OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs
Improved Oversight and Controls Would Better Ensure Program Quality
Gao ID: GAO-09-395 May 20, 2009
The Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for ensuring workplace safety. OSHA has established a number of programs, including the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), that take a cooperative approach to obtaining compliance with safety and health regulations and OSHA's standards. OSHA established the VPP in 1982 to recognize worksites with exemplary safety and health programs. GAO was asked to review (1) the number and characteristics of employer worksites in the VPP and factors that have influenced growth, (2) the extent to which OSHA ensures that only qualified worksites participate in the VPP, and (3) the adequacy of OSHA's efforts to monitor performance and evaluate the effectiveness of the VPP. GAO analyzed OSHA's VPP data, reviewed a representative sample of VPP case files, and interviewed agency officials.
The VPP has grown steadily since its inception in 1982, with the number of employer worksites in the program more than doubling--from 1,039 sites in 2003 to 2,174 sites in 2008. Although industries represented have not changed significantly, with the chemical industry having the largest number of sites in the VPP, the number of sites in the motor freight transportation industry--which includes U.S. Postal Service sites--increased tenfold from 2003 to 2008. The proportion of smaller VPP sites--those with fewer than 100 workers--increased from 28 percent in 2003 to 39 percent in 2008. Key factors influencing growth of the VPP have been OSHA's emphasis on expansion of the program and VPP participants' outreach to other employers. OSHA's internal controls are not sufficient to ensure that only qualified worksites participate in the VPP. The lack of a policy requiring documentation in VPP files regarding follow-up actions taken in response to incidents, such as fatalities and serious injuries, at VPP sites limits the national office's ability to ensure that its regions have taken the required actions. Such actions include reviewing sites' safety and health systems and determining whether sites should remain in the program. GAO reviewed OSHA's VPP files for the 30 sites that had fatalities from January 2003 to August 2008 and found that the files contained no documentation of actions taken by the regions' VPP staff. GAO interviewed regional officials and reviewed the inspection files for these sites and found that some sites had safety and health violations related to the fatalities, including one site with seven serious violations. As a result, some sites that no longer met the definition of an exemplary worksite remained in the VPP. In addition, OSHA's oversight is limited because it does not have internal controls, such as reviews by the national office, to ensure that regions consistently comply with VPP policies for monitoring sites' injury and illness rates and conducting on-site reviews. For example, the national office has not ensured that regions follow up as required when VPP sites' injury and illness rates rise above the minimum requirements for the program, including having sites develop plans for reducing their rates. Finally, OSHA has not developed goals or measures to assess the performance of the VPP, and the agency's efforts to evaluate the program's effectiveness have been inadequate. OSHA officials said that low injury and illness rates are effective measures of performance. These rates, however, may not be the best measures because GAO found discrepancies between the rates reported by worksites annually to OSHA and the rates OSHA noted during its on-site reviews. In addition, OSHA has not assessed the impact of the VPP on sites' injury and illness rates. In response to a recommendation in a GAO report issued in 2004, OSHA contracted with a consulting firm to conduct a study of the program's effectiveness. However, flaws in the design of the study and low response rates made it unreliable as a measure of effectiveness. OSHA officials acknowledged the study's limitations but had not conducted or planned other evaluations of the VPP.
Recommendations
Our 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-09-395, OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs: Improved Oversight and Controls Would Better Ensure Program Quality
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-395
entitled 'OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs: Improved Oversight and
Controls Would Better Ensure Program Quality' which was released on
June 18, 2009.
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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2009:
OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs:
Improved Oversight and Controls Would Better Ensure Program Quality:
GAO-09-395:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-395, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Labor‘s Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) is responsible for ensuring workplace safety. OSHA has
established a number of programs, including the Voluntary Protection
Programs (VPP), that take a cooperative approach to obtaining
compliance with safety and health regulations and OSHA‘s standards.
OSHA established the VPP in 1982 to recognize worksites with exemplary
safety and health programs. GAO was asked to review (1) the number and
characteristics of employer worksites in the VPP and factors that have
influenced growth, (2) the extent to which OSHA ensures that only
qualified worksites participate in the VPP, and (3) the adequacy of
OSHA‘s efforts to monitor performance and evaluate the effectiveness of
the VPP. GAO analyzed OSHA‘s VPP data, reviewed a representative sample
of VPP case files, and interviewed agency officials.
What GAO Found:
The VPP has grown steadily since its inception in 1982, with the number
of employer worksites in the program more than doubling”from 1,039
sites in 2003 to 2,174 sites in 2008. Although industries represented
have not changed significantly, with the chemical industry having the
largest number of sites in the VPP, the number of sites in the motor
freight transportation industry”which includes U.S. Postal Service
sites”increased tenfold from 2003 to 2008. The proportion of smaller
VPP sites”those with fewer than 100 workers”increased from 28 percent
in 2003 to 39 percent in 2008. Key factors influencing growth of the
VPP have been OSHA‘s emphasis on expansion of the program and VPP
participants‘ outreach to other employers.
OSHA‘s internal controls are not sufficient to ensure that only
qualified worksites participate in the VPP. The lack of a policy
requiring documentation in VPP files regarding follow-up actions taken
in response to incidents, such as fatalities and serious injuries, at
VPP sites limits the national office‘s ability to ensure that its
regions have taken the required actions. Such actions include reviewing
sites‘ safety and health systems and determining whether sites should
remain in the program. GAO reviewed OSHA‘s VPP files for the 30 sites
that had fatalities from January 2003 to August 2008 and found that the
files contained no documentation of actions taken by the regions‘ VPP
staff. GAO interviewed regional officials and reviewed the inspection
files for these sites and found that some sites had safety and health
violations related to the fatalities, including one site with seven
serious violations. As a result, some sites that no longer met the
definition of an exemplary worksite remained in the VPP. In addition,
OSHA‘s oversight is limited because it does not have internal controls,
such as reviews by the national office, to ensure that regions
consistently comply with VPP policies for monitoring sites‘ injury and
illness rates and conducting on-site reviews. For example, the national
office has not ensured that regions follow up as required when VPP
sites‘ injury and illness rates rise above the minimum requirements for
the program, including having sites develop plans for reducing their
rates.
