jurisdiction: US

text: b'Report No. IE-2007-006 September 28, 2007\n\n\n\n\n Safety and Occupational Health Accountability\n In DoD Individual\n Performance Evaluation Reports\n\x0c DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n MISSION STATEMENT\n\n\n\n\nThe Office of the Inspector General promotes integrity, accountability, and improvement of\n Department of Defense personnel, programs and operations to support\n the Department\'s mission and to serve the public interest.\n\n\n\n\n D E PA R T M E N T O F D E F E N S E\n To report fraud, waste, mismanagement, and abuse of authority.\n\n\n hot line Send written complaints to: Defense Hotline, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1900\n Phone: 800.424.9098 e-mail: hotline@dodig.mil www.dodig.mil/hotline\n\x0cSafety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD\n Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n September 28, 2007\nWho Should Read This Report and Why?\nThis report should be read by military and civilian supervisors throughout the\nDepartment of Defense. The report documents observations and\nrecommendations to improve compliance with the DoD requirement to\ninclude safety and occupational health accountability on individual evaluation\nreports.\nWhat Was Identified?\nThe Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness requested this\nassessment. As prescribed in DoD Instruction 6055.1, \xe2\x80\x9cSafety and\nOccupational Health (SOH) Program,\xe2\x80\x9d August 19, 1998, \xe2\x80\x9call military (officer\nand enlisted) and civilian employees shall be appropriately evaluated on their\nSOH duties and responsibilities, and their personnel evaluation systems shall\nallow SOH performance to be so evaluated.\xe2\x80\x9d To examine compliance with\nthis provision, the assessment team reviewed applicable policy and surveyed\nthe Department\xe2\x80\x99s military and civilian senior leaders.\nDoD policy incorporates the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations,\nTitle 29, Part 1960.11. Military and civilian personnel management systems\nalso reference the requirements. Performance management system policy is\nsufficient.\nHowever, implementation is inadequate based on survey data. The overall\nresponse rate for the Web-based survey was 43 percent \xe2\x80\x93 1,086 responses.\nThe analysis of the responses resulted in one observation:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Awareness and Interpretation. Out of 1,086 responses, 34 percent\n stated they were not familiar with the evaluation requirement. Of the\n 722 who stated they were aware of the policy, 39 percent answered\n they did not include safety goals in their job descriptions, and 27\n percent said they did not reflect subordinate\xe2\x80\x99s safety performance in\n evaluations. However, 280 respondents (39 percent of those familiar\n with the policy) stated they had held someone accountable for poor\n safety and occupational health program performance in the past year.\nHow It Could Be Improved?\nWe recommended that the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for\nInstallations and Environment communicate and clarify the intent of DoD\nInstruction 6055.1 to senior military and civilians of the Department, and\ncoordinate with the Service offices of primary responsibility, the office of the\nDeputy Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, and the\nProgram Executive Officer, National Security Personnel System to formalize\nand institutionalize completion of safety and occupational health program\nmanagement performance in supervisor performance rating systems.\n\n\n\n Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\x0c\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nIntroduction 1\nSurvey and Analysis Results 3\n Policy Review 3\n Observation: Policy Awareness and Interpretation 5\n\n\n\n List of Appendixes\nA. Announcement Memorandum 8\nB. Project Process 9\nC. Telephone Interview Script 11\nD. Web-Based Questionnaire 12\nE. Acronym List 16\nF. Report Distribution 17\nG. Management Comments and Evaluation Response 18\n\x0cThis Page Intentionally Left Blank\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n\n\nIntroduction\nObjective. The purpose of this project was to examine compliance with the Department\nof Defense (DoD) requirement to include safety and occupational health accountability in\nindividual performance evaluation reports. (See Appendix A)\n\nBackground. Accidents degrade DoD capabilities and readiness, costing the Department\ntime and money. In 2006, more than 640 Service members and civilians died as a result\nof accidents. DoD spends more than $100 million for safety programs each fiscal year,\nand the average cost of workers compensation claims exceeds $600 million annually. In\naddition to these direct costs, estimates for annual indirect costs range between $10 and\n$21 billion. 