    Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies'
    Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight
    (21-APR-06, GAO-06-379).

    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.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-379
        ACCNO:   A52157
      TITLE:     Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal
    Agencies' Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its
    Oversight
         DATE:   04/21/2006
      SUBJECT:   Occupational health and safety programs
    	     Occupational safety
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Program management
    	     Regulatory agencies
    	     Safety regulation
    	     Safety standards
    	     Workers compensation
    	     Federal employees
    	     Federal agencies
    	     Surveys
    	     Program implementation

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-06-379

         * Results in Brief
         * Background
              * OSHA's Role
                   * Enforcement
                   * Compliance Assistance
                   * Role of the Federal Agencies
              * Six Components of a Sound Safety Program
              * Federal Workplace Trends
              * Injury and Illness Trends in the Federal Government
         * Most Agencies Reported Having Many Safety Program Components
              * Most Agencies Reported Having at Least One Activity for Each
              * Common Implementation Challenges Include Data Management, Ac
                   * Data Management
                   * Accountability
                   * Safety Resources
         * OSHA Provides Inadequate Oversight of Federal Agencies Becau
              * OSHA's Enforcement Strategy Does Not Include a Program for T
              * OSHA Lacks a System for Tracking Disputed Violations
              * OSHA Has Not Conducted Evaluations in More Than 6 Years
              * OSHA Has Not Submitted Timely Annual Reports on Agencies' Sa
              * OSHA Has Used a Variety of Compliance Assistance Programs fo
                   * OSHA's Regional Offices Have Struggled to Set Up and Maintai
                   * OSHA's Responses to Agency Technical Assistance Requests Are
                   * Agencies Have Begun Joining OSHA's VPP
                   * OSHA Has Developed Few Strategic Partnerships and Alliances
              * Impact of the SHARE Presidential Initiative Is Unclear
         * Conclusions
         * Recommendations for Executive Action
         * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
         * GAO Comments
         * GAO Contact
         * Acknowledgments
         * GAO's Mission
         * Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
              * Order by Mail or Phone
         * To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
         * Congressional Relations
         * Public Affairs

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Report to the Subcommittee on Labor,

    GAO

        Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, Committee on
                              Appropriations, U.S. Senate

    April 2006

    WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH

    OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies' Safety Programs with a More Strategic
                               Approach to Its Oversight

    GAO-06-379

    WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH

    OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies' Safety Programs with a More Strategic
    Approach to Its Oversight

      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

    Source: Buck Nelson. 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.

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Contents

    Letter 1
    Results in Brief 3
    Background 5
    Most Agencies Reported Having Many Safety Program Components, but Faced
    Common Implementation Challenges 18
    OSHA Provides Inadequate Oversight of Federal Agencies Because It Does Not
    Use Its Enforcement and Compliance Assistance Resources Strategically 25
    Conclusions 36
    Recommendations for Executive Action 37
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 38

    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 12 Table 2: Top Five Types of Injuries Incurred by
    Federal Workers,

    Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004 16 Table 3: Federal Agencies' Strategic
    Partnerships with OSHA 35 Table 4: Agency Responses to the Data Collection
    Instrument by

    Safety Program Component 59

    Figures
               Figure 1: Number of OSHA Inspections, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004  7
               Figure 2: OSHA's 10 Regions                                      8
                   Figure 3: Number of Workers' Compensation Claims of Federal
                             Workers, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004                15
                  Figure 4: Percent of Workers' Compensation Costs for Federal
                         Workers by Age of the Case, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004 17
                  Figure 5: Workers' Compensation Payments for Federal Workers
                         by Type of Cost, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004            18
                Figure 6: Percent of Inspections of Federal Worksites by Type,
                                  Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004                    26
                  Figure 7: Average Number of Serious Violations at Federal
                       Worksites by Inspection Type, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004 27

    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

    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. However, 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 Washington, DC 20548

    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
    the number has decreased overall. 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?

    1

    In this report, we use the term "injuries" to refer to workers' injuries
    and illnesses.

    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. 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. 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. 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

    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.

                                    Results in Brief

    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 time frame. 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.

    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
    evaluate certain federal agencies annually, 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. 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. 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. 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.
    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 that
    help ensure that federal agencies are not violating any OSHA standards and
    are complying with the requirements for their safety programs. 9 In

    5

    29 U.S.C. S:S: 651-678.

    6

    29 U.S.C. S: 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. S:1960.31.

                                      Enforcement

    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.

    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. 10

    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.

