Free Rider 2 Tracks Database - PowerPoint by ofy10375

VIEWS: 126 PAGES: 106

More Info
									        WELCOME TO THE     16TH


6 December 2006
   • EXITS
6 December 2006

6 December 2006
      16th Executive Safety Board

                  15th Tasker Update
                     Old Business

6 December 2006
            15th ESB Tasker Update
      IGMC (Lead) and SD / NAVSAFCEN (Support)

      Develop a proposal for a “Safety Readiness Digital Dashboard” that will
      monitor all safety programs and initiatives..

6 December 2006                                                  Mr. Peter J. Hill
           Concept for the USMC
                   Digital Dashboard
                   16th Executive Safety Board
                        06 December 2006
                             IGMC (Lead)
                              Briefed By:
                         Peter J. Hill, PE, CSP
                         CMC Safety Division
06 December 2006
                   Statement of Problem

06 December 2006
                   Statement of Problem

   There is poor connectivity and visibility of
    Commanders to the Safety Performance of
    subordinate units at all levels.
   Existing tools are “backward looking” –
    Driving by only using the rear view mirror.
   We don‟t know how well we are using tools
    and programs we already have.
   Data Systems are largely disparate and
    incompatible, hindering connectivity.

06 December 2006

   A Web-Based One-Stop Shop for retrieving
    Warrior Preservation Metrics
   Integrated within a SINGLE Database Portal
   Include Metrics that are forward looking
       – Leading Indicators
       – Near Misses
       – PMV (non-mishap) Violations Tracking
   Allow Visibility of a Command to sub-unit‟s
    Safety Performance

06 December 2006
                          Digital Dashboard

   Near Term: Using what we have Better
       – Consolidate Data, selecting best practices
       – Establish Partnerships (M&RA, MCCLL)
       – Zero Sum Approach
            • Add Products as they clear the “chute” or are
            • Delete Products that don’t add value
   Recognize that a fully integrated product is
    years/$ down the road
   Synergize with other Services through DSOC

06 December 2006
                   First Steps

  Migrate WPSR reporting to Online
  Link to DSES/Fix CoC issues
  Pilot Monitoring/Collection of Leading
  Establish M&RA Manpower Portal as
   Gold Standard for Staffing Levels and
   Organizational Roll-up

06 December 2006
                      WPSR Database

 Currently WPSR spreadsheet reports on
  accomplishment of various FP initiatives
 Propose WPSR data entered by the Unit
  directly to on-line database
 Unit inputs are assigned scores and sum to
  intermediate Major Commands
 Algorithm:
     – Date Elements: Done in prescribed timeframe = 1 point
     – % Elements: <69% = 0; 70-100% = 0.7 – 1.0 point
     – Mishaps: Deduct 100% of A’s; 66% of B’s; 33% of C’s