1\n\nOn July 18, 2006, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness requested\nthe assistance of the DoD Inspector General to assess the Department\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with\nthe requirement to include safety and occupational health performance on individual\nperformance reports for all Department employees.\n\nProgram Roles and Responsibilities. Authority and responsibility for the DoD safety\nand occupational health (SOH) program is divided as follows within the Office of the\nSecretary of Defense:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is \xe2\x80\x9cthe\n Principal Staff Assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense for all matters\n relating to \xe2\x80\xa6 safety, and occupational health management.\xe2\x80\x9d The Under Secretary\n delegated responsibility to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for\n Installations and Environment as the Designated Agency Safety and Health\n Official. The Under Secretary also delegated program management to the\n Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environment, Safety, and\n Occupational Health.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in his capacity as \xe2\x80\x9cthe\n Principal Staff Assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense for Total Force\n management \xe2\x80\xa6 [will] establish safety and accident reduction activities to prevent\n accidents and injuries to military and civilian personnel \xe2\x80\xa6 in accordance with the\n guidelines of the Defense Safety Oversight Council.\xe2\x80\x9d The Secretary of Defense\n designated the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness as the\n chair of the Defense Safety Oversight Council.\n\n\n\n1\n Estimate from \xe2\x80\x9cDepartment of Defense: Executive Assessment of Safety and Occupational Health\nManagement Systems,\xe2\x80\x9d National Safety Council, December 6, 2001.\n\n\n 1\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\nAuthority and responsibility for civilian rating systems in DoD lies with the Deputy\nUnder Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy. As of September 2007, the\nNational Security Personnel System (NSPS) was unique among civilian rating systems\nused in DoD.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The system was not fully implemented throughout the department.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Program Executive Officer reported to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.\n\nData Collection. To examine compliance, the assessment team reviewed DoD and\nService policy, and administered two surveys: telephonic and Web-based. The target\npopulation for the surveys was DoD military and civilian leaders \xe2\x80\x93 approximately 2800\ngeneral/flag officers and members of the Senior Executive Service (SES). In addition to\nthe military officer / civilian division, the population is drawn from six major sub-groups:\nfour military services (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force), the Joint Staff (JCS), and\nOthers (primarily the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Defense agencies).\nBeginning on January 17, 2007, the team conducted 159 telephone interviews to validate\nthe survey questions (see Appendix B). Subsequently, the team sent e-mail to the entire\ntarget population, requesting they take the Web-based version of the survey. The overall\nresponse rate for the Web-based survey was 43 percent, netting 1,086 responses and the\nbasis for subsequent analysis.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\nSurvey and Analysis Results\nPolicy Review\nCompliant performance rating systems satisfy a multitude of laws, regulations, and\npolicy. Specific to safety and occupational health performance evaluation, Title 29, part\n1960.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1960.11) requires:\n Each agency head shall ensure that any performance evaluation of any management\n official in charge of an establishment, any supervisory employee, or other appropriate\n management official, measures that employee\'s performance in meeting requirements of\n the agency occupational safety and health program, consistent with the employee\'s\n assigned responsibilities and authority, and taking into consideration any applicable\n regulations of the Office of Personnel Management or other appropriate authority. The\n recognition of superior performance in discharging safety and health responsibilities by\n an individual or group should be encouraged and noted.