    Figure 1: Number of OSHA Inspections, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004 Number of
    inspections100,000 98,000 96,000 94,000 92,000 90,000

    10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000

    0

    2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

          Fiscal year

    Federal worksites Non-federal worksites Source: GAO analysis of OSHA data.

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

    U.S. workforce between 2002 and 2004.

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

    Figure 2: OSHA's 10 Regions

    AlaskaMaine

    Vt.

    N.H. Mass.

    R.I.

    Wash.

    Conn.

    Mont. N.Dak. Puerto Ore.

    Idaho S.Dak.

    Wyo.

    Minn. N.Y. Rico

    Wis. Mich. U.S.

    N.J. Virgin Islands

    Ill. Ind.

                                Nev. Utah Nebr. IowaOhio

    Colo. Calif. Pa.

    Kans. Mo.

    Del. Md.

    W.Va.

    Ariz. Va. D.C.

    Okla. N.Mex. Ark. Ky.

    Guam Hawaii

    N.C. Tenn.

    Tex. La. S.C.

    American SamoaMiss. Ala. Ga.

    Fla.

    Source: OSHA.

    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.

                                 Compliance Assistance

    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 nonfederal
    worksites were programmed.

    OSHA is required to conduct comprehensive annual evaluations of the larger
    or more hazardous federal agencies. 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. 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.

    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

    11

    Executive Order 12196, S:1-401(h).

    12

    29 C.F.R. S:1960.71(b).

                              Role of the Federal Agencies

    partnerships. 13 Approval as a VPP site is OSHA's official recognition of
    worksites that have implemented exemplary safety and health programs. 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) reduce the overall case rate for these claims,
    (2) reduce the lost-time rate-the number of employees who could not return
    to work per 100 employees in the workforce, (3) improve the processing
    time of workers' compensation claims, and (4) reduce the lost production
    day rate-the lost days due to injury or illness per 100 employees. OSHA
    works with agencies in addressing the first two goals and helps them
    calculate the rates monitored.

    OSHA's regulations establish the basic elements of executive agencies'
    safety and health programs. According to the regulations, agencies'
    programs must include provisions for

         o top management support, participation, and accountability;
         o safety and health policies, procedures, and standards;
         o goals and objectives;
         o worker involvement;

    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.

         o safety and health training of managers and workers;
         o collection of occupational injury and illness data;
         o self-inspection of workplaces and self-evaluation of the programs;
         o abatement of unsafe and unhealthful working conditions; and
         o 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

    15

    69 Fed. Reg. 68793, codified at 29 C.F.R. S:S: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. S:1960.71(a). The regulations also provide that the Secretary of
    Labor must provide the agencies with the guidelines and format for the
    reports.

        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. 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

    Componenta               Supporting activities
    Management commitment o  Establish goals for the program.
                             o  Develop activities to communicate the importance
                                of the safety program to staff, including
                                management, employees, and contractors.
                             o  Use management and information systems that allow
                                for trend analysis, risk analysis,
                                etc.
                             o  Establish program responsibilities of managers
                                and employees for safety and health in the
                                workplace and hold them accountable for carrying
                                out those responsibilities.
    Employee involvement  o  Establish procedures for employees to report
                                job-related fatalities, injuries, illnesses,
                                incidents, and damage to property or equipment.
                             o  Establish procedures for employees to report
                                hazards.
                             o  Provide employee access to the system that
                                captures information on accidents and hazards.
                             o  Ensure employee involvement in safety committees
                                that report on hazards.
                             o  Allow employees to provide input on
                                safety-related training curricula.
                             o  Ensure employees participate in walkthroughs of
                                worksites to identify hazardous conditions on a
                                daily, weekly, or monthly basis.
                             o  Allow employee involvement on accident
                                investigation teams.

    19See 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).

    Page 12 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

                            Componenta Supporting activities

    Education and training

         o 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 (nationallevel training).
         o 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).
         o Maintain an automated system to track training completed by employees.

    Identification of hazards  o  Establish procedures for conducting required
    OSHA inspections.

    o  Establish procedures for conducting informal walkthroughs of worksites
    to identify hazardous conditions.

    Following up and correcting hazards  o  Establish procedures for
    developing controls for workplace hazards.

         o Establish procedures for following up on inspections to ensure hazards
           are corrected and controls are effective.
         o Maintain an automated system that tracks workplace hazards.

    Medical managementb  o  Establish procedures to ensure that an injured or
    ill employee is seen within a specified time frame by a medical provider.

         o Maintain an automated system that tracks accident data-including the
           type, nature, and source of injury.
         o Implement a restricted or light duty return-to-work program.
         o Maintain an automated system that tracks the return-to-work status of
           employees.

