OSHA and state-run programs are responsible for protecting the safety and health of an estimated 130 million private- and public-sector workers at approximately 8 million worksites. One of the primary ways OSHA carries out its responsibilities is by setting and enforcing occupational States with state-run programs typically safety and health standards.adopt standards identical to federal standards, according to OSHA, but they may set standards that are more stringent or that address hazards not covered by federal standards. For example, according to OSHA, California, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington have standards that are different from federal standards. To approve a state-run program, OSHA must determine that the state’s plan meets certain criteria specified in the OSH Act, including the development and enforcement of standards that are “at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment” as the federal standards. As required by the act, OSHA also conducts continuing evaluations of states’ implementation of their plans. When evaluating state-run programs, OSHA considers a program to be “at least as effective as” the federal program if it is making reasonable progress toward meeting established performance goals and fulfilling mandated responsibilities. OSHA enforces standards for private sector workplaces not covered by a state-run program, and conducts inspections at federal workplaces in all states. Most states with a state plan enforce employer compliance with safety and health standards for the private sector as well as state and local public-sector workplaces in their state; however, some have chosen to provide such enforcement only for public-sector workplaces (see fig.1). There are currently 27 state-run programs responsible for providing enforcement to protect about 40 percent of U.S. workers. OSHA provides grants to states with state-run programs of up to 50 percent of state-run program costs to assist with each state’s operating costs. In fiscal year 2012, Congress appropriated just over $104 million for the purposes of providing these grants to states. OSHA requires each state to submit in its grant application an annual performance plan for approval. The annual performance plan includes a detailed enforcement plan describing how the state intends to meet its inspection and other goals and must be approved by OSHA before a state receives its federal grant. OSHA assesses the performance of a state-run program against the goals in the state’s performance plan, as well as on mandated activities, such as program administration and investigation of In a recent congressional hearing, an OSHA official said complaints.state-run programs provide a number of advantages in helping OSHA carry out its enforcement efforts. These advantages include adding resources to the federal program that would not otherwise be available, providing enforcement for state and local public-sector workers in those states, and addressing workplace hazards that are sometimes not addressed by OSHA. OSHA uses directorates in its national office, as well as 10 regional offices and 87 area offices, to implement and oversee enforcement.national office includes the Directorate of Enforcement Programs, which provides guidance to OSHA inspectors on how to enforce safety and health standards and how employers are to comply with them; the Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, which analyzes safety and health data; and the Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, which develops policy and oversees the grants provided to state-run programs. The directorates provide guidance to the regions and to states. At the same time, OSHA affords significant autonomy to its 10 regions to both conduct enforcement activities through their area offices and to monitor enforcement by state-run programs within their regions. While OSHA’s regional offices work with OSHA’s national directorates, they report to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (see fig. 2). OSHA uses a variety of methods to monitor the progress of federal and state enforcement efforts, and monitors federal enforcement efforts more frequently than those of states. For federal enforcement, OSHA national officials monitor regional office activities based on the goals it sets in collaboration with regional officials each year—including the number of worksite inspections each region is expected to complete—and report progress quarterly to the Department of Labor. OSHA national officials monitor regional offices’ progress toward meeting these goals by reviewing their performance measures and holding weekly conference calls with regional administrators to discuss performance and other issues. Regional officials generally monitor their area offices’ progress toward meeting goals by also reviewing inspection activity reports submitted weekly by each area office, and through meetings, typically by phone, with area office managers held at least every other week to review the data. Inspection activity reports provide information on, among other things, the number and type of inspections completed, violations found, and penalties assessed. Some regions also hold in-person meetings a few times a year with all area office managers to review their progress. These reports and meetings are the primary ways officials keep track of each region’s progress toward meeting its goals. For example, in fiscal year 2012, 7 out of 10 OSHA regional offices met or exceeded their annual goal for conducting inspections (see fig. 3). To monitor state enforcement efforts, OSHA regional and area officials also review performance reports and meet with state officials to monitor their progress toward meeting their inspection and other goals, but they do so less frequently for state-run programs than for federal enforcement efforts. OSHA regional and area offices work directly with states to set inspection goals, taking into account staffing and funding levels in each state. Regional officials told