Federal Agency Occupational Safety and Health Training Survey Report

(June 2007)

Background

During the March 1, 2007 meeting of the Federal Advisory Council on
Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) Assistant Secretary Foulke
requested that a survey be conducted to assess the types of occupational
safety and health training utilized by federal agencies.  The OSHA
Training Institute (OTI) in conjunction with the OSHA Office of Federal
Agency Programs distributed an online survey to collect this
information.  The survey was sent to Designated Safety and Health
Officials (DASHOs) and safety and health managers at each federal
agency.  A total of 155 completed surveys were received.  Many agencies
submitted several responses as a result of the survey being forwarded to
sub-agencies and various agency establishments. Therefore, percentages
have been reported since they make more interpretive sense than actual
number of responses.  

Types of Training Currently Provided Within Agencies

Respondents were asked to identify what types of occupational safety and
health training their agency provided top management officials,
supervisors, safety and health specialists, safety and health
inspectors, collateral safety and health personnel, and employees and
employee representatives.  These results are presented in TABLE 1. 
Training developed “in house” emerged as the most common form of
training for each of these positions.  For top management officials and
safety and health inspectors an approximately equal amount of training
was provided through each of the other three methods.  OSHA developed
training materials were the second most utilized training method for
supervisors, collateral safety and health personnel, and employees and
employee representatives.  Safety and health specialists were provided
OSHA courses and presentations by OSHA trainers more often than OSHA
developed training materials.  Collateral duty safety and health
personnel received OSHA courses and presentations by OSHA trainers more
often than “Other” types of training methods, according to the
survey, whereas employees and employee representatives were provided
with more of the “Other” types of training. 

TABLE 1: Types of Training Offered by Position 

(Percent of Respondents Selecting Training Type)

POSITIONS	Training Developed “in house”	OSHA Developed Training
Materials	OSHA Courses or Presentations by OSHA Trainers	Other

Top Management	70.97%*	30.97%	27.74%	28.39%

Supervisors	75.48%	37.42%	21.94%	23.87%

S & H Specialists	56.77%	44.52%	49.68%	38.71%

S & H Inspectors	52.26%	41.94%	42.58%	41.94%

Collateral S & H Personnel	71.61%	43.23%	36.13%	29.03%

Employees & Employee Representatives	83.23%	36.77%	20.65%	25.16%

* Respondents were asked to select all training types that applied for
each position.  Therefore, training categories are not mutually
exclusive and totals will not equal 100 percent.  

Most of those respondents who selected “Other” provided detailed
explanations.  Many who selected “Other” simply used the text box as
a place to clarify their selection of one of the other three training
choices.  Some respondents indicated that they did not know or were
unsure.  However, two distinct groups did emerge within the “Other”
responses.  The first group listed knowledge sharing methods such as
briefings, attending meetings and conferences where occupational safety
and health was discussed, and mentoring interactions between staff. 
Although these methods did supply information, they were not formal
training methods.  The second group included training through
contractors, online courses, videos and other “off the shelf” media,
and agency training centers.  Courses offered by the National Safety
Council and American Society for Safety Engineers were frequently
referenced for safety and health specialists, in particular.  Finally, a
few agencies mentioned that they did not have safety and health
inspectors or specialists and therefore did not offer any training for
these positions.      

Preferred Training Format 

Survey respondents were also asked to identify their agency’s
preferred format for providing training to each of these positions.  As
displayed in TABLE 2, formal classroom training was the most preferred
method for safety and health specialists, safety and health inspectors,
and collateral safety and health personnel.  Audio/video conferencing
was the most preferred for top management officials.  In addition,
web-based learning on-demand was agencies’ preferred training format
for both the supervisors and employees and employee representatives
groups.  Although not the most preferred method, technology-enabled
learning received strong support for safety and health specialists. 
Approximately one-quarter to one-third of respondents selected
self-study as a preferred method for each of the positions listed. 
Finally, nearly half of respondents selected training through Field
Federal Safety and Health Councils (FFSHCs) as the preferred method for
safety and health specialists.  Additionally, approximately one-third of
respondents chose training through FFSHCs for safety and health
inspectors and collateral safety and health personnel.  

TABLE 2: Preferred Training Format by Position

(Percent of Respondents Selecting Training Type)

POSITIONS	Formal Classroom	Audio/Video Conferencing	Web-based Learning
On-Demand	Technology-enabled Learning	Self-Study	Training through FFSHCs

Top Management	34.19%*	43.23%	36.13%	20.65%	23.87%	18.06%

Supervisors	41.94%	31.61%	48.39%	15.48%	24.52%	21.29%

S & H Specialists	61.29%	34.84%	34.19%	41.29%	34.84%	47.74%

S & H Inspectors	44.52%	20.00%	28.39%	27.10%	23.87%	36.13%

Collateral S & H Personnel	56.13%	23.87%	41.94%	27.74%	29.68%	34.84%

Employees & Employee Reps.	45.16%	22.58%	50.97%	18.06%	30.32%	23.23%

* Percentage represents the percent of respondents selecting that type
of training for that specific position.  Each training format-position
pair should be considered independent from all others.  Therefore,
neither row or column totals will equal 100%. 



