This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-379 
entitled 'Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal 
Agencies' Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its 
Oversight' which was released on April 21, 2006.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

United States Government Accountability Office:

GAO:

Report to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
Senate:

Workplace Safety And Health: 
OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies’ Safety Programs with a More 
Strategic Approach to Its Oversight:

April 2006:

GAO-06-379:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-06-379, a report to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, Committee on 
Appropriations, U.S. Senate 

Why GAO Did This Study:

Federal workers’ compensation costs exceeded $1.5 billion in 2004, with 
approximately 148,000 new claims filed that year. Because of concerns 
for the safety of federal workers, as well as the costs associated with 
unsafe workplaces, GAO described the characteristics of federal 
agencies’ safety programs and the implementation challenges they face, 
and assessed how well the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) oversees and assists federal agencies’ efforts to develop and 
administer their safety programs.

What GAO Found:

Based on a survey of 57 agencies, GAO found that most agencies reported 
having at least one activity for each of the six components generally 
associated with a sound safety program—(1) management commitment, 
(2) employee involvement, (3) education and training, (4) 
identification of hazards, (5) correction of hazards, and (6) medical 
management (which includes having a return-to-work program for injured 
employees). However, agencies faced implementation challenges that cut 
across the components in the areas of data management, accountability, 
and safety resources. The survey results indicated that many agencies 
do not have automated systems for tracking elements of their safety 
programs, such as training. In addition, several of the agencies did 
not demonstrate that their managers are held accountable for 
maintaining effective safety programs. Finally, many agency officials 
stated that, due to limited resources, they often must depend on safety 
officers with limited professional safety experience.

Forest Service Smokejumpers Fighting a Blaze at Selway-Bitterroot 
Wilderness, Idaho:

[See PDF For Image]

[End of Figure]

OSHA’s oversight of federal agencies’ safety programs is not as 
effective as it could be because the agency does not use its 
enforcement and compliance assistance resources in a strategic manner. 
Although inspections are one of OSHA’s primary enforcement tools, it 
does not conduct many inspections of federal worksites or have a 
national strategy for targeting worksites with high injury and illness 
rates for inspection. Furthermore, although OSHA is responsible for 
tracking violations that agencies dispute and reporting any unresolved 
disputes to the President, OSHA does not track these disputed 
violations or their resolution. In addition, although OSHA is required 
to review agencies’ safety programs annually and submit a report on 
them to the President each year, as of January 2006, the last report 
submitted was for fiscal year 2000. Finally, while OSHA has a range of 
compliance assistance programs designed to help agencies comply with 
its regulations and improve safety, these programs are not being fully 
utilized. 

What GAO Recommends:

The Secretary of Labor should direct OSHA to conduct targeted 
inspections of federal facilities; track disputed violations through 
OSHA to their resolution and ensure that unresolved disputes are 
reported to the President; conduct evaluations of the largest and most 
hazardous agencies as required; and include in OSHA’s annual report to 
the President an assessment of each agency’s safety program and 
recommendations for improvements.

GAO received written and/or technical comments from several agencies. 
Labor generally agreed with GAO’s findings and recommendations. In 
addition, other agencies generally agreed with the findings. 

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robert Robertson, (202) 512-9889 or 
robertsonr@gao.gov.

[End of Section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief: 

Background:

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

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

Conclusions:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor:

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Interior:

Appendix V: Data Collection Instrument Sent to the Federal Agencies:

Appendix VI: Agencies’ Responses to the Data Collection Instrument:

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

Tables:

Table 1: Six Components of a Sound Safety Program and Their
Supporting Activities:

Table 2: Top Five Types of Injuries Incurred by Federal Workers,
Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:

Table 3: Federal Agencies’ Strategic Partnerships with OSHA:

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

Figures:

Figure 1: Number of OSHA Inspections, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004:

Figure 2: OSHA’s 10 Regions:

Figure 3: Number of Workers’ Compensation Claims of Federal
Workers, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:

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

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

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

Figure 7: Average Number of Serious Violations at Federal
Worksites by Inspection Type, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:

Abbreviations:

OFAP: Office of Federal Agency Programs:

OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration:

OWCP: Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs:

OSH Act: Occupational Safety and Health Act:

VPP: Voluntary Protection Programs:

SHARE: Safety Health and Return to Employment:

April 21, 2006:

The Honorable Arlen Specter:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:

In the early to mid 1990s, five Yellowstone National Park employees 
were killed in on-the-job accidents ranging from a snowmobiling 
accident to a drowning. By the time the last death occurred, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)--the Department of 
Labor agency responsible for overseeing federal agencies' safety 
programs--decided to conduct a comprehensive inspection and identified 
over 500 violations at the park. OSHA also worked with park officials 
to improve safety. As a result, Yellowstone transformed its safety 
program and according to Yellowstone officials, OSHA has deemed it a 
success. However, this worksite represents only one of thousands of 
locations where federal employees work. During the past decade, the 
number of executive branch workers killed or injured in work-related 
accidents at federal worksites has fluctuated although, overall, the 
number has decreased.[Footnote 1] Over this period, over 800 workers 
died from work-related accidents, with 47 deaths occurring in 2004. Non-
fatal work-related injuries declined over the first half of this period 
and increased over the subsequent 5-year period, with approximately 
148,000 claims for injuries being filed in 2004. While the number of 
injuries fluctuated, the costs of the claims for these injuries--
adjusting for inflation--remained constant for most of the decade and 
rose slightly in 2004 to $1.5 billion. In view of these injuries and 
their affiliated costs, you asked us to answer the following questions: 
(1) What are the components of federal agencies' safety programs and 
what implementation challenges do they face? (2) How well does OSHA 
oversee and assist federal agencies' efforts to develop and administer 
their safety programs?

To respond to your request, we focused on the executive branch because 
OSHA has more oversight responsibilities with respect to these agencies 
than it does for judicial and legislative branch agencies.[Footnote 2] 
We obtained information using a data collection instrument from 57 
safety managers for agencies in the eight largest executive branch 
departments, which represent about 80 percent of the federal 
workforce.[Footnote 3] The instrument requested information and 
documentation on six components of sound safety programs we identified 
from previous GAO work: (1) management commitment, (2) employee 
involvement, (3) education and training, (4) identification of hazards, 
(5) following up and correcting hazards, and (6) medical 
management.[Footnote 4] We reviewed the information in the data 
collection instrument and documentation that the agencies provided, 
assessing whether the documentation supported the agency's responses 
and identifying the types of activities the agency conducted for each 
program component. In addition, we conducted more detailed follow-up 
interviews with safety officials from 12 of the 57 agencies surveyed. 
We also interviewed employee representatives from 8 agencies and 
visited 5 federal worksites, most of which were identified by OSHA as 
having strong safety programs. In addition, we obtained information on 
workers' compensation claims from the Department of Labor's Office of 
Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP). We also interviewed all 10 of 
OSHA's regional administrators and federal agency program officers and 
officials in 10 area offices including the area director, a compliance 
safety and health officer, and, in many cases, a compliance assistance 
specialist. In addition, we examined OSHA's inspection data from fiscal 
year 1995 to 2004 and reviewed, when available, the annual reports that 
the eight largest federal departments provided to OSHA from 2000 to 
2004. Finally, we reviewed the reports on federal safety programs that 
OSHA provided to the President during this timeframe. For a more 
detailed explanation of our methodology, see appendix I. We conducted 
our work between November 2004 and February 2006 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