\n\nDoD incorporates the requirement of 29 CFR 1960.11 to include safety and occupational\nhealth performance on individual performance reports in DoD Instruction 6055.1, \xe2\x80\x9cSafety\nand Occupational Health (SOH) Program,\xe2\x80\x9d August 19, 1998:\n All military (officer and enlisted) and civilian employees shall be appropriately evaluated\n on their SOH duties and responsibilities, and their personnel evaluation systems shall\n allow SOH performance to be so evaluated. Evaluations of individuals responsible for\n the management of SOH programs shall specifically include an evaluation of their SOH\n program management performance. Performance of SOH duties and responsibilities\n shall be appropriately considered in other personnel actions.\n\nThe Instruction identifies the two distinct employee populations, military and civilian.\n\n Military. The military population referenced is the uniformed members of the\nServices. The Military Departments (Army, Navy, Air Force) develop, implement, and\nsupervise their own systems for rating their service members. Relevant policy differs\namong the Departments, but all incorporate the 29 CFR 1960.11 requirement.\n\nArmy Regulation 623-3, \xe2\x80\x9cEvaluation Reporting System,\xe2\x80\x9d August 10, 2007, paragraph\n3-4c(5)(d)(3) states that \xe2\x80\x9call officers and NCOs will have a safety-related objective/task\ndeveloped as part of their support form/counseling requirements.\xe2\x80\x9d\nNavy Bureau of Personnel Instruction 1610.10a, \xe2\x80\x9cNavy Performance Evaluation\nSystem,\xe2\x80\x9d September 20, 2005, lists Environmental Quality and Safety among Specific\nContributions for mention for Officer Fitness Report Input (Exhibit 18-1, page 18-10).\nHowever, the list is not prescriptive, in that \xe2\x80\x9cthe reporting senior is the sole judge of\nwhich items to use in the report.\xe2\x80\x9d\nMarine Corps Order P1610.7F, \xe2\x80\x9cPerformance Evaluation System,\xe2\x80\x9d May 11, 2006,\nincludes the \xe2\x80\x9cextent of fulfillment of the execution and oversight of the command\'s safety\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\npolicy, when applicable, but especially when MRO [Marine Reviewed Officer] is filling\nan executive officer\'s or deputy commander\'s billet with their safety responsibilities\xe2\x80\x9d in\nofficer fitness reports. But it is listed in paragraph 4012, the Section titled \xe2\x80\x9cReporting\nSenior\xe2\x80\x99s Directed and Additional Comments,\xe2\x80\x9d as one of 24 \xe2\x80\x9cother\xe2\x80\x9d comments available\nfor mention.\nAir Force Instruction 36.2406, \xe2\x80\x9cOfficer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems,\xe2\x80\x9d April 15,\n2005, requires evaluators to \xe2\x80\x9cconsider items listed below when assessing performance\nand potential and specifically mention them in evaluation reports when appropriate.\xe2\x80\x9d\nHow commanders, managers, and supervisors discharge Occupational Safety and Health\nprogram responsibilities is among the items listed for consideration in section 1.3.6.\n\n Civilian. As of September 2007, DoD civilian supervisors were rated under a\nnumber of systems. Implementing instructions are outlined in DoD Directive 1400.25M,\n\xe2\x80\x9cDepartment of Defense Civilian Personnel Manual.\xe2\x80\x9d Two subchapters of the directive\naddressed reporting of individual performance.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cPerformance Appraisal System,\xe2\x80\x9d SC 430, \xe2\x80\x9cprescribes procedures, delegates\n authority, and assigns responsibility for performance management within the\n Department of Defense; and establishes the DoD Performance Appraisal System.\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cPerformance Management,\xe2\x80\x9d SC 1940, \xe2\x80\x9cprescribes procedures, delegates\n authority and assigns responsibility for the NSPS [National Security Personnel\n System] performance management system.\xe2\x80\x9d\nSubchapter 430 of DoDD 1400.25M contains no explicit mention of safety. Paragraph\nSC430.2.9 states that performance management programs shall \xe2\x80\x9censure the incorporation\nin performance evaluations of matters required by other law, regulation, and DoD\npolicy.\xe2\x80\x9d This formulation was approved by the Office of Personnel Management on\nJanuary 31, 1996.\n\nIn 2006 the Department began implementing NSPS, with the intent to replace the prior\nsystem for applicable DoD civilian employees. Paragraph SC1940.5.7.3 requires a\nmandatory supervisory job objective for supervisors, holding \xe2\x80\x9csupervisors accountable\nfor carrying out the responsibilities outlined in the implementing issuances and\nsubsequent Component policy and guidance.