Finally, OSHA has not developed goals or measures to assess the
performance of the VPP, and the agency‘s efforts to evaluate the
program‘s effectiveness have been inadequate. OSHA officials said that
low injury and illness rates are effective measures of performance.
These rates, however, may not be the best measures because GAO found
discrepancies between the rates reported by worksites annually to OSHA
and the rates OSHA noted during its on-site reviews. In addition, OSHA
has not assessed the impact of the VPP on sites‘ injury and illness
rates. In response to a recommendation in a GAO report issued in 2004,
OSHA contracted with a consulting firm to conduct a study of the
program‘s effectiveness. However, flaws in the design of the study and
low response rates made it unreliable as a measure of effectiveness.
OSHA officials acknowledged the study‘s limitations but had not
conducted or planned other evaluations of the VPP.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that the Secretary of Labor direct OSHA to (1)
develop a documentation policy for information on actions taken by OSHA‘
s regions in response to fatalities and serious injuries at VPP sites,
(2) establish internal controls that ensure consistent compliance by
its regions with VPP policies, and (3) develop goals and performance
measures for the VPP. OSHA generally agreed with these recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-395] or key
components. For more information, contact Anne-Marie Lasowski at (202)
512-7215 or lasowskia@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
The VPP Has Grown Significantly in Recent Years Due to OSHA's Emphasis
on Program Growth and Outreach to New Participants:
OSHA's Internal Controls Do Not Ensure That Only Qualified Worksites
Participate in the VPP:
OSHA Has Not Adequately Assessed the Performance of the VPP or
Evaluated Its Effectiveness:
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: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Descriptions of the Three VPP Programs:
Table 2: The Role of OSHA's Regional and National Offices in the VPP
Approval Process:
Table 3: Number of New VPP Sites, by Fiscal Year:
Figures:
Figure 1: Four Elements of a Comprehensive Safety and Health Management
System:
Figure 2: Number of VPP Sites in the Federally Managed and State
Managed VPP, 1982 to 2008:
Figure 3: Number of VPP Sites for Selected Industries, 2003 and 2008:
Figure 4: Percentage and Number of Employees at VPP Sites, 2003 and
2008:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 20, 2009:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Chairman:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Patty Murray:
Chair:
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable George Miller:
Chairman:
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives:
In 2007, more than 5,800 workers in the United States died of work-
related injuries, and a reported 4 million workers were injured or
became ill on the job.[Footnote 1] The Department of Labor's
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for
protecting the safety and health of the nation's workers under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. OSHA helps ensure the
safety and health of the over 112.5 million private sector workers at
the approximately 8.6 million worksites nationwide by setting safety
and health standards and inspecting worksites. OSHA has also
established a number of programs, including the Voluntary Protection
Programs (VPP), designed to reduce work-related fatalities, injuries,
and illnesses through labor, management, and government cooperation.
Through the VPP, OSHA recognizes employers with exemplary safety and
health systems and relatively low injury and illness rates for their
industries. OSHA exempts VPP sites from routine inspections, although
these worksites are subject to inspections resulting from fatalities or
other serious injuries or complaints from workers about safety or
health hazards.
At your request, we reviewed the VPP. Specifically, we (1) identified
the number and characteristics of employer worksites in the VPP and
factors that have influenced program growth, (2) determined the extent
to which OSHA ensures that only qualified worksites participate in the
VPP, and (3) assessed the adequacy of OSHA's efforts to monitor
performance and evaluate the effectiveness of the VPP.
To conduct our work, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations. We also
analyzed data on the characteristics of all employer worksites in
OSHA's VPP database. We reviewed the reliability of these data and
determined them to be sufficiently reliable for this purpose. We also
compared OSHA's VPP policies and procedures with internal control
standards for the federal government.[Footnote 2] In addition, we
reviewed OSHA's VPP case files for a randomly selected, representative
sample of 184 VPP sites in the federally managed program as of June
2008. We also reviewed OSHA's inspection records and VPP files for all
VPP sites at which fatalities occurred from January 2003 to August
2008. We discussed OSHA's policies and procedures and information in
the files with officials in all 10 regional offices. We also reviewed
the agency's performance and accountability reports and its management
of the program relative to the guidelines in the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993.[Footnote 3] We conducted this performance
audit from March 2008 through May 2009 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. See appendix I for detailed information on our scope and
methodology.
Background:
OSHA is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 for about half the states;[Footnote 4]
the remaining 26 states have been granted authority to set and enforce
their own job safety and health standards under a state plan approved
by OSHA.[Footnote 5] At present, 22 of these 26 states enforce
occupational safety and health provisions under a state plan covering
all worksites, and have their own VPP programs.[Footnote 6] The other 4
states have plans covering only public sector employer worksites; VPP
sites in these 4 states are part of OSHA's federally managed VPP.
To help ensure compliance with federal safety and health regulations
and standards, OSHA conducts enforcement activities and provides
compliance assistance to employers. Enforcement represents the
preponderance of agency activity and includes safety and health
inspections of employer worksites.[Footnote 7] Among its compliance
assistance efforts, OSHA established the VPP in 1982 to recognize
worksites with safety and health systems that exceed OSHA's standards.
A key requirement for participation in the VPP is that worksites have
low injury and illness rates compared with the average rates for their
respective industries.[Footnote 8]
The VPP is divided into three programs (see table 1): the Star, Merit,
and Star Demonstration programs. The Star program has the most
stringent requirements because it is for worksites with exemplary
safety and health systems that successfully protect employees from
fatality, injury, and illness.
Table 1: Descriptions of the Three VPP Programs:
Program: Star;
Description: Worksites with exemplary safety and health management
systems that successfully protect employees from fatality, injury, and
illness. OSHA also has deemed these worksites as being self-sufficient
in their ability to control workplace hazards;
Frequency of on-site reviews: Worksites are reevaluated every 3 to 5
years[A];
Term of participation: No limit, as long as all Star program
requirements are met.
Program: Merit;
Description: Worksites with good safety and health management systems
that need some improvements to be judged exemplary. Merit worksites
demonstrate the potential to meet goals tailored to each worksite and
to meet the requirements of the Star program within 3 years;
Frequency of on-site reviews: Worksites are reevaluated every 18 to 24
months;
Term of participation: 3 years[A].
