmt 

Svc 0.45 (0.09 - 2.21) 0.98 (0.37 - 2.65)

Union presence

No vs Yes 0.34 (0.10 - 1.16) 1.95 (0.47 - 8.11)

Workers' compensation insurer

Private + State Funded vs. Self-insured 0.96 (0.43 - 2.17) 0.31 (0.13 - 0.70)

Number of worksites operated by employer

Single worksite vs multiple sites 2.25 (1.07 - 4.73) 2.18 (1.18 - 4.01)

Trained on OSHA recording

No vs Yes 2.80 (1.13 - 6.95) 3.18 (1.65 - 6.12)

OSHA experience (vs 2-9 years)

≤1 year 12.02 (4.36 - 33.11) 18.71 (7.01 - 49.96)

10+ years 1.25 (0.58 - 2.70) 0.90 (0.48 - 1.71)

DK 4.24 (0.88 - 20.44) 11.42 (3.29 - 39.67)

SOII experience (vs Repeat Respondent)

First time SOII respondent 0.81 (0.38 - 1.74) 2.35 (1.28 - 4.29)

Did not complete SOII/DK/Other 0.81 (0.41 - 1.57) 8.87 (4.62 - 17.01)

Injury and illness rate (total OSHA recordable cases)

0 vs 1+ 0.96 (0.38 - 2.44) 1.47 (0.74 - 2.90)

Usually exempt from OSHA recording requirements

N vs Y 0.30 (0.14 - 0.67) 0.51 (0.26 – 1.00)

Use of OSHA injury and illness data in:

Competitive bids for contract work N vs Y 1.02 (0.31 - 3.33) 1.80 (0.59 - 5.51)

Job performance eval of supervisors N vs Y 0.42 (0.10 - 1.78) 0.45 (0.15 - 1.38)

Job performance eval of record-keeper N vs Y 32.67 (5.20 - 205.42) 0.87 (0.26 - 2.93)

Worker performance in safety incentive programs N vs Y 2.89 (0.52 - 15.99) 1.21 (0.41 - 3.54)

Note: Adjusted for all variables in the table. CI=Confidence interval.

Bold font indicates significant at p<0.05. 
Results: Knowledge of OSHA recordkeeping requirements 

32

3.5 Knowledge of OSHA recordkeeping requirements 

Study participants were presented with five hypothetical work injury scenarios and asked what

recordkeeping decisions they would make for each. All participants were asked to answer the scenarios, 

regardless of their OSHA recording responsibilities or their SOII experience. Establishments, rather than 

study participants, were selected as the level of analysis to align with the BLS SOII sampling unit and 

estimate the prevalence of recordkeeping misperceptions among the SOII establishment population. 

3.5.1 Estimates of OSHA recordkeeping knowledge by state

3.5.1.1 Recordkeeping scenarios related to case criteria used to determine OSHA log eligibility

Three scenarios regarding case criteria were asked: whether injuries resulting in stitches were recordable 

(they are); whether injuries resulting from horseplay were recordable (they are); and whether cases 

limited to X-rays confirming no broken bones are recorded (they should not be). Most participants

correctly answered the scenarios regarding stitches and horseplay (70% and 68% of establishments, 

respectively). Conversely, most participants incorrectly answered the scenario about the omission of 

diagnostic X-rays (22% of establishments answered correctly). There were no significant differences by 

state (table 14).

3.5.1.2 Recordkeeping scenarios related to recording days of missed work

Study participants were posed two recording scenarios regarding documenting case severity as related to 

days of missed work. One scenario involved updating the log to record days of missed work that did not 

occur until a week after the initial injury; the other scenario asked about recording missed work that was 

limited to a weekend when the employee was not scheduled to work. Most participants correctly 

answered that they would update the log to capture days of missed work that occurred sometime after the 

initial injury (68% of all establishments). Participants at 6% of establishments indicated they would add 

the case to the log as a new case (thus, double counting the injury), while <1% of establishments stated 

they would not update the log to record the delayed days of missed work leaving the log to indicate a lesssevere injury (the remaining participants did not know how they would handle the situation). For the 

second days-related scenario, most participants indicated a misunderstanding of how to count days of 

missed work that occurred over the weekend. The percent of establishments that correctly counted 

weekend days as missed work ranged from 14.3% in Washington to 30.1% in Oregon (table 14). (See 

Appendix for tabulations based on estimated number of workers.) 
Results: Knowledge of OSHA recordkeeping requirements 

33

Table 14. Responses to hypothetical recordkeeping scenarios by state. 

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 581 690 1368 701 3340

Estimated establishments 179,391 342,596 216,152 131,395 869,533

Scenarios related to case criteria

Records Stitches

Correct 78.3 (4.7) 69.8 (6.3) 68.7 (3.4) 61.6 (5.4) 70.1 (3.0) 0.2665

Incorrect 21.7 (4.7) 30.2 (6.3) 31.3 (3.4) 38.4 (5.4) 29.9 (3.0)

Records Horseplay

Correct 74.7 (5.2) 63.5 (6.4) 69.2 (3.3) 66.0 (5.4) 67.6 (3.0) 0.4419

Incorrect 25.3 (5.2) 36.5 (6.4) 30.8 (3.3) 34.0 (5.4) 32.4 (3.0)

Omits Diagnostic

Correct 24.0 (4.4) 24.8 (4.5) 17.1 (2.2) 17.7 (3.2) 21.6 (2.1) 0.281

Incorrect 76.0 (4.4) 75.2 (4.5) 83.0 (2.2) 82.3 (3.2) 78.4 (2.1)

Scenarios related to documentation of severity (counting days)

Counts Weekend (unscheduled work)

Correct 27.5 (4.9) 28.6 (5.1) 30.1 (3.7) 14.3 (2.8) 26.6 (2.5) 0.0993

Incorrect 72.5 (4.9) 71.4 (5.1) 69.9 (3.7) 85.7 (2.8) 73.4 (2.5)

Updates Log

Correct 76.3 (4.9) 65.3 (6.3) 67.7 (3.5) 64.6 (5.3) 68.1 (3.0) 0.4057

Incorrect 23.7 (4.9) 34.7 (6.3) 32.3 (3.5) 35.4 (5.3) 31.9 (3.0)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted. Incorrect responses 

include “Don’t Know” responses.
Results: Knowledge of OSHA recordkeeping requirements 

34

3.5.2 Characteristics associated with OSHA recordkeeping knowledge

Table 15 presents odds ratios for establishment and record-keeper characteristics and incorrect responses 

to the five hypothetical recordkeeping scenarios, adjusted for establishment and record-keeper 

characteristics. 

Incorrect responses to each of the five different recordkeeping scenarios were associated with different 

combinations of establishment or record-keeper characteristics, although some characteristics were found 

to be associated with multiple scenarios. The industry category Administrative Support and Waste 

Management and Remediation Services + Other Services consistently demonstrated limited 

recordkeeping knowledge; the only scenario in which they were no different than the comparison group 

(Manufacturing) was in the recording of missed weekend days (where all industries demonstrated equally 

poor knowledge). Record-keepers with no OSHA training were also more likely to answer incorrectly in 

four of the five scenarios; recording injuries resulting from horseplay was the one scenario in which they 

answered no differently than trained record-keepers. There were state differences in three scenarios 

(stitches, diagnostic evaluation, and counting weekend days as missed work); inclusion of injury and 

illness data in competitive bids for contract work was associated with better knowledge in three scenarios 

(diagnostic evaluation, updating missed days on the log, and counting weekend days as missed work); and 

limited OSHA recordkeeping experience and reporting zero injuries and illnesses in SOII were associated 

with three scenarios (incorrect answers for stitches, horseplay, and updating). 

The two scenarios that posed the greatest challenge (omitting diagnostic evaluation and counting 

unscheduled weekend days as missed work) shared three characteristics associated with incorrect 

answers: untrained record-keepers, Washington and Oregon establishments, and establishments that do 

not submit bid packages for contract work in which they disclose OSHA injury and illness data.

The relationship between recordkeeping knowledge and establishment size was complex. Compared to 

establishments with 250 or more employees, establishments with 1-10 employees were either no different 

(recording horseplay, X-rays, or missed weekend), or demonstrated greater knowledge of the 

recordkeeping rules (recording stitches and updating logs). Establishments with 11-49 employees were 

less likely than the largest establishments to know the more difficult scenarios (X-ray and weekend), but 

more likely to know the easier scenarios (stitches and updating). Establishments with 50-249 employees 

were less likely to know the more difficult scenarios, but no different than the largest establishments in 

their knowledge of the easier scenarios.
Results: Knowledge of OSHA recordkeeping requirements 

35

Table 15. Adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) for incorrect responses to hypothetical OSHA recordkeeping scenarios, four states combined (n=3340). 

