California-Arizona Consortium’s
Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program
vvv
Evaluation Report
Grant Year: September 1997 - August 1998
Tobi Mae Lippin, Anne Eckman and Katie Rubanowice Calkin
New Perspectives Consulting Group
Durham, NC
August 1998
California-Arizona Consortium’s
Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program
Evaluation Report
August 1998
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction................................................................................................................ 1
Study Design................................................................................................ 2
Limitations and Weaknesses................................................................................. 5
FINDINGS............................................................................................................................. 6
I. Health and Safety Changes............................................................................... 8
II. Better Incident Prevention, Preparation and Response.................................. 12
III. Use and Dissemination of CAC Learning, Methods and Materials............... 14
IV. Supports to Health and Safety Changes.......................................................... 16
V. Barriers to Health and Safety Changes........................................................... 21
VI. Trainings Conducted for Spanish Speakers................................................... 24
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................. 27
APPENDICES
Appendix A:.. Focus Group Discussion Guides
Appendix B:.. Participant Data Sheets
California-Arizona Consortium’s
Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program
Evaluation Report
August 1998
List of Figures
Figure 1. Type Employer.................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2. Type Worker/Manager....................................................................................... 7
California-Arizona Consortium’s Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program
Pilot Impact Evaluation Report, August 1998
Executive Summary
The California-Arizona Consortium (CAC) participates in a NIEHS-funded Worker Health and Safety Training Cooperative Agreement (2 U45 ES06173). To gain a deeper understanding of how and why its program has influenced the health and safety of its training participants and their workplaces, the Consortium commissioned this pilot study using qualitative research methods. New Perspectives Consulting Group carried out the evaluation. This report focuses on the impact of the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program on the health and safety of its training participants and their workplaces, including the impact of trainings on workers who are native Spanish speakers. This study was conducted from September 1997 to August 31, 1998.
Evaluation data were gathered through seven focus group interviews with 49 participants of the Consortium’s training programs. Participants shared their perceptions, experiences and assessments of how the Consortium training influenced their health and safety and their workplaces. Focus group participants worked in a broad range of occupations and were evenly divided between front-line laborers and technical, professional and managerial positions. Slightly more than one-third of focus group participants were members of a union.
Key findings from the evaluation include the following:
Focus group participants attributed significant changes in their awareness, perceptions, thinking and analysis about health and safety, as well as improvements in workplace systems, work practices and emergency response to CAC training experiences. Identified changes included: sharpened hazard awareness, assessment and job planning; upgraded or newly developed standard operating procedures, written health and safety plans, and confined space policies; more informed selection and frequent use of personal protective equipment (PPE); enhanced housekeeping; increased oversight and selection of contractors; and better incident prevention, preparation and response.
The impact of CAC’s training was reported to be far wider than its course registration would indicate. Focus group participants had disseminated the courses’ content, written materials and learnings through informal networks with co-workers, friends and family members. Participants who worked in roles as inspectors, consultants and trainers shared Consortium training information, methods and materials with other workers and worksites as they carried out their jobs.
Spanish speaking workers who participated in CAC’s Spanish language training program detailed the paucity of available Spanish language health and safety training courses and materials, and the vital role that the Consortium’s training and relevant, easy to use materials had played. Participants perceived that Spanish speaking workers sought out information from their Spanish speaking co-workers because they trusted each other. In addition to conducting training back at their workplaces, participants noted that they were now also consulted by other workers and even managers as resource people.
OSHA regulations were identified as a vital support for health and safety improvements sought by people in technical, supervisory and managerial positions as well as frontline workers. Knowledge about worker rights and OSHA standards were especially useful when combined with hazardous materials and emergency response information provided in trainings.
CAC trainings had helped to create a ‘community’ of CAC learners and worksites who ‘speak the same language’ and have a shared health and safety framework, according to focus group participants who work in government, manufacturing, universities, construction, and environmental clean-up. Having multiple workers, and both workers and managers, from the same worksite attend training classes was identified as particularly crucial to enabling workplace health and safety changes. Ongoing CAC programs and contact with program staff was also perceived as a key support.
Focus group participants identified the most significant barriers to making health and safety improvements as: the conflict between economic pressures to maximize service and the need to invest resources, both economic and human, in health and safety; and key decision makers in organizations who may not appreciate the occupational health issues facing their workforce.
Recommendations to the Consortium, in light of these findings, are as follows:
1. Keep the focus on legal rights and regulations.
2. Foster additional opportunities to train multiple workers from the same worksite.
3. Initiate a mini-needs assessment to determine how to train decision makers at higher levels of management than usually participate in CAC training.
4. Develop a multi-faceted evaluation strategy that meets the needs of all Consortium members for the future.
Tobi Mae Lippin, Anne Eckman and Katie Rubanowice Calkin
New Perspectives Consulting Group, Durham, NC
BACKGROUND
The California-Arizona Consortium (CAC) participates in a NIEHS-funded Worker Health and Safety Training Cooperative Agreement (2 U45 ES06173). Members of the Consortium include: University of California at Los Angeles Labor Occupational Safety and Health Program (LOSH), University of California at Berkeley Labor Occupational Health Program (LOHP), University Extension, University of California at Davis (UCDX), Arizona State University (ASU), and the Alaska Health Project (AHP).
The primary purpose of the Consortium is to provide a full range of health and safety hazardous waste worker training in EPA Region IX. The Consortium course offerings cover a range of topics, including hazardous waste cleanup and investigation, supervisor and refresher courses; treatment storage and disposal of hazardous waste and refresher courses; first responder and basic specialized awareness, operations, incident command and refresher courses; and hazardous awareness courses. Program trainees work in a broad range of positions, including semi-skilled workers, first line supervisors, technicians, managers, firefighters and emergency responders. Increased outreach to minority and underserved groups, especially Latinos, is a current focus of the Consortium. Each program utilizes a combination of program staff and consultants to lead their courses.
To gain a deeper understanding of how and why its program has influenced the health and safety of its training participants and their workplaces, the Consortium commissioned this pilot study using qualitative research methods. In consultation with the Consortium, New Perspectives Consulting Group designed and carried out the pilot evaluation. This report focuses on the impact of the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program on the health and safety of its training participants and their workplaces, including the impact of trainings on workers who speak Spanish as their native language. This study was conducted from September 1997 to August 31, 1998.
STUDY DESIGN
Evaluation Question:
In order to assess the impact of CAC’s training program, the evaluation focused on the following questions:
1) How has CAC’s Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program influenced health and safety awareness, actions, and practices back in the workplace of training participants?
2) What key factors did participants identify as supports and barriers to these actions?
3) How can the CAC better meet participants’ health and safety training needs?
In light of the Consortium’s particular interest in understanding the processes shaping how its training program impacted workplace health and safety, the evaluation collected primarily qualitative data. Data was gathered through seven focus group interviews with participants of the Consortium’s training programs. Participants shared their perceptions, experiences and assessments of how the Consortium training influenced their health and safety and their workplaces.
Evaluation Instruments:
The focus group interview guide, the instrument used to guide data collection, was the result of a participatory design process involving representatives of all Consortium members. All focus group participants also completed a data sheet that collected basic demographic information.
New Perspectives conducted a series of interviews with Consortium members to identify key evaluation concerns and then facilitated communication among members to arrive at a core set of questions for the focus groups. These discussions resulted in two versions of the focus guide (see Appendix A) and a participant data collection sheet (see Appendix B) that were used during this project.
Both focus group guides shared core questions concerning the following........
Ø health and safety awareness, work practices, and procedures
Ø hazardous materials spills and emergency response
Ø use of program training materials
Ø suggestions for program improvement
The majority of Consortium members also chose to include topics and questions that explored:
Ø health and safety concerns raised by participants
Ø employer attitudes and actions
However, ASU chose not to include these two topics. They instead assessed the impact of training on workers’ compliance with company procedures. Supplemental individual interviews were also conducted with participants in the Alaska Health Project trainings. Focus Group Site Selection:
Each Consortium member sponsored at least one focus group for English speakers. In addition, LOSH and LOHP each organized a focus group of native Spanish speaking workers employed by the metal plating industry. All of the groups, with the exception of the AHP, were held during work hours with the cooperation of participants’ employers. As an incentive, employers were offered a discount on future Consortium classes in most cases.
Each program except the Alaska Health Project, selected their focus group audiences based on the following criteria: ease of securing access and participation from employers and participants who had all attended the same type of class (e.g., a 40 hour HWWT). The Alaska Health Project included participants who had attended several different courses. Two of the seven focus groups had training participants drawn from one employer. Five of the focus groups had training participants drawn from two to six employers.
Participant Selection:
Each consortium member identified and made initial contact with potential focus group employer sites and/or workers. A mix of participants from different workplace departments were recruited. All groups, except the two metal plating industry groups, included a mix of workers, technicians or professionals, supervisors and managers. However, employees and their immediate supervisors from the same workplace were not included in the same group so as not to inhibit participant discussion. New Perspectives or the Consortium members followed up more specifically with employers to recruit participants, to confirm sites, to explain the focus group process, and to communicate other details.
Data Collection:
All but the ASU focus group were recorded using an audio cassette recorder. Focus group tapes were transcribed in full by professional transcribers. The evaluators verified the transcribed interviews conducted in English; Sonia Alas of LOSH verified the interview translated and transcribed from Spanish. The ASU focus group was recorded by two note-takers; these notes were synthesized and verified by the focus group facilitator. Tobi Lippin of New Perspectives Consulting Group conducted the focus groups held in English; Marta Segura of LOSH conducted the focus group held in Spanish.
