Newsletter
RSS Feeds
Print This Page
Text Size
| <<
Back to State Occupational Safety and Health Plans Guidance for FY 2009 Enhanced FAME Reports |
| U.S. Department of Labor | Occupational Safety and Health
Administration Washington, D.C. 20210 Reply to the attention of: |
 |
| November 24, 2009 | ||
| MEMORANDUM FOR: | REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS STATE PLAN DESIGNEES |
|
| FROM: | /s/ JORDAN BARAB Acting Assistant Secretary |
|
| SUBJECT: | Enhanced FAME Reports and Baseline Special Evaluations | |
| Last month I testified before the House Committee on Education and Labor about
the recent Special Study that OSHA conducted in Nevada, as well as our plans for
increasing our oversight and conducting a baseline special evaluation in all
other State Plans. During that hearing we received clear direction that OSHA’s
monitoring of the State Plans needs to change from our current process. I made
the commitment, even before this hearing, that this would happen. I hope you
will join me in viewing this as a unique opportunity to work together to
identify and mutually resolve problems, as well as to identify effective
performance which may achieve the goals of the national OSHA program through
means that may differ from the Federal. Attached you will find guidance for preparation of an Enhanced Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation (FAME) report incorporating Baseline Special Evaluations for each State Plan (excluding Illinois and Nevada). These evaluations will include a Case File Review component, review of State performance statistics in comparison to Federal performance, and will look at areas not recently reviewed, such as the operation and outcome of State contested case review procedures. These Baseline Special Evaluations will focus on FY 2009 and should begin as soon as possible, but no later than the second quarter of FY 2010. The findings will be incorporated in the FY 2009 FAME reports. In order to ensure that we are looking at each State consistently, this guidance includes a framework for gathering and reporting your findings; however, each Region may adjust the presentation of information to reflect the circumstances in its States. State participation in the monitoring and evaluation efforts will assure that all pertinent facts are considered and that the conclusions are accurate and fair. States are encouraged to include elements from the Enhanced FAME format in their State Occupational Safety and Health Annual Report (SOAR) as well. Regions should consider using resources on their monitoring teams in addition to those already assigned to State Plan monitoring, both for their expertise and for a new perspective. Regions may choose to share resources, as appropriate. The draft Enhanced FAME report must be shared with the State for review and comment, revised as appropriate, and submitted, together with a draft transmittal letter to the State, to the Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs (DCSP), Office of State Programs for coordination of National Office review and approval prior to issuance. Our goal is to have all final Enhanced FAME Reports for FY 2009 issued by April 30, 2010, although requests for extensions will be considered by the Assistant Secretary. All reports, and each State’s formal response to the report (due 30 days after issuance), will be made available publically. If you have any questions or concerns about this guidance, please let me or Steven Witt know. The OSHSPA Board and the Federal State Plan Steering Committee will discuss the Enhanced FAME at their upcoming meeting on December 2, 2009 in Salt Lake City, Utah. We are hopeful that our mutual implementation of this guidance will help us identify the changes that need to be made to our State Plan monitoring procedures. Attachment FY 2009 State Plan Enhanced FAME Reports
To Include Baseline Special Evaluations Background As a result of an agreement reached with the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association (OSHSPA) several years ago, OSHA’s current State plan monitoring system focuses on achievement of State strategic goals and performance on a limited number of statistical activities measures. The results of a Special Study of the Nevada State Plan recently completed by a team of Federal monitors with the cooperation of the State demonstrate that this approach may not capture and address performance problems that may exist in some States. In addition, the recent Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation (FAME) reports do not always present complete pictures of the State programs. While the current monitoring system does not preclude on-site monitoring or other in-depth evaluations of a State plan, the focus on strategic goals and activities measures has in some cases led to limiting monitoring to those areas. Interim Monitoring Guidance was issued on August 31, 2009, to reiterate the available monitoring options and suggest improvements in preparation of the FY 2009 FAME reports. OSHA has announced to the States and the Congress, following the issuance of the Report on the Special Study done in Nevada, that baseline Special Evaluation Studies would be done for each State Plan. FY 2009 Enhanced FAME Reports – New Guidance As part of the preparation of the FY 2009 FAME reports, each Region will conduct a Special Evaluation Study in each of its State Plan States (excluding Illinois and Nevada) to better assess the current performance of each State program and identify any structural or performance issues of concern. The findings of these baseline Special Studies will be incorporated into the FY 2009 FAME report when issued. Guidance for the content and format for the expanded report based on the current FAME format in Chapter 9 of the State Plan Policies and Procedures Manual (CSP 01-00-002) is attached. These studies will also aid OSHA in the future revision of the monitoring system by identifying the most effective monitoring techniques. Each Region will design and conduct a baseline Special Evaluation for each of its State Plans during the first and second quarters of FY 2010. State cooperation and participation in the Special Study is to be encouraged. Each Special Evaluation Study will, in addition to looking at broad statistical measures from the State Plan Activities Measures (SAMM and SIR reports) and IMIS management reports, focus on known areas of concern in the State which may be performance and/or structurally related. Any performance review should look at underlying policies, procedures, regulations and statutory authority to determine not only State conformance with its procedures but the "at least as effectiveness" of those procedures. Studies should focus on enforcement effectiveness, including the handling of major accidents, fatalities and complaints, targeting, hazard recognition, violation classification, citation and penalty issuance, employee involvement, and training of compliance officers. The outcome of the State’s contested case review process, including settlement of cases and the procedures and findings of the review authority and their transparency must be reviewed. In addition, issues