------------------------Case-related------------------------ -----------Severity -related-----------

Stitches Horseplay

Diagnostic 

Procedure Weekend Days Update Logs

State (vs MN)

NY 1.12 (0.50 - 2.51) 1.44 (0.66 - 3.15) state*trained state*trained 1.28 (0.61 - 2.71)

OR 1.91 (0.86 - 4.26) 1.47 (0.69 - 3.14) See table 15-A See Table 15-A 1.72 (0.81 - 3.63)

WA 2.60 (1.16 - 5.86) 1.72 (0.79 - 3.75) 2.01 (0.94 - 4.31)

Trained on OSHA recording 

No vs Yes 2.60 (1.28 - 5.26) 1.08 (0.51 - 2.28) state*trained state*trained 2.91 (1.50 - 5.63)

Establishment size (vs. 250+ workers)

1-10 workers 0.51 (0.25 - 1.06) 1.06 (0.52 - 2.16) 1.41 (0.73 - 2.73) 1.71 (0.92 - 3.19) 0.43 (0.20 - 0.89)

11-49 workers 0.40 (0.20 - 0.81) 0.74 (0.39 - 1.39) 1.68 (1.00 - 2.81) 1.83 (1.09 - 3.08) 0.40 (0.20 - 0.79)

50-249 workers 0.71 (0.41 - 1.24) 1.41 (0.73 - 2.73) 1.60 (0.99 - 2.59) 3.17 (2.09 - 4.80) 0.69 (0.37 - 1.26)

Industry (vs Manufacturing)

Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 1.23 (0.44 - 3.43) 1.53 (0.55 - 4.30) 1.32 (0.39 - 4.42) 0.77 (0.28 - 2.16) 1.15 (0.43 - 3.08)

Wholesale Trade + Transportation, Warehousing + Utilities 1.33 (0.45 - 3.89) 0.83 (0.28 - 2.46) 1.02 (0.35 - 3.01) 0.74 (0.28 - 1.93) 1.32 (0.46 - 3.77)

Retail Trade 1.75 (0.56 - 5.47) 2.45 (0.84 - 7.18) 2.19 (0.68 - 7.08) 1.05 (0.36 - 3.03) 2.13 (0.72 - 6.36)

Information, Financial, Real Estate, Professional, Mgmt 2.08 (0.71 - 6.12) 2.60 (0.86 - 7.83) 3.94 (1.30 - 11.97) 1.81 (0.63 - 5.19) 2.30 (0.80 - 6.58)

Admin, Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation + Other Svc 4.01 (1.50 - 10.70) 2.84 (1.09 - 7.38) 4.25 (1.34 - 13.49) 1.47 (0.57 - 3.76) 4.21 (1.61 - 10.98)

Education + Health Care, Social Assistance 2.59 (0.85 - 7.89) 1.51 (0.50 - 4.58) 1.90 (0.62 - 5.84) 1.30 (0.48 - 3.53) 2.05 (0.67 - 6.25)

Leisure and Hospitality 2.12 (0.75 - 6.03) 0.96 (0.34 - 2.71) 2.08 (0.69 - 6.27) 0.90 (0.27 - 2.99) 1.50 (0.54 - 4.17)

State and Local Government 1.35 (0.46 - 3.99) 1.41 (0.43 - 4.62) 1.74 (0.57 - 5.29) 0.94 (0.37 - 2.38) 1.21 (0.42 - 3.49)

Number of worksites operated by employer

Single worksite vs multiple sites 1.17 (0.66 - 2.07) 0.71 (0.43 - 1.19) 2.39 (1.47 - 3.88) 1.01 (0.60 - 1.70) 1.10 (0.65 - 1.88)

SOII experience (vs Repeat Respondent)

First time SOII respondent 1.73 (0.92 - 3.27) 1.48 (0.73 - 3.01) 2.11 (1.08 - 4.13) 1.78 (0.93 - 3.42) 2.01 (1.03 - 3.93)

Did not complete SOII/DK/Other 2.14 (1.10 - 4.16) 1.82 (0.83 - 4.01) 2.10 (0.96 - 4.59) 1.57 (0.81 - 3.04) 2.94 (1.48 - 5.84)

Injury and illness rate (total OSHA recordable cases)

0 vs 1+ 2.37 (1.32 - 4.28) 1.95 (1.01 - 3.75) 1.25 (0.70 - 2.23) 1.61 (0.94 - 2.76) 2.47 (1.34 - 4.53)

Use of workplace injury and illness data

In competitive bids for contract work: N vs Y 0.95 (0.20 - 4.51) 1.26 (0.53 - 3.02) 2.25 (1.02 - 4.94) 2.55 (1.15 - 5.64) 2.44 (1.07 - 5.53)

In job performance eval of supervisors: N vs Y 3.06 (1.22 - 7.66) 1.93 (0.56 - 6.73) 1.24 (0.50 - 3.05) 1.34 (0.54 - 3.32) 2.31 (1.01 - 5.32)

In job performance eval of record-keeper: N vs Y 2.73 (0.62 - 12.02) 4.40 (1.37 - 14.12) 1.67 (0.63 - 4.41) 0.90 (0.37 - 2.19) 2.37 (0.67 - 8.47)

In worker safety incentive programs: N vs Y 0.34 (0.12 - 0.99) 1.68 (0.60 - 4.76) 2.72 (1.00 - 7.37) 0.61 (0.27 - 1.37) 0.57 (0.18 - 1.74)

OSHA experience (vs 2-9 years)

≤1 year 4.40 (2.29 - 8.43) 2.65 (1.30 - 5.39) 0.76 (0.43 - 1.34) 0.80 (0.43 - 1.50) 3.08 (1.58 - 5.99)

10+ years 2.86 (1.45 - 5.64) 1.32 (0.66 - 2.67) 0.61 (0.36 - 1.04) 1.23 (0.71 - 2.13) 2.54 (1.28 - 5.03)

DK 6.51 (2.03 - 20.84) 5.94 (2.00 - 17.59) 0.88 (0.33 - 2.36) 1.59 (0.55 - 4.60) 5.91 (1.80 - 19.40)

Note: Adjusted for all variables in the table and the following (found not significant in any of the five models): Union presence; Workers' compensation insurer; 

NAICS-based exemption from OSHA recordkeeping requirements. CI=Confidence interval. Separate multivariable regression model estimated for each scenario.

Bold font indicates significant at p<0.05
Results: Knowledge of OSHA recordkeeping requirements 

36

Table 15-A. Adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) for state*trained interaction terms for incorrect responses to two 

hypothetical OSHA recordkeeping scenarios, four states combined (n=3340). 

Diagnostic Procedure Weekend Days

State*OSHA trained interaction

MN Trained N vs Y 3.87 (1.58 - 9.50) 1.62 (0.66 - 4.00)

NY Trained N vs Y 4.66 (1.81 - 11.97) 5.83 (2.11 - 16.07)

OR Trained N vs Y 0.83 (0.39 - 1.77) 1.25 (0.57 - 2.72)

WA Trained N vs Y 0.96 (0.41 - 2.28) 2.99 (1.17 - 7.65)

Untrained NY vs OR 0.72 (0.37 - 1.44) 1.67 (0.75 - 3.71)

Untrained NY vs WA 0.69 (0.30 - 1.59) 0.43 (0.17 - 1.08)

Untrained NY vs MN 0.65 (0.25 - 1.68) 1.33 (0.54 - 3.30)

Untrained OR vs WA 0.95 (0.46 - 1.97) 0.26 (0.12 - 0.56)

Untrained OR vs MN 0.90 (0.38 - 2.13) 0.80 (0.36 - 1.76)

Untrained WA vs MN 0.95 (0.37 - 2.47) 3.12 (1.20 - 8.07)

Trained NY vs OR 0.13 (0.05 - 0.35) 0.36 (0.13 - 0.98)

Trained NY vs WA 0.14 (0.05 - 0.38) 0.22 (0.08 - 0.58)

Trained NY vs MN 0.54 (0.21 - 1.41) 0.37 (0.14 - 0.97)

Trained OR vs WA 1.11 (0.48 - 2.58) 0.61 (0.26 - 1.42)

Trained OR vs MN 4.23 (1.85 - 9.68) 1.04 (0.44 - 2.44)

Trained WA vs MN 3.81 (1.63 - 8.92) 1.69 (0.73 - 3.94)

Bold font indicates significant at p<0.05.
Results: Knowledge by OSHA compliant recordkeeping compliance 

37

3.6 OSHA recordkeeping knowledge by compliance 

OSHA recordkeeping knowledge (as measured by correct answers to the hypothetical recordkeeping 

scenarios) was compared against recordkeeping compliance. 

Correct answers to each of the five the hypothetical recordkeeping scenarios were more common among 

establishments where study participants maintained OSHA logs than among establishments where no logs 

were maintained (table 16). 

Table 16. Answers to hypothetical recording scenarios by whether or not OSHA logs were maintained for 

the establishment.