Most agencies reported having at least one activity for each of the six 
safety program components. However, we identified common implementation 
challenges that cut across the components in the areas of data 
management, accountability, and safety resources. Of the 57 agencies 
surveyed, 54 reported that their safety programs contain at least one 
activity for each of the six safety program components. Agencies 
reported the fewest activities for the medical management component. 
For example, 12 agencies reported they do not have a program to offer 
injured employees light or restricted duty to help them return to work 
more quickly. Moreover, our analysis of the survey data and interviews 
with agency officials revealed a number of challenges agencies face in 
implementing their safety programs. The survey results indicated that 
many agencies do not have automated systems for tracking elements of 
their safety programs, such as training, and agency officials told us 
that some of their systems are difficult to use. In addition, many 
agencies did not demonstrate that their managers are held accountable 
for maintaining effective safety programs. For example, only 16 
agencies (28 percent) were able to provide copies of their performance 
appraisal review forms citing safety as a rating element--the remaining 
agencies provided only their policies or other written documentation. 
Agencies we interviewed also reported difficulties in managing 
resources for their safety programs because many do not have a line 
item for safety in their budgets or face production goals that compete 
with safety priorities. In addition, many agencies told us that, due to 
limited resources, they often must depend on safety officers with 
limited technical or professional safety experience.

OSHA's oversight of federal agencies' safety programs is not as 
effective as it could be because the agency does not use its 
enforcement and compliance assistance resources in a strategic manner. 
One of OSHA's primary enforcement tools is conducting inspections of 
federal worksites. However, the agency does not conduct many 
inspections of federal worksites or have a national strategy for 
targeting worksites with high injury and illness rates for inspection. 
Instead, OSHA conducts inspections of federal worksites mainly in 
response to complaints from employees. In addition, although OSHA is 
responsible for tracking violations that agencies dispute and reporting 
any unresolved disputes to the President, it does not track these 
disputed violations or their resolution, and OSHA regional officials 
said they can sometimes remain unresolved for years. Evaluations, 
another enforcement tool OSHA has available, entail reviewing agencies' 
safety policies and programs and assessing the overall effectiveness of 
their safety programs. However, while OSHA is required to annually 
evaluate a few federal agencies, it has not done any evaluations in the 
last 6 years. Moreover, although OSHA is required to review federal 
agencies' safety programs and submit a report on their programs to the 
President each year, the last report OSHA submitted was for fiscal year 
2000. Finally, although OSHA has a range of compliance assistance 
programs designed to help agencies comply with its regulations and 
improve safety, not all of these programs are being fully utilized. 
OSHA officials acknowledged these problems with their enforcement and 
compliance assistance strategies but noted that they have relatively 
few staff dedicated to federal agency oversight.

In order to improve OSHA's oversight of federal agencies' safety 
programs, we are recommending that the Secretary of Labor direct the 
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to (1) conduct 
targeted inspections of federal worksites; (2) track violations 
disputed by federal agencies and ensure that unresolved violations are 
reported to the President; (3) conduct evaluations of federal agencies 
as required; and (4) include in OSHA's annual report to the President 
an assessment of each agency's safety program and recommendations for 
improvements. In responding to a draft of this report, the Department 
of Labor generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. We 
also received written comments from the Departments of Homeland 
Security and Interior. These agencies generally agreed with our 
findings and conclusions. Copies of written comments from these 
agencies are provided in appendixes II, III, and IV. In addition, we 
received technical clarifications from the Departments of Defense, 
Justice, and Veterans Affairs, which we incorporated as appropriate.

Background:

Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act in 1970 to 
ensure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women, 
including federal employees.[Footnote 5] While OSHA was created to 
administer the OSH Act, the act also gave federal agencies primary 
responsibility for providing federal employees with working conditions 
and workplaces that are free from safety and health hazards.[Footnote 
6] The act authorizes OSHA to set mandatory occupational safety and 
health standards, rules, and regulations and to enforce their 
compliance. In turn, each federal agency is required to establish and 
maintain a comprehensive and effective occupational safety and health 
program that is consistent with OSHA's standards.[Footnote 7]

OSHA's Role:

OSHA's Office of Federal Agency Programs within its Directorate of 
Enforcement Programs has primary responsibility for overseeing federal 
agencies' safety programs. OSHA's regulations and an Executive Order 
establish its responsibilities for monitoring federal agencies' 
programs.[Footnote 8]

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

Enforcement:

OSHA is authorized to conduct inspections of federal agency worksites 
but, as figure 1 illustrates, inspections of federal worksites 
represent a very small percentage of OSHA's overall 
inspections.[Footnote 9]

Figure 1: Number of OSHA Inspections, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004:

[See PDF for Image]

[End of Figure]

Between fiscal years 2000 and 2004, less than 1 percent of OSHA's 
inspections were of federal worksites in executive branch agencies; the 
remaining 99.5 percent were primarily of private-sector 
worksites.[Footnote 10] Federal executive branch workers represented 
about 1.4 percent of the overall U.S. workforce between 2002 and 2004.

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

Figure 2: OSHA's 10 Regions:

[See PDF for Image]

[End of Figure]

OSHA categorizes inspections as those that are "programmed" and those 
that are "unprogrammed." Programmed inspections are those that OSHA 
plans to conduct because it has targeted certain worksites for 
inspection due to their potential hazards. Unprogrammed inspections are 
not planned; they are prompted by actions such as complaints, 
accidents, and referrals. OSHA has established a system of inspection 
priorities that relate to these categories, with unprogrammed 
inspections being a higher priority than programmed inspections. Top 
priority goes to imminent danger situations in which death or serious 
physical harm could occur. The next priority for OSHA inspectors is 
catastrophes and fatal accidents, followed by complaints and referrals. 
Programmed inspections are OSHA's fourth priority. OSHA's last priority 
is to perform follow-up inspections, which are conducted to ensure that 
hazards identified during previous inspections have been corrected. 
From fiscal years 2000 through 2004, only 40 percent of OSHA's 
inspections of federal worksites were programmed. During the same 
period, 54 percent of its inspections of non-federal worksites were 
programmed.

OSHA is required to conduct comprehensive annual evaluations of the 
larger or more hazardous federal agencies.[Footnote 11] Results of 
these evaluations are summarized by OSHA in reports that include 
information from the review of an agency's safety policies and reports, 
as well as inspections of the agency's facilities and interviews with 
agency personnel.

In addition, OSHA is required to submit to the President an annual 
report on the status of federal employees' occupational safety and 
health.[Footnote 12] OSHA uses reports submitted annually by federal 
agencies to OSHA on their safety programs--along with the results of 
any evaluations it has conducted of federal agencies' safety programs-
-to prepare its annual report to the President. The report should also 
contain recommendations for improving agencies' performance.

Compliance Assistance:

OSHA's compliance assistance strategy consists of several programs 
available to federal agencies, although some programs have only 
recently been offered to federal employers. OSHA also provides 
technical support to federal agencies, such as conducting studies of 
accidents and the causes of injuries and illnesses, and providing 
training of agencies' safety and health personnel. Two of OSHA's 
compliance assistance programs--Field Federal Safety and Health 
Councils and Agency Technical Assistance Requests--specifically target 
federal agencies, while others are generally available to both private- 
and public-sector employers. Compliance assistance programs for private 
and public sector employers include the Voluntary Protection Programs 
(VPP), alliances, and strategic partnerships.[Footnote 13] Approval as 
a VPP site is OSHA's official recognition of worksites that have 
implemented exemplary safety and health programs.[Footnote 14] The VPP 
was started in 1982 for private sector companies but was expanded to 
include federal agencies in 1997. The alliance program was started in 
2002 and includes organizations that have agreements with OSHA to focus 
on training, outreach, and promoting awareness of safety and health 
issues. The strategic partnership program was started in 1998 and 
consists of agreements between OSHA and employers to address specific 
safety and health problems.