\xe2\x80\x9d Safety and occupational health again are\nnot mentioned explicitly concerning the development of the mandatory objective. Safety\nis mentioned directly in the definition of \xe2\x80\x9cResource Management,\xe2\x80\x9d an optional\ncontributing factor for supervisors and employees job objectives.\n\nAll personnel systems in use in DoD passed legal review. In addition, the NSPS Program\nExecutive Officer obtained concurrence from the Defense Safety Oversight Council on\nOctober 17, 2006, that the NSPS \xe2\x80\x9cincludes safety elements for DoD managers.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n\n\nObservation: Policy Awareness and Interpretation\nPerformance management Figure 1. Senior Leader Awareness\nsystem policy is sufficient; Survey Question # 1: Are you aware of DoD\'s policy to evaluate\ncompliance is inadequate. Of the supervisor performance of safety and health program management?\n1,086 senior leaders responding Organization Count Yes to Q1 Percent "YES"\nto the Web-based survey, Air Force 253 164 65%\n Army 415 318 77%\nFigure 1 shows that more than JCS 13 6 46%\none third stated they were not Marines 37 29 78%\n Navy 178 108 61%\naware of DoD\xe2\x80\x99s policy to Other 190 97 51%\nevaluate supervisor performance TOTAL 1086\n TOTAL "YES" 722 66%\nof safety and occupational health TOTAL "NO" 364 34%\nprogram management (survey\nquestion 1). We believe that senior leaders remain unaware of the policy because the\nrequirement is not provided sufficient importance in the Service and civilian personnel\nrating systems. It is reasonable to conclude that the lack of awareness impacts DoD\xe2\x80\x99s\ngoal for full compliance.\n\nMore than 95 percent of the 1,086 senior leaders responded that \xe2\x80\x9ctheir subordinates place\nan emphasis on safety\xe2\x80\x9d (survey question 2). This result requires no additional comment.\n\nFurther analysis of the 722 senior leaders who stated they were aware of the policy is\nshown in Figure 2. Awareness did not translate to compliance. When asked if safety\n Figure 2. Policy Interpretation\n Calculations based on the 722 "Yes" Survey Question # 3: Are safety goals Survey Question # 4: Do you reflect\n responses to survey Question # 1 (see and objectives included in the description your subordinates\xe2\x80\x99 safety performance in\n below). of your duties? their evaluations?\n Organization "Yes" to Q1 "No" to Q3 Percent "No" "No" to Q4 Percent "No"\n Air Force 164 77 47% 44 27%\n Army 318 72 23% 55 17%\n JCS 6 5 83% 3 50%\n Marines 29 16 55% 11 38%\n Navy 108 44 41% 31 29%\n Other 97 64 66% 48 49%\n TOTAL "NO" 278 39% 192 27%\n\ngoals and objectives were included in their job description (survey question 3), 39 percent\nresponded they were not. Also, 27 percent responded that they were not reflecting safety\nperformance in their subordinate\xe2\x80\x99s performance evaluations (survey question 4).\nResponses varied across major Components, with the Office of Secretary of Defense\nStaff and Defense agencies (Other) displaying the lowest rate.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\nOn a positive note, as shown in Figure 3, almost 40 percent of the senior management\nrespondents stated that they held people accountable for poor performance in safety and\nhealth program management over the past year (survey question 5). The assessment team\ndid not sample individual performance rating reports to validate survey responses to\nquestion 5 (see Appendix B).\n Figure 3. Policy Implementation\n Calculations based on the 722 "Yes" Survey Question # 5: Did you hold anyone\n responses to survey Question # 1 (see accountable for poor performance in safety &\n below). health program management in the past year?\n\n Organization "Yes" to Q1 "Yes" to Q5 Percent "Yes"\n Air Force 164 67 41%\n Army 318 120 38%\n JCS 6 2 33%\n Marines 29 17 59%\n Navy 108 47 44%\n Other 97 27 28%\n TOTAL "YES" 280 39%\n\n\n\nManagement should consider options to improve awareness. Short term ways to increase\nawareness include communication from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to DoD\nsenior leaders either directly, through normal command channels, or through technical\npublications. This is likely to be effective immediately, but without lasting impact\nbecause of the constant rotation of personnel. Inclusion of the requirement in officer and\ncivilian education classes (pre-command courses, executive development courses, etc.)