Establishments with 

OSHA logs

Establishments 

without OSHA logs Total p-value

Study establishments 2733 607 3340

Estimated establishments 356547 512986 869533

Scenarios related to case criteria

Records Stitches

Correct 89.3 (1.4) 56.7 (3.8) 70.1 (2.6) <0.0001

Incorrect 10.7 (1.4) 43.3 (3.8) 29.9 (2.6)

Records Horseplay

Correct 87.6 (1.6) 53.7 (3.9) 67.6 (2.8) <0.0001

Incorrect 12.4 (1.6) 46.3 (3.9) 32.4 (2.8)

Omits Diagnostic

Correct 33.8 (3.0) 13.2 (2.5) 21.6 (1.8) <0.0001

Incorrect 66.2 (3.0) 86.8 (2.5) 78.4 (1.8)

Scenarios related to documentation of severity (counting days)

Counts weekend (unscheduled work)

Correct 34.7 (3.2) 21.0 (3.4) 26.6 (2.4) 0.0059

Incorrect 65.3 (3.2) 79.0 (3.4) 73.4 (2.4)

Updates Log 

Correct 86.4 (1.7) 55.3 (3.8) 68.1 (2.7) <0.0001

Incorrect 13.6 (1.7) 44.7 (3.8) 31.9 (2.7)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted.
Results: Knowledge by OSHA compliant recordkeeping compliance 

38

There was little difference in the frequency of correct responses to the hypothetical recordkeeping 

scenarios related to recording stitches, horseplay, or updating logs among establishments where the case 

criteria used to determine eligibility for the OSHA log included: OSHA criteria, medical treatment, all 

injuries, or workers’ compensation claims (all categories other than DK/Other) (table 17). Compared to 

record-keepers that used criteria other than the OSHA criteria to determine eligibility for the 300 log, 

record-keepers who used the OSHA criteria were more likely to provide correct answers for omitting 

cases involving diagnostic services only and for counting unscheduled weekend days as missed work, 

although even among this group, the percent demonstrating poor knowledge was substantial, with roughly 

half providing incorrect answers.

Table 17. Answers to hypothetical recording scenarios by compliant and non-compliant case criteria for 

determining log eligibility among establishments where OSHA log maintained by participant. 

Case criteria used for log eligibility Total p-value

OSHA 

Criteriaa

Medical 

treatment

All 

Injuries Claims DK/Other

Study 

establishments 1478 428 330 175 178 2589

Estimated 

establishments 156,317 62,447 67,492 14,563 33,856 334,675

Scenarios related to case criteria

Records Stitches

Correct 88.5 (2.4) 96.6 (1.0) 93.5 (3.1) 94.3 (2.0) 74.8 (6.3) 89.9 (1.5) <0.0001

Incorrect 11.5 (2.4) 3.4 (1.0) 6.5 (3.1) 5.7 (2.0) 25.2 (6.3) 10.1 (1.5)

Records 

Horseplay

Correct 88.9 (2.1) 89.4 (3.1) 91.7 (3.4) 88.6 (4.5) 72.3 (7.7) 87.9 (1.6) 0.0135

Incorrect 11.1 (2.1) 10.6 (3.1) 8.3 (3.4) 11.4 (4.5) 27.7 (7.7) 12.1 (1.6)

Omits Diagnostic

Correct 52.9 (4.9) 25.5 (6.4) 3.9 (1.4) 6.2 (2.0) 26.8 (6.2) 33.2 (3.1) <0.0001

Incorrect 47.1 (4.9) 74.5 (6.4) 96.1 (1.4) 93.8 (2.0) 73.2 (6.2) 66.8 (3.1)

Scenarios related to documentation of severity (counting days)

Counts weekend (unscheduled work)

Correct 46.8 (4.9) 27.8 (7.4) 22.8 (6.2) 10 (3.2) 29.6 (8) 35.1 (3.3) 0.0009

Incorrect 53.2 (4.9) 72.2 (7.4) 77.2 (6.2) 90 (3.2) 70.4 (8) 64.9 (3.3)

Updates Log 

Correct 87.8 (2.4) 90.4 (4.2) 90.1 (3.7) 83.6 (7.1) 75.7 (6.1) 87.3 (1.7) 0.1876

Incorrect 12.2 (2.4) 9.6 (4.2) 9.9 (3.7) 16.4 (7.1) 24.3 (6.1) 12.7 (1.7)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted. a

OSHA-compliant practice.
Results: Knowledge by OSHA compliant recordkeeping compliance 

39

Like recordkeeping knowledge by case criteria, there was little difference by timing of recording cases for 

scenarios related to stitches and updating logs. Unlike knowledge by case criteria, there was a difference 

in recording horseplay injuries by timing of recording: establishments that recorded cases within seven 

days or on a monthly or quarterly basis were more likely to record injuries resulting from horseplay than 

establishments that waited for workers’ compensation claims documentation before recording a case on 

the log. The highest percentages of correct responses to the scenario related to counting missed weekend 

days was observed among establishments that recorded cases within seven days and establishments that 

recorded cases at the end of the year, where 38% of both groups provided the correct answer (table 18). 

Establishments compliant with the seven-day recording requirement did not have the highest percent of 

correct responses to scenario related to omitting diagnostic services; instead, the greatest percent of 

correct responses (49%) was observed among establishments that waited for workers’ compensation 

claims documentation before recording. 

Table 18. Answers to hypothetical recording scenarios by compliant and non-compliant timing of case 

recording among establishments where OSHA logs maintained by study participant. 

Timing of case recording Total p-value

Weeka

Monthly 

or 

Quarterly

End of year

Upon receipt 

of WC claim 

documentation

DK/Other

Study 

establishments 1894 237 240 47 171 2589

Estimated 

establishments 259,280 17,313 25,983 2,194 29,905 334,675

Scenarios related to case criteria

Records Stitches

Correct 91.0 (1.7) 88.2 (3.3) 93.7 (2.1) 90.5 (5.0) 77.7 (6.1) 89.9 (1.5) 0.0008

Incorrect 9.0 (1.7) 11.8 (3.3) 6.3 (2.1) 9.5 (5.0) 22.3 (6.1) 10.1 (1.5)

Records 

Horseplay

Correct 91.0 (1.6) 93.5 (1.9) 84.3 (5.9) 76.7 (9.5) 61.7 (9.2) 87.9 (1.6) <0.0001

Incorrect 9.0 (1.6) 6.5 (1.9) 15.7 (5.9) 23.3 (9.5) 38.3 (9.2) 12.1 (1.6)

Omits Diagnostic

Correct 34.5 (3.9) 41.0 (6.8) 32.1 (8.0) 49.1 (12.6) 17.6 (5.4) 33.2 (3.1) 0.0902

Incorrect 65.5 (3.9) 59.0 (6.8) 67.9 (8.0) 50.9 (12.6) 82.4 (5.4) 66.8 (3.1)

Scenarios related to documentation of severity (counting days)

Counts weekend (unscheduled work)

Correct 37.6 (4.1) 29.7 (6.2) 38.0 (11.8) 20.5 (9.0) 15.2 (4.5) 35.1 (3.3) 0.0438

Incorrect 62.4 (4.1) 70.3 (6.2) 62.0 (11.8) 79.5 (9.0) 84.8 (4.5) 64.9 (3.3)

Updates Log 

Correct 88.8 (2.0) 89.0 (2.7) 87.1 (5.0) 81.2 (9.2) 73.9 (7.3) 87.3 (1.7) 0.0141

Incorrect 11.2 (2.0) 11.0 (2.7) 12.9 (5.0) 18.8 (9.2) 26.1 (7.3) 12.7 (1.7)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted. a

OSHA-compliant practice.
Results: Knowledge by OSHA compliant recordkeeping compliance 

40

Among establishments that counted either calendar days or scheduled days or shifts of missed work, there 

was little difference in correct responses to scenarios related to recording injuries resulting in stitches, 

resulting from horseplay, or updating logs (table 19). Establishments compliant with counting calendar 

days of missed work were more likely to answer correctly the scenarios related to omitting cases limited 

to diagnostic services and counting weekend as days of missed work. However, even among 

establishment reportedly counting missed calendar days, knowledge of the counting rule was limited; over 

40% of establishments that claimed to count calendar days of missed work seemed to contradict their 

reported practice by incorrectly stating they would not count the weekend in the hypothetical scenario. 

Table 19. Answers to hypothetical recording scenarios by compliant and non-compliant methods of 

counting days of missed work among establishments where OSHA logs maintained by the study 

participant. 