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

Role of the Federal Agencies:

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

* top management support, participation, and accountability;

* safety and health policies, procedures and standards; 

* goals and objectives;

* worker involvement; 

* safety and health training of managers and workers;

* collection of occupational injury and illness data;

* self-inspection of workplaces and self-evaluation of the programs;

* abatement of unsafe and unhealthful working conditions; and:

* adequate budgets, staff, and equipment and materials.

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

Agencies must also report annually to OSHA on their programs. In 
November 2004, OSHA issued a final rule amending the injury 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to federal 
agencies.[Footnote 15] Prior to this time, federal agencies were 
required to collect only injury information related to workers' 
compensation claims. OSHA revised the recordkeeping requirements in 
order to improve the quality of the federal recordkeeping system and to 
increase the utility of the data.[Footnote 16] Beginning in January 
2005, federal agencies were required to record injuries in the same 
manner as private-sector employers and to apply new criteria to 
determine whether an injury must be recorded. Specifically, a work- 
related injury must be reported if, for example, it results in death, 1 
or more days away from work, restricted work, loss of consciousness, or 
a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician.[Footnote 17] 
The regulations do not require that this data be reported to OSHA. 
However, the regulations state that agency heads must submit an annual 
report to OSHA, containing such information as OSHA requests.[Footnote 
18] At a minimum, these reports are to describe the agency's safety 
program and include, among other things, the agency's required self- 
evaluation findings. OSHA uses these reports, along with any 
evaluations it has conducted to prepare its annual report to the 
President.

Six Components of a Sound Safety Program:

Safety experts and federal safety agencies agree that, to build an 
effective safety program, organizations must take a strategic approach 
to managing workplace safety and health. This objective is generally 
accomplished by establishing programs built upon a set of commonly 
recognized components of sound safety programs, which, together, help 
an organization lay out what it is trying to achieve, assess progress, 
and ensure that safety policies and procedures are appropriate and 
effective. Drawing from our prior work, a review of the literature, and 
OSHA's requirements, we identified six components often found in sound 
safety programs: (1) management commitment, (2) employee involvement, 
(3) education and training, (4) identification of hazards, (5) 
following up and correcting hazards, and (6) medical 
management.[Footnote 19] Table 1 lists these components, along with a 
description of their supporting activities.

Table 1: Six Components of a Sound Safety Program and Their Supporting 
Activities:

Component[A]: Management commitment;
Supporting activities: 
* Establish goals for the program;
* Develop activities to communicate the importance of the safety 
program to staff, including management, employees, and contractors;
* Use management and information systems that allows for trend 
analysis, risk analysis, etc;
* Establish program responsibilities of managers and employees for 
safety and health in the workplace and hold them accountable for 
carrying out those responsibilities.

Component[A]: Employee involvement;
Supporting activities: 
* Establish procedures for employees to report job- related fatalities, 
injuries, illnesses, incidents, and damage to property or equipment;
* Establish procedures for employees to report hazards;
* Provide employee access to the system that captures information on 
accidents and hazards;
* Ensure employee involvement in safety committees that report on 
hazards;
* Allow employees to provide input on safety-related training curricula;
* Ensure employee participate in walkthroughs of worksites to identify 
hazardous conditions on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis;
* Allow employee involvement on accident investigation teams.

Component[A]: Education and training;
Supporting activities: 
* Provide general awareness training to all employees so that they can 
recognize hazards and risks;
learn procedures for reporting job-related fatalities, injuries, 
illnesses, incidents, and hazards;
and become familiar with the program (national level training);
* Provide targeted training to specified groups of employees because of 
the jobs they hold, the hazards they face, or their role in the program 
(agency level training);
* Maintain an automated system to track training completed by employees.

Component[A]: Identification of hazards;
Supporting activities: 
* Establish procedures for conducting required OSHA inspections;
* Establish procedures for conducting informal walkthroughs of 
worksites to identify hazardous conditions.

Component[A]: Following up and correcting hazards;
Supporting activities: 
* Establish procedures for developing controls for workplace hazards;
* Establish procedures for following up on inspections to ensure 
hazards are corrected and controls are effective;
* Maintain an automated system that tracks workplace hazards.

Component[A]: Medical management[B];
Supporting activities: 
* Establish procedures to ensure that an injured or ill employee is 
seen within a specified time frame by a medical provider;
* Maintain an automated system that tracks accident data-- including 
the type, nature, and source of injury;
* Implement a restricted or light duty return-to-work program;
* Maintain an automated system that tracks the return-to-work status of 
employees.

Source: GAO and OSHA.

[A] Different terminology is often used to describe these components. 
For example, "identification of problem jobs" is sometimes referred to 
as "hazard identification and assessment" and "analysis and development 
of controls for problem jobs" is sometimes referred to as "hazard 
prevention and control." The terms used here are identical to those 
identified by GAO in prior work.

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

[End of table]

Federal Workplace Trends:

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

Federal employees encompass a wide range of professions, ranging from 
low-risk occupations such as office workers to highly hazardous 
occupations such as law enforcement positions. For example, at the U.S. 
Marshall Service, duties of criminal investigators include seizing 
assets and apprehending fugitives. In addition, U.S. Forest Service 
employees are involved in a variety of potentially hazardous activities 
such as developing laboratory products, managing recreational lands, 
and fighting wildland fires, while inspectors with the Food Safety 
Inspection Service face daily hazards such as exposure to the chemicals 
used to kill pathogens in meat. Finally, employees at manufacturing 
operations such as at the U.S. Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and 
Printing use industrial production equipment such as forklifts and 
presses.

Injury and Illness Trends in the Federal Government:

The impact of demographic changes in the makeup of the federal 
workforce on the number of injuries they sustain is unclear. The number 
of active workers' compensation claims for work-related injuries 
declined from approximately 154,000 claims in fiscal year 1995 to about 
137,000 claims in fiscal year 1999.[Footnote 20] However, these claims 
increased from approximately 138,000 claims in fiscal year 2000 to 
about 148,000 claims in 2004, as shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Number of Workers' Compensation Claims of Federal Workers, 
Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:

[See PDF for Image]

[End of Figure]

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

Table 2: Top Five Types of Injuries Incurred by Federal Workers, Fiscal 
Years 1995 to 2004:

Traumatic injuries: 1. Sprain/strain--not back; 
Non-traumatic injuries: 1. Hearing loss.

Traumatic injuries: 2. Traumatic injury--unclassified; 
Non-traumatic injuries: 2. Carpal tunnel syndrome.

Traumatic injuries: 3. Back sprain or strain; 
Non-traumatic injuries: 3. Musculoskeletal condition, other.

Traumatic injuries: 4. Contusion; 
Non-traumatic injuries: 4. Conditions of tendons, etc.

Traumatic injuries: 5. Laceration;
Non-traumatic injuries: 5. Back sprain or strain.

Source: GAO analysis of OWCP data.