Program: Star Demonstration;
Description: Worksites, such as temporary construction sites, with
safety and health management systems that differ in some significant
fashion from the VPP model and, therefore, cannot meet the Star program
requirements. Its purpose is to test whether employees' safety and
health at these sites are protected as well as those at sites that meet
the requirements of the Star level VPP;
Frequency of on-site reviews: Worksites are reevaluated every 12 to 18
months;
Term of participation: 5 years.
Sources: OSHA's VPP Policies and Procedures Manual and OSHA VPP
Factsheet.
[A] In some cases, a second term can be approved by the Assistant
Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health.
[End of table]
OSHA's Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs--the national
office--oversees the VPP activities of each of its 10 regional and 80
area offices. Each regional office has a regional administrator, who
coordinates all of the region's activities, including the VPP, and a
VPP manager, who implements and manages the program. The VPP manager
conducts outreach to potential VPP sites and encourages participants to
continually improve their safety and health systems. In addition, the
VPP manager coordinates the region's activities related to the program,
such as reviews of applications submitted by potential sites and on-
site reviews of VPP sites.
Employer worksites apply to OSHA to participate in the VPP. They must
meet a number of requirements, including having an active safety and
health management system that takes a systems approach to preventing
and controlling workplace hazards. As shown in figure 1, OSHA has
defined four basic elements of a comprehensive safety and health
management system. These requirements must be in place for at least 1
year. In addition, there must be no ongoing enforcement actions, such
as inspections, at the worksites or willful violations cited by OSHA
within the 3-year period prior to the site's initial application to
participate in the VPP.
Figure 1: Four Elements of a Comprehensive Safety and Health Management
System:
[Refer to PDF for image: list]
1. Management Leadership and Employee Involvement--Top-level management
must be committed to carrying out written comprehensive safety and
health systems. Employees must be actively involved in the execution of
the program.
2. Worksite Analysis--Employers must have a thorough understanding of
all hazardous situations to which employees may be exposed, as well as
the ability to recognize and correct these hazards.
3. Hazard Prevention and Controls--The system must have clear
procedures for preventing and controlling hazards identified through
worksite analysis, such as a hazard tracking system and a written
system for monitoring and maintaining workplace equipment.
4. Safety and Health Training--Training is necessary to reinforce and
complement management's commitment to safety and health and to ensure
that all employees understand how to avoid exposure to hazards.
Source: OSHA's VPP Policies and Procedures Manual.
[End of figure]
VPP sites are also required to have injury and illness rates below the
average rates for their industries published by Labor's Bureau of Labor
Statistics. These rates must be below the average industry rates for 1
of the most recent 3 years. VPP sites are required to report their
injury and illness rates to OSHA's regional offices annually. The VPP
managers review this information and send summary reports to the
national office. For each calendar year, the national office compiles a
summary report of injury and illness rates for VPP sites participating
in the program.
OSHA determines whether worksites are qualified to participate in the
VPP through its approval process, which includes an on-site review of
each worksite. According to OSHA guidance, the regional offices are
required to conduct an on-site review of each potential VPP site to
ensure that the four elements are in place and to determine how well
the site's safety and health management system is working. As part of
these reviews, the regions are required to verify the sites' injury and
illness rates, interview employees and management, and walk through the
facilities. This initial on-site review usually lasts about 4 days and
involves approximately three to five OSHA staff, according to OSHA's
VPP policies. OSHA also uses volunteers from other VPP sites--Special
Government Employees who have been trained by OSHA--to conduct some
portions of these reviews. OSHA's national office is responsible for
the initial approval of all new VPP sites. VPP sites in the Star
program must also be reapproved every 3 to 5 years after an on-site
review is conducted by the region. OSHA's approval process is outlined
in table 2.
Table 2: The Role of OSHA's Regional and National Offices in the VPP
Approval Process:
Phase: Initial application;
Regional office: The VPP manager reviews the application for
eligibility and communicates with applicant;
National office: The VPP manager notifies the national office of
pending applications.
Phase: On-site review;
Regional office: The VPP manager arranges an on-site review of the
site. Upon completion of the on-site review, any safety and health
hazards identified must be corrected before the site is approved for
participation;
National office: The VPP manager notifies the national office of
scheduled on-site reviews.
Phase: Approval of new VPP sites;
Regional office: The regional administrator must make the
recommendation for approval. Completed on-site reports for new
applicants are sent to the national office for final approval;
National office: The regional administrator must send completed on-site
review reports to the national office, which reviews and approves the
final report. The Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and
Health must make the final decision on all new sites.
Phase: Approval of continuing sites;
Regional office: The VPP manager arranges an on-site review of the
site. On-site review reports for continuing participants in the Star
and Merit programs are reviewed and approved by the regional
administrator;
National office: The VPP manager sends the completed on-site review
report to the national office, which reviews the final report, but the
regional administrator has final approval authority for sites in the
Star and Merit programs.
Source: OSHA's VPP Policies and Procedures Manual.
[End of table]
Once they have been approved, VPP sites must commit to continuously
improving the safety and health of their worksites, maintaining low
injury and illness rates, and reporting annually to OSHA on the status
of their safety and health systems. The VPP sites' annual reports
detail their efforts to continuously improve and detail the sites'
injury and illness rates. OSHA's regional offices review these reports
to ensure that the VPP sites' injury and illness rates have not
increased beyond the program's requirements. According to OSHA's VPP
Policies and Procedures Manual, OSHA must request that a site withdraw
from the VPP if it determines that the site no longer meets the
requirements for VPP participation. OSHA may also terminate a site for
failure to maintain the requirements of the program. The national
office is responsible for collecting the injury and illness data
reported annually by VPP sites to the regions. If VPP sites' 3-year
average rates rise above the average rates for their industries
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the regions must place the
site on a rate-reduction plan if an on-site review is not conducted
that year or must place the site in a 1-year conditional status if an
on-site review is conducted. The regions must also notify the national
office of actions they take in response to incidents, such as
fatalities and serious injuries, at VPP sites. The regions are required
to review sites' safety and health systems after such incidents to
determine (1) whether systemic changes are needed to prevent similar
incidents from occurring in the future and (2) whether the site should
remain in the program. The regions may also conduct on-site reviews of
VPP sites if they determine that the incidents were related to
deficiencies in the sites' safety and health management systems. The
decision to recommend whether a site at which a fatality has occurred
should remain in the program is left to the discretion of the regional
administrator.