us that some state-run programs face funding challenges. For example, Hawaii recently reported problems in carrying out its program due to lack of state staffing resources and funds. States generally have primary responsibility for monitoring the performance of their state-run programs, subject to oversight by OSHA. States are afforded flexibility in setting their own goals as long as they report their activities across a range of performance measures, such as the percentage of programmed inspections that find certain types of violations, and the average number of violations per inspection. Regional and area officials also meet quarterly with state managers to review states’ performance, whereas regional officials meet with area officials at least once every other week to review their performance. For state-run programs, regional officials look for outliers or significant variations from the national averages or a state’s own performance goals.variations are found, OSHA’s regional officials and state-run program officials discuss how the state will address them. For example, state-run program officials could work with OSHA regional officials to develop a corrective action plan that specifies steps the state will take to improve its program. During these quarterly meetings with the states, OSHA regional and area officials review several types of reports that compare a state’s progress with federal and national data on multiple measures for the same period. The State Indicator Report tracks the percentage of state-run program inspections completed by type and compares them to the percentage of federal inspections, typically by quarter. The State Activity Mandated Measures report tracks a state’s performance across various measures, such as the amount of time it takes a state to begin an inspection after receiving a complaint about a safety or health hazard, and the percentage of programmed inspections conducted by the state for which serious, willful, or repeat violations are found. In addition, OSHA officials review aggregate data on inspections, violations, and penalties as a part of their annual audits of states. OSHA’s regional offices have transitioned to a new data system, the OSHA Information System, which officials said should allow for more sophisticated data runs and evaluation of outputs. State-run programs have not yet adopted the new system and are still using the Integrated Management Information System, or compatible systems, to report results to OSHA. OSHA offices now manually merge data from the two systems to produce totals for their enforcement activities. For fiscal year 2012, inspectors in state-run programs conducted more inspections and cited more violations than federal OSHA inspectors, but cited fewer serious violations and assessed lower penalties overall (see fig.4). While the guidance OSHA provides for auditing its regional and area offices is fairly consistent, its guidance for auditing state-run programs has varied significantly each year since 2009. Under OSHA’s Management Accountability Program (MAP), OSHA regional offices conduct annual audits of their own offices and their area offices. These audits are either comprehensive audits or focused audits of the office’s inspections and administrative functions. Comprehensive audits, which are conducted at least once every 4 years, cover a full range of enforcement and administrative topics. Focused audits, which are conducted in the years between comprehensive audits, evaluate one or more selected enforcement or administrative topics. The purpose of MAP audits is to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of both OSHA’s regional and area offices’ enforcement field activities in relation to established policies and procedures and to identify best practices and deficiencies in order to improve performance. During comprehensive audits, OSHA conducts on-site case file reviews and addresses 41 different topics on enforcement activities and administrative issues, such Topics as timekeeping and the appropriate use of government vehicles.for focused audits are determined by the regional officials based on areas of concern for them or the national office. Although focused audits of area offices are normally conducted by OSHA’s regional offices, area office managers may conduct focused audits of their own offices and report back to the regional office. Area office managers may not, however, conduct comprehensive audits of their own offices—these audits can only be conducted by regional offices and must be done on site. “The audit organization and the individual auditor, whether government or public, must be independent…Auditors and audit organizations maintain independence so that their opinions, findings, conclusions, judgments, and recommendations will be impartial and viewed as impartial by reasonable and informed third parties. Auditors should avoid situations that could lead reasonable and informed third parties to conclude that the auditors are not independent and thus are not capable of exercising objective and impartial judgment on all issues associated with conducting the audit and reporting on the work.” Instead of adhering to these criteria, regional officials organized, managed, and conducted their own audits, as well as audits of their area offices. For the most recent comprehensive audits of OSHA’s 10 regional offices, none of the audit summaries or our interviews with regional officials indicated participation by national office staff. During our review, a national office official verified that no national office staff has participated in any of the comprehensive audits of regional offices to date, and the official was unsure whether there were any plans to involve national office staff in the audits next year. OSHA’s regional offices also conduct annual audits of state-run programs called Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation (FAME) audits. The purpose of these audits is to assess the performance of states in meeting their established goals