Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

78 Survey Results A P P E N D I X B Some percentages in tables and figures that follow may differ slightly due to rounding.

Survey Results 79   2. What department of transportation (DOT) do you work for? Value Percent Count Alabama 2.4% 1 Alaska 2.4% 1 Arizona 2.4% 1 Arkansas 2.4% 1 California 2.4% 1 Colorado 2.4% 1 Connecticut 2.4% 1 Delaware 2.4% 1 Georgia 2.4% 1 Hawaii 2.4% 1 Idaho 2.4% 1 Indiana 2.4% 1 Iowa 2.4% 1 Kansas 2.4% 1

80 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Kentucky 2.4% 1 Louisiana 2.4% 1 Maine 2.4% 1 Maryland 2.4% 1 Michigan 2.4% 1 Minnesota 2.4% 1 Mississippi 2.4% 1 Missouri 2.4% 1 Montana 2.4% 1 Nebraska 2.4% 1 Nevada 2.4% 1 New Hampshire 2.4% 1 New Jersey 2.4% 1 New Mexico 2.4% 1 New York 2.4% 1 North Dakota 2.4% 1 Ohio 2.4% 1

Survey Results 81   South Carolina 2.4% 1 South Dakota 2.4% 1 Tennessee 2.4% 1 Texas 2.4% 1 Utah 2.4% 1 Virginia 2.4% 1 Washington State 2.4% 1 West Virginia 2.4% 1 Wisconsin 2.4% 1 Wyoming 2.4% 1 Total 41

82 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 3. What division do you work for within your agency? Value Percent Count Human Resources 17.1% 7 Employee Safety 51.2% 21 Maintenance 14.6% 6 Other—Write in 17.1% 7 Total 41 Human Resources 17% Employee Safety 51% Maintenance 15% Other - Write In 17%

Survey Results 83   Other—Write in Count Admin Services—Safety 1 Administrative Services 1 Chief Engineer 1 Occupational Health and Safety 1 Office of Homeland Security and Occupational Safety 1 Safety and Emergency Management 1 Safety, Security, and Emergency Management 1 Total 7 What department of transportation (DOT) do you work for? What division do you work for within your agency? Other—Write in: Alabama Maintenance Alaska Employee Safety Arizona Other—Write in Administrative Services—Safety Arkansas Human Resources California Employee Safety

84 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Colorado Employee Safety Connecticut Other—Write in Occupational Health and Safety Delaware Maintenance Georgia Human Resources Hawaii Maintenance Idaho Employee Safety Indiana Employee Safety Iowa Other—Write in Administrative Services Kansas Employee Safety Kentucky Employee Safety Louisiana Employee Safety Maine Human Resources Maryland Other—Write in Office of Homeland Security and Occupational Safety Michigan Employee Safety Minnesota Employee Safety Mississippi Other—Write in Chief Engineer Missouri Other—Write in Safety and Emergency Management Montana Employee Safety Nebraska Human Resources Nevada Human Resources New Hampshire Maintenance

Survey Results 85   New Jersey Employee Safety New Mexico Human Resources New York Employee Safety North Dakota Maintenance Ohio Employee Safety South Carolina Employee Safety South Dakota Employee Safety Tennessee Employee Safety Texas Employee Safety Utah Employee Safety Virginia Other—Write in Safety, Security, and Emergency Management Washington Human Resources West Virginia Employee Safety Wisconsin Maintenance Wyoming Employee Safety

86 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 4. What is an approximate number of the maintenance employees in your DOT? Value Percent Count Less than 1,000 26.8% 11 1,000-4,999 65.9% 27 5,000-9,999 4.9% 2 More than 10,000 2.4% 1 Total 41 Less than 1,000 27% 1,000-4,999 66% 5,000-9,999 5% More than 10,000 2%

Survey Results 87   State DOT What is an approximate number of the maintenance employees in your DOT? Alabama 1,000–4,999 Alaska 1,000–4,999 Arizona 1,000–4,999 Arkansas 1,000–4,999 California 1,000–4,999 Colorado 1,000–4,999 Connecticut 1,000–4,999 Delaware Less than 1,000 Georgia 1,000–4,999 Hawaii Less than 1,000 Idaho Less than 1,000 Indiana 1,000–4,999 Iowa 1,000–4,999 Kansas 1,000–4,999 Kentucky 1,000–4,999 Louisiana 1,000–4,999 Maine 1,000–4,999 Maryland 1,000–4,999 Michigan Less than 1,000

88 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Minnesota 1,000–4,999 Mississippi 1,000–4,999 Missouri 1,000–4,999 Montana 1,000–4,999 Nebraska 1,000–4,999 Nevada Less than 1,000 New Hampshire Less than 1,000 New Jersey 1,000–4,999 New Mexico 1,000–4,999 New York 5,000–9,999 North Dakota Less than 1,000 Ohio 1,000–4,999 South Carolina 1,000–4,999 South Dakota Less than 1,000 Tennessee 1,000–4,999 Texas More than 10,000 Utah Less than 1,000 Virginia 1,000–4,999 Washington 1,000–4,999 West Virginia 5,000–9,999 Wisconsin Less than 1,000 Wyoming Less than 1,000

Survey Results 89   5. For the purpose of this survey, safety management systems (SMSs) allow a DOT to electronically report, manage, control, and audit issues related to employee safety. SMSs allow safety and health divisions in DOTs to become more agile, effective, and knowledgeable about the safety of employees. SMSs could be a commercial product, an in- house developed system, or even an Excel spreadsheet. Does your DOT currently use, or has it previously used, a safety management system (SMS) to record, manage, and analyze safety-related data with your maintenance employees? Value Percent Count Yes 65.9% 27 No 34.1% 14 Total 41 NOTE: Detailed responses following Question 7. Yes 66% No 34%

90 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 6. Approximately how many years has your DOT been using an SMS? Value Percent Count 1–3 years 25.0% 7 > 3–5 years 17.9% 5 > 5–10 years 17.9% 5 > 10 years 39.3% 11 Total 28 NOTE: Detailed responses following Question 7. 1-3 years 25% >3-5 years 18% >5-10 years 18% >10 years 39%

Survey Results 91   7. How was your SMS developed? Value Percent Count In-house 71.4% 20 Commercial product customized for your DOT 10.7% 3 Commercial product purchased off the shelf (i.e., as-is EHS software) 3.6% 1 Other—Write in 14.3% 4 Total 28 In-house 71% Commercial product customized for your DOT 11% Commercial product purchased off the shelf (i.e. as-is EHS software) 4% Other - Write In 14%