\nwill likely provide a long-term solution. Another option is explicit inclusion of support\nfor safety and occupational health on supervisor rating forms.\n\nWe believe that the lack of specificity in DoD Instruction 6055.1 allows the Services and\nother agencies to interpret the requirement differently, further contributing to non-\ncompliance. DoD Instruction 6055.1 states that employees shall be \xe2\x80\x9cappropriately\xe2\x80\x9d\nevaluated on their safety and occupational health duties, without further defining\n\xe2\x80\x9cappropriately.\xe2\x80\x9d In addition, which military commanders and civilian supervisors are\n\xe2\x80\x9cresponsible for the management of SOH [safety and occupational health] programs,\xe2\x80\x9d is\nnot adequately defined.\n\nSettling differences in interpretation will require communication and coordination. The\nDefense Safety Oversight Council is one available forum to discuss differing\ninterpretations and reach consensus. Council membership is sufficiently senior, including\nOffice of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and Service representation at the level of\nUnder Secretary.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n Recommendation. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and\n Environment should:\n 1. Communicate and clarify the intent of the requirements of DoD\n Instruction 6055.1 to the Department, specifically targeting senior military and\n civilian officials.\n 2. Coordinate with the Service offices of primary responsibility, the Deputy\n Under Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, and the Program\n Executive Officer, National Security Personnel System to formalize and\n institutionalize completion of safety and occupational health program\n management performance in supervisor performance rating systems.\n\n\nIf implemented, the recommendations in this report should increase awareness of\nreporting requirements, highlight the importance of safety programs to all supervisors,\nand facilitate compliance with 29 CFR 1960.11 and DoDI 6055.1.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n\nAppendix A \xe2\x80\x93 Announcement Memorandum\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n\n\nAppendix B \xe2\x80\x93 Project Process\nScope\nScope. We announced this project in January 2007 to review compliance with DoD\nInstruction 6055.1, \xe2\x80\x9cSafety and Occupational Health (SOH) Program,\xe2\x80\x9d August 19, 1998,\n(see appendix A). Specifically, we assessed whether DoD supervisors complied with the\nDoD requirement to include safety and occupational health accountability in individual\nperformance evaluation reports. The team examined statutory and policy guidance\nrelating to the DoD requirement and conducted two surveys from January 2007 to\nAugust 2007. The team did not review evaluation reports.\n\nMethodology\nMethodology. The Defense Manpower Data Center provided a database listing all DoD\ngeneral/flag officers and SES containing 2,810 entries. The team developed and\nadministered the survey questionnaire using telephonic interviews and Web-based access.\nThe team consulted with the Quantitative Methods Directorate of the Office of the\nInspector General during all steps in the process.\n Survey Questions. The telephonic interviews and Web-based survey contained the\nsame five questions.\n\n 1. Are you aware of DoD\xe2\x80\x99s policy to evaluate supervisor performance of safety & health\n program management?\n 2. Do your subordinates place an emphasis on safety? If so, what methods do they use:\n briefings, policy letters, posters, stand-downs, or any other methods?\n 3. Are safety goals and objectives included in the description of your duties?\n 4. Do you reflect your subordinates\xe2\x80\x99 safety performance in their evaluations?\n 5. Did you hold anyone accountable for poor performance in safety & health program\n management in the past year?\n\n\n Telephonic Interview Survey. We began the survey process on January 17, 2007,\nrandomly selecting 267 individuals from the database with the intention of validating\nsurvey questions using a statistically valid sample. While we eventually conducted 159\nsuccessful interviews, the high error rate of the original database did not allow for\nprojection of the sample to the entire population. However, it did allow us to validate the\nsurvey questions. See Appendix C for an example of the script used for interviews.