and complying with statutory and regulatory requirements, as well as identify areas of concern and excellence, among other things. During these audits, regions evaluate state-run programs using certain performance measures, such as the average number of days it takes to begin an investigation after receiving a complaint. OSHA officials may also examine case files or accompany inspectors to worksites to verify that proper procedures are being followed. In November 2009, after significant problems were identified in Nevada’s occupational safety and health program, OSHA strengthened its audits of all state-run programs and called them Enhanced Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation (EFAME) audits. OSHA’s guidance for its fiscal year 2009 EFAME audits required that OSHA conduct site visits to states and inspect their case files. According to OSHA, prior to beginning the EFAME audits, the agency generally did not include these elements in the annual FAME audits, which may have limited its ability to identify and address performance problems in some states. The EFAME audits increased the requirements for OSHA’s audits of states, aligning them with some of its requirements for the comprehensive MAP audits it performs, which require regular on-site case file reviews. However, beginning in 2009, OSHA guidance on what must be included in audits of state-run programs has changed each year. For fiscal year 2009, OSHA established the EFAME audits. For fiscal year 2010, OSHA issued guidance that required only a follow-up to the fiscal year 2009 reviews. In 2011, OSHA issued guidance that required EFAME audits with on-site case file reviews, and which included a special emphasis on the whistleblower protection program. Yet, OSHA’s guidance does not include a timetable for conducting future EFAME audits of state-run programs. Not having consistent guidance on audits of state-run programs and no set schedule for when OSHA will conduct these more comprehensive audits can make it difficult for officials in state-run programs to prepare for these audits, and limits OSHA’s ability to identify problem areas and help states address them. Regional officials told us EFAME audits have value in detecting problems in the administration of state-run programs that might not otherwise be identified. They have also resulted in multiple corrective actions for each state. Indeed, officials in one regional office said the region has seen improvements in states as these corrective actions have been implemented, such as improved case file documentation. Officials from OSHSPA, the organization that represents states with state-run programs, stated that the 2009 EFAME audits contained a number of recommendations that were useful, although they said the summaries in some reports did not clearly represent the audit findings and did not include the positive aspects of the state-run programs. OSHA national officials said they plan to conduct EFAME audits every other year, with follow-up audits in intervening years; however, they have not developed a formal written plan to implement this new schedule. OSHA recently developed several initiatives to better assess the effectiveness of state and federal enforcement efforts. It is unclear, however, how some of these initiatives will help OSHA demonstrate which activities result in desired outcomes—a reduction of worker fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. With respect to state enforcement efforts, OSHA created a task force comprised of federal and state representatives to revise state-run program performance measures, and in the summer of 2012 held a stakeholder meeting and solicited public comment on 15 revised measures—which took effect October 1, 2012. The task force was created, in large part, in response to a March 2011 report by Labor’s Office of Inspector General that shows OSHA had not developed a method of determining whether state programs are at least as effective as federal programs, as required by the OSH Act.board chairman of OSHSPA said OSHA has inadequate guidance for what is needed to meet this requirement and added that, in OSHSPA’s view, OSHA often wrongly interprets it to mean that states’ measures, trends, and policies must be identical to those of federal OSHA. Some of the revised performance measures developed by the task force are modifications of measures used previously and several add a range of acceptable state performance. For example, the measure for the average number of violations found per inspection formerly assessed a state’s performance against a national average calculated across 3 years. The The revised measure compares the state’s average to a range of 20 percent plus or minus from the national average. OSHA officials said the range provides a better guide for regional officials reviewing state-run programs on what is acceptable performance, and affords states the flexibility they have requested in setting their own performance and strategic goals. For example, one national OSHA official who oversees state-run programs said that if a state’s performance is outside the range it does not necessarily mean its performance is unacceptable, but prompts the reviewer to do additional work to find out why that particular mark was missed. However, the revised measures remain largely refinements of indicators previously used to track activities conducted (outputs), not effectiveness (outcomes). They mostly focus on outputs such as average penalty, average number of violations per inspection, and average number of days to issue citations. It is unclear how adding a 20 to 25 percent plus-or-minus range to targets for each of these enforcement activities will help OSHA officials determine whether a state’s program is at least as effective as the federal program because neither the state’s range nor the federal number is linked to effectiveness—improving employer compliance and reducing worker fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. In commenting on the proposed measures, the