92 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety State DOT Does your DOT currently use, or has it previously used, a safety management system (SMS) to record, manage, and analyze safety-related data with your maintenance employees? Approximately how many years has your DOT been using an SMS? How was your SMS developed? Other—Write in: Alabama Yes > 10 years In-house Alaska Yes > 10 years Other— Write in Combination Arizona Yes > 5-10 years In-house Arkansas No California Yes > 10 years In-house Colorado No Connecticut Yes 1–3 years Commercial product customized for your DOT Delaware Yes 1–3 years In-house Georgia Yes > 10 years Other— Write in Unsupported old software dissembled and used in Oracle BI Hawaii No Idaho No

Survey Results 93   Indiana Yes > 5–10 years In-house Iowa Yes > 10 years Other— Write in Started as in- house and recently converted to a commercial product customized for us Kansas Yes > 10 years In-house Kentucky No Louisiana Yes > 5–10 years Commercial product customized for your DOT Maine Yes > 3–5 years In-house Maryland No Michigan No Minnesota Yes 1–3 years In-house Mississippi Yes > 3–5 years In-house Missouri No 1–3 years In-house Montana Yes > 5–10 years Other— Write in We use a combination of in-house Excel spreadsheets and iAuditor programs Nebraska Yes > 5–10 years In-house

94 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Nevada Yes > 10 years In-house New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico Yes 1–3 years In-house New York Yes > 10 years Commercial product purchased off the shelf (i.e., as-is EHS software) North Dakota Yes > 10 years In-house Ohio No South Carolina Yes > 10 years In-house South Dakota Yes > 10 years In-house Tennessee Yes 1–3 years In-house Texas Yes > 3–5 years Commercial product customized for your DOT Utah Yes > 3–5 years In-house Virginia Yes > 3–5 years In-house Washington No West Virginia No Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes 1–3 years In-house

Survey Results 95   8. What is included in the written language of your DOT’s policy manual(s) regarding SMSs? Please check all that apply. Value Percent Count The contents of the SMS 37.0% 10 Executive management support for safety and the SMS 22.2% 6 Goals for the SMS 29.6% 8 Roles and responsibilities for data entry 40.7% 11 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Pe rc en ta ge

96 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Roles and responsibilities for data management 37.0% 10 Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions 29.6% 8 To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs 44.4% 12 Other—Write in 14.8% 4 State DOT What is included in the written language of your DOT's policy manual(s) regarding SMSs? Please check all that apply. Alabama The contents of the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data entry Alaska Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions Arizona The contents of the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions Arkansas California The contents of the SMS, Goals for the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data entry, Roles and responsibilities for data management Colorado Connecticut The contents of the SMS, Executive management support for safety and the SMS, Goals for the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data entry, Roles and responsibilities for data management, Other—Write in: Expanding roles

Survey Results 97   Delaware To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs Georgia To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs, Other— Write in: Executives support performance metrics manually manipulated and entered into another division's tool Hawaii Idaho Indiana The contents of the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data entry, Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions Iowa To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs Kansas To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs Kentucky Louisiana The contents of the SMS, Goals for the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data entry, Roles and responsibilities for data management Maine To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs Maryland Michigan Minnesota Executive management support for safety and the SMS, Goals for the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data entry, Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions Mississippi To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs Missouri Montana To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs Nebraska Roles and responsibilities for data entry

98 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Nevada The contents of the SMS, Executive management support for safety and the SMS, Goals for the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data entry, Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs New York To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs North Dakota To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs Ohio South Carolina Other—Write in: Instructions for entering data South Dakota The contents of the SMS, Executive management support for safety and the SMS, Goals for the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data entry, Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions Tennessee To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs Texas To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs Utah The contents of the SMS, Executive management support for safety and the SMS, Goals for the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data entry, Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions Virginia The contents of the SMS, Executive management support for safety and the SMS, Goals for the SMS, Roles and responsibilities for data entry, Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Other—Write in: We developed a 5-year plan that gets updated yearly. We started in 2020.

Survey Results 99   9. Which of the following components, elements, or characteristics of an SMS are in your system? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Management Leadership 18.5% 5 Worksite Analysis 40.7% 11 Hazard Identification 48.1% 13 Hazard Prevention and Control 44.4% 12 Safety and Health Training and Competence 40.7% 11 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en ta ge

100 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Employee Engagement 25.9% 7 Evaluation and Continuous Improvement 33.3% 9 Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving 88.9% 24 Other—Write in 14.8% 4 State DOT Which of the following components, elements, or characteristics of an SMS are in your system? Select all that apply. Alabama Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Alaska Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Evaluation and Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Arizona Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Evaluation and Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Arkansas California Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Colorado Connecticut Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Employee Engagement; Evaluation and Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving; Other— Write in: medical monitoring, clinical visits, inspections Delaware Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Georgia Other—Write in: Records of Injuries and Crashes

Survey Results 101   Hawaii Idaho Indiana Hazard Prevention and Control; Evaluation and Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Iowa Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Kansas Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Kentucky Louisiana Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Employee Engagement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Maine Safety and Health Training and Competence; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Maryland Michigan Minnesota Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Evaluation and Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Mississippi Worksite Analysis; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving; Other—Write in: Daily safety huddles; injury data; incident, near-miss investigation; work analysis but with no safety aspect included Missouri Montana Worksite Analysis, Hazard Identification, Hazard Prevention and Control Nebraska Other—Write in: Safety incidents Nevada Management Leadership, Worksite Analysis, Hazard Identification, Hazard Prevention and Control, Safety and Health Training and Competence, Employee Engagement, Evaluation and Continuous Improvement, Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving

102 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Hazard Identification; Employee Engagement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving New York Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving North Dakota Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Ohio South Carolina Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving South Dakota Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Tennessee Safety and Health Training and Competence; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Texas Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Utah Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Employee Engagement; Evaluation and Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Virginia Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Employee Engagement; Evaluation and Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Employee Engagement; Evaluation and Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving

Survey Results 103   10. What operational characteristics are in your SMS? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Uses Excel spreadsheets 55.6% 15 Integrates data management systems 48.1% 13 An enterprise-wide system 37.0% 10 Single point of access (i.e. one log-in portal) 40.7% 11 Other—Write in 22.2% 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Uses Excel spreadsheets Integrates data management systems An enterprise- wide system Single point of access (i.e. one log-in portal) Other - Write In Pe rc en ta ge

104 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety State DOT What operational characteristics are in your SMS? Select all that apply. Alabama Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal) Alaska Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems, An enterprise-wide system Arizona Integrates data management systems Arkansas California Integrates data management systems Colorado Connecticut Integrates data management systems, An enterprise-wide system, Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal) Delaware Uses Excel spreadsheets, Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal) Georgia Other—Write In: See #7 above, BI to Excel then Pivots & Charts Hawaii Idaho Indiana Integrates data management systems, An enterprise-wide system Iowa Uses Excel spreadsheets, Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal) Kansas Uses Excel spreadsheets, An enterprise-wide system Kentucky Louisiana Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems, An enterprise-wide system, Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal)

