OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs: Improved Oversight and Controls Would Better Ensure Program Quality
Published: 2009-05-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for ensuring workplace safety. OSHA has established a number of programs, including the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), that take a cooperative approach to obtaining compliance with safety and health regulations and OSHA's standards. OSHA established the VPP in 1982 to recognize worksites with exemplary safety and health programs. GAO was asked to review (1) the number and characteristics of employer worksites in the VPP and factors that have influenced growth, (2) the extent to which OSHA ensures that only qualified worksites participate in the VPP, and (3) the adequacy of OSHA's efforts to monitor performance and evaluate the effectiveness of the VPP. GAO analyzed OSHA's VPP data, reviewed a representative sample of VPP case files, and interviewed agency officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The VPP has grown steadily since its inception in 1982, with the number of employer worksites in the program more than doubling--from 1,039 sites in 2003 to 2,174 sites in 2008. Although industries represented have not changed significantly, with the chemical industry having the largest number of sites in the VPP, the number of sites in the motor freight transportation industry--which includes U.S. Postal Service sites--increased tenfold from 2003 to 2008. The proportion of smaller VPP sites--those with fewer than 100 workers--increased from 28 percent in 2003 to 39 percent in 2008. Key factors influencing growth of the VPP have been OSHA's emphasis on expansion of the program and VPP participants' outreach to other employers. OSHA's internal controls are not sufficient to ensure that only qualified worksites participate in the VPP. The lack of a policy requiring documentation in VPP files regarding follow-up actions taken in response to incidents, such as fatalities and serious injuries, at VPP sites limits the national office's ability to ensure that its regions have taken the required actions. Such actions include reviewing sites' safety and health systems and determining whether sites should remain in the program. GAO reviewed OSHA's VPP files for the 30 sites that had fatalities from January 2003 to August 2008 and found that the files contained no documentation of actions taken by the regions' VPP staff. GAO interviewed regional officials and reviewed the inspection files for these sites and found that some sites had safety and health violations related to the fatalities, including one site with seven serious violations. As a result, some sites that no longer met the definition of an exemplary worksite remained in the VPP. In addition, OSHA's oversight is limited because it does not have internal controls, such as reviews by the national office, to ensure that regions consistently comply with VPP policies for monitoring sites' injury and illness rates and conducting on-site reviews. For example, the national office has not ensured that regions follow up as required when VPP sites' injury and illness rates rise above the minimum requirements for the program, including having sites develop plans for reducing their rates. Finally, OSHA has not developed goals or measures to assess the performance of the VPP, and the agency's efforts to evaluate the program's effectiveness have been inadequate. OSHA officials said that low injury and illness rates are effective measures of performance. These rates, however, may not be the best measures because GAO found discrepancies between the rates reported by worksites annually to OSHA and the rates OSHA noted during its on-site reviews. In addition, OSHA has not assessed the impact of the VPP on sites' injury and illness rates. In response to a recommendation in a GAO report issued in 2004, OSHA contracted with a consulting firm to conduct a study of the program's effectiveness. However, flaws in the design of the study and low response rates made it unreliable as a measure of effectiveness. OSHA officials acknowledged the study's limitations but had not conducted or planned other evaluations of the VPP.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 2007, more than 5,800 workers in the United States died of work-related  injuries, and a reported 4 million workers were injured or became ill on  the job. The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health  Administration (OSHA) is responsible for protecting the safety and health  of the nation’s workers under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of  1970. OSHA helps ensure the safety and health of the over 112.5 million  private sector workers at the approximately 8.6 million worksites  nationwide by setting safety and health standards and inspecting  worksites. OSHA has also established a number of programs, including the  Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), designed to reduce work-related  fatalities, injuries, and illnesses through labor, management, and  government cooperation. Through the VPP, OSHA recognizes employers  with exemplary safety and health systems and relatively low injury and  illness rates for their industries. OSHA exempts VPP sites from routine  inspections, although these worksites are subject to inspections resulting  from fatalities or other serious injuries or complaints from workers about  safety or health hazards.