Assistant Secretary said they are not pure effectiveness measures but rather measures of enforcement activities. OSHA’s difficulty in demonstrating the effectiveness of its enforcement efforts has affected its ability to convince states to implement enforcement changes OSHA believes will result in better outcomes. For example, in 2010, the average penalty for serious violations levied by OSHA was approximately $1,000, and the average penalty for these violations in state-run programs was frequently lower—in three states, it was less than $500. According to the Assistant Secretary, these amounts were far too low to exert a credible effect in deterring employer violations. There were also wide discrepancies from state to state in penalty amounts, which one state-run program manager said raises substantial concerns about equal expectations of employers and protection for workers across states. To address these concerns, OSHA increased its penalties in October 2010, and recommended that states match these increases. This increase more than doubled the average OSHA penalty by fiscal year 2012, to $2,154. Officers at OSHSPA opposed the higher penalties, saying OSHA had failed to provide empirical studies to show increased penalties were effective in deterring employer violations. They also said that state-run programs could achieve greater compliance with safety and health standards by increasing the likelihood of an inspection. Only two states—Nevada and Wyoming—increased their penalty amounts in response to OSHA’s recommendation, according to a national OSHA official. Average penalty amounts for all but three states (California, Kentucky, and Nevada) remained below the average federal More recently, in a memorandum dated March 27, penalty (see fig. 5).2012, OSHA’s national office said states were not immediately required to adopt the increased penalty policy, so it is unclear how OSHA plans to take penalty amounts into account when evaluating state-run programs. With respect to federal enforcement efforts, OSHA has taken additional steps to assess the effectiveness of enforcement efforts overall. In summer 2012, OSHA began discussions with the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) on ways to Labor, determine the outcomes of specific enforcement activities.meanwhile, has called on all its agencies to intensify their focus on assessing outcomes. As part of its strategic planning, Labor in 2010 announced a new approach for measuring outcomes for worker protection. The document states that a single numerical target, or even a range, fails to recognize the sustained effort required to truly change behavior.sampling and stratified random sampling, and social science research methods, to collect and analyze data for assessing performance. OSHA acknowledged in its revised fiscal year 2011 Operating Plan that it has not devoted substantial resources to evaluation activities in the past and, as a result, knows relatively little about the effectiveness of its policies, programs, and strategies. It calls on OSHA to use statistical techniques such as random OSHA is currently involved in several studies in an effort to address this knowledge gap. In fiscal year 2011, OSHA began working with researchers at the Rand Corporation to evaluate the ripple, or deterrent, effects of enforcement and of providing assistance and education to employers on future compliance with safety and health standards. Another recently issued report by Labor’s Office of Inspector General shows that OSHA knows little about the results of its Site Specific Targeting program and so cannot be sure it is effective. currently working with Labor’s new chief evaluation officer and a consulting firm to design and conduct an evaluation of this program, in which OSHA selects a sample of non-construction worksites for inspections based on their high rates of injuries and illnesses. OSHA plans to compare the impact of these inspections to the impact of an OSHA letter notifying employers of their high injury and illness rates and urging action, or a combination of both, on employer compliance and injury and illness rates. As part of this study, OSHA selected a sample of 840 worksites for inspection in 2011 and 2012. The report, released in September 2012, shows some of the industries and worksites at which the most serious injuries and illnesses occurred were outside the Site Specific Targeting program and not always inspected. The report noted the ongoing evaluation study discussed here. U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General-Office of Audit, OSHA’s Site Specific Targeting Program Has Limitations on Targeting and Inspecting High-Risk Worksites, 02-12-202-10-105 (Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2012). OSHA is missing opportunities to use data already in hand to assess the effectiveness of federal and state enforcement efforts. For example, OSHA does not analyze data from its audits of its offices and of state-run programs, and information on its emphasis programs. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 serves as a foundation for creating a culture in which data and empirical evidence play a greater role in management decisions and policy. OMB also encourages agencies to adopt increasingly effective practices. OSHA does not analyze data from its MAP audits of regional and area offices or its FAME audits of state-run programs to inform its planning or to share information across regions. While OSHA summarized the most common findings from its fiscal year 2011 MAP audits, it provided no analysis of the data, and no such analysis was performed in 2010 to look for shared deficiencies or national trends. Similarly, according to a national OSHA official who oversees state-run programs, the agency has not analyzed the results of its annual FAME reviews of state-run programs to identify systemic issues. In accordance with government standards for internal controls, findings from audits should be used to identify risks, analyze their effects, and