                                Federal Workplace Trends

    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."

    b

    Organizations may have a medical management program without necessarily
    having a safety and health program.

    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.

        Injury and Illness Trends in the Federal Government

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

    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. 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.

    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.

    Page 14 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

    Figure3: Number of Workers' Compensation Claims of Federal Workers, Fiscal
    Years 1995 to 2004

          Number of claims

    175,000

    1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

    Fiscal year

    Source: GAO analysis of OWCP data.

    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 Non-traumatic injuries

                       1. Sprain/strain-not back 1. Hearing loss

               2.Traumatic injury-unclassified 2. Carpal tunnel syndrome

    1. Back sprain or strain 3. Musculoskeletal condition, other
    2. Contusion 4. Conditions of tendons, etc.
    3. Laceration 5. Back sprain or strain

    Source: GAO analysis of OWCP data.

    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. 21 In addition, the compensation per claim filed during
    this period increased. For example, while there were about 1,800 fewer new
    claims in fiscal year 2004 than there were in fiscal year 1995, the
    average compensation per claim increased by 3 percent from fiscal year
    1995 to 2004, with the average payment per claim rising from $9,958 in
    1995 to $10,242 in 2004. As shown in figure 4, the largest amount of
    workers' compensation costs for federal workers paid from fiscal years
    1995 to 2004 was for claims that were over 5 years old.

    Amounts shown have been adjusted for inflation, with a base year of 2005.

    Figure 4: Percent of Workers' Compensation Costs for Federal Workers by
    Age of the Case, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004

            Percentage

    100

    90

    80

    70

    60

    50

    40

    30

    20

    10

            0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Fiscal year

         64      66      68      68      69      68     67     66     66     65
         23      21      20      20      20      19     19     21     20     21
         13      13      12      12      12      13     14     14     14     15

    Over 5 years 1 to 5 years 0 to 1 year Source: GAO analysis of OWCP data.

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

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

    Figure 5: Workers' Compensation Payments for Federal Workers by Type of
    Cost, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004

    Dollars1,650,000,000

              1,500,000,000 1,350,000,000 1,200,000,000 1,050,000,000 900,000,000
                      750,000,000 600,000,000 450,000,000 300,000,000 150,000,000

    0

        1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Fiscal year

    Death benefits Medical and rehabilitation benefits Wage loss compensation
    Source: GAO analysis of OWCP data.

    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 All of the 57 agencies surveyed reported that their
    safety programs Having at Least One incorporate activities for the
    management commitment component. Activity for Each Safety Activities
    supporting management commitment include setting goals for Program
    Component the program and communicating from upper management to frontline
    staff

    Page 18 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

    about the importance of the safety program. Fifty-five of the agencies
    surveyed (96 percent) reported that they had established goals for their
    safety and health programs, and all 57 agencies reported conducting
    activities to communicate the importance of their safety programs to
    employees, such as through newsletters and Web sites.

    Almost all of the agencies we surveyed reported that they conduct
    activities for two other components-employee involvement and training.
    Most agencies reported having policies governing employees' participation
    in safety committees and reporting injuries and hazards. While 56 (98
    percent) of the agencies provided procedures for employees to report
    hazards, half of these procedures did not specify the right of employees
    to report hazards anonymously, as required by an executive order. 22
    Consistent with OSHA regulations, 56 of the 57 agencies reported that they
    offer some type of safety training for their employees. 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 OSHArequired
    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. 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. 25

    Agencies reported having the fewest activities for the medical management
    component. Eight agencies (14 percent) reported that they

    22

    Executive Order 12196, S: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. S:1960.59.

    24

    Executive Order 12196, S: 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 S:1960.26.

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

    Data Management

    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.

    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.

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

                                     Accountability

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

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

    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. 26 Of the 51 agencies reporting
    having

    26

    29 C.F.R. S:1960.11.

    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. 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 stated that regional officials are
    expected to follow up to ensure that stores make timely corrections, but
    are not required to document when hazards are corrected. As a result, the
    agency has little assurance that the safety of store employees is
    adequately protected. In addition, according to an employee representative
    from the Commissary, it is not always clear who is responsible for
    ensuring that hazards are corrected.

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

    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).

    Page 22 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

    Safety Resources

    these areas, safety officials set new goals-enabling continuous
    improvement.

    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. 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. 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

    28

    29 C.F.R. S:1960.7.

    29

    29 C.F.R. S:1960.58.

    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. 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.

    29 C.F.R. S:1960.11.

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

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

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

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

    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.

    Page 25 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

    As shown in figure 6, OSHA primarily conducts inspections of federal
    worksites as a result of complaints. 32

    Figure 6: Percent of Inspections of Federal Worksites by Type, Fiscal
    Years 2000 to 2004

    Area Offices without Targeted ProgramsArea Offices with Targeted
    Programs(Total number of inspections =1,658) (Total number of inspections
    = 826)

    Source: GAO analysis of OSHA data.

    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). 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

    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. S: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.

    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

          Number of serious violations

    9

    8

    7

    6

    5

    4

    3

    2

    1

    0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

          Fiscal year

    Unprogrammed inspections

    Programmed inspectionsSource: GAO analysis of OSHA data.

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

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

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

        OSHA Lacks a System for Tracking Disputed Violations

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

    While OSHA's internal instructions require that area office and regional
    officials be consulted in decisions made by national office officials and
    an Executive Order requires OSHA to submit unresolved violation disputes
    to the President, neither of these things appears to be occurring. 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. 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

    34

    Executive Order 12196, S: 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.

    Page 29 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

        OSHA Has Not Conducted Evaluations in More Than 6 Years

    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
    privatesector 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.

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

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

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

    As of February 2006, OSHA had not submitted its annual report to the
    President that summarized and assessed the status of federal agencies'
    safety programs since 2000 nor provided recommendations of ways for
    federal agencies to improve their safety programs, as required. 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'

    36

    29 U.S.C. S: 668(b).

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

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

    programs, which would allow them to more readily identify discrepancies
    and deficiencies in their annual reports.

    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.

    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. 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

    37

    OSHA regulations, which established Field Federal Safety and Health
    Councils to fulfill one of the requirements 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.
    S:S:1960.84-1960.90.

    Page 32 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

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

    Agencies Have Begun Joining OSHA's VPP

    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 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.

    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

    OSHA Has Developed Few Strategic Partnerships and Alliances with Federal
    Agencies

    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 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
                Current Federal agency         Completed Federal agency
    National       1 Army                           0
    Region
    1              0                                0
    2              1 National Park Service          1 National Park Service
                        San Juan                         Fire Island National
                                                         Seashore
    3              0                                0
    4              1 National Park Service          0
                        Mammoth Cave
    5              0                                2 National Park
                                                         Service-Isle Royale &
                                                         Sleeping Bear Dunes
    6              1 Federal Bureau of              2 National Park Service
                        Prisons, Three Rivers            Padre Island
                                                         Federal Interagency
                                                         Training Council
    7              0                                0
    8              3 National Park                  1 Veterans Health
                        Service-Grand Teton,             Administration Cheyenne
               Yellowstone, & Glacier
    9     0                                         2 National Park
                                                         Service-Yosemite &
                                                         Golden Gate
    10             1 Bureau of Land                 2 Defense Commissary
                        Management-Fremont               Agency, Ft. Lewis
                        National Forest                  Forest Service
    Subtotal       7                               10
    regional
    partnerships
    Total       8                                  10

    Source: OSHA.

    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.

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

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

        Impact of the SHARE Presidential Initiative Is Unclear

                                      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.

    The Secretary of Labor should direct OSHA to

      Recommendations for

    Executive Action  o  develop a targeted inspection program for federal
    worksites based on the new worker injury and illness data federal agencies
    are required to collect by requiring that relevant portions or summaries
    of that data be

    Page 37 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

                           Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    included in agencies' annual reports to OSHA or by obtaining the data from
    agencies or worksites through periodic, selected surveys;

         o track violations disputed by federal agencies to their resolution and
           ensure that unresolved disputes are reported to the President;
         o conduct evaluations of the largest and most hazardous federal agencies
           as required; and
         o use evaluations, inspection data, and annual reports submitted by
           federal agencies to assess the effectiveness of their safety programs,
           and include, in OSHA's annual report to the President, an assessment
           of each agency's worker safety program and recommendations for
           improvement.

    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
    http://www.gao.gov.

    If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
    512 9889 or at robertsonr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
    Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
    of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
    VII.

    Robert E. Robertson

    Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

                           Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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

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

    We conducted follow-up interviews with safety managers and when possible,
    employee representatives from the largest agency within each department,
    and with the agencies with the highest lost-time or injury and illness
    rates. In some cases, the largest agency had both the highest losttime and
    injury and illness rates. In total, we conducted follow-up interviews with
    safety managers in 12 agencies, as well as employee

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

    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

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

    years. We also interviewed a compliance safety and health official in each
    of these offices identified by the area director and, where possible, the
    compliance assistance specialist, although not every area office had a
    compliance assistance specialist. In addition, we interviewed two OSHA
    officials about the local emphasis program for federal worksites that one
    region had implemented.