At your request, we reviewed the VPP. Specifically, we (1) identified the  number and characteristics of employer worksites in the VPP and factors  that have influenced program growth, (2) determined the extent to which  OSHA ensures that only qualified worksites participate in the VPP, and   (3) assessed the adequacy of OSHA’s efforts to monitor performance and  evaluate the effectiveness of the VPP.
To conduct our work, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations. We also  analyzed data on the characteristics of all employer worksites in OSHA’s  VPP database. We reviewed the reliability of these data and determined  them to be sufficiently reliable for this purpose. We also compared OSHA’s  VPP policies and procedures with internal control standards for the  federal government. In addition, we reviewed OSHA’s VPP case files for a  randomly selected, representative sample of 184 VPP sites in the federally  managed program as of June 2008. We also reviewed OSHA’s inspection  records and VPP files for all VPP sites at which fatalities occurred from  January 2003 to August 2008. We discussed OSHA’s policies and  procedures and information in the files with officials in all 10 regional  offices. We also reviewed the agency’s performance and accountability  reports and its management of the program relative to the guidelines in the  Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. We conducted this  performance audit from March 2008 through May 2009 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives. See appendix I for detailed information on our scope and  methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: OSHA is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Occupational  Safety and Health Act of 1970 for about half the states; the remaining   26 states have been granted authority to set and enforce their own   safety and health standards under a state plan approved by OSHA. At  present, 22 of these 26 states enforce occupational safety and health  provisions under a state plan covering all worksites, and have their own  VPP programs. The other 4 states have plans covering only public sector  employer worksites; VPP sites in these 4 states are part of OSHA’s  federally managed VPP.
To help ensure compliance with federal safety and health regulations and  standards, OSHA conducts enforcement activities and provides  compliance assistance to employers. Enforcement represents the  preponderance of agency activity and includes safety and health  inspections of employer worksites. Among its compliance assistance  efforts, OSHA established the VPP in 1982 to recognize worksites with  safety and health systems that exceed OSHA’s standards. A key  requirement for participation in the VPP is that worksites have low injury  and illness rates compared with the average rates for their respective  industries.
The VPP is divided into three programs (see table 1): the Star, Merit, and  Star Demonstration programs. The Star program has the most stringent  requirements because it is for worksites with exemplary safety and health  systems that successfully protect employees from fatality, injury, and  illness.
OSHA’s Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs—the national  office—oversees the VPP activities of each of its 10 regional and 80 area  offices. Each regional office has a regional administrator, who coordinates  all of the region’s activities, including the VPP, and a VPP manager, who  implements and manages the program. The VPP manager conducts  outreach to potential VPP sites and encourages participants to continually  improve their safety and health systems. In addition, the VPP manager  coordinates the region’s activities related to the program, such as reviews  of applications submitted by potential sites and on-site reviews of VPP  sites.
Employer worksites apply to OSHA to participate in the VPP. They must  meet a number of requirements, including having an active safety and  health management system that takes a systems approach to preventing  and controlling workplace hazards. As shown in figure 1, OSHA has  defined four basic elements of a comprehensive safety and health  management system. These requirements must be in place for at least 1  year. In addition, there must be no ongoing enforcement actions, such as  inspections, at the worksites or willful violations cited by OSHA within the  3-year period prior to the site’s initial application to participate in the VPP.
VPP sites are also required to have injury and illness rates below the  average rates for their industries published by Bureau of Labor  Statistics. These rates must be below the average industry rates for 1 of  the most recent 3 years. VPP sites are required to report their injury and  illness rates to OSHA’s regional offices annually. The VPP managers  review this information and send summary reports to the national office.  For each calendar year, the national office compiles a summary report of  injury and illness rates for VPP sites participating in the program.