\n Web-Based Survey. We initiated the Web-based survey on February 12, 2007,\nsending e-mail to the entire target population. The e-mail explained how and why the\nOIG was conducting the survey, how the information would be used, why participation\n\n\n 9\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\nwas important, and directed participants to the survey Web page. We sent two e-mail\nreminders to encourage survey participation. Data collection stopped on March 5, 2007.\nSee Appendix D for an example of the Web-based survey.\nBased on our experience with the Figure 4. Web-based Survey Population\nlisting during the telephonic survey,\n Original Population from database 2810\nwe scrubbed the roster for obvious\n No email address 137\nerrors (see figure 4). Prior to Duplicative names 11\ndispatching the Web survey, we Undeliverable emails 118\n Other 20\nreduced the population by 286 to\n Total identified database errors 286\naccount for 137 respondents without\n Potential respondents 2524\ne-mail addresses, 11 with duplicate\n Actual respondents 1086\nnames, 118 undeliverable e-mails, Percentage 43.0%\nand 20 e-mails that were sent to\nindividuals who had retired or otherwise departed from their position. This resulted in a\npopulation of 2,524 potential survey participants.\n\nWe received 1,086 valid responses from the 2,524 targeted population, for a response rate\nof 43 percent. Of the valid responses, we received 722 from general/flag officers for a\n64 percent response rate. We received 364 valid responses from SES for a 34 percent\nresponse rate.\n\nTeam Members\nPersonnel assigned to the Office of the Inspector General, DoD, Inspections and\nEvaluations Assessment contributing to this report were:\n Mr. William Morrison\n Mr. George Marquardt\n Mr. Kayode Bamgbade\n Colonel Thomas Epperson, USAR\n Dr. Sardar Hassan\n Major Linda Moschelle, USAF\n Ms. Beverly Cornish\n Ms. Susann Stephenson\n Ms. Carol Brink-Meissner\n YN1 Willie Reid, USN\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n\n\nAppendix C \xe2\x80\x93 Telephone Interview Script\nSafety Accountability in DoD Individual Performance Reports Questionnaire D2007-DIP0E2-0036.000\nAnalyst Name _______________________\nOrder # ______ Date 1: ______________ Date 2: ______________ Date 3: ______________\nCompleted Refused Unavailable (Circle One)\nIntroduction: My name is ___________ and I am an analyst with the Office of the Inspector General\nat DoD. Dr. Chu, the Under Secretary Of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, requested an\nassessment of Safety Accountability in Performance Reports.\nI have five questions that will take less than five minutes to complete. This survey is crucial to\nidentify compliance with DoD policies regarding \xe2\x80\x9csafety as an element in performance reports\xe2\x80\x9d. For\nthis interview, I need to validate your demographics. Please be assured your responses will be kept\nanonymous and will not be matched to your demographics.\nYour organization is: Army Navy Marine Air Force JCS OSD ANG ArNG\nOther Defense (specify) ___________ (DFAS, DISA, DLA, etc.)\nAnd your grade is (SES or O-7/8/9/10) _______ is that correct?\nWhat is your current title? ________________________________________________________\nPlease answer the following five questions with either Yes, No, or I Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know.\n Don\xe2\x80\x99t\n Web-based Questionnaire YES NO COMMENTS\n Know\n\n 1. Are you aware of DoD\xe2\x80\x99s policy to\n evaluate supervisor performance of safety &\n health program management?\n 2. Do your subordinates place an emphasis Which of methods do they use:\n on safety? briefings ,\n policy letters ,\n posters ,\n safety stand-down day ,\n other (please explain)\n\n 3. Are safety goals and objectives included\n in the description of your duties?\n 4. Do you reflect your subordinates\xe2\x80\x99 safety\n performance in their evaluations?\n\n 5. Did you hold anyone accountable for\n poor performance in safety & health\n program management in the past year?\n\nCLOSING: \xe2\x80\x9cThank you for your valuable time. That\xe2\x80\x99s all I have\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cThank you Sir/Ma\xe2\x80\x99am.\xe2\x80\x9d\nFor Persistent Comments:\n 1. I\xe2\x80\x99m sorry, I can\xe2\x80\x99t provide any additional information, I can only go through the questionnaire.\n 2. You will be receiving a Web-based survey soon and you\xe2\x80\x99ll be able to provide additional comments\n on that survey.\n 3. I can email a copy of the announcement memo to you. Can I verify your email address?\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n\n\nAppendix D \xe2\x80\x93 Web-Based Questionnaire\n\n\n OCCUPATIONAL\xc2\xa0SAFETY\xc2\xa0&\xc2\xa0HEALTH\xc2\xa0PROGRAM\xc2\xa0\n ASSESSMENT\xc2\xa0OF\xc2\xa0INDIVIDUAL\xc2\xa0SAFETY\xc2\xa0PERFORMANCE\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n About This Questionnaire\nHow much time is required to complete survey? This 5-question survey takes less than five\nminutes to complete.