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

    Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of the appendix.

    See comment 1.

    Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor

                                     See comment 2.

    Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor

    Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor

    Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor

    The following are GAO comments on Labor's letter dated March 17, 2006.

      GAO Comments

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

            Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Interior

    Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Interior

    Appendix V: Data Collection Instrument Sent to the Federal Agencies

                            Page 54 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

                            Page 55 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

                            Page 56 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

                            Page 57 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

                            Page 58 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

    Appendix VI: Agencies' Responses to the Data Collection Instrument

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

     Table 4: Agency Responses to the Data Collection Instrument by Safety Program
                                       Component

                            Page 59 GAO-06-379 Worker Safety

                                                                       Percent of
                                                                selected agencies
    Survey question MANAGEMENT                                responding "Yes"
    COMMITMENT Q1 Department           Number of  Number of      that provided
    goals established for the           agencies   agencies         sufficient
    occupational safety and      responding "No" responding         supporting
    health program.                            2   "Yes" 55  documentationa 91
    Q2 Activities designed to
    communicate the importance
    of the OSH program to staff.               0         57                 93
    Q3 Management information
    system that allows for trend
    analysis, risk analysis,
    etc.                                       8         49                 84
    Q4 Policies that establish
    responsibility for workplace
    safety and health for all
    staff through performance
    reviews.                                   6         51                 78
    EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT
    Q5 Procedures for employees                0         57                 89
    to report accidents.
    Q6 Procedures for employees                1         56                 91
    to report hazards.
    Q7 Employee access to the
    system capturing information
    on accidents and/or hazards.              19         38                N/A
    Q8 Employee involvement in
    safety committees/teams.                   3         54                 83
    Q9 Employee
    input/involvement in the
    safety- related training
    curriculum.                                8         49                N/A
    Q10 Employee participation
    in walkthroughs of worksites
    to identify hazardous
    conditions.                                7         50                N/A
    Q11 Employee involvement on
    accident investigation
    teams.                                    14         43                N/A
    IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS
    Q12 Procedures for                         2         55                 93
    conducting required OSHA
    inspections of worksites by
    safety personnel.
    Q13 Procedures for                         7         50                 80
    conducting informal
    walkthroughs of worksites to
    identify hazards.
    CORRECTION OF HAZARDS
    Q14 Procedures for                         4         53                N/A
    developing controls for
    workplace hazards.

    Appendix VI: Agencies' Responses to the Data Collection Instrument

                                                              Percent of selected
                                                              agencies responding
                                                              "Yes" that provided
                            Number of agencies Number of               sufficient
                                               agencies                supporting
    Survey question         responding "No"  responding "Yes"  documentation a
    Q15 Procedures for
    following up on                       4                53               87
    inspections to
    ensure hazards are
    corrected.
    Q16 Automated system to              23                34               59
    track workplace
    hazards.
    TRAINING
    Q17 Departmental OSH                  1                56              N/A
    training program.
    Q18 National training
    initiatives targeted by
    headquarters staff.                  12                45              N/A
    Q19 Automated system to              14                43               63
    track employee
    training.
    MEDICAL MANAGEMENT
    Q20 Procedures to
    ensure that an injured
    or ill
    employee is seen within
    a specified time frame
    by a
    medical provider.                     8                49              N/A
    Q21 Automated system                  9                48              N/A
    tracking accident data.
    Q22 Department
    restricted or light
    duty return-to-
    work program.                        12                45              76%
    Q23 Automated system
    tracking return-to-work
    status of employees.                 34                23              30%

    Source: GAO analysis.

    a

    Fourteen questions were selected for in-depth documentation review.

    Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    Robert A. Robertson (202) 512-9889

      GAO Contact

    Revae E. Moran (Assistant Director) and Margaret A. Holmes (Analyst in
    Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Jessica A. Lemke, Sheila

    R. McCoy, and Kris Trueblood made significant contributions to this
    report. Other key contributors to this report included Kyle Browning,
    Richard Burkard, Nina E. Horowitz, Tovah Rom, Beverly Ross, Jeremy D.
    Sebest, John G. Smale Jr., Rachael C. Valliere, and Eric A. Wenner.

    (130388)

      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.

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov) . Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
    Reports and 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
    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                                 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, Contact:

    Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

    Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
    512-7470

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

      Public Affairs

    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

        PRINTED ON

    RECYCLED PAPER
    *** End of document. ***