Workplace Safety and Health
OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies' Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight Gao ID: GAO-06-379 April 21, 2006Federal workers' compensation costs exceeded $1.5 billion in 2004, with approximately 148,000 new claims filed that year. Because of concerns for the safety of federal workers, as well as the costs associated with unsafe workplaces, GAO described the characteristics of federal agencies' safety programs and the implementation challenges they face, and assessed how well the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversees and assists federal agencies' efforts to develop and administer their safety programs.
Based on a survey of 57 agencies, GAO found that most agencies reported having at least one activity for each of the six components generally associated with a sound safety program--(1) management commitment, (2) employee involvement, (3) education and training, (4) identification of hazards, (5) correction of hazards, and (6) medical management (which includes having a return-to-work program for injured employees). However, agencies faced implementation challenges that cut across the components in the areas of data management, accountability, and safety resources. The survey results indicated that many agencies do not have automated systems for tracking elements of their safety programs, such as training. In addition, several of the agencies did not demonstrate that their managers are held accountable for maintaining effective safety programs. Finally, many agency officials stated that, due to limited resources, they often must depend on safety officers with limited professional safety experience. OSHA's oversight of federal agencies' safety programs is not as effective as it could be because the agency does not use its enforcement and compliance assistance resources in a strategic manner. Although inspections are one of OSHA's primary enforcement tools, it does not conduct many inspections of federal worksites or have a national strategy for targeting worksites with high injury and illness rates for inspection. Furthermore, although OSHA is responsible for tracking violations that agencies dispute and reporting any unresolved disputes to the President, OSHA does not track these disputed violations or their resolution. In addition, although OSHA is required to review agencies' safety programs annually and submit a report on them to the President each year, as of January 2006, the last report submitted was for fiscal year 2000. Finally, while OSHA has a range of compliance assistance programs designed to help agencies comply with its regulations and improve safety, these programs are not being fully utilized.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-379, Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies' Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-379
entitled 'Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal
Agencies' Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its
Oversight' which was released on April 21, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.
Senate:
Workplace Safety And Health:
OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies‘ Safety Programs with a More
Strategic Approach to Its Oversight:
April 2006:
GAO-06-379:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-379, a report to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Federal workers‘ compensation costs exceeded $1.5 billion in 2004, with
approximately 148,000 new claims filed that year. Because of concerns
for the safety of federal workers, as well as the costs associated with
unsafe workplaces, GAO described the characteristics of federal
agencies‘ safety programs and the implementation challenges they face,
and assessed how well the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) oversees and assists federal agencies‘ efforts to develop and
administer their safety programs.
What GAO Found:
Based on a survey of 57 agencies, GAO found that most agencies reported
having at least one activity for each of the six components generally
associated with a sound safety program”(1) management commitment,
(2) employee involvement, (3) education and training, (4)
identification of hazards, (5) correction of hazards, and (6) medical
management (which includes having a return-to-work program for injured
employees). However, agencies faced implementation challenges that cut
across the components in the areas of data management, accountability,
and safety resources. The survey results indicated that many agencies
do not have automated systems for tracking elements of their safety
programs, such as training. In addition, several of the agencies did
not demonstrate that their managers are held accountable for
maintaining effective safety programs. Finally, many agency officials
stated that, due to limited resources, they often must depend on safety
officers with limited professional safety experience.
Forest Service Smokejumpers Fighting a Blaze at Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness, Idaho:
[See PDF For Image]
[End of Figure]
OSHA‘s oversight of federal agencies‘ safety programs is not as
effective as it could be because the agency does not use its
enforcement and compliance assistance resources in a strategic manner.
Although inspections are one of OSHA‘s primary enforcement tools, it
does not conduct many inspections of federal worksites or have a
national strategy for targeting worksites with high injury and illness
rates for inspection. Furthermore, although OSHA is responsible for
tracking violations that agencies dispute and reporting any unresolved
disputes to the President, OSHA does not track these disputed
violations or their resolution. In addition, although OSHA is required
to review agencies‘ safety programs annually and submit a report on
them to the President each year, as of January 2006, the last report
submitted was for fiscal year 2000. Finally, while OSHA has a range of
compliance assistance programs designed to help agencies comply with
its regulations and improve safety, these programs are not being fully
utilized.
What GAO Recommends:
The Secretary of Labor should direct OSHA to conduct targeted
inspections of federal facilities; track disputed violations through
OSHA to their resolution and ensure that unresolved disputes are
reported to the President; conduct evaluations of the largest and most
hazardous agencies as required; and include in OSHA‘s annual report to
the President an assessment of each agency‘s safety program and
recommendations for improvements.
GAO received written and/or technical comments from several agencies.