[End of table]

While the size of the workforce declined, workers' compensation costs 
for federal employees remained fairly constant during the most recent 
10-year period, from about $1.54 billion in fiscal year 1995 to about 
$1.52 billion in 2004.[Footnote 21] In addition, the cost per claim 
filed during this period increased. For example, while the number of 
new claims declined by about 1,800 during this period, the average cost 
per claim increased by 3 percent from fiscal year 1995 to 2004 with the 
average payment per claim rising from $9,958 in fiscal year 1995 to 
$10,242 in 2004. As shown in figure 4, the largest amount of workers' 
compensation costs for federal workers paid from fiscal years 1995 to 
2004 was for claims that were over 5 years old.

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

[See PDF for Image]

[End of Figure]

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

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

[See PDF for Image]

[End of Figure]

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

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

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

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

Almost all of the agencies we surveyed reported that they conduct 
activities for two other components--employee involvement and training. 
Most agencies reported having policies governing employees' 
participation in safety committees and reporting injuries and hazards. 
While 56 (98 percent) of agencies provided procedures for employees to 
report hazards, half of these procedures did not specify the right of 
employees to report hazards anonymously, as required by an executive 
order.[Footnote 22] Consistent with OSHA regulations, 56 of the 57 
agencies reported that they offer some type of safety training for 
their employees.[Footnote 23]

While many agencies identified a number of methods for identifying 
hazards, fewer had comprehensive procedures for tracking whether 
hazards are corrected--two additional components of safety programs. 
Fifty-five (96 percent) of the agencies reported that they conduct OSHA-
required inspections, which must be performed at least once a year, in 
order to identify worksite hazards. However, although an executive 
order requires employee representatives to participate in these 
inspections, seven agencies (12 percent) reported not having any 
procedures for informing employees of their role during safety 
inspections.[Footnote 24] Furthermore, while most agencies reported 
having some procedures for following up on inspections and ensuring 
that hazards are corrected, we found that the procedures are not always 
adequate because a third of these agencies did not specify a reasonable 
timeframe for correction, as required by OSHA.[Footnote 25]

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

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

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

Data Management:

The use of automated systems presented challenges for many agencies. 
Some agencies did not use such systems, while others cited difficulties 
in identifying systems that would allow them to collect data relevant 
to their safety programs. For example, 22 agencies (39 percent) 
reported that they do not have automated systems to collect information 
on hazards that have been identified and track whether they have been 
corrected in a timely manner. In addition, 14 of the agencies reporting 
that they have such a system (41 percent) either indicated that their 
hazard tracking systems were not currently operational, or they did not 
provide sufficient documentation to support the existence of such 
systems. Approximately a quarter of the agencies surveyed reported that 
they did not have automated systems for tracking safety training 
completed by their employees. Furthermore, 34 agencies (60 percent) 
reported they did not have an automated system for tracking the status 
of employees in light or restricted duty return-to-work programs, and 
another 16 agencies did not provide sufficient documentation of their 
systems. While federal agencies are not required to use automated data 
systems, without such a system, safety officials would have difficulty 
tracking broader trends such as participation rates in light or 
restricted duty programs and the effect of program participation on 
worker's compensation costs.

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

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

Accountability:

Another challenge agencies face is holding managers accountable for 
implementing effective safety programs. While 51 agencies (89 percent) 
reported having policies that establish responsibility for workers' 
safety and health for all employees, 6 reported that they do not have 
such policies, despite an OSHA regulation requiring them to establish 
these policies for all management officials.[Footnote 26] Of the 51 
agencies reporting having such policies, 11 agencies did not provide 
sufficient documentation of the policies. For example, one agency 
provided an Employee Performance Plan, but there were no performance 
expectations related to safety anywhere in the plan.[Footnote 27] 
Furthermore, although we asked the agencies to provide copies of their 
performance appraisal review forms citing safety as a rating element, 
only 16 agencies (28 percent) were able to do so.

Agency officials and employee representatives at 7 of the 12 agencies 
selected for follow-up interviews cited further difficulties in 
maintaining accountability throughout all levels of their 
organizations. For example, a Veterans Health Administration employee 
representative reported that, while there is a high level of commitment 
to safety at the headquarters level, the message is diluted as it 
reaches lower levels of the agency. In another example, the Defense 
Commissary Agency implemented a program that requires regional safety 
managers to evaluate stores' safety programs. Agency officials said its 
regional officials are expected to follow up to ensure that stores make 
timely corrections, but there is no formal system for holding regional 
officials or store managers accountable. As a result, the agency has 
little assurance that the safety of store employees is adequately 
protected. In addition, according to an employee representative from 
the Commissary, it is not always clear who is responsible for ensuring 
that hazards are corrected since the agency's policy requires that 
employees report safety complaints to the national commissary safety 
office rather than directly to the military base safety officials. 
Because the national office often does not communicate these complaints 
to the base safety office, reported hazards may not be corrected.

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

Safety Resources:

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

In addition, a potential consequence of operating with limited 
resources is the use of collateral duty safety officers--employees 
whose primary responsibilities do not involve safety. Nearly all of the 
agency officials we interviewed reported relying on these positions, 
which are typically filled by employees who volunteer or are assigned 
by the agency. While some agency officials reported their collateral 
duty officers were appropriately trained, as required by OSHA, others 
reported that these officers have limited knowledge or experience in 
safety.[Footnote 29] Some agency officials we interviewed said that 
this lack of experience, as well as the limited amount of time 
collateral duty officers are allotted for safety duties, has made it 
difficult for these officers to learn all of the safety program 
requirements. For example, according to a National Park Service 
official, collateral duty officers at this agency typically spend about 
10 percent of their time on their safety responsibilities, and this may 
inhibit their ability to respond effectively when safety concerns 
arise. Moreover, one Forest Service official told us that collateral 
duty officers questioned the feasibility of building safety programs 
with collateral duty officers, and was concerned that the safety duties 
might detract from their primary job responsibilities.

Finally, 11 of the 12 agencies selected for follow-up interviews 
reported that competing priorities make it difficult to manage their 
safety programs. For example, a Food Safety Inspection Service official 
noted that completing safety forms and fulfilling data requests can be 
a burden to the agency's overall mission of meat and poultry 
inspections. Similarly, an employee representative at the Forest 
Service told us that, because safety achievements are not typically 
recognized or rewarded--even though such recognition is encouraged by 
OSHA regulations--supervisors focus on meeting production targets 
rather than working safely.[Footnote 30]

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

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

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

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

Unlike its enforcement strategy for private sector employers, OSHA's 
oversight of federal worksites does not include a national program that 
targets federal worksites with high injury and illness rates for 
inspection. According to its internal guidance, OSHA is supposed to 
develop a list that targets federal worksites for inspection. However, 
OSHA's Office of Federal Agency Programs has not developed such a list 
in over 5 years. In the past, OSHA used workers' compensation claims 
data collected by OWCP to identify federal worksites with high numbers 
of injuries and illnesses. Because of limitations in the data, however, 
it was difficult to identify where each injury occurred and, therefore, 
use it to target federal worksites for inspection.[Footnote 31] OSHA 
officials at the national office reported that they are working to 
start a new targeting effort but are still facing the same difficulties 
in using workers' compensation data to select federal worksites for 
inspection.

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

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

[See PDF for Image]

[End of Figure]

OSHA's inspection data of federal worksites show that complaint 
inspections generally result in few violations compared to targeted 
inspections, which generally identify a greater number of serious 
violations (see fig. 7).[Footnote 33] For example, over the last 10 
years, unprogrammed inspections, which are generally initiated by 
complaints, uncovered an average of one serious violation per 
inspection, in contrast to an average of four serious violations for 
programmed (targeted) inspections. The small average number of 
violations for unprogrammed inspections is driven by the fact that over 
half of these inspections result in no violations being identified.

