Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies' Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight
Released: 2006-04-21T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act in 1970 to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women, including federal employees. While OSHA was created to administer the OSH Act, the act also gave federal agencies primary responsibility for providing federal employees with working conditions and workplaces that are free from safety and health hazards. The act authorizes OSHA to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards, rules, and regulations and to enforce their compliance. In turn, each federal agency is required to establish and maintain a comprehensive and effective occupational safety and health program that is consistent with OSHA’s standards.

OSHA’s Role

OSHA’s Office of Federal Agency Programs within its Directorate of Enforcement Programs has primary responsibility for overseeing federal agencies’ safety programs. OSHA’s regulations and an Executive Order establish its responsibilities for monitoring federal agencies’ programs.

OSHA uses two strategies to provide oversight of federal agencies’ safety programs—enforcement and compliance assistance. OSHA’s enforcement strategy includes inspections and evaluations of federal worksites that help ensure that federal agencies are not violating any OSHA standards and are complying with the requirements for their safety programs. In addition, agencies are required to submit annual reports to OSHA on their safety programs, which OSHA uses to prepare an annual report to the President on federal agencies’ safety programs. OSHA’s compliance assistance strategy consists of a range of programs intended to help agencies improve their safety programs.

Enforcement

OSHA is authorized to conduct inspections of federal agency worksites but, as figure 1 illustrates, inspections of federal worksites represent a very small percentage of OSHA’s overall inspections.

Between fiscal years 2000 and 2004, less than 1 percent of OSHA’s inspections were of federal worksites in executive branch agencies; the remaining 99.5 percent were primarily of private-sector worksites. Federal executive branch workers represented about 1.4 percent of the overall U.S. workforce between 2002 and 2004.

Inspections are conducted by OSHA’s 80 area offices in its 10 regions. Figure 2 shows the location of OSHA’s 10 regions.

OSHA categorizes inspections as those that are “programmed” and those that are “unprogrammed.” Programmed inspections are those that OSHA plans to conduct because it has targeted certain worksites for inspection due to their potential hazards. Unprogrammed inspections are not planned; they are prompted by actions such as complaints, accidents, and referrals. OSHA has established a system of inspection priorities that relate to these categories, with unprogrammed inspections being a higher priority than programmed inspections. Top priority goes to imminent danger situations in which death or serious physical harm could occur.

The next priority for OSHA inspectors is catastrophes and fatal accidents, followed by complaints and referrals. Programmed inspections are OSHA’s fourth priority. OSHA’s last priority is to perform follow-up inspections, which are conducted to ensure that hazards identified during previous inspections have been corrected. From fiscal years 2000 through 2004, only 40 percent of OSHA’s inspections of federal worksites were programmed. During the same period, 54 percent of its inspections of non- federal worksites were programmed.

OSHA is required to conduct comprehensive annual evaluations of the larger or more hazardous federal agencies. Results of these evaluations are summarized by OSHA in reports that include information from the review of an agency’s safety policies and reports, as well as inspections of the agency’s facilities and interviews with agency personnel.

In addition, OSHA is required to submit to the President an annual report on the status of federal employees’ occupational safety and health. OSHA uses reports submitted annually by federal agencies to OSHA on their safety programs—along with the results of any evaluations it has conducted of federal agencies’ safety programs—to prepare its annual report to the President. The report should also contain recommendations for improving agencies’ performance.

Compliance Assistance

OSHA’s compliance assistance strategy consists of several programs available to federal agencies, although some programs have only recently been offered to federal employers. OSHA also provides technical support to federal agencies, such as conducting studies of accidents and the causes of injuries and illnesses, and providing training of agencies’ safety and health personnel. Two of OSHA’s compliance assistance programs—Field Federal Safety and Health Councils and Agency Technical Assistance Requests—specifically target federal agencies, while others are generally available to both private- and public-sector employers. Compliance assistance programs for private and public sector employers include the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), alliances, and strategic partnerships. Approval as a VPP site is OSHA’s official recognition of worksites that have implemented exemplary safety and health programs. The VPP was started in 1982 for private-sector companies but was expanded to include federal agencies in 1997. The alliance program was started in 2002 and includes organizations that have agreements with OSHA to focus on training, outreach, and promoting awareness of safety and health issues. The strategic partnership program was started in 1998 and consists of agreements between OSHA and employers to address specific safety and health problems.

OSHA also has been responsible for helping implement Presidential initiatives, with the most recent initiative being issued in 2004: the Safety and Health and Return to Employment (SHARE) initiative. This initiative directs agencies to set and adhere to both safety and workers’ compensation goals. Specifically, the initiative directs federal agencies to achieve four goals: (1) reduce the overall case rate for these claims, (2) reduce the lost-time rate—the number of employees who could not return to work per 100 employees in the workforce, (3) improve the processing time of workers’ compensation claims, and (4) reduce the lost production day rate—the lost days due to injury or illness per 100 employees. OSHA works with agencies in addressing the first two goals and helps them calculate the rates monitored.

Role of the Federal Agencies

OSHA’s regulations establish the basic elements of executive agencies’ safety and health programs. According to the regulations, agencies’ programs must include provisions for top management support, participation, and accountability; safety and health policies, procedures, and standards; goals and objectives; worker involvement; safety and health training of managers and workers; collection of occupational injury and illness data; self-inspection of workplaces and self-evaluation of the programs; abatement of unsafe and unhealthful working conditions; and adequate budgets, staff, and equipment and materials.

In conducting self-inspections, agencies must meet certain requirements. Inspectors are required to be qualified to recognize and evaluate hazards and suggest corrections, and they must conduct inspections of every worksite at least once a year. According to the regulations, agencies should conduct “sufficient” unannounced inspections and unannounced follow-up inspections to ensure the identification and correction of hazardous conditions.