Labor generally agreed with GAO‘s findings and recommendations. In
addition, other agencies generally agreed with the findings.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robert Robertson, (202) 512-9889 or
robertsonr@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Most Agencies Reported Having Many Safety Program
Components, but Faced Common Implementation Challenges:
OSHA Provides Inadequate Oversight of Federal Agencies Because
It Does Not Use Its Enforcement and Compliance Assistance
Resources Strategically:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor:
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:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Six Components of a Sound Safety Program and Their
Supporting Activities:
Table 2: Top Five Types of Injuries Incurred by Federal Workers,
Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:
Table 3: Federal Agencies‘ Strategic Partnerships with OSHA:
Table 4: Agency Responses to the Data Collection Instrument by
Safety Program Component:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of OSHA Inspections, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004:
Figure 2: OSHA‘s 10 Regions:
Figure 3: Number of Workers‘ Compensation Claims of Federal
Workers, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:
Figure 4: Percent of Workers‘ Compensation Costs for Federal
Workers by Age of the Case, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:
Figure 5: Workers‘ Compensation Payments for Federal Workers
by Type of Cost, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:
Figure 6: Percent of Inspections of Federal Worksites by Type,
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004:
Figure 7: Average Number of Serious Violations at Federal
Worksites by Inspection Type, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:
Abbreviations:
OFAP: Office of Federal Agency Programs:
OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration:
OWCP: Office of Workers‘ Compensation Programs:
OSH Act: Occupational Safety and Health Act:
VPP: Voluntary Protection Programs:
SHARE: Safety Health and Return to Employment:
April 21, 2006:
The Honorable Arlen Specter:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
In the early to mid 1990s, five Yellowstone National Park employees
were killed in on-the-job accidents ranging from a snowmobiling
accident to a drowning. By the time the last death occurred, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)--the Department of
Labor agency responsible for overseeing federal agencies' safety
programs--decided to conduct a comprehensive inspection and identified
over 500 violations at the park. OSHA also worked with park officials
to improve safety. As a result, Yellowstone transformed its safety
program and according to Yellowstone officials, OSHA has deemed it a
success. However, this worksite represents only one of thousands of
locations where federal employees work. During the past decade, the
number of executive branch workers killed or injured in work-related
accidents at federal worksites has fluctuated although, overall, the
number has decreased.[Footnote 1] Over this period, over 800 workers
died from work-related accidents, with 47 deaths occurring in 2004. Non-
fatal work-related injuries declined over the first half of this period
and increased over the subsequent 5-year period, with approximately
148,000 claims for injuries being filed in 2004. While the number of
injuries fluctuated, the costs of the claims for these injuries--
adjusting for inflation--remained constant for most of the decade and
rose slightly in 2004 to $1.5 billion. In view of these injuries and
their affiliated costs, you asked us to answer the following questions:
(1) What are the components of federal agencies' safety programs and
what implementation challenges do they face? (2) How well does OSHA
oversee and assist federal agencies' efforts to develop and administer
their safety programs?
To respond to your request, we focused on the executive branch because
OSHA has more oversight responsibilities with respect to these agencies
than it does for judicial and legislative branch agencies.[Footnote 2]
We obtained information using a data collection instrument from 57
safety managers for agencies in the eight largest executive branch
departments, which represent about 80 percent of the federal
workforce.[Footnote 3] The instrument requested information and
documentation on six components of sound safety programs we identified
from previous GAO work: (1) management commitment, (2) employee
involvement, (3) education and training, (4) identification of hazards,
(5) following up and correcting hazards, and (6) medical
management.[Footnote 4] We reviewed the information in the data
collection instrument and documentation that the agencies provided,
assessing whether the documentation supported the agency's responses
and identifying the types of activities the agency conducted for each
program component. In addition, we conducted more detailed follow-up
interviews with safety officials from 12 of the 57 agencies surveyed.
We also interviewed employee representatives from 8 agencies and
visited 5 federal worksites, most of which were identified by OSHA as
having strong safety programs. In addition, we obtained information on
workers' compensation claims from the Department of Labor's Office of
Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP). We also interviewed all 10 of
OSHA's regional administrators and federal agency program officers and
officials in 10 area offices including the area director, a compliance
safety and health officer, and, in many cases, a compliance assistance
specialist. In addition, we examined OSHA's inspection data from fiscal
year 1995 to 2004 and reviewed, when available, the annual reports that
the eight largest federal departments provided to OSHA from 2000 to
2004. Finally, we reviewed the reports on federal safety programs that
OSHA provided to the President during this timeframe. For a more
detailed explanation of our methodology, see appendix I. We conducted
our work between November 2004 and February 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Most agencies reported having at least one activity for each of the six
safety program components. However, we identified common implementation
challenges that cut across the components in the areas of data
management, accountability, and safety resources. Of the 57 agencies
surveyed, 54 reported that their safety programs contain at least one
activity for each of the six safety program components. Agencies
reported the fewest activities for the medical management component.
For example, 12 agencies reported they do not have a program to offer
injured employees light or restricted duty to help them return to work
more quickly. Moreover, our analysis of the survey data and interviews
with agency officials revealed a number of challenges agencies face in
implementing their safety programs. The survey results indicated that
many agencies do not have automated systems for tracking elements of
their safety programs, such as training, and agency officials told us
that some of their systems are difficult to use. In addition, many
agencies did not demonstrate that their managers are held accountable
for maintaining effective safety programs. For example, only 16
agencies (28 percent) were able to provide copies of their performance
appraisal review forms citing safety as a rating element--the remaining
agencies provided only their policies or other written documentation.
Agencies we interviewed also reported difficulties in managing
resources for their safety programs because many do not have a line
item for safety in their budgets or face production goals that compete
with safety priorities. In addition, many agencies told us that, due to
limited resources, they often must depend on safety officers with
limited technical or professional safety experience.
OSHA's oversight of federal agencies' safety programs is not as
effective as it could be because the agency does not use its
enforcement and compliance assistance resources in a strategic manner.
One of OSHA's primary enforcement tools is conducting inspections of
federal worksites. However, the agency does not conduct many
inspections of federal worksites or have a national strategy for
targeting worksites with high injury and illness rates for inspection.
