NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
INSPECTIONS & ASSESSMENTS

Inspection Report

SUBJECT:	Headquarters Workers' Compensation Program	DATE OF REPORT:	September 4, 1996
LOCATION:	NASA Headquarters	CASE NUMBER:	G-96-003

SYNOPSIS:

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated this inspection to assess: (1) compliance with NASA CIO policies and Federal Information Resources Management (IRM) acquisition statutes and procedures, (2) cost effectiveness in mandating PC platforms for all OA desktop workstations, (3) end-users' requirements, and (4) the potential impact on space flight mission and safety.

We concluded that the NASA HQ program is in general compliance with existing regulations and policy guidance. However, during the interviews, we found supervisors generally neither understood the program nor were they aware of their responsibilities for forms completion or claim review and evaluation. We also found a lack of timely and accurate communications between supervisors and the NASA HQ WCP specialist, and between NASA and the Department of Labor's (DOL's) District 25 Regional Office of WCP staff and management. A lack of program management oversight and guidance existed prior to the transfer of the HQ program to the HQ Code CP.

We recommend:

1. increased management oversight of the HQ WCP through internal tracking of cases;
2. increased dialogue between the NASA HQ WCP specialist, management, and employees;
3. "just in time" claim submission and followup training for supervisors, employees, and Safety Officers;
4. improvement of relations with DOL's Regional Office of WCP staff and management;
5. development of a "Light Duty Program" that enables employees a quicker return to work; and
6. investigation of the circumstances upon which a claim is based be done, where applicable, by Code Safety Offices.

Co-Team Leader:  _________________________
Original Signed By: Charles E. Heaton, Jr., Office of Inspector General
                                   
Co-Team Leader: ___________________
Original Signed By: Alfred Castillo, Headquarters Human Resources Management Division

Assistant Inspector General for Inspections & Assessments: ___________________
Original Signed By: David M. Cushing

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Scope:

The President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency issued a consolidated report on the Audit of Employing Agency Workers' Compensation Programs (WCP), Report # 02-96-223-04-43, February 16, 1996. Based on the results of that audit, which did not include NASA, the Office of Inspector General (Code W) Inspections and Assessments suggested a joint review of the NASA HQ WCP with the Headquarters Human Resources Management Division (Code CP). The recent transfer of the HQ WCP responsibility and its assigned specialist, from the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (Code U) to Code CP, warranted an assessment of the program. Code CP agreed to the joint assessment of the program and a team was assembled.

We interviewed more than 20 supervisors to obtain their perspectives of the program's claim filing processes, procedures, and required followup actions and activities. We reviewed regulations, internal controls, and NASA's reimbursements to the Department of Labor (DOL). We also reviewed program oversight functions.

Methodology:

The team included the WCP specialist who, prior to the transfer, had responsibility for both the NASA HQ and NASA-wide programs. Code U has retained the NASA-wide WCP responsibility.

The team, co-chaired by Code W and Code CP representatives, held weekly meetings during which tasks were assigned to groups and individuals based on the subject areas. For example, two Code CP personnel specialists flowcharted and compared the WCP processes of NASA and DOL. The Code W personnel specialist researched the WCP regulations and compiled the pertinent rules, regulations, and guidance in notebooks for the team. The Code W auditor reviewed the files and validated NASA reimbursements to DOL.

We interviewed supervisors whose employees had submitted WCP claims to obtain first-line supervisor views of the processes and procedures. Interviews covered a broad cross-section of claims, from simple to complex. We examined the interaction between supervisors and the WCP specialist as well as the supervisors' knowledge of the WCP processes. We also reviewed the communications between NASA personnel and the DOL Office of Workers' Compensation Program (OWCP) staff and management.

FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS

Findings and conclusion are organized as follows:

A. Compliance Issues

B. Communications with NASA HQ Supervisors and Management

C. Communications with DOL's WCP Office

D. Program Management

A. Compliance Issues

We found the NASA HQ WCP was being carried out in general compliance with existing regulations and policy guidance. However, certain specific areas were unevenly or inconsistently conducted. The comparison of NASA's processes and procedures and those of DOL showed no significant differences. The NASA HQ WCP specialist has a good working knowledge of the processes and procedures. (See Exhibits 1 and 2)

The review of DOL's chargeback billings indicated the NASA's files contained the necessary forms, documents, and correspondence to ensure employees' claims were valid and properly documented prior to payment. Compensation payments were initially authorized by DOL, and the necessary medical examinations were performed periodically to reconfirm medical conditions/disabilities. The validation procedures used by the NASA HQ WCP specialist involved reviewing the DOL chargeback billings to ensure that only NASA HQ employees entitled to payments and compensation were included, reviewing dollar amounts for accuracy, and screening of employee physicians against a DOL list of physicians prohibited from the WCP. Based on this review, we concluded the validation process was adequate.

(See Exhibit 3.)

Communications between the NASA WCP specialist and supervisors were sporadic, inconsistent, and not timely. Supervisors were not able to quickly obtain current and timely information on the status of claims or followup actions. Many supervisors held the opinion that the WCP specialist had erected barriers to communications when they sought information on claim status. Feedback from the HQ WCP specialist to supervisors was an area needing improvement.

We found that NASA HQ supervisors had very little knowledge of the WCP filing procedures and their responsibilities in the claim filing process, including required followup actions and activities. Supervisors, in most cases, found out about a claim filing when they were asked to sign the claim form(s) by the filing employee or the Code Safety Officer. The supervisor usually signed the claim form(s) without investigating the circumstances surrounding the incident upon which the claim was based, even though an investigation by the immediate supervisor is required by regulation. Unless supervisors had previously been involved with a claim filing, they were generally at a loss as to what to do and when to do it. There was no readily available guidance or documentation for them to review nor was any training offered. The guidance documents were stored in the office of the WCP specialist.

Supervisors stated that a handout describing supervisors' duties and required actions would have been extremely helpful throughout the process. All supervisors favored the development of a WCP Handbook. Specifically, supervisors wanted published guidance on claim submission, verification, and followup activities. Most of the guidance obtained was given by Code Safety Officers concerning duties and responsibilities, not the HQ WCP specialist.

Supervisors stated they needed training on their roles and responsibilities concerning claim submission and required followup actions at all stages of the process. Training on the procedures and processes could be developed and delivered as "just in time" training. "Just in time" refers to training delivered on a subject immediately before actions or activities are required of the trainee. Additionally, supervisors wanted a point-of-contact to assist them and direct contact between themselves and the program specialist.

C. Communications with DOL's WCP Office

Communications between the DOL OWCP and NASA were not effective and responses to inquiries were not timely. Because of the communications difficulties in obtaining information, several HQ supervisors tried to obtain information directly from the DOL's OWCP on their employee's claims, particularly those bogged down awaiting decisions. Inquiries met resistance and answers were not readily available. Members of the DOL staff could not or would not answer questions on claim status without first having supervisors involved. One case in particular has been reviewed by several DOL OWCP staffers and managers without any positive status information offered in response to NASA inquiries. This case is over a year old and a decision on DOL claim acceptance has not been rendered.

The HQ WCP specialist has also experienced difficulties in obtaining information from District 25, and has contacted the DOL HQ OWCP at the main DOL building seeking assistance. This is often the only way information concerning a claim can be obtained.

D. Program Management

Management oversight and guidance was generally lacking prior to the transfer of the HQ program to Code CP. Coordination meetings between the program specialist and Code U management were sporadic. Program management took no proactive action to initiate systems and processes to enhance program operations and increase efficiency. Code U management depended upon the WCP specialist for program operations.

An example of an enhancement would be establishing a "Light Duty Program" at NASA HQ. A "Light Duty Program" is designed to bring employees who have been injured or otherwise temporarily incapacitated back to the work place as quickly as possible. For example, an employee whose normal duties require lifting heavy items suffers a back injury and is unable to perform his/her normal duties for a period of time. However, the employee is able to perform less strenuous duties during rehabilitation. These less strenuous duties would fall under the purview of a "Light Duty Program" for that employee and enable him/her to return to work during the rehabilitation period. Once rehabilitation is completed, the employee would resume normal duties. Since most of the work at NASA HQ is performed in an office environment with no physically strenuous duties, a shortened work day could be another form of light duty.

Having Code Safety Officers investigate the circumstances concerning the claim is an example of proactive management that could have been explored. "If the supervisor questions the validity of a claim, he or she should investigate the circumstances and report the results to OWCP." (See paragraph 4-3. Questionable Claims of the DOL Handbook Injury Compensation for Federal Employees, Publication CA-810, revised February 1994) Since supervisors are normally not trained to conduct investigations, a supervisory investigation may not be in the best interests of either the employee or the Government. Safety Officers typically have some investigative training and, in all likelihood, would be better qualified to obtain factual evidence of the circumstances that initiated the claim. Having a Safety Officer perform the required investigation would tend to mitigate a potential conflict between the employee and his/her supervisor.

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

As of the date of this report, we received one response - that being from the Manager, Occupational Health Office, Code UA. The report findings were not disputed. However, the response indicated extensive work had been accomplished at the Agency level that would lead to significant improvements in the overall NASA Workers' Compensation Program. Since the NASA Headquarters Workers' Compensation Program and not the Agency-wide Program was the subject of this assessment, the draft report will be published as the final report.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The HQ Code CP should increase management oversight of the NASA HQ WCP. Activities that should be incorporated into this oversight are:

   a. receipt and tracking of claims,
   

   b. use of milestones by process phases,
   

   c. establishment of status report dates.
   

2. Code CP should foster open communications between the WCP specialist, management, and employees.

3. Code CP should develop and publish guidance for supervisors, employees, and Safety Officers on their roles and responsibilities throughout the WCP claim submission process including filing, verification, and followup actions. As an adjunct activity, Code CP should develop a "just in time" training program, including points-of-contact, to provide assistance for employees and supervisors during the claim submission process.

4. Code CP should take immediate action to improve relations with the DOL OWCP management and staff. This report will be transmitted to the appropriate official-in-charge at DOL.

5. NASA HQ should develop a "Light Duty Program" for employees to enable a more speedy return to work by injured or otherwise temporarily incapacitated employees.

6. Code CP should consider using assigned Code Safety Officers to investigate the circumstances that initiate a claim.

Appendix I

Report Distribution

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Officials-In- Charge:

NASA Field Installations, Workers' Compensation Staff:

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of each of the following Congressional Committees and Subcommittees:

Non-NASA Federal Organizations and Individuals:

Appendix II

Inspections and Assessment Staff

Headquarters and Human Resources Management Division

For copies of the exhibits that belong to this report, write to:

• Assistant Inspector General for Inspections & Assessments
  NASA Headquarters
  Code W
  300 E Street S.W.
  Washington, DC  20546-0001

Last Update: July 11, 1997