Agencies must also report annually to OSHA on their programs. In November 2004, OSHA issued a final rule amending the injury recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to federal agencies. Prior to this time, federal agencies were required to collect only injury information related to workers’ compensation claims. OSHA revised the recordkeeping requirements in order to improve the quality of the federal recordkeeping system and to increase the utility of the data. Beginning in January 2005, federal agencies were required to record injuries in the same manner as private-sector employers and to apply new criteria to determine whether an injury must be recorded. Specifically, a work-related injury must be reported if, for example, it results in death, 1 or more days away from work, restricted work, loss of consciousness, or a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician. The regulations do not require that this data be reported to OSHA. However, the regulations state that agency heads must submit an annual report to OSHA, containing such information as OSHA requests. At a minimum, these reports are to describe the agency’s safety program and include, among other things, the agency’s required self-evaluation findings. OSHA uses these reports, along with any evaluations it has conducted to prepare its annual report to the President.

Six Components of a Sound Safety Program

Safety experts and federal safety agencies agree that, to build an effective safety program, organizations must take a strategic approach to managing workplace safety and health. This objective is generally accomplished by establishing programs built upon a set of commonly recognized components of sound safety programs, which, together, help an organization lay out what it is trying to achieve, assess progress, and ensure that safety policies and procedures are appropriate and effective. Drawing from our prior work, a review of the literature, and OSHA’s requirements, we identified six components often found in sound safety programs: (1) management commitment, (2) employee involvement, (3) education and training, (4) identification of hazards, (5) following up and correcting hazards, and (6) medical management. Table 1 lists these components, along with a description of their supporting activities.

Federal Workplace Trends

Over the last 10 years, the federal executive branch workforce has changed in a number of ways, including its size, demographic characteristics, experience levels, and types of occupations. During this time, there was a 6 percent decrease in the federal workforce—from 2 million employees in fiscal year 1995 to 1.9 million in fiscal year 2004. In addition, the average age of federal workers increased from 44 to 47 years old and the average length of time in service increased slightly, from 16 to 17 years. Likewise, the average pay grade level of federal workers increased from approximately GS-9 to about GS-10. Moreover, the percentage of workers in professional and administrative positions increased from 85 to 89 percent.

Federal employees encompass a wide range of professions, ranging from low-risk occupations such as office workers to highly hazardous occupations such as law enforcement positions. For example, at the U.S.

Marshals Service, duties of criminal investigators include seizing assets and apprehending fugitives. In addition, U.S. Forest Service employees are involved in a variety of potentially hazardous activities such as developing laboratory products, managing recreational lands, and fighting wildland fires, while inspectors with the Food Safety Inspection Service face daily hazards such as exposure to the chemicals used to kill pathogens in meat. Finally, employees at manufacturing operations such as at the U.S. Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing use industrial production equipment such as forklifts and presses.

Injury and Illness Trends in the Federal Government

The impact of demographic changes in the makeup of the federal workforce on the number of injuries they sustain is unclear. The number of active workers’ compensation claims for work-related injuries declined from approximately 154,000 claims in fiscal year 1995 to about 137,000 claims in fiscal year 1999. However, these claims increased from approximately 138,000 claims in fiscal year 2000 to about 148,000 claims in 2004, as shown in figure 3.

Although the severity of the injuries changed during this period, the types of injuries that federal workers incurred remained the same. Despite the fact that the number of traumatic injury claims decreased slightly—from 76,633 claims in fiscal year 1995 to 74,322 claims in fiscal year 2004, as a proportion of total claims, traumatic injury claims increased slightly over this same period. However, non-traumatic injury claims decreased by over 30 percent during this period—from 8,508 claims in fiscal year 1995 to 5,903 claims in 2004. In addition, the top five types of traumatic injuries incurred by federal workers during this period ranged from sprains and strains of ligaments, muscles, or tendons to lacerations. Over this same period, the five most common types of non-traumatic injuries ranged from hearing loss to back sprain or strain. See table 2 for a list of the five most common types of traumatic and non-traumatic injuries federal workers incurred from fiscal year 1995 to 2004.

While the size of the workforce declined, workers’ compensation costs for federal employees remained fairly constant during the most recent 10-year period, from about $1.54 billion in fiscal year 1995 to about $1.52 billion in 2004. In addition, the compensation per claim filed during this period increased. For example, while there were about 1,800 fewer new claims in fiscal year 2004 than there were in fiscal year 1995, the average compensation per claim increased by 3 percent from fiscal year 1995 to 2004, with the average payment per claim rising from $9,958 in 1995 to $10,242 in 2004. As shown in figure 4, the largest amount of workers’ compensation costs for federal workers paid from fiscal years 1995 to 2004 was for claims that were over 5 years old.

Finally, the proportion of payments for lost wages, death benefits, medical costs, and rehabilitation have remained constant, with wage loss compensation being the largest proportion (approximately 70 percent) of workers’ compensation payments made from fiscal years 1995 to 2004. (See fig. 5.)

Most Agencies Reported Having Many Safety Program Components, but Faced Common Implementation Challenges

Information reported by the 57 federal agencies illustrated various ways in which agencies carry out activities within the six safety program components—management commitment, employee involvement, training, identification of hazards, correction of hazards, and medical management. However, agency officials we surveyed and interviewed reported they face a number of implementation challenges that cut across the components, particularly in using automated systems, holding managers accountable for maintaining an effective safety program, and making the best use of their limited resources. Officials at these agencies also described measures they have taken to overcome each of these challenges.

Most Agencies Reported Having at Least One Activity for Each Safety Program Component

All of the 57 agencies surveyed reported that their safety programs incorporate activities for the management commitment component. Activities supporting management commitment include setting goals for the program and communicating from upper management to frontline staff about the importance of the safety program. Fifty-five of the agencies surveyed (96 percent) reported that they had established goals for their safety and health programs, and all 57 agencies reported conducting activities to communicate the importance of their safety programs to employees, such as through newsletters and Web sites.

Almost all of the agencies we surveyed reported that they conduct activities for two other components—employee involvement and training. Most agencies reported having policies governing employees’ participation in safety committees and reporting injuries and hazards. While 56 (98 percent) of the agencies provided procedures for employees to report hazards, half of these procedures did not specify the right of employees to report hazards anonymously, as required by an executive order. Consistent with OSHA regulations, 56 of the 57 agencies reported that they offer some type of safety training for their employees.