\nWhy complete this survey? As requested by the Defense Safety Oversight Council (DSOC),\nthe DoD-IG is compiling feedback from active duty flag/general officers and SESs to assess\nDoD compliance on the requirement to include safety and occupational health performance on\nindividual performance reports for all military and civilian employees. Your responses are\nimportant. Our analysis of the survey responses will be presented to the DSOC.\nWill my questionnaire responses be kept anonymous? Yes. Do not use any personal\nnames anywhere on this questionnaire.\nPrivacy Notice\nAuthority: This questionnaire is being administered by the Inspector General of the\nDepartment of Defense under the authority of Section 1566, chapter 80 of title 10, United\nStates Code.\nPrincipal Purpose: To determine compliance with the DoD policy requiring safety\naccountability on individual performance plans and ratings. Results will improve the\neffectiveness of the safety and health programs in DoD.\nRoutine Uses: None.\nDisclosure: Providing information on this questionnaire is voluntary. There is no penalty if\nyou choose not to respond. However, maximum participation is encouraged. No identifying\ninformation is being collected that could identify individuals. Only summary information will\nbe reported.\nWeb-based Survey Questionnaire for Safety Accountability in Individual Performance\nReports (SAIPR), Project No D2007-DIPOE2-0036\nCompleting This Questionnaire:\n 1 This questionnaire will take no more than 5 minutes.\n 2. Select answers you believe are the most appropriate and true to the best of your knowledge.\n 3. Complete all questions before exiting this Web Site.\nIntroduction: Your responses will be used to determine compliance with DoD policy,\nregarding safety as an element in performance reports. Please be assured that your response\nwill be kept anonymous. For the purpose of this questionnaire, we do not need your name, but\nwe do need your Rank/Grade level for analyzing the result by groups.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n\n\n Web\xe2\x80\x90Based\xc2\xa0Questionnaire\nYour\xc2\xa0Organization:\xc2\xa0\n Army\xc2\xa0\n Navy\xc2\xa0\n Marine\xc2\xa0\n Air\xc2\xa0Force\xc2\xa0\n JCS\xc2\xa0\n Other\xc2\xa0(e.g.,\xc2\xa0OSD,\xc2\xa0Defense\xc2\xa0Agency,\xc2\xa0Field\xc2\xa0Activity,\xc2\xa0etc)\xc2\xa0\nPlease\xc2\xa0Specify:\nRespondent:\nRank/Grade\xc2\xa0Level: \xc2\xa0\nTitle:\n1.\xc2\xa0Are\xc2\xa0you\xc2\xa0aware\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0DoD\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0policy\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0evaluate\xc2\xa0supervisor\xc2\xa0performance\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0safety\xc2\xa0\n&\xc2\xa0health\xc2\xa0program\xc2\xa0management?\n\n Yes\xc2\xa0\n No\xc2\xa0\n Don\xca\xb9t\xc2\xa0Know\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\nComments:\n2.\xc2\xa0Do\xc2\xa0your\xc2\xa0subordinates\xc2\xa0place\xc2\xa0emphasis\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0safety?\n\n Yes\xc2\xa0\n No\xc2\xa0\n Don\xca\xb9t\xc2\xa0Know\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n\n\nComments:\n2a.\xc2\xa0How?\xc2\xa0(Click\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0apply)\n\n Briefings\xc2\xa0\n Policy\xc2\xa0letters\xc2\xa0\n Posters\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n Safety\xc2\xa0stand\xe2\x80\x90down\xc2\xa0day\xc2\xa0\n Other\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0(please\xc2\xa0explain\xc2\xa0below)\n\n\n\n\nIf\xc2\xa0other\n3.\xc2\xa0Are\xc2\xa0safety\xc2\xa0goals\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0objectives\xc2\xa0included\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0description\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0your\xc2\xa0duty?\n\n Yes\xc2\xa0\n No\xc2\xa0\n Don\xca\xb9t\xc2\xa0Know\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\nComments:\xc2\xa0\n4.\xc2\xa0Do\xc2\xa0you\xc2\xa0reflect\xc2\xa0your\xc2\xa0subordinates\xe2\x80\x99\xc2\xa0safety\xc2\xa0performance\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0their\xc2\xa0evaluations?\n\n Yes\xc2\xa0\n No\xc2\xa0\n Don\xca\xb9t\xc2\xa0Know\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n\n\nComments:\n5.\xc2\xa0Did\xc2\xa0you\xc2\xa0hold\xc2\xa0anyone\xc2\xa0accountable\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0poor\xc2\xa0performance\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0safety\xc2\xa0&\xc2\xa0health\xc2\xa0\nprogram\xc2\xa0management\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0past\xc2\xa0year?