Method of counting days of missed work Total p-value

Calendar daysa

Scheduled 

days or 

shifts DK/Other

Study establishments 1262 1110 217 2589

Estimated establishments 135187 165782 33707 334675

Scenarios related to case criteria

Records Stitches

Correct 91.5 (2.0) 92.2 (1.8) 72.5 (7.4) 89.9 (1.5) 0.0003

Incorrect 8.5 (2.0) 7.8 (1.8) 27.5 (7.4) 10.1 (1.5)

Records Horseplay

Correct 89.1 (2.6) 90.5 (1.9) 70.1 (6.9) 87.9 (1.6) 0.0009

Incorrect 10.9 (2.6) 9.5 (1.9) 29.9 (6.9) 12.1 (1.6)

Omits Diagnostic

Correct 52.8 (6.6) 19.8 (3.0) 21 (7.2) 33.2 (3.1) <0.0001

Incorrect 47.2 (6.6) 80.2 (3.0) 79 (7.2) 66.8 (3.1)

Scenarios related to documentation of severity (counting days)

Counts weekend (unscheduled work)

Correct 57.5 (6.8) 19.4 (3.9) 22.1 (7.7) 35.1 (3.3) <0.0001

Incorrect 42.5 (6.8) 80.6 (3.9) 77.9 (7.7) 64.9 (3.3)

Updates Log 

Correct 87.7 (3.0) 90.2 (1.8) 71.4 (7.5) 87.3 (1.7) 0.006

Incorrect 12.3 (3.0) 9.8 (1.8) 28.6 (7.5) 12.7 (1.7)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted. a

OSHA-compliant practice.
Results: Classification trees

41

3.7 Classification trees 

To identify discrete groups of establishments with good and bad recordkeeping practices and knowledge 

without imposing or assuming a distribution of the data, we examined the data using CART 

(classification and regression trees).

3.7.1 Classification trees: Compliance with OSHA recordkeeping regulations 

3.7.1.1 Classification trees: OSHA injury and illness 300 logs maintained for establishment 

The classification tree constructed for maintaining OSHA logs at an establishment identified many of the 

same establishment and record-keeper characteristics that were significantly associated with logs based on 

the adjusted logistic regression model. Based on the classification tree (figure 1), OSHA logs were 

present in at least 80% of establishments with the following characteristics: establishments that reported 

in SOII 1 or more cases of OSHA recordable injuries or illnesses; multi-site self-insured establishments; 

multi-site privately or state-insured establishments with 28 or more employees; and multi-site privately or 

state-insured establishments with fewer than 28 employees required to maintain OSHA logs annually 

regardless of participation in SOII in the industry groups of Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade + 

Transportation and Warehousing + Utilities, Administrative and Support and Waste Management and 

Remediation + Other Services, and Education + Health Care and Social Assistance. OSHA logs were 

least common (in 20% of establishments) among single site establishments that reported in SOII zero 

cases of OSHA recordable injuries or illnesses. 

3.7.1.2 Classification trees: Use of OSHA case criteria

Based on the classification tree for compliance with the OSHA case criteria (figure 2), the highest rate of 

compliance was observed for New York establishments with record-keepers formally trained in OSHA 

recordkeeping, where 88% of establishments reported using the OSHA case criteria to determine 

eligibility for the log. For trained record-keepers in MN, OR, and WA, compliance was near 70% for 

certain industries and larger sized establishments; however, even among trained record-keepers in MN, 

OR, and WA, compliance was less than 40% for establishments in certain industries with fewer than 74 

employees. Among establishments with untrained record-keepers, use of OSHA case criteria ranged from 

16% for establishments in Manufacturing, Retail Trade, Administrative and Support and Waste 

Management and Remediation + Other Services, and Leisure and Hospitality, to 61% of New York and 

Oregon establishments in select industries.

3.7.1.3 Classification trees: Counting calendar days of missed work 

Compliance with counting calendar days of missed work was greatest among multi-site New York 

establishments in six industry groups, where 83% of establishments counted calendar days (figure 3). 

Among the other three states, compliance differed by number of workers, achieving a high of 59% 

compliance among establishments with more than 6 employees. Compliance with the counting 

convention was lowest among single site establishments (18% of establishments were compliant), and 

among multi-site establishments in four industry groups where the study participant had limited SOII 

experience (19% compliant). Among multi-site establishments in those same industries, repeat SOII 

respondents were differentiated by whether they had received training on OSHA recordkeeping: 69% of 

trained record-keepers from these establishments counted calendar days whereas 26% of untrained 

record-keepers counted calendar days.

3.7.2 Classification trees: Knowledge of OSHA recordkeeping regulations

For the three knowledge questions answered correctly by most establishments (recording injuries 

resulting in stitches, resulting from horseplay, and updating logs to capture eventual missed work), a 

major characteristic that differentiated correct from incorrect answers was whether OSHA logs were 
Results: Classification trees

42

maintained at the establishment. Correct responses were provided in 86 – 89% of establishments that 

maintained OSHA logs, depending on the question. For the more difficult questions (omitting diagnostic 

services from the log, and counting an unscheduled weekend as missed days of work), maintaining logs 

was not identified as a distinguishing characteristic. Instead, recordkeeping experience, measured 

different ways, appeared to be important: trained, repeat SOII respondents were characteristics identified 

with correct responses to missed weekend days; repeat SOII respondents with at least 2.5 years of 

recordkeeping experience were more knowledgeable about diagnostic services, as were first time and 

never SOII respondents who had been formally trained in OSHA recordkeeping.

3.7.2.1 Classification trees: Recordkeeping scenarios related to case criteria used to determine OSHA 

log eligibility 

Based on the classification tree for recording stitches, in addition to establishments with logs, better 

knowledge was identified among non-log maintaining New York and Minnesota establishments in most 

industries (figure 4). The lowest percent of correct responses was observed among Manufacturing, 

Information + Finance and Insurance + Real Estate and Rental + Professional and Technical Services + 

Company Management, and Education + Health Care and Social Assistance establishments in Oregon 

and Washington where no logs were maintained and the record-keeper had less than 1.5 years of 

recordkeeping experience; 34% of such establishments considered stitches a recordable case. 

Establishments without logs in Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation + 

Other Services from all states demonstrated a similar lack of knowledge.

The highest percent of correct responses to recording injuries resulting from horseplay were observed for 

establishments with OSHA logs (88% correct responses). Among establishments where no logs were 

maintained, better knowledge of the recordkeeping requirements for horseplay was demonstrated among 

establishments in five industry groups (Wholesale Trade + Transportation and Warehousing + Utilities; 

Manufacturing; Education + Health Care and Social Services; Leisure and Hospitality; and State and 

Local Government) and among establishments with >8 employees in the remaining four industry groups 

(Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; Retail Trade; Administrative and Support, 

Waste Management and Remediation + Other Services; Information, Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and 

Rental, Professional, Scientific, Technical Services, and Company Management) (figure 5). 

Based on the classification tree for correctly omitting cases limited to diagnostic services (figure 6), the 

most knowledgeable establishments include: New York establishments with a repeat SOII respondent 

with at least 2.5 years of recordkeeping experience (73% correct); Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington 

establishments with a repeat SOII respondent with at least 2.5 years of recordkeeping experience and that 

include OSHA data in competitive bids for contract work (80% correct); and Minnesota and New York 

establishments with first time or never SOII respondents at multi-site establishments who have been 

formally trained in OSHA recordkeeping (71% correct). Correct responses were provided in less than 

20% of: first time or never SOII respondents at single site establishments; and first time or never SOII 

respondents at multi-site establishments where the record-keeper had not been trained on OSHA 

recordkeeping.

3.7.2.2 Classification trees: Recordkeeping scenarios related to recording days of missed work

Fewer than one in four record-keepers with no formal training in OSHA recordkeeping would correctly 

record unscheduled weekend days as missed work (figure 7). This is particularly noteworthy given that 

untrained record-keepers represent 78% of all establishments across the four states. Trained OSHA 

record-keepers with limited SOII experience among establishments with private or state funded workers’ 

compensation claims also demonstrated poor knowledge of counting days. Establishments with high 

percentages of correct responses included: OSHA trained, repeat SOII respondents in New York (80% 
Results: Classification trees

43

correct), and OSHA trained, repeat SOII respondents in Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington in four 

industry groups: Manufacturing, Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation + 

Other Services, Leisure and Hospitality, and State and Local Government.

Based on the classification tree for updating logs to document missed work that occurs sometime after the 

initial injury, correct responses ranged from 34% among establishments in Administrative and Support 

and Waste Management and Remediation + Other Services where no logs were maintained to 91% among 

repeat SOII respondents where no logs were maintained among all other industries (figure 8). Among 

establishments where logs were maintained, 86% responded correctly.

