Highway Worker Safety (2017)

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.

105 Appendix B Complete Tabulated data for Selected Survey Questions

Steps taken (by type of incident) to document and report injury and fatality incidents, and perceived effectiveness of step toward the success of agency’s safety program (1 = not effective, 5 = very effective) If incident reports are archived, how is data categorized? (Select all that apply) Step Communicate lessons learned agency-wide Return to work initiative Review or modify policies and procedures Post-incident investigation Employee functional area Traffic volume Injury type Injury severity Roadway functional classification Time of day Other Type of Incident Public auto Public auto O n -site veh. O n-site v eh. O n-site haz. O n -site haz. Public auto O n-site veh. O n-site haz. Public auto O n-site veh. O n-site haz. A. State DOTs with <$1 billion in disbursements (2013)* A1 5 5 5 2 2 3 3 5 5 5 X X X X A2 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 X X X A3 5 5 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 X X X X A4 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 X X X X X A5 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 X X X X A6 3 3 3 X X X X X A7 3 3 3 3 X A8 X A9 4 4 4 5 4 4 X Avg. 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.0 3.3 3.3 4.4 3.9 3.7 4.4 4.3 4.8 Count 7 0 6 6 3 3 3 Percent 78% 0% 67% 67% 33% 33% 33% *Disbursement categories for all tables created from FHWA reported expenditure data (FHWA 2013b). TABLE B1a DocumEnTATion STEpS AnD ArchivAL cATEgorizATion

Steps taken (by type of incident) to document and report injury and fatality incidents, and perceived effectiveness of step toward the success of agency’s safety program (1 = not effective, 5 = very effective) If incident reports are archived, how is data categorized? (Select all that apply) Step Communicate lessons learned agency-wide Return to work initiative Review or modify policies and procedures Post-incident investigation Employee functional area Traffic volume Injury type Injury severity Roadway functional classification Time of day Other Type of Incident Public auto O n-site veh. O n-site haz. Public auto O n -site veh. O n -site haz. Public auto O n -site veh. O n-site haz. Public auto O n-site veh. O n -site haz. B. State DOTs with $1–$2 billion in disbursements (2013) B1 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 X X B2 4 4 4 4 2 2 X X X B3 4 4 5 5 3 3 5 5 X X B4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 X X X B5 1 4 4 1 5 5 2 5 5 1 3 3 X X B6 X B7 4 3 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 X X X X X B8 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 X X X X X B9 5 5 5 2 2 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 X B10 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 X B11 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 X X X B12 3 3 3 X X B13 4 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 4 1 4 4 X Avg. 3.4 3.9 4.0 3.5 3.9 4.1 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.6 Count 8 0 8 5 3 2 5 Percent 62% 0% 62% 38% 23% 15% 38% TABLE B1b DocumEnTATion STEpS AnD ArchivAL cATEgorizATion

Steps taken (by type of incident) to document and report injury and fatality incidents, and perceived effectiveness of step toward the success of agency’s safety program (1 = not effective, 5 = very effective) If incident reports are archived, how is data categorized? (Select all that apply) Step Communicate lessons learned agency-wide Return to work initiative Review or modify policies and procedures Post-incident investigation Employee functional area Traffic volume Injury type Injury severity Roadway functional classification Time of day Other Type of Incident Public auto O n-site veh. O n-site haz. Public auto O n -site veh. O n-site haz. Public auto O n -site veh. O n-site haz. Public auto O n-site veh. O n -site haz. C. State DOTs with $2–$4 billion in disbursements (2013) C1 X C2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 X X X X X X C3 5 5 5 X X X X C4 3 3 3 2 3 3 X X X C5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 X X X X X C6 3 2 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 X C7 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 X X C8 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 X C9 5 4 2 5 5 5 4 4 2 4 4 2 X X X C10 2 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 X X X Avg. 4.0 3.9 3.6 4.4 4.5 4.5 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.4 3.8 3.5 Count 5 1 8 6 2 4 3 Percent 50% 10% 80% 60% 20% 40% 30% TABLE B1c DocumEnTATion STEpS AnD ArchivAL cATEgorizATion