Instead, OSHA conducts inspections of federal worksites mainly in
response to complaints from employees. In addition, although OSHA is
responsible for tracking violations that agencies dispute and reporting
any unresolved disputes to the President, it does not track these
disputed violations or their resolution, and OSHA regional officials
said they can sometimes remain unresolved for years. Evaluations,
another enforcement tool OSHA has available, entail reviewing agencies'
safety policies and programs and assessing the overall effectiveness of
their safety programs. However, while OSHA is required to annually
evaluate a few federal agencies, it has not done any evaluations in the
last 6 years. Moreover, although OSHA is required to review federal
agencies' safety programs and submit a report on their programs to the
President each year, the last report OSHA submitted was for fiscal year
2000. Finally, although OSHA has a range of compliance assistance
programs designed to help agencies comply with its regulations and
improve safety, not all of these programs are being fully utilized.
OSHA officials acknowledged these problems with their enforcement and
compliance assistance strategies but noted that they have relatively
few staff dedicated to federal agency oversight.
In order to improve OSHA's oversight of federal agencies' safety
programs, we are recommending that the Secretary of Labor direct the
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to (1) conduct
targeted inspections of federal worksites; (2) track violations
disputed by federal agencies and ensure that unresolved violations are
reported to the President; (3) conduct evaluations of federal agencies
as required; and (4) include in OSHA's annual report to the President
an assessment of each agency's safety program and recommendations for
improvements. In responding to a draft of this report, the Department
of Labor generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. We
also received written comments from the Departments of Homeland
Security and Interior. These agencies generally agreed with our
findings and conclusions. Copies of written comments from these
agencies are provided in appendixes II, III, and IV. In addition, we
received technical clarifications from the Departments of Defense,
Justice, and Veterans Affairs, which we incorporated as appropriate.
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.[Footnote 5] 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.[Footnote
6] 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.[Footnote 7]
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.[Footnote 8]
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 which 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.[Footnote 9]
Figure 1: Number of OSHA Inspections, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
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.[Footnote 10] 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.
Figure 2: OSHA's 10 Regions:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
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.[Footnote 11] 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.[Footnote 12] 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.[Footnote 13] Approval as
a VPP site is OSHA's official recognition of worksites that have
implemented exemplary safety and health programs.[Footnote 14] 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) improve the processing time
of workers' compensation claims, (2) reduce the overall case rate for
these claims, (3) reduce the lost-time rate--the number of employees
who could not return to work per 100 employees in the workforce, 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
last 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.[Footnote 15] 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.[Footnote 16] 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.[Footnote 17]
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.[Footnote
18] 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.[Footnote 19] Table 1 lists these components, along with a
description of their supporting activities.
Table 1: Six Components of a Sound Safety Program and Their Supporting
Activities:
Component[A]: Management commitment;
Supporting activities:
* Establish goals for the program;
* Develop activities to communicate the importance of the safety
program to staff, including management, employees, and contractors;
* Use management and information systems that allows for trend
analysis, risk analysis, etc;
* Establish program responsibilities of managers and employees for
safety and health in the workplace and hold them accountable for
carrying out those responsibilities.
Component[A]: Employee involvement;
Supporting activities:
* Establish procedures for employees to report job- related fatalities,
injuries, illnesses, incidents, and damage to property or equipment;
* Establish procedures for employees to report hazards;
* Provide employee access to the system that captures information on
accidents and hazards;
* Ensure employee involvement in safety committees that report on
hazards;
* Allow employees to provide input on safety-related training curricula;
* Ensure employee participate in walkthroughs of worksites to identify
hazardous conditions on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis;
* Allow employee involvement on accident investigation teams.
Component[A]: Education and training;
Supporting activities:
* Provide general awareness training to all employees so that they can
recognize hazards and risks;
learn procedures for reporting job-related fatalities, injuries,
illnesses, incidents, and hazards;
and become familiar with the program (national level training);
* Provide targeted training to specified groups of employees because of
the jobs they hold, the hazards they face, or their role in the program
(agency level training);
* Maintain an automated system to track training completed by employees.
Component[A]: Identification of hazards;
Supporting activities:
* Establish procedures for conducting required OSHA inspections;
* Establish procedures for conducting informal walkthroughs of
worksites to identify hazardous conditions.
Component[A]: Following up and correcting hazards;
Supporting activities:
* Establish procedures for developing controls for workplace hazards;
* Establish procedures for following up on inspections to ensure
hazards are corrected and controls are effective;
* Maintain an automated system that tracks workplace hazards.
Component[A]: Medical management[B];
Supporting activities:
* Establish procedures to ensure that an injured or ill employee is
seen within a specified time frame by a medical provider;
* Maintain an automated system that tracks accident data-- including
the type, nature, and source of injury;
* Implement a restricted or light duty return-to-work program;
* Maintain an automated system that tracks the return-to-work status of
employees.
Source: GAO and OSHA.
[A] Different terminology is often used to describe these components.
For example, "identification of problem jobs" is sometimes referred to
as "hazard identification and assessment" and "analysis and development
of controls for problem jobs" is sometimes referred to as "hazard
prevention and control." The terms used here are identical to those
identified by GAO in prior work.
[B] Organizations may have a medical management program without
necessarily having a safety and health program.
[End of table]
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.
Marshall 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.[Footnote 20] 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.
Figure 3: Number of Workers' Compensation Claims of Federal Workers,
Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
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.
Table 2: Top Five Types of Injuries Incurred by Federal Workers, Fiscal
Years 1995 to 2004:
Traumatic injuries: 1. Sprain/strain--not back;
Non-traumatic injuries: 1. Hearing loss.