The VPP Has Grown Significantly in Recent Years Due to OSHA's Emphasis
on Program Growth and Outreach to New Participants:
The VPP has grown steadily since its inception, with the number of
employer worksites in the program more than doubling--from 1,039 sites
in 2003 to 2,174 sites in 2008. During this period, the number of sites
in the federally managed VPP, representing over two-thirds of all VPP
sites, increased at a similar rate as the number of sites in the state
managed programs. In 2003, there were 734 sites in the federal VPP and
305 in the state managed VPP. By the end of 2008, both the federal and
the state programs had more than doubled to 1,543 and 631,
respectively. (See figure 2.)
Figure 2: Number of VPP Sites in the Federally Managed and State
Managed VPP, 1982 to 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Year: 1982;
Federally managed VPP: 8;
State managed VPP: 1.
Year: 1983;
Federally managed VPP: 20;
State managed VPP: 1.
Year: 1984;
Federally managed VPP: 30;
State managed VPP: 1.
Year: 1985;
Federally managed VPP: 36;
State managed VPP: 1.
Year: 1986;
Federally managed VPP: 44;
State managed VPP: 1.
Year: 1987;
Federally managed VPP: 56;
State managed VPP: 1.
Year: 1988;
Federally managed VPP: 61;
State managed VPP: 1.
Year: 1989;
Federally managed VPP: 64;
State managed VPP: 1.
Year: 1990;
Federally managed VPP: 70;
State managed VPP: 1.
Year: 1991;
Federally managed VPP: 83;
State managed VPP: 1.
Year: 1992;
Federally managed VPP: 107;
State managed VPP: 3.
Year: 1993;
Federally managed VPP: 123;
State managed VPP: 3.
Year: 1994;
Federally managed VPP: 181;
State managed VPP: 13.
Year: 1995;
Federally managed VPP: 217;
State managed VPP: 26.
Year: 1996;
Federally managed VPP: 281;
State managed VPP: 43.
Year: 1997;
Federally managed VPP: 341;
State managed VPP: 64.
Year: 1998;
Federally managed VPP: 391;
State managed VPP: 99.
Year: 1999;
Federally managed VPP: 473;
State managed VPP: 122.
Year: 2000;
Federally managed VPP: 541;
State managed VPP: 163.
Year: 2001;
Federally managed VPP: 601;
State managed VPP: 208.
Year: 2002;
Federally managed VPP: 659;
State managed VPP: 265.
Year: 2003;
Federally managed VPP: 734;
State managed VPP: 305.
Year: 2004;
Federally managed VPP: 882;
State managed VPP: 366.
Year: 2005;
Federally managed VPP: 1,021;
State managed VPP: 432.
Year: 200;
Federally managed VPP: 1,163;
State managed VPP: 502.
Year: 2007;
Federally managed VPP: 1,363;
State managed VPP: 562.
Year: 2008;
Federally managed VPP: 1,543;
State managed VPP: 631.
Source: GAO analysis of OSHA data.
[End of figure]
Although the industries represented in the VPP did not change
significantly from 2003 to 2008, there were substantial increases in
certain industries. The largest industry in the VPP was the chemical
industry, which accounted for a 43 percent increase in the number of
VPP sites, from 208 in 2003 to almost 300 in 2008. The motor freight
transportation industry, which had only 20 sites in 2003, grew tenfold
to just over 200 sites in 2008, due in part to the growth in the number
of Postal Service sites. In addition, the number of sites in the
electric, gas, and sanitary services industries increased from about 50
sites to more than 200 during the same period. See figure 3 for a
comparison of the largest industries represented in the VPP in 2003 and
2008.
Figure 3: Number of VPP Sites for Selected Industries, 2003 and 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Industry group: Chemicals and allied products;
2003: 208;
2008: 298.
Industry group: Electric, gas, and sanitary services;
2003: 53;
2008: 220.
Industry group: Motor freight transportation and warehousing;
2003: 20;
2008: 201.
Industry group: Lumber and wood products;
2003: 89;
2008: 130.
Industry group: Paper and allied products;
2003: 87;
2008: 108.
Industry group: Transportation equipment;
2003: 60;
2008: 93.
Industry group: Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products;
2003: 37;
2008: 80.
Source: GAO analysis of OSHA data.
[End of figure]
While 4 federal worksites--including the Tobyhanna Army Depot in
Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia--have
participated in the VPP since the late 1990s, the number of federal
worksites increased to almost 10 percent of all VPP sites in 2008. At
the end of 2008, almost 200 VPP sites were federal agencies or Postal
Service sites. The majority of these sites--157--were post offices,
processing and distribution centers, and other postal facilities, while
most of the remaining sites were Department of Defense facilities, such
as naval shipyards, Army depots, and Air Force facilities. In addition,
from 2005 to 2008, 7 OSHA area offices in 1 region were approved as new
VPP sites as a result of OSHA's efforts to have all of its offices
participate in the program so that they could be role models for the
federal agencies.
The average size--based on the number of employees--of VPP sites has
become increasingly smaller in the last 5 years. From 2003 to 2008, the
average number of employees at VPP sites decreased from 501 to 408. In
addition, the median size of a VPP site decreased from 210 to 145
employees. As shown in figure 4, the proportion of VPP sites with fewer
than 100 workers increased from 28 percent in 2003 to 39 percent in
2008. Across all VPP sites, the number of employees covered by the VPP
has grown to over 885,000 workers.
Figure 4: Percentage and Number of Employees at VPP Sites, 2003 and
2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: two pie-charts]
Year: 2003:
100 or less: 28%;
101-200: 21%;
201-500: 27%;
501-1,000: 14%;
More than 5,000: 10%.
Year: 2008:
100 or less: 39%;
101-200: 19%;
201-500: 22%;
501-1,000: 12%;
More than 5,000: 8%.
Source: GAO analysis of OSHA data.
[End of figure]
A key factor influencing growth of the VPP has been OSHA's emphasis on
expansion of the program. For example, in 2003, the Secretary of Labor
for OSHA announced plans to expand eligibility for the VPP to reach a
larger number of worksites. These plans included adding more federal
sites, such as Department of Defense facilities and certain types of
construction sites. OSHA's national office has given each of its 10
regions targets for the number of new sites to be approved each year.