Survey Results 105   Maine Uses Excel spreadsheets, Other—Write in: Learning Management System Maryland Michigan Minnesota Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems, An enterprise-wide system, Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal) Mississippi Other—Write in: not sure; programs developed by Information Systems Missouri Montana Uses Excel spreadsheets, Other—Write in: iAuditor systems Nebraska Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems Nevada Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Uses Excel spreadsheets, An enterprise-wide system New York Integrates data management systems, An enterprise-wide system, Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal) North Dakota Uses Excel spreadsheets, An enterprise-wide system Ohio South Carolina Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal), Other—Write in: allows some documents to be uploaded South Dakota Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal) Tennessee Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems

106 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Texas Uses Excel spreadsheets, Integrates data management systems, An enterprise-wide system, Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal) Utah Single point of access (i.e., one log-in portal) Virginia Integrates data management systems Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Uses Excel spreadsheets, Other—Write in: In the process of onboarding a commercial electronic system

Survey Results 107   11. What information can be recorded, tracked, or available within your SMS? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Incident Occurrence 100.0% 26 Incident Investigations 65.4% 17 Behavior Observations 19.2% 5 Near Misses 42.3% 11 Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings 23.1% 6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Pe rc en ta ge

108 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Training Records 38.5% 10 Training Guides 23.1% 6 Policy Manuals 23.1% 6 Other—Write in 23.1% 6 State DOT What information can be recorded, tracked, or available within your SMS? Select all that apply. Alabama Incident Occurrence, Training Records, Training Guides Alaska Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations, Training Records, Policy Manuals Arizona Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Training Records Arkansas California Incident Occurrence Colorado Connecticut Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations, Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records, Training Guides, Other—Write in: exposure groups/medical monitoring Delaware Incident Occurrence, Near Misses Georgia Hawaii Idaho Indiana Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses

Survey Results 109   Iowa Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations Kansas Incident Occurrence, Other—Write in: PPE, body part, description of what happened Kentucky Louisiana Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations Maine Incident Occurrence, Training Records, Policy Manuals, Other – Write in: Separate systems used Maryland Michigan Minnesota Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records, Training Guides, Policy Manuals Mississippi Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records Missouri Montana Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Other—Write in: JSAs, facility inspections Nebraska Incident Occurrence Nevada Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations, Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records, Training Guides, Policy Manuals New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Incident Occurrence, Near Misses, Other—Write in: Specific codes assigned to occurrences New York Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations, Near Misses

110 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety North Dakota Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records, Training Guides, Policy Manuals Ohio South Carolina Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations South Dakota Incident Occurrence, Other—Write in: Reports Tennessee Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses Texas Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations Utah Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses Virginia Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations, Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records, Training Guides, Policy Manuals Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Incident Occurrence

Survey Results 111   12. How is data entered into the SMS? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Through a mobile app 18.5% 5 Through a web-based portal 70.4% 19 Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software 29.6% 8 Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system 40.7% 11 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Through a mobile app Through a web-based portal Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF Data collected on paper and archived Other - Write In Pe rc en ta ge

112 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF 29.6% 8 Data collected on paper and archived 11.1% 3 Other—Write in 7.4% 2 State DOT How is data entered into the SMS? Select all that apply. Alabama Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system Alaska Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF, Data collected on paper and archived Arizona Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software Arkansas California Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF Colorado Connecticut Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal, Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF Delaware Through a web-based portal, Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system Georgia Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system

Survey Results 113   Hawaii Idaho Indiana Through a web-based portal Iowa Through a web-based portal Kansas Through a web-based portal, Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system Kentucky Louisiana Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal Maine Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system Maryland Michigan Minnesota Through a web-based portal Mississippi Through a web-based portal, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF Missouri Montana Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software Nebraska Other—Write in: An electronic system, then reported out Nevada Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF, Data collected on paper and archived New Hampshire New Jersey

114 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety New Mexico Through a web-based portal New York Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal, Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF, Data collected on paper and archived North Dakota Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software Ohio South Carolina Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF South Dakota Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system Tennessee Through a web-based portal, Other—Write in: SharePoint forms Texas Through a web-based portal Utah Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal Virginia Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software

Survey Results 115   13. Who is responsible for the data entered into the SMS? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Maintenance Worker 22.2% 6 Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent 66.7% 18 Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent 88.9% 24 Safety Executive or equivalent 25.9% 7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en ta ge

116 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent 33.3% 9 Other—Write in 29.6% 8 State DOT Who is responsible for the data entered into the SMS? Select all that apply. Alabama Other—Write in: Office managers Alaska Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or equivalent Arizona Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Other—Write in: Work comp admin Arkansas California Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Colorado Connecticut Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent, Other— Write in: direct employee access coming Delaware Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Georgia Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Hawaii

Survey Results 117   Idaho Indiana Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent Iowa Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Kansas Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Other—Write in: HRP Kentucky Louisiana Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent Maine Other—Write in: Human Resource Specialist and Office Admins Maryland Michigan Minnesota Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Mississippi Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Other—Write in: Admins working with safety officers; human resources personnel Missouri Montana Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Nebraska Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Other—Write in: Supervisors Nevada Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent

118 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent New York Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent North Dakota Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Ohio South Carolina Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent South Dakota Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Other—Write in: Area Secretaries Tennessee Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent Texas Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent Utah Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Virginia Maintenance Worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent

Survey Results 119   14. How does your DOT retain the safety data? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Kept within the SMS infrastructure 88.9% 24 Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records 37.0% 10 Printed for hard-copy records 22.2% 6 Other—Write in 3.7% 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Kept within the SMS infrastructure Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Printed for hard-copy records Other - Write In Pe rc en ta ge

120 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety State DOT How does your DOT retain the safety data? Select all that apply. Alabama Kept within the SMS infrastructure, Printed for hard-copy records Alaska Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Arizona Kept within the SMS infrastructure Arkansas California Kept within the SMS infrastructure Colorado Connecticut Kept within the SMS infrastructure Delaware Kept within the SMS infrastructure Georgia Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records; Printed for hard- copy records; Other—Write in: Oracle BI Hawaii Idaho Indiana Kept within the SMS infrastructure Iowa Kept within the SMS infrastructure Kansas Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Kentucky Louisiana Kept within the SMS infrastructure, Printed for hard-copy records Maine Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records; Printed for hard- copy records