Traumatic injuries: 2. Traumatic injury--unclassified;
Non-traumatic injuries: 2. Carpal tunnel syndrome.
Traumatic injuries: 3. Back sprain or strain;
Non-traumatic injuries: 3. Musculoskeletal condition, other.
Traumatic injuries: 4. Contusion;
Non-traumatic injuries: 4. Conditions of tendons, etc.
Traumatic injuries: 5. Laceration;
Non-traumatic injuries: 5. Back sprain or strain.
Source: GAO analysis of OWCP data.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 21] In addition, the cost per claim
filed during this period increased. For example, while the number of
new claims declined by about 1,800 during this period, the average cost
per claim increased by 3 percent from fiscal year 1995 to 2004 with the
average payment per claim rising from $9,958 in fiscal year 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.
Figure 4: Percent of Workers' Compensation Costs for Federal Workers by
Age of the Case, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
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.)
Figure 5: Workers' Compensation Payments for Federal Workers by Type of
Cost, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
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 front-line 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 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.[Footnote 22] Consistent with OSHA regulations, 56 of the 57
agencies reported that they offer some type of safety training for
their employees.[Footnote 23]
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.[Footnote 24] 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.[Footnote 25]
Agencies reported having the fewest activities for the medical
management component. Seven agencies (12 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, 22 agencies (39 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 agency wide 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.[Footnote 26] 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.[Footnote 27]
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 said its
regional officials are expected to follow up to ensure that stores make
timely corrections, but there is no formal system for holding regional
officials or store managers accountable. 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 since the agency's policy requires that
employees report safety complaints to the national commissary safety
office rather than directly to the military base safety officials.
Because the national office often does not communicate these complaints
to the base safety office, reported hazards may not be 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 worker's 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.[Footnote
28] 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.[Footnote 29] 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.[Footnote 30]
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 it to target federal worksites for inspection.[Footnote 31] 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.[Footnote 32]
Figure 6: Percent of Inspections of Federal Worksites by Type, Fiscal
Years 2000 to 2004:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
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).[Footnote 33] 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.
Figure 7: Average Number of Serious Violations at Federal Worksites by
Inspection Type, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
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 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 it targets 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. Alternatively, 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.[Footnote 34] 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.[Footnote 35] 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 or provided recommendations of ways for
federal agencies to improve their safety programs, as
required.[Footnote 36] 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.[Footnote 37] 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 Voluntary Protection Program (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.)
Table 3: Federal Agencies' Strategic Partnerships with OSHA:
National:
Current: 1;
Federal Agency: Army;
Completed: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty].
Region: 1;
Current: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty].
Completed: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty].
Region: 2;
Current: 1;
Federal Agency: National Park Service San Juan;
Completed: 1;
Federal Agency: National Park Service Fire Island National Seashore.
Region: 3;
Current: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty];
Completed: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty].
Region: 4;
Current: 1;
Federal Agency: National Park Service Mammoth Cave;
Completed: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty].
Region: 5;
Current: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty];
Completed: 2;
Federal Agency: National Park Service--Isle Royale & Sleeping Bear
Dunes.
Region: 6;
Current: 1;
Federal Agency: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Three Rivers;
Completed: 2;
Federal Agency: National Park Service Padre Island;
Federal Interagency Training Council.
Region: 7;
Current: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty];
Completed: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty].
Region: 8;
Current: 3;
Federal Agency: National Park Service--Grand Teton, Yellowstone, &
Glacier;
Completed: 1;
Federal Agency: Veterans Health Administration Cheyenne.
Region: 9;
Current: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty];
Completed: 2;
Federal Agency: National Park Service--Yosemite & Golden Gate.
Region: 10;
Current: 1;
Federal Agency: Bureau of Land Management-Fremont National Forest;
Completed: 2;
Federal Agency: Defense Commissary Agency, Ft. Lewis;
Forest Service.
Subtotal-regional partnerships:
Current: 7;
Federal Agency: [Empty];
Completed: 10;
Federal Agency: [Empty].
Total: 8;
Federal Agency: [Empty];
Completed: 10;
Federal Agency: [Empty];
Source: OSHA.
[End of table]
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 it 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 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 as required; and:
* 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 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 governmentwide 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
[Hyperlink=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 XIII.
Signed By:
Robert E. Robertson:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of Section]
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. The 57
agencies represented all entities, or in some cases the agencies were
selected by officials we interviewed within these departments. We
reviewed the documentation supplied by the agencies that they provided
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 an agency in support
of their responses was examined and assessed each as either
"supporting" or "not supporting" the agency's 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 from agencies selected for our review. 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.
[End of Section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
MARCH 17 2006:
Mr. Robert E. Robertson:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Robertson:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft report entitled,
"Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies'
Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight," (GAO-
06-379). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
aware of the need for the Agency to continue the activities recommended
in the report. Indeed, plans for initiating new approaches for these
four activities were in various stages of development prior to the
start of the GAO evaluation. There are, however, a few items in the
body of the report that require some modification.
On Page 9 of the Draft report, the first full paragraph describes the
four goals of the SHARE initiative. The last sentence attributes "the
last two goals," reduction of the lost-time rate and reduction of the
lost production day rate, as being those that involve OSHA working with
the agencies. This is only partially correct. The goals here are listed
in an unusual sequence, which may have contributed to the confusion.