Data Analysis:
In-depth analysis of the focus group data was conducted to identify and name patterns and recurring themes. While the evaluation questions provided a broad outline of areas for analysis, the specific themes and categories identified in the data reflect participants’ own understandings, feelings and words. Qualitative data coding and analysis was carried out using the text analysis program QSR NUD*IST 4. Participant data sheets were analyzed for frequency distributions using Epi Info 6.02, a data analysis program developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The evaluation design included three different levels of analysis: Level One analyzed the influence of Consortium programs in aggregate; Level Two focused on the experiences specific to the focus groups whose participants were native Spanish speakers; and Level Three provided information about individual Consortium member programs.
Evaluation Research Team:
The program evaluation team was led by Tobi Mae Lippin, Director of New Perspectives Consulting Group, with research support from New Perspectives associates Katie Rubanowice Calkin and Anne Eckman. Lippin developed the overall design of the evaluation instruments, conducted interviews, analyzed the data, and wrote the evaluation report. Calkin and Eckman were responsible for conducting telephone interviews, coordinating data management, and contributing to the analysis and writing of this report.
Lippin, an adult educator, researcher and consultant, directs New Perspectives Consulting Group based in Durham, North Carolina. She conducts organization and training program evaluations and uses qualitative and quantitative research methods in assessment and evaluation. Lippin is co-leader of the NIEHS funded Self-sufficiency Evaluation and Research Pilot Project, and also conducts impact evaluations for other NIEHS hazardous materials training grants. Lippin has a Masters of Education in Training and Development and Adult Education.
Katie Rubanowice Calkin has a Masters of Public Health in the area of Health Behavior and Health Education. She has worked on numerous public health program evaluations with New Perspectives Consulting Group and the Center for Creative Education. Anne Eckman has a PhD in Cultural Studies. She has conducted research and evaluation of women’s health programs, grassroots organizations, and public policy for both community-based organizations and university research projects. She joined New Perspectives Consulting Group in June 1998.
Limitations and Weaknesses
Because the logistics of organizing focus groups require participants to all assemble at an appointed time and place for a one to two hour period, participant selection focused on employers with whom consortium members have ongoing relationships. This included both employers who repeatedly send employees to trainings and employers where large groups of workers had been trained. These findings thus may not fully represent the impact of training programs in workplaces where few workers received CAC training. The role of employers in selecting focus group participants may have also biased the representativeness of the participants.
While the evaluation was successful in conducting two focus groups with participants for whom Spanish was their native language, one of these groups had to be conducted in English at the insistence of the employer. Communicating in English may have limited the ability of these participants to fully express their experiences. This is noteworthy considering their training had been in Spanish. The use of a different focus group guide limited the full exploration of some issues in the ASU group. Furthermore, restricting data collection to note-taking, as opposed to tape recording, in the ASU group significantly limited the completeness and comparability of the data from that focus group. While the average length of other groups’ written transcripts was 30 pages, the ASU transcript was only 10 pages.
FINDINGS
Findings and recommendations both for the focus groups in aggregate and for the focus groups conducted with native Spanish speakers are reported here. Individual program comments are being reported to the director of the Consortium. In addition, each consortium member will receive a report of their program-specific findings. In order to protect the confidentiality of focus group members, participants’ names and genders have been changed. Except where it would compromise confidentiality, descriptions of participants’ occupations have also been provided. In cases where a participant’s identity could not be exactly determined from the focus group taping, the person has been identified with the greatest specificity possible.
Description of Participants:
A total of 49 Consortium trainees participated in the seven evaluation focus groups. The focus groups for native Spanish speakers included a total of 11 participants. Focus group participants were 87.7% male and 12.2% female. Participants identified their race/ethnicity as follows: 4.1% African-American, 6.1% Asian-Pacific Islander, 22.4% Hispanic/Latino, 59.2% Non-Hispanic White, and 6.1% Other (2.0% did not answer the question). Of the participants, 36.7% had completed 12 or less years of schooling and 61.2% had completed at least some college.
Focus groups participants were selected to represent the types of workers and workplaces trained by the Consortium. Focus group participants worked in a broad range of occupations (see Figure 1. Type Employer). Focus group participants were evenly divided between front-line laborers and technical, professional and managerial positions (see Figure 2. Type Worker/Manager). Slightly more than one-third (36.7%) of focus group participants were members of union.
Figure 1. Type Employer, by percentage (N=49)
Figure 2. Type Worker/Manager, by percentage (N=49)
I. Health and Safety Changes
Focus group participants reported numerous changes made in work practices, policies and procedures in efforts to minimize health and safety problems. These included: sharpened hazard awareness, recognition, assessment and job planning; upgraded or newly developed standard operating procedures and written health and safety plans; new or revised and followed confined space policies; improved ventilation; more informed selection and frequent use of personal protective equipment (PPE); enhanced housekeeping; increased oversight and selection of contractors; and better incident prevention, preparation and response.
The processes of how these changes were made varied widely depending on the workplace, position of the person seeking the change and the health and safety problem. In some cases individuals and groups from the same employer recognized hazards and necessary changes and because of their position and management support were able to obtain changes readily. In other cases, participants reported raising their concerns and having to advocate over time for health and safety improvements. They were successful in most cases, but unsuccessful in some. Below are descriptions of the major areas of change and representative quotes from participants to illustrate each of the major areas in which health and safety changes were reported.
Sharpened hazard awareness, recognition, assessment and job planning
A “new way” to look at workplaces and see unsafe conditions was described by evaluation participants. They indicated that CAC training increased their awareness of all hazards not only those involving hazardous materials.
To me it’s brought a bigger awareness of . . . even hidden dangers as well as the obvious dangers. And more so on the obvious dangers. It really spelled it out that they were bigger dangers than I had thought [and] gave me a new way to look at them. — Steven, Consulting Firm Employee
There's a lot of things you never even thought about. I work around voltage and I hadn't even thought about chemicals. The class taught new ways of thinking about things. — Charlie, Waste Water Operator, Local Government
Assessment and preparation prior to initiating job tasks increased following the training according to focus group participants. They named assessing hazards by reading chemical labels, and consulting Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and other resource materials as part of preparing for hazardous work.
Before you could kind of, say, wing it. You’d go in and depending on what you found, then you’d take steps. Well, now we have to do much more preparation for the individual sites in that regard. — Laura, Materials Associate, Local Government
You kind of stop and really take a second or third look at the situation and evaluate them before you just jump in. You just think a lot more. — Bob, Hazardous Materials Clean-Up Crew, Local Government
Upgraded or newly developed standard operating procedures and written plans
Following CAC training a variety of written health and safety plans and operating procedures were developed or upgraded according to evaluation participants. Participants outlined changes including chemical substitution; improved housekeeping and storage of hazardous materials; institution of decontamination procedures following chemical sampling; development or revision of site safety, confined space, excavation, and emergency response plans; employer provision of work coveralls and routine laundering; and health screening and fit testing of new employees prior to beginning work.
[The emergency response] policy has changed...in the last year or so. . . . We don’t go to what they consider the dangerous ones (hazardous materials incidents) anymore. It kind of did put some limitations as to what [hazardous spills or releases]... we will respond to. — Emergency Response Worker, Local Government
I just did a hazardous materials management plan. In that we’re a laboratory I had to go through the fire marshals . . . [I] had to go talk to [the local] treatment plant, find out what their regulations were . . . It’s (the training) more of just almost a thinking process of where you go to find out the information, and you don’t get hit by this overwhelming feeling of just, well, how do I do that? It’ s like you know what to do more so and where to go for information. — Maria, Environmental Management, State Government
The classes ... help me re-evaluate the [safety and health] programs. Do we need to have more training? How does it apply to what we do? Standards say you have to . . . but what is the practical application. — Edward, Health and Safety Manager, Local Government
As far as updating our safety plan, you always like to have the latest
information. They seem to have the latest and greatest on the different regs. So that’s helpful. — Local Government Employee
Newly created or revised and more frequently followed confined space policies
With confined space regulations being one of the newest OSHA regulations, reports of its integration into the workplace were more pronounced than comments concerning other new policies. We highlight a few of the comments specific to confined spaces and the various ways CAC training and refresher have influenced workplace impact.
[As a result of the training] we’re trying to define our confined spaces and how deficient we are and the equipment we use to monitor air. — Dan, Waste Water Operator, Local Government
We store a lot of waste in cargo vans. I asked [the new health and safety engineer] to come and do an inspection looking at them as confined spaces. He’s going to help me do some procedures and he told me the first thing in working in a cargo van is that you have to have a buddy when you work in there, even though it’s not be[en defined as]...a confined space. — Mark, Hazardous Waste Program Director
We’re realizing we were doing confined space entries without the proper procedures, and we’ve stopped doing that. And we (inspectors out in the field) also stopped ...other workers from doing that. — Local Government Inspector
The [fire] department has put together a confined space [rescue] crew, that’s how much change there has been in the department. — Local Government Employee
New and upgraded ventilation systems or renewed maintenance
Problems with contaminated air and poor ventilation were reported to have been brought to the attention of management in numerous workplaces. Focus group participants from different industries reported improvements.
I’ve been on jobs where questions have been raised about what fumes are and whether we should be in the same areas as the fumes. In some cases we left the area and in other cases they found a ways to ventilate the area. — Case, Asbestos Worker, Union Contractor
One thing we did install is a fume hood. — Leonard, Hazardous Materials Manager, Private Industry
I was working with a specific chemical and I sensed that it was hurting me. . . . I explained and asked her (my boss) if we could make a few changes in order to be safer when working. . . And the [ventilation] problem we had was under control. — Xavier, Metal Plater/ Hazardous Materials Worker, Metal Plating
Improved Housekeeping
Focus group participants also described improved housekeeping practices they attributed to CAC training, including the storage and organization of chemicals in their facilities.