While many agencies identified a number of methods for identifying hazards, fewer had comprehensive procedures for tracking whether hazards are corrected—two additional components of safety programs. Fifty-five (96 percent) of the agencies reported that they conduct OSHA- required inspections, which must be performed at least once a year, in order to identify worksite hazards. However, although an executive order requires employee representatives to participate in these inspections, seven agencies (12 percent) reported not having any procedures for informing employees of their role during safety inspections. Furthermore, while most agencies reported having some procedures for following up on inspections and ensuring that hazards are corrected, we found that the procedures are not always adequate because a third of these agencies did not specify a reasonable timeframe for correction, as required by OSHA.

Agencies reported having the fewest activities for the medical management component. Eight agencies (14 percent) reported that they do not have any procedures designed to ensure that an injured employee is seen promptly by a physician. In addition, 12 agencies (21 percent) reported they do not have programs for offering injured employees light or restricted duty to help them return to work more quickly. Another 11 agencies reported having such programs but did not provide sufficient documentation of them. For example, two agencies reported having return-to-work programs, but the documentation they provided showed that the programs had not yet been implemented. Although federal agencies are not legally required to include these activities in their safety programs, the failure to include them may limit the effectiveness of the programs.

Common Implementation Challenges Include Data Management, Accountability, and Safety Resources

We found that agencies face some common challenges in implementing their safety programs, particularly in using automated systems to manage their programs, holding managers accountable for workplace safety, and operating with limited resources.

Data Management

The use of automated systems presented challenges for many agencies. Some agencies did not use such systems, while others cited difficulties in identifying systems that would allow them to collect data relevant to their safety programs. For example, 23 agencies (40 percent) reported that they do not have automated systems to collect information on hazards that have been identified and track whether they have been corrected in a timely manner. In addition, 14 of the agencies reporting that they have such a system (41 percent) either indicated that their hazard tracking systems were not currently operational, or they did not provide sufficient documentation to support the existence of such systems. Approximately a quarter of the agencies surveyed reported that they did not have automated systems for tracking safety training completed by their employees. Furthermore, 34 agencies (60 percent) reported they did not have an automated system for tracking the status of employees in light or restricted duty return-to-work programs, and another 16 agencies did not provide sufficient documentation of their systems. While federal agencies are not required to use automated data systems, without such a system, safety officials would have difficulty tracking broader trends such as participation rates in light or restricted duty programs and the effect of program participation on worker’s compensation costs.

Ten of the 12 agencies we reviewed in more detail reported challenges with their automated systems, such as ensuring that these systems collected appropriate data needed to evaluate the effectiveness of their safety programs. For example, an official from the Tobyhanna Army Depot told us that their computer technicians were in the process of designing a hazard tracking program because no agencywide programs were available, and off-the-shelf programs required too much adaptation to be practical. She also developed a stand-alone spreadsheet to track all work-related injuries because the systems available did not capture injuries that were not recordable on the OSHA log (such as injuries requiring only first aid) or injuries for which workers’ compensation claims are not filed. Furthermore, a National Park Service official stated that entering safety meetings and other non-traditional training methods into the agency’s automated system is difficult because the system does not have data fields for recording these activities. As a result, the agency has difficulty determining the extent to which employees have been trained on many safety issues.

Despite these challenges, several agencies told us they have started or are in the process of implementing automated safety systems that will allow them to collect and analyze data in order to better manage these safety programs, including assessing the effectiveness of their programs. For example, according to a Transportation Security Administration official, the agency is developing a new injury tracking system that will link injury and illness data with inspection data, allowing them to identify trends, such as where injuries commonly occur and demographic characteristics of injured employees. Similarly, officials with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing said they are testing a medical management system that will aggregate data from a number of different sources including the health unit, safety investigation reports, and their workers’ compensation system. Collecting these data will allow them to streamline the reporting process and better track injury trends.

Accountability

Another challenge agencies face is holding managers accountable for implementing effective safety programs. While 51 agencies (89 percent) reported having policies that establish responsibility for workers’ safety and health for all employees, 6 reported that they do not have such policies, despite an OSHA regulation requiring them to establish these policies for all management officials. Of the 51 agencies reporting having such policies, 11 agencies did not provide sufficient documentation of the policies. For example, one agency provided an Employee Performance Plan, but there were no performance expectations related to safety anywhere in the plan. Furthermore, although we asked the agencies to provide copies of their performance appraisal review forms citing safety as a rating element, only 16 agencies (28 percent) were able to do so.

Agency officials and employee representatives at 7 of the 12 agencies selected for follow-up interviews cited further difficulties in maintaining accountability throughout all levels of their organizations. For example, a Veterans Health Administration employee representative reported that, while there is a high level of commitment to safety at the headquarters level, the message is diluted as it reaches lower levels of the agency. In another example, the Defense Commissary Agency implemented a program that requires regional safety managers to evaluate stores’ safety programs. Agency officials stated that regional officials are expected to follow up to ensure that stores make timely corrections, but are not required to document when hazards are corrected. As a result, the agency has little assurance that the safety of store employees is adequately protected. In addition, according to an employee representative from the Commissary, it is not always clear who is responsible for ensuring that hazards are corrected.

Several agencies reported that they had developed ways to help ensure that employees and managers are held accountable for agency safety programs. For example, in order to address accountability issues within the agency, the Veterans Health Administration initiated a program that ties agency safety goals to performance ratings. Moreover, instead of simply including safety as a general element of performance review, the agency selects two to three specific safety program goals that change every few years according to agency needs. Past goals have included submitting workers’ compensation claims on time and reducing the occurrence of needle stick injuries. According to agency officials, bonuses for executive staff members are provided based on their progress in meeting these goals. When significant improvement has been made in these areas, safety officials set new goals—enabling continuous improvement.

Safety Resources

Both agency and OSHA officials cited challenges in funding their safety programs, although OSHA regulations require agencies to provide adequate resources to implement and maintain these programs. One agency official we interviewed reported difficulty identifying funding for the agency’s safety program because safety funding is not specifically designated as a line item in its budget. This lack of information on available resources makes it particularly difficult to plan for long-term safety issues, such as developing and providing training. For example, officials with the National Park Service, which employs a large cadre of seasonal workers, reported that the lack of itemized safety funds within its budget makes it hard to develop their training plans. OSHA officials cited the federal budget process itself as problematic because it requires federal agencies to budget months in advance for safety-related equipment purchases or other safety devices, long before they may have identified the need for this equipment. This was corroborated by a U.S. Mint official who reported that it is difficult to correct hazards that require a lot of capital investment and planning.

