CHAPTER 5

Summary of Findings

The primary objective of this synthesis is to document state department of transportation (DOT) practices regarding safety leading indicators for state DOT employees, related implementation strategies, and written policies and outcomes of these programs.

Each objective was previously addressed in the survey results presented in Chapter 3 and state DOT case examples described in Chapter 4. The following sections revisit the primary findings of this NCHRP synthesis. The information used to generate the conclusions is inclusive of the 43 state DOTs that responded to the survey and the five state DOTs that participated in the case example interviews. When specific numbers are referenced, the unresponsive states are not included in the findings.

5.1 Summary of Findings

5.1.1 Types of Safety Leading Indicators Used

• Eighty-one percent of responding state DOTs noted that they document safety leading indicators (Figure 3.8). Of those that document safety leading indicators, 34% have been documenting them for more than 10 years (Figure 3.9). Ninety-seven percent of state DOTs that document safety leading indicators have been doing so for more than a year (Figure 3.9).
• Survey respondents were offered 20 predefined safety leading indicators to note whether their state DOT documents them. All 20 reported that multiple state DOTs track them. The most frequently noted were “Tracking Safety Training Logs,” “WorkZone Traffic Control Training,” “First Aid/CPR Training,” and “Use of Safety Committees” (Table 3.1). The least frequently noted were “Use of Stretch and Flex Programs,” “Reporting of Vehicle Operations (i.e., seat belt usage),” and “Employee Perceptions of a Just and Fair Safety Culture” (Table 3.1).
• The case example interviews support that targeted training, tracking of training, and near-miss reporting were the most cited leading indicators considered.

5.1.2 Frequency of Safety Leading Indicator Collection

• Many of the safety leading indicators noted by responding state DOTs are documented as needed or as an event occurs (Table 3.1). When documentation occurs regularly, leading indicators such as “Use of Toolbox Talks” (11 state DOTs) and “Reporting of Vehicle Inspections” (eight state DOTs) are documented daily or weekly (Table 3.1). “Use of Safety Committees” was documented by several state DOTs regularly. Eleven state DOTs document those committees quarterly, while six state DOTs document them monthly (Table 3.1).
• A few of the states in the case examples also deliver toolbox talks or employee engagements daily or weekly.

5.1.3 Flowthrough Requirements of External Partners

• Seven state DOTs pass their safety leading indicator policies on to private contractors, consultants, or construction engineering inspections (CEI) teams (Figure 3.13). Eighty percent of state DOTs that document safety leading indicators reported that they do not pass those requirements on. Of the seven that do, three state DOTs formally write those requirements into contracts, while four state DOTs expect private contractors, consultants, or CEI teams to participate in their safety leading indicator program but do not formally write that expectation into their contracts (Figure 3.13).
• For the state DOTs that pass the requirement on, four noted that their field staff check compliance and four have their employee safety staff check compliance (Figure 3.14). Those compliance checks are performed regularly by four state DOTs or as random spot checks by three state DOTs (Figure 3.15).

5.1.4 Method of Data Collection, Tracking, and Storage

• Twenty-four state DOTs collect their safety leading indicators on paper and store them electronically, 22 state DOTs collect safety leading indicators through an electronic safety management system (SMS), and 13 state DOTs collect the leading indicator data on paper and store them on paper (Figure 3.16).
• As described in the case examples, the ability to organize and use the collected safety data to present trends, target training, or highlight safety program performance is vital to the overall program.

5.1.5 Roles and Responsibilities in the Use of Leading Indicators

• State DOTs have a variety of employee positions involved in their safety leading indicator program. Twenty-eight state DOTs document the roles, responsibilities, and expectations for central office safety managers in the program (Figure 3.19). Twenty-four state DOTs define roles for district or regional safety managers, while 21 and 18 state DOTs have roles for maintenance crews and superintendents, respectively (Figure 3.19). Five state DOTs note that they do not document roles, responsibilities, or expectations (Figure 3.19).
• State DOTs also noted that some of those positions use safety leading indicator data in the execution of their job duties. Thirty state DOTs have central office safety managers using the data, 24 state DOTS have district or regional safety managers using the data, and 20 state DOTs have their central office executive leadership using the safety leading indicator data (Figure 3.20).

5.1.6 Results and Analyses

• The data from safety leading indicators is typically used for short-term and long-term trends, noted by 20 state DOTs each (Figure 3.17). Eighteen state DOTs use the data as needed or as requested, 17 state DOTs correlate the data to lagging indicators, and 14 state DOTs visualize the data through a dashboard (Figure 3.17). Twenty-nine state DOTs (83%) note that they analyze the safety leading indicator data to improve the safety program, while one state DOT (3%) reported they do not analyze the data. Another five state DOTs (14%) were unsure (Figure 3.18).
• Several of the case example interviewees noted improvements based on their implementation of safety leading indicators. However, Virginia was the only state providing quantitative evidence. The other interviewees noted the need for more data to justify identifying implementation of leading indicators as the cause for the improvements witnessed.

5.1.7 Benefits and Challenges

• Increased awareness of safety activities (24 state DOTs), improved data for safety-related decision-making (21 state DOTs), increased employee engagement in safety (20 state DOTs), reduction in incident rates (19 state DOTs), and reduction in workers’ compensation claims (16 state DOTs) were the most frequently noted benefits of a safety leading indicator program (Figure 3.25). Five state DOTs noted that no benefits have been documented regarding their safety leading indicator program (Figure 3.25).
• Lack of employee buy-in and participation (17 state DOTs), lack of staffing support for safety programs (15 state DOTs), other duties or programs with higher priority (15 state DOTs), and lack of funding (eight state DOTs) were the most frequently noted challenges to a safety leading indicator program (Figure 3.24). Five state DOTs noted that no challenges have been experienced, while four state DOTs noted a lack of identified benefit to the use of a safety leading indicator program (Figure 3.24).
• The feedback of the case examples also noted employee buy-in as a challenge that could be overcome through communication and building of trust.

5.1.8 Implementation Strategies

• State DOTs noted a variety of implementation strategies for their safety leading indicator programs. Seventeen state DOTs have dedicated staff managing the program, 15 state DOTs have employee suggestion or other feedback mechanisms, 13 state DOTs communicate or advertise the program, and 12 state DOTs piloted the program in a specific region or district (Figure 3.21). Ten state DOTs do not have an implementation strategy within the safety leading indicator program.
• When specifically asked what implementation strategies were successful, DOTs noted that having a dedicated staff managing the program (17 state DOTs), employee suggestion or other feedback mechanisms (12 state DOTs), communicating or advertising the program (11 state DOTs), and having an oversight team (11 state DOTs) were all successful strategies (Figure 3.22).
• In support of the safety leading indicator program, 22 state DOTs use positive recognition from leadership to incentivize participation (Figure 3.23). Ten state DOTs use prizes, and five state DOTs use financial rewards to encourage participation (Figure 3.23). Nine state DOTs use corrective actions as a disincentive for not participating in the leading indicator program, while seven state DOTs do not use incentives nor disincentives (Figure 3.23).

5.1.9 Written Policies and Procedures

• Ten state DOTs noted that they have written policies and procedures for the safety leading indicator program (Figure 3.26). Three state DOTs provided that documentation through a file upload (Appendix D).

5.2 Research Needs

This synthesis highlights potential gaps which could benefit from new research endeavors. Information and guidelines are lacking for the identification of the leading indicators that make a difference within state DOTs. The development of guidelines for selecting the most effective safety leading indicators could assist state DOTs in the efficient application of resources when implementing a safety leading indicator program. Such development could be especially helpful, considering that resource constraints were highlighted as one of the most significant challenges to implementing a program. This effort would seek to correlate leading indicators to the lagging indicators.

Second, and supporting the efficient implementation of a safety leading indicator program, would be the development of guidelines to rank the effort required for specific leading indicators. This development would address the lack of information regarding effort-based leading indicators (i.e., those most easily adopted and deployed).

Finally, a gap exists regarding data collection, data management, and use of data to drive a leading indicator program. Guidelines regarding this gap would illustrate the data needed, its necessary analysis, and its required organization to make data useful to a safety leading indicator program.

These gaps could potentially be addressed by research to develop an overall guidelines and training course for the Implementation of a Safety Leading Indicator Program at State DOTs. Guidelines would assist state DOTs when selecting and prioritizing safety leading indicators, and training for the state DOTs would provide the knowledge necessary to implement, track, and measure the indicators selected.