OSHA determines whether worksites are qualified to participate in the  VPP through its approval process, which includes an on-site review of  each worksite. According to OSHA guidance, the regional offices are  required to conduct an on-site review of each potential VPP site to ensure  that the four elements are in place and to determine how well the site’s  safety and health management system is working. As part of these reviews,  the regions are required to verify the sites’ injury and illness rates,  interview employees and management, and walk through the facilities.  This initial on-site review usually lasts about 4 days and involves  approximately three to five OSHA staff, according to OSHA’s VPP policies.  OSHA also uses volunteers from other VPP sites—Special Government  Employees who have been trained by OSHA—to conduct some portions of  these reviews. OSHA’s national office is responsible for the initial approval  of all new VPP sites. VPP sites in the Star program must also be  reapproved every 3 to 5 years after an on-site review is conducted by the  region. OSHA’s approval process is outlined in table 2.
Once they have been approved, VPP sites must commit to continuously  improving the safety and health of their worksites, maintaining low injury  and illness rates, and reporting annually to OSHA on the status of their  safety and health systems. The VPP sites’ annual reports detail their efforts  to continuously improve and detail the sites’ injury and illness rates.  OSHA’s regional offices review these reports to ensure that the VPP sites’  injury and illness rates have not increased beyond the program’s  requirements. According to OSHA’s VPP Policies and Procedures Manual,  OSHA must request that a site withdraw from the VPP if it determines that  the site no longer meets the requirements for VPP participation. OSHA  may also terminate a site for failure to maintain the requirements of the  program. The national office is responsible for collecting the injury and  illness data reported annually by VPP sites to the regions. If VPP sites’   3-year average rates rise above the average rates for their industries  published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the regions must place the site  on a rate-reduction plan if an on-site review is not conducted that year or  must place the site in a 1-year conditional status if an on-site review is  conducted. The regions must also notify the national office of actions they  take in response to incidents, such as fatalities and serious injuries, at VPP  sites. The regions are required to review sites’ safety and health systems  after such incidents to determine (1) whether systemic changes are  needed to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future and   (2) whether the site should remain in the program. The regions may also  conduct on-site reviews of VPP sites if they determine that the incidents  were related to deficiencies in the sites’ safety and health management  systems. The decision to recommend whether a site at which a fatality has  occurred should remain in the program is left to the discretion of the  regional administrator.
section_title: The VPP Has Grown Significantly in Recent Years Due to OSHA’s Emphasis on Program Growth and Outreach to New Participants
paragraphs: The VPP has grown steadily since its inception, with the number of  employer worksites in the program more than doubling—from 1,039 sites  in 2003 to 2,174 sites in 2008. During this period, the number of sites in the  federally managed VPP, representing over two-thirds of all VPP sites,  increased at a similar rate as the number of sites in the state managed  programs. In 2003, there were 734 sites in the federal VPP and 305 in the  state managed VPP. By the end of 2008, both the federal and the state  programs had more than doubled to 1,543 and 631, respectively. (See fig.  2.)
Although the industries represented in the VPP did not change  significantly from 2003 to 2008, there were substantial increases in certain  industries. The largest industry in the VPP was the chemical industry,  which accounted for a 43 percent increase in the number of VPP sites,  from 208 in 2003 to almost 300 in 2008. The motor freight transportation  industry, which had only 20 sites in 2003, grew tenfold to just over 200  sites in 2008, due in part to the growth in the number of Postal Service  sites. In addition, the number of sites in the electric, gas, and sanitary  services industries increased from about 50 sites to more than 200 during  the same period. See figure 3 for a comparison of the largest industries  represented in the VPP in 2003 and 2008.
While 4 federal worksites—including the Tobyhanna Army Depot in  Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, and the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia—have  participated in the VPP since the late 1990s, the number of federal  worksites increased to almost 10 percent of all VPP sites in 2008. At the  end of 2008, almost 200 VPP sites were federal agencies or Postal Service  sites. The majority of these sites—157—were post offices, processing and  distribution centers, and other postal facilities, while most of the  remaining sites were Department of Defense facilities, such as naval  shipyards, Army depots, and Air Force facilities. In addition, from 2005 to  2008, 7 OSHA area offices in 1 region were approved as new VPP sites as a  result of OSHA’s efforts to have all of its offices participate in the program  so that they could be role models for the federal agencies.