Figure 7: Average Number of Serious Violations at Federal Worksites by 
Inspection Type, Fiscal Years 1995 to 2004:

[See PDF for Image]

[End of Figure]

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

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

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

OSHA Lacks a System for Tracking Disputed Violations:

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

While OSHA's internal instructions require that area office and 
regional officials be consulted in decisions made by national office 
officials and an Executive Order requires OSHA to submit unresolved 
violation disputes to the President, neither of these things appears to 
be occurring.[Footnote 34] Although national office officials reported 
that there have not been any unresolved disputed violations, and they 
have not had to report any unresolved violations to the President in 
over 3 years, area office and regional staff told us some unresolved 
disputed violations from federal agencies have lingered for years. For 
example, a regional OSHA official reported that, in another region, a 
federal agency was cited for violating a safety standard that did not 
apply to that particular agency.[Footnote 35] The agency challenged the 
violation, and the dispute reached the national office, where no 
decision was made--leaving the violation unresolved for 7 years. 
Another OSHA official reported a case in which the Bureau of Prisons 
refused to have guards wear special gloves as required while conducting 
cell searches because the guards thought the gloves would not provide 
them with enough sensitivity to feel for objects hidden by prisoners. 
According to this official, it was important for the guards to wear 
gloves during these searches because of the danger of receiving needle 
sticks or cuts from sharp objects. The case reached OSHA's national 
office, but it chose not to act on the case--leaving the guards at risk 
and the violation unresolved.

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

OSHA Has Not Conducted Evaluations in More Than 6 Years:

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

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

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

As of February 2006, OSHA had not submitted its annual report to the 
President that summarized and assessed the status of federal agencies' 
safety programs since 2000 or provided recommendations of ways for 
federal agencies to improve their safety programs, as 
required.[Footnote 36] OSHA is working to reduce the backlog for these 
reports, according to the officials we interviewed. In addition, OSHA 
officials told us that they could not assess the effectiveness of these 
programs or make recommendations because they do not collect original 
data on agencies' safety programs but, instead, rely on the reports 
agencies provide to them on an annual basis. According to these 
officials, they cannot assess or evaluate agencies' programs without 
collecting independent information on their programs. However, we 
believe that OSHA could use the information provided by the agencies in 
their annual reports to assess agencies' safety programs, including 
whether they are meeting OSHA's requirements. For example, OSHA could 
use the agencies' reports to determine what types of safety and health 
training they are providing to their managers and workers, the number 
and types of self-inspections they are conducting of their workplaces, 
and the measures used to correct unsafe and unhealthful working 
conditions identified during these inspections. In addition, OSHA could 
use these reports to make recommendations for improvement.

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

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

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

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

Regions have anywhere from 2 to 13 active Field Federal Safety and 
Health Councils, depending on the effort regional OSHA officials have 
made to develop and maintain them. These councils, established by OSHA 
to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information about occupational 
safety throughout the federal government, consist of management and 
employee representatives from local federal agencies.[Footnote 37] OSHA 
officials reported that the councils are intended to provide a 
networking and training forum for safety officials from different 
agencies in a given area, but all agreed that maintaining the councils 
has been a struggle.

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

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

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

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

Agencies Have Begun Joining OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program (VPP):

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

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

OSHA Has Developed Few Strategic Partnerships and Alliances with 
Federal Agencies:

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

Table 3: Federal Agencies' Strategic Partnerships with OSHA:

National:
Current: 1;
Federal Agency: Army;
Completed: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty].

Region: 1;
Current: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty].
Completed: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty].


Region: 2;
Current: 1;
Federal Agency: National Park Service San Juan;
Completed: 1;
Federal Agency: National Park Service Fire Island National Seashore.

Region: 3;
Current: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty];
Completed: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty].

Region: 4;
Current: 1;
Federal Agency: National Park Service Mammoth Cave;
Completed: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty].

Region: 5;
Current: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty];
Completed: 2;
Federal Agency: National Park Service--Isle Royale & Sleeping Bear 
Dunes.

Region: 6;
Current: 1;
Federal Agency: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Three Rivers;
Completed: 2;
Federal Agency: National Park Service Padre Island;
Federal Interagency Training Council.

Region: 7;
Current: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty];
Completed: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty].

Region: 8;
Current: 3;
Federal Agency: National Park Service--Grand Teton, Yellowstone, & 
Glacier;
Completed: 1;
Federal Agency: Veterans Health Administration Cheyenne.

Region: 9;
Current: 0;
Federal Agency: [Empty];
Completed: 2;
Federal Agency: National Park Service--Yosemite & Golden Gate.

Region: 10;
Current: 1;
Federal Agency: Bureau of Land Management-Fremont National Forest;
Completed: 2;
Federal Agency: Defense Commissary Agency, Ft. Lewis;
Forest Service.

Subtotal-regional partnerships: 
Current: 7;
Federal Agency: [Empty]; 
Completed: 10;
Federal Agency: [Empty].


Total: 8;
Federal Agency: [Empty];  
Completed: 10;
Federal Agency: [Empty]; 

Source: OSHA.

[End of table]

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

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

Impact of the SHARE Presidential Initiative Is Unclear:

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

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

Recommendations for Executive Action:

The Secretary of Labor should direct OSHA to:

* develop a targeted inspection program for federal worksites based on 
the new injury and illness data federal agencies are required to 
collect by requiring that relevant portions or summaries of that data 
be included in agencies' annual reports to OSHA or by obtaining the 
data from agencies or worksites through periodic, selected surveys;

* track violations disputed by federal agencies to their resolution and 
ensure that unresolved disputes are reported to the President;

* conduct evaluations of the largest and most hazardous federal 
agencies as required; and:

* use evaluations, inspection data, and annual reports submitted by 
federal agencies to assess the effectiveness of their safety programs, 
and include, in OSHA's annual report to the President, an assessment of 
each agency's safety program and recommendations for improvement.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed By: 

Robert E. Robertson:

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:

[End of Section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[End of Section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor:

U.S. Department of Labor:

MARCH 17 2006:

Mr. Robert E. Robertson:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Robertson:

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft report entitled, 
"Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies' 
Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight," (GAO- 
06-379). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
aware of the need for the Agency to continue the activities recommended 
in the report. Indeed, plans for initiating new approaches for these 
four activities were in various stages of development prior to the 
start of the GAO evaluation. There are, however, a few items in the 
body of the report that require some modification.

On Page 9 of the Draft report, the first full paragraph describes the 
four goals of the SHARE initiative. The last sentence attributes "the 
last two goals," reduction of the lost-time rate and reduction of the 
lost production day rate, as being those that involve OSHA working with 
the agencies. This is only partially correct. The goals here are listed 
in an unusual sequence, which may have contributed to the confusion.

In the traditional SHARE format, OSHA is charged with oversight of 
SHARE Goals 1 and 2, the Total Case Rate and Lost Time Case Rate goals. 
Meanwhile the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) monitors 
what are traditionally referred to as Goals 3 and 4, the Timeliness of 
Reporting Injuries and Illnesses, and Reduction in Lost Production 
Days. In your draft paragraph, the goals are stated in a different 
order. To correctly attribute responsibility, OSHA would be working on 
the second and third, rather than the last two goals identified in your 
draft narrative. We would encourage GAO to maintain the usual ordering 
of the SHARE Goals and associate OSHA's oversight with those for the 
reduction in case rates. This will help avoid confusion.

