OSHA Monitoring and Enforcement

OSHA uses directorates in its national office, as well as 10 regional  offices and 87 area offices, to implement and oversee enforcement.national office includes the Directorate of Enforcement Programs, which  provides guidance to OSHA inspectors on how to enforce safety and  health standards and how employers are to comply with them; the  Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, which analyzes safety and health  data; and the Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, which  develops policy and oversees the grants provided to state-run programs. OSHA’s Monitoring Is More Frequent and Its Guidance Is More Consistent for Federal than State Enforcement

		OSHA Monitors Federal Efforts More Frequently than State Efforts

OSHA uses a variety of methods to monitor the progress of federal and  state enforcement efforts, and monitors federal enforcement efforts more  frequently than those of states. States are  afforded flexibility in setting their own goals as long as they report their  activities across a range of performance measures, such as the  percentage of programmed inspections that find certain types of  violations, and the average number of violations per inspection. Regional  and area officials also meet quarterly with state managers to review  states’ performance, whereas regional officials meet with area officials at  least once every other week to review their performance. In addition, OSHA officials review  aggregate data on inspections, violations, and penalties as a part of their  annual audits of states. Guidance Is More Consistent for Audits of Federal Enforcement than State Enforcement

While the guidance OSHA provides for auditing its regional and area  offices is fairly consistent, its guidance for auditing state-run programs  has varied significantly each year since 2009. OSHA’s guidance for its fiscal  year 2009 EFAME audits required that OSHA conduct site visits to states  and inspect their case files. Not having consistent guidance on audits of state-run  programs and no set schedule for when OSHA will conduct these more  comprehensive audits can make it difficult for officials in state-run  programs to prepare for these audits, and limits OSHA’s ability to identify  problem areas and help states address them. OSHA Is Taking Steps to Better Assess Effectiveness but Does Not Focus on Outcomes

		OSHA Has Several Initiatives to Assess Effectiveness, but Few Focus on Outcomes

OSHA recently developed several initiatives to better assess the  effectiveness of state and federal enforcement efforts. However, the revised measures remain largely refinements of  indicators previously used to track activities conducted (outputs), not  effectiveness (outcomes). It is unclear how adding a 20 to 25  percent plus-or-minus range to targets for each of these enforcement  activities will help OSHA officials determine whether a state’s program is  at least as effective as the federal program because neither the state’s  range nor the federal number is linked to effectiveness—improving  employer compliance and reducing worker fatalities, injuries, and  illnesses. OSHA’s difficulty in demonstrating the effectiveness of its enforcement  efforts has affected its ability to convince states to implement  enforcement changes OSHA believes will result in better outcomes. OSHA Does Not Use Existing Data to Assess Enforcement Effectiveness

OSHA is missing opportunities to use data already in hand to assess the  effectiveness of federal and state enforcement efforts. For example,  OSHA does not analyze data from its audits of its offices and of state-run  programs, and information on its emphasis programs. OSHA does not analyze data from its MAP audits of regional and area  offices or its FAME audits of state-run programs to inform its planning or  to share information across regions. For fiscal year 2012, OSHA had approximately one dozen NEPs, including some that  had been in effect for several years. directly responsible for desired outcomes, such as a reduction in worker  injuries caused by lifting patients or falls. are most effective in ensuring employer compliance and reducing risks to  workers. In addition, despite a 2010 directive calling for greater  participation of the OSHA national office in regional office comprehensive  audits, there is still minimal participation by the national office in these  audits. Without the independent perspective of the national office, OSHA  cannot assure that results of regional office audits of themselves are  impartial and reasonable. Lack of such guidance  may allow enforcement deficiencies to go undetected, increasing the risk  of worker injuries, illnesses, and death. Recommendations for Executive Action

In order to improve OSHA’s assessments of its effectiveness and its  monitoring of federal and state enforcement efforts, we recommend that  the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant Secretary of Labor for  Occupational Safety and Health to:  1.  consistently incorporate outcomes in its assessments of enforcement  2.  annually analyze the results of its MAP and FAME audits to identify  and address systemic problems and leading practices;  3.  ensure that OSHA national staff participate in regional office  comprehensive audits to enhance independence in accordance with  OSHA’s MAP 2010 directive; and  4.  provide consistent guidance for scheduling state EFAME audits to  ensure that they are conducted on a regular basis and include  mandatory on-site case file reviews. However, OSHA raised some concerns  about them. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