In addition, a potential consequence of operating with limited resources is the use of collateral duty safety officers—employees whose primary responsibilities do not involve safety. Nearly all of the agency officials we interviewed reported relying on these positions, which are typically filled by employees who volunteer or are assigned by the agency. While some agency officials reported their collateral duty officers were appropriately trained, as required by OSHA, others reported that these officers have limited knowledge or experience in safety. Some agency officials we interviewed said that this lack of experience, as well as the limited amount of time collateral duty officers are allotted for safety duties, has made it difficult for these officers to learn all of the safety program requirements. For example, according to a National Park Service official, collateral duty officers at this agency typically spend about 10 percent of their time on their safety responsibilities, and this may inhibit their ability to respond effectively when safety concerns arise. Moreover, one Forest Service official told us that collateral duty officers questioned the feasibility of building safety programs with collateral duty officers, and was concerned that the safety duties might detract from their primary job responsibilities.

Finally, 11 of the 12 agencies selected for follow-up interviews reported that competing priorities make it difficult to manage their safety programs. For example, a Food Safety Inspection Service official noted that completing safety forms and fulfilling data requests can be a burden to the agency’s overall mission of meat and poultry inspections. Similarly, an employee representative at the Forest Service told us that, because safety achievements are not typically recognized or rewarded—even though such recognition is encouraged by OSHA regulations—supervisors focus on meeting production targets rather than working safely.

Agencies identified a number of techniques for addressing the difficulties associated with managing resources. For example, an official with a National Park Service regional office said that they host monthly conference calls with the collateral duty safety officers at several national parks, which gives these individuals a chance to ask technical questions of the regional safety officer and share effective practices among the parks. These monthly calls also enable their collateral duty officers, who have limited backgrounds in safety, to gain knowledge and experience over time. Other agencies maximized their resources by collaborating with each other. For example, one official with the Forest Service said that they have an informal partnership with the Bureau of Land Management that allows them to pool their resources by pursuing joint activities and sharing offices and staff. One activity involved jointly developing and teaching an accident investigation course and an off-highway vehicle course.

OSHA Provides Inadequate Oversight of Federal Agencies Because It Does Not Use Its Enforcement and Compliance Assistance Resources Strategically

OSHA’s oversight of federal agencies’ safety programs is not as effective as it could be because it does not use its enforcement and compliance assistance resources in a strategic manner. First, OSHA does not routinely conduct inspections that target federal worksites with high injury and illness rates. In addition, OSHA lacks procedures for tracking and resolving violations disputed by federal agencies. Third, OSHA has not conducted required evaluations of the larger or more hazardous agencies in the last 6 years. Fourth, OSHA has not submitted its own annual reports to the President in a timely manner, and they have not included an assessment of each agency’s safety program, as required. Finally, while OSHA has a range of promising programs for assisting agencies in complying with its regulations and improving worker safety, not all of these programs are being fully utilized.

OSHA’s Enforcement Strategy Does Not Include a Program for Targeting Worksites with High Injury Rates for Inspection

Unlike its enforcement strategy for private-sector employers, OSHA’s oversight of federal worksites does not include a national program that targets federal worksites with high injury and illness rates for inspection. According to its internal guidance, OSHA is supposed to develop a list that targets federal worksites for inspection. However, OSHA’s Office of Federal Agency Programs has not developed such a list in over 5 years. In the past, OSHA used workers’ compensation claims data collected by OWCP to identify federal worksites with high numbers of injuries and illnesses. Because of limitations in the data, however, it was difficult to identify where each injury occurred and, therefore, use this information to target federal worksites for inspection. OSHA officials at the national office reported that they are working to start a new targeting effort but are still facing the same difficulties in using workers’ compensation data to select federal worksites for inspection.

As shown in figure 6, OSHA primarily conducts inspections of federal worksites as a result of complaints.

Unprogrmmed inpection initited y complintOther nprogrmmed inpection (ccident, referr, etc.)

OSHA’s inspection data of federal worksites show that complaint inspections generally result in few violations compared to targeted inspections, which generally identify a greater number of serious violations (see fig. 7). For example, over the last 10 years, unprogrammed inspections, which are generally initiated by complaints, uncovered an average of one serious violation per inspection, in contrast to an average of four serious violations for programmed (targeted) inspections. The small average number of violations for unprogrammed inspections is driven by the fact that over half of these inspections result in no violations being identified.

The new recordkeeping rule, which was implemented in January 2005, requires federal agencies to begin collecting the same injury and illness data as private-sector employers and could help OSHA develop its targeting program, according to OSHA officials. Since the new rule requires federal worksites to keep logs that include information that can be used to calculate injury and illness rates, OSHA officials said these data would be more useful in creating an effective targeting program than the workers’ compensation data. While the new rule does not require federal agencies to report injury and illness data to OSHA, OSHA officials said they could target federal worksites for inspection in the same way they target private-sector employers in industries with high injury and illness rates for inspection. For its targeting program of private worksites, OSHA surveys a sample of worksites in industries with the highest injury and illness rates. The survey form requires employers to report on (1) the average number of employees who worked for them during the previous calendar year, (2) the total hours the employees worked during the previous year, and (3) summary injury and illness data from their OSHA logs. OSHA then uses this information to compute the worksites’ injury and illness rates and sends those with relatively high rates a letter informing them that they may be inspected. Finally OSHA develops a list of worksites with high injury and illness rates to be targeted for inspection. As an alternative to conducting a survey of federal worksites, OSHA has the option of requiring federal agencies to report this information in their annual reports to OSHA.