Survey Results 121   Michigan Minnesota Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Mississippi Kept within the SMS infrastructure Missouri Montana Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Nebraska Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Nevada Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records; Printed for hard-copy records New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records New York Kept within the SMS infrastructure, Printed for hard-copy records North Dakota Kept within the SMS infrastructure Ohio South Carolina Kept within the SMS infrastructure South Dakota Kept within the SMS infrastructure Tennessee Kept within the SMS infrastructure; Exported to CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Texas Kept within the SMS infrastructure Maryland

122 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Kept within the SMS infrastructure Utah Kept within the SMS infrastructure Virginia Kept within the SMS infrastructure

Survey Results 123   15. What types of safety-related reports are generated? Select all that apply. Value Percentage Count OSHA 300 logs 53.8% 14 Training records 38.5% 10 Behavior observation reports 15.4% 4 Incident investigation reports 65.4% 17 Workers’ compensation reports 61.5% 16 Other—Write in 34.6% 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 OSHA 300 logs Training records Behavior observation reports Incident investigation reports Workers’ compensation reports Other - Write In Pe rc en ta ge

124 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety State DOT What types of safety-related reports are generated? Select all that apply. Alabama Training records, Workers’ compensation reports Alaska OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Arizona OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Arkansas California OSHA 300 logs, Incident investigation reports Colorado Connecticut Behavior observation reports, Incident investigation reports, Other— Write in: Reports are customized based on need Delaware Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Georgia Other—Write in: Metrics, studies Hawaii Idaho Indiana OSHA 300 logs, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Iowa OSHA 300 logs Kansas Other—Write in: Incident counts by location Kentucky Louisiana Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Maine OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Workers’ compensation reports

Survey Results 125   Maryland Michigan Minnesota Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Mississippi Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports, Other—Write in: Safety huddle reports; maintenance function data Missouri Montana OSHA 300 logs, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports, Other—Write in: JSAs and facility inspection reports Nebraska Nevada OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Behavior observation reports, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Other—Write in: Accident code trending New York OSHA 300 logs, Behavior observation reports, Incident investigation reports North Dakota Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Ohio South Carolina OSHA 300 logs, Workers’ compensation reports, Other—Write in: Fleet safety reports South Dakota Other—Write in: Incident information; currently not able to add investigation information

126 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Tennessee OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Incident investigation reports, Other—Write in: Monthly property damage and injury data Texas Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Utah OSHA 300 logs, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Virginia OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Behavior observation reports, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming OSHA 300 logs

Survey Results 127   16. How often is the SMS accessed by those responsible for data entry? Value Percent Count Multiple times per day 59.3% 16 A few times per week 11.1% 3 After an incident occurs 18.5% 5 Other—Write in 11.1% 3 Total 27 Multiple times per day 59%A few times per week 11% After an incident occurs 19% Other - Write In 11%

128 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety State DOT How often is the SMS accessed by those responsible for data entry? Other—Write in: Alabama Multiple times per day Alaska Multiple times per day Arizona After an incident occurs Arkansas California A few times per week Colorado Connecticut Multiple times per day Delaware After an incident occurs Georgia Multiple times per day Hawaii Idaho Indiana After an incident occurs Iowa Multiple times per day Kansas Other—Write in Every 2 weeks Kentucky Louisiana Multiple times per day Maine Multiple times per day Maryland Michigan Minnesota Multiple times per day

Survey Results 129   Mississippi Other—Write in Depends on the activity since the systems in place are all separate; huddles are accessed daily by supervisors; incident investigation when an incident occurs, etc. Missouri Montana Multiple times per day Nebraska A few times per week Nevada Multiple times per day New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico After an incident occurs New York Multiple times per day North Dakota A few times per week Ohio South Carolina Multiple times per day South Dakota Other—Write in Region engineers may access more often, how often depends on how many incidents occur Tennessee After an incident occurs Texas Multiple times per day Utah Multiple times per day Virginia Multiple times per day Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Multiple times per day

130 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 17. How often is the SMS accessed by those responsible to manage safety with its information? Value Percent Count Multiple times per day 55.6% 15 Once per day 11.1% 3 A few times per week 22.2% 6 After an incident occurs 7.4% 2 Other—Write in 3.7% 1 Total 27 Multiple times per day 56% Once per day 11% A few times per week 22% After an incident occurs 7% Other - Write In 4%

Survey Results 131   State DOT How often is the SMS accessed by those responsible to manage safety with its information? Other—Write in: Alabama After an incident occurs Alaska Multiple times per day Arizona Once per day Arkansas California Once per day Colorado Connecticut Multiple times per day Delaware After an incident occurs Georgia Once per day Hawaii Idaho Indiana Multiple times per day Iowa Multiple times per day Kansas A few times per week Kentucky Louisiana A few times per week Maine A few times per week Maryland Michigan

132 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Minnesota Multiple times per day Mississippi A few times per week Missouri Montana Multiple times per day Nebraska A few times per week Nevada Multiple times per day New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Multiple times per day New York Multiple times per day North Dakota Multiple times per day Ohio South Carolina Multiple times per day South Dakota Multiple times per day Tennessee Other—Write in Post-incident, approval of reports and monthly data reporting Texas Multiple times per day Utah Multiple times per day Virginia Multiple times per day Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming A few times per week

Survey Results 133   18. How is the maintenance worker safety information used for improvement? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Information posted for employees to see and self- address 18.5% 5 Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager 77.8% 21 Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions 66.7% 18 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Pe rc en ta ge

134 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager 59.3% 16 Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions 51.9% 14 Information is collected as a requirement; the information is not used for any action 7.4% 2 Other—Write in 18.5% 5 State DOT How is the maintenance worker safety information used for improvement? Select all that apply. Alabama Other—Write in: This is being developed Alaska Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Arizona Information posted for employees to see and self-address, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Arkansas California Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager

Survey Results 135   Colorado Connecticut Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Delaware Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager Georgia Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Other—Write in: Strategic direction, procurement decision making Hawaii Idaho Indiana Information posted for employees to see and self-address, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Iowa Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager Kansas Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions

136 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Kentucky Louisiana Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information is collected as a requirement; the information is not used for any action Maine Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager Maryland Michigan Minnesota Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Mississippi Information posted for employees to see and self-address, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Other—Write in: Data analysis used to write policies, review procedures, develop training, etc., for the overall agency Missouri Montana Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Nebraska Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Other—Write in: Reports/safety awards Nevada Information posted for employees to see and self-address, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions

Survey Results 137   New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information is collected as a requirement; the information is not used for any action New York Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions North Dakota Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Ohio South Carolina Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager South Dakota Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager Tennessee Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions

138 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Texas Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager Utah Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Virginia Information posted for employees to see and self-address, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Other—Write in: Some, not all incidents, are shared via a safety flash and distributed WYDOT-wide.