The average size—based on the number of employees—of VPP sites has  become increasingly smaller in the last 5 years. From 2003 to 2008, the  average number of employees at VPP sites decreased from 501 to 408. In  addition, the median size of a VPP site decreased from 210 to 145  employees. As shown in figure 4, the proportion of VPP sites with fewer  than 100 workers increased from 28 percent in 2003 to 39 percent in 2008.  Across all VPP sites, the number of employees covered by the VPP has  grown to over 885,000 workers.
A key factor influencing growth of the VPP has been OSHA’s emphasis on  expansion of the program. For example, in 2003, the Secretary of Labor for  OSHA announced plans to expand eligibility for the VPP to reach a larger  number of worksites. These plans included adding more federal sites, such  as Department of Defense facilities and certain types of construction sites.  OSHA’s national office has given each of its 10 regions targets for the  number of new sites to be approved each year. While the regions did not  always meet these targets from fiscal years 2003 to 2008, they generally  increased the number of new sites each year, as shown in table 3.
Several OSHA regional administrators told us that expanding the program  beyond the current level of approved sites will be difficult, given their  current resources.
Another factor influencing the growth of the VPP is outreach efforts,  including participants’ outreach to other employers and employers seeking  out the program after hearing about it from OSHA or other employers.  According to OSHA officials and VPP participants, outreach efforts focus  on the positive benefits of the program, including improved productivity of  workers at VPP sites and decreased costs, such as reductions in sites’  workers’ compensation insurance premiums due to lower injury and  illness rates. Some employers, such as the Postal Service, also cite  avoidance of the costs of workplace injuries—which the National Safety  Council estimated as approximately $39,000 per year, per incident in  2007—as one of the benefits of participation. In addition, the national  association of VPP participants, the Voluntary Protection Programs  Participants’ Association, contributes to program growth through its  mentoring program in which current participants help new sites meet the  qualifications of the VPP.
We interviewed employees from VPP sites, and their perspectives varied.  Employees who supported the program told us that the benefits include  having a more collaborative partnership between OSHA, management, and  workers; establishing a “mindset of safety”; and addressing several safety  problems at one worksite that workers had tried for several years to have  corrected. Those who did not fully support the program included  employees at VPP sites who told us that they recognized some of the  benefits of the VPP, but that they had reservations about the program. For  example, some employees were concerned that, after the application  process and initial on-site review had been completed, sites may not  maintain the high standards that qualified them for participation.  Furthermore, some employees said that the injury and illness rates  requirements of the VPP are used as a tool by management to pressure  workers not to report injuries and illnesses.
section_title: OSHA’s Internal Controls Do Not Ensure That Only Qualified Worksites Participate in the VPP
paragraphs: OSHA’s internal controls are not sufficient to ensure that only qualified  worksites participate in the VPP. First, OSHA’s oversight is limited by the  minimal documentation requirements of the program. Second, OSHA does  not ensure that its regional offices consistently comply with its policies for  the VPP.