One of OSHA’s regional offices—which includes four area offices—and an area office in another region developed their own targeted programs of federal agency worksites using the workers’ compensation data. While officials reported using the data has been difficult, they said that these efforts have resulted in improved safety at federal worksites. In addition, they reported that the agencies that were inspected have become more aware of OSHA’s role and, in turn, have sought OSHA’s assistance in improving their safety programs. Furthermore, agency officials whose worksites have been selected for inspection have focused more attention on safety and shared information, resulting in further improvements. For example, at one worksite in Montana, Forest Service officials reported that, after colleagues in Idaho told them OSHA had targeted federal worksites in the state for inspection, they were reviewing their safety programs and OSHA’s requirements in preparation for possible OSHA visits.

Officials with OSHA’s national office said that they have encouraged regions to develop their own programs targeting federal agencies for inspection, but we identified some challenges that need to be addressed before more regions can successfully develop these programs. For example, one regional OSHA official reported requesting workers’ compensation data from the national office to start a targeting program, but was told the national OSHA office did not have enough time to provide the data requested. In addition, regional and area office OSHA officials said that the ability to develop and maintain targeting programs depends on the resources available. Besides the time and effort required to identify worksites, they said the availability of inspectors is also a factor. According to OSHA’s policies, OSHA inspectors’ top priority is responding to imminent danger situations, followed by accidents, followed by responding to complaints; conducting targeted inspections is a lower priority.

OSHA Lacks a System for Tracking Disputed Violations

OSHA’s procedures for tracking violations disputed by federal agencies differ from those for the private sector. Whereas private-sector employers can dispute OSHA violations cited during inspections by requesting that the violations be reviewed by an independent administrative law judge, federal agencies must seek resolution with OSHA officials. In these situations, federal agencies may first request an informal conference with OSHA area office officials to discuss the violation in question. If the dispute is not resolved, it is referred to the relevant OSHA region for review and, if necessary, to OSHA’s national office.

While OSHA’s internal instructions require that area office and regional officials be consulted in decisions made by national office officials and an Executive Order requires OSHA to submit unresolved violation disputes to the President, neither of these things appears to be occurring. Although national office officials reported that there have not been any unresolved disputed violations, and they have not had to report any unresolved violations to the President in over 3 years, area office and regional staff told us some unresolved disputed violations from federal agencies have lingered for years. For example, a regional OSHA official reported that, in another region, a federal agency was cited for violating a safety standard that did not apply to that particular agency. The agency challenged the violation, and the dispute reached the national office, where no decision was made—leaving the violation unresolved for 7 years. Another OSHA official reported a case in which the Bureau of Prisons refused to have guards wear special gloves as required while conducting cell searches because the guards thought the gloves would not provide them with enough sensitivity to feel for objects hidden by prisoners. According to this official, it was important for the guards to wear gloves during these searches because of the danger of receiving needle sticks or cuts from sharp objects. The case reached OSHA’s national office, but it chose not to act on the case—leaving the guards at risk and the violation unresolved.

OSHA could not provide us with a list of all violations disputed by federal agencies or the status of their resolution because it does not have a system for tracking these disputed violations. OSHA officials at the national office indicated that part of the reason the agency has not developed such a system is because few federal agencies dispute violations. In addition, according to these officials, disputed violations are resolved in a timely manner. These officials reported that they seek to review cases in a similar manner to the manner in which administrative law judges review private- sector employers’ cases and have considered using either a permanent or ad hoc panel to ensure consistency in their review of violations disputed by federal agencies. However, without a system for tracking violations disputed by federal agencies, OSHA cannot ensure that all disputes have been resolved or that they are resolved in a consistent manner.

OSHA Has Not Conducted Evaluations in More Than 6 Years

Although OSHA is required to conduct annual evaluations of the larger or more hazardous federal agencies, and less frequent evaluations for smaller and less hazardous federal agencies, it has not conducted any evaluations since 1999. OSHA officials reported that because evaluations are so resource intensive, they did not have enough staff to support doing them. Evaluations are another element of OSHA’s enforcement strategy and include both a national-level review of an agency’s safety program and site-specific assessments. In the past, OSHA’s national office identified federal worksites for evaluations and the area offices inspected them. OSHA’s policies require agencies to correct any violations identified during inspections conducted as part of its evaluations. In addition, OSHA’s internal guidance encourages its officials to coordinate evaluations with targeted inspections in order to use its resources more efficiently.

The last evaluation that OSHA conducted, at the Veterans Health Administration, resulted in a report that agency officials said they still use to improve their safety program. While some OSHA officials told us that evaluations are resource intensive and ineffective because agencies have not always corrected the problems identified, other OSHA and agency officials said OSHA’s evaluation of the Veterans Health Administration helped bring management and union officials together for discussions during the evaluation process. According to these officials, this improved relationship continued after the evaluation was completed.

OSHA Has Not Submitted Timely Annual Reports on Agencies’ Safety Program as Required

As of February 2006, OSHA had not submitted its annual report to the President that summarized and assessed the status of federal agencies’ safety programs since 2000 nor provided recommendations of ways for federal agencies to improve their safety programs, as required. OSHA is working to reduce the backlog for these reports, according to the officials we interviewed. In addition, OSHA officials told us that they could not assess the effectiveness of these programs or make recommendations because they do not collect original data on agencies’ safety programs but, instead, rely on the reports agencies provide to them on an annual basis. According to these officials, they cannot assess or evaluate agencies’ programs without collecting independent information on their programs. However, we believe that OSHA could use the information provided by the agencies in their annual reports to assess agencies’ safety programs, including whether they are meeting OSHA’s requirements. For example, OSHA could use the agencies’ reports to determine what types of safety and health training they are providing to their managers and workers, the number and types of self-inspections they are conducting of their workplaces, and the measures used to correct unsafe and unhealthful working conditions identified during these inspections. In addition, OSHA could use these reports to make recommendations for improvement.

OSHA requires agencies to summarize their injury and illness rates and provide information on new initiatives they have started and their accomplishments in their annual reports. However, OSHA officials told us that they do not systematically review these reports over time to ensure that agencies are making progress. Our analysis of the agencies’ reports for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 showed that agencies generally described the accomplishments of their safety programs but sometimes repeated their safety goals across years. For example, one agency reported in 2 consecutive years that it had “launched a new e-training program” that included safety modules. In addition, agencies generally did not provide any follow up information on their prior years’ goals or challenges. For example, one agency reported having a goal to develop a database for tracking injury and illness trends but made no mention of the system in the following year’s report. One OSHA regional official suggested that the national office could use regional staff more effectively by requiring each region to review selected federal agencies’ annual reports. In this way, regional staff could become more familiar with specific agencies’ programs, which would allow them to more readily identify discrepancies and deficiencies in their annual reports.

