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.

62 chapter five State Department of tranSportation CaSe exampleS introDuCtion The purpose of this chapter is to further investigate and highlight specific examples of state DOT safety program elements that have been developed and found to be effective. The nature of the other research tasks, such as the injury data analysis and survey, is such that the tasks describe national trends and practices. Although this understanding is critical to an overall understanding of highway worker safety practice among the state DOTs, it is also important to document and share specific and interesting efforts by state DOTs that could benefit all agencies. These case examples are informative examples of various elements within state programs and are provided for illustration and educational purposes only. The case examples are one aspect of this synthesis study, which seeks to describe the current state of data-driven health and safety policies and practices in state DOTs. To obtain the detailed information required to compose the case examples, it was necessary to identify which states to contact for follow-up interviews. Several factors guided the selection process for potential interviewees. The final question of the survey questionnaire sent to the state DOT safety representatives gave the respondent the option to include his or her name and contact information if he or she was interested in participating in a follow-up interview to discuss the safety program. Twenty-three of the respondents indicated their willingness to participate in the follow-up interview. The 23 responses were analyzed for mention of specific safety programs that could be highlighted in a case example format. Of the 23 responses, seven contained information about safety programs that warranted further exploration. Although the population of interest for follow-up interviews was limited to states that participated in the questionnaire and were willing to provide contact information for a follow-up interview, case examples from state DOTs in different regions of the United States were identified to provide a dis- tributed geographic representation. Nine states were contacted to participate in a follow-up interview. Phone interviews were coordinated and case examples approved with six of these state DOTs. These six state DOTs are listed here in alphabetical order: • California, • Maine, • North Dakota, • Oregon, • South Carolina, and • Washington. These states represent various regions in the United States, including the northeast, northwest, southeast, and the plains. The state DOTs included are diverse in terms of state characteristics. The populations range from more populous states, such as California and Washington, to states with smaller populations, such as Maine and North Dakota. Table 13 lists the six states, their estimated 2015 popula- tion, and their population rank among the 50 states. Once candidate states were identified, an interview protocol was drafted with primary and probing questions based on the case example objectives as defined by the project scope. The interview questions aimed to gather supplemental information to the survey responses and focused on the use and collec- tion of data in the process of implementing and maintaining the specific safety program elements

63 identified. The questions also sought to ascertain details on the agency’s perspectives and evalua- tions of the program or initiative. Where documents were created by the state DOT that describe the safety program element, researchers asked the interviewee for copies of the pertinent documents (when possible, these are provided in Appendices C, D, and E) to review for inclusion in the case examples. The full interview protocol is included in Appendix C. After the protocol was completed, the interviews were conducted on the phone and audio recorded with the interviewees’ permission. Each interview, which lasted between 15 and 35 minutes, allowed the state safety officer to explain the safety program element in his or her own words, with only guiding questions provided. After the interviews were completed, the audio files were transcribed to text to allow the case examples to be more easily drafted. In addition to containing the information gathered from the interview process, each of the docu- mented case examples includes basic information about the state DOT that implemented the safety program element. To gather this additional information, researchers reviewed online information about the state DOT that is publicly available on the state DOT’s website and information in any documents provided by the interviewee that describe the state DOT’s safety program elements. This was done to establish an appropriate context for each state DOT because the agencies vary in terms of size and the elements of the transportation network they construct and maintain. In each case example, only a portion of the overall state safety program is highlighted. This was done to provide sufficient detail about the program element discussed and allowed for the exploration of a variety of programs across the United States. California Dot Size and Description Caltrans is one of the largest state DOTs. The agency has approximately 20,000 employees who work together to effectively implement a $12 billion budget with the common goal of fulfilling Caltrans’ mission to “provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” (Caltrans 2016). This goal involves managing 15,000 centerline miles (51,900 lane miles) of highways that are located on 230,000 acres of right-of-way in the state of California (Caltrans 2014). The Caltrans survey response, included in chapter three, estimates that between 30% and 40% of the agency’s employees are regularly on construction or maintenance sites throughout the state. Many of these workers are maintenance workers who have higher risk to high-speed traffic exposure because of their required work tasks. Safety risk mitigation policies and practices Although Caltrans is committed to no employee being involved in a roadside work site incident, the reality is that goal may not be achievable. When an incident involving a highway worker in a work site occurs in California, several steps are undertaken. These steps include preparing an initial incident report and processing the worker injury claim. Local law enforcement, the insurance policy provider, and the state OSHA office are informed of the incident. After many of the initial steps, State Population (2015 est.) Population Rank (2015 est.) California 39,144,818 1 Maine 1,329,328 42 North Dakota 756,927 47 Oregon 4,028,977 27 South Carolina 4,896,146 23 Washington 7,170,351 13 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2015). TAbLE 13 STATE POPULATION AND RANk fOR INTERvIEWED STATE DOTS

64 subsequent steps are taken to review and learn from the circumstances surrounding the incident. These steps include holding an incident review meeting and communicating lessons learned agency- wide. A postincident investigation is conducted and relevant policies and procedures are reviewed to determine if any corrective actions can be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future. An incident review meeting is conducted only when the incident does not involve a public auto- mobile, and informing law enforcement is not a step taken when the incident involves an on-site hazard. The other postincident steps are taken for any incident, regardless of whether the incident involves public automobiles entering the work site, those that involve on-site construction vehicles and equipment, or those that involve on-site hazards (e.g., worker injury from a slip, trip, or fall). for incident reports prepared in the aftermath of incidents that occur in work sites, several depart- ments within Caltrans are responsible for compiling and archiving the incident reports. At the statewide level, the traffic engineering, maintenance, and safety groups share this responsibility. At the district level, district human resources and district traffic engineering play a role in the compilation and archi- val process. The University of California at Davis (UC Davis) also plays a role in the compilation and analysis of Caltrans’ incident reports. UC Davis’ Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineer- ing is a part of the AHMCT that published a 2015 report about using Caltrans’ incident reports from work zones. This report sought to accurately code and classify incident reports from work zones in California to provide a basis for the creation of a system that would facilitate the use of data to make cost-effective decisions to mitigate future incidents (Ravani et al. 2015). Regarding postincident steps that Caltrans conducts after the occurrence of an incident in a work site, some elements were identified as being particularly effective at contributing to Caltrans’ overall worker safety program. These included preparing the initial incident report, conducting an incident review meeting, communicating lessons learned agencywide, and conducting a postincident inves- tigation. In addition, reviewing and modifying policies and procedures, which includes updating design standards to reduce future risk to workers, is a core component of the postincident steps taken at Caltrans. These steps are taken for all types of work zone incidents (public automobile, on-site vehicle/equipment, and on-site hazard). Design for Safety initiative Highway worker safety is an important focus for any state DOT. In recent years, Caltrans has dedicated additional time and resources to ensuring that workers committed to constructing and maintaining the California highway system are as safe as possible. As one element of this overall goal, Caltrans has implemented a design for safety initiative. This is a program element of the State Highway Operation Protection Program (SHOPP) that addresses highway worker safety at Caltrans through funding of capital improvement projects. The design for safety initiative focuses on using data to identify particu- lar areas where improvement is needed to reduce worker exposure and communicate these issues with the landscape architects and engineers so that they can produce designs that minimize or eliminate the potential risks placed on workers in the field. Subsequent sections of this case example describe the specific data used, how they were analyzed, and how that analysis influences design practice. In 2012, a deputy directive, which is the second highest level of directive at the agency, focused on worker safety for the state highway system was distributed agencywide. This directive outlined the responsibilities for all Caltrans employees regarding their role in helping protect worker safety and minimizing potential risk. The deputy directive’s involvement of all employees helped to motivate and integrate design landscape architects and engineers in the effort to improve work site safety. It also supported maintenance involvement in design decisions to reduce worker exposure. To comply with the deputy directive and ensure that the available funding was appropriately used, officials at Caltrans looked to other state DOTs to see what guidance was available for effective worker safety programs. Little guidance was found regarding roadside worker safety specifically or guidance in designing for safety. Most of the available literature provided guidance solely for roadway traveler safety. Therefore, the implementation of a more robust worker safety initiative in California