3.7.3 Classification trees: Participants trained in OSHA recordkeeping requirements 

Because both the regression models and trees identified OSHA recordkeeping training as a significant 

characteristic in several aspects of recordkeeping practice and knowledge, and because participation in 

training is not mandated by the OSHA recordkeeping regulations but instead is a voluntary activity, a 

classification tree was constructed to identify which establishments have trained record-keepers. Based on 

the classification tree (figure 9), trained record-keepers were most common among: multi-site 

establishments in Minnesota and Oregon where the record-keeper was a repeat SOII respondent (recordkeepers were trained in 70% of these establishments); and multi-site establishments in New York and 

Washington where the record-keeper was a repeat SOII respondent in an establishment required to 

maintain OSHA injury records annually regardless of participation in SOII (record-keepers were trained 

in 70% of these establishments). Training was uncommon among first time and never SOII respondents 

(16% were trained) and among repeat SOII respondents in small, single site establishments.
Results: Classification trees

44

Figure 1. Compliance with requirement to maintain OSHA logs. Data shown are (% of total 

establishments that occupy box) % of establishments within box that are in compliance with the OSHA 

recordkeeping regulation. 

All (100%)

41% Compliant

Reported ≥1 cases 

(19%)

83%

Reported 0 cases 

(81%)

32%

Multi-site (29%)

51%

Self-insured (4%)

93%

Private, state 

funded (25%) 

45%

≥28 employees 

(3%)

81%

<28 employees 

(22%)

40%

Non-exempt (10%)

56%

Industries A (5%)

80%

Industries B (5%)

34%

Usually exempt 

(12%)

27%

Single site (52%)

20%

Industries A:

• Wholesale Trade + Transportation and Warehousing + 

Utilities

• Manufacturing

• Administrative and Support and Waste Management and 

Remediation + Other Services

• Education + Health Care and Social Assistance

Industries B:

• Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

• Retail Trade

• Information + Finance and Insurance + Real Estate and 

Rental + Professional and Technical Services + Company 

Management

• Leisure and Hospitality

• State and Local Government
Results: Classification trees

45

Figure 2. Compliance with use of OSHA case criteria (among establishments where study participant maintains OSHA logs). Data shown are (% 

of total establishments that occupy box) % of establishments within box that are in compliance with the OSHA recordkeeping regulation.

All (100%)

47% Compliant

OSHA trained (49%)

61%

NY (15%)

88%

MN, OR, WA (34%)

49%

Industries C (10%)

68%

Industries D (24%)

42%

≥74 employees 

(3%)

69%

<74 employees 

(22%)

38%

Not trained (51%)

33%

Industries A (27%)

48%

NY, OR (18%)

61%

MN, WA (9%)

23%

Industries B (24%)

16%

Industries A:

• Construction + Agriculture, 

Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

• Wholesale Trade + 

Transportation and Warehousing 

+ Utilities

• Information + Finance and 

Insurance + Real Estate and 

Rental + Professional and 

Technical Services + Company 

Management

• Education + Health Care and 

Social Assistance

• State and Local Government

Industries B:

• Manufacturing

• Retail Trade

• Administrative and Support 

and Waste Management and 

Remediation + Other 

Services

• Leisure and Hospitality

Industries C:

• Wholesale Trade + Transportation 

and Warehousing + Utilities

• Information + Finance and 

Insurance + Real Estate and 

Rental + Professional and 

Technical Services + Company 

Management

• State and Local Government

Industries D:

• Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, 

Fishing and Hunting

• Manufacturing

• Retail Trade

• Administrative and Support and Waste 

Management and Remediation + Other 

Services

• Education + Health Care and Social 

Assistance

• Leisure and Hospitality
Results: Classification trees

46

Figure 3. Compliance with counting calendar days of missed work (among establishments were study participant maintains OSHA logs). Data 

shown are (% of total establishments that occupy box) % of establishments within box that are in compliance with the OSHA recordkeeping 

regulation. 

All (100%)

40% Compliant

Multi-site (60%)

55%

Industries A (44%)

63%

NY (16%)

83%

MN, OR, WA (28%)

52%

>6 employees 

(20%)

59%

≤6 employees (8%)

30%

Industries B (16%)

33%

Repeat SOII (7%)

53%

OSHA trained (4%)

69%

Not trained (3%)

26%

First time 

SOII/Never/DK (9%)

19%

Single site (40%)

18%

Industries A:

• Wholesale Trade + Transportation and Warehousing + Utilities

• Manufacturing

• Retail Trade

• Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation 

+ Other Services

• Education + Health Care and Social Assistance

• State and Local Government

Industries B:

• Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

• Information + Finance and Insurance + Real Estate and Rental + 

Professional and Technical Services + Company Management

• Leisure and Hospitality
Results: Classification trees

47

Figure 4. Knowledge of requirement to record a work injury resulting in stitches. Data shown are (% of 

total establishments that occupy box) % of establishments within box that answered question correctly. 

All (100%)

70% Correct

Logs kept for estab 

(41%)

89%

No logs at estab 

(59%)

57%

Industries A (48%)

61%

MN, NY (30%)

70%

OR, WA (18%)

46%

Industries AA (6%)

57%

Industries AB (12%)

41%

≥1.5 yrs OSHA 

experience (6%)

50%

<1.5 yrs OSHA 

experience (5%)

34%

Industries B (11%)

37%

Industries A:

• Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 

• Wholesale Trade + Transportation and Warehousing + Utilities 

• Manufacturing 

• Retail Trade

• Information + Finance and Insurance + Real Estate and Rental + 

Professional and Technical Services + Company Management

• Education + Health Care and Social Assistance

• Leisure and Hospitality

• State and Local Government

Industries B:

• Administrative and Support and Waste 

Management and Remediation + Other 

Services

Industries AA:

• Construction + 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

• Wholesale Trade + Transportation and Warehousing + 

Utilities

• Retail Trade

• State and Local Government

Industries AB:

• Manufacturing

• Information + Finance and Insurance + Real Estate and 

Rental + Professional and Technical Services + 

Company Management

• Education + Health Care and Social Assistance

• Leisure and Hospitality
Results: Classification trees

48

Figure 5. Knowledge of requirement to record a work injury resulting from horseplay. Data shown are (% of total establishments that occupy box) 

% of establishments within box that answered question correctly. 

All (100%)

68% Correct

Logs kept for estab 

(41%)

88%

No logs at estab 

(59%)

54%

Industries A (17%)

70%

Industries B (42%)

47%

>8 employees 

(8%)

70%

≤8 employees 

(34%)

42%

Industries A:

• Wholesale Trade + Transportation and Warehousing + Utilities

• Manufacturing

• Education + Health Care and Social Services

• Leisure and Hospitality

• State and Local Government

Industries B:

• Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

• Retail Trade 

• Administrative and Support, Waste Management and 

Remediation + Other Services 

• Information, Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Rental, 

Professional, Scientific, Technical Services, and Company 

Management
Results: Classification trees

49

Figure 6. Knowledge that cases limited to diagnostic services are not required to be recorded on log. Data shown are (% of total establishments 

that occupy box) % of establishments within box that answered question correctly.

All (100%)

22% Correct

Repeat SOII (19%) 

44%

≥2.5 yrs OSHA exp 

(13%) 

52%

NY (5%)

73%

MN, OR, WA (8%) 

41%

OSHA data in bids 

(1%) 

80%

No OSHA data in bids 

(7%) 

36%

≥16 employees (3%)

52%

<16 employees (4%)

25%

<2.5 yrs OSHA exp 

(6%) 

22%

First time 

SOII/never/DK (81%)

16%

Multi-site (26%)

26%

OSHA Trained (6%)

50%

MN, NY (3%)

71%

OR, WA (3%)

26%

No OSHA training 

(20%) 

19%

Single site (55%)

12%
Results: Classification trees

50

Figure 7. Knowledge that weekend days are counted as missed work. Data shown are (% of total establishments that occupy box) % of 

establishments within box that answered question correctly.

All (100%)

27% Correct

OSHA trained (22%)

42%

Repeat SOII (9%)

63%

NY (3%)

80%

MN, OR, WA (5%)

52%

Industries A (2%)

73%

Industries B (3%)

37%

First time 

SOII/Never/DK (13%)

28%

Self-insured for WC 

(2%)

69%

Private ins, state 

fund, other (11%)

21%

No OSHA training 

(78%)

22%

Industries A:

• Manufacturing

• Administrative and Support and Waste 

Management and Remediation + Other Services

• Leisure and Hospitality

• State and Local Government

Industries B: 

• Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

• Wholesale Trade + Transportation and Warehousing + Utilities; 

• Retail Trade; 

• Information + Finance and Insurance + Real Estate and Rental + 

Professional and Technical Services + Company Mgmt; 

• Education + Health Care and Social Asst
Results: Classification trees

51

Figure 8. Knowledge that OSHA logs are updated to record missed work that occurred sometime after 

the initial injury. Data shown are (% of total establishments that occupy box) % of establishments within 

box that answered question correctly. 