Steps taken (by type of incident) to document and report injury and fatality incidents, and perceived effectiveness of step toward the success of agency’s safety program (1 = not effective, 5 = very effective) If incident reports are archived, how is data categorized? (Select all that apply) Step Communicate lessons learned agency-wide Return to work initiative Review or modify policies and procedures Post-incident investigation Employee functional area Traffic volume Injury type Injury severity Roadway functional classification Time of day Other Type of Incident Public auto O n-site veh. O n-site haz. Public auto O n-site veh. O n -site haz. Public auto O n -site veh. O n -site haz. Public auto O n -site veh. O n -site haz. D. State DOTs with >$4 billion in disbursements (2013) D1 4 4 2 2 2 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 X X X X D2 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 X D3 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 X X X D4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 X X X X D5 X X X D6 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 X X X X D7 5 X D8 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 3 X X X X X X X D9 X X X X Avg. 4.3 4.2 3.6 3.2 3.6 3.2 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.4 4.2 4.0 Count 6 1 7 4 2 4 7 Percent 67% 11% 78% 44% 22% 44% 78% TABLE B1d DocumEnTATion STEpS AnD ArchivAL cATEgorizATion

Does the agency have a process to report near misses? Reason for not having a process for reporting near misses State Yes/No Description of near miss reporting process Lack of resources Fear of inconsistent reporting Lack of clear definition of “near miss” No clear value of near miss No clear need in recording near miss incidents Other Unsure A. State DOTs with <$1 billion in disbursements (2013) A1 Y Districts report a near miss on the same forms used to report injury/illnesses, and indicate injury as “non-reportable”. A2 N X A3 N X A4 Y All safety committees review and discuss near miss reports submitted. A5 N X A6 Y The process is the same process used for injuries. However, near miss reports may not be submitted unless agency management staff becomes aware of the near miss. A7 Y Employees are encouraged to report all near misses. A8 N X A9 Y Verbally and by email. Count Y [5] N [4] 1 1 1 1 TABLE B2a nEAr miSS rEporTing procESS

Does the agency have a process to report near misses? Reason for not having a process for reporting near misses State Yes/No Description of near miss reporting process Lack of resources Fear of inconsistent reporting Lack of clear definition of “near miss” No clear value of near miss No clear need in recording near miss incidents Other Unsure B. State DOTs with $1–$2 billion in disbursements (2013) B1 Y An incident report form is used. Separate near miss report forms have been developed by three different offices within the agency. B2 N X B3 Y The employee who witnessed or experienced the near miss fills out and submits a form to the safety office. The completed forms are periodically reviewed and discussed by the safety staff within the region to identify and develop solutions. The solutions are then communicated back to all employees. B4 N X B5 N X B6 N X B7 Y Included within the standard incident reporting process. B8 N X B9 N X B10 N X B11 N X B12 N X B13 Y Hardcopy report submitted by employee for review. Count Y [4] N [9] 5 1 1 1 1 TABLE B2b nEAr miSS rEporTing procESS

Does the agency have a process to report near misses? Reason(s) for not having a process for reporting near misses (Select all that apply) State Yes/No Description of near miss reporting process Lack of resources Fear of inconsistent reporting Lack of clear definition of “near miss” No clear value of near miss No clear need in recording near miss incidents Other Unsure C. State DOTs with $2–$4 billion in disbursements (2013) C1 N X C2 N X C3 Y Near misses are reported in the same system used to report injuries and illnesses. C4 N X C5 Y Near misses are reported in a Safety Incident System C6 N X C7 Y Employees complete a near miss report form. The report submittal and review process is the same as that for an injury. C8 Y An incident report is filled out. The report includes a description of the actions taken to prevent the incident in the future C9 N X C10 N X Count Y [4] N [6] 1 1 1 2 1 TABLE B2c nEAr miSS rEporTing procESS

Does the agency have a process to report near misses? Reason(s) for not having a process for reporting near misses (Select all that apply) State Yes/No Description of near miss reporting process Lack of resources Fear of inconsistent reporting Lack of clear definition of “near miss” No clear value of near miss No clear need in recording near miss incidents Other Unsure D. State DOTs with >$4 billion in disbursements (2013) D1 Y The foreman on the site reports the incident to the county manager who then reports the incident to the district safety coordinator. The district safety coordinator completes an appropriate form and submits to the safety division. The safety division then reports the information via email to the executive staff. This process usually takes only a few hours from the initial report. D2 N X D3 Y Depends on the regional office. Some offices have a form that is completed. In some cases, a description of the incident is sent out to all employees who could be impacted by a similar event. A meeting with key participants and stakeholders is also held to review and discuss the incident. D4 Y Simple written report with suggested actions submitted by employee. D5 Y N/A D6 N X D7 N X D8 N X D9 Y Description of the event is communicated via the phone to the safety office. A near miss form is also completed and submitted for review. Count Y [5] N [4] 2 1 1 TABLE B2d nEAr miSS rEporTing procESS