65 needed to be more experimental and serve as an example of an initiative focused on construction and maintenance worker safety at a state DOT. The design for safety initiative is an integral part of the current worker safety programs at Caltrans. The initiative suggests that all elements of the department can play a role in ensuring and main- taining worker safety. In particular, the initiative focuses on the impact that the designers can have on the safety of workers who construct and maintain their designs. During the implementation process, an analysis of worker injury and fatality records was conducted to establish the areas of highest risk for workers. Additional explanation of the data sets used and the subsequent analysis of the data is included in the Data Sources, Archiving, and Analysis section of this case example. In addition, state- wide workshops were conducted in each of Caltrans’ 12 districts with maintenance staff to solicit ideas from the people who regularly perform job tasks in the field to determine what actions would create a safer environment for them. This series of workshops, held between 2013 and 2014, identified more than 750 unique ideas. These ideas and results from the data analysis were used to create tools and training programs for the designers to use in practice. The department granted district level authority for the implementation of changes that can improve worker safety. This increases the efficiency with which design exceptions can be made and allows safety efforts to be implemented more quickly. The Landscape Architecture Program in the Division of Design manages the SHOPP Roadside Safety Improvement Program. The Roadside Safety Improvement Program guidance document is included in Appendix D. This handout, intended for Caltrans employees, outlines the goals and objec- tives of the Roadside Safety Improvement Program. The document outlines, for many types of design decisions, the design options potentially eligible for funding through the program. The handout also describes types of work and decisions that do not qualify for SHOPP Roadside Safety Improvement Program funding. Although the handout contains the full list of approved and not approved design solu- tions for program funding, the program is based upon soliciting new design ideas that may improve highway worker safety. The design for safety initiative is one of the mechanisms in place at Caltrans to achieve the goals and objectives of the Roadside Safety Improvement Program. There are additional guidance tools for the design for safety initiative. These practical measures better equip designers to incorporate safety into designs. One of these, the Roadside Management Toolbox (Caltrans 2014), is a web-based platform that provides options to designers for different circumstances. It describes the potential risks to highway workers for different design elements so that designers can make informed and intelligent choices. In addition, there are design guidance docu- ments for different groups (e.g., landscape architecture) that provide recommendations specific to the work product of those functional groups. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) requires the Safety Review Committees in each district to approve all designs. These committees are an independent group operating in each of the districts that ensures the proposed construction and maintenance plans consider the implications to highway worker safety. These reviews ensure consistency across each district for promoting risk- reducing design decisions. The design for safety initiative continues to be improved. SAfER is an acronym developed by the Landscape Architecture Program to highlight the different ways design decisions can improve worker safety in a way that is easy to remember. The acronym is short for: • Site—site facilities in protected locations; • Accessible—provide safe access for highway workers to work locations; • facilitate—facilitate the use of mechanical maintenance means; • Eliminate—eliminate the need for recurring maintenance tasks; and • Relocate—relocate facilities to protected locations. One of the current goals is to get the SAfER design philosophy integrated into the HDM. for example, when deciding where to place a utility cabinet on a project site, a designer can consider if the box can be located in such a way that it is accessible to the workers while maximizing the distance to the travel way, thereby reducing the risk of exposure to adjacent traffic. As the design for safety initiative

66 continues to develop and become a more integral part of Caltrans’ overall safety program, incorporating elements such as the SAfER philosophy will continue to reduce worker risk. Data Sources, archiving, and analysis The primary source of data that guided the development and implementation of the design for safety initiative was an existing database that contained fatality incident information between 1924 and 2007, as well as injury incident information between 1990 and 2006. Officials at Caltrans organized and analyzed the entirety of these data sets to determine trends and establish focus areas where inter- ventions could contribute to the greatest reduction of risk. The analysis included evaluating each of the incidents for specific characteristics. These characteristics included the location of the worker at the time of the incident, the task the worker was conducting at the time of the incident, and the type of injury sustained by the worker. from the analysis of the data, the following five common factors were identified as areas or situations at which workers operate at the highest level of risk: • Urban locations, • High average daily traffic, • vehicle parked on the shoulder, • Roadside work near the shoulder, and • Employee on foot. Although these five situations can occur independently on a work site, the risk to workers increases when multiple situations appear in a single work site. for example, an employee performing main- tenance work on foot near the shoulder of a road in an urban area with high average daily traffic presents one of the highest risk situations to workers. In the design for safety initiative, these five factors are the primary targets for available design solutions. Solutions to these worst-case situations were created to mitigate the safety risks for work- ers. These design solutions can be categorized by the components of the SAfER acronym and high- light specific strategies that can be implemented in a variety of situations. The injury and fatality database used by Caltrans made the identification of these issues possible and gave the engineers the opportunity to develop effective solutions to mitigate risks to workers in the field. monitoring and evaluation The primary method for monitoring and evaluating the design for safety initiative is an internal review. by continuing to implement additional training and maintaining employee participation in the program, the design for safety initiative can evolve naturally to accommodate the changing needs of the maintenance workers and the transportation network. Approximately 200 Caltrans employees, including landscape architects, planners, engineers, and maintenance employees, have participated in the Landscape Architecture Academy training, which focuses on work site safety. In addition, the Maintenance Leadership Academy has trained hundreds of maintenance staff in design for safety concepts. Continued annual funding of the SHOPP Roadside Safety Improvement Program is a way to monitor the health of the initiative from the perspective of agency leadership. Caltrans has implemented an effort to document the specific changes that have been made in designs because of the design for safety initiative. In some cases, such as projects that relocate signal or utility control cabinets, these changes can be recognized and documented. However, documentation is far from complete because the goal of the initiative is to make thinking about safety in design something that is a standard part of the design process. These little changes occur in the day-to-day revisions of the designs to improve worker safety but are almost impossible to document as a part of a monitoring program for the initiative. In addition, although Caltrans collects injury and fatality data, such data are not actively used in the evaluation of the design for safety initiative. According to the Caltrans safety team, it is difficult to prove the direct correlation between a physical change and a reduction in the number or severity of incidents, so using incident data as a metric is not a practical method for managing roadside safety improvement investments.

67 effectiveness of Safety programs, policies, and practices The design for safety initiative has been an element of a significant restructuring of Caltrans that has been in place for several years. There are still elements, such as the SAfER acronym, that are in the early implementation phase, but the bulk of the initiative structure has been established. Therefore, several metrics exist that demonstrate the effectiveness of the design for safety initiative at Caltrans. One of the indicators for the success of the initiative has been the agency leadership’s support. The SHOPP program, of which the design for safety initiative is an element, has enjoyed leadership approval and seen significant increases in funding as a result. In 2010, the SHOPP program had an annual budget of approximately $1.9 million. Through effective advocacy by program management to agency leadership, safety officials at Caltrans were able to demonstrate the specific needs for the safety program and were provided additional funding to meet identified statewide needs. Over the course of several iterations, the annual budget for the SHOPP Roadside Safety Improvement Program has increased to approximately $90 million today. This 47.4-fold increase in funding demonstrates the confidence of the leadership in the benefits of this initiative for the safety of highway workers. The design for safety initiative has catalyzed tangible safety improvements at Caltrans. beyond the designers making conscious choices daily to consider the safety implications for the construction and maintenance workers in design products, other long-term adjustments have been made as well. Chief among these was the modification of the standard construction plans that Caltrans uses for many of its projects. These standard plans save designers and the agency time and money, so it is advantageous to use them as often as possible. Caltrans was successful at changing the standard guardrail plans to include paving underneath the guardrail. This design prevents vegetation from growing and requir- ing trimming by maintenance workers at the edge of the travel way. figure D1 in Appendix D is an example of a standard plan sheet that outlines the requirements for this vegetation control method that is installed on each side of the guardrail. The adoption of this standard plan has reduced the number of hours that maintenance workers have to be on foot at the edge of the roadway, where the guardrail is present. There have been additional changes to design standards that require vegetation control at structure approaches and other fixed objects. Suggestions for Safety programs, policies, and practices The design for safety initiative requires interdepartmental cooperation at various levels of the organi- zation to ensure that the initiative maximizes highway worker safety while maintaining its return on investment as an aspect of the overall Caltrans safety program. for Caltrans, the following suggested practices increase the possibility of having a continuing successful safety program: • Recognize that all Caltrans divisions and programs can affect worker safety and that it is impor- tant to engage all groups and use them to contribute to reducing worker risk. • Use existing data sources to highlight and understand contemporary safety concerns so that department resources can be properly allocated to maximize the return on investment. • Maintain a robust training program to educate the necessary participants and stakeholders about the impact they can have on worker safety. • Allow district autonomy to implement safety improvements to ensure that risks can be reduced as early as possible in the life cycle of the roadway and project. maine Dot Size and Description Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) was officially organized in its present form in 1972, at which time ferries, seaports, transit services, airports, and some railroads were all placed under the jurisdiction of the agency. Today, MaineDOT is responsible for the maintenance and opera- tion of the following transportation infrastructure elements (MaineDOT 2016): • Nearly 18,000 mi of highway, including 2,919 bridges; • Seven ferry boats and terminals;

68 • Three seaports; • Twenty-two transit operations with more than 420 transit vehicles; and • Almost 500 mi of state-owned railroad. MaineDOT is one of the smaller state DOTs in the nation with approximately 1,900 employees. However, 60% to 70% of the employees are regularly on construction or maintenance sites throughout the state. According to the MaineDOT 2010 report “Connecting Maine,” the mission of MaineDOT is to provide “a safe, efficient and reliable transportation system that supports economic opportunity and quality of life” (MaineDOT 2010). The report further elaborates on this mission by describing the vision of the agency as a desire to “maintain village and urban centers, connect communities and trans- portation modes, improve our existing transportation system performance for passengers and freight, provide a safe transportation network, and support Maine’s economic vitality through connectivity to internal and external economic markets” (MaineDOT 2010). Part of reaching the goals of these state- ments is ensuring the safety of state employees. The following sections provide a brief overview of the general characteristics of MaineDOT’s employee safety efforts, as well as a more detailed descrip- tion of a safety incentive program implemented for the state employees. Safety risk mitigation policies and practices The postincident steps taken by a state DOT are important elements of the overall safety program. for MaineDOT, the agency uses postincident steps to document and learn from an incident that occurs in a work site. The process varies based on the type of incident that occurs in a work site. The following categories are the three types of work site incidents identified by this synthesis study: • Public vehicle (e.g., work site crash); • On-site construction and maintenance vehicle/equipment (e.g., worker injury resulting from contact with work vehicle); and • On-site hazard (e.g., worker injury from a slip, trip, or fall). MaineDOT implements common steps for all three incident types. These steps include preparing an initial incident report, preparing a worker injury claim, and conducting a postincident investiga- tion. Informing law enforcement, informing the insurance provider, and reviewing or modifying poli- cies are steps taken when a public automobile or on-site vehicle/equipment incident occurs in the work site, but such actions are not implemented with on-site hazard incidents. An incident review meeting is conducted after on-site vehicle/equipment and on-site hazard incidents. Return-to-work initiatives are available only after an on-site hazard incident. The steps of preparing the incident report, preparing the worker injury claim, and informing law enforcement are viewed as being the most valuable to the safety program for work site incidents at MaineDOT. for the initial incident report that is compiled for all types of incidents that occur in work sites, the regional human resources department and the regional safety groups have the responsibility of archiving and maintaining such reports. The format for this archive is an online database. In addition, these reports are categorized according to a variety of attributes, including the employee’s functional area, the type of injury, the severity of injury, the functional classification of the roadway, and the time of day. Although these efforts are primarily reactionary safety measures to the occurrence of an incident in a work site, MaineDOT has also implemented safety programs that are proactive and strive to prevent incidents before they occur. The safety idea incentive program is an example of a proactive safety program implemented by MaineDOT. Safety idea incentive program MaineDOT recognizes the importance of maintaining a safety program that continually adapts to changing attitudes and needs of the agency. It also recognizes that establishing safety programs from

