2005 LBNL Safety Culture and EHS Satisfaction Survey
2005 LBNL Safety Culture and EH&S Satisfaction Survey Peter D. Lichty October 24, 2005
Survey Details • Anonymous, online survey using outside vendor website (Zoomerang), paper option for Facilities. • Open from 9/19/05 to 9/29/05 to entire Lab. • Recruitment —TABL article – 9/19/05 yielded 145 responses —TABL reminder – 9/22/05 increased to 260 —Email to Division Directors 9/26/05 increased to 777 responses. —Operations Ice Cream Social incentive • Limitations —Multiple completions possible —Theoretically, outsiders could find the site.
Who Answered the Survey?
Who Answered the Survey? About 1/3 each
Division
Division Response Rates AF AL CFO CH CR EE EG EH ES FA 31 48 44 3 34% 56% 23% 4% GN HR ITSD LD 8 25 24 27 5% 36% 13% 40% 8 47 149 52 60 54 6% 18% 51% 54% 37% 19% LS MS NERSC NS PB PH 80 43 5 37 9 4 31% 23% 7% 39% 6% 4%
Typical Response Distribution
Safety Culture Good scores on working in safe environment, safety as a key value, comfort in stopping work for safety reasons.
Safety Culture 25% Occasional or Less communication of Lessons Learned 21% Occasional or less Trust there will be no Negative Repercussions For reporting injury Training Need: Injury Reports should not have negative repercussions Communication of Lessons Learned needs improvement
Line Management Commitment 87% feel Division Senior Management is personally committed to supporting safety. 82% feel Supervisor puts safety concerns first.
Line Management Commitment 22% Occasional or Less safety performance Feedback from supervisor 30% Occasional or Less Supervisor inspects Work area for safety. Management Behavior Needs Improvement: 1. Give verbal feedback to employees (good or bad) on safety performance. 2. Inspect work areas of immediate reports for housekeeping and safety for 30 minutes per week.
Work Group Safety Good scores overall in reporting hazards, PPE availability and wearing, training and near miss reporting
Work Group Safety 21% ‘Occasional’ or Less Safety Mistake Discussion without Blaming Management Behavior Needed: Ability to discuss accidents and learn from them without assigning blame.
Policies and Procedures 87% know how to find EH&S policies and procedures.
Policies and Procedures Possible Flawed Questions? : 1. What level of ‘ISM Understanding’ do we want? 2. Does Question 3 above about EH&S policies and procedures reflect a problem? 3. Are EH&S databases for ‘tracking hazards’ or ‘maintaining good safety records’? If not, how should they be justified?
EH&S Contribution 86% with opinion feel EH&S Staff “substantially contribute to the safety of our workplace”.
EH&S Knowledgeable and Helpful 91% of recent EH&S customers find EH&S Knowledgeable and Helpful, ‘Mostly or Definitely’
Division Safety Coordinators 93% of Respondents find Division Safety Coordinators Knowledgeable and Helpful, ‘Mostly or Definitely‘
EH&S Training 74% of Respondents Took EH&S Training during past year. 83% of those with opinions found training valuable and helpful
EH&S Effectiveness Overall 82% with opinion found EH&S to be effective in helping meet ES&H responsibilities!
No major difference between Science and Operations Divisions in safety culture responses.
Comments by Category Total Specific Suggestion 15 Insult 2 Management 14 Lessons Learned 2 EH&S 14 Policy 2 Concern re: injury reporting 11 Work load 1 Kudo for EH&S, DSCs 9 Positive Reinforcement 1 Training Safety Meetings, Lessons 8 Learned 1 Null 7 Air hoses 1 Ergonomics 7 Disability management 1 Culture 6 Building Concern 1 Balance 6 Disaster Planning 1 Misunderstanding 5 Survey 3 Grand Total 118
Summary • Largest survey on safety culture and EH&S has been completed. • Communication of lessons learned needs improvement in frequency and content. • Specific management behaviors need to reinforce Lab’s values of safety and community. — 30 minutes per week for safety (walkaround to identify and track improvements needed). —Verbal feedback to employees on safety performance. —Support early reporting of ergonomic symptoms.
Back-up Slides
Response Rate by Division Responses Population (C+F+PD+RR+VPD+T) Response Rate AF 31 92 34% AL 48 86 56% CF 44 188 23% CH 3 79 4% CR 8 130 6% EE 47 258 18% EG 149 295 51% EH 52 96 54% ES 60 162 37% FA 54 278 19% GN 8 156 5% HR 25 69 36% IC 24 186 13% LD 27 67 40% LS 80 259 31% MS 43 187 23% NE 5 70 7% NS 37 94 39% PB 9 146 6% PH 4 112 4% 758 3010
- Slides: 25