Highway worker health and safety data: Available [A]? (Yes/No) / Used [U]? (Yes/No) / Completeness [C] if available (1 = very incomplete, 5 = very complete) State Incident report Police citation report Worker insurance claim Worker annual performance review Worker safety training records Contractor safety records Injured worker medical record Injury/ fatality data Roadway design Roadside design features Other data A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A. State DOTs with <$1 billion in disbursements (2013) A1 Y N 3 Y Y 4 Y N 1 Y N 3 Y Y 4 Y Y 1 Y N 1 Y Y 5 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N A2 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N A3 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y N 2 Y N 4 Y Y 4 Y N 2 Y N 2 N N A4 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 4 N N A5 Y Y 4 Y Y 3 Y Y 3 N N Y Y 4 N N N N Y Y 5 N N N N N N A6 Y Y 4 Y Y 3 N N N N Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N A7 Y N 3 Y N 3 Y N 3 Y N 3 Y Y 3 N N Y N 3 N N N N N N N N A8 Y N 1 Y N 1 Y N 1 Y N 1 Y N 1 Y N 1 Y N 1 Y N 1 Y N 1 Y N 1 N N A9 Y Y 5 Y Y 4 Y Y 5 N N Y Y 5 N N Y N N N Y Y 5 Y Y 5 N N No. avail. 9 9 8 6 9 5 7 7 7 7 0 No. used 6 7 5 3 8 3 2 6 5 5 0 Avg. 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.8 2.6 3.0 4.0 3.6 3.4 B. State DOTs with $1–$2 billion in disbursements (2013) B1 Y Y 4 N N Y Y 5 Y N 3 Y Y 4 N N Y Y 2 Y Y 4 Y Y 3 Y Y 3 N N B2 Y Y 5 Y N Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 N N Y Y 5 Y Y 5 N N N N N N B3 Y Y 4 Y N Y Y 4 Y N Y Y 1 N N N N Y Y 5 Y N Y N N N B4 Y Y 5 Y Y 4 Y N Y N Y Y 4 N N N N Y Y 5 Y N Y N N N B5 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 5 Y N 4 Y Y 4 Y N 3 Y Y 4 Y Y 5 Y N 3 Y N 4 N N B6 Y Y 3 N N N N N N Y Y N N N N Y Y 3 N N N N N N B7 N Y 4 Y Y 3 Y Y 4 N N Y Y 3 Y Y 2 Y Y 3 Y Y 3 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N B8 Y Y 3 Y Y 3 N N Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N Y Y 3 N N N N N N B9 N N Y Y 5 Y Y 5 N Y Y Y 5 N N N N N N N N N N N N B10 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 N N Y Y 5 N N Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N N N N N B11 Y Y 3 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 N N Y Y 3 N N N N Y Y 2 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N B12 Y Y 4 N N Y Y 4 N N Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N N N N N N N N N B13 Y Y 5 N N Y Y 5 N N Y Y 3 N N Y Y 3 Y Y 5 N N N N N N No. avail. 11 9 11 6 13 4 6 11 6 6 0 No. used 12 7 10 3 13 3 6 11 3 3 0 Avg. 4.1 4.1 4.7 4.0 3.8 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.8 TABLE B3a AvAiLABiLiTy AnD uSE of hEALTh AnD SAfETy DATA