06 December 2006
                                                       Present WPSR

  Spreadsheet Format
                                                                         Standard Requirements
    Warrior Preservation Status Report
                                         Command     Command     Supervisor                                Formal                                 Supervisor
                                                                              Shop Safety Safe Driving              Safety Officer     ORM
                                          Climate     Safety       Safety                                Workspace                                  Safety
                                                                              Committee     Council                   Assigned        Training
         Unit                  CoC        Survey      Council    Committee                               Inspection                                Training
                                           Date       Date         Date         Date          Date          Date         Date        % Complete   % Complete
                                          Annually   Quarterly    Quarterly    Quarterly     Annual        Annual                      Annual       Annual
                3rd MAW
                                                Formats, fonts, naming
      MACS-1                7-Apr-06            conventions, 6-Jun-06 Aug-06 1-Nov-05
                                         1-Jan-06  3-Feb-06  1-May-06 verbiage                                         5-Jul-06       75.00%       85.00%
      MASS-3                5-Nov-05
                                          (TBD, DEPLOYED, N/A) vary
                                         1-Jan-06  3-Feb-06  1-May-06 6-Jun-06  Aug-06  1-Nov-05                        Aug-06        75.00%       85.00%
     MTACS-38               4-Jun-05     1-Jan-06  3-Feb-06  1-May-06 6-Jun-06  Aug-06  1-May-06                       1-Jul-05       50.00%       85.00%
     MWCS-38               17-May-05      among units. This impedes1-Oct-05
                                         1-Jan-06  3-Feb-06  6-Jun-06 6-Jun-06  Aug-06                                 1-Jul-05       75.00%       85.00%
       VMU-1                1-May-06     5-Jul-06
                                                  data comparison and 6-Jun-06
                                                   3-Feb-06  6-Jun-06 6-Jun-06 6-Jun-06                                1-Jul-05       85.00%       85.00%
    3D LAAD BN             13-Jun-05     1-Jan-06  3-Feb-06  6-Jun-06 6-Jun-06 6-Jun-06 1-Nov-05                       1-Jul-06       75.00%       85.00%
     MWSG37                                                 analysis.
    MWSS-371               11-Aug-06     1-Jan-06    6-Jun-06     Aug-06       Aug-06       Aug-06        Aug-06        Aug-06        0.00%
    MWSS-372                7-Jun-06     1-Jan-06    6-Jun-06    6-Jun-06      6-Jun-06     5-Jul-06      Pending       Aug-06        75.00%       85.00%
    MWSS-373                18-Jul-06    1-Jan-06    6-Jun-06    6-Jun-06      6-Jun-06     Aug-06       1-May-06      1-Oct-05       85.00%       85.00%
    MWSS-374               13-Jun-05     1-Jan-06    6-Jun-06    6-Jun-06      6-Jun-06     5-Jul-06
      MWHS-3               10-Jun-06                 4-Aug-06    4-Aug-06      4-Aug-06    4-Aug-06      21-Sep-06                                18-Sep-06

06 December 2006
                   On-Line WPSR Data

06 December 2006
                   On-Line WPSR Report

   Database Report With Scoring

06 December 2006
  Pulls data from services‟ medical injury
  Drill Down to Battalion Equivalent Level
       – CoC Tables currently incomplete
       – Interconnect with M&RA to fix
  Summarizes Incident Data
       – No data editing (Done through Medical
       – No Retrievable Personal Information

06 December 2006
                   DSES Service Metrics

06 December 2006
                         Leading Indicators
   Near Misses
       – Initiatives being considered at DSOC Level to measure/track
       – WESS2 should be able to support
       – LI because they reveal at-risk behaviors that under other
         circumstances result in mishaps
   “Third Party” Driver Records
       – DSOC and/or USMC Initiative
       – Parameters for implementation & use not defined
       – LI because driver’s violations reflect recent at-risk behavior
   PMV Specific Indicators
       – DSOC PMV Task Force and USMC Initiatives
       – Significant Challenges for monitoring & collection
       – LI because they indicate at-risk driver behaviors that align
         statistically with probabilities for serious mishaps

06 December 2006
                   Near Miss~The “New” Class D

  Less Detail/Admin burden than a
  No Punitive function
  Disseminate items of Interest to wider
   audience (Like Lessons Learned)
  Degrade some events we now classify
   as mishaps (e.g. discharge into a
   clearing barrel)

06 December 2006
                   Third Party Driving Records

  Motor T currently using USIS for ~5,000
   GMV-licensed Marines
  Pilot Program at one or more bases:
       – Expand USIS Contract
       – Task Unit Motor T with D/L registry for all
         Marines within Unit (Check-in, Check out)
       – Add permissions for Safety/Other access to
         USIS portal for periodic or “by exception” data
06 December 2006
                   PMV Specific Indicators
   Collection of non-mishap PMV incidents
       – Crashes without injuries
       – Violations prior to adjudication (Self Reporting and
         local area MOUs)
       – Drinking and Driving (with or without citation)
       – Seatbelt use/non-use
       – Selected data manually entered by Unit Safety POC
   DBAT (Profile At-Risk Drivers)
       – In Process/DSOC Funded
       – Reveals driver perception or skill gaps that result in
         at-risk behavior
       – Target individuals for remedial training/intervention

06 December 2006
                               PMV Leading Indicators
                           LEADING INDICATORS
                                 Total ABC Mishaps      Crashes / Non-Mishap
Major Violations:                       (PCR)             (Base/Local Auth)            Self-Report              3rd Party Reports
DUIs                                                                                                                   ($)
Reckless/Aggressive Driving                                                                                            ($)

Driver PPE
- PMV Seatbelts
- MC Helmet/Clothing
Driver Fatigue                                                                                                        N/A
- PMV Driver Improvement
- MC Riders Course
Alcohol Incident (no Mishap)            N/A

            Challenge           Information not consistently reported; MCO or Policy Directive could correct.