All (100%)

68% Correct

Logs kept for estab 

(41%)

86%

No logs at estab (59%)

55%

Industries A (48%)

60%

Repeat SOII (5%)

91%

First time 

SOII/Never/DK (43%)

57%

MN, NY (26%)

64%

OR, WA (17%)

46%

>3 employees (6%)

59%

<3 employees (9%)

40%

Industries B (11%)

34%

Industries A:

• Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

• Wholesale Trade + Transportation and Warehousing + 

Utilities

• Manufacturing

• Retail Trade

• Information + Finance and Insurance + Real Estate and 

Rental + Professional and Technical Services + Company 

Management

• Education + Health Care and Social Assistance

• Leisure and Hospitality

• State and Local Government

Industries B:

• Administrative and Support and Waste 

Management and Remediation + Other Services
Results: Classification trees

52

Figure 9. Establishments with trained record-keepers, identifiable from SOII data. Data shown are (% of total establishments that occupy box) % 

of establishments within box with a record-keeper who received formal OSHA recordkeeping training. 

All (100%)

22% Trained

Repeat SOII (19%)

54%

Multi-site (15%)

53%

MN, OR (5%)

70%

NY, WA (9%)

43%

Industries A (8%)

49%

Not exempt (3%)

70%

Usually exempt (5%)

37%

Industries B (1%)

6%

Single site (5%)

25%

≥38 employees (1%)

64%

<38 employees (4%)

15%

First time 

SOII/Never/DK (81%)

16%

Industries A:

• Construction + Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

• Wholesale Trade + Transportation and Warehousing + Utilities

• Manufacturing

• Leisure and Hospitality

• Retail Trade

• Education + Health Care and Social Assistance

• Information + Finance and Insurance + Real Estate and Rental + 

Professional and Technical Services + Company Management

Industries B:

• Administrative and Support and Waste Management and 

Remediation + Other Services

• State and Local Government
Discussion

53

4 Discussion 

While some workplace injury and illness record-keepers at SOII-participating establishments exhibit 

comprehensive knowledge of the injury and illness recording requirements, many record-keepers possess 

a limited understanding of those requirements. The prevalence of certain practices and knowledge – 

namely, recording all injuries regardless of severity and a belief that cases limited to diagnostic evaluation 

should be reported – suggests that many SOII respondents are likely over-reporting cases. Although these 

cases by definition are minor (involving no days of job restriction or missed work), many establishments 

may be inflating their rate of total OSHA recordable cases. Reliance on the OSHA case eligibility criteria 

creates a systematic case definition for SOII; when establishments employ their own case eligibility 

criteria, the data cannot be used to compare rates of total recordable cases across establishments. 

Perhaps more important is the documentation of severity based on methods for counting days of missed 

work. Given the number of establishments that undercount days of missed work by counting scheduled 

shifts/days instead of calendar days and the overwhelming belief that unscheduled weekend days need not 

be counted as missed work, employer records of work-related injuries and illnesses are likely underreporting total days of missed work. Moreover, if “missed days” are limited to days that the worker is 

scheduled to appear at work, they are likely under-reporting cases involving days away from work 

(DAFW) by failing to accurately classify the severity of the case. These cases may instead appear on the 

log as a less severe case (case involving days of job transfer or restriction or other recordable case), if 

they appear on the log at all. Underreporting DAFW cases is particularly relevant for SOII data as DAFW 

cases are the basis of injury and illness estimates by worker and injury characteristics (e.g., age of injured 

worker, nature of injury, body part injured).

Compounding the issue of under-reporting is the possibility of differential reporting stemming from 

differences in understanding of the recordkeeping requirements. Record-keepers with limited exposure to 

OSHA injury and illness records appear more likely to under-report days of missed work than trained, 

experienced record-keepers at unionized workplaces or establishments that include their OSHA injury 

data in bid packages for contract work. 

The widespread confusion regarding the responsibility for recording injuries and illnesses among 

temporary workers hired through staffing agencies suggests another area of systematic underreporting to 

SOII. BLS estimates of occupational injuries and illnesses may be missing a larger portion of cases 

among this segment of the workforce compared to injuries among workers in a traditional employerworker relationship. As with other aspects of recordkeeping compliance, temp help worker injuries were 

more likely to be reported by certain industries and record-keepers.

Record-keepers with minimal OSHA recordkeeping knowledge and noncompliant recordkeeping 

practices share many of the same characteristics of record-keepers who use data other than OSHA data 

when completing SOII. Single site establishments, record-keepers with no formal OSHA recordkeeping 

training, record-keepers with one year or less OSHA recordkeeping experience, and establishments 

usually exempt from annual OSHA recordkeeping are more likely to rely on their workers’ compensation 

claims data or some other data source rather than OSHA data for completing SOII. Whereas the OSHA 

case eligibility criteria offers a systematic case definition across states, the case criteria for workers’ 

compensation claims differs by state. Additionally, injury and illness reporting in workers’ compensation 

in incomplete; many workers do not file claims for what might be a covered injury or illness because they 

are unaware of their benefit eligibility, they consider the condition to be minor, or they perceive the claim 

filing and administration process to be too burdensome. Instead of entering the workers’ compensation 
Discussion

54

system, they seek treatment from their personal health care provider, if at all. Interviews with injured 

workers in ten states suggest rates of claim filing differs by state (Centers for Disease and Prevention, 

2010). Reliance on workers’ compensation claims data for SOII introduces state differences in the SOII 

data that would not exist if cases were reported in accordance with the OSHA regulation.

State differences in recordkeeping practices and knowledge persisted after controlling for establishment 

and record-keeper characteristics. It is unknown what is driving these differences. Three of the four states 

operate state-plan OSHA programs; each may place a different emphasis on recordkeeping, both in terms 

of enforcement and educational outreach activities. Differences in workers’ compensation insurer may 

play a role that was obscured in the comparison of self-insured against all other insurance arrangements. 

There may have been regional differences in a tendency to default to a “don’t know” response (that was 

grouped with the incorrect responses) instead of providing a more definitive answer. State differences in 

survey administration procedures for this study may also account for some portion of observed 

differences. These findings may not reflect the recordkeeping practices in the 46 states that did not 

participate in the survey; however, the large gaps in recordkeeping knowledge demonstrated across the 

four states suggest that limited understanding of recordkeeping requirements is pervasive across the 

country. 

Although formal training in OSHA recording was associated with several aspects of recordkeeping 

compliance and knowledge, this study does not address whether training causes better recordkeeping. Not 

required under existing OSHA regulations, participation in training is voluntary (unless required by an 

employer). Better recordkeeping among trained respondents instead may be explained by underlying 

differences between participants who chose to attend a training course and those who did not, including a 

greater interest in recordkeeping and motivation to complete the forms correctly. Additionally, some 

establishments may have better access to high quality training while others have more limited options. 

The quality and availability of the training provided, not assessed in this study, may further impact 

observed associations with recordkeeping practices.

Workplace injury and illness recordkeeping is a difficult topic to discuss with employers. For many 

establishments, injuries are rare and thus, recordkeeping is infrequent. The common response of “don’t 

know” provided little in terms of informative answers and made assessment of practices and knowledge 

difficult. In grouping “don’t know” with incorrect responses (for knowledge), or other (for practice 

responses), the findings can be viewed as ‘worst case’ estimates; some study participants who answered 

“don’t know” may have or will in the future undertake the appropriate recordkeeping action. Additionally, 

we were unable to assess the recordkeeping practices of the more than 40% of establishments that did not 

maintain OSHA logs. Many of these establishments reported zero work injuries and illnesses, suggesting 

one of two possibilities: either recordkeeping is something establishments undertake only after an injury 

had occurred, or there are no injuries to report because there is no tracking system in which they are 

documented. Studies other than telephone interviews with employers may be better suited to exploring 

this issue. 

The observed relationship between establishment characteristics (especially size and industry) and 

recordkeeping wasn’t always as expected; for example, smaller establishments were not always the worst 

performers. This may arise from non-response bias for this survey. Smaller establishments were less 

likely to participate in this study. Perhaps only the most engaged and knowledgeable record-keepers 

among smaller establishments agreed to participate in the survey, while a greater range of individuals 

participated from larger establishments. Non-response bias may have also resulted from differences in 

participation by industry and workplace injury experience. 
Discussion

55

5 Conclusion 

The accuracy of the BLS estimates of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses is dependent on the 

quality of the data reported by employers. BLS data accuracy likely suffers from limited understanding of 

the reporting requirements among SOII respondents. Since record-keeper characteristics (SOII 

experience, OSHA recordkeeping experience, and OSHA recordkeeping training) were found to be 

associated with better practices and knowledge, focusing on the individual reporting the SOII data may be 

an effective means of improving data accuracy. Approaches to increasing record-keeper engagement 

include: identification of first time SOII respondents (individuals, not establishments) and increased 

communication between the SOII data collection staff and all respondents throughout the survey period to 

facilitate an improved understanding of the reporting requirements as well as the importance of the data; 

enrollment of establishments in SOII for a multi-year period instead of one year to increase familiarity 

with recordkeeping; and development and dissemination of effective training materials, in collaboration 

with OSHA, that address common recordkeeping misperceptions. 
56

References 

Boden, LI. 2014. Capture-recapture estimates of the undercount of workplace injuries and illnesses: 

sensitivity analysis. Am J Ind Med 57: 1090-1099. 

