Workers' Safety Adviser (WSA)

277 Pages·2007·3.24 MB·English

by  Greenstreet Berman Ltd

Health and Safety
Executive
Workers’ Safety Adviser (WSA)
challenge fund evaluation
Prepared by Greenstreet Berman Ltd
for the Health and Safety Executive 2007
Health and Safety
Executive
Workers’ Safety Adviser (WSA)
challenge fund evaluation
David Pennie, Michael Wright, Sara Marsden, Rachel Smith,
Ben Cash & Olivia Walker
Greenstreet Berman Ltd
Fulcrum House
5 Southern Court
South Street
Reading
Berkshire RG1 4QS
Health and Safety Commission (HSC) Strategy for Workplace Health and Safety in Great Britain in 2010 and beyond
has, as one of its strategic aims, a workforce fully involved in the management of health and safety. The aim of the
Fund is to encourage partnerships for creating the right conditions for workers to get involved and be consulted on
health and safety.Findings from the interviews with workers and employers from the verification interviews and the end
of year interviews with advisors and Lead Partners provide support for improvements in worker involvement and health
and safety. These findings reinforce the validity of the quantitative findings and strongly suggest that positive changes
occurred following WSA intervention. The funding cost per workplace is about £1000 each. It is recommended that a
follow up survey is completed of the workplaces to explore whether the reported increases in worker involvement (and
reported reductions in absence and injury) have been sustained after completion of the WSA visits.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any
opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.
HSE Books
©Crown copyright 2006
First published 2006
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner.
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:
Licensing Division, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,
St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ
or by e-mail to [email protected]
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
HSC Strategy for Workplace Health and Safety in Great Britain in 2010 and beyond has, as one
of its strategic aims, a workforce fully involved in the management of health and safety. The
aim of the Fund is to encourage partnerships, creating the right conditions for workers to get
involved and be consulted on health and safety. The WSA Challenge Fund provided monies
over a three year period. This money was delivered through partnership working with a number
of projects bidding for the money.
This report presents the findings from round 1 and round 2 evaluation of the WSA Challenge
Fund. The WSA Challenge Fund will continue to operate in a third year (round 3), however, a
decision was taken not to evaluate round 3. This was because it was felt by HSE that further
evaluation would add comparatively little to the information already available, given the
timescales for determining the future of the WSA initiative. It should be noted however, that the
sustainability assessment recommended in page 84 of this report is planned to commence in the
2007-8 operational year, and will focus on selected projects from rounds one and two.
Based on these findings an assessment is made concerning the following:
• Does the WSA Challenge Fund lead to greater worker involvement in health and safety,
and through this involvement better health and safety?
• Is the WSA Challenge Fund a cost-effective approach?
• What are the key aspects or features of an effective approach to deliver the WSA
scheme?
Evaluation Method
A combination of evaluation methods was deployed seeking knowledge from all parties
involved in the scheme (workers, employers, project partners and WSA), for example:
• A baseline and end of year questionnaires completed by employers, workers and the
WSAs;
• Joint employer/WSA visit reports completed during the WSA projects;
• Quarterly logs completed by Lead Partners;
• End of year telephone interviews with employers, workers, partners, Lead Partners and
WSAs.
Using a combination of methods to derive self-reported information from a number of sources
enables corroboration of results and verification that the observed changes were occurring. The
evaluation used subjective feedback and objective measures of change, for example, to
management systems, and injury and absence data.
iii
Outcomes
Findings from the interviews with workers and employers from the verification interviews and
the end of year interviews with WSAs and Lead Partners provide support for improvements in
worker involvement and health and safety. These findings reinforce the validity of the
quantitative findings and strongly suggest that positive changes occurred following WSA
intervention.