subsections: section_title: OSHA Lacks a Policy Requiring Documentation of Actions Taken by the Regions in Response to Fatalities and Serious Injuries at VPP Sites
paragraphs: OSHA’s lack of a policy requiring documentation in the VPP files of  actions taken by the regions in response to incidents, such as fatalities and  serious injuries, at VPP sites limits the national office’s ability to ensure  that regions have taken the required actions. OSHA’s VPP Manual requires  regions to review sites’ safety and health systems after such incidents to  determine whether systemic changes are needed to prevent similar  incidents from occurring in the future and whether the site should remain  in the program. However, the manual does not require the regions to  document their decisions or actions taken in the VPP files, which would  allow OSHA’s national office to ensure that the regions took the  appropriate actions. When fatalities, accidents, or other incidents  involving serious safety and health hazards occur at any VPP site, OSHA’s  policy requires that enforcement staff conduct an inspection of the site. In  these cases, the area director is required to notify the VPP manager and  send a report of the inspection. The VPP manager is then required to  report information on the incidents that occurred to the Assistant  Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, the Director of Cooperative  and State Programs, and the regional administrator. The decision on  whether to conduct an on-site review after such an incident is left to the  discretion of the regional administrator based on the results of the  enforcement inspection. These reports, however, are not required to be  included in the VPP files maintained by the regions. OSHA has a draft  policy that sets time frames for retention of documents in the VPP files,  but the policy does not contain guidance regarding the types of actions  that must be documented in the files. Some regional VPP officials told us  that they have requested such guidance from OSHA’s national office, but  the national office has not issued a directive on what information should  be documented in the files or on how long it should be retained. The OSHA  official responsible for overseeing the program did not agree with regional  VPP officials, and stated that the VPP Manual addresses the  documentation requirements. However, the manual does not require  actions taken by the regions in response to fatalities and serious injuries to  be documented in the VPP files.
From our review of OSHA’s VPP files, we found that there was no  documentation of actions taken by the regions’ VPP staff to (1) assess the  safety and health systems of the 30 VPP sites where 32 fatalities occurred  from January 2003 to August 2008 or (2) determine whether these VPP  sites should remain in the program. We obtained information on VPP sites  at which fatalities occurred during this period from OSHA’s national  office. To determine what actions were taken in response to the fatalities,  we interviewed regional VPP staff and reviewed the regions’ inspection  and VPP files for the sites with fatalities. Although the actions taken by the  regional VPP staff were not documented in the VPP files, we reviewed the  inspection files and interviewed the VPP staff to determine the actions  they took in response to the fatalities. The VPP managers told us that  they placed 5 of the 30 sites on 1-year conditional status, and that 5 sites  voluntarily withdrew from the VPP. OSHA allowed 17 of the sites to  remain in the VPP—some in the Star program and some in the Merit  program—until their next regularly scheduled on-site reviews. One of  these sites had 3 separate fatalities over the 5-year period. Another site  received 10 violations related to a fatality, including 7 serious violations  and 1 violation related to discrepancies in the site’s injury and illness logs.  OSHA allowed this site to continue to participate in the VPP as a Star site.  Three sites had not been reviewed by the regional VPP staff because  OSHA’s enforcement staff had not completed their investigations of the  sites. As a result, sites that did not meet the definition of the VPP’s Star  program to “successfully protect employees from fatality, injury, and  illness” have remained in the program.
section_title: OSHA’s Internal Controls Do Not Ensure That Its Regional Offices Comply with VPP Policies
paragraphs: OSHA’s oversight of the VPP is limited because it does not have internal  controls, such as management reviews by the national office, to ensure  that its regions consistently comply with VPP policies for verifying sites’  injury and illness rates and conducting on-site reviews. Although having  relatively low injury and illness rates are key criteria for program  participation, the regions do not always verify sites’ rates according to  OSHA’s policies. For example, the VPP Manual requires that, prior to  conducting an on-site review, the region must obtain written approval  from the national office allowing access to medical information related to  injuries and illnesses at the site. However, our review of the VPP files and  information from OSHA’s national office showed that, for almost 80  percent of the cases, regions did not obtain such written approval prior to  conducting their on-site reviews. As a result, the regions did not have  access to workers’ medical records needed to verify sites’ injury and  illness rates, and the national office had no assurance that the regions  verified these rates as required.