They’re responsive. They (the employers) try to maintain clean areas . . . Before [the] company was a mess. — Metal Plating Industry Employee
Before [the training] all the plant ha[d] cans of solvents everywhere with a lot of hazard[s] for fire. Now we have more order in this. We have just specific areas for different stuff. [We have] more organization. — Metal Plating Industry Employee
More informed selection and more frequent use of personal protective equipment
Focus group participants described more informed and frequent selection and use of personal protective equipment (PPE), including types of respirators, respirator cartridges, gloves, and chemical protective suits. Reports went beyond individual practices to the institutionalization of new fit test procedures; development or revision of written respiratory protection programs; a switch to air supplied respirators; removal of faulty self-contained breathing tanks from service; improved respirator cleaning methods; purchase of new PPE; and more informed and careful selection of appropriate respirators, gloves and other protective clothing.
Before we went to the training, we didn’t know that different kinds of respirators depend [on] what you are doing. Now... we can ask for the correct respirators that we need. — Felipe, Waste Water Technician, Metal Plating Industry
People tend to just grab gloves . . In reality, it’s probably going to be useless with what you’re working with . . . so I’ve taken some things back to that committee and we’ve actually incorporated a lot of it into the chemical hygiene plan. — Leonard, Hazardous Materials Manager, Private Industry
After the 40 hour class, I actually went and did the respiratory protection program. [Put down] documentation, we had a memorandum of understanding with the university to do the quantitative fit testing. Before that there was no written respiratory protection plan. We...developed it and the management committed to it. — Maria, Environment Management, State Government
Increased oversight and selection of contractors
Contractor oversight and selection changed following CAC training when managers realized their liability if contractors working at their facilities used unsafe practices according to focus group respondents. This dialogue from one focus group illustrates the change.
One of the primary areas that it’s (the training) helped me focus on is overseeing when a contractor comes on site to do work and any hazards associated with the work that they do and how that can impact our work. It’s kind of this odd thing that you have to think about that you wouldn’t normally think about. — Mark, Hazardous Waste Program Director, University
I hadn’t thought of this but it’s true. I hire lab people to come in. I have changed contractors for just that reason. I had some people that came in... I evaluated what I saw [and] how they were operating [and]...decided to find someone else. Later [I] found one I was really happy with. It cost a little bit more to have the better people come in, but management doesn’t question me. I said, ‘Look, we’re not going to have an incident with these people, with the other ones we are’. — Leonard, Hazardous Materials Manager, Private Industry
Changes yet to be made
Focus group participants also described changes that they had requested but have not yet been addressed. In addition to more general lack of response from employers (see Barriers to Health and Safety Changes), several focus group participants specifically identified their difficulty obtaining medical surveillance.
I have been here for three years and I have asked for a letter, an exam, and they haven’t given it to me. — Eduardo, Water Treatment Technician, Metal Plating Industry
In one focus group the following dialogue ensued between two different participants trying to obtain medical surveillance in the same government unit.
We wrote several memos to the medical surveillance program [to followup workers’ requests for medical surveillance], but I’m not sure how that has come about. — Laura, Materials Associate, Local Government
Well, it hasn’t been implemented, because you’re looking at the people [who requested it and haven’t yet seen it]. — Drill Rig Operator, Local Government
II. Better Incident Prevention, Preparation and Response
Readiness to respond using new learning and increased confidence
Participants reported that the training gave them tools and information to think through preventing and minimizing spills at their sites. They also reported increased confidence because of the new knowledge garnered at the CAC training.
Before we had [absorbent materials for spills], but I think we didn’t use it correctly. — Metal Plating Industry Employee....
[We’ve had] minor chlorine leaks, but we’re more conscious of what we are doing. We were new and we’re getting better. The training has helped. — Fran, Waste Water Operator, Local Government ...........
[I’m] in the position to introduce other steps or safeguards — some of the lessons that I hear at the class, or the approach they take. . . . We are responsible for small spills and things that we can take care of in our own community or organization or facility. And that thinking and that approach (from the training) I use to set up procedures in the event that we have an incident. — Philip, Shop Supervisor, University
Before the training during an emergency I acted in an incorrect manner, and that was because I didn’t have training. But since then, the training helped me in how to act during an emergency, to evaluate the dangers, to warn the people, and to think with confidence and safe[ty]. — Metal Plating Industry Employee
Applying knowledge during an incident
In reports of actual incidents which occurred following training, participants described applying what was learned at CAC trainings.
[The workers] didn’t realize where the water was coming from or anything. The first thing they did was take a PH reading . . . The issue was that if that person was not trained that first saw this, he would’ve probably immediately wanted to shovel it out the door and down the drain. — Philip, Shop Supervisor, University
We had a fire [at the landfill]. People who were trained were calm, but the new people went nuts. — Harry, Solid Waste Worker, Local Government
A 4 liter bottle, half-full, just kind of dropped. And although it was oil — nothing that was volatile that was going to come through — ... I knew what to do, how to wear the gloves, and whether to evacuate the area. — Focus Group Participant
There is a big tank, and a line where we walk. The pump was throwing the solution into the air, like a broken water pump, so he [a worker] ran under the falling solution, to turn off the pump. I explained to him how to do it. Then, on another occasion, he just went to turn the switch off, and that was all. — Metal Plating Industry Employee
It made me aware of the right things to do and to protect the area until the right people arrive. — George, Engineering Inspector, Local Government
Speaking the same language
Participants reported that having a number of workers from the same work site trained by CAC enhanced their collective ability to respond to spills and emergencies. They further noted that people who had attended training were much better able to act in emergency situations than those who had not.
Now that I know I have some people who have been trained [in HazMat Emergencies], I can ask [my coworker] to assess and we can speak the same language. It’s a good communication tool. — Edward, Health and Safety Manager, Local Government
Those that attend [the training] know how to convey that information and deal with it very easily. Those that have not attended haven’t a clue as to how to process the information. — Philip, Shop Supervisor, University
III. Use and Dissemination of CAC Learning, Methods and Materials
CAC training and reference materials used on the job
Regardless of their jobs, workers, technicians, inspectors and managers, all reported keeping their training and reference materials from CAC trainings accessible so they were able to research hazardous materials and situations when needed.
I have used the books to look up things I found and what to do. Someone dumped AMWAY products and we looked up the labels. Since it was AMWAY, we knew it wouldn’t be too dangerous. But there was phosphorous — Harry, Solid Waste Worker, Local Government.
The hazardous material book [the NIOSH pocket guide] is always good to have on hand. That’s the Bible which you’re going to have to find out what chemical’s what and what you can be exposed to — Focus Group Participant
I keep all the books from whatever training class that I’ve been in [and] refer back to them later. —Focus Group Participant
[I was] trying to find some off the wall pesticide...to find out what regulations would apply to it; ordering the proper respirator filters. I mean, all these type of things. It just seems the [training] materials just become more of a resource at your fingertips. — Maria, Environmental Management, State Government
Training materials and techniques adopted by participants who train others
Focus group participants who themselves conduct training as part of their jobs explained that they adopt CAC training materials and methods. They indicated that CAC training provided them with the best distillation of key changes in regulations, policies and procedures that they could find. Some said they borrowed training methods and materials to hone their own health and safety trainings.
It’s really useful for me to come and get new ideas on how to train because I have the same problem they do. I have to train these people every year and try to figure out what to do with them and keep them from snoring while I’m teaching them. So, that’s kind of what I take from some of the class about regs and other things. — Leonard, Hazardous Materials Manager, Private Industry
It was nice to see different methodologies, so it gave me more resources to use, more little tools to put in my bag of tricks to pull out at the appropriate time. — Thad, Health Physicist
Professionals share CAC info with others as part of their jobs
Evaluation participants who visit other work sites or consult with employers as part of their jobs shared what they learned at Consortium trainings.
There was one segment that was given in my first refresher training here . . . where they talked about the NFP classification. That was really useful. And that’s stuff that we can go out and use. You know, we use it to educate businesses. That kind of thing is useful. —Scott, Inspector, Local Government
Training has helped to answer questions of concern to the public about what is safe to throw away. — Harry, Solid Waste Worker, Local Government
If we are on a site where they’ve had a problem in a confined space or any Hazmat spill, we’re able to tell their employers that they can’t let their employees in. We’re not OSHA inspectors, but we know enough about the OSHA regulations [from the CAC training]. — Inspector, Local Government
Knowledge learned at CAC training shared informally with others
Focus group members described sharing hazardous materials information with family members, neighbors and friends. Their sharing included information that others were able to use back in their workplaces.
[The training] extends from workplace to home, storing common household chemicals. . . 10 years ago I used to use gas to clean things. I didn’t realize it was such a big deal. — Charlie, Waste Water Operator, Local Government
In talking to [someone who has a different employer] . . . an issue came up about safe working environments, safe work place, and employer responsibility and so forth. . . . By my giving him some information on general industry safety orders and what his worker rights were, he was able to go back through his chain of command and change a few things. So even though it wasn’t HazMat related, it did result in a safer work environment for someone totally unrelated to the class. — Thad, Health Physicist
IV. Supports for Health and Safety Changes
Many factors were discussed by focus group participants as supporting their efforts to make changes back at their workplaces. Key supports identified by both workers and managers fell into the following four broad areas:
1. Knowing about and using OSHA regulations
2. Multiple workers from the same work site, and both workers and managers from the same work site, attending training classes
3. Workplace commitment to identifying and responding to health and safety needs
4. Ongoing availability of CAC training programs and program staff
The complexities of health and safety in the workplace, differences among various workplaces and industries, the dynamics between workers, professionals, managers and labor unions were represented in the range of focus group participants and groups. Here we present findings about the top supporting factors and the different perspectives about these supports.
1. Knowing about and using OSHA regulations
Focus group participants indicated that at times workers and managers used their knowledge about OSHA regulations in similar ways and at other times in different ways. They both claimed using OSHA regulations to reinforce their requests of upper management to buy into recommended health and safety improvements. However, managers also used OSHA regulations as guidelines to bring and keep their own shops in compliance. Workers used their OSHA rights to refuse unsafe work and to file health and safety complaints.