          Step Change           Not currently reported in any consistent manner. Would require major
                                effort to establish uniform local MOU-based reporting.

          Available ($)         Information could be obtained from existing records or commercially at a cost.


 06 December 2006
                               Future Steps
   Integrate existing databases into one single data
       – Mishaps, Hazards, Medical, Driving records, M&RA, Civilian Lost
       – Allow direct entry and retrieval
   Incorporate desired new data points and processes
    into system
       –   Near Misses/Leading Indicators
       –   Equipment Failures
       –   Corrective actions & Lessons Learned
       –   Investigation processes & endorsements
   Refine how data is scored and weighted
       – Calculations not skewed by unit size
       – Build in ability to filter/phase out data elements that do not
         correlate to Safety Performance (will take time to ascertain)
06 December 2006
                     Safety Readiness Score
   Take the WPSR Elements to the next level
   Based on SORTS Model
       – Composite Safety Score S1, S2, S3, S4
       – Made up of:
            •   Mishap Performance
            •   Leading Indicators
            •   Safety Training
            •   Lost Time
       – Commands with S3, S4 would require intervention
       – Staffing: SORTS has designated Administrator and Trained Data
         Handler at BN/SN level
            • No Current Parallel Safety Role
   Consider future integration as an element within
    SORTS reporting

06 December 2006
   Ground Unit Staffing cannot support additional Data Management
       –   SORTS Model puts Data Manager and a Data Handler at Bn/Sn level
       –   Not all data originated/managed by the Unit Safety Officer, but defining/formalizing this billet
           at Bn level would be a 90% solution
   Too Many Passwords
       –   Entry to the individual products will require multiple layers of passwords
   Data incongruity
       –   Data sets in one system are not indexed to other systems
       –   Systems need to be indexed to Universal “relaters” = SSN, RUC (M&RA has done this )
       –   WESS2 Data Access and Retrieval needs improvement
   Security
       –   Inter-relation with systems on other domains (i.e. WESS to DSES)
   Commanders will likely object to being graded on items “outside their control”
       –   Paradigm Shift Needed
       –   Leadership and Accountability creates leverage necessary to find the means to get these
           items under their control
   Close “gap” between CZ and INCONUS reporting requirements
       –   CZ reports too little
       –   INCONUS too much
       –   We don’t need MORE data, just BETTER and MORE CONSISTENT data

06 December 2006

06 December 2006
                   Backup Slides

06 December 2006
                   Metrics vs Intervention

   Metrics                       Intervention
       – “Read-Only”               – User Specific (i.e.
       – Informative                 legal, SACO, Safety)
       – May or may not track      – Tracks to individual
         to an individual          – Focused on punitive or
       – Unit/Command focus          remedial action toward
       – Non-punitive                individual
       – Leads to organization     – May involve individual
         or corporate actions        specific Chain of

06 December 2006
                      How Should it Work?

   Login/Secure system
   Customize Entry Screen to default to User‟s
    Major and Subordinate Command(s)
   Permissions
       – Own Command/Level - Who?
       – Limited or Full Access to Subordinate Commands?
       – Balance of Detail vs Access
            • More Detail = More Privacy
            • Less Detail = Greater Access

06 December 2006
                   USMC In-Place Now

  ORM & Fundamentals, ORM Status
  Warrior Preservation Status Report
  Command Climate Survey
  Warrior Workshops
  USIS Driver History (For Motor T)

06 December 2006
                          In the Chute

   Driver Behavior Assessment Tool (DBAT)
       – Funded: DSOC
       – Implementation: 6 Months
   Defense Safety Enterprise System (DSES)
       – Funded: DoD
       – Implementation: 2+ Years
   Third Party Driver Records for ALL Drivers
       – Funded: Pends – USMC and/or DSOC
       – Implementation: 6+ Months
       – Possible expansion of existing USIS Services