Boden, LI, Ozonoff, A. 2008. Capture-recapture estimates of nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses. 

Ann Epidemiol 18: 500-506. 

Centers for Disease, C, Prevention. 2010. Proportion of workers who were work-injured and payment by 

workers' compensation systems - 10 states, 2007. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 59: 

897-900. 

Dong, XS, Fujimoto, A, Ringen, K, Stafford, E, Platner, JW, Gittleman, JL, Wang, X. 2011. Injury 

underreporting among small establishments in the construction industry. Am J Ind Med 54: 339-349. 

Mendeloff, J, Burns, R. 2013. States with low non-fatal injury rates have high fatality rates and viceversa. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 56: 509-519. 

Nestoriak, N, Pierce, B. 2009. Comparing workers' compensation claims with establishments' responses 

to the SOII. Monthly Labor Review 132: 8. 

Phipps, P, Moore, D, 2010. Employer Interviews: Exploring Differences in Reporting Work Injuries and 

Illnesses in the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses and State Workers' Compensation Claims, 

Paper presented at the 2010 Joint Statistical Meetings, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/st100210.pdf 

Rappin, CL, Wuellner, SE, Bonauto, DK. 2016. Employer reasons for failing to report eligible workers' 

compensation claims in the BLS survey of occupational injuries and illnesses. Am J Ind Med 59: 343-

356. 

Rosenman, KD, Kalush, A, Reilly, MJ, Gardiner, JC, Reeves, M, Luo, Z. 2006. How much work-related 

injury and illness is missed by the current national surveillance system? J Occup Environ Med 48: 357-

365. 

Wiatrowski, WJ. 2014. The BLS survey of occupational injuries and illnesses: a primer. Am J Ind Med 

57: 1085-1089. 

Wuellner, SE, Adams, DA, Bonauto, DK. 2016. Unreported workers' compensation claims to the BLS 

Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Establishment factors. Am J Ind Med 59: 274-289. 

Wuellner, SE, Bonauto, DK. 2014. Exploring the relationship between employer recordkeeping and 

underreporting in the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. Am J Ind Med 57: 1133-1143. 
57

Appendix: Worker estimates 

By multiplying the establishment weight by the number of workers reported by the establishment, we 

estimated the number and percent of workers in each state by select characteristics and recordkeeping 

outcomes. 

Whereas there was little difference in the percent of establishments with an OSHA-trained record-keeper, 

and trained record-keepers were present in about one in five establishments, the percent of employees that 

worked at an establishment with a formally trained OSHA record-keeper differed by state, and over half 

the employees in Minnesota and Oregon worked at an establishment with a formally trained recordkeeper. Estimates of recordkeeping experience were substantially different between establishment and 

employee weights. In three states, half or more establishments had a record-keeper with one year or less 

experience, but only 21-36% of employees worked at those establishments.

Table A-1. Estimated workers at establishments by select establishment and record-keeper

characteristics. 

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 581 690 1368 701 3340

Estimated workers 4,355,826 7,934,296 3,554,159 2,627,465 18,471,747

Establishment demographics

Workers' compensation insurer

Private Insurance 64.6 (3.8) 31.1 (3.4) 23.3 (2.1) 1.9 (0.8) 33.4 (2.0) <0.0001

Self-insured 27.8 (3.4) 30.7 (3.5) 21.5 (2.4) 27.8 (3.1) 27.8 (1.8)

State funded 2.8 (1.0) 22.0 (2.4) 50.0 (3.1) 64.8 (3.2) 28.9 (1.5)

Other 4.8 (1.4) 16.1 (3.8) 5.2 (0.8) 5.5 (1.7) 9.9 (1.8)

Unionized workforce

Yes 27.7 (4.0) 33.1 (3.5) 26.7 (3.4) 26.9 (2.4) 29.7 (1.9) 0.3885

No 72.3 (4.0) 66.9 (3.5) 73.3 (3.4) 73.1 (2.4) 70.3 (1.9)

Exempt from OSHA recordkeeping

Partially exempt 48.5 (4.1) 47.3 (3.6) 46.6 (3.0) 44.5 (3.1) 47.0 (1.9) 0.9216

Required annually 51.5 (4.1) 52.7 (3.6) 53.4 (3.0) 55.5 (3.1) 53.0 (1.9)

Survey participant recordkeeping experience

SOII experience

First time 32.9 (3.6) 30.9 (3.7) 23.9 (2.1) 30.9 (3.0) 30.0 (1.9) <0.0001

Repeat 41.7 (4.3) 43.7 (3.7) 32.9 (3.6) 42.7 (3.0) 41.0 (2.0)

Did Not Complete 

SOII 14.6 (4.2) 16.4 (2.1) 23.7 (2.5) 5.2 (1.0) 15.8 (1.4)

DK + Other 10.9 (1.7) 9.0 (1.7) 19.5 (2.2) 21.3 (2.6) 13.2 (1.0)

OSHA recordkeeping training received by the participant or the person responsible for the OSHA 

records

Yes 55.2 (3.8) 38.0 (3.7) 51.8 (2.9) 42.5 (3.1) 45.3 (2.0) <0.0001

No 42.0 (3.7) 54.4 (3.7) 45.1 (2.9) 52.1 (3.1) 49.4 (2.0)

DK 2.8 (0.9) 7.6 (1.9) 3.1 (0.6) 5.5 (1.4) 5.3 (0.9)

Years of OSHA recordkeeping experience

<=1 year 20.9 (2.9) 35.6 (3.5) 19.0 (1.9) 23.5 (2.7) 27.2 (1.7) <0.0001

2 - 9 years 38.1 (4.7) 36.6 (3.9) 41.8 (3.4) 43.3 (3.1) 38.9 (2.1)

10+ years 41.0 (3.9) 27.3 (3.4) 32.4 (2.4) 29.9 (2.6) 31.9 (1.8)

DK . (.) 0.5 (0.3) 6.8 (1.6) 3.3 (1.0) 2.0 (0.4)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted.
Appendix: Worker estimates

58

Use of OSHA data in bids and as a performance measure in worker safety incentive programs was more 

common on an employee basis than on an establishment basis, although did not impact more than 10% of 

workers in most states.

Table A-2. Estimated workers at establishments by use of injury and illness data in establishment

performance measures. 

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study 

establishments 581 690 1368 701 3340

Estimated workers 4,355,826 7,934,296 3,554,159 2,627,465 18,471,747

Included in competitive bids for contract work

OSHA data 6.6 (1.7) 8.1 (1.4) 8.3 (1.0) 11.3 (2.6) 8.2 (0.9) 0.007

Other data 0.6 (0.3) 0.8 (0.3) 0.6 (0.2) 0.6 (0.3) 0.7 (0.2)

None 67.8 (4.7) 69.4 (3.7) 80.0 (2.1) 76.0 (3.0) 72.0 (2.1)

DK 25.0 (4.9) 21.7 (3.7) 11.1 (2.0) 12.1 (2.0) 19.1 (2.1)

Used to evaluate the job performance of the record-keeper

OSHA data 4.1 (1.1) 1.8 (0.6) 7.0 (0.9) 4.7 (1.0) 3.7 (0.4) <0.0001

Other data 15.7 (2.7) 13.3 (1.8) 16.2 (3.8) 7.5 (1.4) 13.6 (1.3)

None 76.8 (3.2) 73.4 (3.7) 73.8 (3.7) 84.3 (1.9) 75.8 (1.9)

DK 3.4 (1.2) 11.5 (3.6) 3.0 (1.2) 3.4 (0.9) 6.8 (1.7)

Used to evaluate job performance of supervisors

OSHA data 7.5 (1.6) 1.3 (0.5) 10.1 (1.0) 5.2 (1.0) 5.0 (0.5) 0.0003

Other data 17.2 (2.7) 15.0 (2.0) 12.2 (2.5) 8.3 (1.3) 14.0 (1.2)

None 56.8 (4.4) 61.7 (3.8) 64.0 (3.6) 72.9 (2.4) 62.6 (2.1)

DK 18.5 (5.2) 22.0 (3.8) 13.7 (4.2) 13.6 (1.9) 18.4 (2.2)

Used to evaluate performance in worker safety incentive program

OSHA data 10.6 (4.1) 1.1 (0.5) 6.0 (0.7) 3.4 (0.8) 4.6 (1.0) <0.0001

Other data 17.2 (2.9) 12.7 (1.8) 12.7 (1.3) 13.7 (1.7) 13.9 (1.1)

None 71.2 (4.2) 79.0 (3.6) 73.2 (3.8) 77.4 (2.2) 75.8 (2.0)

DK 1.0 (0.4) 7.3 (3.5) 8.1 (4.2) 5.5 (1.3) 5.7 (1.8)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted.
Appendix: Worker estimates

59

Because larger establishments tended to be more compliant than smaller establishments, compliance was 

better on an employee-basis. There were similar patterns in state differences for the establishment and 

employee-based estimates (e.g., logs were least common in New York based on either the establishment 

weights or the employee weights). There was no difference in compliance with counting days of missed 

work on an employee-basis.