OSHA regs “back-up” worker and manager calls for change. Both workers and mid-level managers participating in the focus groups indicated that OSHA regulations served as tools with upper levels of management to “back-up” their calls for design, policy, procedural, or equipment changes.
The other thing is, when you go to your manager and say listen, I’m letting you know this and I’m letting you know this from an expertise standpoint. This is the regulation. This is the law and you’re being notified right now by me. And what you do right now is your own business but you are liable. That’s what most of these regulations are for. — Focus Group Participant, Open Enrollment Class
Sometimes you run into the problem with upper management who don’t understand what we do. You’re talking to an accountant. He doesn’t understand hazardous waste. He’s not interested in hazardous waste. He says to you, ‘This is gonna cost $2,000 and you’re going to use it how often?’ [You say] ‘Well, we’re going to use it once a month.’ [He says] ‘Well, do you really need it?’ And it becomes one of these management decisions of risk and so forth. It helps to be able to quote to him the regulations that say... ‘it doesn’t matter whether we do it once a year...[if] we’re above the PEL on this material we cannot be going in here and doing this.’ — Leonard, Hazardous Materials Manager, Private Industry
Managers knowing about OSHA regulations aids compliance. Managers who participated in the focus groups and who are responsible for compliance with OSHA regulations said they used information about OSHA provided at CAC training to keep their workplaces in compliance.
They not only tell you what you should be doing, they tell you what happens if you’re not doing what you should be. And for the most part, I think any business would be a lot happier with the extra time and the little bit of effort it usually take to do things right, as opposed to the fines that happen when you do things wrong. — Jack, Project Engineer, Consulting Business
I remembered hearing that . . . you really need to get [MSDS sheets] from the manufacturer . . . .so we had to . . . go back to the vendors and ask them to supply the MSDS sheets. . . .[The training] would keep us in compliance, is what I am saying. — Philip, Shop Supervisor, University
Knowing rights influenced worker confidence and action. Worker confidence to raise questions and perform work increased following CAC training, according to both workers and managers participating in the focus groups. Many workers reported that awareness of both safer work practices and how to assert their worker rights helped boost their confidence and ability to work more safely. Workers also noted cases where exercising their rights to refuse work led to wider workplace understanding of that right.
I think one of the biggest assets we’ve gotten here in our program from the training is that it makes us aware of our rights as employees. And the OSHA regulations that regulate what we do everyday and what we’re protected [on], what we don’t have to do because someone tells us to do. [This] has really made an impact on our safety and confidence in what we do. — Jerry, Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist, Local Government
I liked it because it not only focuses on safety, but also on laws that should be reinforced by the State. I also liked that we talked about the worker’s rights, and has giving us the tools to fight with bosses that are abusive . . . . With
this knowledge we know what to do. — Metal Plating Industry Employee
It was like well, you guys didn’t want to do the job. . . . That’s the threat they (the supervisors) always used, they may not do it but they will threaten you with it. But at the same time I think we felt safe what we were doing (refusing to work in unsafe conditions) and after a couple of phone calls I guess he (our supervisor) felt safe that we did make the right decision. And then some other policies came into effect subsequent to that. — Kevin, Drill Rig Operator, Local Government
We learned to say no. A number of workers who participated in different focus groups indicated that indicated that they had filed OSHA complaints about unsafe or unhealthy working conditions as a last resort to protect themselves from dangerous working conditions. The following dialogue about filing an OSHA complaint also explains how workers used the right to refuse unsafe work.
We’ve learned to say ‘No’. And if they (management) continue to pressure us, we call OSHA. — Tomas, Machine Operator, Metal Plating Industry
Oh, you’ve called OSHA? — Interviewer
Oh, yes. Several co-workers have called OSHA. OSHA comes over and fines the company, and [the company] has to take care of things they (OSHA) think are unsafe for the workers’ health. — Tomas
And...what type of process has changed because of the complaints? — Interviewer
Well, when one refuses to do something, the supervisors do not pressure us anymore to do the job. And they are the ones who go out – to Home Depot or places like that – to buy the required equipment in order [for the workers] to be able to work safely. — Tomas
2. Training multiple workers produces multiple positive effects
Focus group participants reported that having multiple employees from the same workplace attend the same training classes led to increased support for workplace health and safety changes in several different ways. The overall effect of having multiple workers trained, both within a given type of position and across worker and managerial positions, appears to be synergistic: having multiple people trained can help to create a broader base of understanding and support for changes.
Co-workers who attend trainings together were able to support each other in following safer work practices and in advocating for changes back in their workplaces.
Everybody’s more aware of what’s going on and when they take these classes they’re kind of watching out for one another to a certain extent, you know, say, hey, you’re messing up. — Case, Asbestos Worker, Union Contractor
We’ve (co-workers at a company who’ve attended trainings) been less willing to go along with things and more likely to go forth and say look we need some more equipment, we need better respiratory protection, we need some suits. — Leonard, Hazardous Materials Manager, Private Industry
Managers attending trainings improved their understanding of issues faced by workers. Participants in professional or managerial positions reported that the training increased their understanding of the hazards “the average worker” faced.
I would also mention that having people that are not directly in waste
attend makes them have a little more respect for the people that are doing this kind of work, and to see what they’re trying to do and what their jobs entail. — Mark, Hazardous Material Program Director, University
By taking a Hazwoper course I’ve got a better understanding of what the baseline knowledge is for the average worker, as well as the type of situations they would run into within that environment. — Thad, Health Physicist
Training workers and managers from the same organization together provided multiple benefits, including the perceived benefits of sharing a common language, base of knowledge, and training experience.
I have two guys that work in my department that come to this class. We have some confined spaces that every couple of months we have to go in, and I don t have to be there as much to make sure that they have on their respirators and [the] safety guys standing outside and stuff. They know what the regulations are. As things change, they tell me what they need to do. And I know what the regulations are, so I know what they’re asking about also, so we kind of keep a check on each other. — Nora, Machinist Supervisor, University
Now even a lot of the managers have gone to this training and they can’t claim ignorance. In a way, as a supervisor, it lightens my responsibility — not responsibility — my liability, because they now know what they are supposed to provide the workers. — Paul, Inspection Supervisor, Local Government
Management, they said ‘No, you guys don’t need first aid training.’. . .We said ‘No, remember in the training, in Hazwoper, we saw how we need to provide this and its the law, remember that?’ . . . . There was no denying they did not see the requirement, because they were in that class. — Roger, Supervising Hazardous materials Specialist, Local Government
My manager actually is qualified to teach this course. And he chooses to send us here and come here himself. So that says a lot for [him] and having managers attend training and the perceived benefit. — Lewis, Environmental Health and Safety Technician, University
3. Workplace commitment to health and safety needs
Focus group participants pointed to the crucial role that workplaces that are committed to worker health and safety played in participants’ ability to identify and enact changes. Participants especially identified the support provided by established mechanisms for raising and resolving concerns and commitment to ongoing training of workers.
Supportive managers who do the right thing were described by some focus group participants. They offered examples of these supervisors and managers initiating and supporting workplace health and safety improvements. Safety and health is valued in these settings and was described as a team effort.
I know of facilities where from my own experience with the individuals they would do something because it’s the right thing to do no matter what the cost is. If there was a way of doing it, and regardless of whether it was legally required or not. — Thad, Health Physicist
The one [worker] that has lots of training already becomes a point of reference, not only for the workers, but also for the bosses. The boss comes often to ask, ‘What do you think of this? Or that?’ Then, working as a team takes place with the basis that we have obtained training and knowledge. — Diego, Plater/Hazardous Materials Worker, Metal Plating Industry
Ongoing mechanisms to address safety and health issues were instituted within a number of workplaces. Evaluation participants described health and safety committees, an anonymous suggestion box system, and ongoing employee training .
The came up with a procedure where an employee can make a suggestion or basically a complaint, that this is the way we’re doing it and it’s wrong and somebody’s going to get hurt. — Roger, Supervising Hazardous Materials specialist, Local Government
4. Ongoing availability of CAC training programs and program staff....
Workers and managers across focus groups identified the ongoing presence and availability of CAC training programs as crucial supports for their efforts to make workplaces safer and healthier...
Annual refreshers help to keep health and safety issues alive by providing an opportunity to re-assess health and safety priorities and re-initiate stalled or failed efforts for improvements according to focus group respondents.
The good thing is that since we have this training on an annual basis, it’s like an annual reminder, ‘You got to do something.’ So it’s kind of like documenting annually, you got to do this, you got to do this. They’ve said it to you. Like now we’ve had the 9th annual training and we still haven’t done this. So it’s kind of like an annual reminder, you got to keep on doing it. These yearly things (refresher trainings) remind management. — Paul, Inspection Supervisor, Local Government
Program instructors serve as ongoing resource to participants about technical information, strategies about how to seek changes, and referral to other organizations and agencies explained the focus group interviewees. People in each focus group described instances where they had sought and received valuable assistance from program instructors subsequent to CAC training.
I know that if I do have a question about a chemical or something else as well, can call up here [to the CAC Program] and get an answer so that I’m more able to deal with it. That has helped a lot. — David, Insulator, Union Contractor
The contacts that I have made through the class earlier had helped me in my job...I know who to call and it really cuts through, you know. — Brad, Geologist, Consulting Firm
V. Barriers to Health and Safety Changes
Focus group participants identified recurrent barriers to change. Both workers and professionals identified the following as key factors that impeded health and safety changes:
1. Economic pressures to cut costs and increase productivity
2. Key decision-makers’ lack of familiarity with health and safety and OSHA regulations
3. Employers acting to minimize or avoid their legal liability, rather than to improve health and safety
4. Lack of workplace mechanisms for addressing or following up health and safety issues
5. Inadequacies of OSHA regulations to back preferred health and safety practices
1. Economic pressures to cut costs and increase productivity
Participants noted that many employers will support health and safety changes if costs are low and the safety and health improvement does not interfere with production. They noted however, that when employers have to choose between safety and service delivery or production schedules, safety and health changes are unlikely to be prioritized.
Unfortunately, in a time of limited resources, . . . you get an overriding concern for operational needs at the expense of, say, some of the priorities that aren’t money makers. In other words, if you ve got a choice between sending a man to a safety committee meeting or sending him out in the field to do some work, no choice, you send him out in the field. . . . And that’s a constant battle we ve had with our top management there. They seem to feel that safety is very important as long as it doesn’t interfere with production. But when you have a choice, that’s wherein the problem lies.— Laura, Materials Associate, Local Government
There are other individuals where they don’t care what the law says. [They say] ‘If it’s going to impede my work production or my research or whatever, I don’t want to hear about it’. — Thad, Health Physicist
We have a few brand new fans, but since they (the employer) are thinking of moving to another location, the fans have not yet been installed. They don’t want to spend on installations if they are going to have to move again and spend more money. — Metal Plating Industry Employee
[The barriers] are money, supplies, equipment. It’s a lot easier to move a ladder up to a remote site than it is a scaffold . . . [And] sometimes in large projects it’s you know possible but not economically feasible to the client . . . Jack, Project Engineer, Consulting Business
2. Key decision makers often not aware of health and safety regulations
Both workers and managers across focus groups noted that key decision makers often are not familiar with health and safety regulations. For example, they indicated that people who have to make budget decisions are frequently removed from daily work practices and lack a health and safety understanding. Another key group identified was “old school” managers and supervisors.
I think one of the barriers is possibly having to overcome preconceived ideas that people in management may have about what constitutes safe work practices or what level of safety is sufficient. And I think some of these ideas may be based on outdated information...I think it harkens back to....getting more levels of management involved in actually taking the classes and seeing for themselves what is appropriate and what may not be. I think that would help to overcome those barriers,... attitudes and ideas by having more information disseminated to the people in decision making capacities. — Laura, Materials Associate, Local Government
How far up it goes, where the people are making decisions as to whether to allocate funds . . . , I believe those are the people who should go because they’re sitting down trying to allocate funds to what particular unit. — Kevin, Drill Rig Operator, Local Government
You just want to just ring their neck out or something, because you’ve just listened to how you have to get... a permit for treatment to put it down to a base ...But you have to listen to that type of argument. Because they did it 17 years ago or they’re the manager. And you’re like, ‘Why don’t you just take this course and learn what the new regulations are?’ — Maria, Environmental Management, State Government
3. Employers make changes only to reduce their legal liability
Workers and mid-level managers and professionals across focus groups described instances where safety changes have occurred “on the books” to reduce employers’ legal liability, but have not been enacted in ways participants believed would really improve health and safety in their workplaces.
It [the training] really hasn’t affected our bosses. It makes no difference. With this program that they are giving us, they are washing their hands, only because [it] is required by OSHA. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have sent us to the program. — Tomas, Machine Operator, Metal Plating Industry
One of the disadvantages I see with the training though is that the management will use it as a CYA. Okay, they’ve got all these little pre policies set up where everything looks. . . nice and, you know, we paid money to have you trained. But whether it’s the inspectors or the guys in the yard, there’s the push, ‘Well, why aren’t you doing more numbers? Why [don’t] you just run in and take the sample?’ And so then if something happens or screws up, they go, ‘I’ve trained them, you know, I can’t be with them every day’. — Neil, Site Mitigation Regulator, Local Government
Several workers reported that it often takes a significant injury for on the ground health and safety changes to occur – and that these changes, too, are often designed to meet employers’ liability concerns and not workers’ safety needs. The following exchange illustrates this pattern:
I have given some [suggestions to my boss] and they haven’t listened to me. Until there is an accident. Then is when they do listen. Once a guy got his finger cut off because he was carrying something heavy. After that they made us sign a paper saying that we can only carry up to 25 lbs. If we lift any part weighing 50 lbs, and something happens, that is our responsibility. — Metal Plating Industry Employee
They did this to protect themselves and leave the responsibility to us. — Other Metal Plating Industry Employees, talking simultaneously in agreement
Ironically, employers’ fear of liability has also prevented the implementation of some health and safety changes.
We’ve been working on an emergency response chlorine plan, but no-one signs off. There’s no commitment. We’d like to have it, but no-one wants to take the liability. — Charlie, Waste Water Operator, Local Government
From the medical director’s standpoint, they didn’t want to expose the organization to any liability by actually admitting that these people were required to wear respirators. — Laura, Materials Associate, Local Government
4. Lack of workplace systems for addressing or following up issues
Workers and supervisors noted that lack of workplace systems for raising health and safety concerns posed a significant barrier to initiating health and safety changes. Focus group participants also ran into barriers in workplaces where there was no clear accountability for following up on raised concerns.
If you make a request, it has to go through a series of levels of management and it’s passed by a number of people’s desks and maybe it sits there for a year or six months. — Paul, Inspection Supervisor, Local Government
I know there’s a deficiency where I work now. There is no safety committee that reviews anything or takes any action to correct. There is just no avenue for people to suggest [changes]. — Steven, Geologist, Consulting Firm Employee
5. If OSHA does not require it, there is no basis for health and safety changes
Based on CAC training that they received, workers and professionals asked for health and safety changes they believe would best improve their health and safety. However, focus group participants reported much difficulty winning any changes that exceeded OSHA regulations.
The law does not require the company to have showers for us to wash off. That’s why we cannot insist in asking for the showers. We don’t have the base to do it. — Diego, Plater/Hazardous Material Worker, Metal Plating Industry
The employees know that [the job has not been made as safe as it could be] because they’ve been trained here [ by the CAC]. And the contractor gets told that we are doing it a legal way, not a preferred way, but [it’s] the legal [way] and most economical for their benefit. — Jack, Project Engineer, Consulting Business
VI. Training Conducted for Spanish Speakers
Findings from participants of the focus groups conducted for native Spanish speakers were included in the previous section’s analysis of the overall findings. This section describes themes that appeared uniquely among the two focus groups conducted for native Spanish speakers.
As was mentioned previously, there were significant differences between these two focus groups. In one case the employer required that the focus group be conducted in English. Moreover, the participants in one focus group had been trained to be trainers; some of the actions they reported are specific to that role. With only two focus groups for native Spanish speakers, these differences make an extensive in-depth analysis of these two groups unfeasible.
However, both focus groups identified the vital role that native Spanish speakers played in sharing information with Spanish speaking co-workers. As a result of these limitations, though, other than the “workers trust co-workers” theme, the balance of what is reported here is from the worker trainer focus group discussion and are reported for that group alone.
Workers trust co-workers
While participants across focus groups reported informally sharing what they learned with others, participants in the focus groups for native Spanish speakers reported more instances of showing their coworkers safe work practices and of serving as important sources of health and safety information.
Now, most of the time, the workers come to us to ask, how to improve
the situation, or simply if such filters can be used with such and such
chemicals. They have enough trust in us to come and ask us. I think [this] is good. — Xavier, Plater/Hazardous Materials Worker
Many times there are buckets with certain chemicals, and my coworkers ask me where can they be placed. Depending on the chemical, I tell them where and how to dispose of those chemicals. — Luis, Waste Water Operator
Sometimes people want to know something about a chemical, what its effect is. . . So I sometimes go, okay, come and see, and they saw the papers or whatever. — Juan, Chemical Analysis Assistant
Then, I also deal with the others coworkers and those who don’t know me. They
observe me and keep on. They trust me more than going to tell a boss. — Felipe, Water Treatment Technician
A new person. Sometimes he don’t know and I start to explain be careful because sometimes that person didn’t go to the training, but you know you have experience already and can tell the person. —Manuel, Hazardous Waste Operator
Need for more trainings conducted in Spanish
Trainees expressed a great need for more health and safety classes in Spanish. They reported significant improvements in the health and safety awareness among their Spanish speaking co-workers who had taken the class.
Hispanic people did not have the information, I saw the difference after they received the training — Metal Plating Worker
It has helped a lot. In reality the majority of people don’t get trained and they don’t understand, and with the training we know what to do in case the boss abuses us. One has to know what to do, how to act in case[s] of abuse, and [how to] follow the MSDS. — Diego, Plater/Hazardous Materials Worker
Workers and managers find Spanish training materials relevant, easy to use
The focus group that had participants who had been trained to be trainers discussed the importance of the materials shared with them by the Consortium. They felt that the program’s training materials were to the point, presented clearly, and well-received by their co-workers. In addition, participants reported sharing these materials with their supervisors and managers to aid with other workplace training efforts. Participants indicated that their supervisors and managers valued and used these materials as well.
I’ve also used the materials I was given in [the training]. Based on that I was able to help my co-workers, so they know what they are working with . . . . In the training, they give good materials and it is so simple it stays in people’s minds. — Diego, Plater/Hazardous Materials Worker
When our boss had conducted a general training, we gave her materials from the training that we had attended. And she really liked them. Twice she has asked us for materials. It is easy to understand and people like it. — Xavier, Plater/Hazardous Materials Worker
Worker trainers relied upon as health and safety resource by “higher-ups”
In addition to using training materials and providing workplace health and safety training, worker trainer focus group participants indicated that they had become health and safety resource people for supervisors and managers. In one conversation, participants described this process as follows:
The one that has lots of training becomes a point of reference not only for the workers but also for the bosses — Diego, Plater/Hazardous Materials Specialist
My situation is similar. . . My boss has been working there about four months and always asks for my opinion. — Focus Group Participant
Other participants reported similar patterns:
They (supervisors and managers) depend on our knowledge. We are their reference. — Focus Group Participant....
In my company, they prepared two people, so that they conduct a safety training each month... By training those two, they train the "higher ups" (the bosses). They just finished the training and want to keep doing it. — Felipe, Water Treatment Technician
Availability of Spanish language MSDS Sheets varies
Participants in the worker-trainer focus group reported that some of their workplaces had MSDS sheets in Spanish. In these workplaces, Spanish MSDS sheets had been obtained either directly from manufacturers in Spanish, or had been received in English and then translated into Spanish by the employer. Other workplaces had no Spanish MSDS sheets and have had to rely on ad hoc translation, such as at a yearly meeting with a bilingual supervisor.
When we get a new chemical, and the MSDS doesn’t arrive, they ask the same [chemical] company to send it. If they send it in English, they have it translated. — Luis, Waste Water Operator
They (the MSDS sheets) are not in Spanish . . . Every year we are asked to do [a health and safety meeting in Spanish] in the whole plant, about its hazardous areas, [and] about the MSDSs. — Focus Group Participant
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To conclude, we return to the evaluation questions and examine them one at a time.
1) How has CAC’s Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program influenced health and safety awareness, actions, and practices back in the workplace of training participants?
Focus group participants attributed significant changes in their awareness, perceptions, thinking and analysis about health and safety, as well as improvements in workplace systems, work practices and emergency response to CAC training experiences. Participants described a wide range of improved, upgraded and changed health and safety practices and procedures in their work environments. They reported that their learning about the principles and practices of occupational health in regards to hazardous materials and emergency response was extremely useful, valuable and applicable to their work.
Participants further emphasized that knowledge about worker rights and OSHA standards were exceptionally useful when combined with the hazardous materials and emergency response information provided in trainings. They cited numerous examples of improved readiness and response to hazardous materials emergencies, including written plans that specified response levels for different workers.
The impact of CAC’s training was reported to be far wider than its course registration would indicate. Focus group participants revealed that they disseminated the courses’ content, written materials and learnings through informal networks at their workplace, as well as with friends and family members employed elsewhere. Those focus group participants who train or educate others as part of their jobs indicated that not only have they included course content, but that they have also adopted Consortium training methods and techniques to hone their own training.
Spanish speaking workers who participated in CAC’s Spanish language training program portrayed these courses as a beacon. Focus group participants indicated a paucity of Spanish language health and safety training courses and materials. Participants indicated that they thought Spanish speaking workers sought out information from their Spanish speaking co-workers because they trusted each other. In addition to conducting training back at their workplaces, participants noted that they were now also consulted by other workers and even managers as resource people.
2) What key factors did participants identify as supports and barriers to these actions?
Throughout the myriad workplace systems, procedural and work practice changes described in the data runs a strong bold thread about the significance of linking health and safety recommendations to OSHA regulations. OSHA regulations were viewed as a key source for people in technical, supervisory and managerial positions as well as frontline workers. This was evidenced in discussions about MSDS sheets, confined space policies, respirator use, medical surveillance and emergency response. The knowledge about OSHA regulations and workers’ rights seemed to serve as a guide to those who had power to make changes, those making suggestions regarding improvements, and those advocating for improvements with recalcitrant employers. The combination of knowledge of health and safety including occupational health and emergency response and of legal rights and regulations seemed to engender confidence and support in those seeking the improvements.
Focus group participants who work in government, manufacturing, universities, construction, and environmental clean-up indicated that a ‘community’ of CAC learners and worksites exists. Sometimes this was in evidence when a numbers of employees from the same worksite or employer had been trained. Other times it was visible regarding the relationships of participants to each other given their shared CAC training experiences, and at other times it was seen among members of the same union who have participated in CAC training.
Some participants had ongoing relationships with CAC training staff and programs, and have attended trainings and refresher programs for sometimes up to a decade. They described how ‘speaking the same language’ and having a shared framework of CAC’s health and safety contributed to these changes. Furthermore, they described their CAC training as going beyond the classroom and extending into an ongoing relationship with CAC staff members. CAC training providers seem to serve as an ongoing information and referral back-up resource for those in the CAC training community.
The most significant barriers to making health and safety improvements named by focus group participants was the conflict between economic pressures to maximize service or production output with fewer people and investing resources, both economic and human, in health and safety; and key decision makers in organizations who may not appreciate the occupational health issues facing their workforce.
3) How can the CAC better meet participants’ health and safety training needs?
Specific recommendations have been made regarding individual CAC members in program reports which were sent directly to each program and to the CAC Principal Investigator. Here we turn our attention to recommendations for the Consortium as a whole. These recommendations are as follows:
1. Keep the focus on legal rights and regulations, informed by a more expanded understanding of the significance of the training sections that address legal rights and regulations for CAC participants. Include updated information about OSHA cases pending development of new standards, and provide references to internet sites containing OSHA regulations and other related materials.
2. Foster additional opportunities to train multiple workers from the same worksite. The Consortium could consider offering contract or open enrollment classes targeted toward one to three employers with a particular focus (e.g., waste water treatment facilities, metal plating facilities, or university laboratories). These classes might be marketed through partnerships with trade or professional associations (i.e., the League of Municipalities or the Water Safety Professional Association). Another option for open enrollment classes would be to offer discounts for multiple attendees from the same employer. For example, the first three attendees pay full, with each additional person at a reduced fee.
3. Initiate a mini-needs assessment to determine how to train decision makers at higher levels of management than usually participate in CAC training. Involve select CAC training participants to assist in developing a strategy to assess how to involve, educate, or train key decision-makers in CAC’s constituency. Based on the input of CAC training participants and others they help access for CAC, consider a range of options for educating decision makers. These may include: a half day session in person via satellite or on the internet that is designed specifically for these decision makers; targeted materials highlighting key items decision makers need to know about liability regarding 1910.120 and other specially designed efforts. We would recommend conducting the mini-assessment in this grant year so that it could inform a pilot program in the future.
4. Develop a multi-faceted evaluation strategy that meets the needs of all Consortium members for the future. Recognizing that the CAC includes members with a wide range of approaches and philosophies, any future evaluation strategy should be compatible with each member’s needs. Each organization should determine their main evaluation interests. For example, programs training worker or peer trainers may want to learn more from managers about the usefulness and benefits of such programs in future evaluations. Programs offering many refresher courses may want to know more about the use of course information in the year prior to the refresher; a short written questionnaire could be designed to gather this information. We would encourage that philosophical difference should be addressed prior to committing to an evaluation plan. Once evaluation priorities are identified, a coordinated strategy can be crafted.
APPENDIX A: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE
General Guide
General Guide (Spanish Translation)
ASU Guide
GENERAL
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDE
Time: Estimate for the focus group itself is 1 and ½ hours. We will tell participants 2 hours to allow for getting snacks, filling out paperwork, and late comers.
I. WELCOME AND GETTING STARTED (10 minutes)
1. Welcome. Facilitators introduce ourselves and welcome everyone. We really appreciate your efforts to attend. Enjoy some refreshments while I tell you about what we’re going to do.
2. Project Description. We are conducting an evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the [organization’s, e.g. LOHP’s] hazardous waste operations and emergency response training program for you once you return to your workplace.
We will be conducting groups like this with workers from different sites in California, Arizona and Alaska where these courses are offered.
The information will be used to improve our training and to report the effectiveness of the program to the funding source, the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences.
3. How It Will Work. This interview is like a group conversation. We are interested in your experiences, ideas and opinions. Please feel free to talk and share openly. There are no “right” or “wrong” ideas or answers. We want to hear from everyone and expect you may not agree with each other. Feel free to disagree but please do so respectfully. We want to hear all the different points of view and experiences and are very interested in all your opinions.
4. Recording and Confidentiality. Everything that you say in this room is confidential. Your identity will not be linked to what you say. (Refer to written permission). Please respect each other’s confidentiality by not repeating what anyone says in the group today.
With your permission, we will tape record this session.
Later we will have the conversation typed up. Please say your name each time before you speak to help the person typing up this conversation distinguish when speakers change. You can use your real name or if you are more comfortable you can make up a name to use during the interview. Your name will not appear in the typed document. Please speak up so that your voice will be recorded and speak one at a time.
5. Introductions. Let’s go around the table and introduce ourselves. Tell us your name, your employer, your job, how long you’ve worked there, and a little bit about how you use or come in contact with hazardous materials or waste.
II. GROUP DISCUSSION (70 minutes)
1. Hazardous Materials Awareness
How has the way you think about your work with hazardous materials changed since the training?
Probes:
1. How has the training impacted your awareness of hazardous materials?
2. If other people you work with were also trained, how did the training improve the awareness of people at work about hazardous materials in your workplace?
3. How has the information you learned helped you recognize hazardous situations?
4. In what ways have you used the information you learned about environmental regulations and OSHA standards?
2. Work Practices
How have you changed how you do your work since the training? We are thinking about work practices like how and when you use safety or personal protective equipment, store chemicals and other things like this.
Probes:
1. In what ways have you changed how you approach or assess your health and safety in your everyday work?
2. How have you changed the way you use PPE? Frequency, method, situation?
3. What about the training made you change the way you do your work?
3. Raised Concerns
Have you or any of your coworkers who went to the training made suggestions or raised concerns or recommended any new safety procedures at your job because of the training?
Probes:
1. Describe the issue, who you talked with, and what happened.
2. Were you successful in making changes? Describe changes (policies, plans, equipment, PPE, etc).
3. Are there any suggestions you’ve made or concerns you have tried to do something about but the needed changes haven’t been made.
4. What are the barriers to getting these changes made?
5. What differences have you noticed about making changes when the improvement requires spending money?
4. Employer Actions & Attitudes
How has the training affected your employer’s health and safety program?
Probes:
1. Describe any policies or plans that have been revised or created that you think is a result of your employer’s involvement in the training.
2. Describe changes in processes that have been made or new equipment that has been purchased that you think is a result of your employer’s involvement in the training.
3. Describe your employer’s attitudes toward health and safety on the job?
4. What shapes those attitudes?
5. What do you think could change their attitudes?
6. How has their attitude towards health and safety changed since the training?
5. Emergency Response
In what ways have you changed how you approach or assess situations that might be emergencies?
Probes:
1. Describe any incidents or close calls that were prevented or averted because of information from the training.
2. Describe any incidents or close calls involving hazardous substances that have happened on your job since you first attended the training.
3. How did the training help you respond to the incident or close call?
4. If others from your workplace were also trained, how did the training help them respond to the incident or close call?
6. Use of Training Materials
How have you used the training and reference materials back on your job?
Probes:
1. Describe how you used the training materials as a reference.
2. How have you used the training materials to help do your own work more safely?
3. Describe how you shared materials and resources with other workers or managers.
4. Have you or anyone else that you are aware of used the training materials to conduct internal trainings at your facility?
5. How useful were the materials used in the training?
6. How could the training materials be improved?
7. How to Improve Training
What ideas or suggestions do you have that can make this training program more useful for participants like you when they get back to work?
Probes:
1. What health and safety topics or situations on the job would you like more training about?
III. CLOSING (10 minutes)
Are there any other opinions, or ideas you’d like to say before we close?
Thank for your participation. Your comments will be used to help the [your organization] improve its training.
Guía de enfoque de la entrevista (del grupo)
Duración: Se estima 1:30 horas para la discusión y enfoque del grupo. Les diremos a los participantes que serán dos horas, para darles tiempo a que coman algo y llenen las formas, y poder esperar por las personas que lleguen tarde.
I. BIENVENIDA Y COMIENZO (10 minutos)
1. Bienvenida. Los dirigentes se presentarán y darán la bienvenida a todos. Agradecemos sus esfuerzos para venir a esta entrevista. Disfruten los refrescos mientras les hablo acerca de lo que vamos hacer.
2. Descripción del proyecto. Estamos conduciendo una evaluación para saber la efectividad -una vez que usted haya regresado a su trabajo- del programa de entrenamiento de (nombre de la organización, e.g. LOHP) sobre operaciones de desperdicios peligrosos y respuesta a emergencias.
Tendremos discusiones como esta con trabajadores de diferentes sitios, en California, Arizona y Alaska, donde se ofrecen estos cursos.
La información será usada para mejorar nuestros entrenamientos y para reportar la efectividad del programa a la organización patrocinadora, el Instituto de Ciencias del Medio Ambiente y la Salud.
3. Forma en que se hará. Esta entrevista es como una conversación en grupo. Tenemos mucho interés en saber sus experiencias, sus ideas y opiniones. Siéntase confortable para poder hablar y compartir sus experiencias abiertamente. No hay preguntas ni respuestas “correctas” o “equivocadas,” sólo queremos oír a cada uno de ustedes y no esperamos que todos estén de acuerdo, unos con los otros. Si no están de acuerdo con algo, queremos que se sientan libres de expresar sus opiniones, pero esperamos que lo hagan de una manera respetuosa. Estamos muy interesados en oír todos los diferentes puntos de vista y opiniones de todos ustedes.
4. Grabación y Confidencialidad. Todo lo que se hable en esta discusión es confidencial. Su identidad no se ligará a lo que usted diga. (Refiérase al permiso escrito). Les pedimos que por favor respeten la confidencialidad de los otros y no repitan lo que se hable hoy, en esta discusión.
Con su permiso grabaremos la discusión de esta sesión.
Más tarde haremos escribir a máquina la conversación. Por favor, diga su nombre cada vez antes de empezar hablar, esto ayudará a la persona que está copiando la conversación para saber cuando cambia la persona que está hablando. Usted puede usar su propio nombre o si prefiere puede usar otro nombre durante la entrevista; su nombre no aparecerá en el documento escrito. Por favor hablen, uno por uno -a la vez- y en voz alta para la grabación.
5. Presentación. Vayamos alrededor de las mesas para presentarnos. Díganos su nombre, quien es su patrón, cuál es su trabajo, cuanto tiempo tiene de trabajar ahí, y brevemente como fue que usted llegó a tener contacto con materiales o desperdicios peligrosos.
II. DISCUSIÓN DEL GRUPO (70 minutos)
1. Alerta Sobre Materiales Peligrosos. Después del entrenamiento ¿cómo ha cambiado su manera de pensar acerca de su trabajo con materiales peligrosos?
a. ¿Cómo el entrenamiento a impactado su conocimiento y lo ha alertado sobre los materiales peligrosos?
b. Si otras personas que trabajan con usted han sido entrenadas, ¿cómo han sido alertados y mejorado el conocimiento sobre los materiales peligrosos en su lugar de trabajo?
c. ¿En que forma le ha ayudado, la información obtenida, a reconocer las situaciones peligrosas?
d. ¿De que manera ha usado lo aprendido sobre regulaciones del medio ambiente y los estándares de OSHA?
2. Prácticas de trabajo. Después del entrenamiento ¿Cómo ha cambiado usted la forma en que hace su trabajo? Estamos pensando en prácticas de trabajo, tales, como y cuando usted usa equipo de seguridad , o equipo de protección personal, la forma de almacenar sustancias químicas, y otras cosas como estas.
a. ¿Qué cambios ha hecho usted en la forma en que aborda (enfrenta) o evalúa diariamente su salud y seguridad en el trabajo?
b. ¿Ha cambiado usted la forma en que usa el equipo de protección personal? ¿Frecuencia, método o situación?
c. ¿De que manera, el entrenamiento ha hecho que usted cambie la manera de hacer su trabajo?
3. Preocupaciones.. Pídale a uno de sus compañeros de trabajo, que haya atendido el entrenamiento, ( o usted puede hacerlo) que haga sugerencias, que hable de sus preocupaciones sobre el trabajo, o que recomiende cualquier procedimiento nuevo de seguridad en su trabajo, originado a causa del entrenamiento.
a. Describa el tema, diga con quien habló acerca de esto, y cual fue el resultado.
b. ¿Tuvo éxito en hacer estos cambios? Describa los cambios (pólizas, plan, equipo, PPE, etc).
c. ¿Hay algunas sugerencias que usted haya indicado, o preocupaciones que haya tenido, las cuales necesitan cambios y no han sido hechos?
d. ¿Cuáles son las barreras que impiden estos cambios?
e. ¿Qué diferencia ha notado usted, cuando el hacer el mejoramiento requiere el gastar más dinero?
4. Acciones y Actitudes del Patrón.
¿De que manera el entrenamiento ha afectado el programa de salud y seguridad del empleador?
a. Describa cualquier póliza o plan - que usted crea- haya sido revisado o creado, como resultado de la involucración de su patrón en el entrenamiento.
b. Describa los cambios que están en proceso, o equipo nuevo adquirido, que usted cree es resultado del involucración de su patrón en el entrenamiento.
c. Describa cual es la actitud de su patrón acerca de la salud y seguridad en el trabajo.
d. ¿Qué es lo que induce (produce, o motiva) esta actitud?
e. ¿Qué cree usted que podría cambiar esta actitud del patrón?
f. Después del entrenamiento ¿Ha cambiado la actitud del patrón acerca de la salud y seguridad en el trabajo?
5. Respuesta a Emergencias. ¿De qué manera ha cambiado usted, la forma en que enfrenta o evalúa las situaciones que podrían ser emergencias?
a. Describa cualquier incidente o situación que podría haber sido un desastre, que fueron prevenidas o que hayan probado ser efectivas, de la información obtenida del entrenamiento.
b. Describa cualquier incidente o situación que podría haber sido un desastre, que incluya sustancias peligrosas y que haya ocurrido después de haber atendido su primer entrenamiento.
c. ¿De que forma el entrenamiento, le ayudó a responder al incidente, o a lo que pudo haber sido un desastre?
d. Si otros trabajadores, en su lugar de trabajo, también fueron entrenados ¿de qué forma, el entrenamiento les ayudó a responder al incidente?
6. Uso de los Materiales de Entrenamiento. Al regresar a su trabajo ¿Cómo ha usado el material y las referencias del entrenamiento?
a. Describa como usa los materiales del entrenamiento, como referencia.
b. ¿Como usa los materiales del entrenamiento, para ayudarle hacer su propio trabajo, en una forma más segura?
c. Describa como usted comparte con otros trabajadores y con los supervisores, los materiales y los recursos.
d. Usted o alguien más, ha usado los materiales del entrenamiento, para conducir entrenamientos en su sitio de trabajo?
e. ¿Qué tan útiles fueron los materiales usados en el entrenamiento?
f. ¿Podrían los materiales ser mejorados?
7. Como Mejorar el Entrenamiento. ¿Qué ideas o sugerencias tiene, que harían el programa más útil, a los participantes -como usted- cuando regresen a su trabajo?
a. ¿Qué otros temas de salud y seguridad, o situaciones en su trabajo, en las cuales le gustaría tener más entrenamiento?
III. Cerrando la Discusión (10 minutos)
¿Tienen algunas otras opiniones, o ideas que quisieran exponer antes de cerrar la discusión?
Muchas gracias por su participación. Sus comentarios serán usados para ayudar a mejorar el entrenamiento de su compañía.
ASU
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDE
Time: Estimate for the focus group itself is 1 and ½ hours. We will tell participants 2 hours to allow for getting snacks, filling out paperwork, and late comers.
I. WELCOME AND GETTING STARTED (10 minutes)
6. Welcome. Facilitators introduce ourselves and welcome everyone. We really appreciate your efforts to attend. Enjoy some refreshments while I tell you about what we’re going to do.
7. Project Description. We are conducting an evaluation to assess the effectiveness of ASU’s hazardous waste operations and emergency response training program for you once you return to your workplace.
We will be conducting groups like this with workers from different sites in California, Arizona and Alaska where these courses are offered.
The information will be used to improve our training and to report the effectiveness of the program to the funding source, the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences.
8. How It Will Work. This interview is like a group conversation. We are interested in your experiences, ideas and opinions. Please feel free to talk and share openly. There are no “right” or “wrong” ideas or answers. We want to hear from everyone and expect you may not agree with each other. Feel free to disagree but please do so respectfully. We want to hear all the different points of view and experiences and are very interested in all your opinions.
9. Recording and Confidentiality. Everything that you say in this room is confidential. Your identity will not be linked to what you say. (Refer to written permission). Please respect each other’s confidentiality by not repeating what anyone says in the group today.
With your permission we will take notes during this session. Later we will have the conversation typed up. Please say your name each time before you speak to help the person taking notes record when speakers change. You can use your real name or if you are more comfortable you can make up a name to use during the interview. Your name will not appear in the typed document. Please speak up so that everyone can hear you and speak one at a time.
10. Introductions. Let’s go around the table and introduce ourselves. Tell us your name, your employer, your job, how long you’ve worked there, and a little bit about how you use or come in contact with hazardous materials or waste.
II. GROUP DISCUSSION (70 minutes)
1. Hazardous Materials Awareness
How has the way you think about your work with hazardous materials changed since the training?
Probes:
2. How has the training impacted your awareness of hazardous materials?
3. If other people you work with were also trained, how did the training improve the awareness of people at work about hazardous materials in your workplace?
4. How has the information you learned helped you recognize hazardous situations?
5. In what ways have you used the information you learned about environmental regulations and OSHA standards?
2. Work Practices
How have you changed how you do your work since the training? We are thinking about work practices like how and when you use safety or personal protective equipment, store chemicals and other things like this.
Probes:
1. In what ways have you changed how you approach or assess your health and safety in your everyday work?
2. How have you changed the way you use PPE? Frequency, method, situation?
3. How has your training helped you to understand and work with company procedures related to hazardous materials?
4. What about the training helped you change the way you do your work?
3. Emergency Response
In what ways have you changed how you approach or assess situations that might be emergencies?
Probes:
1. Describe any incidents or close calls that were prevented or averted because of information from the training.
2. Describe any incidents or close calls involving hazardous substances that have happened on your job since you first attended the training.
3. How did the training help you respond to the incident or close call?
4. If others from your workplace were also trained, how did the training help them respond to the incident or close call?
4. Use of Training Materials
How have you used the training and reference materials back on your job?
Probes:
1. Describe how you used the training materials as a reference.
2. How have you used the training materials to help do your own work more safely?
3. Describe how you shared materials and resources with other workers or managers.
4. Have you or anyone else that you are aware of used the training materials to conduct internal trainings at your facility?
5. How useful were the materials used in the training?
6. How could the training materials be improved?
5. How to Improve Training
What ideas or suggestions do you have that can make this training program more useful for participants like you when they get back to work?
Probes:
1. What health and safety topics or situations on the job would you like more training about?
III. CLOSING (10 minutes)
Are there any other opinions, or ideas you’d like to say before we close?
Thank for your participation. Your comments will be used to help ASU improve its training.
APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANT DATA SHEET
General Participant Data Sheet
General Participant Data Sheet (Spanish Translation)
ASU Participant Data Sheet
Participant Consent and General Information Form
New Perspectives Consulting Group is conducting an evaluation to assess the effectiveness of UC Berkeley’s Labor and Occupational Health Project’s hazardous waste and emergency response training program once people return to their workplaces. We will be asking for your opinions about how the training affected your awareness of hazardous materials and your work with them and asking for your suggestions for improving the training.
This information will be used by your training provider to improve the training and to report to the funding source, the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences.
What you and everyone in the group have to say is very important to us, so we would like to record this discussion on paper and on audiotape. Later the audiotape will be typed up. No one’s name will appear in the typed document. We’d also like you to fill out the general information questions below. Everyone’s answers on these forms will be combined and no one’s name will be linked to the information.
Everything that is said in the discussion is confidential. You should not tell anyone specific things that were said by other group members during the session. During this focus group you can refuse to answer any question and you can leave the group at any time. The focus group discussion should last about one and a half hours.
If you have any questions about the focus group or the project, please ask the group leader. If you have questions later, please call Tobi Lippin of New Perspectives Consulting Group at 919-286-5995.
Please sign to indicate that you understand how the group interview process will work as described above and that you volunteer to participate in this group.
Your Signature:
1. Who is your employer?
2. How long have you worked for your current employer? Years
3. What is your job title?
4. How long have you done this type of work? Years
5. Are you male or female?
6. What is your race or ethnicity? (Check one or fill in “other” category)
Non-Hispanic White Hispanic/Latino
Black/African-American American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian or Pacific Islander Other, please describe:
7. What is the highest grade in school you have completed? (Circle one number or set of words)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
some college college graduate graduate school
8. Are you a union member?
Yes, Which union?
No
Thank you for filling out this form and participating in today’s group!
Forma General de Información y Permiso del Participante
El Grupo de Consulta Nuevas Perspectivas, está conduciendo una evaluación para saber la efectividad del programa de entrenamiento de la Universidad de California, Los Angeles, Proyecto de Labor y Salud Ocupacional, Sobre Desperdicios Peligrosos y Respuesta a Emergencias , una vez que los participantes han vuelto a sus sitios de trabajo. Les preguntaremos sus opiniones, sobre como el entrenamiento les ha despertado y alertado sobre los materiales peligrosos con que trabajan. También les pediremos sus sugerencias para mejorar el entrenamiento. Esta información será usada por su entrenador para mejorar el entrenamiento y para reportar a la organización patrocinadora, el Instituto de Ciencias del Medio Ambiente y la Salud.
Lo que usted y todos los demás digan, es muy importante para nosotros, por esto nos gustaría grabar la conversación. Más tarde, esta conversación será transcripta y escrita a máquina. Ningún nombre aparecerá en el documento escrito. También queremos que contesten las preguntas generales que aparecen en esta forma. Todas las respuestas en estas formas serán puestas juntas y ningún nombre será ligado a esta información.
Todo lo que se hable en la discusión es confidencial. Usted no deberá decir nada específico -a nadie- de lo que otros miembros del grupo digan en la discusión. Durante el enfoque, usted puede rehusar a contestar cualquier pregunta, y también puede dejar la sesión en cualquier momento. La discusión durará más o menos una hora y media.
Si tiene alguna pregunta acerca del enfoque de la discusión, o acerca del proyecto, por favor pregúntele al líder del grupo. Si más tarde, aún tiene preguntas, por favor llame a Tobi Lippin, al Grupo de Consulta Nuevas Perspectivas, 919/286-5995.
Por favor firme, para indicar que entiende el proceso -indicado arriba- de como trabaja el Grupo de Consulta, y que usted decide participar voluntariamente en este grupo de discusión.
Firma:
1. ¿Dónde trabaja?
2. ¿Cuánto tiempo lleva trabajando ahí? años.
3. ¿Cuál es su título en el trabajo?
4. ¿Cuánto tiempo tiene haciendo este tipo de trabajo? años.
5. Usted es: Hombre: Mujer:
6. Indique su raza, o condición étnica (marque uno, o llene la categoría “otra”)
Blanco -no hispano: Asiático o Isleño del Pacífico:
Afro/Americano: Indio Americano o Nativo de Alaska:
Hispano/Latino: Otro: (describa)
7. Haga un círculo indicando cual es el grado más alto, que terminó en la escuela.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
¿Fue a la Universidad por algún tiempo? ¿Se graduó de la Universidad?
¿Estudios de Post grado?
8. ¿Es usted miembro de alguna Unión? Si: No:
Por favor de el nombre de la Unión a la que pertenece:
¡Muchas gracias por completar esta forma y por participar en la discusión de este día!
ASU Participant Consent and General Information Form
New Perspectives Consulting Group is conducting an evaluation to assess the effectiveness of Arizona State University’s hazardous waste and emergency response training program once people return to their workplaces. We will be asking for your opinions about how the training affected your awareness of hazardous materials and your work with them and asking for your suggestions for improving the training. This information will be used by your training provider to improve the training and to report to the funding source, the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences.
What you and everyone in the group have to say is very important to us, so we would like to take notes during the conversation. Later the notes will be typed up. No one’s name will appear in the typed document. We’d also like you to fill out the general information questions below. Everyone’s answers on these forms will be combined and no one’s name will be linked to the information.
Everything that is said in the discussion is confidential. You should not tell anyone specific things that were said by other group members during the session. During this focus group you can refuse to answer any question and you can leave the group at any time. The focus group discussion should last about one and a half hours.
If you have any questions about the focus group or the project, please ask the group leader. If you have questions later, please call Tobi Lippin of New Perspectives Consulting Group at 919-286-5995.
Please sign to indicate that you understand how the group interview process will work as described above and that you volunteer to participate in this group.
Your Signature:
1. Who is your employer?
2. How long have you worked for your current employer? Years
3. What is your job title?
4. How long have you done this type of work? Years
5. Are you male or female?
6. What is your race or ethnicity? (Check one or fill in “other” category)
Non-Hispanic White Asian or Pacific Islander
Black/African-American American Indian or Alaska Native
Hispanic/Latino Other, please describe:
7. What is the highest grade in school you have completed? (Circle one number or set of words)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
some college college graduate graduate school
8. Are you a union member?
Yes, Which union?
No
Thank you for filling out this form and participating in today’s group!