OSHA Has Used a Variety of Compliance Assistance Programs for Federal Agencies, but None Is Widespread

Federal agencies can receive compliance assistance from OSHA through programs developed especially for federal agencies as well as programs initially developed for private-sector employers. The two compliance assistance programs developed specifically for federal worksites—Field Federal Safety and Health Councils and Agency Technical Assistance Requests—have generally been helpful, according to OSHA officials, but they are not consistently available to all federal agencies. Some of the programs that OSHA initially developed for private-sector employers and later expanded to federal agencies—the VPP, strategic partnerships, and alliances—have not all been widely used by federal agencies. As of January 2006, only 14 federal worksites had joined the VPP and OSHA had established few strategic partnerships and alliances with federal agencies. However, although only a limited number of federal worksites have used these programs, OSHA officials told us many of these efforts have been successful and they are encouraging more agencies to participate.

OSHA’s Regional Offices Have Struggled to Set Up and Maintain Field Federal Safety and Health Councils

Regions have anywhere from 2 to 13 active Field Federal Safety and Health Councils, depending on the effort regional OSHA officials have made to develop and maintain them. These councils, established by OSHA to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information about occupational safety throughout the federal government, consist of management and employee representatives from local federal agencies. OSHA officials reported that the councils are intended to provide a networking and training forum for safety officials from different agencies in a given area, but all agreed that maintaining the councils has been a struggle.

Both OSHA and agency officials cited challenges in maintaining the councils. Some OSHA officials reported that federal agencies do not always give their representatives time to attend the meetings. Other OSHA officials raised concerns that federal agencies have failed to properly train their collateral duty safety officials, which has inhibited their contributions to the councils. In addition, some officials reported that distance makes it difficult for council members to attend meetings. One OSHA area director used the state’s library videoconferencing system to bring together council members from different areas and suggested that OSHA consider similar methods to encourage collaboration. On the other hand, a couple of agency safety managers and OSHA officials told us the councils are not necessarily an effective tool for agencies because the safety concerns are so different among the agencies. For example, a Department of Veterans Affairs’ safety manager might be focused on preventing needle sticks and identifying violent patients, while National Park Service safety staff might be concerned about snake bites and heat exhaustion.

The councils also have limited financial resources. Funding is provided solely by OSHA’s regional offices and is not a line item in their budgets. While regions attempt to provide training to the councils, any budget constraint can quickly eliminate their ability to do so. Until last year, OSHA’s national office sponsored an annual conference and the regions provided the travel funds for the council presidents to attend the conference. However, the conference was canceled in fiscal year 2005, partly because the national office did not have the funds to set up the meeting and partly because the regions reported not having the travel funds required.

OSHA’s Responses to Agency Technical Assistance Requests Are Sometimes Delayed

OSHA officials said they sometimes are reluctant to respond to Agency Technical Assistance Requests, which can delay this assistance, because they consume their limited enforcement resources. An agency can request OSHA to provide advice on hazard abatement, training, or program assistance. OSHA cannot cite agencies for violations during this process but, in making the request, agencies understand they are expected to correct any violations OSHA observes. While these requests for technical assistance are considered part of OSHA’s compliance assistance strategy, rather than enforcement, OSHA area offices and regions must use their enforcement budgets and staff to conduct them. Because these offices have limited enforcement resources, a regional OSHA official told us that, although OSHA responds to all of these requests, this assistance may be delayed.

Agencies Have Begun Joining OSHA’s VPP

As of January 2006, there were 14 federal worksites among the more than 900 private-sector worksites in OSHA’s VPP, which promotes effective worksite safety and health. In general, OSHA and agency officials told us the program is beneficial for federal agencies and they expect more worksites to join. An agency official also said that having one federal worksite join often is an impetus for others to consider applying to join the program. For example, since the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia became a VPP site in 2005, other agencies within the Department of Treasury have considered joining. In addition, some OSHA field staff reported that they are in the process of assisting agencies with their VPP applications. While a few agency officials told us that the VPP was not feasible for agencies because of the resources required, many told us they had worksites seeking to join the program.

Some OSHA officials reported that federal agencies face unique challenges in joining the VPP. For example, in order to participate, agencies must have an injury and illness rate below the average within their given industry. However, some agencies do not fit within a particular industry code or definition. This was the case for Yellowstone National Park when the worksite first applied to join the VPP. The park was required to classify itself in an industry category that included amusement parks and miniature golf courses, worksites with much lower injury and illness rates than the park. The industry codes were recently changed and now include a code for national parks, but Yellowstone is still challenged because its injury and illness rates are higher than those of other parks such as national monuments with many fewer hazards and injuries.

OSHA Has Developed Few Strategic Partnerships and Alliances with Federal Agencies

OSHA has developed relatively few strategic partnerships and alliances with federal agencies, although OSHA officials said those that have been formed have generally been beneficial to the agencies in improving their safety programs. Strategic partnerships are agreements that employers make with OSHA to address specific safety and health problems, while alliances are agreements organizations make with OSHA to focus on training, outreach, and promoting awareness of safety and health issues. OSHA has created a limited number of strategic partnerships with federal agencies at the national and regional level. At the national level, OSHA has one partnership—an agreement with the Army created in October 2004 aimed at increasing awareness of safety, reducing ergonomic injuries, and sharing best practices. At the regional level, OSHA has 7 current and 10 completed partnerships with federal agencies. (See table 3.)

In general, OSHA officials said that these partnerships have helped agencies reduce their injury and illness rates by helping them to develop stronger safety programs. However, in two instances OSHA terminated its strategic partnerships with federal agencies prior to their completion, either because the agency could not agree on the terms of the partnership or because the agency lacked the commitment to make the changes needed to improve their safety programs.