correct identified deficiencies. In our interviews with regional officials, those in two regions said OSHA’s national office does not analyze the results of their MAP audits, and officials in two other regions said they were unaware of any such analysis and have not received feedback from OSHA’s national office on the results of their MAP audits. In September 2012, Labor’s Office of Inspector General issued a report that shows national OSHA’s Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis did not analyze and disseminate the results of MAP audits to inform management decision making and improve operations.importance of these audits in providing OSHA information on its performance. For fiscal year 2012, OSHA had approximately one dozen NEPs, including some that had been in effect for several years. An OSHA official said OSHA has a preliminary report on its NEP on amputations. directly responsible for desired outcomes, such as a reduction in worker injuries caused by lifting patients or falls. This lack of evaluation hinders OSHA in determining whether the NEP effort was effective and in identifying adjustments to improve results. An academic expert and Labor consultant said there is a recurring lack of planning at OSHA for post- initiative evaluation, which hinders the agency’s ability to determine whether its enforcement efforts, including NEPs, have an impact on outcomes, such as reducing occupational injuries. NIOSH, an agency that conducts research and advises OSHA on occupational safety and health issues, has faced challenges similar to OSHA’s in assessing its effectiveness. To address this challenge, NIOSH contracted with the National Academies to evaluate eight NIOSH research programs and to help NIOSH hold those programs accountable for real outcomes that affect life and health. For these evaluations, NIOSH devised questions to be posed by participating researchers, such as whether external factors affected outcomes, and the degree to which a NIOSH program was responsible for any improvement. The evaluation acknowledged the difficulty in assessing the causal relationship between NIOSH’s functions as a research agency and specific occupational safety and health outcomes, but NIOSH officials said it would be easier for OSHA to do this because OSHA has more concrete data, such as reports on its worksite inspections. GAO, Government Auditing Standards, 2011 Revision, GAO-12-331G, Sections 3.02 and 3.04 (Washington, D.C.: December 2011). are most effective in ensuring employer compliance and reducing risks to workers. OSHA recently developed initiatives to better assess the effectiveness of federal and state enforcement activities, but few include the evaluative components needed to assist the agency in examining effectiveness. Also, national OSHA collects some relevant information through audits of its own offices and state-run programs, but it does not annually analyze that information to identify systemic problems and improvements. In addition, despite a 2010 directive calling for greater participation of the OSHA national office in regional office comprehensive audits, there is still minimal participation by the national office in these audits. Without the independent perspective of the national office, OSHA cannot assure that results of regional office audits of themselves are impartial and reasonable. Further, OSHA has not provided consistent guidance for conducting state EFAME audits that include on-site case file reviews similar to comprehensive MAP audits. Lack of such guidance may allow enforcement deficiencies to go undetected, increasing the risk of worker injuries, illnesses, and death. Enhancing monitoring of enforcement activities and determining which efforts work best must be a sustained priority if OSHA is to achieve the best results and succeed in its mission to protect U.S. workers. In order to improve OSHA’s assessments of its effectiveness and its monitoring of federal and state enforcement efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health to: 1. consistently incorporate outcomes in its assessments of enforcement 2. annually analyze the results of its MAP and FAME audits to identify and address systemic problems and leading practices; 3. ensure that OSHA national staff participate in regional office comprehensive audits to enhance independence in accordance with OSHA’s MAP 2010 directive; and 4. provide consistent guidance for scheduling state EFAME audits to ensure that they are conducted on a regular basis and include mandatory on-site case file reviews. We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Labor for review and comment. We received written comments from OSHA, which are reproduced in their entirety in appendix II. OSHA agreed with the essence of our recommendations and stated that it would carefully consider them. However, OSHA raised some concerns about them. For recommendation 1, OSHA expressed concern that it may overemphasize the significance of outcome measurements in determining the effectiveness of state safety and health programs. OSHA pointed out that it currently uses other measures in conjunction with outcome measures to evaluate effectiveness. We agree that using other measures to evaluate state-run programs is useful but note that OSHA has not linked them to its assessments of effectiveness. We continue to believe that OSHA’s assessments would benefit from further analysis of the results, or outcomes, of both state and federal enforcement activities. We revised our report to clarify that we do not think OSHA should stop measuring activities. For recommendations 2 and 3, OSHA stated that it has taken several steps to improve its analysis of audits and enhance resources assigned to the program. For recommendation 4, OSHA stated that it updates guidance for FAME reviews each year and is updating the State Plan Policies and Procedures Manual to include these revisions and guidance for on-site case file reviews. While we agree with OSHA that providing annual guidance to focus audits on