In the traditional SHARE format, OSHA is charged with oversight of
SHARE Goals 1 and 2, the Total Case Rate and Lost Time Case Rate goals.
Meanwhile the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) monitors
what are traditionally referred to as Goals 3 and 4, the Timeliness of
Reporting Injuries and Illnesses, and Reduction in Lost Production
Days. In your draft paragraph, the goals are stated in a different
order. To correctly attribute responsibility, OSHA would be working on
the second and third, rather than the last two goals identified in your
draft narrative. We would encourage GAO to maintain the usual ordering
of the SHARE Goals and associate OSHA's oversight with those for the
reduction in case rates. This will help avoid confusion.
Tracking Disputed Violations. Page 28 of the Draft Report discusses
tracking of disputed violations. There may be some confusion on the
part of GAO between the tracking of violations and the tracking of
resolution processes for citations and notices.
All violations issued by OSHA, regardless of whether they are notices
or citations (federal or private industry), are tracked on the IMIS
system. The status of each violation is updated as it proceeds through
the resolution, abatement and penalty payment processes. Those
violations that are in dispute are so noted on that system. Cases
remain "open" until all issues are resolved. Managers in the field
typically run this "open inspections" report on a weekly basis for use
as a management tool.
Private sector citations that are not resolved at the area office level
are "contested" and litigated before the Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission and the Federal courts. This litigation is handled by
the Office of the Solicitor of Labor, and is tracked by that office.
Contested cases remain open in OSHA's IMIS System, and are denoted as
"under contest."
Federal agency notices of violations cannot be "contested." Rather,
disputed cases, if not resolved at the Area Office level, are appealed
initially to the Regional Office. If not resolved there, they are
referred to OSHA's National Office - Office of Federal Agency Programs
(OFAP) for review. IMIS indicates that these cases are under review.
However, as you indicate, OFAP does not have a formal tracking system
in place for cases it receives for resolution.
You have indicated that there is a belief by field personnel that there
are a significant number of "open cases" thought to be under review by
OFAP. In response, we have generated an IMIS report to verify the data.
A first data run for open federal agency inspections initiated between
10/01/00 and 01/01/05 identified 19 inspections. Of these, three have
violations for which abatement is not yet due as a result of Petitions
for Modification of Abatement. Five have not been identified as being
contested and all violations are abated; these should probably have
been "closed" when abatements were complete. The status of the
remaining 11 cases at 10 locations could not be determined from the
report, and the three Regions involved will be asked to review their
files and work with OFAP to finalize unresolved issues.
The IMIS system will be updated by the field as these issues are
resolved. To avoid similar misunderstandings in the future, we are
developing a formal tracking system for cases submitted to OFAP for
resolution.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION:
Develop a Targeted Inspection Program:
Response: OSHA's OFAP has been working to develop an inspection
targeting program, and expects to have a program in place by FY 2007.
The most effective data to use for such a program would be based on
rates of injury and illness at specific worksites. OFAP continues to
work with OWCP and others to devise a methodology to combine site-
specific injury data with federal agency employment numbers from OWCP.
The agency annual report is a tool which can be used to request various
types of data. However, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement
for agencies to maintain OSHA 300 data except for at the individual
worksite. Federal departments are comprised of numerous agencies or
offices, often with tens of thousands of individual "establishments" as
defined in the 1904 recordkeeping requirements. Requesting such a
volume of data would impose resource issues on the Departments, and
would fail to provide OFAP with a useable database for generating
accurate site selection for a nation-wide inspection program.
The concept of using periodic, selected surveys is noteworthy, and we
will look into the use of such surveys. Over time these surveys could
potentially provide a better understanding of the distribution of
federal employees and a clearer identification of worksites, as well as
injury and illness rate data. Until such a process is fully developed,
OFAP will continue to utilize the OWCP data that is presently available.
Track Disputed Violations:
Response: As discussed above, disputed violations are tracked in the
IMIS system. Weekly reports are provided for the area offices which
identify the status of each violation. Efforts are under way in OFAP to
resolve violations identified as "open" on the IMIS, and any new cases
brought forward to OFAP for resolution will be included in the
electronic tracking system for the office. OFAP will create an internal
data base to track these citations in dispute between OSHA and another
federal agency.
Conduct Annual Federal Agency Evaluations:
Response: The evaluations that are recommended by GAO were last
completed with the Veterans Administration and will continue for other
federal agencies as soon as possible. Efforts are underway to increase
the staffing level of the OFAP.
Use of Evaluations, Inspection Data, and Annual Reports:
Response: Concurrent with the recent hiring of an additional Safety
Specialist in OFAP, a process was implemented whereby each agency
annual report receives a review and analysis. Information from
inspection and evaluation activity will be incorporated into this
process as these efforts begin to provide significant information.
The composite information will be used to assist the agencies in
identifying areas for improvement, and to better advise the President
on the true status of safety and health in the Federal workplace.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments in advance of the
publication of the final report.
Signed By:
Jonathan L. Snare:
Acting Assistant Secretary:
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.
[End of Section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
Homeland Security:
March 16, 2006:
Mr. Robert E. Robertson:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Robertson:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report entitled "Workforce Safety
and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies' Safety Programs with a
More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight, " GAO-06-379. We also
appreciate the opportunity to participate in the study underlying the
report. Components of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
certainly share with other agencies the challenges confronting
implementation of safety programs.