06 December 2006
                   Near Term Dashboard

   Start by manually plugging data into one
    common database
   Roll Up and report out Metrics from CMC to
    Battalion/Squadron Level
   Work toward real-time interconnectivity
    among data sources
       – WESS2                -- DSES
       – MCTFS                -- PCR/SIR Reports
       – Third Party License Data (USIS/SAMBA)

06 December 2006
                   Leading Indicators

  An indicator whose value changes in
   relationship to a change in the larger
   system of which it is a component
       – Must be Observable, Measurable, and
         Controllable to be of value
       – Cannot assume all things we can measure or
         control have observable LI value
       – Should be behavior-focused
       – May include some “backward looking” metrics
06 December 2006
                   Dashboard Portal

06 December 2006
            15th ESB Tasker Update

       MARFORS (Lead) and SD (Support):

       Validate Road Warrior Award criteria, and analyze and make
       recommendations to establish different criteria for combat and non-
       combat awards.

                                                               Mr. Luis Ramirez
6 December 2006
                AIR   GROUND   OFF-DUTY



         MARFOR‟s – Keith Glavac
                   Briefed by:
              SD - Luis Ramirez
                                      AIR   GROUND   OFF-DUTY
                 PRESERVATION AWARD

                    MARINE CORPS

                    MARINE CORPS

                    MARINE CORPS
                    MERIT AWARD

                    ROAD WARRIOR

                   COMMAND SAFETY
                                           AIR    GROUND   OFF-DUTY

Road Warrior Award

• Motor vehicle operators: Mishap free, violation free
  driving (GMV including TACV)

      a. Individual: 2,500 miles (Logbooks)

      b. Unit: 4 mileage categories: 25,000; 50,000;
                  75,000; 100,000 miles

                Criteria from Senior Marine Drivers at
    Ft Leonard Wood Motor Transport School and from I & L SME‟s.
                                   AIR   GROUND   OFF-DUTY

Consensus MARFOR Recommended Criteria:

• Use for Non-Deployed Units

• Model it after the aviation awards system
             - award as mileage is achieved

• Miles accumulated by individual in all vehicles
  should be cumulative

• Have a separate award category for civilian drivers

                 ** KEEP IT SIMPLE **
                                                     AIR   GROUND   OFF-DUTY

Additional Criteria:

• „Restart the Clock‟:
  - any class A, B or C mishap, any violation written by a road master or
   MP, any DUI, suspended license, or serious civilian moving violation.

   - off base moving violations that come to the attention of the

• NOT „Restart the Clock‟:
  - mishap that is reportable or investigated as a CZ or SIB that is
   clearly not the fault of the individual or unit

   - Mechanical failure not due to driver or MHE operator lack of PM
            15th ESB Tasker Update

       MARFORS (Lead) and SD (Support):

       Develop policies and plans to establish motorcycle clubs at all bases and
       stations. Establish recommendations to enable first-time riders/owners to
       receive motorcycle safety training before operating motorcycles.

6 December 2006         Mr. Jason Hunt / Mr. Keith Glavac / Mr. Jeff Peters

         06 December 2006

        -ESB Tasks

        -Motorcycle Clubs

        -Motorcycle safety rider

        - Closing

          06 December 2006
          Information Brief


            Information Brief

             policy for motorcycle riders is in staffing.

           Policy requires all Marines and sailors to be members
            of a Command or Command authorized motorcycle
            safety club.

            Information Brief

             no Marine, Sailor, or Civilian has to wait more than
             30 days to receive motorcycle safety training.

           Accomplished with a multi pronged approach:
           - use of the local community colleges
           - contracted MSF courses on base
           - MSF trained volunteers conducting courses on base
           - state DOT provides the course on base at no cost to
             the base or students (in one case).

            Information Brief

           Developing a culture for safe Motorcycle
            riding will help ensure our Marines are ready
            to fight when called upon.

           These efforts will effect our Motorcycle
            mishaps as long as our Commanders
            continue to execute these policies and
            training to standard.