areas of concern is valid, OSHA has not yet provided formal guidance for how often enhanced audits of state-run programs (EFAMEs) with on-site case file reviews will be conducted. We revised the wording of our recommendation to refer specifically to the scheduling of these EFAMEs. Finally, OSHA noted that our draft report did not adequately acknowledge the state-plan states’ distinct role in directly and closely overseeing their own performance. We added further acknowledgement of the states’ authority in this area to our report. As agreed with your office, 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 to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact Revae Moran at (202) 512-7215 or moranr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in Appendix III. The objectives of our review were to examine 1) how the Department of Labor’s (Labor) Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) monitoring of its own and state enforcement efforts compares, and 2) recent steps OSHA has taken to evaluate the effectiveness of federal and state enforcement efforts. To address our first objective, we reviewed Labor’s and OSHA’s policies and procedures for monitoring federal and state enforcement activities, including OSHA manuals, directives, and memoranda for its 10 regional offices, 87 area offices, and the 27 state-run programs. We also reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations. We analyzed audits of OSHA regional and area offices, which assess their activities in relation to OSHA policies and procedures and identify best practices and deficiencies in performance, such as in targeting and scheduling inspections; conducting fatality investigations; case file documentation; and outreach to employers, workers, and other stakeholders. We also analyzed OSHA’s audits of state-run programs, which assess each state’s progress toward meeting its individual performance goals and compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. To further evaluate OSHA’s audit processes, we compared these processes to criteria for independent review in GAO’s Government Auditing Standards. GAO, Government Auditing Standards, 2011 Revision, GAO-12-331G, Sections 3.02 and 3.04 (Washington, D.C.: December 2011). inspections: Virginia (a large number of inspections), Indiana (a medium number), and Wyoming (a small number). In Region 8, we interviewed Denver regional office officials with direct oversight responsibility for Wyoming because there is no area office in that state. To obtain a national perspective, we conducted semi-structured phone interviews with the remaining seven regional office administrators or their managers about how they monitor and oversee enforcement efforts and each office’s processes for overseeing the OSHA offices and state-run programs in its region. From each region, we collected key documents, including recent audit reports on regional and area offices, interim and annual reviews of states, inspection tracking reports and interim tracking of other key measures, and logs of complaints about state-run programs. To address our second objective, we interviewed the heads of directorates in OSHA’s national office about their roles in monitoring enforcement and in planning for greater effectiveness, including the directorates responsible for state-run programs, overall enforcement, strategic planning, and evaluation. To obtain information from outside parties about OSHA’s oversight of federal and state enforcement, we interviewed Labor officials who work with OSHA on its performance planning and research agenda; officers of the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association (OSHSPA), which represents the interests of states with state-run programs; and officials at the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which conducts research, experiments, and demonstrations relating to occupational safety and health. In addition, we interviewed selected academic experts and stakeholders about Labor and OSHA performance. We identified these academic experts and stakeholders through a literature search, as well as from recommendations of other academic experts versed in OSHA and worker protection issues and the recommendations of OSHA and NIOSH officials. Finally, we reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA); and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. We reviewed OSHA’s use of performance goals and measures in accordance with criteria in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11, Labor’s current 5-year strategic plan, and other agency plans for performance. We also reviewed previous GAO reports and NIOSH’s 2004-2008 evaluation of its own effectiveness. We assessed the reliability of data we used from the OSHA Integrated Management Information System and OSHA Information System by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the systems that produced them, (2) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data, and (3) reviewing these data for obvious inconsistency errors. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 through January 2013 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. In addition to the contact named above, Assistant Director Mary Crenshaw, Matthew Alemu, Susan Aschoff, and Paul Schearf made significant contributions to this report. Assistance, expertise, and guidance were provided by James Bennett, Ted A. Burik, Sarah Cornetto, Meeta Engle, Gretta Goodwin, Isabella P. Johnson, Kathy Leslie, Luann Moy, Carol Patey, Bryan Rogowski, Linda Siegel, and Kathleen van Gelder. Workplace Safety and Health: Multiple Challenges Lengthen OSHA’s Standard Setting. GAO-12-330. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2012. Workplace Safety and Health: Enhancing OSHA’s Records Audit Process Could Improve the Accuracy of Worker Injury and Illness Data. GAO-10-10. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2009. OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Programs: Improved Oversight and Controls Would Better Ensure Program Quality. GAO-09-395. Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2009. Whistleblower Protection Program: Better Data and Improved Oversight Would Help Ensure Program Quality and Consistency. GAO-09-106. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2009. Workplace Safety and Health: Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry, while Improving, Could Be Further Strengthened. GAO-05-96. Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2005. Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA’s Oversight of Its Civil Penalty Determination and Violation Abatement Processes Has Limitations. GAO-04-920. Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2004. Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Can Strengthen Enforcement through Improved Program Management. GAO-03-45. Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2002. Occupational Safety and Health: Efforts to Obtain Establishment-Specific Data on Injuries and Illnesses. GAO/HEHS-98-122. Washington, D.C.: May 22, 1998. Occupational Safety and Health: Changes Needed in the Combined Federal and State Approach. GAO/HEHS-94-10. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 1994.

Summary: OSHA is responsible for overseeing occupational safety and health for more than 130 million workers. In about half the states, OSHA sets and enforces compliance with safety and health standards. The remaining states set and enforce their own standards under OSHA-approved plans. In fiscal year 2010, OSHA strengthened its monitoring of staterun programs following a dozen worker deaths in one of those states. Questions have since been raised about how closely OSHA monitors its own enforcement efforts. GAO examined 1) how OSHA's monitoring of its own and state enforcement efforts compares, and 2) recent steps OSHA has taken to evaluate the effectiveness of federal and state enforcement efforts. GAO reviewed OSHA's monitoring policies and procedures and relevant federal laws and regulations; analyzed federal and state audits; visited three OSHA regional offices; and interviewed OSHA officials and other experts. The Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides more frequent monitoring and more consistent guidance for its federal enforcement activities than for state enforcement activities. More specifically, OSHA regional officials review performance reports on federal activities at least every other week but review reports on state-run program activities quarterly. In addition, OSHA's guidance for audits of its regional and area offices is more consistent than the guidance for its audits of state-run programs. Guidance for audits of its offices requires that regional offices conduct a comprehensive audit with on-site review of inspection case files at least once every 4 years and other audits focused on more specific activities in all other years. In contrast, guidance for regional office audits of state-run programs changes from year to year and does not include a regular schedule for comprehensive audits with on-site case file reviews. While the frequency of OSHA's monitoring of state-run programs is necessarily different because of the independent enforcement authority of participating states, OSHA's lack of consistent guidance for audits of these state-run programs may allow enforcement deficiencies to go undetected, increasing the risk of worker injuries, illnesses, or death. In addition, there is little participation by OSHA's national office in comprehensive audits of its regional offices despite a 2010 directive to do so. As a result, OSHA cannot ensure that the results of regional audits are impartial. OSHA is taking steps to better assess the effectiveness of both its federal enforcement efforts and of state enforcement efforts, but it is often not clear how these steps will help OSHA demonstrate what efforts result in better outcomes for workers, such as reduced worker injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. For example, OSHA recently revised some of the measures it uses to assess staterun programs by adding acceptable ranges of performance. However, the revised measures still largely focus on outputs--such as the average number of violations per inspection--rather than outcomes. OSHA is also conducting studies to examine the results of specific enforcement activities, including one designed, in part, to evaluate the effect of OSHA providing additional educational support to employers. While tracking progress in meeting performance goals-- such as the annual number of conducted inspections--is useful, the lack of focus on outcomes makes it difficult for OSHA to determine which specific enforcement activities are most effective or to convince states to implement changes designed to improve outcomes. For example, only two state-run programs raised their penalty amounts in fiscal year 2011 as recommended by OSHA; state-run program representatives stated that OSHA lacked evidence to show that higher penalties are more effective in deterring future employer violations. OSHA also does not use data already in hand to assess the effectiveness of federal and state enforcement efforts. For example, OSHA does not use data from its annual audits of its regional and area offices or of state-run programs to inform its planning or share information across regions. Additionally, OSHA annually collects data on activities conducted under emphasis programs that focus on national safety and health issues, but it does not evaluate these data to determine whether these programs are responsible for desired outcomes. GAO recommends that OSHA standardize guidance for its audit practices, include outcomes in its assessments of its enforcement initiatives, better use data from its audits, and ensure national office participation in audits. OSHA generally agreed with the recommendations but expressed concern about overuse of outcomes to assess effectiveness. GAO continues to believe the recommendations are valid as discussed later in the report.