In addition, OSHA’s national office did not review the actions taken by the  regions to ensure that they followed up when VPP sites’ injury and illness  rates rose above the minimum requirements for the program. From our  review of OSHA’s 2007 summary report of injury and illness rates for VPP  sites, we found that, for 12 percent of the sites, at least one of their 3-year  average injury and illness rates was higher than the average injury and  illness rates for their industries. For example, one VPP site reported a 3- year average injury and illness rate of 10.0, which was 7.6 points higher  than the industry average of 2.4. Similarly, another site’s 3-year average  injury and illness rate was 7.5 points higher than the industry average. We  found that this site’s injury and illness rate had also been above the  industry averages for each of the previous 4 years, yet it remained in the  VPP Star program. OSHA’s national office does not require regions to  report information on actions taken to ensure that sites lower their injury  and illness rates when these rates rise above the industry averages. The  national office, therefore, cannot ensure that the regions take action as  required. As a result, some sites that have not met a key requirement of the  VPP have remained in the program.
Finally, some regions conducted less comprehensive reviews of VPP sites  than those required by the VPP Manual. In an effort to leverage its limited  resources, OSHA permitted two regions to conduct abbreviated on-site  reviews as part of a pilot program in which the regions were allowed to  evaluate only one or two elements of sites’ safety and health management  systems, rather than all four elements. From our review of the VPP files,  we estimated that, from 2000 to 2006, OSHA conducted abbreviated on-site  reviews of almost 10 percent of its sites. As a result, some sites for which  OSHA reviewed only two of the four elements may not have met all of the  minimum requirements to participate in the program. According to the  OSHA official responsible for managing the VPP, the agency discontinued  its use of these abbreviated reviews after learning from the pilot that it is  difficult to isolate certain program elements, and that evaluating only one  or two elements leaves out key aspects of the program because the four  elements are interrelated.
section_title: OSHA Has Not Adequately Assessed the Performance of the VPP or Evaluated Its Effectiveness
paragraphs: OSHA’s efforts to assess the performance of the VPP and evaluate its  effectiveness are not adequate. First, OSHA has not developed  performance goals or measures to assess the performance of the program.  Second, OSHA contracted for a study of the VPP to evaluate its  effectiveness, but the study was flawed.
subsections: section_title: OSHA Has Not Developed Performance Goals or Measures to Assess Performance
paragraphs: OSHA has not developed performance goals or measures for the VPP to  assess the program’s performance. The Government Performance and  Results Act of 1993 requires agencies to set goals and report annually on  program performance by measuring the degree to which the program  achieves those goals. OSHA officials told us that, while they have not  established specific goals for the VPP, the best measure of program  performance is that VPP participants consistently report average injury  and illness rates that are about 50 percent below their industries’ average  rates. However, these rates may not be the best measure of performance.  First, our analysis of OSHA’s annual summary reports of injury and illness  rates for 2003 through 2007 showed that, for 35 percent of the sites in our  sample for which data were available, there were discrepancies between  the injury and illness rates reported by the sites and the rates noted in  OSHA’s regional on-site review reports for the same time periods. For  example, OSHA’s 2007 summary report showed that one VPP site reported  an injury and illness rate of zero, but OSHA found during its on-site review  that the rate was actually 1.7 for the same period. Second, OSHA has not  evaluated the impact of the VPP on sites’ injury and illness rates, such as  comparing VPP sites’ injury and illness rates with those of similar sites  that do not participate in the program.
OSHA also does not use information reported annually by VPP sites to  develop goals or measures that could be used to assess program  performance. VPP participants are required to conduct annual self  assessments of their sites and to report this information to OSHA. The  reports are to contain    a review of the site’s safety and health management system, including  safety and health hazards identified and the steps taken to correct them;    a description of any significant management changes that can affect safety  and health at the site, such as changes in ownership; and  information on benefits related to participation in the VPP, such as cost  savings due to lower workers’ compensation insurance premiums,  decreased turnover and absenteeism, and increased productivity.