The objectives of our review were to examine 1) how the Department of  Labor’s (Labor) Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA)  monitoring of its own and state enforcement efforts compares, and 2)  recent steps OSHA has taken to evaluate the effectiveness of federal and  state enforcement efforts. We also reviewed  relevant federal laws and regulations.
Why GAO Did This Study

OSHA is responsible for overseeing occupational safety and health for more than 130 million workers. In about half the states, OSHA sets and enforces compliance with safety and health standards. The remaining states set and enforce their own standards under OSHA-approved plans. In fiscal year 2010, OSHA strengthened its monitoring of staterun programs following a dozen worker deaths in one of those states. Questions have since been raised about how closely OSHA monitors its own enforcement efforts. GAO examined 1) how OSHA's monitoring of its own and state enforcement efforts compares, and 2) recent steps OSHA has taken to evaluate the effectiveness of federal and state enforcement efforts. GAO reviewed OSHA's monitoring policies and procedures and relevant federal laws and regulations; analyzed federal and state audits; visited three OSHA regional offices; and interviewed OSHA officials and other experts.

What GAO Found

The Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides more frequent monitoring and more consistent guidance for its federal enforcement activities than for state enforcement activities. More specifically, OSHA regional officials review performance reports on federal activities at least every other week but review reports on state-run program activities quarterly. In addition, OSHA's guidance for audits of its regional and area offices is more consistent than the guidance for its audits of state-run programs. Guidance for audits of its offices requires that regional offices conduct a comprehensive audit with on-site review of inspection case files at least once every 4 years and other audits focused on more specific activities in all other years. In contrast, guidance for regional office audits of state-run programs changes from year to year and does not include a regular schedule for comprehensive audits with on-site case file reviews. While the frequency of OSHA's monitoring of state-run programs is necessarily different because of the independent enforcement authority of participating states, OSHA's lack of consistent guidance for audits of these state-run programs may allow enforcement deficiencies to go undetected, increasing the risk of worker injuries, illnesses, or death. In addition, there is little participation by OSHA's national office in comprehensive audits of its regional offices despite a 2010 directive to do so. As a result, OSHA cannot ensure that the results of regional audits are impartial.
OSHA is taking steps to better assess the effectiveness of both its federal enforcement efforts and of state enforcement efforts, but it is often not clear how these steps will help OSHA demonstrate what efforts result in better outcomes for workers, such as reduced worker injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. For example, OSHA recently revised some of the measures it uses to assess staterun programs by adding acceptable ranges of performance. However, the revised measures still largely focus on outputs--such as the average number of violations per inspection--rather than outcomes. OSHA is also conducting studies to examine the results of specific enforcement activities, including one designed, in part, to evaluate the effect of OSHA providing additional educational support to employers. While tracking progress in meeting performance goals-- such as the annual number of conducted inspections--is useful, the lack of focus on outcomes makes it difficult for OSHA to determine which specific enforcement activities are most effective or to convince states to implement changes designed to improve outcomes. For example, only two state-run programs raised their penalty amounts in fiscal year 2011 as recommended by OSHA; state-run program representatives stated that OSHA lacked evidence to show that higher penalties are more effective in deterring future employer violations. OSHA also does not use data already in hand to assess the effectiveness of federal and state enforcement efforts. For example, OSHA does not use data from its annual audits of its regional and area offices or of state-run programs to inform its planning or share information across regions. Additionally, OSHA annually collects data on activities conducted under emphasis programs that focus on national safety and health issues, but it does not evaluate these data to determine whether these programs are responsible for desired outcomes.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that OSHA standardize guidance for its audit practices, include outcomes in its assessments of its enforcement initiatives, better use data from its audits, and ensure national office participation in audits. OSHA generally agreed with the recommendations but expressed concern about overuse of outcomes to assess effectiveness. GAO continues to believe the recommendations are valid as discussed later in the report.