\n\n Yes\xc2\xa0\n No\xc2\xa0\n Don\xca\xb9t\xc2\xa0Know\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\nComments:\n\n Clear Answ ers\n \xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n\n\nAppendix E \xe2\x80\x93 Acronym List\n\nCFR Code of Federal Regulations\nDoD Department of Defense\nDoD OIG Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General\nDSOC Defense Safety Oversight Council\nJCS Joint Chiefs of Staff\nNSPS National Security Personnel System\nOSD Office of the Secretary of Defense\nSES Senior Executive Service\nSOH Safety and Occupational Health\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n\n\nAppendix F \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution\n\nOffice of the Secretary of Defense\nUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics*\nUnder Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer\nUnder Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness*\nAssistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs)\nAssistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)\nDirector, National Security Personnel System Program Executive Office*\nDepartment of the Army\nAssistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs\nInspector General, Department of the Army\nDepartment of the Navy\nAssistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs\nNaval Inspector General\nDeputy Naval Inspector General for Marine Corps Matters\nDepartment of the Air Force\nAssistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affiars\nInspector General, Department of the Air Force\nCongressional Committees\nSenate Committee on Armed Services\nSenate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs\nSenate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Committee on Armed Services\nHouse Committee on Oversight and Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\n\n\n\n\n* Denotes recipient of the draft report.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c Safety and Occupational Health Accountability In DoD Individual Performance Evaluation Reports\n Report No. IE-2007-006\n\n\n\n\nAppendix G \xe2\x80\x93 Management Comments and Evaluation\nResponse\n\nIn August 2007, the IG assessment team provided stakeholders with a draft report and\nrequested management comments. Management provided formal and informal comments\nin September 2007.\n\n Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The USD (P&R)\nprovided a formal response concurring with report recommendations.\n\n Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The\nDeputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment provided informal\ncomments including technical corrections and editorial changes to stated facts. The IG\nassessment team verified and accepted valid changes that improved concepts.\nUSD(AT&L) was preparing formal comments, but they were not complete at the report\npublication date. Once received, formal comments will be included in project\ndocumentation.\n\n Program Executive Officer, National Security Personnel System. In August,\n2007 the IG assessment team met with the Program Executive Officer to discuss draft\nfindings. As a result of information provided, the IG assessment team replaced a draft\nfinding and recommendation addressing NSPS with an expanded discussion of\ndepartment policy outlining compliance with 29 CFR 1960.11. Subsequently, the\nProgram Executive Officer provided informal comments stating that the report should not\ndistinguish NSPS from other civilian personnel rating systems. The IG assessment team\ndisagreed, but modified the report to more clearly explain the uniqueness of NSPS.\n\nCopies of management comments were not included in the final report, but are available\non request.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0c DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n MISSION STATEMENT\n\n\n\n\nThe Office of the Inspector General promotes integrity, accountability, and improvement of\n Department of Defense personnel, programs and operations to support\n the Department\'s mission and to serve the public interest.\n\n\n\n\n D E PA R T M E N T O F D E F E N S E\n To report fraud, waste, mismanagement, and abuse of authority.\n\n\n hot line Send written complaints to: Defense Hotline, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1900\n Phone: 800.424.9098 e-mail: hotline@dodig.mil www.dodig.mil/hotline\n\x0cReport No. IE-2007-006 September 28, 2007\n\n\n\n\n Safety and Occupational Health Accountability\n In DoD Individual\n Performance Evaluation Reports\n\x0c'