However, OSHA’s national office does not use the information from these  reports because most of this information is maintained in the regional  offices, and they are not required to send it to the VPP national office.
section_title: OSHA Has Not Adequately Evaluated the Effectiveness of the VPP
paragraphs: In response to a recommendation in our 2004 report that the agency  evaluate the effectiveness of the VPP, OSHA contracted with The Gallup  Organization to study the effectiveness of the program—the results of  which were reported in September 2005. As part of this study, OSHA  identified two objectives that included (1) determining the impact of its  outreach and mentoring programs on potential and new VPP sites’ safety  and health systems and (2) determining changes in the VPP sites’ injury  and illness rates due to their participation in the program. To obtain  information for this study, The Gallup Organization sent a questionnaire to  all VPP sites participating in the federally managed program. However,  the study had significant design flaws. Specifically, the response rates by  participants were low (46 percent overall, and 34 percent completed the  questionnaire), and the data reported by participants were not validated.  For example, a review of the sites’ mentoring and outreach efforts, which  are not indicators of program performance, made up two-thirds of the  report, and other factors that could have influenced the sites’ injury and  illness rates were not considered or measured. Because of these  limitations, we concluded that the report’s findings were not reliable or  valid and could not be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the VPP.
In our discussions with OSHA officials, they acknowledged the limitations  of the study, but said they have not conducted any additional evaluations  of the VPP and have no plans to conduct future evaluations of the  effectiveness of the program. Officials said they do not need to do so  because the low injury and illness rates reported by VPP participants are  the best measure of the program’s effectiveness. However, without a more  reliable evaluation of the program, OSHA does not know whether the  program is effectively meeting its objective of recognizing worksites with  exemplary safety and health management systems that exceed OSHA’s  standards.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: OSHA continues to expand the VPP, which adds to the responsibilities of  staff who manage and maintain the integrity of the program and reduces  the resources available to ensure that non-VPP sites comply with safety  and health regulations and with OSHA’s standards. In the absence of  policies that require its regional offices to document information regarding  actions taken in response to fatalities and serious injuries at VPP sites,  OSHA cannot ensure that only qualified sites participate in the program. In  addition, some sites with serious safety and health deficiencies that  contributed to fatalities have remained in the program, which has affected  its integrity. Without sufficient oversight and internal controls, OSHA’s  national office cannot be assured that the regional offices are following  VPP policies. Finally, because OSHA lacks performance goals and  measures to use in assessing the performance of the VPP, it continues to  expand the program without knowing its effect on employer worksites,  such as whether participation in the VPP has improved workers’ safety  and health.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure proper controls and measurement of program performance, the  Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for Occupational  Safety and Health to take the following three actions:    develop a documentation policy regarding information on follow-up  actions taken by OSHA’s regional offices in response to fatalities and  serious injuries at VPP sites;    establish internal controls that ensure consistent compliance by the  regions with OSHA’s VPP policies for conducting on-site reviews and  monitoring injury and illness rates so that only qualified worksites  participate in the program; and   establish a system for monitoring the performance of the VPP by  developing specific performance goals and measures for the program.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Labor for comment.  We received written comments from the Assistant Secretary for  Occupational Safety and Health, which are reproduced in their entirety in  appendix II. The agency also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated in the report as appropriate.
OSHA agreed with our recommendations to develop better documentation  requirements and strengthen internal controls to ensure consistent  compliance with VPP policies across its regions. Regarding our  recommendation to develop performance goals and measures for the VPP  to use in monitoring performance, OSHA stated that it would continue to  identify and refine appropriate performance measures for the program.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to relevant  congressional committees, the Secretary of Labor, and other interested  parties. The report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or lasowskia@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in   appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To identify the number and characteristics of employer worksites in the  Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), we analyzed data in the Department  of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) VPP  database. We reviewed data in OSHA’s VPP database for all sites in the  VPP—both those in the federally managed program and in the VPP  programs managed by the states. We analyzed data on VPP participation  activity from the inception of the program in 1982 through the end of  calendar year 2008. Prior to our analysis, we assessed the reliability of the  information in OSHA’s VPP database by interviewing OSHA officials;  reviewing related documentation, including the data system user manual;  and conducting electronic testing of the data. On the basis of our review of  the database, we found that the data were sufficiently reliable to report the  number and characteristics of participants in the VPP. To determine the  factors that contributed to growth in program participation, we obtained  information about the VPP from officials at OSHA’s national office and the  10 regional offices. To enhance our understanding of the VPP from the  perspective of the participants, we interviewed employees, including  union and nonunion employees at VPP sites as well as employees from  sites that elected not to participate in the VPP.