Federal agencies have joined two national alliances and formed a total of 10 regional or local alliances. While most of the alliances have focused on general safety issues, more recently Region 10 signed an alliance with the Fort Lewis Army Garrison that focuses on improving the training and communication for emergency response efforts. According to one OSHA official, this alliance has leveraged both agencies’ resources well. OSHA has gained training from Fort Lewis on emergency response techniques, and Fort Lewis has utilized OSHA’s expertise in properly fitting staff members for personal protective equipment to be worn during an emergency response.

Impact of the SHARE Presidential Initiative Is Unclear

OSHA assists federal agencies with SHARE, the Presidential initiative begun in 2004 and intended to encourage federal agencies to improve their safety programs and reduce federal workers’ compensation costs, but the impact of the initiative on agencies’ safety programs is not clear. Specifically, OSHA officials reported coordinating with OWCP to provide training to the agencies about SHARE, but they had different views on the effectiveness of the SHARE initiative. According to some OSHA officials, the initiative has encouraged agencies’ national offices to pay more attention to safety issues than they otherwise would have. Other officials said that they thought SHARE was a paper exercise rather than a tool for agencies to improve their safety programs, or that this type of program might encourage underreporting of injuries. OSHA’s national office uses workers’ compensation data to calculate agencies’ injury and illness rates to determine whether they have met their SHARE goals related to workers’ safety, but it has not conducted any agency reviews to determine whether underreporting has increased, according to OSHA officials.

OSHA officials at the national office said that they would like to use the SHARE data to develop a list of agencies to target for inspection. By focusing on agencies that are not meeting their SHARE goals, these officials said they thought they could assist agencies in reducing their injury and illness rates. OSHA officials said the agency will continue to use workers’ compensation data to calculate agencies’ injury and illness rates through 2006, but would consider using injury and illness data collected under the new recordkeeping requirements after this time. Using this new information would allow OSHA to identify trends for each federal agency worksite and set more specific goals for improving agencies’ safety programs.

Conclusions

OSHA faces a number of challenges in monitoring federal agencies’ safety programs and, over time, has adapted its methods to try to make the most of its resources. However, OSHA’s oversight could be further strengthened if it took a more strategic approach. Because targeted inspections generally uncover more workplace hazards than its other inspections, by not targeting its inspection efforts to the most hazardous federal worksites, OSHA is not using its limited enforcement staff and resources in the best way possible. Now that federal agencies are collecting injury data that would make targeting more feasible, OSHA is missing a critical opportunity to identify and correct hazards. OSHA could require, as part of the federal agencies’ annual reports, that each agency submit certain portions or summaries of the data that agencies are required to collect under the new recordkeeping requirements. This information could be used to target federal worksites for inspection in the same way it targets private-sector employers in industries with high injury and illness rates for inspection. Alternatively, as OSHA does with private employers, OSHA could develop its targeting program using the newly-required data that federal agencies are collecting by surveying selected agencies and worksites.

In addition, OSHA is not tracking violations disputed by federal agencies or how they are resolved. As a result, hazardous worksite conditions may remain uncorrected for years and OSHA may be limiting its ability to address challenges agencies are facing in complying with OSHA’s standards and to provide additional assistance to the agencies.

While inspections are specific to individual federal agency’s worksites, evaluations allow OSHA to make thorough, agencywide assessments of their safety programs. These evaluations require a lot of time and staff, but, in the past, OSHA has been able to maximize its resources by strategically combining evaluations of entire agencies with inspections of federal worksites. By not conducting evaluations of the larger or more hazardous federal agencies, OSHA is missing a critical opportunity to provide agencies valuable feedback and assistance to agencies for improving their safety programs in a more systematic way.

OSHA could also more effectively assess federal agencies’ safety programs if it ensured that the agencies complied with the requirements for filing annual reports and used the reports, as well as OSHA’s evaluations and inspection data, to assess their safety programs and develop recommendations for improvement. Because OSHA does not provide an assessment of agencies’ safety programs in its annual report to the President or recommendations for improvement as required, its ability to ensure the effectiveness of these programs is limited.

Recommendations for Executive Action

The Secretary of Labor should direct OSHA to develop a targeted inspection program for federal worksites based on the new worker injury and illness data federal agencies are required to collect by requiring that relevant portions or summaries of that data be included in agencies’ annual reports to OSHA or by obtaining the data from agencies or worksites through periodic, selected surveys; track violations disputed by federal agencies to their resolution and ensure that unresolved disputes are reported to the President; conduct evaluations of the largest and most hazardous federal agencies use evaluations, inspection data, and annual reports submitted by federal agencies to assess the effectiveness of their safety programs, and include, in OSHA’s annual report to the President, an assessment of each agency’s worker safety program and recommendations for improvement.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of the Departments of Labor, Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Officials from Agriculture, Treasury, and the Social Security Administration informed us that their agencies did not have any comments on our draft report. We received written comments from the Departments of Labor, Homeland Security, and Interior. These comments are reproduced in appendixes II, III, and IV. The Departments of Defense, Justice, and Veterans Affairs provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.

Labor generally agreed with all of our recommendations. In responding to our first recommendation, OSHA explained that, for the immediate future, it would use OWCP data to identify federal worksites for inspection. It did not support the use of the annual reports to collect data on injury and illness recorded by the agencies to use in targeting federal worksites for inspection, but thought the use of surveys to collect these data was noteworthy.

In regard to our second recommendation, OSHA reported that it will create a database to track the status of OSHA citations disputed by federal agencies. In responding to our final two recommendations, OSHA reported that it would begin evaluations and a more rigorous review of agencies’ annual reports once staffing had increased.

The Departments of Homeland Security and Interior noted that Labor could provide more assistance to agencies in addressing the challenges we identified. While we believe agencies should seek assistance from OSHA on ways to overcome these challenges, we also believe that these challenges will require agencies to work internally to build support for worker safety programs.