                        Motorcycle Clubs

•   MARFORPAC has required Motorcycle Safety Clubs to be established at each
    Base and Station since 2002.

•   Motorcycle Clubs at each installation will continue with periodic assessment of
    effectiveness and participation levels. Best practices from each Motorcycle Club
    will be shared with both Installations and MEF organizations.

•   Some Battalions and Squadrons have created clubs at the unit level. Unit
    (Bn/Sqd) motorcycle clubs are encouraged.

•   Bn/Sqd units should involve motorcycle riders and motorcycling education
    during mandatory unit Safe Driving Council/Safety Council meetings. The focus
    of this visit will be addressing motor vehicle mishaps
                   Motorcycle Training

• Recommendations:

   – Safety offices certify additional instructors and course sites aboard

   – Pool instructors from regional areas to meet needs.

   – Locally contract certified instructors.

   – Identify tuition assistance eligibility for riders to take approved and
     accredited motorcycle safety courses at local colleges/institutions.
      Motorcycle Riders Club

Reserve Units Geographically Dispersed
Low Number of Riders on Active Staff
Units Near Installation can Piggy Back
MFR Promotes, Requires and Funds MSF
 Approved Training
            15th ESB Tasker Update

       MCCDC (Lead) and TECOM (Support):

       Develop a proposal to outsource motorcycle safety training and assist
       bases and stations to eliminate the backlog of Marines waiting for training.
       Explore partnerships with local colleges, training schools and funding

                                                                Mr. Herman Harke
6 December 2006
Motorcycle Training in the USMC

          Herman Harke
            Nov 2006
                    ESB Tasker

• Develop a proposal to outsource motorcycle
  safety training and standardize the policy for all
  bases and stations in order to eliminate the
  backlog of Marines waiting for training.
  Explore partnerships with local colleges, training
  schools, and funding options.
                   Current State

MCBs and Stations currently use a variety training
methodologies to obtain training from an Motorcycle
Safety Foundation (MSF)* approved source.
1. In house instructors (volunteer and on T/O)
2. Contract agencies (colleges or private motorcycle
   training businesses)
3. Provide reimbursement
* MSF is currently the only DOD authorized source of
   motorcycle training (DODI 6055.4)
In-House Instructors (T/O or volunteer)
1. Advantages
• T/O offers greater control of availability
• Trained
• Allows for other use of the instructor
2. Disadvantage
• Volunteers- Less flexibility
• Requires compensatory reduction of force structure
• Requires govt owned motorcycles
• Have to obtain MSF instructor certification
      Contracted Training Source
1. Advantage
• Less management, money is required to fund
2. Disadvantages
• Cost $100-300 – Basic Rider Course (BRC) and
    $60-225 – Experienced Rider Course (ERC)
• Availability of training source locally
• Training times subject to range availability
• Little ability to react to surge
• Local contraction only (No USMC wide contract)
• Japan SOFA restrictions limits to in-house
• Cannot meet the need for Reserves, MCRC and TECOM
     Reimbursement for Training

• Less management, funding is required.
• Individual Marine must find the local MSF
  training source
• Cost is generally the same as contract
• Availability of training source locally
• Command must ID process for
  reimbursement to individual Marine and
  make it work

1. We maintain all three options (In-House, Contract
    and Reimbursement training options)
2. Establish Coach Instructors at the Marine Corps
    Installation (MCI) levels to sustain regional
    training base for instructors (Only MCIWEST
    currently has now)
3. Pursue a change to the DODI that allows “MSF or
    equivalent motorcycle training” to provide
– University of Michigan Motorcycle Program.
   Motorcycle Safety Foundation Issues

1. MSF is only game in town (DODI)
2. MSF training has not changed in years
3. MSF is individual businesses and
4. MSF as sole source limits USMC
   flexibility for enhanced training
5. Obtaining instructors and training
   through MSF is highly subject to local
            15th ESB Tasker Update

       MCCDC (Lead) and SD (Support):

       Look at the SNCO safety billet allocations for the SNCO degree
       completion program and determine where they need to be placed to best
       support the USMC.