Survey Results 139   19. What benefit(s) has your agency realized through your use of an SMS? Select all that apply. Value Percentage Count Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.) 55.6% 15 Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.) 33.3% 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Pe rc en ta ge

140 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents 37.0% 10 Improved worker relations and morale 33.3% 9 Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety 59.3% 16 Lower insurance premiums 14.8% 4 Improved regulatory compliance documentation 63.0% 17 Improved organizational and social responsibility 40.7% 11 Other—Write in 22.2% 6 State DOT What benefit(s) has your agency realized through your use of an SMS? Select all that apply. Alabama Other—Write in: This is still in progress Alaska Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved organizational and social responsibility

Survey Results 141   Arizona Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation Arkansas California Improved regulatory compliance documentation Colorado Connecticut Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Other—Write in: SMS still being fully implemented Delaware Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety Georgia Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Other—Write in: Focus on established priorities Hawaii Idaho Indiana Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale,

142 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved organizational and social responsibility Iowa Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved organizational and social responsibility Kansas Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.) Kentucky Louisiana Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved organizational and social responsibility Maine Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved regulatory compliance documentation Maryland Michigan Minnesota Other—Write in: This is new so these are developing Mississippi Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Improved worker relations and morale, Improved organizational and social responsibility, Other—Write in: The unchecked items we have no proof of but hope to see results in the next few years Missouri

Survey Results 143   Montana Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Lower insurance premiums, Improved regulatory compliance documentation Nebraska Other—Write in: We can see which areas have repeated accidents/injuries Nevada Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Lower insurance premiums, Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved organizational and social responsibility New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation New York Improved business efficiencies relating health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved organizational and social responsibility North Dakota Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Lower insurance premiums, Improved organizational and social responsibility Ohio South Carolina Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Lower insurance premiums, Improved regulatory compliance documentation

144 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety South Dakota Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.) Tennessee Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved organizational and social responsibility Texas Improved business efficiencies relating health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation Utah Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation Virginia Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved organizational and social responsibility Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved organizational and social responsibility

Survey Results 145   20. What barriers has your agency encountered in your use of an SMS? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Cost for system development 23.1% 6 Cost for system maintenance 23.1% 6 Time for data entry 38.5% 10 Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results 34.6% 9 Accuracy of results 30.8% 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Pe rc en ta ge

146 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Building internal support 42.3% 11 Integrating into operational procedures 73.1% 19 Other—Write in 26.9% 7 State DOT What barriers has your agency encountered in your use of an SMS? Select all that apply. Alabama Other—Write in: This is still being discovered Alaska Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures Arizona Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures Arkansas California Time for data entry, Integrating into operational procedures Colorado Connecticut Cost for system development; Cost for system maintenance; Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Accuracy of results; Building internal support; Integrating into operational procedures; Other—Write in: Technology infrastructure

Survey Results 147   Delaware Cost for system maintenance, Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures Georgia Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Accuracy of results; Integrating into operational procedures; Other—Write in: Getting a new SMS enterprise-wide software solution Hawaii Idaho Indiana Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Integrating into operational procedures Iowa Cost for system development; Cost for system maintenance; Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Integrating into operational procedures Kansas Accuracy of results Kentucky Louisiana Maine Integrating into operational procedures Maryland Michigan Minnesota Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures Mississippi Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Accuracy of results; Building internal support; Integrating into operational procedures; Other—Write in: Management support

148 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Missouri Montana Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Building internal support; Integrating into operational procedures Nebraska Time for data entry Nevada Cost for system development, Cost for system maintenance, Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Accuracy of results, Integrating into operational procedures New York Cost for system development, Cost for system maintenance North Dakota Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Building internal support; Integrating into operational procedures Ohio South Carolina Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Accuracy of results; Integrating into operational procedures; Other—Write in: Upgrading SMS South Dakota Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Integrating into operational procedures; Other—Write in: System is old

Survey Results 149   Tennessee Cost for system development, Cost for system maintenance, Integrating into operational procedures Texas Cost for system development Utah Accuracy of results Virginia Building internal support, Other—Write in: Training on system use, lessons learned Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Time for data entry, Accuracy of results, Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures

150 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 21. Considering the costs and benefits of the SMS, what level of future use is planned in your agency? Value Percent Count Will expand use of the SMS 70.4% 19 Will continue current use of the SMS 29.6% 8 Total 27 Will expand use of the SMS 70% Will continue current use of the SMS 30%

Survey Results 151   Alabama Will expand use of the SMS Alaska Will continue current use of the SMS Arizona Will expand use of the SMS Arkansas California Will continue current use of the SMS Colorado Connecticut Will expand use of the SMS Delaware Will continue current use of the SMS Georgia Will expand use of the SMS Hawaii Idaho Indiana Will expand use of the SMS Iowa Will expand use of the SMS Kansas Will expand use of the SMS Kentucky Louisiana Will continue current use of the SMS Maine Will expand use of the SMS Maryland Michigan Minnesota Will expand use of the SMS Mississippi Will expand use of the SMS Considering the costs and benefits of the SMS, what level of future use is planned in your agency? State DOT

152 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Montana Will continue current use of the SMS Nebraska Will continue current use of the SMS Nevada Will expand use of the SMS New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Will expand use of the SMS New York Will continue current use of the SMS North Dakota Will expand use of the SMS Ohio South Carolina Will continue current use of the SMS South Dakota Will expand use of the SMS Tennessee Will expand use of the SMS Texas Will expand use of the SMS Utah Will expand use of the SMS Virginia Will expand use of the SMS Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Will expand use of the SMS Missouri

Survey Results 153   22. Who is responsible for following up on safety actions from the SMS information? Value Percent Count Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent 14.8% 4 Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent 40.7% 11 Safety Executive or equivalent 11.1% 3 Maintenance Superintendent/ Supervisor or equivalent 15% Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent 41% Safety Executive or equivalent 11% Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent 7% There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description 15% Other - Write In 11%

154 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent 7.4% 2 There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description 14.8% 4 Other—Write in 11.1% 3 Total 27 State DOT Who is responsible for following up on safety actions from the SMS information? Other—Write in: Alabama There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description Alaska Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent Arizona Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Arkansas California Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Colorado Connecticut Other—Write in All share in the responsibility Delaware Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent

Survey Results 155   Georgia Other—Write in No CAPA results directly out of the SMS; safety professional must complete RCA in order to analyze, reach, or facilitate CAPA Hawaii Idaho Indiana Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent Iowa Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent Kansas Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Kentucky Louisiana Safety Executive or equivalent Maine Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Maryland Michigan Minnesota Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent Mississippi Other—Write in Different systems assigned to different people like safety officer or maintenance supervisor or state coordinator Missouri