While the regions did not always meet these targets from fiscal years
2003 to 2008, they generally increased the number of new sites each
year, as shown in table 3.
Table 3: Number of New VPP Sites, by Fiscal Year:
Targeted number in OSHA's Annual Operating Plan[A]:
New VPP sites, by fiscal year: 2003: 125;
New VPP sites, by fiscal year: 2004: 255;
New VPP sites, by fiscal year: 2005: 193;
New VPP sites, by fiscal year: 2006: 244;
New VPP sites, by fiscal year: 2007: 285;
New VPP sites, by fiscal year: 2008: 279.
Actual number approved:
New VPP sites, by fiscal year: 2003: 112;
New VPP sites, by fiscal year: 2004: 158;
New VPP sites, by fiscal year: 2005: 159;
New VPP sites, by fiscal year: 2006: 191;
New VPP sites, by fiscal year: 2007: 258;
New VPP sites, by fiscal year: 2008: 230.
Source: OSHA.
[A] These targets are for federally managed VPP sites only; they do not
include sites in state managed programs.
[End of table]
Several OSHA regional administrators told us that expanding the program
beyond the current level of approved sites will be difficult, given
their current resources.
Another factor influencing the growth of the VPP is outreach efforts,
including participants' outreach to other employers and employers
seeking out the program after hearing about it from OSHA or other
employers. According to OSHA officials and VPP participants, outreach
efforts focus on the positive benefits of the program, including
improved productivity of workers at VPP sites and decreased costs, such
as reductions in sites' workers' compensation insurance premiums due to
lower injury and illness rates. Some employers, such as the Postal
Service, also cite avoidance of the costs of workplace injuries--which
the National Safety Council estimated as approximately $39,000 per
year, per incident in 2007--as one of the benefits of participation. In
addition, the national association of VPP participants, the Voluntary
Protection Programs Participants' Association, contributes to program
growth through its mentoring program in which current participants help
new sites meet the qualifications of the VPP.
We interviewed employees from VPP sites, and their perspectives varied.
Employees who supported the program told us that the benefits include
having a more collaborative partnership between OSHA, management, and
workers; establishing a "mindset of safety"; and addressing several
safety problems at one worksite that workers had tried for several
years to have corrected. Those who did not fully support the program
included employees at VPP sites who told us that they recognized some
of the benefits of the VPP, but that they had reservations about the
program. For example, some employees were concerned that, after the
application process and initial on-site review had been completed,
sites may not maintain the high standards that qualified them for
participation. Furthermore, some employees said that the injury and
illness rates requirements of the VPP are used as a tool by management
to pressure workers not to report injuries and illnesses.
OSHA's Internal Controls Do Not Ensure That Only Qualified Worksites
Participate in the VPP:
OSHA's internal controls are not sufficient to ensure that only
qualified worksites participate in the VPP. First, OSHA's oversight is
limited by the minimal documentation requirements of the program.
Second, OSHA does not ensure that its regional offices consistently
comply with its policies for the VPP.
OSHA Lacks a Policy Requiring Documentation of Actions Taken by the
Regions in Response to Fatalities and Serious Injuries at VPP Sites:
OSHA's lack of a policy requiring documentation in the VPP files of
actions taken by the regions in response to incidents, such as
fatalities and serious injuries, at VPP sites limits the national
office's ability to ensure that regions have taken the required
actions. OSHA's VPP Manual requires regions to review sites' safety and
health systems after such incidents to determine whether systemic
changes are needed to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the
future and whether the site should remain in the program. However, the
manual does not require the regions to document their decisions or
actions taken in the VPP files, which would allow OSHA's national
office to ensure that the regions took the appropriate actions. When
fatalities, accidents, or other incidents involving serious safety and
health hazards occur at any VPP site, OSHA's policy requires that
enforcement staff conduct an inspection of the site. In these cases,
the area director is required to notify the VPP manager and send a
report of the inspection. The VPP manager is then required to report
information on the incidents that occurred to the Assistant Secretary
for Occupational Safety and Health, the Director of Cooperative and
State Programs, and the regional administrator. The decision on whether
to conduct an on-site review after such an incident is left to the
discretion of the regional administrator based on the results of the
enforcement inspection. These reports, however, are not required to be
included in the VPP files maintained by the regions. OSHA has a draft
policy that sets time frames for retention of documents in the VPP
files, but the policy does not contain guidance regarding the types of
actions that must be documented in the files. Some regional VPP
officials told us that they have requested such guidance from OSHA's
national office, but the national office has not issued a directive on
what information should be documented in the files or on how long it
should be retained. The OSHA official responsible for overseeing the
program did not agree with regional VPP officials, and stated that the
VPP Manual addresses the documentation requirements. However, the
manual does not require actions taken by the regions in response to
fatalities and serious injuries to be documented in the VPP files.
From our review of OSHA's VPP files, we found that there was no
documentation of actions taken by the regions' VPP staff to (1) assess
the safety and health systems of the 30 VPP sites where 32 fatalities
occurred from January 2003 to August 2008 or (2) determine whether
these VPP sites should remain in the program. We obtained information
on VPP sites at which fatalities occurred during this period from
OSHA's national office.[Footnote 9] To determine what actions were
taken in response to the fatalities, we interviewed regional VPP staff
and reviewed the regions' inspection and VPP files for the sites with
fatalities. Although the actions taken by the regional VPP staff were
not documented in the VPP files, we reviewed the inspection files and
interviewed the VPP staff to determine the actions they took in
response to the fatalities.[Footnote 10] The VPP managers told us that
they placed 5 of the 30 sites on 1-year conditional status, and that 5
sites voluntarily withdrew from the VPP. OSHA allowed 17 of the sites
to remain in the VPP--some in the Star program and some in the Merit
program--until their next regularly scheduled on-site reviews. One of
these sites had 3 separate fatalities over the 5-year period. Another
site received 10 violations related to a fatality, including 7 serious
violations[Footnote 11] and 1 violation related to discrepancies in the
site's injury and illness logs. OSHA allowed this site to continue to
participate in the VPP as a Star site. Three sites had not been
reviewed by the regional VPP staff because OSHA's enforcement staff had
not completed their investigations of the sites. As a result, sites
that did not meet the definition of the VPP's Star program to
"successfully protect employees from fatality, injury, and illness"
have remained in the program.