Sharing Existing Training and Developing New Training

Respondents were asked questions about their agency’s desire to have
OSHA provide more pre-packaged safety and health training.  Respondents
were also asked if their agency would be willing to share with OSHA the
training materials their agency has already developed or work with OSHA
to develop training materials.  As shown in TABLE 3, more than 50
percent of respondents would like OSHA to provide more pre-packaged
safety and health training materials for use by federal agencies.  

TABLE 3: Sharing Existing Training and Developing New Training

(Percent of Respondents)

QUESTIONS	Yes

Like to have OSHA provide more pre-packaged Safety and Health Training
materials for use by Federal Agencies.	52.90%

Willing to share with OSHA the Safety and Health Training materials that
my Federal Agency has developed.	40.65%

Willing to work with OSHA to develop Safety and Health Training
materials for my own and other Federal Agencies.	45.81%



Many of the respondents who answered “Yes” listed specific types of
training they would like to have OSHA provide.  A list of these training
topics is presented in TABLE 4.  Several respondents also elaborated on
the format and context in which they would like to have the training
offered.  These specifications included web-based training that can be
completed on-line or downloaded, distance learning through webcasts,
training CDs, power point presentations and lesson plans that can be
used by agency trainers. A few respondents emphasized the need for the
training to be low cost or free and provide scheduling flexibility.  The
ability to generate certificates of training completion was also
suggested by one respondent.  Another respondent requested that more
safety and health training be generated specifically for office
environments.  

TABLE 4: Training Topics Respondents Would Like to See OSHA Provide in
Pre-Packaged Format

Asbestos awareness		Bloodborne pathogens		Collateral duty specific
training

Conducting Inspections	Confined space entry		Construction safety	

Driving safety	Energy control		Ergonomics	

Fire Safety	HAZWOPER	Lockout/Tagout	

Machine Guarding		Material Handling 	OSHA Regulatory Updates

Pandemic Flu	Personal Protective Equipment	Recordkeeping

Respiratory Protection	Shop Safety	Warehousing



TABLE 5 displays the number of respondents from each agency as well as
the percent of those respondents who answered in favor of OSHA providing
more pre-packaged training materials.  

With the exception of the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), the departments overwhelmingly supported this
suggestion with 50 percent or more of their respondents answering
“Yes.”  Independent agencies and those respondents who did not
identify themselves were more divided.  

TABLE 5: Sharing Existing Training and Developing New Training – 

Agency Breakdown

   RESPONDENTS

Wants more pre-packaged materials 	Willing to share what Agency has
developed.	Willing to work with OSHA to develop Training 

DEPARTMENTS	No. of Agency Responses	Percent of Agency Respondents
Answering Yes	Percent of Agency Respondents Answering Yes	Percent of
Agency Respondents Answering Yes

U.S. Air Force	3	66.67%	100.00%	100.00%

U.S. Department of Agriculture	23	60.87%	60.87%	69.57%

U.S. Department of Commerce	7	28.57%	42.86%	42.86%

U.S. Department of Defense	13	69.23%	53.85%	69.23%

U.S. Department of Education	2	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services	7	57.14%	28.57%	57.14%

U.S. Department of Homeland Security	3	33.33%	33.33%	33.33%

U.S. Department of Justice	2	100.00%	50.00%	50.00%

U.S. Department of Labor	1	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%

U.S. Department of State	3	100.00%	66.67%	100.00%

U.S. Department of the Army	7	42.86%	28.57%	42.86%

U.S. Department of the Interior	2	50.00%	50.00%	100.00%

U.S. Department of the Navy	7	71.43%	71.43%	71.43%

U.S. Department of the Treasury	3	66.67%	33.33%	33.33%

U.S. Department of Transportation	1	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs	32	43.75%	12.50%	12.50%

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES	 	 	 	 

Central Intelligence Agency	1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Environmental Protection Agency	2	50.00%	50.00%	50.00%

Export-Import Bank	1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp	1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission	1	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%

General Services Administration	4	100.00%	75.00%	50.00%

NASA	1	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%

National Archives and Records Administration	1	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%

National Transportation Safety Board	1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Peace Corp	1	100.00%	0.00%	100.00%

Social Security Administration	1	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%

Tennessee Valley Authority	1	100.00%	100.00%	0.00%

U.S. Agency for International Development	1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board	1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission	1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum	1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board	1	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%

NOT AVAILABLE	18	22.22%	22.22%	22.22%

GRAND TOTALS	155	52.90%	40.65%	45.81%



Survey results presented in TABLE 5 show that many of the departments
that responded would be willing to share their occupational safety and
health training.  DHS, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), DOA, U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and VA are
notable exceptions.  Independent agencies’ willingness to share their
OSH training was evenly mixed, and those agencies not providing
respondent identification were less willing.  

In addition, nearly 46 percent of respondents answered “Yes” to
their agency’s willingness to work with OSHA to develop safety and
health training materials for their own agencies as well as other
federal agencies. TABLE 5 displays the percent of respondents who
indicated that their agency was willing to work with OSHA to develop
safety and health training materials for themselves and other federal
agencies.  The departments were overwhelmingly supportive with the
exception of DHS, Treasury and VA.  The independent agencies again had
mixed responses.  Those respondents who did not provide agency
identification information were less willing to work with OSHA in this
capacity. 

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2 