receiving public attention, CASPAs, legislative or regulatory changes or initiatives, and funding and staffing changes, must be addressed. Interviews with State inspectors and supervisors are encouraged. Stakeholders should be contacted and their views on State Plan performance sought. The State’s response to recommendations contained in previous CASPAs, Annual Evaluations and other reports should be reviewed. Case File Reviews Each Special Study must include a Case File Review component directed either at specific known areas of concern, or a statistically valid random sample of enforcement cases, as determined by the Regional Administrator. In designing the Special Study for each State Plan, the procedures used for Federal field audits as set out in Management and Accountability Program Directive (EAA-01-000-003), and the more detailed on-site monitoring procedures contained in the 1994 State Plan Monitoring Manual may be used as guidance. (The 1994 Manual will be posted on the "O" drive.) The cases reviewed should be from FY 2009. If monitoring that included a Federal audit with case file reviews has already been conducted for FY 2009, those findings may be used as part of this report, and those specific topic areas do not need to be reviewed again. Additional focused case file reviews covering areas not previously addressed may be necessary. If Accompanied Visits of State CSHO’s are the only means available to evaluate a case file or other monitoring finding, they may be done on a very limited basis. The findings from these Special Studies will be incorporated into the FY 2009 Enhanced FAME Report. As a result, the scope of that report will go beyond the current requirements found in Chapter 9 of the State Plan Policy and Procedures Manual (SPPM) to include a description and the findings of the study with concrete recommendations for correction, and a timeframe for expected completion. The States are encouraged to expand the focus of their State Occupational Safety and Health Annual Report (SOAR) to include a broader assessment of their enforcement, going beyond the goals in their Annual Performance Plan, and including the results of their internal audits. Consultation Regions need not consolidate their evaluation of the 21(d) Consultation Program in the FY 2009 Enhanced FAME. The Consultation evaluation report may be issued separately. Study Teams The Special Studies shall be conducted using a team approach. Each team should consist of members with an adequate level of expertise to thoroughly review and analyze the State plan’s performance. Ideally, that expertise would include experience in the areas of field enforcement, case file review, whistleblower, CSHO training, cooperative programs and outreach. A team of four (4) was used for the Nevada Special Study. Regions may want to consider "sharing" resources in order to obtain the most effective and consistent reviews. Other Regional staff may be helpful for specific areas of review, e.g., members of the Regional audit team, experienced field CSHOs/Team Leaders, Whistleblower Investigators, etc. Due Date The goal is to issue the final Enhanced FAME Reports for FY 2009 by April 30, 2010. Reasonable extensions may be requested for good cause and may be granted, after review by the Assistant Secretary. In addition to providing the State an opportunity to review and comment on the draft report, reports must be submitted to the National Office for review and approval prior to issuance. Appendix A
General Guidance for Preparation of the State Plan FY 2009 Enhanced Fame Report
Appendix B
FY 2009 Enhanced FAME Report Suggested Format and Content (to incorporate findings of Special Baseline Evaluation Studies) Executive Summary This section provides an overview of the State's progress towards achieving its performance goals, including results accomplished, and summarizes any significant issues or changes related to the annual performance plan, legislation, enforcement activities, funding, events that receive public/media attention, or CASPAs in the last year and during the period covered by the Special Study that have significantly impacted the State plan. The Executive Summary must also indicate whether the State continues to meet its State plan requirements. The Executive Summary should not include all of the details of the State program's performance, which are to be included in the body of the report, but should include a summary listing of the significant findings/general conclusions in the report. The purpose of this summary is to provide an overview of what is working well and to highlight those areas where corrective action is necessary. A list of significant recommendations also should be included. Recommendations should be specific as to outcome, with time frames for response. Related recommendations should be grouped together, rather than repeating similar recommendations several times. A comprehensive listing of all recommendations should be included as a separate section of the report. Introduction This section will include a brief profile of the State plan, including the department or division within the organizational structure of the State government in which the program is operated and the identity of the State Plan Designee and manager of the State program. It must also include a brief description of the size of the program in terms of the number of full- and part-time staff and the State program budget. In addition, this section must include a brief description of the program and its major unique features or significant differences from the Federal program. Describe how onsite consultation is provided in the state. If private sector consultation is provided under 23(g), it must be assessed in the report. Summary of Recommendations and State Actions from the FY 2008 FAME Recommendations may be grouped together where appropriate, and indicate what actions the State has taken to address the issues raised or improve performance. Where the State did not take any corrective action, or where the action taken did not follow the Region’s recommendations, discuss why corrective action did not occur and whether the issue was identified in the current evaluation. Major New Issues This section should discuss any new issues during the evaluation period that have had significant impact on the program and program performance. This section expands on the discussion of issues summarized in the Executive Summary. These may include, but are not limited to changes in the annual performance plan, legislation, enforcement activities, funding, events that receive public/media attention, or Complaints About State Plan Administration (CASPAs). Include all issues that arose during FY 2009, as well as those identified during the Special Study. If an issue relates to performance and/or a recommendation, reference the appropriate section above or below. Assessment of State Performance
Note: Regions are encouraged to post Monitoring and Special Study tools and best practices to the "O" drive. Appendix C - Performance Data
Appendix D – Monitoring Tools
Appendix E – Procedures for Performing
Case File Reviews, Random Sampling, etc.
Page last updated: 02/24/2010 |
||