Highway worker health and safety data: Available [A]? (Yes/No) / Used [U]? (Yes/No) / Completeness [C] if available (1 = very incomplete, 5 = very complete) State Incident report Police citation report Worker insurance claim Worker annual performance review Worker safety training records Contractor safety records Injured worker medical record Injury/ fatality data Roadway design Roadside design features Other data A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C A U C C. State DOTs with $2-$4 billion in disbursements (2013) C1 N N N N Y N Y N Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N C2 Y Y 4 Y Y 3 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 3 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N C3 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 N N N N Y Y 3 N N N N N N N N N N N N C4 Y Y 5 Y Y 3 N N N Y Y Y 3 N N N N N N Y Y 3 N N N N C5 Y Y 4 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 1 N N Y Y 5 Y Y 4 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 N N C6 Y N Y Y 2 Y Y 4 N N Y Y 3 N N Y N Y Y 5 N N N N N N C7 Y Y 4 N N Y Y 5 N N Y Y 5 Y Y 3 N N Y Y 5 Y N 5 Y N 5 N N C8 Y Y 4 N N Y Y 5 N N Y Y 4 Y Y 3 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 N N C9 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 N N Y Y 5 Y N 3 N N Y N N N N N N N C10 Y Y 2 N N Y Y 3 N N Y Y 2 N N N N Y Y 4 N N N N N N No. avail. 9 6 8 3 10 4 4 8 5 4 0 No. used 8 6 7 3 9 3 3 6 4 3 0 Avg. 4.1 3.8 4.4 4.5 3.3 3.3 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.8 D. State DOTs with >$4 billion in disbursements (2013) D1 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 N N Y N 4 Y N 3 N N N N Y N 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 N N D2 N N 4 N N 4 N N 3 N N 3 N N 4 N N 1 N N 3 N N 4 N N 5 N N 5 N N D3 Y N 5 Y N 5 Y N 5 N N Y N 3 N N N N Y N 5 N N N N N N D4 Y Y 3 Y Y 3 Y Y 4 Y N 4 Y Y 4 N N Y Y 2 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N D5 Y Y 3 Y N 3 Y N 3 N N Y N 3 N N N N Y Y 4 Y Y 3 Y Y 3 Y Y 3 D6 Y Y 4 Y Y 3 Y Y 3 N N Y Y 4 Y N 2 N N Y Y 4 Y Y 3 Y Y 3 N N D7 Y N 4 Y N 4 Y Y 5 N Y 3 Y N 3 N N N N Y N 3 Y N 4 Y N 4 N N D8 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 Y Y 4 N N D9 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 5 Y Y 4 Y Y 5 Y Y 3 N N Y Y 3 Y Y 5 N N N N No. avail. 8 8 7 4 8 3 2 8 7 6 1 No. used 6 5 5 3 4 2 2 5 6 5 1 Avg. 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.7 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.0 TABLE B3b AvAiLABiLiTy AnD uSE of hEALTh AnD SAfETy DATA

Group A Group B Group C Group D <$1 billion in disbursements $1–$2 billion in disbursements $2–$4 billion in disbursements >$4 billion in disbursements Average Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage No. available 6.7 75% 7.5 58% 5.5 55% 5.6 63% No. used 4.5 51% 6.5 50% 4.7 47% 4.0 44% Difference 2.2 24% 1.1 8% 0.8 8% 1.6 18% TABLE B3c SummAry of AvAiLABiLiTy AnD uSE of hEALTh AnD SAfETy DATA TABLE B3d AvErAgE of ALL compLETEnESS mETricS for ALL hEALTh AnD SAfETy DATA TypES By group Group A Group B Group C Group D <$1 billion in disbursements $1–$2 billion in disbursements $2–$4 billion in disbursements >$4 billion in disbursements Average across all data sources Average across all data sources Average across all data sources Average across all data sources Completeness across all data sources 3.4 3.9 4.1 3.6

How long after an incident until the document/data becomes available for review and analysis? (months) State Incident report Police citation report Worker insurance claim Worker annual performance review Worker safety training records Contractor safety records Injured worker medical record Injury/ fatality data Roadway design Roadside design features Other data A. State DOTs with <$1 billion in disbursements (2013) A1 <1 <1 1–3 3–6 <1 3–6 6–12 <1 <1 <1 A2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A5 <1 1–3 <1 <1 <1 A6 <1 <1 <1 <1 1–3 <1 <1 A7 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 A8 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 A9 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 B. State DOTs with $1–$2 billion in disbursements (2013) B1 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 B2 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 B3 <1 <1 <1 >12 <1 <1 <1 <1 B4 1–3 <1 1–3 1–3 6–12 B5 >12 >12 >12 6–12 >12 6–12 >12 >12 >12 >12 B6 >12 >12 >12 B7 6–12 1–3 3–6 3–6 3–6 >12 6–12 6–12 B8 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 B9 <1 1–3 <1 B10 <1 <1 <1 <1 1–3 1–3 B11 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 B12 1–3 <1 3–6 6–12 B13 <1 <1 >12 <1 TABLE B4a TimE for DATA AvAiLABiLiTy

How long after an incident until the document/data becomes available for review and analysis? (months) State Incident report Police citation report Worker insurance claim Worker annual performance review Worker safety training records Contractor safety records Injured worker medical record Injury/ fatality data Roadway design Roadside design features Other data C. State DOTs with $2–$4 billion in disbursements (2013) C1 1–3 6–12 C2 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 C3 <1 <1 <1 C4 <1 <1 <1 <1 C5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 C6 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 C7 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 C8 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 C9 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 C10 >12 >12 >12 >12 D. State DOTs with >$4 billion in disbursements (2013) D1 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 D2 D3 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 D4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 D5 >12 >12 <1 >12 >12 D6 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 >12 D7 <1 <1 <1 1–3 1–3 <1 <1 D8 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 D9 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 TABLE B4b TimE for DATA AvAiLABiLiTy

Group A Group B Group C Group D <$1 billion in disbursements $1–$2 billion in disbursements $2–$4 billion in disbursements >$4 billion in disbursements Time Count Percent Time Count Percent Time Count Percent Time Count Percent <1 month 61 84% < 1 month 31 39% < 1 month 36 61% < 1 month 33 57% 1–3 months 3 4% 1–3 months 8 10% 1–3 months 1 2% 1–3 months 2 3% 3–6 months 2 3% 3–6 months 4 5% 3–6 months 0 0% 3–6 months 0 0% 6–12 months 1 1% 6–12 months 7 9% 6–12 months 1 2% 6–12 months 0 0% >12 months 6 8% >12 months 29 37% >12 months 21 36% >12 months 23 40% TABLE B4c SummAry TimE for DATA AvAiLABiLiTy

Are there any worker health and safety data sources that would be beneficial to your agency which you currently do not have or do not have access to? State Yes/No If so, describe the data sources A. State DOTs with <$1 billion in disbursements (2013) A1 N A2 N A3 N A4 Y N/A A5 N A6 N A7 N A8 N A9 N Count Y[1] N[9] B. State DOTs with $1–$2 billion in disbursements (2013) B1 N B2 Y N/A B3 N B4 B5 N B6 Y An accident database with information about the types of vehicle crashes we are having with our equipment. B7 N B8 Y Database that will keep the records of the incidents involving the employees and a clear way to assess near misses. B9 N B10 N B11 N B12 N B13 N Count Y[3] N[9] TABLE B5a BEnEficiAL DATA SourcES

Are there any worker health and safety data sources that would be beneficial to your agency which you currently do not have or do not have access to? State Yes/No If so, describe the data sources C. States DOTs with $2–$4 billion in disbursements (2013) C1 Y In-agency Human Resources records C2 N C3 Y More detailed worker compensation data including lost and restricted time. This information is held by a separate state department. C4 N C5 Y N/A C6 Y National trends and data from other state DOT's. C7 N C8 N C9 Y Different types of summary reports on workers’ compensation claims. C10 N Count Y[5] N[5] D. State DOTs with >$4 billion in disbursements (2013) D1 Y Information from the state private road management companies and from our local municipalities. D2 Y N/A D3 Y OSHA inspection records for contractor work zones. D4 N D5 Y An integrated system of the various existing data sources. D6 N D7 N D8 Y An integrated safety data source where incidents can be analyzed across all available state health and safety databases. D9 N Count Y[5] N[4] TABLE B5b BEnEficiAL DATA SourcES

Has your agency used its own data or other data related to worker health and safety to develop any of the following policies/practices for highway workers in work sites on roadways? State Additional training for workers Additional training for supervisors New standards for work site traffic control plans Driver awareness programs Worker behavior assessment programs Safety incentive programs Drug/alcohol abuse programs Other A. State DOTs with <$1 billion in disbursements (2013) A1 X X X X X X A2 X X A3 X X X X X A4 X X X X X X A5 X X X X A6 X X X X X X A7 X X A8 X X X X X A9 X X X X X Count 8 7 7 8 3 1 6 1 Percent 89% 78% 78% 89% 33% 11% 67% 11% B. State DOTs with $1–$2 billion in disbursements (2013) B1 X X X X X X B2 X X X X X B3 X X X X B4 X X X X X X B5 X X B6 X X X X X B7 X X X X X B8 X X X X X B9 X X X X X B10 X X B11 X X B12 X X X X B13 X X X X Count 13 11 8 9 5 3 5 1 Percent 100% 85% 62% 69% 38% 23% 38% 8% TABLE B6a uSE of DATA for AgEncy progrAmS

Has your agency used its own data or other data related to worker health and safety to develop any of the following policies/practices for highway workers in work sites on roadways? State Additional training for workers Additional training for supervisors New standards for work site traffic control plans Driver awareness programs Worker behavior assessment programs Safety incentive programs Drug/alcohol abuse programs Other C. State DOTs with $2–$4 billion in disbursements (2013) C1 X X X C2 X X X X X X X C3 X X X X C4 X X X X X X C5 X X X X X X C6 X X C7 X X X X C8 X X X C9 X C10 X X X Count 8 9 5 5 3 3 4 2 Percent 80% 90% 50% 50% 30% 30% 40% 20% D. State DOTs with >$4 billion in disbursements (2013) D1 X X X X X D2 X X X X D3 X X X X X X X D4 X X X X X X X D5 X X X X X X D6 X X X X D7 X D8 X X X D9 X X X X Count 9 8 7 6 2 4 4 1 Percent 100% 89% 78% 67% 22% 44% 44% 11% TABLE B6b uSE of DATA for AgEncy progrAmS