Results from the analysis of the data from the questionnaires show improvements in the
indicators that the WSA scheme has had a positive impact on worker involvement and health
and safety. For example:
• Employers, workers and WSAs perceive an improvement in worker involvement;
• There is an improvement in employer and worker attitude to worker involvement;
• There is an increase in formal consultation structures in place – such as 28% more
organisations report having a worker representative and 25% more report having a
H&S committee;
• WSAs, workers and employers perceive that there has been an improvement in health
and safety;
• There is improved employer and worker knowledge of health and safety;
• There are more health and safety systems in place (29% more formal risk assessment
procedures);
• There is a perception by employers that overall the scheme has been of benefit.
The most commonly cited benefits of the WSA scheme in health and safety procedures was the
implementation of risk assessments. Employers and workers both stated that ‘risk assessments’
were now more formalised and carried out more frequently.
The most commonly cited improvement in worker involvement was that awareness had been
raised amongst employees and better channels of communication opened. For example, health
and safety was more likely to be a standard item on the agenda at staff meetings and in addition,
H&S committees had been established.
As explained in the main report, the level of change between baseline and end of year
questionnaire responses (both subjective and objective measures) has been translated into a
rating of change from 1 to 5. As shown in Table 1 both rounds report a reasonable level of
change (improvement) in both worker involvement and health and safety.

Table 1: Overall rating of level of change from evaluation materials (where 5 = very
substantial change, 4 = substantial, 3 = moderate, 2 = limited change, 1 = very limited
change)
Round 1 – All Round 2 - All
Worker Involvement 3.41 3.82
Health & Safety 3.39 4.14
Overall 3.40 3.98
iv
The injury and absence data is based on employer estimates reported in the evaluation materials
at baseline or start of round 2, prior to WSA intervention, and then at feedback or end of WSA
intervention. The following table presents the findings from the analysis of the evaluation
materials to report any change in injury and absence rates.

Table 2: Changes to incident and accident data per 100,000 workers
Baseline End of Difference Reduction
year
Average total days absence per workers per year 6.9 6.3
0.6 9%
(n=204) (n=107)
Average total number of all injuries per 100,000 5570 2665
2905 48%
workers (n=300) (n=132)
Average total or injuries illness leading to more 1225 690
535 56%
than three days off work per 100,000 workers (n=305) (n= 131)
Whilst these results are indicative, and need to be treated with some caution due to sample size
and uncertainties about reporting practice, the findings demonstrate a significant reduction in
incidents and accidents. The level of reduction in injury rates is also similar to that reported in
other research1 on the impact of worker involvement, providing some ‘face validity’ for the
current findings.
Issue 1 - To what extent does the Challenge Fund help to create a sustained
increase in WSA capacity?
Findings suggest that there was limited capacity building in terms of WSA development and
partnership expansion. Two reasons why capacity building may be limited in these areas are:
1. Projects were more focused on delivering work place improvements.
2. The model used to deliver the scheme did not support capacity building because:
• The scheme was delivered by a number of diverse projects that operated on a
relatively small scale;
• The majority of projects had relatively well developed partnerships and a pool
of persons with pertinent experience;
• WSAs were not trained en mass, and how training was conducted was left to
the discretion of each partnership.
In round 2 Lead Partners reported that there was, however, an increase in employer demand for
the WSA approach. This increased demand has encouraged a number of projects (SOHAS,
UCATT, BPI and STUC) to consider alternative funding methods to continue delivering this
type of service.

1 Improving worker involvement – Improving health and safety Consultation document, HSC
v
Issue 2 - Were the round two projects more or less cost effective than round one
– and if so why and how?
The cost per workplace for round 1 and round 2 was approximately the same at around £1,000.
In round two costs per worker were slightly higher but costs per visit were slightly reduced.
Projects varied substantially in project costs and also cost effectiveness.
The cost per workplace was less than the WSA pilot. If the scheme in its present form is
delivered to 10% of SMEs nationwide then the overall funding cost would be nearly £40
million. If up to ~38% of SMEs agreed to participate in this type of scheme (as our findings
suggest), then if the level of uptake was universally achieved the cost would be closer to £160
million.
If the costs are considered in terms of the reduction to injury and absence rates then the funding
cost of the scheme for round 2 of approximately £752,000 was outweighed by the estimated
benefits of the reduction in absence days of approximately of £1 million.
Issue 3 (a) - What does the experience of projects which have had two
consecutive years of funding indicate regarding the cost-effectiveness, do they
become more cost-effective over time?
If we consider the cost of running the scheme per project in isolation, without evaluating the
effectiveness of any outcomes, the projects with two years of consecutive funding do not
become more cost effective over time and in fact, the funding cost for delivering the scheme
actually increased. The projects with two years of consecutive funding showed marginal
improvement in outcomes.
Issue 3 (b) - What does the experience of projects which have had two
consecutive years of funding indicate regarding the penetration rate of
recruitment of employers, i.e. do the projects reach a maximum level of
recruitment?
The recruitment rate did not change noticeably between round 1 and round 2, for projects with 2
years of consecutive funding.
Although a number of projects with two consecutive years of funding reported recruitment did
become more difficult in round 2, our evidence is that recruitment rates did not change. Those
projects with low recruitment rates in round 1 also had low recruitment rates in round 2.
Projects with higher recruitment rates in round 1 also had higher recruitment rates in round 2.
The evidence suggests that recruitment issues are related to other factors such as the
characteristics of the sector and the recruitment methods.
As some projects with 2 years of funding reported very high recruitment rates in round 2, it is
difficult to conclude what the ultimate penetration rate may be.
Issue 3 (c) - What does the experience of projects which have had two
consecutive years of funding indicate regarding the change in the effectiveness
of WSA interventions within workplaces?
The overall findings were mixed.
vi
Projects with two years of consecutive funding do become slightly more effective regarding
worker involvement but the rating of H&S did not improve
Projects that only operated in round 2 were as effective as projects with two years of
consecutive funding in terms of improvements to worker involvement and were more effective
in terms of H&S. Projects only operating in round 1 were the least effective.
The improvements in round 2 are therefore less likely to be due to better project experience and
more likely because projects in round 2 benefited from having 12 months of activity instead of
the reduced time (6 to 9 months) in round 1.
Issue 4 - Is there evidence that prior employer attitude and expectation of the
project affect the outcome?
The findings suggest projects engaging organisations with expectations to tackle worker
involvement will be rated higher in terms of worker involvement outcomes, than projects that
do not. This would suggest that prior expectation does have an impact on the outcome of the
WSA scheme.
In contrast, however, employer attitude (prior enthusiasm and planning changes to health and
safety or worker involvement) are less of a determinant of improvements following WSA
intervention.
This is supported by qualitative reporting from both round 1 and 2 and suggests the WSA role
may be most effective at facilitating worker involvement where employers have already made
the decision to engage their workers in health and safety matters.
Issue 5 – What are the characteristics of organisations and employers who
participate in the WSA scheme?
Some key features include:
• The majority of organisations engaged in both round 1 and round 2 were either micro
(<10) or small organisations (<50);
• In round 1 nearly half (47%) of all beneficiary organisations engaged in the scheme
were members of an organisation running the scheme, such as trade association. In
round 2 this had fallen slightly to 41%;
• Trade union representation did not change between round 1 and round 2 and remained
at around 8%. A number or projects, however, recruited organisations with surprisingly
high levels of union representation, for example CVL 44% and STC 31%.
• In round 1 a similar range of sectors were engaged and there were again some projects
focusing on one sector and other projects tackling a more diverse range of sectors. In
round 2 there were fewer projects working in the voluntary sector and a greater focus on
dealing with organisations involved in the manufacture, distribution and sale of food.
• In round 1 the projects engaged organisations with, on average, far poorer levels of
basic H&S prior to intervention than in round 2;
vii
• In both round 1 and round 2, projects operated in a range of locations. A number of
projects were characterised by engaging organisations in large geographic areas, for
example: FMB who operated in South West England.
Issue 6 - In what way does the sector, size or organisation and type impact the
effectiveness of WSA intervention?
Overall, the findings suggest that organisational factors do have an impact on the effectiveness
of WSA interventions. When these factors are considered together the projects dealing with the
beneficiary organisations that are rated as the most difficult to engage have less effective
outcomes particularly in terms of changes to health and safety.
The findings also suggest that projects engaging organisations with better basic levels of health
and safety at the start of the scheme are associated with improvements to health and safety. In
contrast, projects who engage organisations with good industry networks have a positive
association with improvements to worker involvement.
Other factors, for example, workplace size in terms of worker numbers, prior union
representation, the sector (diversity and type), belonging to an organisation running the scheme
and location when considered individually, do not appear to be associated with a more effective
WSA intervention.
Issue 7 how do different WSA methods of working with employers and workers
impact on outcomes
When round 1 and round 2 WSA methods were compared the findings were similar. Some
WSAs tended to focus more on worker involvement, with WSAs from other projects focusing
more on health and safety.
When the methods for round 2 were analysed evidence from the joint visit report supported by
findings from the qualitative feedback tend to show that worker involvement outcomes will be
influenced by the different methods adopted by the WSA. For example: projects which adopted
activities which are more likely to engender worker involvement (Health@Work Liverpool,
STC and Park Royal Partnership) are associated with improvements in worker involvement.
The choice of method employed by the WSA is likely to be influenced by the characteristics of
the workplace visited. An organisation with poorer basic health and safety may necessitate the
WSA employing slightly different methods, for example, spending more time educating the
management about health and safety legal requirements
Self reporting from Lead Partners and advisors suggested that there were a number of activities
that needed to be achieved to ensure worker involvement was improved and then sustained. Our
interpretation is that these could form three main activities, that partners and advisors report
often needed to be completed, as a sequence of steps, namely:
Activity 1 – Implement basic health and safety
• Baseline assessment of health and safety (creates the impetus for improving H&S);
viii
• Demystify health and safety (easy to understand and more manageable - employers can
begin to see how to tackle H&S issues);
• Improve H&S knowledge and awareness (duty holders better understand their
responsibilities and what they need to do to comply with H&S legislation);
Activity 2 – Engage employers and workers
• Conducting joint risk assessments with employers and workers (demonstrate benefits of
involving workers);
• Conducting H&S Training (gain employer ‘buy-in’, raise awareness, engage workers,
generate feedback on H&S issues);
• Engaging workers either formally or informally (help to better understand their
concerns and overcome any reservations about being more involved in H&S);
• Using a partnership approach to work jointly with employers and workers
(demonstrates the benefits for both of co-operation as workers become empowered,
with improved work conditions, and employers get help and support in tackling H&S);
Activity 3 – Sustain worker involvement
• Establish formal consultation structures (H&S committees, H&S representatives);
• Help managers with consultation skills (give employers the skills to continue and
sustain the work of the WSA).
Our interpretation is that each activity represents a progression to achieve the key objective of
sustained worker involvement and eventual long term improvements in health and safety.
Completing each activity is seen as important by everyone but the focus of the WSAs time is
influenced by the WSAs background, current circumstance and the safety culture of each
engaged organisation.
Issue 8- What are the benefits and dis-benefits of WSAs focusing on worker
involvement, as opposed to H&S per se?
The benefits of the WSA focusing on worker involvement (explored under Issue 7), is that by
improving worker involvement and knowledge of health and safety this facilitates self-
sustaining H&S improvement.. The dis-benefits are that there are fewer short term
improvements in terms of overall health and safety arrangements or to health and safety features
(written risk assessments or accident plans).
Strong support for the worker involvement approach was voiced by those delivering the scheme
- the WSAs and Lead Partners. They gave unanimous support (evidence provided by the end of
year interviews) for the Challenge Fund and the benefits of worker involvement. A number of
projects also stated that they intended to use the worker involvement approach either to tackle
health and safety within their own organisation or to add it to the existing services (training,
consultation) they provide.
ix