156 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Montana Safety Executive or equivalent Nebraska Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Nevada Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent New York Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent North Dakota There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description Ohio South Carolina Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent South Dakota Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent Tennessee Safety Executive or equivalent Texas There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description Utah Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent Virginia Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent

Survey Results 157   West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description Washington

158 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 23. What division, branch, or equivalent is responsible for monitoring and managing the safety of maintenance workers in your DOT? Value Percent Count Human Resources or equivalent 14.8% 4 Employee Safety and Health or equivalent 48.1% 13 Maintenance/Operations or equivalent 18.5% 5 Other—Write in 18.5% 5 Human Resources or equivalent 15% Employee Safety and Health or equivalent 48% Maintenance/ Operations or equivalent 18% Other - Write In 19% Total 27

Survey Results 159   State DOT What division, branch, or equivalent is responsible for monitoring and managing the safety of maintenance workers in your DOT? Other—Write in: Alabama Maintenance/Operations or equivalent Alaska Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Arizona Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Arkansas California Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Colorado Connecticut Other—Write in The Division of OHS reports to the Commissioner's Office. Delaware Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Georgia Other—Write in The maintenance manages its own employees within each district; safety consults, advises, and audits for safety and compliance. Hawaii Idaho Indiana Employee Safety and Health or equivalent

160 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Iowa Human Resources or equivalent Kansas Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Kentucky Louisiana Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Maine Human Resources or equivalent Maryland Michigan Minnesota Maintenance/Operations or equivalent Mississippi Other—Write in Safety Officer in partnership with District Engineer and District Maintenance Engineer Missouri Montana Other—Write in Human Resources and Occupational Safety Division Nebraska Human Resources or equivalent Nevada Human Resources or equivalent New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Employee Safety and Health or equivalent New York Employee Safety and Health or equivalent

Survey Results 161   North Dakota Maintenance/Operations or equivalent Ohio South Carolina Employee Safety and Health or equivalent South Dakota Maintenance/Operations or equivalent Tennessee Other—Write in OHS Department and Operations Leadership Texas Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Utah Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Virginia Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Maintenance/Operations or equivalent

162 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 24. What is included in the written language of your DOT’s policy manual(s) regarding collecting maintenance worker safety information? Please check all that apply. Value Percent Count The information to be collected 50.0% 7 Executive management support for safety 78.6% 11 Goals for the safety program 71.4% 10 Roles and responsibilities for data collection 35.7% 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Pe rc en ta ge

Survey Results 163   Roles and responsibilities for data management 14.3% 2 Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions 21.4% 3 To my knowledge, no policy manual documents procedures around collecting maintenance worker safety information 14.3% 2 Other—Write in 7.1% 1 State DOT What is included in the written language of your DOT's policy manual(s) regarding collecting maintenance worker safety information? Please check all that apply. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas The information to be collected, Executive management support for safety, Goals for the safety program California

164 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Colorado The information to be collected, Executive management support for safety, Goals for the safety program Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Goals for the safety program, Roles and responsibilities for data collection Idaho The information to be collected, Executive management support for safety, Goals for the safety program Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Executive management support for safety, Goals for the safety program, Roles and responsibilities for data collection, Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions Louisiana Maine

Survey Results 165   Maryland The information to be collected, Executive management support for safety Michigan The information to be collected, Executive management support for safety, Goals for the safety program, Roles and responsibilities for data collection Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Executive management support for safety, Goals for the safety program Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire The information to be collected, Executive management support for safety, Goals for the safety program, Roles and responsibilities for data collection New Jersey The information to be collected, Executive management support for safety, Goals for the safety program, Roles and responsibilities for data collection, Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions New Mexico New York

166 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety North Dakota Ohio To my knowledge, no policy manual documents procedures around collecting maintenance worker safety information South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Executive management support for safety; To my knowledge, no policy manual documents procedures around collecting maintenance worker safety information West Virginia Executive management support for safety, Goals for the safety program, Roles and responsibilities for data management, Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions Wisconsin Other—Write in: Wisconsin relies on County Highway Departments to perform maintenance on our state system. As such, we have no safety handbook for maintenance workers. Counties are responsible for worker safety. Wyoming

Survey Results 167   25. Which of the following safety elements does your DOT evaluate in regards to its maintenance crews? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Management Leadership 50.0% 7 Worksite Analysis 92.9% 13 Hazard Identification 85.7% 12 Hazard Prevention and Control 71.4% 10 Safety and Health Training and Competence 71.4% 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en ta ge

168 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Employee Engagement 50.0% 7 Evaluation and Continuous Improvement 35.7% 5 Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving 64.3% 9 Other—Write in 7.1% 1 State DOT Which of the following safety elements does your DOT evaluate in regards to its maintenance crews? Select all that apply. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving California Colorado Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Employee Engagement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving

Survey Results 169   Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Employee Engagement; Evaluation and Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Idaho Worksite Analysis, Hazard Identification, Hazard Prevention and Control, Safety and Health Training and Competence, Employee Engagement Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Employee Engagement; Evaluation and Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Louisiana

170 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Maine Maryland Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Michigan Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Employee Engagement; Evaluation and Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving

Survey Results 171   New Jersey Management Leadership; Worksite Analysis; Hazard Identification; Hazard Prevention and Control; Safety and Health Training and Competence; Employee Engagement; Evaluation and Continuous Improvement; Reporting, Documentation, and Archiving New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Worksite Analysis, Hazard Identification South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia

172 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Washington Worksite Analysis, Hazard Identification, Hazard Prevention and Control, Safety and Health Training and Competence, Employee Engagement West Virginia Worksite Analysis, Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Wisconsin Other—Write in: Counties do maintain their own safety protocols. Wyoming

Survey Results 173   26. What maintenance worker safety information do you collect data on? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Incident Occurrence 92.9% 13 Incident Investigations 78.6% 11 Behavior Observations 35.7% 5 Near Misses 50.0% 7 Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings 64.3% 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en ta ge

174 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Training Records 64.3% 9 Other—Write in 7.1% 1 State DOT What maintenance worker safety information do you collect data on? Select all that apply. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations, Training Records California Colorado Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations, Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records Idaho Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records Indiana Iowa Kansas

Survey Results 175   Kentucky Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records Louisiana Maine Maryland Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations Michigan Incident Occurrence, Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations, Near Misses, Training Records Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records New Jersey Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Incident Occurrence South Carolina South Dakota

176 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings West Virginia Incident Occurrence, Incident Investigations, Behavior Observations, Near Misses, Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings, Training Records Wisconsin Other—Write in: None Wyoming

Survey Results 177   27. How do you capture maintenance worker safety information? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Through a mobile app 30.8% 4 Through a web-based portal 30.8% 4 Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software 46.2% 6 Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system 46.2% 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Through a mobile app Through a web-based portal Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF Data collected on paper and archived Other - Write In Pe rc en ta ge