Three of the report's four recommendations for the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) focus on inspections, evaluations and
assessments of agency programs. In particular, it recommends targeted
inspection programs for federal worksites based on 29 C.F.R. 1904
injury and illness data and suggests that inspections may focus more
attention on safety at worksites. That could be true, but we believe
there are other actions that might have a more direct impact on
reducing the challenges the report identifies.
Vigorous enforcement inspections by OSHA would probably discover a
number of violations of technical OSHA standards in virtually any
agency. However, in the federal workforce comprised 89% of professional
and administrative workers, DHS believes most of the top ten injuries
identified in the report are usually not the consequence of a violation
of OSHA standards. DHS injuries are typically related to ergonomic
factors, slips and falls, law enforcement operations, and activities
that take place outside of a controlled workplace. Therefore, more
frequent inspections are not likely to appreciably lower the incidence
of injuries. On the other hand, other forms of assistance mentioned in
the report, such as compliance visits, alliances, and partnerships, may
become less popular with federal agencies if OSHA adopts a more
aggressive enforcement posture. Increasing the incidence of inspections
may actually have the unintended consequence of reducing the number or
benefit of voluntary requests for assistance.
The Safety, Health and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) program has proven
valuable in establishing common metrics across agencies. SHARE improves
the visibility for easily understood program performance indicators and
provides targets for program performance. Published SHARE injury rates
are based on Office of Workers' Compensation Program (OWCP) workers'
compensation data, and some agencies have found problems with the
accuracy of these data that can be attributed to both the originating
agency and to OWCP. Although the report says some officials felt that a
program like SHARE encourages underreporting, DHS's experience suggests
SHARE injury data is probably more likely to be over reported than
underreported. Finally, while SHARE provides goals for reducing
injuries, illness and lost time, it provides no resources for attaining
those goals.
The report notes that OSHA is considering use of data collected in
accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1904 rather than OWCP data for SHARE and for
evaluating agencies. DHS believes that switch could prove problematic
because 1904 does not require data to be collected beyond the facility
at which the injuries occur. As some agencies have hundreds or
thousands of facilities, rolling this data up to the headquarters level
would be a significant effort, especially in view of the challenges
cited by the report that many agencies face in automating their safety
information systems. Also, without the financial incentive to report
injuries and their medical consequences for the purpose of compensating
employees, underreporting, beginning with the injured employee, would
be far more likely than it is now.
DHS believes that OSHA can assist agency safety programs most
effectively by providing helpful tools and systems rather than by
increasing inspections. For example, a common government-wide automated
safety information system could address at least three of the four
agency implementation challenges cited in the report as well as the
widely reported lack of a medical management program component. Such a
system could provide a single consolidated means of reporting all
injuries and occupational illnesses for both OSHA and OWCP purposes,
eliminating some duplication of effort that now exists. Such a system
could 1) electronically deliver the data to the Department of Labor
(DOL); 2) discriminate between injuries that are recordable for OSHA
and reportable for OWCP; 3) archive injury data for appropriate use by
all levels of management to manage safety programs and allocate
resources; 4) provide other tools for facility, agency and DOL program
management; 5) provide both data and tools needed for a medical
management program component to help agencies and supervisors return
injured workers to duty; 6) assist agencies in tracking elements of
their safety programs such as training and medical monitoring; and 7)
help agencies enhance manager and supervisor accountability by
providing easily obtainable metrics and statistical tools for analyzing
the performance of any organizational unit.
With reliable information on the types and numbers of injuries, their
physical and organizational locations, and trends, agencies could more
effectively manage their limited safety program resources. Concurrent
collection of OWCP and OSHA injury data will help ensure high quality
data for both purposes by linking accurate and timely reporting to
employee compensation and payment of medical expenses.
The Department of Labor presently makes the Safety and Health
Information Management System (SHIMS) available to agencies for a fee.
SHIMS provides a means to electronically transmit workers' compensation
reports from agencies to OWCP. SHIMS could provide part of the
foundation of a system into which 29 C.F.R 1904 reporting utilities,
data analysis tools, medical management capabilities, and other useful
automation tools could be integrated. Currently, however, it is up to
each agency or department to develop its own interfaces with SHIMS and
to develop any additional capabilities it can afford. DHS believes
considerable economies of scale and cross-agency consistencies might be
found in development of a single, government-wide system. Such a system
could measurably improve data accuracy, program management, and
efficiency.
Various options exist for adopting or developing a government-wide
safety information system. They include system development by DOL with
significant input from other departments, adoption and modification of
a system being used by or under development by another agency, or
having another agency develop a system using resources and guidance
from DOL and other agencies. Other options may also exist. Advice and
collaboration of the ultimate users of the system would be essential to
its success. A project of this magnitude would not a trivial
undertaking, but a comprehensive, government-wide safety information
system should be well worth the effort.
We thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on this
draft report and look forward to working with you on future homeland
security issues.
Sincerely,
Signed By:
Steven J. Pecinovsky:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of Section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Assistant Secretary:
Policy, Management And Budget Take Pride:
Washington, DC 20240:
MARCH 13 2006:
Mr. Robert E. Robertson:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Robertson:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior (DOI) the
opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Report entitled
"Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies'
Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight" (GAO-
06-379).
The enclosure provides specific comments from the Bureau of Reclamation
and the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs.
We hope that our comments will assist you in preparing the final
report. If you have any questions, please call Deborah Williams, the
DOI/GAO Liaison, at (202) 208-6405, in the Office of Financial
Management.