Tracking Disputed Violations. Page 28 of the Draft Report discusses 
tracking of disputed violations. There may be some confusion on the 
part of GAO between the tracking of violations and the tracking of 
resolution processes for citations and notices.

All violations issued by OSHA, regardless of whether they are notices 
or citations (federal or private industry), are tracked on the IMIS 
system. The status of each violation is updated as it proceeds through 
the resolution, abatement and penalty payment processes. Those 
violations that are in dispute are so noted on that system. Cases 
remain "open" until all issues are resolved. Managers in the field 
typically run this "open inspections" report on a weekly basis for use 
as a management tool.

Private sector citations that are not resolved at the area office level 
are "contested" and litigated before the Occupational Safety and Health 
Review Commission and the Federal courts. This litigation is handled by 
the Office of the Solicitor of Labor, and is tracked by that office. 
Contested cases remain open in OSHA's IMIS System, and are denoted as 
"under contest."

Federal agency notices of violations cannot be "contested." Rather, 
disputed cases, if not resolved at the Area Office level, are appealed 
initially to the Regional Office. If not resolved there, they are 
referred to OSHA's National Office - Office of Federal Agency Programs 
(OFAP) for review. IMIS indicates that these cases are under review. 
However, as you indicate, OFAP does not have a formal tracking system 
in place for cases it receives for resolution.

You have indicated that there is a belief by field personnel that there 
are a significant number of "open cases" thought to be under review by 
OFAP. In response, we have generated an IMIS report to verify the data. 
A first data run for open federal agency inspections initiated between 
10/01/00 and 01/01/05 identified 19 inspections. Of these, three have 
violations for which abatement is not yet due as a result of Petitions 
for Modification of Abatement. Five have not been identified as being 
contested and all violations are abated; these should probably have 
been "closed" when abatements were complete. The status of the 
remaining 11 cases at 10 locations could not be determined from the 
report, and the three Regions involved will be asked to review their 
files and work with OFAP to finalize unresolved issues.

The IMIS system will be updated by the field as these issues are 
resolved. To avoid similar misunderstandings in the future, we are 
developing a formal tracking system for cases submitted to OFAP for 
resolution.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION:

Develop a Targeted Inspection Program:

Response: OSHA's OFAP has been working to develop an inspection 
targeting program, and expects to have a program in place by FY 2007. 
The most effective data to use for such a program would be based on 
rates of injury and illness at specific worksites. OFAP continues to 
work with OWCP and others to devise a methodology to combine site- 
specific injury data with federal agency employment numbers from OWCP.

The agency annual report is a tool which can be used to request various 
types of data. However, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement 
for agencies to maintain OSHA 300 data except for at the individual 
worksite. Federal departments are comprised of numerous agencies or 
offices, often with tens of thousands of individual "establishments" as 
defined in the 1904 recordkeeping requirements. Requesting such a 
volume of data would impose resource issues on the Departments, and 
would fail to provide OFAP with a useable database for generating 
accurate site selection for a nation-wide inspection program.

The concept of using periodic, selected surveys is noteworthy, and we 
will look into the use of such surveys. Over time these surveys could 
potentially provide a better understanding of the distribution of 
federal employees and a clearer identification of worksites, as well as 
injury and illness rate data. Until such a process is fully developed, 
OFAP will continue to utilize the OWCP data that is presently available.

Track Disputed Violations:

Response: As discussed above, disputed violations are tracked in the 
IMIS system. Weekly reports are provided for the area offices which 
identify the status of each violation. Efforts are under way in OFAP to 
resolve violations identified as "open" on the IMIS, and any new cases 
brought forward to OFAP for resolution will be included in the 
electronic tracking system for the office. OFAP will create an internal 
data base to track these citations in dispute between OSHA and another 
federal agency.

Conduct Annual Federal Agency Evaluations:

Response: The evaluations that are recommended by GAO were last 
completed with the Veterans Administration and will continue for other 
federal agencies as soon as possible. Efforts are underway to increase 
the staffing level of the OFAP.

Use of Evaluations, Inspection Data, and Annual Reports:

Response: Concurrent with the recent hiring of an additional Safety 
Specialist in OFAP, a process was implemented whereby each agency 
annual report receives a review and analysis. Information from 
inspection and evaluation activity will be incorporated into this 
process as these efforts begin to provide significant information.

The composite information will be used to assist the agencies in 
identifying areas for improvement, and to better advise the President 
on the true status of safety and health in the Federal workplace.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments in advance of the 
publication of the final report.

Signed By:

Jonathan L. Snare:
Acting Assistant Secretary:

GAO Comments:

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

1. We reordered the SHARE goals as OSHA requested and identified
those goals for which OSHA is responsible.

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

[End of Section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528:

Homeland Security:

March 16, 2006:

Mr. Robert E. Robertson: 
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Robertson:

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report entitled "Workforce Safety 
and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies' Safety Programs with a 
More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight, " GAO-06-379. We also 
appreciate the opportunity to participate in the study underlying the 
report. Components of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
certainly share with other agencies the challenges confronting 
implementation of safety programs.

Three of the report's four recommendations for the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (OSHA) focus on inspections, evaluations and 
assessments of agency programs. In particular, it recommends targeted 
inspection programs for federal worksites based on 29 C.F.R. 1904 
injury and illness data and suggests that inspections may focus more 
attention on safety at worksites. That could be true, but we believe 
there are other actions that might have a more direct impact on 
reducing the challenges the report identifies.

Vigorous enforcement inspections by OSHA would probably discover a 
number of violations of technical OSHA standards in virtually any 
agency. However, in the federal workforce comprised 89% of professional 
and administrative workers, DHS believes most of the top ten injuries 
identified in the report are usually not the consequence of a violation 
of OSHA standards. DHS injuries are typically related to ergonomic 
factors, slips and falls, law enforcement operations, and activities 
that take place outside of a controlled workplace. Therefore, more 
frequent inspections are not likely to appreciably lower the incidence 
of injuries. On the other hand, other forms of assistance mentioned in 
the report, such as compliance visits, alliances, and partnerships, may 
become less popular with federal agencies if OSHA adopts a more 
aggressive enforcement posture. Increasing the incidence of inspections 
may actually have the unintended consequence of reducing the number or 
benefit of voluntary requests for assistance.

The Safety, Health and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) program has proven 
valuable in establishing common metrics across agencies. SHARE improves 
the visibility for easily understood program performance indicators and 
provides targets for program performance. Published SHARE injury rates 
are based on Office of Workers' Compensation Program (OWCP) workers' 
compensation data, and some agencies have found problems with the 
accuracy of these data that can be attributed to both the originating 
agency and to OWCP. Although the report says some officials felt that a 
program like SHARE encourages underreporting, DHS's experience suggests 
SHARE injury data is probably more likely to be over reported than 
underreported. Finally, while SHARE provides goals for reducing 
injuries, illness and lost time, it provides no resources for attaining 
those goals.

The report notes that OSHA is considering use of data collected in 
accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1904 rather than OWCP data for SHARE and for 
evaluating agencies. DHS believes that switch could prove problematic 
because 1904 does not require data to be collected beyond the facility 
at which the injuries occur. As some agencies have hundreds or 
thousands of facilities, rolling this data up to the headquarters level 
would be a significant effort, especially in view of the challenges 
cited by the report that many agencies face in automating their safety 
information systems. Also, without the financial incentive to report 
injuries and their medical consequences for the purpose of compensating 
employees, underreporting, beginning with the injured employee, would 
be far more likely than it is now.