OSHA's Internal Controls Do Not Ensure That Its Regional Offices Comply
with VPP Policies:
OSHA's oversight of the VPP is limited because it does not have
internal controls, such as management reviews by the national office,
to ensure that its regions consistently comply with VPP policies for
verifying sites' injury and illness rates and conducting on-site
reviews. Although having relatively low injury and illness rates are
key criteria for program participation, the regions do not always
verify sites' rates according to OSHA's policies. For example, the VPP
Manual requires that, prior to conducting an on-site review, the region
must obtain written approval from the national office allowing access
to medical information related to injuries and illnesses at the site
[Footnote 12]. However, our review of the VPP files and information
from OSHA's national office showed that, for almost 80 percent of the
cases, regions did not obtain such written approval prior to conducting
their on-site reviews. As a result, the regions did not have access to
workers' medical records needed to verify sites' injury and illness
rates, and the national office had no assurance that the regions
verified these rates as required.
In addition, OSHA's national office did not review the actions taken by
the regions to ensure that they followed up when VPP sites' injury and
illness rates rose above the minimum requirements for the program. From
our review of OSHA's 2007 summary report of injury and illness rates
for VPP sites, we found that, for 12 percent of the sites, at least one
of their 3-year average injury and illness rates was higher than the
average injury and illness rates for their industries.[Footnote 13] For
example, one VPP site reported a 3-year average injury and illness rate
of 10.0, which was 7.6 points higher than the industry average of 2.4.
Similarly, another site's 3-year average injury and illness rate was
7.5 points higher than the industry average. We found that this site's
injury and illness rate had also been above the industry averages for
each of the previous 4 years, yet it remained in the VPP Star program.
OSHA's national office does not require regions to report information
on actions taken to ensure that sites lower their injury and illness
rates when these rates rise above the industry averages. The national
office, therefore, cannot ensure that the regions take action as
required. As a result, some sites that have not met a key requirement
of the VPP have remained in the program.
Finally, some regions conducted less comprehensive reviews of VPP sites
than those required by the VPP Manual. In an effort to leverage its
limited resources, OSHA permitted two regions to conduct abbreviated on-
site reviews as part of a pilot program in which the regions were
allowed to evaluate only one or two elements of sites' safety and
health management systems, rather than all four elements.[Footnote 14]
From our review of the VPP files, we estimated that, from 2000 to 2006,
OSHA conducted abbreviated on-site reviews of almost 10 percent of its
sites. As a result, some sites for which OSHA reviewed only two of the
four elements may not have met all of the minimum requirements to
participate in the program. According to the OSHA official responsible
for managing the VPP, the agency discontinued its use of these
abbreviated reviews after learning from the pilot that it is difficult
to isolate certain program elements, and that evaluating only one or
two elements leaves out key aspects of the program because the four
elements are interrelated.
OSHA Has Not Adequately Assessed the Performance of the VPP or
Evaluated Its Effectiveness:
OSHA's efforts to assess the performance of the VPP and evaluate its
effectiveness are not adequate. First, OSHA has not developed
performance goals or measures to assess the performance of the program.
Second, OSHA contracted for a study of the VPP to evaluate its
effectiveness, but the study was flawed.
OSHA Has Not Developed Performance Goals or Measures to Assess
Performance:
OSHA has not developed performance goals or measures for the VPP to
assess the program's performance. The Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 requires agencies to set goals and report annually
on program performance by measuring the degree to which the program
achieves those goals. OSHA officials told us that, while they have not
established specific goals for the VPP, the best measure of program
performance is that VPP participants consistently report average injury
and illness rates that are about 50 percent below their industries'
average rates.[Footnote 15] However, these rates may not be the best
measure of performance. First, our analysis of OSHA's annual summary
reports of injury and illness rates for 2003 through 2007 showed that,
for 35 percent of the sites in our sample for which data were
available, there were discrepancies between the injury and illness
rates reported by the sites and the rates noted in OSHA's regional on-
site review reports for the same time periods.[Footnote 16] For
example, OSHA's 2007 summary report showed that one VPP site reported
an injury and illness rate of zero, but OSHA found during its on-site
review that the rate was actually 1.7 for the same period. Second, OSHA
has not evaluated the impact of the VPP on sites' injury and illness
rates, such as comparing VPP sites' injury and illness rates with those
of similar sites that do not participate in the program.
OSHA also does not use information reported annually by VPP sites to
develop goals or measures that could be used to assess program
performance. VPP participants are required to conduct annual self
assessments of their sites and to report this information to OSHA. The
reports are to contain:
* a review of the site's safety and health management system, including
safety and health hazards identified and the steps taken to correct
them;
* a description of any significant management changes that can affect
safety and health at the site, such as changes in ownership; and:
* information on benefits related to participation in the VPP, such as
cost savings due to lower workers' compensation insurance premiums,
decreased turnover and absenteeism, and increased productivity.
However, OSHA's national office does not use the information from these
reports because most of this information is maintained in the regional
offices, and they are not required to send it to the VPP national
office.
OSHA Has Not Adequately Evaluated the Effectiveness of the VPP:
In response to a recommendation in our 2004 report[Footnote 17] that
the agency evaluate the effectiveness of the VPP, OSHA contracted with
The Gallup Organization to study the effectiveness of the program--the
results of which were reported in September 2005.[Footnote 18] As part
of this study, OSHA identified two objectives that included (1)
determining the impact of its outreach and mentoring programs on
potential and new VPP sites' safety and health systems and (2)
determining changes in the VPP sites' injury and illness rates due to
their participation in the program. To obtain information for this
study, The Gallup Organization sent a questionnaire to all VPP sites
participating in the federally managed program.[Footnote 19] However,
the study had significant design flaws. Specifically, the response
rates by participants were low (46 percent overall, and 34 percent
completed the questionnaire), and the data reported by participants
were not validated. For example, a review of the sites' mentoring and
outreach efforts, which are not indicators of program performance, made
up two-thirds of the report, and other factors that could have
influenced the sites' injury and illness rates were not considered or
measured. Because of these limitations, we concluded that the report's
findings were not reliable or valid and could not be used to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the VPP.
In our discussions with OSHA officials, they acknowledged the
limitations of the study, but said they have not conducted any
additional evaluations of the VPP and have no plans to conduct future
evaluations of the effectiveness of the program. Officials said they do
not need to do so because the low injury and illness rates reported by
VPP participants are the best measure of the program's effectiveness.