In addition, the Department of Homeland Security suggested that our recommendations to Labor to increase OSHA’s enforcement activities may not appreciably lower the incidence of injuries and illnesses and may indeed reduce agencies’ requests for OSHA’s assistance. We continue to believe that increased enforcement activities would provide OSHA with a balanced strategy for ensuring workplace safety. In addition, inspections will allow OSHA to review federal agencies’ injury and illness logs to ensure that underreporting is not occurring—another concern that Homeland Security raised in its comments. Finally, Homeland Security suggested that OSHA should take the lead on developing a government- wide safety information system. We agree that it is important to have a governmentwide safety information system and note that Labor has made some effort in that direction.

We will make copies of this report available upon request. In addition, the report is available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 9889 or at robertsonr@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 VII.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

We sent a data collection instrument to 57 agencies within the 8 largest departments. The instrument requested information and documentation on six components of sound safety programs we identified from previous GAO reports: (1) management commitment, (2) employee involvement, (3) education and training, (4) identification of hazards, (5) following up and correcting hazards, and (6) medical management. We chose the eight departments because they represented 80 percent of the federal executive branch workforce—excluding the U.S. Postal Service, which under the OSH Act is considered a private sector employer. We contacted officials with each of the 8 departments to obtain the names of their operational agencies and they provided us with the names of 57 agencies. We reviewed the documentation supplied by the agencies to support their answers to selected questions on the data collection instrument. In reviewing the documentation, we made two assessments: (1) whether the documentation supported the agency’s responses and (2) what types of activities the agency conducted for each program component. We examined each document provided by the agencies in support of their responses and assessed each as either “supporting” or “not supporting” the agencies’ responses. Each document was reviewed by two people to ensure that our assessment of the sufficiency of the documents provided by the agencies was consistent. Of the 57 agencies that completed the data collection instrument, two did not provide any supporting documentation.

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, the sources of information available to respondents or in how the data are entered into a database or were analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the development of the survey instrument, the data collection, and the data analysis stages for the purpose of minimizing such nonsampling errors. For example, a survey specialist designed the survey instrument in collaboration with GAO staff with subject matter expertise. We pre-tested this survey at two agencies and, based on the results and comments received during pre-testing, made appropriate revisions. We also independently verified the entry of all survey responses entered into an analysis database as well as data analyses procedures.

We conducted follow-up interviews with safety managers and when possible, employee representatives from the largest agency within each department, and with the agencies with the highest lost-time or injury and illness rates. In some cases, the largest agency had both the highest lost- time and injury and illness rates. In total, we conducted follow-up interviews with safety managers in 12 agencies, as well as employee representatives in 8 agencies. The interview questions were based on how each agency originally responded to the data collection instrument and their supporting documentation.

We also visited five federal agencies’ worksites: the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania; Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming; the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; the U.S. Forest Service’s Gardiner District Office (Gallatin National Forest) in Gardiner, Montana; and the Veterans Health Administration’s Rocky Mountain Network Office (a Veteran Integrated Service Network site) in Glendale, Colorado, and Eastern Colorado Health Care Center in Denver, Colorado. The first three worksites are OSHA recognized VPP sites. The Forest Service site bordered Yellowstone National Park, and the Veterans Health Administration site was recognized by OSHA as having a good safety program. At each of these locations, we interviewed safety officials and discussed the challenges and solutions they faced in developing their safety programs.

We obtained information on claims filed by federal workers for injuries they incurred from fiscal years 1995 through 2004 from OWCP. We used data from two of OWCP’s data systems to tabulate basic descriptive statistics provided in this report. One system provides injury and case status information on all individuals who have filed claims with OWCP while the other is used to bill agencies for the actual amount of workers’ compensation payments made on the agencies’ behalf. These systems were used to develop our tables including the number of new cases filed; the types of injuries incurred; and the actual amounts paid, by the age of the case and types of payment. To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed OWCP and OSHA officials, reviewed published reports based on these data (including reports from Labor’s Office of the Inspector General), and performed our own tests for consistency and completeness. We found that certain data elements had high levels of missing information and thus could not be used in this report. For the elements we used, although small data discrepancies were found, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for providing the basic descriptive statistics reported.

In reviewing OSHA’s role, we analyzed inspection data of federal agencies for fiscal years 1995 through 2004 from OSHA’s Integrated Management Information System. We interviewed OSHA officials at the national office and all of its 10 regional administrators and federal agency program officers. For each region, we interviewed the director of the area office that had the largest number of inspections of federal worksites in the last 5 years. We also interviewed a compliance safety and health official in each of these offices identified by the area director and, where possible, the compliance assistance specialist, although not every area office had a compliance assistance specialist. In addition, we interviewed two OSHA officials about the local emphasis program for federal worksites that one region had implemented.

Finally, when available, we examined agencies’ annual reports to OSHA from 2000 to 2004 and asked to review OSHA’s annual reports to the President for the same time period. However, as noted in the report, OSHA had not completed its annual reports to the President for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 as required. We reviewed the report to the President that OSHA had completed for fiscal year 2000.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor

GAO Comments

The following are GAO comments on Labor’s letter dated March 17, 2006. 1. We reordered the SHARE goals as OSHA requested and identified those goals for which OSHA is responsible. 2. OSHA suggests that our finding—that violations disputed by federal agencies were not being tracked—was confusing because the agency has an inspection database that it uses to track the status of all violations. However, as noted in its comments, when OSHA generated a report to identify unresolved violations at federal agencies, staff could not determine the status of 11 violations. In addition, OSHA acknowledged that the Office of Federal Agency Programs (OFAP) does not have a formal tracking system for cases it receives for resolution. We reviewed the report language and believe that it accurately explains the process in place.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Interior

Appendix V: Data Collection Instrument Sent to the Federal Agencies

Appendix VI: Agencies’ Responses to the Data Collection Instrument

The following table summarizes agencies’ responses to the data collection instrument. In addition, the last column summarizes whether the documentation agencies provided to support their responses for selected questions was sufficient.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

Revae E. Moran (Assistant Director) and Margaret A. Holmes (Analyst in Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Jessica A. Lemke, Sheila R. McCoy, and Kris Trueblood made significant contributions to this report. Other key contributors to this report included Kyle Browning, Richard Burkard, Nina E. Horowitz, Tovah Rom, Beverly Ross, Jeremy D. Sebest, John G. Smale Jr., Rachael C. Valliere, and Eric A. Wenner.