DHS believes that OSHA can assist agency safety programs most 
effectively by providing helpful tools and systems rather than by 
increasing inspections. For example, a common government-wide automated 
safety information system could address at least three of the four 
agency implementation challenges cited in the report as well as the 
widely reported lack of a medical management program component. Such a 
system could provide a single consolidated means of reporting all 
injuries and occupational illnesses for both OSHA and OWCP purposes, 
eliminating some duplication of effort that now exists. Such a system 
could 1) electronically deliver the data to the Department of Labor 
(DOL); 2) discriminate between injuries that are recordable for OSHA 
and reportable for OWCP; 3) archive injury data for appropriate use by 
all levels of management to manage safety programs and allocate 
resources; 4) provide other tools for facility, agency and DOL program 
management; 5) provide both data and tools needed for a medical 
management program component to help agencies and supervisors return 
injured workers to duty; 6) assist agencies in tracking elements of 
their safety programs such as training and medical monitoring; and 7) 
help agencies enhance manager and supervisor accountability by 
providing easily obtainable metrics and statistical tools for analyzing 
the performance of any organizational unit.

With reliable information on the types and numbers of injuries, their 
physical and organizational locations, and trends, agencies could more 
effectively manage their limited safety program resources. Concurrent 
collection of OWCP and OSHA injury data will help ensure high quality 
data for both purposes by linking accurate and timely reporting to 
employee compensation and payment of medical expenses.

The Department of Labor presently makes the Safety and Health 
Information Management System (SHIMS) available to agencies for a fee. 
SHIMS provides a means to electronically transmit workers' compensation 
reports from agencies to OWCP. SHIMS could provide part of the 
foundation of a system into which 29 C.F.R 1904 reporting utilities, 
data analysis tools, medical management capabilities, and other useful 
automation tools could be integrated. Currently, however, it is up to 
each agency or department to develop its own interfaces with SHIMS and 
to develop any additional capabilities it can afford. DHS believes 
considerable economies of scale and cross-agency consistencies might be 
found in development of a single, government-wide system. Such a system 
could measurably improve data accuracy, program management, and 
efficiency.

Various options exist for adopting or developing a government-wide 
safety information system. They include system development by DOL with 
significant input from other departments, adoption and modification of 
a system being used by or under development by another agency, or 
having another agency develop a system using resources and guidance 
from DOL and other agencies. Other options may also exist. Advice and 
collaboration of the ultimate users of the system would be essential to 
its success. A project of this magnitude would not a trivial 
undertaking, but a comprehensive, government-wide safety information 
system should be well worth the effort.

We thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on this 
draft report and look forward to working with you on future homeland 
security issues.

Sincerely,

Signed By:

Steven J. Pecinovsky: 
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:

[End of Section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:

United States Department of the Interior:

Office Of The Assistant Secretary:
Policy, Management And Budget Take Pride:
Washington, DC 20240: 

MARCH 13 2006:

Mr. Robert E. Robertson:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Robertson:

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior (DOI) the 
opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Report entitled 
"Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies' 
Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight" (GAO- 
06-379).

The enclosure provides specific comments from the Bureau of Reclamation 
and the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs.

We hope that our comments will assist you in preparing the final 
report. If you have any questions, please call Deborah Williams, the 
DOI/GAO Liaison, at (202) 208-6405, in the Office of Financial 
Management.

Sincerely,

Signed By:

R. Thomas Weimer: 
Assistant Secretary:

Enclosure:

U.S. Government Accountability Office Draft Report: 
"Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Could Improve Federal Agencies' 
Safety Programs with a More Strategic Approach to Its Oversight" (GAO-
06-379):

The following comments were received from the Bureau of Reclamation and 
the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs:

Bureau of Reclamation:

The subject draft audit report primarily evaluates the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in its responsibilities to 
oversee and assist Federal agencies efforts to develop and administer 
their safety programs. Although the report does address OSHA's role in 
providing compliance assistance, Reclamation believes it would be 
helpful for GAO to address the need for OSHA to provide assistance to 
Federal agencies with common implementation challenges including data 
management, accountability, and safety resources.

Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs:

Yellowstone is highlighted in the cover letter on page 1, but problems 
date to the early 1990s. A sentence could be added about more recent 
success. As a suggestion, add the following on page 1 of the cover 
letter (suggested addition in bold):

"Yellowstone officials, OSHA has deemed it a success. During the last 
rive years, there have been [only] - serious non-emergency accidents at 
the Park. However, this..."

[End of Section]

Appendix V: Data Collection Instrument Sent to the Federal Agencies:

[See PDF For Image]

[End of Figure]

[End of Section]

Appendix VI: Agencies' Response to the Data Collection Instrument:

Management Commitment: Q1 Department goals established for the 
occupational safety and health program;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 2;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 55;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 91%.

Management Commitment: Q2 Activities designed to communicate the 
importance of the OSH program to staff;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 0;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 57;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 89%.

Management Commitment: Q3 Management information system that allows for 
trend analysis, risk analysis, etc;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 8;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 49;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 84%.

Management Commitment: Q4 Policies that establish responsibility for 
workplace safety and health for all staff through performance reviews;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 6;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 51;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 78%.

EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT.

Q5 Procedures for employees to report accidents;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 0;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 57;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 89%.

Q6 Procedures for employees to report hazards;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 1;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 56;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 91%.

Q7 Employee access to the system capturing information on accidents 
and/or hazards;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 19;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 38;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.

Q8 Employee involvement in safety committees/teams;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 3;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 54;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 83%.

Q9 Employee input/involvement in the safety-related training curriculum;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 8;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 49;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.

Q10 Employee participation in walkthroughs of worksites to identify 
hazardous conditions;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 7;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 50;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.

Q11 Employee involvement on accident investigation teams;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 14;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 43;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.

IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS.

Q12 Procedures for conducting required OSHA inspections of worksites by 
safety personnel;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 2;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 55;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 93%.

Q13 Procedures for conducting informal walkthroughs of worksites to 
identify hazards;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 7;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 50;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 80%.

CORRECTION OF HAZARDS.

Q14 Procedures for developing controls for workplace hazards;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 4;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 53;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.

Q15 Procedures for following up on inspections to ensure hazards are 
corrected;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 4;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 53;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 87%.

Q16 Automated system to track workplace hazards;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 23;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 34;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 59%.

TRAINING.

Q17 Departmental OSH training program;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 1;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 56;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.

Q18 National training initiatives targeted by headquarters staff;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 12;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 45;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.

Q19 Automated system to track employee training;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 14;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 43;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 63%.

MEDICAL MANAGEMENT.

Q20 Procedures to ensure that an injured or ill employee is seen within 
a specified timeframe by a medical provider;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 8;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 49;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.

Q21 Automated system tracking accident data;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 9;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 48;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: N/A.

Q22 Department restricted or light duty return-to-work program;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 12;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 45;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 76%.

Q23 Automated system tracking return-to-work status of employees;
Number of Agencies Responding "No": 34;
Number of Agencies Responding "Yes": 23;
Percent of selected agencies responding "Yes" that provided sufficient 
supporting documentation [A]: 30%.

Source: GAO

[A] Fourteen questions were selected for in-depth documentation review.

[End of table]

[End of Section]

Appendix XIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contact:

Robert A. Robertson (202) 512-9889:

Acknowledgments:

Revae E. Moran, Assistant Director; Margaret A. Holmes, Analyst in 
Charge; Jessica A. Lemke; Sheila R. McCoy; Beverly Ross; Jeremy D. 
Sebest; John G. Smale, Jr; Kris Trueblood; and Eric A. Wenner made 
significant contributions to this report.