However, without a more reliable evaluation of the program, OSHA does
not know whether the program is effectively meeting its objective of
recognizing worksites with exemplary safety and health management
systems that exceed OSHA's standards.
Conclusions:
OSHA continues to expand the VPP, which adds to the responsibilities of
staff who manage and maintain the integrity of the program and reduces
the resources available to ensure that non-VPP sites comply with safety
and health regulations and with OSHA's standards. In the absence of
policies that require its regional offices to document information
regarding actions taken in response to fatalities and serious injuries
at VPP sites, OSHA cannot ensure that only qualified sites participate
in the program. In addition, some sites with serious safety and health
deficiencies that contributed to fatalities have remained in the
program, which has affected its integrity. Without sufficient oversight
and internal controls, OSHA's national office cannot be assured that
the regional offices are following VPP policies. Finally, because OSHA
lacks performance goals and measures to use in assessing the
performance of the VPP, it continues to expand the program without
knowing its effect on employer worksites, such as whether participation
in the VPP has improved workers' safety and health.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure proper controls and measurement of program performance, the
Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health to take the following three actions:
* develop a documentation policy regarding information on follow-up
actions taken by OSHA's regional offices in response to fatalities and
serious injuries at VPP sites;
* establish internal controls that ensure consistent compliance by the
regions with OSHA's VPP policies for conducting on-site reviews and
monitoring injury and illness rates so that only qualified worksites
participate in the program; and:
* establish a system for monitoring the performance of the VPP by
developing specific performance goals and measures for the program.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Labor for
comment. We received written comments from the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health, which are reproduced in their entirety
in appendix II. The agency also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated in the report as appropriate.
OSHA agreed with our recommendations to develop better documentation
requirements and strengthen internal controls to ensure consistent
compliance with VPP policies across its regions. Regarding our
recommendation to develop performance goals and measures for the VPP to
use in monitoring performance, OSHA stated that it would continue to
identify and refine appropriate performance measures for the program.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to relevant congressional committees, the Secretary of Labor, and other
interested parties. The report will also be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or lasowskia@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Anne-Marie Lasowski:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To identify the number and characteristics of employer worksites in the
Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), we analyzed data in the Department
of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) VPP
database. We reviewed data in OSHA's VPP database for all sites in the
VPP--both those in the federally managed program and in the VPP
programs managed by the states. We analyzed data on VPP participation
activity from the inception of the program in 1982 through the end of
calendar year 2008. Prior to our analysis, we assessed the reliability
of the information in OSHA's VPP database by interviewing OSHA
officials; reviewing related documentation, including the data system
user manual; and conducting electronic testing of the data. On the
basis of our review of the database, we found that the data were
sufficiently reliable to report the number and characteristics of
participants in the VPP. To determine the factors that contributed to
growth in program participation, we obtained information about the VPP
from officials at OSHA's national office and the 10 regional offices.
To enhance our understanding of the VPP from the perspective of the
participants, we interviewed employees, including union and nonunion
employees at VPP sites as well as employees from sites that elected not
to participate in the VPP.
To determine the extent to which OSHA ensures that only qualified
worksites participate in the VPP, we reviewed OSHA's internal controls
for the program and limited our review to VPP sites in the federally
managed program that were part of the Star program. We reviewed sites
in the federally managed program because they represent over 70 percent
of the sites in the program--1,543 of the 2,174 sites--and because the
policies and practices for the state managed programs differ from state
to state. We reviewed sites in the Star program because they
represented more than 95 percent of sites in the federally managed VPP
at the time of our review, and because the Star program has the most
stringent requirements. To assess OSHA's internal controls, we compared
OSHA's VPP Policies and Procedures Manual with GAO's Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government.[Footnote 20] We also
reviewed OSHA's policies and procedures for the federal VPP, including
(1) procedures for on-site reviews of VPP sites, (2) annual reporting
requirements for VPP sites to report data to the regions, and (3)
requirements for regional offices to report information to OSHA's
national office. To determine the extent to which OSHA complied with
its procedures in approving initial and renewing VPP participants, we
reviewed OSHA's VPP files for a randomly selected, representative
sample of VPP sites in the program as of April 2008. Estimated
percentages derived from this sample have confidence intervals of no
more than +/-7 percent. The files, maintained by OSHA's regional
offices, contained reports of the regions' on-site reviews of VPP
sites.[Footnote 21] We reviewed the reports of the reviews conducted
prior to the sites' initial acceptance and, if they had been in the
program long enough to be reapproved, the most recent review conducted.
We reviewed the VPP files and interviewed officials at OSHA's regional
offices in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, New York, and Philadelphia. We
selected these sites to obtain a geographic range of regional offices
with small, medium, and large numbers of VPP sites. We interviewed
officials in the five remaining regional offices in Chicago, Denver,
Kansas City, San Francisco, and Seattle by telephone and had them send
the VPP files for their sites to us for review.
To determine what actions OSHA took in response to fatalities at VPP
sites, we asked OSHA's national office for a list of all sites at which
fatalities occurred from January 2003 to October 2008. The national
office asked the regions to provide this information, and the national
office provided this information to us. We reviewed the inspection and
VPP files maintained by the regional offices for these sites and
interviewed VPP managers about the actions taken by the regions in
response to the fatalities. Finally, we reviewed other information
provided by the regional offices to the national office, such as data
on the injury and illness rates for each VPP site that are reported by
the sites annually to OSHA and tracked by the national office on
electronic spreadsheets.