178 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF 53.8% 7 Data collected on paper and archived 30.8% 4 Other—Write in 7.7% 1 State DOT How do you capture maintenance worker safety information? Select all that apply. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF California Colorado Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF, Data collected on paper and archived Idaho Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system Indiana

Survey Results 179   Iowa Kansas Kentucky Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF, Data collected on paper and archived Louisiana Maine Maryland Through a mobile app, Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and archived Michigan Other—Write in: PDF fillable form to Access Database Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Through a web-based portal, Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system New Jersey Through a mobile app, Through a web-based portal, Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software, Data collected on paper and then manually entered into electronic system, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF, Data collected on paper and archived New Mexico

180 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety New York North Dakota Ohio Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Through a mobile app, Data collected on paper and then scanned to a PDF West Virginia Through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or similar software Wisconsin Wyoming

Survey Results 181   28. Who is responsible for collecting maintenance worker safety information? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Maintenance worker 35.7% 5 Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent 64.3% 9 Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent 85.7% 12 Safety Executive or equivalent 28.6% 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Pe rc en ta ge

182 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent 35.7% 5 Other—Write in 7.1% 1 State DOT Who is responsible for collecting maintenance worker safety information? Select all that apply. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or equivalent California Colorado Maintenance worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent Idaho Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Indiana Iowa

Survey Results 183   Kansas Kentucky Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Louisiana Maine Maryland Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent Michigan Maintenance worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Maintenance worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent New Jersey Maintenance worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or equivalent, Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent New Mexico New York North Dakota

184 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Ohio Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Maintenance worker, Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent, Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent West Virginia Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent, Safety Executive or equivalent Wisconsin Other—Write in Wyoming

Survey Results 185   29. How does your DOT retain the data? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records 92.9% 13 Printed for hard-copy records 28.6% 4 Other—Write in 7.1% 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Printed for hard-copy records Other - Write In Pe rc en ta ge

186 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Counties are responsible for maintaining records according to their own policies and procedures. 1 Total 1 State DOT How does your DOT retain the data? Select all that apply. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records California Colorado Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Idaho Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records, Printed for hard- copy records Other—Write in Count

Survey Results 187   Maine Maryland Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Michigan Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records; Printed for hard- copy records New Jersey Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records; Printed for hard- copy records New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Louisiana

188 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Washington Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records West Virginia Saved as a CSV, PDF, or other electronic records; Printed for hard- copy records Wisconsin Other—Write in: Counties are responsible for maintaining records according to their own policies and procedures. Wyoming Virginia

Survey Results 189   30. What types of safety-related reports are generated? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count OSHA 300 logs 57.1% 8 Training records 64.3% 9 Behavior observation reports 21.4% 3 Incident investigation reports 57.1% 8 Workers’ compensation reports 71.4% 10 Other—Write in 14.3% 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 OSHA 300 logs Training records Behavior observation reports Incident investigation reports Workers’ compensation reports Other - Write In Pe rc en ta ge

190 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety State DOT What types of safety-related reports are generated? Select all that apply. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports California Colorado Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Training records Idaho Incident investigation reports Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Louisiana Maine Maryland OSHA 300 logs, Workers’ compensation reports

Survey Results 191   Michigan OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Workers’ compensation reports, Other—Write in: Reports and analysis of data Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Training records, Behavior observation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports New Jersey OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Behavior observation reports, Incident investigation reports New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio OSHA 300 logs, Workers’ compensation reports South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia

192 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Washington OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports West Virginia OSHA 300 logs, Training records, Behavior observation reports, Incident investigation reports, Workers’ compensation reports Wisconsin Other—Write in: County records Wyoming

Survey Results 193   31. How often is maintenance worker safety information data collected? Value Percent Count Multiple times per day 21.4% 3 Once per day 7.1% 1 Once per month 7.1% 1 After an incident occurs 42.9% 6 Other—Write in 21.4% 3 Total 14 Multiple times per day 22% Once per day 7% Once per month 7% After an incident occurs 43% Other - Write In 21%

194 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety State DOT How often is maintenance worker safety information data collected? Other—Write in: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas After an incident occurs California Colorado Other—Write in As incidents occur Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Once per month Idaho After an incident occurs Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky After an incident occurs Louisiana Maine Maryland Once per day Michigan After an incident occurs Minnesota Mississippi

Survey Results 195   Missouri Other—Write in Employees provide behavior- based safety observations, near miss, and good catches when needed. Some perform these more than others. Injuries and property damage are collected after an event. Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire After an incident occurs New Jersey Multiple times per day New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio After an incident occurs South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Multiple times per day West Virginia Multiple times per day Wisconsin Other—Write in Wyoming

196 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 32. How often is maintenance worker safety information accessed by those responsible to manage safety? Value Percent Count Multiple times per day 21.4% 3 A few times per week 21.4% 3 Once per week 14.3% 2 Once per month 7.1% 1 After an incident occurs 28.6% 4 Other—Write in 7.1% 1 Multiple times per day 22% A few times per week 21% Once per week 14% Once per month 7% After an incident occurs 29% Other - Write In 7% Total 14

Survey Results 197   State DOT How often is maintenance worker safety information accessed by those responsible to manage safety? Other—Write in: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas After an incident occurs California Colorado Multiple times per day Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Once per week Idaho A few times per week Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky After an incident occurs Louisiana Maine Maryland A few times per week Michigan After an incident occurs

198 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Once per week Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Once per month New Jersey Multiple times per day New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio After an incident occurs South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington A few times per week West Virginia Multiple times per day Wisconsin Other—Write in: Counties’ policies would dictate the regularity of information access Wyoming

Survey Results 199   33. How is the maintenance worker safety information used for improvement? Select all that apply. Value Percent Count Information posted for employees to see and self- address 14.3% 2 Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager 85.7% 12 Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions 57.1% 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Pe rc en ta ge

200 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager 57.1% 8 Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions 64.3% 9 Information is collected as a requirement. The information is not used for any action 14.3% 2 Other—Write in 7.1% 1 State DOT How is the maintenance worker safety information used for improvement? Select all that apply. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information is collected as a requirement. The information is not used for any action California

Survey Results 201   Colorado Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager Idaho Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information is collected as a requirement; the information is not used for any action Louisiana Maine Maryland Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions

202 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Michigan Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions New Jersey Information posted for employees to see and self-address, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager

Survey Results 203   South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Information posted for employees to see and self-address, Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions West Virginia Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions, Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Wisconsin Wyoming

204 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 34. What benefit(s) has your agency realized through collecting maintenance worker safety information? Select all that apply. Value Percentage Count Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.) 50.0% 7 Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.) 71.4% 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Pe rc en ta ge

Survey Results 205   Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents 71.4% 10 Improved worker relations and morale 57.1% 8 Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety 57.1% 8 Lower insurance premiums 14.3% 2 Improved regulatory compliance documentation 35.7% 5 Improved organizational and social responsibility 28.6% 4 Other—Write in 21.4% 3 State DOT What benefit(s) has your agency realized through collecting maintenance worker safety information? Select all that apply. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved organizational and social responsibility California

206 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Colorado Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Lower insurance premiums Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation Idaho Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation Louisiana

Survey Results 207   Maine Maryland Other—Write in: None Michigan Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved organizational and social responsibility New Jersey Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved organizational and social responsibility New Mexico

208 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety New York North Dakota Ohio Other—Write in: N/A (not applicable) South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g., TRIR, DART, etc.), Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Improved regulatory compliance documentation, Improved organizational and social responsibility West Virginia Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g., participation in safety committees, etc.), Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents, Improved worker relations and morale, Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety, Lower insurance premiums Wisconsin Other—Write in. Wisconsin believes safety and safety improvement is being managed adequately by our counties. Wyoming

Survey Results 209   Value Percent Count Cost for system development 35.7% 5 Cost for system maintenance 35.7% 5 Time for data entry 35.7% 5 Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results 28.6% 4 Accuracy of results 21.4% 3 Building internal support 42.9% 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Pe rc en ta ge 35. What barriers has your agency encountered in collecting maintenance worker safety information? Select all that apply.

210 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Integrating into operational procedures 64.3% 9 Other—Write in 7.1% 1 State DOT What barriers has your agency encountered in collecting maintenance worker safety information? Select all that apply. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Cost for system development, Cost for system maintenance, Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures California Colorado Cost for system maintenance; Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Accuracy of results; Integrating into operational procedures Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Integrating into operational procedures Idaho Cost for system development, Cost for system maintenance Indiana Iowa Kansas

Survey Results 211   Kentucky Cost for system development; Cost for system maintenance; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results Louisiana Maine Maryland Cost for system development; Cost for system maintenance; Time for data entry; Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Accuracy of results; Building internal support; Integrating into operational procedures Michigan Time for data entry Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Cost for system development, Integrating into operational procedures Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results; Integrating into operational procedures New Jersey Time for data entry, Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Building internal support South Carolina South Dakota

212 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Accuracy of results, Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures West Virginia Time for data entry, Building internal support, Integrating into operational procedures Wisconsin Other—Write in: N/A (not applicable) Wyoming

Survey Results 213   36. Considering costs and benefits, what level of future use is planned with your current procedures in regards to collecting maintenance worker safety information in your agency? Value Percent Count Will expand procedures 64.3% 9 Will continue current procedures 28.6% 4 Will reduce/limit current procedures due to lack of funding 7.1% 1 Total 14 Will expand procedures 64% Will continue current procedures 29% Will reduce/limit current procedures due to lack of funding 7%

214 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety State DOT Considering costs and benefits, what level of future use is planned with your current procedures in regards to collecting maintenance worker safety information in your agency? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Will expand procedures California Colorado Will expand procedures Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Will expand procedures Idaho Will reduce/limit current procedures due to lack of funding Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Will expand procedures Louisiana Maine Maryland Will expand procedures Michigan Will continue current procedures

Survey Results 215   Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Will expand procedures Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Will continue current procedures New Jersey Will expand procedures New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Will expand procedures South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Will continue current procedures West Virginia Will expand procedures Wisconsin Will continue current procedures Wyoming

216 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 37. Who is responsible for following up on safety actions from the maintenance worker safety information? Value Percent Count Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent 7.1% 1 Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent 57.1% 8 Safety Executive or equivalent 7.1% 1 Maintenance Superintendent/ Supervisor or equivalent 7% Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent 57% Safety Executive or equivalent 7% Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent 15% There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description 7% Other - Write In 7%

Survey Results 217   Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent 14.3% 2 There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description 7.1% 1 Other—Write in 7.1% 1 Total 14 State DOT Who is responsible for following up on safety actions from the maintenance worker safety information? Other—Write in: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent California Colorado Safety Executive or equivalent Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent

218 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Idaho Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Louisiana Maine Maryland There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description Michigan Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent New Jersey Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent

Survey Results 219   New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent West Virginia Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent Wisconsin Other—Write in. Counties are responsible for any follow-up. Wyoming

220 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Value Percent Count Human Resources or equivalent 14.3% 2 Employee Safety and Health or equivalent 64.3% 9 Maintenance/Operations or equivalent 14.3% 2 Other—Write in 7.1% 1 38. What division, branch, or equivalent is responsible for monitoring and managing the safety of maintenance workers in your DOT? Human Resources or equivalent 14% Employee Safety and Health or equivalent 65% Maintenance/ Operations or equivalent 14% Other - Write In 7% Total 14

Survey Results 221   State DOT What division, branch, or equivalent is responsible for monitoring and managing the safety of maintenance workers in your DOT? Other—Write in: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Human Resources or equivalent California Colorado Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Maintenance/Operations or equivalent Idaho Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Louisiana

222 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Maine Maryland Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Michigan Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Employee Safety and Health or equivalent Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Employee Safety and Health or equivalent New Jersey Employee Safety and Health or equivalent New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Human Resources or equivalent South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee

Survey Results 223   Texas Utah Virginia Washington Employee Safety and Health or equivalent West Virginia Maintenance/Operations or equivalent Wisconsin Wyoming Other—Write in. Counties

224 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 39. Would you be willing to participate in a follow-up phone interview for the development of a case study? The case study interviews would include preliminary correspondence to determine stakeholders who should participate in the case study, a phone interview approximately one hour in length, with minor follow-up to finalize case details, and a review of the case study prior to submission. Value Percent Count Yes 68.3% 28 No 31.7% 13 Total 41 Yes 68% No 32%

Survey Results 225   State DOT Would you be willing to participate in a follow-up phone interview for the development of a case study? Alabama Yes Alaska Yes Arizona No Arkansas No California Yes Colorado Yes Connecticut Yes Delaware Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii No Idaho Yes Indiana Yes Iowa Yes Kansas Yes Kentucky Yes Louisiana No Maine Yes Maryland Yes Michigan Yes Minnesota Yes

226 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Mississippi Yes Missouri Yes Montana No Nebraska No Nevada Yes New Hampshire Yes New Jersey Yes New Mexico No New York No North Dakota No Ohio No South Carolina No South Dakota Yes Tennessee Yes Texas Yes Utah Yes Virginia Yes Washington No West Virginia No Wisconsin Yes Wyoming Yes