Sincerely,
Signed By:
R. Thomas Weimer:
Assistant Secretary:
Enclosure:
U.S. Government Accountability Office Draft Report:
"Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies'
Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight" (GAO-
06-379):
The following comments were received from the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs:
Bureau of Reclamation:
The subject draft audit report primarily evaluates the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in its responsibilities to
oversee and assist Federal agencies efforts to develop and administer
their safety programs. Although the report does address OSHA's role in
providing compliance assistance, Reclamation believes it would be
helpful for GAO to address the need for OSHA to provide assistance to
Federal agencies with common implementation challenges including data
management, accountability, and safety resources.
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs:
Yellowstone is highlighted in the cover letter on page 1, but problems
date to the early 1990s. A sentence could be added about more recent
success. As a suggestion, add the following on page 1 of the cover
letter (suggested addition in bold):
"Yellowstone officials, OSHA has deemed it a success. During the last
rive years, there have been [only] - serious non-emergency accidents at
the Park. However, this..."
[End of Section]
Appendix V: Data Collection Instrument Sent to the Federal Agencies:
[See PDF For Image]
[End of Figure]
[End of Section]
Appendix VI: Agencies' Response to the Data Collection Instrument:
Management Commitment: Q1 Department goals established for the
occupational safety and health program;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 2;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 55;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 91%.
Management Commitment: Q2 Activities designed to communicate the
importance of the OSH program to staff;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 0;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 57;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 89%.
Management Commitment: Q3 Management information system that allows for
trend analysis, risk analysis, etc;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 8;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 49;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 84%.
Management Commitment: Q4 Policies that establish responsibility for
workplace safety and health for all staff through performance reviews;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 6;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 51;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 78%.
EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT.
Q5 Procedures for employees to report accidents;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 0;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 57;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 89%.
Q6 Procedures for employees to report hazards;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 1;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 56;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 91%.
Q7 Employee access to the system capturing information on accidents
and/or hazards;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 19;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 38;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.
Q8 Employee involvement in safety committees/teams;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 3;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 54;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 83%.
Q9 Employee input/involvement in the safety-related training curriculum;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 8;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 49;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.
Q10 Employee participation in walkthroughs of worksites to identify
hazardous conditions;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 7;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 50;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.
Q11 Employee involvement on accident investigation teams;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 14;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 43;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.
IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS.
Q12 Procedures for conducting required OSHA inspections of worksites by
safety personnel;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 2;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 55;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 93%.
Q13 Procedures for conducting informal walkthroughs of worksites to
identify hazards;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 7;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 50;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 80%.
CORRECTION OF HAZARDS.
Q14 Procedures for developing controls for workplace hazards;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 4;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 53;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.
Q15 Procedures for following up on inspections to ensure hazards are
corrected;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 4;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 53;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 87%.
Q16 Automated system to track workplace hazards;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 23;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 34;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 59%.
TRAINING.
Q17 Departmental OSH training program;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 1;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 56;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.
Q18 National training initiatives targeted by headquarters staff;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 12;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 45;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.
Q19 Automated system to track employee training;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 14;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 43;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 63%.
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT.
Q20 Procedures to ensure that an injured or ill employee is seen within
a specified timeframe by a medical provider;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 8;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 49;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.
Q21 Automated system tracking accident data;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 9;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 48;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.
Q22 Department restricted or light duty return-to-work program;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 12;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 45;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 76%.
Q23 Automated system tracking return-to-work status of employees;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 34;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 23;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient
supporting documentation [A]: 30%.
Source: GAO
[A] Fourteen questions were selected for in-depth documentation review.
[End of table]
[End of Section]
Appendix XIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robert A. Robertson (202) 512-9889:
Acknowledgments:
Revae E. Moran, Assistant Director; Margaret A. Holmes, Analyst in
Charge; Jessica A. Lemke; Sheila R. McCoy; Beverly Ross; Jeremy D.
Sebest; John G. Smale, Jr; Kris Trueblood; and Eric A. Wenner made
significant contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] In this report, we use the term "injuries" to refer to workers'
injuries and illnesses.
[2] The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires all federal
agencies, including those in the executive, judicial, and legislative
branches, to develop and maintain safety programs. However, while
Executive Order 12196 and OSHA's regulations provide that OSHA plays a
key oversight role with respect to executive branch agencies, its role
is more limited for judicial and legislative branch agencies.
Specifically, the Executive Order indicates that OSHA's role with
respect to judicial and legislative branch agencies is to cooperate and
consult with them to aid them in adopting their safety and health
programs. Judicial and legislative branch agencies are not subject to
OSHA's regulations unless they have entered into an agreement to that
effect with OSHA. For the purpose of this work we did not include
contract employees on federal worksites. Contract employees are not
covered by federal agency safety programs, but are instead covered by
private sector procedures under the act.
[3] The eight largest departments are the Departments of Defense,
Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Treasury, Agriculture, Justice,
Interior, and the Social Security Administration. We excluded the U.S.
Postal Service because, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act,
it is considered a private-sector employer. For this report, "agency"
refers to a division within these federal departments. For example, the
agencies we reviewed in the U.S. Department of the Treasury include the
Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the
U.S. Mint.
[4] For this report, we use the term "safety program" to mean an
agency's occupational safety and health program.
[5] 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678.
[6] 29 U.S.C. § 668.
[7] Executive Order 12196, issued on February 26, 1980, prescribes
executive branch agencies' and OSHA's responsibilities. 29 C.F.R. Part
1960 contains OSHA's regulations for federal agency programs.
[8] Executive Order 12196 and OSHA's regulations apply to federal
executive departments. Military personnel and uniquely military
activities of executive agencies are not included.
[9] OSHA is generally authorized to conduct announced or unannounced
inspections of federal agencies that have not established OSH
committees that conform to the regulatory requirements. OSHA's
inspection authority is somewhat more limited if an agency has
established an OSH committee. Currently, only six departments have such
committees: the Central Intelligence Agency, Securities and Exchange
Commission, General Services Administration, Department of Labor,
Tennessee Valley Authority, and U.S. International Trade Commission.
None of the departments we reviewed had such committees. For those
agencies with established OSH committees, OSHA may only conduct an
inspection if (1) half the membership of record of the federal agency's
OSH committee requests an OSHA inspection; or (2) an employee reports
an imminent danger to the agency's OSH committee, but OSHA determines
that neither the committee nor the agency has adequately responded to
the employee's complaint. 29 C.F.R. §1960.31.
[10] OSHA has enforcement responsibility for all federal worksites in
all states, but has granted authority to about half of the states for
their own enforcement of private-sector and non-federal, public-sector
worksites. At present, 22 states and territories, including Puerto
Rico, have been approved by OSHA to operate their own programs; 4
states and territories, including the Virgin Islands, are approved for
covering non-federal, public sector employee worksites only. OSHA
directly oversees enforcement for all worksites in the remaining
states. The number of inspections shown includes those conducted by the
states and territories.
[11] Executive Order 12196, §1-401(h).
[12] 29 C.F.R. §1960.71(b).
[13] OSHA's compliance assistance programs use a mix of different
methods designed to improve worker safety. They target both exemplary
worksites and hazardous ones, and influence employers directly by
implementing safety and health programs and indirectly through
collaboration with trade and professional associations. For more
information on these programs, see GAO, Workplace Safety and Health:
OSHA's Voluntary Compliance Strategies Show Promising Results, but
Should Be Fully Evaluated before They Are Expanded, GAO-04-378
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2004).
[14] VPP sets performance-based criteria for a managed safety and
health system, invites sites to apply, and then assesses applicants
against these criteria. OSHA's verification process includes an
application review and rigorous onsite evaluations by a team of safety
and health experts.
[15] 69 Fed. Reg. 68793, codified at 29 C.F.R. §§1960.66-1960.71.
[16] 69 Fed. Reg. 68796.
[17] In addition, unlike prior requirements, agencies must record the
annual average number of employees employed as well as the total hours
worked by all employees. This information is needed to calculate injury
and illness rates.
[18] 29 C.F.R. §1960.71(a). The regulations also provide that the
Secretary of Labor must provide the agencies with the guidelines and
format for the reports.
[19] See GAO, Architect of the Capitol: Management and Accountability
Framework Needed for Organizational Transformation, GAO-03-231
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003) and Private Sector Ergonomics Programs
Yield Positive Results, GAO/HEHS-97-163 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 27,
1997).
[20] For this report, we define "active workers' compensation claims"
as claims made by federal employees who sustained compensable work-
related injuries or illnesses. Workers' compensation benefits provided
to covered employees can include payment for medical treatment,
rehabilitation services, death benefits, and replacement of lost wages.
[21] Amounts shown have been adjusted for inflation, with a base year
of 2005.
[22] Executive Order 12196, §1-201(h).
[23] OSHA regulations require agencies to provide appropriate safety
and health training that must, among other things, inform employees of
the agency's safety program and their rights and responsibilities under
the program. 29 C.F.R. §1960.59.
[24] Executive Order 12196, § 1-201(i).
[25] OSHA regulations require agencies to promptly rectify unsafe and
unhealthful conditions, and agencies are required to comply with this
regulation by documenting the seriousness of identified hazards and
providing a reasonable time for correcting them. 29 C.F.R §1960.26.
[26] 29 C.F.R. §1960.11.
[27] We have reported that aligning individual performance expectations
with organizational goals, such as workers' safety and health, can help
hold individuals accountable for contributing to organizational
results. GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage
between Individual Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).
[28] 29 C.F.R. §1960.7.
[29] 29 C.F.R. §1960.58.
[30] 29 C.F.R. §1960.11.
[31] According to OSHA officials, the database does not include a code
for worksite location, and the zip code recorded often reflects where
the claim was processed instead of where the injury occurred. In
addition, OSHA officials said that they had to rely on the numbers of
injuries rather than injury rates because federal agencies were unable
to provide a list of the number of employees who worked at each
worksite--information needed to calculate these rates.
[32] OSHA regulations require that federal agencies have provisions for
responding to employee reports of unsafe or unhealthy working
conditions. However, employees may also report hazardous conditions
directly to OSHA. If OSHA receives a complaint from an employee who
works for a federal agency that lacks an established OSH committee, it
may initiate an inspection or other appropriate action. 29 C.F.R.
§1960.28(e).
[33] According to OSHA's internal guidance, a serious violation is
defined as one in which there is substantial probability that death or
serious physical harm could result, and the employer knew or should
have known of the hazard.
[34] Executive Order 12196, § 1-401(k).
[35] According to the OSHA official, the violation involved a military
maritime facility that was held to a safety standard for general
industry; there is no such standard for the maritime industry.
[36] 29 U.S.C. § 668(b).
[37] OSHA regulations, which established Field Federal Safety and
Health Councils to fulfill one of the requirement in Executive Order
12196, state that OSHA will charter these councils and maintain a
liaison with agency heads to facilitate participation in the councils.
29 C.F.R. §§1960.84-1960.90.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