69 the bottom up can be beneficial in encouraging employee participation in a program. Through dis- cussions with work crews, the safety team at MaineDOT developed and implemented a safety idea incentive program in 2012. The premise of the program was to collect safety ideas from the work crews around the state. The ideas were intended to be actionable ones that, if implemented, would reduce the risk to employees. The ideas included activities such as using automatic flaggers for work sites and painting lines on the sidewalks to indicate drop sites for snow and ice. Every month, safety ideas were collected from work crews and evaluated at the regional level. The regional safety committees selected one winner from that region. The winner was selected by the committee based on the idea deemed to be most actionable and valuable to reducing the risk of the employees. The winning crew received 50 points per person in the committee. The winning ideas from each region were sent to the state safety office, where a statewide winner was selected. The same process that selected the regional winner was used to select the statewide winner. The crew that submitted the statewide winning idea received an additional 50 points per person. If any of the winning ideas were implemented statewide, the crew that submitted that idea received addi- tional points. The points were the incentive aspect of the program. Each 50 points equated to about $25. The points could be used to purchase safety-related items from a provided catalog. The custom catalog, created by MaineDOT, included items from various vendors. The catalog contained options for safety gear such as high-reflectivity shirts and jackets, winter gear such as hats and coats, and personal gear such as flashlights and tape measures. These items all contained the phrase “Safety Wins” on them to indicate they were acquired through the safety incentive program. In addition to the crews receiving the incentives from submitting winning ideas to the program, the monthly regional and statewide winning ideas were published on posters that were distributed to the regional offices around the state. Ultimately, the program was active for 3 years (2012–2014). Toward the end of the program, many of the safety ideas that were being submitted were repeats of previous ideas, and MaineDOT management was less involved with the process because many of the best ideas had been implemented. Many of the safety improvements made during the program are still in place statewide today, includ- ing the poisonous plant pocket guide, the inclusion of tick removal kits in first aid kits, and painting boxes on sidewalks to mark snow and ice drop zones. The safety officials at MaineDOT are shifting resources from this program to other programs that will continue to effectively engage state employ- ees and reduce the risk to the state DOT workforce. Data Sources, archiving, and analysis The primary data source accessed for the safety idea incentive program was MaineDOT workers who participated in the program and submitted the safety ideas. As the ideas were submitted on a monthly basis, they were collected at the regional level and analyzed by a safety committee. This analysis yielded a regional winner, and the ideas were sent to the statewide safety office. At the state level, the safety ideas were analyzed again and a statewide winner was selected. Throughout this process, the ideas were collected and maintained in a database. This archival process also kept track of the number of ideas that had been accepted for statewide implementation and notes associated with some ideas that included barriers to implementation. To complement the archival of the safety ideas, MaineDOT also collects statewide data on ten performance measures, such as incident rates and severity rates. These statistics serve as a quantita- tive metric for analyzing safety in the state. It is the combination of these data sources that identify and address perceived risks and document the actual incidents that occur that allows the state to effectively manage the risk experienced by the agency’s employees.

70 monitoring and evaluation It was important for MaineDOT to consistently monitor and evaluate the safety incentive program to ensure that the funding for the program was being used as effectively as possible. by having a short turnaround time (1 month) for each of the safety idea competitions, the feedback on the program and the data collected were updated frequently. The program was evaluated by the number of safety ideas received from the work crews each month. Some work crews were more involved with the program than were others. by having multi- ple ideas per region, the friendly competitive spirit among the work crews was higher, and the aware- ness of the program was also higher. Therefore, the number and quality of ideas were monitored by the officials administering the program. In addition, the number of safety ideas that were implemented regionally or statewide was an indicator of the health of the program. Many of the regional ideas were implemented, particularly in the region where the safety idea originated. Statewide implementation was the most important metric of the effectiveness of the ideas because it indicated that the statewide administration personnel were invested in the valuable safety suggestions being proposed by the work crews. Ultimately, effective monitoring led to the program being canceled in 2014. by recognizing that the safety ideas being submitted were starting to become repetitive, the officials in charge of the pro- gram realized that it might be valuable to turn the monetary resources to another safety program. As the ideas became more repetitive and the more pressing safety issues had been addressed, the regional managers were not as involved and fewer ideas were being implemented statewide. Therefore, the time and energy expended for the program became too great for the safety benefits, and the attention of the safety officials at MaineDOT turned to other programs. effectiveness of Safety programs, policies, and practices Several things indicated that the safety idea incentive program was an effective safety policy. The most obvious was the practical implementation of the safety ideas that were being proposed by the various work crews, especially at the statewide level. In addition, quarterly reports of safety statistics were distributed to the work crews to maintain awareness of the safety incentive program and, on a broader scale, remind the crews of the inherent risks associated with their jobs. Even after the program was canceled by MaineDOT, elements of the success of the program continued to be evident. Primarily, during the duration of the program, many safety improvements were made statewide. These improvements continued to be implemented in the aftermath of the program. Therefore, even though the program no longer exists in practice, the risks the employees are exposed to on jobsites are less because of the time the program was active. In addition, the gear that was available to the employees as incentives for the program is still used by some of the crews that submitted winning safety ideas. A safety representative of MaineDOT stated that it was “a cool program, but you know, everything wears out after a while.” This self-aware statement is a sign of a healthy safety program. by recogniz- ing that the program had run its course, the safety team at MaineDOT began to focus its resources on a similar but different safety program. The new program, which is in the implementation phase, is establishing team awards for good safety records, such as no lost time and so forth. A program keeps the same spirit of the safety incentive program alive while approaching it from a different perspective to achieve continued involvement in MaineDOT safety initiatives. Suggestions for Safety programs, policies, and practices It is important that an effective safety program be diverse and broad to account for the greatest vari- ety of high-risk scenarios that employees of state DOTs encounter on a regular basis. MaineDOT’s safety program recognizes the importance of this idea and has developed a safety program responsive

71 to employee needs. The MaineDOT safety program, and particularly the safety incentive program, highlight the following suggestions: • Monitor the safety program throughout its duration to assess the continued success of the effort. • Understand that these safety programs may not be permanent, and know when it is time to shift focus to other strategies. • Maintaining the agency management’s participation in the program is vital to its continued success. • Look for safety initiative ideas from the work crews themselves because the individuals who assume the most risk are also likely to contribute valuable insight on the most effective ways to mitigate that risk. • Integrating work crew members into the safety management process helps to gain interest and buy-in from the workers regarding safety and improves the safety climate within the organization. north Dakota Dot Size and Description The North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) is one of the smaller state DOTs and has only approximately 1,100 employees (North Dakota State Government 2016). The responsibilities of the agency are broad and primarily include maintaining more than 8,500 mi of roadways and more than 4,800 bridges throughout the state as well as managing vehicle registrations and licensing. In addition, the agency has a role in the capital planning of highway, rail, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in North Dakota (NDDOT 2016). Despite a large section of the department being involved with the vehicle registration and licensing branch of the agency, it is estimated that between 60% and 70% of NDDOT employees are regularly on construction or maintenance sites, thereby being exposed to the higher safety risks associated with work tasks in these areas. Safety risk mitigation policies and practices NDDOT’s safety program is committed to minimizing safety risk for the state employees while still allow- ing the agency to perform its necessary function for the citizens of North Dakota. The safety program is thorough and, when an incident involving a highway worker in a roadway work site occurs, the agency takes many postincident steps to document and learn from the incident. The steps undertaken involve those that create internal documentation of the incident for the agency. These include preparing initial incident reports and worker injury claims. NDDOT also informs the proper stakeholders, such as law enforcement and the insurance policy provider, that the incident occurred. Other steps include interagency communication, such as conducting incident review meetings, postincident investigations, uploading incident information to a lessons learned database, and communicating the lessons learned statewide. The remaining steps include implementing return-to-work initiatives, reviewing and modifying policies and procedures, and updating job safety analysis (JSA) documentation regarding the incident. All of these postincident steps are taken by NDDOT for any incident that occurs in a work site. These incident types include those that involve public automobiles encroaching into the work site, those that involve on-site construction and maintenance vehicles and equipment, and those that involve on-site hazards (e.g., worker injury from a slip, trip, or fall). The statewide safety office at NDDOT is responsible for compiling and archiving the incident reports, which ensures that all of the collected data are maintained under a single jurisdiction. This office is also working to adjust current practice and policy for some aspects of the safety program to further focus on leading indicators. leading indicator initiative This case example highlights two parts of NDDOT’s general safety program. The first is an agencywide push to focus more on being proactive in employee safety and not only react to incidents after they occur. The transition to proactive safety initiatives has led NDDOT to establish leading indicators

72 to be monitored and evaluated along with the traditional lagging indicators. The motivation for this change stemmed from similar initiatives being used in the plains region of the United States among private construction and maintenance firms. The following three points are the primary lagging indi- cators that NDDOT analyzes to evaluate and inform its safety program (NDDOT 2016): • Incident rates, • Experience modification rates associated with workers’ compensation insurance premiums, and • Motor vehicle accident rates. The first step in the transition to relying more heavily on leading indicators was to identify which would be recorded and analyzed as part of the safety program. Several of the leading indicators include recording employee participation in various programs such as self-inspections, first aid/CPR training, the near miss program, and employee suggestion programs. Other leading indicators reflect the activities of employees with respect to safety, such as employees performing safety audits and leading pretask plan meetings. Still others include attendance at safety committee meetings and daily/ weekly safety meetings. The combination of these many factors comprises the bulk of the leading indicators being monitored by NDDOT. One particular aim of this initiative is to shift the safety culture away from finding fault in incidents. by focusing on the prevention measures for future incidents, the understanding of safety becomes a more future-oriented, proactive task rather than a reactive one. This effort is being motivated in part by needing employees to buy into the leading indicator idea. A visible manifestation of this agency trend toward leading indicators is the implementation of the Job Hazard Analysis, a worksheet that is consistent with the industry standard JSA. A copy of the blank worksheet, courtesy of NDDOT, is included in Appendix E. The purpose of the worksheet is to document the various tasks that are accomplished by field personnel and identify the potential hazards associated with the task, which include issues related to the work location, the environmental hazards, and particularly risky characteristics of the task. One section provides a risk rating table so that the activity can be rated in relation to other risky tasks that could be undertaken and employees warned of the risks associated with the task. This risk rating table is shown in figure 27. The worksheet also includes a list of applicable precautions to be taken by the NDDOT employee for the task and the equipment that is recommended to complete the task safely. The final portion of the JSA is a description of the process that should be undertaken by the NDDOT employee to complete the task as safely as possible. return-to-Work initiative The second part of the safety program highlighted is NDDOTs return-to-work initiative. This initiative is being implemented concurrently with the leading indicator initiative, and both have overlapping FIGURE 27 NDDOT JSA risk rating table. Source: NDDOT Job Hazard Analysis Form 2016.

73 goals. The primary leading indicator aspect of the return-to-work initiative is implementing an ergonomic assessment for all new hires in the state DOT. The goal of this initiative is to be proactive in determining potential issues that could arise with a particular person in a particular position. At this point, this initiative has been implemented only in the vehicle registration and licensing area of the state DOT. An ergonomic assessment is conducted for any new employees working in the vehicle registration and licensing area of the state DOT. The ergonomic assessment is an unusual aspect of a return-to-work initiative because, in general, no inci- dent has yet occurred. However, the justification is that if the ergonomic assessment allows the agency to be proactive in limiting preventable incidents, the need to return to work will not be necessary. In addition, even if an incident occurs, the ergonomic assessment can be used to tailor a return-to-work plan for that particular employee based on his or her individual needs. NDDOT has one insurance program that is required to cover all state employees. This require- ment results in a close relationship between the insurance company and NDDOT. The safety program takes advantage of this relationship to help implement programs such as the ergonomic assessment as part of a return-to-work initiative. The safety personnel can work in conjunction with the insur- ance company to promote and implement this plan, further increasing agencywide awareness of the initiative. The return-to-work initiative is in its early stages, but it is hoped the program will become more accepted and be implemented statewide for a range of employees and tasks. Data Sources, archiving, and analysis One of the primary data sources available for the leading indicator initiative is the state JSA form. This form is a valuable data repository for various tasks that are performed by NDDOT workers and contains detailed information about hazards and risks associated with a particular activity. How- ever, the collection of the forms themselves serves as another data source. The more forms that are completed and archived, the more that leading indicators are recognized by the state employees and accepted as a part of the agency’s safety culture. This results in a higher likelihood of safer outcomes and improvements in lagging indicators. In addition to the collection of these worksheets that highlight the potential risk of various tasks, NDDOT has access to several data sources regarding highway worker safety and incidents and uses all of the available sources in its safety program implementation. These sources include incident reports, worker insurance claims, safety training records, medical records, and fatality/injury data. NDDOT integrates these sources to facilitate programmatic decision making to plan and mitigate risk and loss. The safety team is fortunate that for the data sources that are used, the data are available quickly after an incident. for most of the data sources, the information is available within 1 month of the incident. Only the safety training records, which can take more than 1 year to become available, are not available for quick analysis. monitoring and evaluation One of the challenges associated with focusing a safety program around leading indicators is that the indicators are more challenging to quantify and evaluate for their effectiveness. Therefore, the agency will continue to monitor the same lagging indicators evaluated previously. This effort particularly involves the understanding of incident rates and general trends associated with those rates. In addition, the monetary indicator for the insurance premiums is of particular concern to the agency officials, who want to ensure that North Dakota’s tax dollars are well spent. Another step taken by the agency is to determine the employee perspectives on the safety initiatives. To do so, NDDOT distributes an agencywide employee satisfaction survey. The results of this survey indicate that the safety programming elements of the agency have the highest satisfaction among the state DOT employees. In particular, employees are supportive of the trend of removing fault finding in the aftermath of incidents.

74 As the programs continue to be implemented and adjusted statewide, the monitoring and evalu- ation process will be further developed. Ultimately, lagging indicators, such as injury and fatality rates, will be used as a check on the impact of the full safety program that NDDOT has implemented to protect its workers. effectiveness of Safety programs, policies, and practices because the safety programs described are still in the development phase, it is too early to ascer- tain the long-term effectiveness of the implementation of these initiatives. The implementation of the leading indicator initiative is only 60% to 70% complete, so the full results are unknown. Although leading indicators are more challenging to assess, the continued use of lagging indica- tors can partially demonstrate any effects the use of leading indicators among employee safety efforts may be having. The first of these lagging indicators is the agency insurance premiums. This is a visible indica- tor and represents a significant budget item for the agency. As the focus at the agency has shifted to leading indicators, the insurance premiums have decreased, suggesting a perceived reduction in risk (and potentially a reduction in incidents) from the perspective of the insurance provider. Over the last 6 years, the agency has seen a decrease of 50% in their insurance premium. This change is a significant difference, bringing attention to the efforts of the safety officers at NDDOT. The safety team at NDDOT also has determined that agency administration support is neces- sary for effective implementation. Initially, they received some skepticism for their program ideas. However, the team found that they received increased support from the administration because of positive outcomes of programs (from both the perspective of a more respected safety culture and the direct monetary savings from insurance). This recognition has resulted in the safety team being granted more autonomy to implement other “out of the box” initiatives aimed at improving safety within the agency. Of the standard postincident steps that NDDOT takes after an incident, a few are particularly valuable to the effectiveness of the state’s safety program for its workers. for all of the types of work site incidents (public automobile, on-site vehicle/equipment, and on-site hazard), NDDOT finds that the preparation of initial incident reports, preparation of worker injury claims, and return-to-work initiatives are effective and valuable to the overall safety program at the agency. for incidents that involve on-site construction and maintenance vehicles and equipment and those that involve on-site hazards, the steps of informing the insurance provider, communicating lessons learned statewide, and updating the JSA are effective. Suggestions for Safety programs, policies, and practices The management of a successful safety program results from a variety of factors. These factors are necessary in the implementation stage of an initiative as well as the continued maintenance of a pro- gram. for NDDOT, the following suggested practices increase the possibility of having a successful safety program: • Demonstrate to agency administration the benefits of safety initiatives to improve interagency relations and establish trust for the implementation of future programs. • Transition data analysis from lagging to leading indicators through efforts such as a JSA for various work tasks. • Shift agency culture from finding fault in incidents to finding solutions to prevent similar incidents. • Collaborate safety initiatives across departments to take advantage of various pockets of exper- tise and success. • Take advantage of opportunities to promote safety programs throughout the agency to educate employees about the benefits.

75 oregon Dot Size and Description The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is an intermediate size DOT and is responsible for constructing and maintaining the multimodal transportation system in Oregon. The mission of ODOT, as stated on its website, is “to provide a safe, efficient transportation system that supports economic opportunity and livable communities for Oregonians” (ODOT 2016). To achieve this mis- sion, ODOT has developed the following goals, which are published on its website (ODOT 2016): • Safety—Engineering, educating, and enforcing a safe transportation system; • Mobility—keeping people and the economy moving; • Preservation—Preserving and maintaining infrastructure; • Sustainability—Sustaining the environment and livable communities; and • Stewardship—Maximizing value from transportation investments. As a large transportation agency with more than 4,500 employees, ODOT has a series of diverse public service roles within the state. The agency is divided into nine separate divisions that each serve a role in achieving the mission of the organization. The divisions, which correspond to the dif- ferent transportation systems the agency oversees, are as follows (ODOT 2012): • Central Services Division, • Communications Division, • Driver and Motor vehicle Services Division, • Transportation Development Division, • Public Transit Division, • Rail Division, • Motor Carrier Transportation Division, • Transportation Safety Division, and • Highway Division. The abundance of divisions performing various tasks indicates the level of responsibility entrusted to this agency. The largest of these divisions, the Highway Division, is responsible for maintaining more than 8,000 mi of roads and 2,700 bridges. In the 2010 to 2011 construction and maintenance season, almost $350 million of project funds were awarded for 145 projects around the state (ODOT 2012). These projects require that ODOT personnel be active in highway work sites. In total, it is esti- mated that 30% to 40% of ODOT’s 4,500 employees are regularly in construction or maintenance work sites. Safety risk mitigation policies and practices Given the breadth of responsibilities that ODOT has in the different modes of transportation, the safety program is integrated into all of the different divisions and manifests itself in different ways to adapt to the requirements of each particular division. The following policies are specifically related to safety procedures and initiatives implemented in conjunction with the risks inherent with working in highway work sites. When an incident occurs in a work site that is managed by ODOT, the following steps are taken depending on the type of incident. If the incident involves a public automobile (e.g., a work site crash), only two postincident steps are conducted by the agency: preparing an initial incident report and informing law enforcement. When an incident occurs in the work site that results from on-site con- struction and maintenance vehicles/equipment or other on-site hazards, ODOT implements the same steps for both of these types of incidents. These steps are numerous and include preparing an initial incident report, assisting workers to prepare a worker injury claim, informing the insurance policy provider, informing the state OSHA office (when there is a hospitalization or a fatality), conducting an incident review meeting, uploading findings to the incident tracker database, communicating the

76 lessons learned agencywide, implementing return-to-work initiatives, and reviewing or modifying policies and procedures indicated by the postincident analysis. Of the steps that ODOT implements in the aftermath of an incident, the steps of preparing the worker injury claims, informing the insurance policy provider, and informing the state OSHA office were indicated by the interviewee to be the most valuable to ODOT’s safety program. The incident reports, which are created in response to incidents that occur in a highway work site, are compiled and archived centrally at the statewide human resources office and the statewide safety office. These reports are archived in various formats, including online databases, electronic files (e.g., pdf file), and paper copies. The reports are housed in the human resources office and accessible by safety staff electronically. for the archived incident reports, the reports are categorized by employee functional area and the type of injury sustained in the incident. One of Oregon’s initiatives that is specifically related to highway work zones is the semiannual meeting of the Oregon Work Zone Executive Strategy Steering Committee (OWZESSC). ODOT is one of the partners of this committee, which is specifically highlighted in the following sections of this case example as an example of a multiagency partnership that is focused on work site safety in Oregon. oregon Work Zone executive Strategy Steering Committee One of the more visible and unique aspects of Oregon’s safety program relating to highway work zones is the OWZESSC. This committee, which was established in December 2013, is an initiative to focus on improving work zone safety by potentially adjusting work zone policy in Oregon. One of the motivations for this committee was a 2013 construction contractor fatality in a work zone. The event sparked discussion among transportation officials regarding how to enable vehicles (particularly heavy vehicles and commercial loads) to move more safely through work zones. The OWZESSC was designed to have a partnership with state agencies and private organizations that all have an interest in work zone safety. The committee currently has representation by officials from the following six groups: • Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT); • Oregon Trucking Association, Inc.; • Associated General Contractors, Oregon Columbia Chapter; • Oregon State University; • American Automobile Association; and • Oregon State Police. Three task forces and one resource team were established among the committee members to address specific identified needs. The task forces are Separation and Mobility, Law Enforcement, Engineering Enhancements, and Communications Resource Team. Each task force is responsible for developing and proposing ideas for improving work zone safety. The ideas are presented at committee meet- ings for discussion by the full committee. Ideas found to be promising are further developed and implemented. The committee is not “owned” by any one of the partner organizations, but it generally is hosted by ODOT. Members from each of the six partner groups meet semiannually to discuss priority work zone safety issues and establish statewide policy and goals for improving safety in highway work zones. The committee disseminates its initiatives to the various agency and organizational partners to communicate the changes to the individuals who work in or around work zones on a regular basis. model Structure and Data Sources Although the OWZESSC is effective at mobilizing the leadership of the involved partners and work- ing to promote work zone safety throughout the state of Oregon, the initiative is less data driven than

77 are some in that Oregon’s work zone fatal and serious injury crashes have decreased over the last 10 years or so. Data were available with regard to similar committees during the implementation process to serve as a model for how to structure an effective committee. various officials with an interest in work zones and work zone safety saw an opportunity for an interagency partnership dedicated to work zone issues. In the development of the committee, there were several models of existing committees that had the desired structure of the proposed OWZESSC. In Oregon, existing governor’s advisory committees (GACs) focus on aspects of transportation safety, such as motorcycle safety and driving under the influence of intoxicants. These committees, unlike the OWZESSC, are established through executive order by the governor of Oregon. However, the multiagency elements of these committees served as an example to the OWZESSC partners of the diverse committees with structures similar to a task force. Washington State had a similar multi- disciplinary committee that dealt with issues relating to work zone safety. These existing committees served as the basis for the structure of the OWZESSC. monitoring and evaluation Given the nature of an executive committee, there are few tangible metrics for monitoring and evalu- ating its function and effectiveness. However, for the committee to remain effective, it will continue to conduct its regular semiannual meetings. Continuing participation of all six of the groups is necessary for its effectiveness. for the committee to be successful, active contribution from each of the partners is critical to maintaining a balanced and focused effort at improving safety in Oregon’s work zones. The volume of communication distributed from the committee as a result of the regular meetings is another method of monitoring the committee’s activities. A newsletter is distributed after the quar- terly meetings to highlight the committee’s activities and promote the initiatives being discussed. Appendix f contains the full text of a 2015 ODOT newsletter that describes the activities and specific initiatives that are products of the OWZESSC. In summary, the article discusses how the OWZESSC is working to balance mobility within a work zone with the safety of the workers and that of the travel- ing public. In addition, the article highlights the engineering efforts being undertaken to improve work zones. This newsletter, and others like it, are a reminder to the employees of the involved groups of the work being done to improve worker safety in work zones. effectiveness of Safety programs, policies, and practices because the OWZESSC has been in place for only a few years, it is perhaps too early to determine if the committee will be an effective long-term force in improving safety in highway work sites. How- ever, there are some indications the committee’s presence is having a positive effect on work sites. An ODOT safety official indicated that one of the effects of the committee has been a “real heightened awareness about the importance of safety in those settings [like] ODOT construction work [and] ODOT projects that are being constructed by contractors.” Part of this increased awareness is the result of communication efforts from the OWZESSC. The newsletter distributed to the ODOT employees that contains information about the com- mittee’s activities is distributed electronically and posted on bulletin boards for employees who do not have regular computer access. In addition to the newsletter, there is regular e-mail communica- tion from the ODOT director and the Highway Division administrator regarding safety initiatives at ODOT, including safety initiatives relating to highway work sites. Through these means, reports of the activities of the upper management of ODOT are effectively distributed to the entire agency to help ensure the maintenance of an active safety culture at the agency. Another aspect demonstrating the effectiveness of the committee is the education and promotion aspects of the committee. One of ODOT’s construction managers has prepared a presentation on the OWZESSC and delivered the presentation to various groups within ODOT and outside of the agency to promote the activities of the committee and educate people about the efforts the committee has made to improve work site safety and mobility.

78 Suggestions for Safety programs, policies, and practices The implementation of a committee with the highest officials from various organizations and agencies throughout ODOT is a powerful tool for promoting work site safety from the top down in Oregon. The following points highlight some of ODOT’s suggested policies and practices regarding the implemen- tation of safety initiatives such as the OWZESSC: • Create partnerships and relationships with public agencies and private organizations to work cooperatively to achieve mutual goals. • Effective communication and coordination from the state DOT top management to the rest of the members of the agency is vital for the success and support of a safety initiative. Involving upper management in the efforts to improve work site safety allows the agency leader- ship to directly invest in this important issue. South Carolina Dot Size and Description The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the fourth largest state-maintained highway system in the nation, including more than 41,000 mi of roadway and 8,400 bridges. SCDOT has approximately 4,350 employees, thou- sands of whom serve in the maintenance and construction divisions and work in stationary and moving work zones on a daily basis; there are also numerous contractor personnel in stationary and moving work zones on a daily basis. The agency describes is statutory mission as follows: SCDOT shall have as its functions and purposes the systematic planning, construction, maintenance, and operation of the state highway system and the development of a statewide intermodal and freight system . . . the goal of the department is to provide adequate, safe, and efficient transportation services for the movement of people and goods (SCDOT 2016). Safety risk mitigation policies and practices In addition to these general policies and practices, SCDOT implemented several signature safety initiatives from 1999 to 2007 to reduce employee injuries and fatalities in work sites. The fol- lowing section discusses the 27 in 7 Program that SCDOT implemented statewide to improve the state’s infrastructure. Subsequent sections discuss the specific worker and motorist safety initiatives implemented from 1999 to 2007 as a result of the increased construction and maintenance work in the state. Although South Carolina had programs and efforts in place to prevent employees being involved in work site incidents, despite best efforts, sometimes these incidents occurred. SCDOT had specific policies and procedures for the steps that were to be taken in the aftermath of a work site incident. for any incident involving an employee in a work site, whether the incident was the result of a public vehicle intruding into the work site, on-site vehicles or equipment, or an on-site hazard, the postincident steps taken to record and report the event were the same. These first steps included preparing the initial incident report and preparing the worker injury claim. Several groups were notified of the incident, including law enforcement as appropriate (if the incident involved a public vehicle/work zone crash), the insurance policy provider, and the appropriate OSHA office. The final steps included a postincident investigation and a review of current policies and pro- cedures to determine if it was necessary to modify them to prevent similar incidents in the future. The lessons learned were shared with the senior management of the agency in combination with the recommendations for changes that potentially could prevent future incidents. The state also imple- mented a return-to-work initiative to minimize the amount of time injured employees needed to be away from the job without compromising their safety.

79 During the program that ran from 1999 to 2007, incident reports that were completed in the after- math of an incident were compiled and archived by the statewide SCDOT Safety Office. These reports were archived and categorized in an online database, known as the Risk Management Database; there was electronic documentation (e.g., pdf file) and a paper copy. 27 in 7 Program In 1999, SCDOT initiated an extremely aggressive and innovative program to complete 27 years’ worth of construction and maintenance projects in only 7 years. SCDOT contracted with two con- struction and resource management firms to implement the program. At the time, this public–private partnership was the largest of its type in the United States (fHWA 2016e). It was estimated that the 27 in 7 Program would increase the number of construction and maintenance work zones by as much as 400%. SCDOT was concerned about the safety of its employees in these construction and main- tenance work zones, as well as the safety of the motoring public. This concern prompted an aggres- sive work zone safety initiative. The rapid increase in the number of construction and maintenance work sites in the state made it necessary to develop a program that was data driven and able to adjust quickly based on timely analysis of available data. Therefore, the foundation of the initiative was a database that could be cross-referenced and could produce reports on a timely basis. This allowed SCDOT safety officials to see what the data were showing so they could modify implementation efforts to meet the agency’s strategic plan and the Safety Office’s business plan goals and objectives. “Let ’em Work, Let ’em Live” High-Visibility Work Zone Safety Enforcement Campaign As an element of improving work site safety during the 27 in 7 Program, an aggressive, high-visibility statewide public information and education (PI&E) campaign was undertaken to promote safe driv- ing in construction and maintenance work sites. When SCDOT developed the PI&E campaign, the first focus group was made up of SCDOT highway workers. The major concern they expressed was that “drivers were flying through the work zones . . . we are so scared we were going to get killed because people ignore the signs to slow down . . . they act like nobody is even there, they are not pay- ing attention.” This suggested a high degree of concern by SCDOT highway workers. Conversely, when the motoring public was interviewed in focus groups, nobody thought there was a problem within work sites. based on the polar opposite beliefs, a campaign was created to put the public in the place of highway workers. The overarching PI&E campaign slogan was “Let ’em Work, Let ’em Live.” The campaign involved high-quality television public service announcements, radio ads, billboards, brochures, citation holders, and other materials. The television ads were the central focus of the campaign. They were highly creative and often put the motorist in the place of the highway worker, using some highly complex video graphics techniques. Some ads told the stories of workers killed in work zone crashes; others told the stories of motorists killed in work zone crashes. The total campaign included a series of ads, with messaging updated and changed to address what the data and campaign research information were showing at the time. The PI&E campaign was created, evaluated, and adjusted based on yearly focus groups conducted in different locations in the state, a statewide random digit dialing survey of a sample of motorists; and findings from an annual report of work zone safety statistics compared with previous years’ data. Overall, findings indicated the campaign was well received by South Carolina residents and had a significant impact on perceptions and self-reported behavior by motorists travel- ing through work sites (SCDOT 2004). During the active campaign, 32 other states adopted elements of the SCDOT work zone safety campaign. Safety Record Competition In addition to educating the public about the safety issues in work sites, the state encouraged safe behavior among its employees. An annual safety record competition was held among all the counties in each of the agency’s seven highway districts. The county with the best safety record was recognized during a luncheon, during which the agency director served as the keynote speaker. In addition, the state

80 highway engineer and the director of the Safety Office spoke and presented an award to the winning county. The employees of the winning county also received a special cash bonus. The structure of the award, bonus, and recognition program helped promote friendly competition to raise safety perfor- mance. The initiative was meant to ensure a balanced safety approach that took advantage of various opportunities and constituencies to improve safety for highway workers and the traveling public. Other Components of the “Let ’em Work, Let ’em Live” Work Zone Safety Program Numerous other components of SCDOT’s comprehensive Work Zone Safety Program are not discussed specifically in this case example but contributed to the overall success of the program. These included the following. • A Work Zone Safety Committee met quarterly to provide guidance and direction to the program. The Committee included key SCDOT personnel from various divisions, law enforcement rep- resentatives, emergency medical services representatives, and representatives from Carolinas Associated General Contractors. • A mandatory comprehensive work zone safety training program provided flagger training, general work zone safety operations training, and three levels of work zone safety supervisor training for both SCDOT employees and contractor personnel. • Testing of new equipment to improve work zone safety, including various types of signage and lighting was done, as was testing of lidar and other speed monitoring equipment. • “Let ’em Work, Let ’em Live” signs were placed in advance of all long-term work zones across the state. The use of these signs continues today. • A pocket-size employee safety manual was developed, adopted, published, and distributed to all SCDOT employees in conjunction with training. • The National Work Zone Safety Memorial was shown on a statewide tour, which was combined with news conferences that involved family members of SCDOT employees killed in highway work zones. • A state fair exhibit featured a miniature highway work zone that children and adults could “drive through” and learn about work zone safety. • The statewide “Cruisers Curriculum” was developed by Clemson University and implemented in elementary, middle school, and high schools across the state. The curriculum included units on work zone safety, safety fairs at the school level, and classroom activities and speakers. • News conferences with hundreds of highway workers, emergency medical services officials, and local and state law enforcement were held regionally across the state with each release of new television ads or key materials and products. Speakers in each region were local to the area in an effort to gain more news coverage. • Local law enforcement and the South Carolina Highway Patrol used blitz enforcement, in the “Click It or Ticket” style, in highway work zones. Tickets were issued in special citation hold- ers that explained why the driver was getting the ticket and the importance of work zone safety. blitz-style enforcement waves were held periodically throughout the year. Participating agencies were eligible for incentive prizes, such as new radar units, new in-car video camera equipment, and other enforcement-oriented prizes. Statewide meetings were held with local and state law enforcement to explain the procedures for the program, provide the latest data and statistics, and coordinate blitz wave schedules. • Sign displays or table tents explaining how to travel safely through work zones were designed, printed, and placed in restaurants, banks, and hotel rooms across the state. • brochures telling the real-life stories of SCDOT employees and members of the public who were killed in highway work zones were printed and distributed. • A DvD telling the story of an SCDOT employee, nearing retirement, who received incapacitat- ing injuries in a work zone crash was produced and distributed to schools and churches across the state to show in classrooms and youth meetings. • Teleconferences regarding highway worker safety were coordinated with North Carolina and Georgia. fourteen sites were set up in South Carolina for SCDOT employees to participate. • Roadway signs showing the children of SCDOT employees and containing the message “Please slow down—my dad (or my mom) works here” were posted in highway work zones. SCDOT

81 employees were invited to submit photos of their children for selection for the signs. Children were selected from each highway district to have their individual photo on signs in that district. Television ads were created to accompany the signs, with children of employees imploring the public to please slow down so their mom or dad could come home after work. • Leveraged media buys were made for television and radio advertisements; this saved the state thousands of dollars and resulted in prime time slots at approximately $39 per slot. An agreement with the state’s outdoor advertisers resulted in the state paying fees only to post the boards, with no charges levied for the advertising space. • Quarterly inspections of long-term work zones were done to ensure that their setups and opera- tions were in compliance with the MUTCD and SCDOT requirements. • New legislation was introduced and adopted by the South Carolina General Assembly that increased fines and penalties for speeding in work zones. SCDOT Safety Office staff worked with the General Assembly members to get the legislation introduced and gave testimony before legislative committees. They also provided facts and statistics as needed to demonstrate the need for the legislation. Data Sources, archiving, and analysis SCDOT used various sources of data for its specific safety initiatives. SCDOT leveraged traffic col- lision data, compiled first reports of injury, collected lost work day case information, computed the lost work day case rates, calculated the actual economic cost from the first report of injury and crash data as appropriate, and calculated the actual amount of payouts from the lost work day cases, as well as the estimated losses from the collision data. This information was compiled from data sets provided bimonthly through the state’s Traffic Collision Database (operated by the SC Department of Public Safety); the Crash Outcomes Data Evaluation System (CODES) (operated by the South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics, South Carolina budget and Control board); and the SCDOT Risk Management Database (administered by the SCDOT Safety Office, which included risk manage- ment, claims, and OSHA units). SCDOT employees developed the Risk Management Database inter- nally without benchmarking against other state DOT practices at that time. beyond these databases, SCDOT also conducted focus group studies to collect public perception data on the PI&E work zone safety campaign that was being conducted. The collection and management of these data sources contributed to SCDOT’s ability to improve highway worker safety in the state. monitoring and evaluation Given the fast pace of the 27 in 7 Program and the subsequent safety initiatives developed as a result of the increased volume of construction and maintenance sites, the ability to effectively monitor and quickly evaluate the current effectiveness of the programs was critical to the safety of the increased number of state employees and contractor personnel working in highway work sites. The safety officials believed that data-driven monitoring, which would give greater justification for decisions, would be the most effective for evaluating safety programs. The development of a comprehensive set of cross-referenced databases allowed for accurate quantification of work-zone–related crash statistics and the identification of causal relationships. An example of data analysis between 2004 and 2008 shows that there were 5,444 traffic crashes in South Carolina that were work zone related. In total, 56 people died in these crashes and an additional 2,296 sustained nonfatal injuries. The leading probable cause for work-zone–related crashes from 2004 to 2008 was driving too fast for conditions, with 1,585 such crashes being recorded. The next five leading causes were failure to yield right-of-way (834); driver inattention (626); following too closely (540); improper lane change (386); and driver disregarding sign or signal (229) [SCDOT n.d.]. With the ability to quantify the incidents that occurred in work sites, SCDOT could understand the circumstances that resulted in incidents and effectively implement targeted responses to reduce the leading types of incidents. To properly evaluate the PI&E work zone safety enforcement campaign, SCDOT needed to know if what the motoring public thought about work zones was changing because of the campaign. Survey

82 research data collected before and during the PI&E campaign were used to evaluate the campaigns. SCDOT used computer-generated random digit dialing to contact the public and take them through a sur- vey process regarding their perceptions on work sites and specifically safety in work zones. In addition, SCDOT conducted focus groups in three different geographic regions of the state on an annual basis. Reports documenting the findings of the survey and focus groups were reviewed annually with Safety Office leadership and the research consultants. Appendix G contains the 2004 report from the focus groups and summarizes the results of the qualitative and quantitative findings from the focus groups regarding their views on the television ads SCDOT had been airing. This information was presented at the leadership meetings and used to determine how the messaging could be adjusted in the coming year to maximize the likelihood that particular incident outcomes and perspectives could be improved. effectiveness of Safety programs, policies, and practices Through activities such as the development of the comprehensive Risk Management Database, the development of high visibility PI&E campaigns, extensive work zone safety training for SCDOT and contractor employees, and the improvement of the safety culture across the agency, SCDOT was able to use data to show its loss history and use the SCDOT strategic plan and the Safety Office’s associated business plan to demonstrate improvements in safety performance. Ultimately, the demonstration of reductions in serious injuries and fatalities and the presentation of the agency’s comprehensive Work Zone Safety Program provided evidence to negotiate lower rates and lower insurance premiums. This demonstration was possible only because SCDOT was able to show its loss history and demonstrate the comprehensive approach that was being undertaken to reduce employee injuries and fatalities. Some of the steps SCDOT took in the aftermath of an incident involving an employee in a work site were regarded as particularly effective in contributing to the success of the agency’s safety pro- gram. These steps include thoroughly preparing the initial incident report, entering the information into the Risk Management Database in a timely manner, informing the appropriate OSHA office, and implementing a return-to-work initiative. Periodic safety data trend reports were issued to district engineering administrators, senior staff, and headquarters and district safety personnel that showed statewide and district statistics. Monthly briefings were held with headquarters and district safety personnel; these briefings included reviews of up-to-date data reports, discussions of specific injuries reported, and recommendations for methods to reduce or eliminate these types of incidents in the future. In addition, the reporting of lessons learned to senior management and providing recommen- dations for changes in policy based on the incident to prevent similar future incidents were found by SCDOT to be particularly valuable. SCDOT’s “Let ’em Work, Let ’em Live” Work Zone Safety Program was one of the winners of the fHWA 2007 National Roadway Safety Awards. In 2005, the program received a national award from the American Road and Transportation builders Association (ARTbA). Data collected during the implementation period showed the following (SCDOT 2007): • Employee injuries dropped by 30.44%, from 657 in 2000 to 457 in 2007. • There was a 30.26% reduction in OSHA recordable cases, from 489 in 2000 to 341 in 2007. • The OSHA incidence rate (average number of recordable injury cases per 200,000 h worked) decreased from 9.61 in 2000 to 6.68 in 2007, a 30.48% decrease. • Lost workday cases decreased by 47%, from 268 in 2000 to 142 in 2007, the lowest lost time injuries in 18 years. • The lost workday case rate (number of lost workday cases multiplied by 200,000 and divided by the number of man-hours worked) dropped from 5.27 in 2000 to 2.78 in 2007, a 47.24% reduction. • During blitz enforcement periods, there was a 41.3% reduction in work zone crashes, a 40.9% reduction in work zone injuries, and a 52.2% reduction in work zone fatalities. Suggestions for Safety programs, policies, and practices The increased exposure of SCDOT employees to the hazards of work zones from the 27 in 7 Program necessitated dramatic advancement in the safety program of SCDOT. A multifaceted approach, includ-

83 ing the development of several robust databases, an aggressive PI&E campaign, and shifts in the safety culture, contributed to improved work zone safety performance in South Carolina. SCDOT indicated the following suggested practices increase the possibility of having a successful safety program: • High quality cross-referenced data are critical for being able to identify safety problems, develop mitigation strategies, and evaluate the impact of safety initiatives. • Positively influencing the perceptions and behaviors of the motoring public is a vital compo- nent of a comprehensive work zone safety initiative. • The implementation of a comprehensive work zone safety training program for highway work- ers, work zone supervisors, flaggers, and contractor personnel and that operates in conjunction with other components of the overall program is helpful. • A robust safety culture in the state agency is a critical component of a robust work zone safety initiative, and its value cannot be underestimated. WaShington Dot Size and Description The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) oversees the state’s multimodal transportation system, ensuring that people and goods move safely and efficiently (WSDOT 2016a). WSDOT is responsible for building, maintaining, and operating the state’s highway and ferry systems. The agency works in partnership with other agencies (local, state, and federal) to maintain and improve local roads, railroads, and airports. WSDOT also supports alternatives to driving, such as public trans- portation, bicycles, and pedestrian programs (WSDOT 2016a). The size of WSDOT and the state’s transportation network can be illustrated using various metrics. The following metrics are reported on the agency’s website (WSDOT 2016a): • Operates and maintains approximately 18,000 lane miles of state highways. • Owns, operates, and maintains more than 3,600 bridge structures. • Runs the nation’s largest ferry system, which moves 22.4 million passengers and 10 million vehicles a year. • Partners with 32 public transportation systems to provide more than 220 million passenger trips a year. • Owns three Talgo train sets in the Amtrak Cascades fleet and manages the Palouse River Coulee City Railroad. In addition, WSDOT has approximately 7,000 to 8,000 employees throughout the agency, 60% to 70% of whom are regularly on construction and maintenance sites. According to its strategic plan (WSDOT 2016b), WSDOT’s mission is to provide and support “safe, reliable and cost-effective transportation options to improve livable communities and economic vitality for people and businesses.” With respect to safety, one of WSDOT’s values is to “promote the safety of the public and employees at all times.” WSDOT has six agency goals, one of which (goal 2— modal integration) specifically addresses safety. A priority outcome for the goal is to “reduce number of fatal and serious injuries for all transportation modes.” The multimodal safety strategy specified to attain this outcome is to “align multimodal safety policy-making across the agency” (WSDOT 2016b). Safety risk mitigation policies and practices WSDOT’s safety program for its employees is multifaceted and extends agencywide in terms of locale and employee position within the agency. The safety program is founded on archived infor- mation associated with worker injuries and fatalities. This information is collected and disseminated through various means. When an injury/fatality incident occurs, the supervisor prepares an initial incident report, and an incident review meeting is conducted with all involved and affected parties. In addition, a postincident

84 investigation is conducted to identify the issues surrounding the incident and cause(s) of the incident. As part of the incident review process, recommendations for how to prevent the incident from occur- ring in the future are solicited and developed. The findings from this effort are uploaded to a lessons- learned database for reference. In addition, the lessons learned are communicated statewide to inform all employees of the potential hazard(s), associated risk, and means of control and injury prevention. The practices mentioned are in place for incidents that occur on a work site that do not involve a public vehicle or on-site construction and maintenance vehicle/equipment (e.g., worker injury from a slip, trip, or fall). for incidents that involve a public vehicle (e.g., work site crash) or on-site construc- tion and maintenance vehicle/equipment, the protocol described is followed along with additional practices. The additional practices include preparing a worker injury claim; informing law enforce- ment of the incident when it involves a public vehicle; informing the state OSHA office; implement- ing a return-to-work initiative, and reviewing and modifying applicable policies and procedures to help prevent such incidents in the future. The responsibility for compiling and archiving the incident reports and other information developed is spread across the agency. Offices charged with the duty include the Regional/District Maintenance Office, Regional/District Safety Office, and Statewide Safety Office. near miss reporting program WSDOT added an innovative near miss reporting component to its safety program within the past year. Modeled after a similar program developed by one of WSDOT’s construction contractors, the near miss program aims to record near misses and generate ideas for eliminating the hazards that contributed to the near misses. No specific research was conducted by WSDOT to develop the program other than soliciting information about the contractor’s program. Development of the program was informed by safety personnel within WSDOT based on their regular reading of articles on worker safety and new approaches to improving safety. The near miss program is designed to encourage employees to provide information about near misses they experience and suggestions for preventing the near misses in the future. This program is not the same as that used for incidents resulting in an injury or fatality. The program initially was developed within a WSDOT region. The value of the program was recognized by WSDOT leader- ship personnel, who directed the expansion of the program statewide. The support provided by WSDOT leadership personnel is viewed as a significant contribution to its success. Currently the near miss program is implemented on all major projects in the state. The near miss program has several parts. Employees who experience or witness a near miss are encouraged to provide a simple report containing a brief written description of the near miss, a descrip- tion of the immediate actions taken to eliminate the hazard or mitigate the safety risk, and suggestions for preventing a near miss or injury in the future. The employee gives the report to his/her supervisor. The supervisor reviews the report, works with the employee to identify solutions, and communicates the information recorded to the safety personnel for review and analysis. In addition, the supervisor places the employee’s name in a lottery for a drawing to win money or an item of some monetary value. To enable communicating the details of the program and encourage implementing it in the field, WSDOT created a booklet that describes the program and provides guidance and forms for the work- ers. The instruction pages for the booklet are included in Appendix H. As shown in the figures, the booklet contains a definition of a near miss, a graphic depicting the frequency with which near misses occur relative to injury incidents of various severity (first aid only, recordable injury, serious injury, and fatality), and a list of safety strategy elements for preventing near misses. The safety strategy elements are commitment to excellence, employee driven culture, basics done well, focus on greatest potential improvements, and leadership support and accountability. To further educate employees on safety management practices, the booklet presents five core functions of organizational risk management. The five core functions are define the scope of work,

85 analyze the hazards, develop and implement hazard controls, perform work within hazard controls, and provide feedback and continuous improvement. Safety risk management includes consideration of frequency and severity of injuries, which also are described in the booklet. Those using the book- let are presented definitions of low and high frequency and severity. Users are also asked to rate the frequency and potential injury severity of the near miss being reported. To assist with the implementation process, the booklet includes a list of the steps associated with filling out a near miss report. Three steps are described as follows: 1. Submit a near miss or a safety suggestion to supervisor. 2. The supervisor works with employee to identify solutions. 3. Solutions may be implemented locally, regionally, or statewide. The booklet is approximately 3 in. × 5 in. for ease of use and transport. The booklet was created with the assistance of personnel in the graphics department within WSDOT. It contains about 20 pages, including pages on which near misses can be recorded (see Appendix H). The Near Miss or Safety Suggestion Report form has fields in which the employee can record his or her name, the date and time, WSDOT organizational name and unit number, whether the incident involved personnel and/ or equipment, a description of the near miss incident and immediate actions taken, and suggestions for preventing a similar occurrence of the incident. The report form usually takes no more than about 2 min to complete. After completing the report form, the employee gives the form to his or her supervisor. WSDOT is in the process of developing an online application that can be used instead of the report form. As mentioned, the near miss program was developed within one region and then disseminated statewide with the assistance of WSDOT leadership personnel. Announcements about the program were first sent to key construction and maintenance personnel in each region. Promotional materials were developed and provided to the regional personnel. The program was communicated during nor- mally scheduled, face-to-face meetings and during safety meetings. The communications described the program, how to use the booklet, how to fill out the report forms, who to give the booklet to, and how the overall near miss program works. WSDOT has received about 35 near miss reports with suggestions from across the state. In the approximately 12 months since the near miss program started agencywide, some units within WSDOT have submitted four to eight reports, whereas only one report has been received from other units within the past year. The number of reports received is recognized as being affected by the extent to which management personnel within a region enthusiastically supported the near miss program when it was rolled out. More near miss reports and suggestions have been received from employees in the regions where greater support for the program was provided by regional management. In some areas within WSDOT, the safety risk to employees is not high (e.g., for office staff). As a result, it is expected that some operational units will not have as many near misses, and fewer near miss reports will be generated. WSDOT has tracked this trend in the near miss reports generated. However, the near miss program is available to all operational units within WSDOT. Some issues of concern were brought up during development of the near miss program. Unlike in private companies, in public organizations there often is sensitivity and reluctance to giving away money or gifts as incentives to employees. Care was taken to ensure that the incentive program was documented, fair/equitable, substantiated, and accessible by all employees. As a result, WSDOT elected to set the value of the lottery money/gift at $25. This was intended, in part, to limit concerns about excessive spending and fairness. However, it was recognized that $25 might not be enough to gain interest from employees and encourage them to complete and submit the near miss report, especially if their name only goes into a lottery and they may not receive the award. The low value might also be viewed as paltry. As a result, in some cases, regional personnel thought the amount too low and decided not to implement the incentive part of the program. WSDOT representatives think that replication of the near miss program in other states is defi- nitely possible. A state agency would simply need to develop the guidance and reporting forms and

86 disseminate the program through the agency. In addition, administrative capabilities must be in place to administer the incentive part of the program and collect and disseminate the lessons learned. According to WSDOT, states should be aware that a balance is needed between the number of near miss suggestions submitted and the incentive award. The near miss suggestions that qualify for including the employee’s name in the lottery must be actionable and feasible. A suggestion that does not have a reasonable possibility of being implemented would not qualify the person to potentially win the incentive lottery award. However, in WSDOT’s program, all suggestions were considered because there may be some way that the agency could benefit from the suggestion. Data Sources, archiving, and analysis As mentioned, WSDOT’s safety program includes the preparation of a report after an injury inci- dent. When created, the reports are archived in an online database and as a paper copy. Incidents are organized and tracked according to the following pieces of information: employee functional area, type of injury, time of day, and organizational unit. Data commonly used in analyzing the incident and evaluating the safety program comes from the following sources: incident report, police citation report, worker insurance claim, safety training records, medical records, fatality/injury data, roadway design, and roadway design features. The data used become available within 1 month of the incident. Currently, WSDOT does not integrate the incident data to facilitate programmatic decision making. In some cases, WSDOT uses incident data as support information to develop policies and practices. The following are examples of documents and programs WSDOT developed in part based on incident data: additional training for workers, additional training for supervisors, new standards for work site traffic control plans, driver awareness programs, worker behavior assessment programs, safety incen- tive programs, and drug/alcohol abuse programs. monitoring and evaluation Monitoring and evaluation of the near miss program is part of WSDOT’s administration of the pro- gram. Initial development included piloting the program in a few regions within the state. Since that time, the regions have implemented the program at their own pace. WSDOT has found that new programs such as the near miss program require internal marketing and salesmanship to motivate and support the regions to implement the program. In addition, endorsement from supervisors and manag- ers is required. At first, the implementation may be spotty and inconsistent. Time is required to get the program effectively in place agencywide. In addition, resources are needed to ensure the program is implemented consistently from region to region. The success of the near miss program ultimately will be measured by the number of near misses and worker injuries that occur in future years. These are lagging indicators of success. WSDOT also monitors leading indicators, such as the number of near miss reports received and the overall value of each suggestion for mitigating the near miss hazard. WSDOT has noticed that many of the initial suggestions are “low-hanging fruit.” That is, the hazards identified and safety suggestions submit- ted are easy to spot and envision and often are site specific. Now WSDOT is looking for ideas that may have applicability to a broader audience. To enable implementation of the suggested practices, WSDOT is working to collect and present the information in such a way that it is applicable to other situations across the agency. effectiveness of Safety programs, policies, and practices because the program was implemented approximately 1 year ago, there has not been a lot of time to determine the long-term effectiveness. However, the expansion of the program from a regional to a state level indicates agency leadership buy-in to the program, which improves its chances of being effective. More data related to the number of near miss reports and suggestions submitted and the immediate and long-term outcomes of the program need to be documented and analyzed to determine the full extent of the program’s success. Of all the safety management program elements used by

87 WSDOT, the practices that are viewed by the interviewee as having the greatest value to overall suc- cess of the agency’s safety program are preparing an initial incident report; conducting an incident review meeting; communicating the lessons learned agencywide; reviewing or modifying policies and procedures after an incident; and conducting a postincident investigation. Suggestions for Safety programs, policies, and practices Safety management program success stems from multiple factors. These factors are both local to the employee and across the agency and extend from the initial development and rollout of the program to its continued implementation and monitoring. for WSDOT, the following suggested practices enhance the potential for success of a program: • Having agency management personnel actively engaged around the safety effort. • Having positive and continuous communications from top executives within the agency about the high priority of safety. • Engaging project and unit managers in the safety program, with the same or higher level of engagement from supervisors and employees. • Providing engaged, hands-on safety staff who continually strive to develop viable solutions to mitigate safety hazards. • Employing safety staff who have a solution-minded, collaborative approach and constructive working relationships with frontline supervisors and employees. ConCluSionS Program elements that a state DOT implements that affect the safety of state DOT employees can be diverse. This diversity contributes to a multifaceted approach that is necessary for reducing the safety risk to highway workers. The case examples presented from California, Maine, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, and Washington demonstrate the diversity of programs available to state DOTs for their safety measures. The descriptions of these programs serve as examples to state DOTs of the processes, stakeholders, and data needed to establish or modify safety programs in other state DOTs. The six case examples highlight the diversity of safety programs being implemented by state DOTs across the country. Caltrans has implemented a design for safety initiative that encourages designers to consider the construction and maintenance safety issues for those implementing the projects. The safety idea incentive program in MaineDOT and the near miss program from WSDOT explore the potential of getting work crews involved with the safety programs that directly affect them. Oregon’s OWZESSC demonstrates an effort to get the administration of work site safety stakeholders together to keep work sites a highly visible safety issue statewide. South Carolina used extensive public out- reach and involvement to adjust and improve their safety program and educate the workers and pub- lic about the risks in work sites. finally, NDDOT’s leading indicator and return-to-work initiatives are tackling new forms of data to shift the culture of the safety program from reactionary to proactive. These programs demonstrate that data are not widely used in safety programs and the data available may affect only part of an overall safety program. There are limitations to the applicability of the findings presented in this chapter. Given that only narrowly focused elements of six state DOT safety programs were explored, there are likely many other innovative safety programs being implemented in state DOTs across the nation. In addition, the information for the case examples, in most cases, was collected from only one source within the agency. Despite these limitations, this chapter retains significant value as a portion of the synthesis on current safety practices for highway workers. The chapter provides an agency-level view of safety programs from the individuals who manage such programs on a daily basis. It demonstrates the details, challenges, and efforts required to maintain effective safety programs. This perspective com- plements the national trends of agency practice and perspective provided by the data analysis and survey results.