Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Safety Program
The goal of a good safety program is to move an organization along the DuPont Bradley Curve (Bradley Curve), leading to safety as a company value, and reducing injury and illness rates. To properly evaluate where we are on the Bradley Curve, it is important to establish key metrics, ie Leading Indicators and Lagging Indicators. Here’s some methodology for this process.
Bradley Curve
First, let’s give a quick overview of the Bradley Curve. It is a visual representation marking four stages in workplace safety culture.
Stage 1: Reactive
Safety is regarded as chance and corrective actions are taken in a reactive manner after the fact without proactive approaches.
Stage 2: Dependent
Safety is regarded as largely management’s responsibility. Employees have to follow safety rules and expect management to solely look out for their safety. Management assumes incident rates fall when employees simply follow the rules.
Stage 3: Independent
Safety is regarded as personal responsibility. Employees take their own safety to heart and understand the importance of underlying safety measures.
Stage 4: Interdependent
Safety is regarded as a company value. Everyone has equal responsibility to not only look out for their own safety, but the safety of others. The organization works together to make it safer for the good of everyone.
Leading and Lagging Indicators
Next, let’s define leading and lagging indicators. Lagging indicators are things like Incident Rates, etc. that show successes and failures after the fact. They are reactive in nature. Leading indicators are things like safety meeting attendance, housekeeping, etc that show success and failure trends before injuries. They are proactive in nature.
Obviously, it is more helpful to know where your operation is trending before people get hurt than after, but the problem is how do we determine what our leading indicators are and how do we make sure they are still relevant later?
Overall Approach
In the document “Using Leading Indicators to Improve Safety and Health Outcomes”, published by OSHA, effective leading indicators are, “Specific, Measurable, Accountable, Reasonable, and Timely [SMART]. The OSHA document goes into much more detail on each of these points than I will.
Now we need to establish SMART indicators. Three approaches to establish leading indicators are:
Indicators using data that you already collect
Indicators for controlling an identified hazard
Indicators for improving a S&H program element
Here are some examples of these types of indicators:
Indicators using data that you already collect
This one largely depends on what data you already collect
Miners Trained
% of workers attending safety meetings
Close calls/near misses reported
%Checklists, JSAs, SLAM sheets completed before task completely
Indicators for controlling an identified hazard
This one is from incident history, violation history, and inherent risks
Housekeeping completed on a schedule
Guarding audits on a schedule with % in place recorded
%Preventative Maintenance schedules completed on time
Indicators for improving a S&H program element
These are for improving specific elements, such as employee engagement, safety leadership, etc.
% of Managers who attend safety training
Scores from surveys of miners on management’s commitment to S&H
Workers completing and presenting toolbox talks
Evaluating Leading Indicators
We have to also establish the metrics to ensure that our leading indicators are appropriate and work. This is where lagging indicators come in.
Periodic review of lagging indicators will help determine whether our leading indicators are effective.
Over time, as we move along the Bradley Curve, we may need to adjust our leading indicators.
If you want some assistance with qualitative risk assessments and building or improving your safety program, contact me
Additional resources
Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs
Campbell-Institute-An-Implementation-Guide-to-Leading-Indicators.pdf