Table A-3. Estimated workers at establishments by OSHA recordkeeping compliance.

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 581 690 1368 701 3340

Estimated workers 4,355,826 7,934,296 3,554,159 2,627,465 18,471,747

Logs maintained for the establishment

Logs maintained, at least in part, by 

study participant 80.1 (2.8) 66.8 (3.2) 77.5 (2.1) 70.5 (2.8) 72.5 (1.6) <0.0001

Logs maintained by others 1.5 (0.8) 5.6 (1.3) 2.9 (0.5) 3.8 (0.8) 3.9 (0.6)

No logs maintained for establishment 14.2 (2.4) 13.2 (2.0) 14.1 (1.7) 16.2 (2.5) 14.0 (1.1)

Unknown if logs maintained 4.2 (1.4) 14.4 (2.4) 5.5 (1.3) 9.5 (1.9) 9.6 (1.1)

Among establishment with logs maintained, at least in part, by study participant

MN NY OR WA Total

Study establishments 473 490 1087 539 2589

Estimated workers 3,490,254 5,302,711 2,754,279 1,851,547 13,398,791

Criteria used to determine eligibility for log

OSHA Criteriaa 56.0 (4.7) 62.6 (5.0) 64.5 (3.0) 48.7 (3.6) 59.4 (2.4) <0.0001

Medical treatment 17.2 (2.9) 5.0 (1.2) 16.0 (1.9) 20.2 (2.7) 12.5 (1.1)

All injuries (regardless of severity) 13.1 (2.7) 16.4 (3.5) 9.8 (1.4) 7.3 (1.3) 12.9 (1.6)

Workers’ compensation claims 3.4 (1.4) 2.3 (0.7) 5.5 (1.1) 13.8 (2.0) 4.8 (0.6)

DK/Other 10.4 (2.4) 13.7 (5.1) 4.2 (0.9) 10.0 (2.1) 10.4 (2.2)

When cases are recorded on log

Weeka 75.6 (3.5) 73.6 (5.1) 76.4 (2.5) 64.7 (3.3) 73.5 (2.3) 0.0021

Monthly or Quarterly 10.9 (2.4) 6.0 (1.6) 8.5 (1.6) 11.2 (1.9) 8.5 (1.0)

End of year 7.2 (1.9) 5.4 (1.2) 9.0 (1.6) 11.2 (1.9) 7.4 (0.8)

Upon receipt of WC claim 

documentation 0.5 (0.3) 0.9 (0.4) 1.6 (0.4) 1.2 (0.5) 1.0 (0.2)

DK/Other 5.8 (1.6) 14.1 (5.3) 4.6 (0.9) 11.6 (2.4) 9.6 (2.2)

How days are counted

Calendar daysa 51.5 (5.0) 57.9 (4.8) 49.9 (4.3) 48.1 (3.5) 53.2 (2.5) 0.2503

Scheduled work days or shifts 37.2 (4.4) 37.8 (4.9) 40.6 (3.4) 44.4 (3.6) 39.1 (2.4)

DK/Other 11.2 (4.8) 4.3 (1.0) 9.5 (3.0) 7.5 (1.5) 7.6 (1.5)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted.

a

OSHA-compliant practice.
Appendix: Worker estimates

60

Two patterns of OSHA source data were observed. In New York and Oregon, less than 25% of workers 

were employed at an establishment that used workers’ compensation data to complete the OSHA log, 

whereas in Minnesota and Washington, over half of workers were at an establishment that used workers’ 

compensation data for the OSHA log.

Table A-4. Estimated workers at establishments by source of OSHA injury and illness data, among 

establishments where OSHA log maintained by the study participant. 

MN NY OR WA Total

Study establishment 473 490 1087 539 2589

Estimated workers 3,490,254 5,302,711 2,754,279 1,851,547 13,398,791

Company report completed by 

employee/supervisor 74.9 (3.4) 63.3 (5.3) 90.2 (1.3) 78.1 (2.6) 73.9 (2.5)

Workers’ Compensation (WC) data 58.2 (4.6) 21.6 (5.1) 22.9 (2.2) 52.1 (3.6) 35.6 (2.6)

WC only 12.4 (2.4) 14.5 (5.1) 6.6 (1.1) 10.8 (1.8) 11.8 (2.2)

WC+non-WC 45.7 (5.2) 7.0 (1.7) 16.3 (1.9) 41.3 (3.8) 23.8 (2.1)

Doctor's report 18.6 (3.3) 9.0 (1.7) 10.6 (1.4) 24.3 (2.6) 13.9 (1.2)

Other 13.9 (2.6) 21.5 (3.9) 3.4 (0.8) 11.7 (2.7) 14.5 (1.8)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted. Percentages do not add 

to 100 as the categories are not mutually exclusive.

Use of OSHA data for SOII was greater on an employee-basis than on an establishment-basis. On an 

employee basis, more than half of all employees worked at an establishment that used OSHA data to 

complete the SOII, compared with 31% of all establishments. Workers at establishments that relied solely 

on workers’ compensation claims data for SOII ranged from 11% of workers in Minnesota to 19% of 

workers in New York. 

Table A-5. Estimated workers at establishments by source of SOII data, among establishments where the 

study participant completed SOII.

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 422 505 742 527 2196

Estimated establishments 3,248,155 5,919,192 2,018,158 1,932,866 13,118,371

OSHA dataa 62.4 (5.0) 44.3 (4.8) 66.0 (6.1) 54.5 (3.6) 53.6 (2.7) <0.0001

WC claims data 10.7 (2.5) 19.0 (4.7) 17.6 (6.9) 13.3 (2.0) 15.9 (2.5)

Internal data only 20.8 (5.4) 33.7 (3.9) 6.2 (1.4) 14.4 (2.3) 23.5 (2.1)

DK, No injuries, DK, other 

sources

6.1 (1.4) 3.0 (1.0) 10.2 (1.9) 17.8 (2.8) 7.0 (0.8)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted.

a

Includes establishments that use workers’ compensation claims data to complete OSHA data.
Appendix: Worker estimates

61

Because larger establishments tended to be more knowledgeable than smaller establishments, knowledge 

was better on an employee-basis. Incorrect responses were still common; more than 60% of employees 

worked at an establishment that would fail to record days of work missed over a weekend. Larger state 

differences were observed on an employee-basis, although most estimates were not statistically 

significant.

Table A-6. Estimated workers at establishments by OSHA recordkeeping knowledge, as assessed by 

correct responses to hypothetical recordkeeping scenarios.

MN NY OR WA Total p-value

Study establishments 581 690 1368 701 3340

Estimated workers 4,355,826 7,934,296 3,554,159 2,627,465 18,471,747

Scenarios related to case criteria

Records Stitches

Correct 87.2 (2.2) 79.8 (3.3) 75.7 (4.0) 78.3 (2.6) 80.5 (1.8) 0.069

Incorrect 12.8 (2.2) 20.2 (3.3) 24.3 (4.0) 21.7 (2.6) 19.5 (1.8)

Records Horseplay

Correct 86.4 (2.3) 76.4 (3.9) 75.3 (2.6) 77.7 (2.7) 78.7 (1.9) 0.0314

Incorrect 13.6 (2.3) 23.6 (3.9) 24.7 (2.6) 22.3 (2.7) 21.3 (1.9)

Omits Diagnostic

Correct 43.7 (4.5) 42.8 (3.6) 34.3 (3.9) 31.3 (2.9) 39.8 (2.1) 0.0773

Incorrect 56.3 (4.5) 57.2 (3.6) 65.7 (3.9) 68.7 (2.9) 60.2 (2.1)

Scenarios related to documentation of severity (counting days)

Counts Weekend

Correct 35.7 (4.1) 41.4 (3.6) 37.3 (3.8) 33.5 (2.8) 38.1 (2.0) 0.4176

Incorrect 64.3 (4.1) 58.6 (3.6) 62.7 (3.8) 66.5 (2.8) 61.9 (2.0)

Updates Log

Correct 86.9 (2.2) 73.3 (3.7) 81.0 (2.7) 79.2 (2.6) 78.8 (1.9) 0.0015

Incorrect 13.1 (2.2) 26.7 (3.7) 19.0 (2.7) 20.8 (2.6) 21.2 (1.9)

Note: Data shown are % of estimated establishments (SE) unless otherwise noted.