FOOTNOTES

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

[2] The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires all federal 
agencies, including those in the executive, judicial, and legislative 
branches, to develop and maintain safety programs. However, while 
Executive Order 12196 and OSHA's regulations provide that OSHA plays a 
key oversight role with respect to executive branch agencies, its role 
is more limited for judicial and legislative branch agencies. 
Specifically, the Executive Order indicates that OSHA's role with 
respect to judicial and legislative branch agencies is to cooperate and 
consult with them to aid them in adopting their safety and health 
programs. Judicial and legislative branch agencies are not subject to 
OSHA's regulations unless they have entered into an agreement to that 
effect with OSHA. For the purpose of this work we did not include 
contract employees on federal worksites. Contract employees are not 
covered by federal agency safety programs, but are instead covered by 
private sector procedures under the act.

[3] The eight largest departments are the Departments of Defense, 
Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Treasury, Agriculture, Justice, 
Interior, and the Social Security Administration. We excluded the U.S. 
Postal Service because, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 
it is considered a private-sector employer. For this report, "agency" 
refers to a division within these federal departments. For example, the 
agencies we reviewed in the U.S. Department of the Treasury include the 
Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the 
U.S. Mint.

[4] For this report, we use the term "safety program" to mean an 
agency's occupational safety and health program.

[5] 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678.

[6] 29 U.S.C. § 668.

[7] Executive Order 12196, issued on February 26, 1980, prescribes 
executive branch agencies' and OSHA's responsibilities. 29 C.F.R. Part 
1960 contains OSHA's regulations for federal agency programs.

[8] Executive Order 12196 and OSHA's regulations apply to federal 
executive departments. Military personnel and uniquely military 
activities of executive agencies are not included. 

[9] OSHA is generally authorized to conduct announced or unannounced 
inspections of federal agencies that have not established OSH 
committees that conform to the regulatory requirements. OSHA's 
inspection authority is somewhat more limited if an agency has 
established an OSH committee. Currently, only six departments have such 
committees: the Central Intelligence Agency, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, General Services Administration, Department of Labor, 
Tennessee Valley Authority, and U.S. International Trade Commission. 
None of the departments we reviewed had such committees. For those 
agencies with established OSH committees, OSHA may only conduct an 
inspection if (1) half the membership of record of the federal agency's 
OSH committee requests an OSHA inspection; or (2) an employee reports 
an imminent danger to the agency's OSH committee, but OSHA determines 
that neither the committee nor the agency has adequately responded to 
the employee's complaint. 29 C.F.R. §1960.31.

[10] OSHA has enforcement responsibility for all federal worksites in 
all states, but has granted authority to about half of the states for 
their own enforcement of private-sector and non-federal, public-sector 
worksites. At present, 22 states and territories, including Puerto 
Rico, have been approved by OSHA to operate their own programs; 4 
states and territories, including the Virgin Islands, are approved for 
covering non-federal, public sector employee worksites only. OSHA 
directly oversees enforcement for all worksites in the remaining 
states. The number of inspections shown includes those conducted by the 
states and territories. 

[11] Executive Order 12196, §1-401(h).

[12] 29 C.F.R. §1960.71(b).

[13] OSHA's compliance assistance programs use a mix of different 
methods designed to improve worker safety. They target both exemplary 
worksites and hazardous ones, and influence employers directly by 
implementing safety and health programs and indirectly through 
collaboration with trade and professional associations. For more 
information on these programs, see GAO, Workplace Safety and Health: 
OSHA's Voluntary Compliance Strategies Show Promising Results, but 
Should Be Fully Evaluated before They Are Expanded, GAO-04-378 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2004).

[14] VPP sets performance-based criteria for a managed safety and 
health system, invites sites to apply, and then assesses applicants 
against these criteria. OSHA's verification process includes an 
application review and rigorous onsite evaluations by a team of safety 
and health experts.

[15] 69 Fed. Reg. 68793, codified at 29 C.F.R. §§1960.66-1960.71. 

[16] 69 Fed. Reg. 68796.

[17] In addition, unlike prior requirements, agencies must record the 
annual average number of employees employed as well as the total hours 
worked by all employees. This information is needed to calculate injury 
and illness rates. 

[18] 29 C.F.R. §1960.71(a). The regulations also provide that the 
Secretary of Labor must provide the agencies with the guidelines and 
format for the reports.

[19] See GAO, Architect of the Capitol: Management and Accountability 
Framework Needed for Organizational Transformation, GAO-03-231 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003) and Private Sector Ergonomics Programs 
Yield Positive Results, GAO/HEHS-97-163 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 27, 
1997).

[20] For this report, we define "active workers' compensation claims" 
as claims made by federal employees who sustained compensable work- 
related injuries or illnesses. Workers' compensation benefits provided 
to covered employees can include payment for medical treatment, 
rehabilitation services, death benefits, and replacement of lost wages.

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

[22] Executive Order 12196, §1-201(h).

[23] OSHA regulations require agencies to provide appropriate safety 
and health training that must, among other things, inform employees of 
the agency's safety program and their rights and responsibilities under 
the program. 29 C.F.R. §1960.59.

[24] Executive Order 12196, § 1-201(i).

[25] OSHA regulations require agencies to promptly rectify unsafe and 
unhealthful conditions, and agencies are required to comply with this 
regulation by documenting the seriousness of identified hazards and 
providing a reasonable time for correcting them. 29 C.F.R §1960.26.

[26] 29 C.F.R. §1960.11.

[27] We have reported that aligning individual performance expectations 
with organizational goals, such as workers' safety and health, can help 
hold individuals accountable for contributing to organizational 
results. GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage 
between Individual Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).

[28] 29 C.F.R. §1960.7.

[29] 29 C.F.R. §1960.58.

[30] 29 C.F.R. §1960.11.

[31] According to OSHA officials, the database does not include a code 
for worksite location, and the zip code recorded often reflects where 
the claim was processed instead of where the injury occurred. In 
addition, OSHA officials said that they had to rely on the numbers of 
injuries rather than injury rates because federal agencies were unable 
to provide a list of the number of employees who worked at each 
worksite--information needed to calculate these rates.

[32] OSHA regulations require that federal agencies have provisions for 
responding to employee reports of unsafe or unhealthy working 
conditions. However, employees may also report hazardous conditions 
directly to OSHA. If OSHA receives a complaint from an employee who 
works for a federal agency that lacks an established OSH committee, it 
may initiate an inspection or other appropriate action. 29 C.F.R. 
§1960.28(e).

[33] According to OSHA's internal guidance, a serious violation is 
defined as one in which there is substantial probability that death or 
serious physical harm could result, and the employer knew or should 
have known of the hazard.

[34] Executive Order 12196, § 1-401(k).

[35] According to the OSHA official, the violation involved a military 
maritime facility that was held to a safety standard for general 
industry; there is no such standard for the maritime industry.

[36] 29 U.S.C. § 668(b).

[37] OSHA regulations, which established Field Federal Safety and 
Health Councils to fulfill one of the requirement in Executive Order 
12196, state that OSHA will charter these councils and maintain a 
liaison with agency heads to facilitate participation in the councils. 
29 C.F.R. §§1960.84-1960.90.

GAO's Mission:

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone:

Voice: (202) 512-6000:

TDD: (202) 512-2537:

Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: