Understaffing at the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has limited the state agency’s ability to perform on-site inspections, a July 17 report from the California State Auditor revealed. The auditor also concluded that Cal/OSHA didn’t provide adequate reasons for closing workplace complaints and accidents without performing an on-site inspection.
The auditor’s office reviewed 60 case files that Cal/OSHA handled from fiscal years (FYs) 2019 to 2020 through 2023 to 2024. The audit found deficiencies in both Cal/OSHA’s staffing levels and enforcement processes that may undermine the state’s workplace protections. The auditor questioned Cal/OSHA’s rationale for deciding not to inspect because case files lacked evidence to support that Cal/OSHA had complied with its policies.
The audit’s key findings included the following:
- Cal/OSHA must address shortcomings in its staffing levels and oversight. Understaffing and process deficiencies are root causes for many of the auditor’s concerns. Cal/OSHA had an agency-wide vacancy rate of 32 percent in FY 2023 to 2024, and its vacancy rate was even higher in the enforcement branch. Regional and district managers interviewed for the audit stated that their offices would have conducted more on-site inspections and inspected more thoroughly if they had been adequately staffed. The agency also didn’t consistently conduct audits of its case files to ensure staff were correctly implementing agency policies and procedures. Cal/OSHA’s processes remain primarily paper-based, which is inefficient and increases the risk of poor case file documentation.
- Cal/OSHA didn’t inspect some complaints and accidents despite evidence that an inspection may have better protected workers. Out of the 60 cases reviewed, 30 were specifically related to Cal/OSHA’s decision-making about whether an on-site inspection was necessary for a complaint. In 9 of the 30 cases, the auditor’s office questioned Cal/OSHA’s rationale for deciding not to conduct on-site inspections, concluding that the case files lacked evidence demonstrating that Cal/OSHA had complied with its policies.
- When Cal/OSHA performs inspections, its process has critical weaknesses. The auditor’s office reported observing some common flaws in on-site inspections. Case files weren’t always thorough enough to support Cal/OSHA’s decision-making. Enforcement personnel didn’t consistently document reviews of employers’ injury and illness prevention programs (IIPPs), nor did they include detailed notes from interviews conducted with workers. In some instances, Cal/OSHA took weeks or even months to initiate inspections in response to complaints and accidents.
- Cal/OSHA could better ensure employers maintain safe workplaces. Following on-site inspections, Cal/OSHA can require the abatement of identified violations, issue citations and fines, and sometimes refer cases to prosecutors if employers’ violations may have been criminal. The auditor found shortcomings in each of those areas. Case files often lacked supporting evidence that employers had abated violations. The agency’s fine determinations for some complaint and accident inspections were less severe than regulations and policy may have warranted. Cal/OSHA often didn’t document a clear rationale for agency decisions to reduce fines in post-citation negotiations. The agency also didn’t clearly explain why it chose not to refer cases for potential criminal prosecution.
The California State Auditor made 17 recommendations for Cal/OSHA, including requiring that enforcement personnel provide a thorough rationale for decisions not to conduct on-site inspections; increasing staffing levels to ensure the agency can adequately protect workers; performing internal audits of case files, policies, and procedures; and developing and implementing an electronic case management system.