To determine the extent to which OSHA ensures that only qualified  worksites participate in the VPP, we reviewed OSHA’s internal controls for  the program and limited our review to VPP sites in the federally managed  program that were part of the Star program. We reviewed sites in the  federally managed program because they represent over 70 percent of the  sites in the program—1,543 of the 2,174 sites—and because the policies  and practices for the state managed programs differ from state to state.  We reviewed sites in the Star program because they represented more  than 95 percent of sites in the federally managed VPP at the time of our  review, and because the Star program has the most stringent requirements.  To assess OSHA’s internal controls, we compared OSHA’s VPP Policies  and Procedures Manual with GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government. We also reviewed OSHA’s policies and  procedures for the federal VPP, including (1) procedures for on-site  reviews of VPP sites, (2) annual reporting requirements for VPP sites to  report data to the regions, and (3) requirements for regional offices to  report information to OSHA’s national office. To determine the extent to  which OSHA complied with its procedures in approving initial and  renewing VPP participants, we reviewed OSHA’s VPP files for a randomly  selected, representative sample of VPP sites in the program as of April  2008. Estimated percentages derived from this sample have confidence  intervals of no more than +/- 7 percent. The files, maintained by OSHA’s  regional offices, contained reports of the regions’ on-site reviews of VPP  sites. We reviewed the reports of the reviews conducted prior to the sites’  initial acceptance and, if they had been in the program long enough to be  reapproved, the most recent review conducted. We reviewed the VPP files  and interviewed officials at OSHA’s regional offices in Atlanta, Boston,  Dallas, New York, and Philadelphia. We selected these sites to obtain a  geographic range of regional offices with small, medium, and large  numbers of VPP sites. We interviewed officials in the five remaining  regional offices in Chicago, Denver, Kansas City, San Francisco, and  Seattle by telephone and had them send the VPP files for their sites to us  for review.
To determine what actions OSHA took in response to fatalities at VPP  sites, we asked OSHA’s national office for a list of all sites at which  fatalities occurred from January 2003 to October 2008. The national office  asked the regions to provide this information, and the national office  provided this information to us. We reviewed the inspection and VPP files  maintained by the regional offices for these sites and interviewed VPP  managers about the actions taken by the regions in response to the  fatalities. Finally, we reviewed other information provided by the regional  offices to the national office, such as data on the injury and illness rates  for each VPP site that are reported by the sites annually to OSHA and  tracked by the national office on electronic spreadsheets.
To assess the adequacy of OSHA’s efforts to assess the performance and  effectiveness of the VPP, we reviewed its policies and procedures,  performance and accountability reports, operating plans, and The Gallup  Organization’s 2005 evaluation report of the VPP. We reviewed these  documents relative to the guidelines in the Government Performance and  Results Act of 1993. To verify the injury and illness rates reported by VPP  sites to OSHA’s regions in the sites’ annual reports, we compared the data  tracked by the national office on sites’ injury and illness rates with the  rates reported in OSHA’s on-site reviews for the sites in our sample of   184 sites. We assessed the Gallup study on the basis of commonly  accepted program evaluation standards.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2008 through May 2009  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Revae Moran, Acting Director, and Anna M. Kelley, Analyst in Charge,  managed all aspects of the assignment. Kathleen Boggs, Richard Harada,  Yumiko Jolly, and Summer Pachman made significant contributions to the  report. In addition, Richard Brown, Doreen Feldman, Justin Fisher, Cindy  Gilbert, Sheila R. McCoy, Kathleen van Gelder, Gabriele Tonsil, and Shana  Wallace provided key technical and legal assistance.