To assess the adequacy of OSHA's efforts to assess the performance and
effectiveness of the VPP, we reviewed its policies and procedures,
performance and accountability reports, operating plans, and The Gallup
Organization's 2005 evaluation report of the VPP.[Footnote 22] We
reviewed these documents relative to the guidelines in the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993. To verify the injury and illness
rates reported by VPP sites to OSHA's regions in the sites' annual
reports, we compared the data tracked by the national office on sites'
injury and illness rates with the rates reported in OSHA's on-site
reviews for the sites in our sample of 184 sites. We assessed the
Gallup study on the basis of commonly accepted program evaluation
standards.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2008 through May 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
May 15, 2009:
Anne-Marie Lasowski:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Lasowski:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) proposed report, OSHA 's Voluntary
Protection Programs: Improved Oversight and Controls Would Better
Ensure Program Quality. OSHA welcomes GAO's analysis and suggestions
for improving the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP). The Agency takes
seriously the VPP principle of continuous improvement, which we require
of both participants and ourselves.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 mandates that both
regulatory and nonregulatory measures be taken for assuring workplace
safety and health. VPP, which falls into the latter category, has been
a significant part of OSHA's strategic approach to strengthening worker
protection. Since 1982, VPP has encouraged employers to pursue and
adopt effective workplace safety and health management systems which
include demonstrated management leadership and meaningful worker
participation. It is OSHA's hope that these companies set an example
for others to follow in establishing safety and health programs and
reducing injuries and illnesses. The independent analysis GAO has
conducted makes clear that there is a need to strengthen VPP
documentation and oversight activity. The Agency shares the concerns
addressed by the first two recommendations and is committed to
developing better documentation requirements and strengthening internal
controls to ensure consistent compliance with VPP policies and
procedures across its regions.
OSHA is concerned by the cases highlighted and the participant injury
and illness rates statistics contained in the report. The Agency
intends to review case specifics and determine OSHA's response, whether
established polices and procedures were followed, and whether changes
are warranted. Please provide company specific information to
facilitate our review of these issues.
With respect to GAO's third recommendation to identify better measures
of VPP effectiveness, OSHA's mission is to reduce workplace injuries
and illnesses and fatalities. These rates must be a meaningful part of
any program evaluation; however, OSHA also will continue to identify
and refine other appropriate VPP performance measures.
OSHA appreciates GAO's interest and recommendations for improving
internal oversight and program quality regarding VPP. We intend to
incorporate your analysis into a broader review and evaluation of VPP.
If you have questions concerning this response, or if we can be of
further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jordan Barab:
Acting Assistant Secretary:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anne-Marie Lasowski, (202) 512-7215 or lasowskia@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Revae Moran, Acting Director, and Anna M. Kelley, Analyst in Charge,
managed all aspects of the assignment. Kathleen Boggs, Richard Harada,
Yumiko Jolly, and Summer Pachman made significant contributions to the
report. In addition, Richard Brown, Doreen Feldman, Justin Fisher,
Cindy Gilbert, Sheila R. McCoy, Kathleen van Gelder, Gabriele Tonsil,
and Shana Wallace provided key technical and legal assistance.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] All years cited in this report are calendar years, except as noted.
[2] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[3] Pub. L. No. 103-62 (1993).
[4] In the act, "state" is defined to include the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands. See 29 U.S.C. § 652 (7).
[5] The state standards must be at least as effective as the federal
standards. See 29 U.S.C. § 667.
[6] In this report, we refer to VPP sites in these states as being in
state managed programs and to VPP sites in states for which OSHA
provides enforcement as being in the federally managed VPP.
[7] Employers whose worksite conditions fail to meet federal safety and
health standards face sanctions, such as paying penalties for
violations of safety and health standards.
[8] VPP sites report their injury and illness rates annually to OSHA.
Sites are required to report their Total Case Incidence Rate and "Days
Away, Restricted, and/or Transfer rate to OSHA." The Total Case
Incidence Rate is a rate that represents the total number of recordable
injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time employees. The "Days Away,
Restricted, and/or Transfer rate" is the number of recordable injuries
and illnesses per 100 full-time employees "resulting in days away from
work, restricted work activity, and/or job transfer." The industry
rates are published annually by Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics for
the previous year. The industry injury and illness data for 2007 were
published in October 2008.
[9] Because this information is not documented in the VPP files, we
requested a list of all VPP sites with fatalities for the period from
January 2003 to August 2008 from OSHA's national office. The national
office obtained this information from the regions, then provided the
list we had requested. However, during our review, we identified one
additional site that the regions had not informed the national office
about when providing it with the list of VPP sites. Therefore, it is
possible that the regions may not have identified all of the VPP sites
at which fatalities occurred during this period.
[10] OSHA's enforcement staff are required to conduct an inspection of
all VPP sites at which fatalities occur. The regions are required to
document the results of these inspections in OSHA's inspections
database and in enforcement files maintained by the regions.
[11] A serious violation is one in which there is a substantial
probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a
worksite condition or from one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes that have been adopted or are in use at the
worksite.
[12] OSHA's Office of Occupational Medicine is responsible for
providing this approval to the regions upon request.
[13] We compared both the Total Case Incidence Rates and the "Days
Away, Restricted, and/or Transfer Rates" that the VPP sites reported to
OSHA with the rates for their respective industries published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[14] OSHA revised its policies in April 2008 to allow the regions to
conduct a "Compressed Reapproval Process," which involves looking at
the minimum requirements for all four elements of a site's safety and
health management system. These minimum requirements must be in place
and be at least minimally effective for a site to be considered for
continued participation in the VPP. If a site fails to meet one of the
minimum requirements for any of the four elements, it is not eligible
to participate in the VPP.
[15] OSHA changed the injury and illness rate requirements for the VPP
in 2008 to make it easier for participants to meet them. Prior to that
time, VPP sites' 3-year average injury and illness rates had to be
below the most recent annual average rates for their respective
industries. After the change, VPP sites could compare their most recent
year's rates with the average rates for any 1 of the 3 most recent
years for their respective industries.
[16] Data were not available for 43 percent of the 184 sites in our
sample.
[17] GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA's Voluntary Compliance
Strategies Show Promising Results, but Should Be Fully Evaluated before
They Are Expanded, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-378]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2004).
[18] The Gallup Organization, Evaluation of the Voluntary Protection
Program Findings Report (Washington, D.C.: September 2005).
[19] The Gallup Organization surveyed all 834 participants in the
federally managed VPP as of 2005 to determine their experiences with
OSHA's mentoring and outreach efforts and with data on their injury and
illness rates over time. Gallup also surveyed participants to obtain
information on costs savings related to their participation in the VPP.
[20] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[21] In some cases, we reviewed the on-site reports provided to us by
the VPP managers.
[22] The Gallup Organization surveyed all 834 participants in the
federally managed VPP as of 2005 to determine their experiences with
OSHA's mentoring and outreach efforts and with data on their injury and
illness rates over time. Gallup also surveyed participants to obtain
information on costs savings related to their participation in the VPP.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: