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.

10 Results of the Survey Questionnaire As noted in Chapter 1, an online survey questionnaire was built in Alchemer (formerly SurveyGizmo) and distributed by email to the membership of the AASHTO COM and NAATSHO. A total of 41 fully complete responses across 41 state DOTs were received (Figure 3.1). Appendix B contains the aggregate survey results collected in Alchemer. This chapter reports on results from key survey questions. Survey respondents were asked what division their position places them in within their DOT. Figure 3.2 shows that most of the respondents (51%) are in a division related to employee safety. Other major areas were human resources divisions (17%) and maintenance divisions (15%). There were also several write-in responses (17%) that included areas such as administrative services, safety and emergency management, and office of homeland security and occupational safety. Given that the survey was distributed to the AASHTO COM and NAATSHO, with a request to share with the individual responsible for maintenance worker safety, these responses seem to be appropriate. In addition, survey respondents were asked for an approximate size of their maintenance employee division to give an idea of the magnitude of coverage that is needed from a safety management program. Figure 3.3 shows the distribution of state DOTs and the approximate number of their maintenance employees. The survey consisted of two divisions with four sections. The two divisions aligned questions for DOTs that have an SMS and those that do not. An SMS was defined in the survey as a system that “allows 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.” The four sections within the survey divisions include general SMS use, specific safety management practices, feedback on performance, and written policies and procedures. Each division and section of the survey, along with its results, is described in detail in this chapter. 3.1 General Safety Management System Use This section covers general items related to an SMS such as the existence of a system, years of use, and the sourcing of the system. 3.1.1 SMS Usage As an initial vetting question, survey respondents were asked whether they have, or ever have had, an SMS. An SMS was described as “a DOT system to electronically report, manage, control, C H A P T E R 3

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 11   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.” Based on that description, Figure 3.4 shows that 27 DOTs have or have had such a system, 14 DOTs do not, and 9 DOTs did not reply. As noted, this question guided respondents into different but similar sets of questions based on whether or not they had an SMS. Sections 3.1 through 3.4 outline results for DOTs that have an SMS. Sections 3.5 through 3.7 discuss results for DOTs that do not have an SMS. Employee Safety 51% Human Resources 17% Other - Write In 17% Maintenance 15% Figure 3.1. Map of DOTs responding to survey; n = 41. Figure 3.2. Distribution of the division of respondents in DOTs; n = 41.

12 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety Figure 3.3. Map of DOTs with approximate number of maintenance employees; n = 41. Figure 3.4. Map of DOTs that use an SMS; n = 41.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 13   3.1.2 SMS Usage Timeline For DOTs with an SMS, a question was asked related to the number of years of use. The results are presented in Figure 3.5 and show that 11 DOTs have been using such a system for more than 10 years. A total of five have been using their system for between 5 and 10 years, five have used them for between 3 and 5 years, and six have used their system for between 1 and 3 years. 3.1.3 SMS Development A variety of options exist for creating or adopting an SMS. As many hazardous industries seek to obtain richer and actionable safety information, a series of commercial options have arisen. As an alternative, many DOTs are able to leverage existing software and information technology (IT) expertise to create their own. Figure 3.6 maps the variety of development options used by DOTs. A total of 20 DOTs developed in-house SMSs; three DOTs purchased commercial products but customized them for their needs; one state purchased a commercial off-the-shelf system that was ready for use; four DOTs provided write-in options; and 22 DOTs either do not have SMSs or did not respond to the survey. The write-in options to this question were some combination of an in-house developed and commercially purchased system or transitioning from one to the other. 3.2 Specific Safety Management Practices for SMS User DOTs This section provides information on the specific safety management practices for DOTs that responded as SMS users. The questions cover components, elements, and characteristics of SMSs; information collected; data entry methods and responsibilities; data retention; reporting capabilities; and access frequency and responsibilities. Figure 3.5. Map of years of SMS use; n = 41.

14 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 3.2.1 SMS Components, Elements, and Characteristics Respondents were asked what components, elements, or characteristics of safety management are included in their SMS. Figure 3.7 reports the results. It is important to note that respondents had an option to select all that apply. Nearly all SMSs (89%) track safety reporting, documen- tation, and archiving of information. There is a significant decrease to other elements where hazard identification (48%), hazard prevention and control (44%), worksite analysis (41%), safety and health training and competence (41%), evaluation and continuous improvement (33%), employee engagement (26%), and management leadership (19%) all received inconsis- tent responses. A total of 15% of respondents included a write-in option that describes elements such as daily safety huddles, near-miss investigations, medical monitoring, clinical visits, and inspections. When it comes to the actual operation of the SMS, Figure 3.8 reports that slightly over half of DOTs (56%) use Excel spreadsheets, while 48% integrate other data management systems, 41% include a single point of access through a portal, 37% use an enterprise-wide system, and 22% provided additional information through the write-in option. The write-in responses pro- vided comments such as a learning management system, the use of Oracle Business Intelligence (BI) for pivot tables and charts, and the inclusion of auditor systems. 3.2.2 SMS Information Collected The previous question focused on higher-level themes and element tracking in the SMS. Figure 3.9 focuses on specific information that is collected, tracked, or available within their SMS. Every DOT includes the tracking of incidents in their SMS (100%) and most can input incident investigation information (65%), but no other information item is collected in greater than half Figure 3.6. Map of development of SMS across DOTs; n = 41.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 15   89% 48% 44% 41% 41% 33% 26% 19% 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% R ep or tin g, D oc um en ta tio n, an d A rc hi vi ng H az ar d Id en tif ic at io n H az ar d Pr ev en tio n an d C on tro l W or ks ite A na ly si s Sa fe ty a nd H ea lth T ra in in g an d C om pe te nc e Ev al ua tio n an d C on tin uo us Im pr ov em en t Em pl oy ee E ng ag em en t M an ag em en t L ea de rs hi p O th er - W rit e In Pe rc en ta ge 56% 48% 41% 37% 22% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Uses Excel spreadsheets Integrates data management systems Single point of access (i.e. one log-in portal) An enterprise-wide system Other - Write In Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.7. SMS components, elements, or characteristics; n = 27. Figure 3.8. SMS operational characteristics; n = 27. of the DOTs that have an SMS. A total of 23% of respondents included a write-in option. A select reporting of those options are job safety analyses (JSAs), facility inspections, personal protective equipment (PPE) information, and medical monitoring. 3.2.3 Data Entry and Responsibilities A variety of options exist for data entry because of the way an SMS was defined as noted in Section 3.1.1. Most of the SMSs (70%) used by DOTs enter data through a web-based portal. Data entry options other than through a web-based portal did not see frequent use. After a web-based portal, 41% collect data on paper and then have it manually entered into an electronic

16 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety system, 30% enter through an Excel spreadsheet or similar software, 30% collect data on paper and then scan it into a PDF, 19% enter data through a mobile application, and 11% collect data on paper and archive the paper. A total of 7% selected “Other” and noted SharePoint forms or a generic electronic system as the data entry method (see Figure 3.10). Knowing something about how data is entered, a DOT would have to assign responsibility for that data entry to a personnel group. Figure 3.11 shows that most DOTs (89%) assign data entry responsibility to a safety coordinator or safety manager. They also assign this responsibility to maintenance superintendents or supervisors (67%), maintenance engineers or managers (33%), safety executives (26%), or maintenance workers (22%). A total of 30% of DOTs wrote in options that included human resource specialists, office managers, workers’ compensation administrators, and area administrative staff. 3.2.4 Data Retention As public agencies, DOTs often have data retention plans for their operational work. Safety information is no different for a variety of reasons. SMS safety data is typically retained within the SMS infrastructure (89%). Some DOTs (37%) also exported this data to an electronic archival format such as a comma-separated values (CSV) or PDF file. Others (22%) will print hard copies for archiving (Figure 3.12). 3.2.5 SMS Reporting Capabilities One of the value propositions noted by the use of SMS is the ability to automate both required and desired reports. Of those currently using SMSs, the frequently noted reporting options include incident investigation reports (65%), workers’ compensation reports (62%), OSHA 300 logs (54%), training records (39%), and behavior observation reports (15%) (Figure 3.13). Other reporting options include monthly property damage and injury data, incident counts by location, safety huddle reports, fleet safety records, JSAs, and accident code trending. 100% 65% 42% 39% 23% 23% 23% 23% 19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% In ci de nt O cc ur re nc e In ci de nt In ve st ig at io ns N ea r M is se s Tr ai ni ng R ec or ds To ol bo x Ta lk s/ Pr e- Jo b B rie fin gs Tr ai ni ng G ui de s Po lic y M an ua ls O th er - W rit e In B eh av io r O bs er va tio ns Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.9. SMS Information collected; n = 27.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 17   70% 41% 30% 30% 19% 11% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Th ro ug h a w eb -b as ed p or ta l D at a co lle ct ed o n pa pe r a nd th en m an ua lly e nt er ed in to e le ct ro ni c sy st em Th ro ug h a M ic ro so ft Ex ce l sp re ad sh ee t o r s im ila r s of tw ar e D at a co lle ct ed o n pa pe r a nd th en sc an ne d to a P D F Th ro ug h a m ob ile a pp D at a co lle ct ed o n pa pe r a nd ar ch iv ed O th er - W rit e In Pe rc en ta ge 89% 67% 33% 30% 26% 22% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Sa fe ty C oo rd in at or /S af et y M an ag er or e qu iv al en t M ai nt en an ce Su pe rin te nd en t/S up er vi so r o r eq ui va le nt M ai nt en an ce E ng in ee r/M an ag er o r eq ui va le nt O th er - W rit e In Sa fe ty E xe cu tiv e or e qu iv al en t M ai nt en an ce W or ke r Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.10. SMS data entry method; n = 27. Figure 3.11. SMS data responsibility; n = 27.

18 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 89% 37% 22% 4% 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 65% 62% 54% 39% 35% 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Incident investigation reports Workers’ compensation reports OSHA 300 logs Training records Other - Write In Behavior observation reports Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.12. SMS data retention methods; n = 27. Figure 3.13. SMS reporting capabilities; n = 27. 3.2.6 SMS Access Frequency The frequency of access to SMSs is high, which makes sense given the capabilities of the systems reported in previous sections. Figure 3.14 shows that most systems (59%) are accessed multiple times per day, some (19%) are only accessed after an incident, or a few times per week (11%) when data entry is needed. Some DOTs noted in the “Other” option that access frequency varies depending on the activity that is needing to be reported. Similarly, Figure 3.15 shows that those who are responsible for managing safety data will access the system multiple times per day (56%) for a variety of tasks. Some will only access the SMS a few times per week (22%), once per day (11%), or after an incident occurs (7%).

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 19   3.3 Feedback on Performance for SMS User DOTs This section summarizes the respondents’ experience with SMSs. The section also reports their perceptions of the benefits, challenges, and satisfaction with their SMSs. 3.3.1 SMS Information Deployment Now knowing the capabilities of the SMSs, what information is collected, and what reports are generated, it is valuable to understand what happens with that information. Figure 3.16 shows that most DOTs (78%) will provide that information to a safety coordinator or safety manager for their information, while others will also provide that information to the same parties with responsibility for corrective actions (67%). Fewer DOTs (59%) provide the data to a maintenance engineer or manager for their information or because they have responsibility for corrective action (52%). Few DOTs (19%) post the information for employees to see and Multiple times per day 59% After an incident occurs 19% A few times per week 11% -Other Write In 11% Multiple times per day 56%A few times per week 22% Once per day 11% After an incident occurs 7% Other - Write In 4% Figure 3.14. SMS access frequency for data entry; n = 27. Figure 3.15. SMS access frequency by safety managers; n = 27.

20 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety self-address or post the information as a requirement without the expectation of action (7%). Other options provided included sharing via a safety flash across the agency, used for strategic decision making or for policy writing. 3.3.2 SMS Benefits With the use and details of SMSs discussed previously, a look at how DOTs have perceived their use is warranted starting with the benefits realized in Figure 3.17. There are a wide range of benefits that DOTs have realized, with three reasons noted most frequently: improved regulatory compliance documentation (63%), improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety (59%), and improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (56%). Other notable benefits are improved organizational and social responsibility (41%), reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents (37%), improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (33%), improved worker relations and morale (33%), and lower insurance premiums (15%). Other items noted were the benefit of focus on established priori- ties and that it was too early to document the benefits. The disconnect between leading and lagging indicator improvements (56% versus 33%) is notable and could be a result of the lack of tracking of leading indicators in DOTs. In addition, lower insurance premiums were a rare benefit (15%), which could be because of the fact that many DOTs are self-insurers and likely would not have premiums to evaluate. 3.3.3 SMS Challenges Implementation and use of SMS has not been without challenges. Figure 3.18 shows that DOTs have had process issues such as integrating the SMS into operational procedures (73%) and building internal support (42%). There are also challenges with additional administrative time for data entry (39%) and the ability to access, interpret, and make decisions from the information (35%). There is a slight concern with the accuracy of the data in SMSs (31%). 7% 19% 19% 52% 59% 67% 78% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Information is collected as a requirement. The information is not used for any action Information posted for employees to see and self-address Other - Write In Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Information provided to Maintenance Engineer/Manager Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager with responsibility for corrective actions Information provided to Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager Percentage Figure 3.16. SMS information deployment; n = 27.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 21   15% 22% 33% 33% 37% 41% 56% 59% 63% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower insurance premiums Other - Write In Improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators (e.g. participation in safety committees) Improved worker relations and morale Reduced costs associated with accidents and incidents Improved organizational and social responsibility Improved health and safety performance according to lagging indicators (e.g. TRIR) Improved business efficiencies relating to health and safety Improved regulatory compliance documentation Percentage 73% 42% 39% 35% 31% 27% 23% 23% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% In te gr at in g in to o pe ra tio na l pr oc ed ur es B ui ld in g in te rn al su pp or t Ti m e fo r d at a en try Ti m e to a cc es s, in te rp re t, an d m ak e de ci si on s f ro m re su lts A cc ur ac y of re su lts O th er - W rit e In C os t f or sy st em d ev el op m en t C os t f or sy st em m ai nt en an ce Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.17. SMS benefits realized from use; n = 27. Figure 3.18. SMS challenges encountered; n = 27.

22 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety While costs were the least frequently noted challenges, they did show up in the form of cost for system development (23%) and for system maintenance (23%). Other challenges include train- ing on system use, upgrading an older system, and managing the technology infrastructure. 3.3.4 SMS Level of Satisfaction After reporting benefits and challenges, respondents were asked what their future plans for use of the SMS is considering the costs and benefits (see Figure 3.19). The majority of DOTs (70%) plan to expand use of the SMS, while only 30% plan to maintain its current level of use. It is notable that no DOT that currently uses SMS plans to reduce or limit its current use of them. 3.4 Written Policies and Procedures for SMS User DOTs This section summarizes the written language in policy manuals for SMS use, the responsi- bility for acting on information from the SMS, and the division responsible for managing safety in the DOT. 3.4.1 Documented Language in Policy Manual Regarding SMS With any initiative seeking to be integrated into business procedures, policy language can often be looked to in facilitating that integration. According to survey respondents, written policy language is not prevalent as it relates to SMS use (see Figure 3.20). In fact, the most frequent response (44%) is that no policy manual documents SMS use. To the degree it exists, it contains roles and responsibilities for data entry (41%), the contents of the SMS (37%), the roles and responsibilities related to data management (37%), goals for the SMS (30%), corrective action roles and responsibilities (30%), and executive management support for safety and the SMS (22%). 3.4.2 Responsibility to Act With any data tracking tool, designating responsibility to a personnel group to respond to that data is important. With DOTs that have an SMS, the majority designate the responsibility to Will expand use of the SMS 70% Will continue current use of the SMS 30% Figure 3.19. Planned future use of SMS; n = 27.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 23   15% 22% 30% 30% 37% 37% 41% 44% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other - Write In Executive management support for safety and the SMS Goals for the SMS Roles and responsibilities for corrective actions The contents of the SMS Roles and responsibilities for data management Roles and responsibilities for data entry To my knowledge, no policy manual documents SMSs Percentage Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent 41% Maintenance Superintendent/Supervisor or equivalent 15% There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description 15% Safety Executive or equivalent 11% Other - Write In 11% Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent 7% Figure 3.20. Written language in policy manuals regarding SMS; n = 27. Figure 3.21. Responsibility to act on SMS information; n = 27. act to a safety coordinator or safety manager (41%) (Figure 3.21). Some will assign those duties to a maintenance superintendent or supervisor (15%), a safety executive (11%), or a maintenance engineer or manager (7%). A total of 15% of respondents do not formally assign a responsibility based on job description. Other respondents stated that everyone shares in that responsibility or that different results are assigned to different personnel. 3.4.3 Division Responsible for Managing Safety Recognizing the scale of DOTs and the variety of organizational structures used by those state DOTs, Figure 3.22 reports on the division responsible for managing maintenance worker safety within DOTs that have an SMS. The most frequently noted division is one for employee

24 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety safety and health or an equivalent (48%). Some DOTs have that responsibility within the main- tenance or operations division (18%), while others house it in a human resources division or equivalent (15%). Other responses include a combined division either with human resources and occupational safety or operations and occupational safety. 3.5 Specific Safety Management Practices for DOTs Without an SMS This section provides information on the specific safety management practices for DOTs that do not have an SMS. The questions cover safety elements that are evaluated, safety information that is collected, data entry methods and responsibilities, data retention, safety reports, and data collection frequency and responsibilities. 3.5.1 Elements in Safety Management Programs For DOTs that do not have an SMS, they still may have a robust safety management program for their maintenance workers. For those 14 DOTs that responded to the survey and do not have an SMS, nearly all of them (93%) have a safety program that analyzes the worksite for safety hazards (see Figure 3.23). Many also have a program for hazard identification, hazard preven- tion and control, safety and health training and competence, and reporting, documentation, and archiving of information (86%, 71%, 71%, and 64%, respectively). About half of respondents evaluate management leadership and employee engagement. Few (36%) document continuous improvement and evaluation within their safety programs. 3.5.2 Safety Information Collected Similarly, DOTs may not have an SMS as defined in Section 3.1.1., but they may still collect a significant amount of safety-related information. According to the survey, the respondents most frequently track incident occurrence (93%), incident investigation (79%), toolbox talks and pre-job briefings (64%), and training records (64%), as shown in Figure 3.24. Half the respondents track near misses, and few (36%) track behavior observations. Employee Safety and Health or equivalent 48% Maintenance/ Operations or equivalent 18% Other - Write In 19% Human Resources or equivalent 15% Figure 3.22. Division responsible for managing safety; n = 27.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 25   93% 86% 71% 71% 64% 50% 50% 36% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% W or ks ite A na ly si s H az ar d Id en tif ic at io n H az ar d Pr ev en tio n an d C on tro l Sa fe ty a nd H ea lth T ra in in g an d C om pe te nc e R ep or tin g, D oc um en ta tio n, a nd A rc hi vi ng M an ag em en t L ea de rs hi p Em pl oy ee E ng ag em en t Ev al ua tio n an d C on tin uo us Im pr ov em en t O th er - W rit e In Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.23. Components, elements, or characteristics of a DOT Safety Program; n = 14. 93% 79% 64% 64% 50% 36% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Incident Occurrence Incident Investigations Toolbox Talks/Pre-Job Briefings Training Records Near Misses Behavior Observations Other - Write In Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.24. Safety information collected; n = 14.

26 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 3.5.3 Safety Information Data Capture and Responsibilities DOTs that lack a formal SMS have few ways to capture safety-related information. Slightly over half collect data on paper and then scan it to a PDF (see Figure 3.25). Other methods include collecting data through an Excel spreadsheet (46%), on paper and then entering it into an electronic system (46%), through a mobile app (31%), through a web-based portal (31%), or strictly on paper (31%). Most DOTs without an SMS rely on a safety coordinator or safety manager to collect safety information (86%) or on a maintenance superintendent or supervisor (64%) (see Figure 3.26). Other DOTs look to maintenance workers (36%), maintenance engineers or managers (36%), or a safety executive (29%). 3.5.4 Data Retention Although respondents lacked a formal SMS, the vast majority (93%) retained their safety- related information in a CSV, PDF, or other electronic format (see Figure 3.27). A total of 29% of respondents keep records in hard-copy format, while one DOT noted that their counties are responsible for maintaining safety records per their own policies and procedures. 3.5.5 Safety Reports Generated With any type of effective management program, reports are helpful to understand trends and to make data-driven decisions. The survey respondents indicate, in Figure 3.28, that they primarily produce workers’ compensation reports (71%), training records (64%), OSHA 300 logs (57%), and incident investigation reports (57%). A few DOTs will also generate behavior observation reports (21%). 54% 46% 46% 31% 31% 31% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% D at a co lle ct ed o n pa pe r a nd th en sc an ne d to a P D F Th ro ug h a M ic ro so ft Ex ce l sp re ad sh ee t o r s im ila r s of tw ar e D at a co lle ct ed o n pa pe r a nd th en m an ua lly e nt er ed in to e le ct ro ni c sy st em Th ro ug h a m ob ile a pp Th ro ug h a w eb -b as ed p or ta l D at a co lle ct ed o n pa pe r a nd ar ch iv ed O th er - W rit e In Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.25. Safety data capture method; n = 14.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 27   86% 64% 36% 36% 29% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Sa fe ty C oo rd in at or /S af et y M an ag er or e qu iv al en t M ai nt en an ce Su pe rin te nd en t/S up er vi so r o r eq ui va le nt M ai nt en an ce w or ke r M ai nt en an ce E ng in ee r/M an ag er o r eq ui va le nt Sa fe ty E xe cu tiv e or e qu iv al en t O th er - W rit e In Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.26. Safety data collection responsibility; n = 14. 93% 29% 7% 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 Figure 3.27. Safety information data retention methods; n = 14.

28 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 3.5.6 Safety Data Entry and Access Frequency The frequency with which these DOTs enter safety data and access safety data for deci- sion making varies, especially when compared to DOTs that have an SMS (Figure 3.14 and Figure  3.15). For DOTs without an SMS (Figure  3.29 and Figure  3.30), data is typically entered after an incident occurs (43%). Other DOTs will enter safety data multiple times per day (22%), once per day (7%), or once per month (7%). When it comes to the frequency of accessing data by those responsible for managing safety, most respondents suggest they will only access the data after an incident occurs (29%). Several respondents stated that access would occur multiple times per day (22%), a few times per week (21%), once per week (14%), or once per month (7%). 71% 64% 57% 57% 21% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Workers’ compensation reports Training records OSHA 300 logs Incident investigation reports Behavior observation reports Other - Write In Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.28. Safety reports generated; n = 14. Figure 3.29. Safety data entry frequency; n = 14. After an incident occurs 43% Multiple times per day 22% Other - Write In 21% Once per day 7% Once per month 7%

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 29   3.6 Feedback on Performance for DOTs Without an SMS This section summarizes respondents’ experiences with collecting safety-related information and reports respondents’ perceptions of the benefits, challenges, and satisfaction with collecting safety-related information for maintenance workers in their current programs. 3.6.1 Safety Information Deployment When safety information is collected for maintenance workers, most DOTs will distribute that information to a safety coordinator or safety manager for their reference (86%) or to a maintenance engineer or maintenance manager with a responsibility for corrective actions (64%) (Figure 3.31). Many also provide the information to a safety coordinator or manager with a responsibility to correct or to a maintenance engineer or manager for their information (57%). A few DOTs will post the information for employees to see and self-address (14%) or collect safety information as a requirement with no follow-up action required (14%). 3.6.2 Safety Information Benefits Even without a formal SMS, DOTs still realize significant benefits from tracking safety infor- mation related to maintenance workers. A total of 71% of respondents have seen improved health and safety performance according to leading indicators, as well as a reduction in costs associated with accidents and incidents (Figure 3.32). DOTs have also seen improvements in worker relations and morale, improvements in business efficiencies, improved health and safety performance based on lagging indicators, improved regulatory compliance documentation, and improved organizational and social responsibility (57%, 57%, 50%, 36%, and 29%, respectively). A few DOTs have also seen lower insurance premiums (14%). 3.6.3 Safety Information Challenges Even with the realized benefits noted in Section 3.6.2, there are challenges with collecting safety information related to maintenance workers without an SMS. In Figure 3.33, DOTs noted Figure 3.30. Safety data access frequency by safety managers; n = 14. After an incident occurs 29% Multiple times per day 22% A few times per week 21% Once per week 14% Once per month 7% Other - Write In 7%

30 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 86% 64% 57% 57% 14% 14% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% In fo rm at io n pr ov id ed to S af et y C oo rd in at or /S af et y M an ag er In fo rm at io n pr ov id ed to M ai nt en an ce E ng in ee r/M an ag er w ith re sp on si bi lit y fo r c or re ct iv e ac tio ns In fo rm at io n pr ov id ed to S af et y C oo rd in at or /S af et y M an ag er w ith re sp on si bi lit y fo r c or re ct iv e ac tio ns In fo rm at io n pr ov id ed to M ai nt en an ce E ng in ee r/M an ag er In fo rm at io n po st ed fo r e m pl oy ee s t o se e an d se lf- ad dr es s In fo rm at io n is c ol le ct ed a s a re qu ire m en t. Th e in fo rm at io n is n ot us ed fo r a ny a ct io n. O th er - W rit e In Pe rc en ta ge 71% 71% 57% 57% 50% 36% 29% 21% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Im pr ov ed h ea lth a nd sa fe ty pe rf or m an ce a cc or di ng to le ad in g in di ca to rs (e .g . p ar tic ip at io n in sa fe ty c om m itt ee s) R ed uc ed c os ts a ss oc ia te d w ith ac ci de nt s a nd in ci de nt s Im pr ov ed w or ke r r el at io ns a nd m or al e Im pr ov ed b us in es s e ff ic ie nc ie s re la tin g to h ea lth a nd sa fe ty Im pr ov ed h ea lth a nd sa fe ty pe rf or m an ce a cc or di ng to la gg in g in di ca to rs (e .g . T R IR ) Im pr ov ed re gu la to ry c om pl ia nc e do cu m en ta tio n Im pr ov ed o rg an iz at io na l a nd so ci al re sp on si bi lit y O th er - W rit e In Lo w er in su ra nc e pr em iu m s Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.31. Safety information deployment; n = 14. Figure 3.32. Benefits realized from collecting safety information; n = 14.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 31   struggles with integrating the information into operational procedures (64%), building internal support (43%), costs for system development (36%), costs for system maintenance (36%), time for data entry (36%), time to access and manage information (29%), and accuracy of results (21%). Costs for the system show up as the third and fourth most-significant challenges. 3.6.4 Future Plans for Safety Procedures Survey respondents were asked for their DOT’s future plans for collecting safety information in Figure 3.34. Most noted that they will expand their procedures for safety management (64%) while some noted that they will continue their current practices (29%). Only one DOT noted that they will reduce or limit current safety procedures as a result of lack of funding. 3.7 Written Policies and Procedures for DOTs Without an SMS This section summarizes the written language in policy manuals for safety management, the responsibility for acting on safety information, and the division responsible for managing safety in the DOT. 64% 43% 36% 36% 36% 29% 21% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Integrating into operational procedures Building internal support Cost for system development Cost for system maintenance Time for data entry Time to access, interpret, and make decisions from results Accuracy of results Other - Write In Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.33. Challenges encountered from collecting safety information; n = 14. Will expand procedures 64% Will continue current procedures 29% Will reduce/limit current procedures due to lack of funding 7% Figure 3.34. Future plans for safety procedures; n = 14.

32 Use of Safety Management Systems in Managing Highway Maintenance Worker Safety 3.7.1 Documented Language in Policy Manual Regarding Safety Information Policy language for DOTs without an SMS, related to tracking and managing safety infor- mation, varies from policy language that might exist for an SMS specifically (recall Figure 3.20). For DOTs without an SMS, their written policy language most frequently includes executive management support (79%) and goals for the safety program (71%) (Figure 3.35). Also included are the specific safety information to be collected (50%), roles and responsibilities for data collection (36%), roles and responsibilities for corrective actions (21%), and roles and respon- sibilities for data management (14%). A select few DOTs do not have policy manuals that document procedures around collecting maintenance-worker safety information (14%). 3.7.2 Responsibility to Act With the safety information that is collected with these DOTs, most (57%) assign responsibility to a safety coordinator or safety manager (Figure 3.36). Only a few respondents suggested that maintenance engineers or managers (15%), maintenance superintendents or supervisors (7%), or safety executives (7%) were responsible for correcting safety issues. One DOT noted that there is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description, and one DOT noted that that responsibility is pushed down to the county level for their determination. 3.7.3 Division Responsible for Managing Safety For DOTs that do not have an SMS, the responsibility for managing safety typically falls into an employee safety and health division or equivalent (65%) (Figure 3.37). A few DOTs noted that a human resources or maintenance and operations division has that responsibility (14% for both options). Last, one DOT noted that the counties are responsible for managing safety within their county office. 79% 71% 50% 36% 21% 14% 14% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Ex ec ut iv e m an ag em en t s up po rt fo r s af et y G oa ls fo r t he sa fe ty p ro gr am Th e in fo rm at io n to b e co lle ct ed R ol es a nd re sp on si bi lit ie s f or d at a co lle ct io n R ol es a nd re sp on si bi lit ie s f or co rr ec tiv e ac tio ns R ol es a nd re sp on si bi lit ie s f or d at a m an ag em en t To m y kn ow le dg e, n o po lic y m an ua l d oc um en ts p ro ce du re s ar ou nd c ol le ct in g m ai nt en an ce w or ke r s af et y in fo rm at io n O th er - W rit e In Pe rc en ta ge Figure 3.35. Written language in policy manuals regarding safety information; n = 14.

Results of the Survey Questionnaire 33   Figure 3.37. Division responsible for managing safety; n = 14. Safety Coordinator/Safety Manager or equivalent 57%Maintenance Engineer/Manager or equivalent 15% Maintenance Superintendent/ Supervisor or equivalent 7% Safety Executive or equivalent 7% There is no formal assigned responsibility based on job description 7% Other - Write In 7% Employee Safety and Health or equivalent 65% Human Resources or equivalent 14% Maintenance/Operations or equivalent 14% Other - Write In 7% Figure 3.36. Responsibility to act on SMS information; n = 14.