                                                            Mr. Luis Ramirez
6 December 2006
                  AIR   GROUND   OFF-DUTY



      MCCDC – Herman Harke
                Briefed by:
          SD - Luis Ramirez
                         AIR   GROUND   OFF-DUTY


 The program provides SNCO‟s an
 opportunity to obtain baccalaureate
 degrees which fulfill Marine Corps
 requirements and satisfy educational
                          AIR   GROUND   OFF-DUTY

 To provide qualified SNCO‟s to fill
 specific billets requiring baccalaureate
 degree/4-year level college training in
 specialized areas to meet requirements
 within the Marine Corps.
 Degree completion has 18 month cycle.
    Marine obtains MOS 9917
                                AIR    GROUND   OFF-DUTY

Marine Corps Safety has 9 SNCO Degree Completion
  Billets located at:
  MCB CAMP PENDLETON       Capable & Costly
  MCB CAMP PENDLETON       Commanders…..
  MCLB BARSTOW               How well are
                            these SNCO‟s
  MCAS MIRAMAR                   used?
  MCAS MIRAMAR             ** Justifications
                           for all received**


                               AIR   GROUND   OFF-DUTY

Three proposed SNCO program COA‟s:
      MMEA – TFSD – SD Consensus

• Eliminate program:   No

• Add Billets:         No

• Reallocate:          Yes

  Recommendation: Reallocate Billets > 2 COA‟s
                                AIR   GROUND   OFF-DUTY

          Reallocate Billets:

COA #1: To 9 Major USMC Installations

Okinawa                    Hawaii
Miramar                    Camp Lejeune
Iwakuni                    Quantico
Beaufort                   29 Palms
Camp Pendleton
                              AIR   GROUND   OFF-DUTY

            Reallocate Billets:

COA #2: To more „Operational‟ setting

•   MAW : 3 billets

•   MEF : 3 billets
                        Recommend pushing support
                        To MLG from MEF/DIV
•   DIV   : 3 billets
                              AIR   GROUND   OFF-DUTY

           Implementation Procedures:

•   Staggered moves to implement

•   SNCO is NOT duty expert > send to GSM
    training immediately after graduation and
    before reporting to safety billet duty
            15th ESB Tasker Update

       MCI East and MCI West:

       Nominate bases within the respective regions to be used for the private
       motor vehicle driving record beta test.

6 December 2006                       Mr. David Barragan / Mr. Jordan Pickett
             15th ESB Tasker Update
       Develop a beta test using national systems provided by a private
       corporation to get driver reports. Include how the information will be used,
       funding required, monitored population and frequency.

       Draft USMC policy requiring self-reporting policy for any violation.

       Develop policy for on base traffic violations to be adjudicated by unit

       Develop a campaign for the concept of “Over the Limit, Under Arrest” to
       be released Corp’s-wide.

       Develop a standard memorandum of agreement for use by all installations
       for interaction and cooperation between base activities and surrounding
       law enforcement agencies.
                                                                    Col Anderson
6 December 2006
    Security Division

16th Executive Safety Board
    HQMC PP&O (PS)

      6 December 2006

• To provide information in response to 15th ESB
taskings to DC, PP&O
                       Beta Testing

- Documented evidence that the act of monitoring driving records
    serves as a positive agent for at-risk behavior modification
• Develop a beta test using national systems to gather driving
  information on the test population:
   •Test installations will be MCAS Beaufort (4,200) and MCAS Miramar
   •Recommend a test period of six months with reports generated monthly
       •Will need time to populate database prior to implementing
       •PMV TF willing to serve as funding source
       •Monthly monitoring provides earliest possible notification of incidents
   •Separate reports generated for each installation; broken out to the Unit
   Commander level
              Beta Testing (cont)

• Develop a beta test using national systems to gather driving
  information on the test population:
   •Required information to input into database includes Marine’s name,
   Driver’s License number, and assigned unit
       •Admin burden to initially populate the database will be performed by
       •After initial population, changes (check-in/out) become command
   •A wide range of previously unknown violations will be revealed (DUIs,
   revocations, etc.)
                     Self Reporting

• Develop a proposal for a USMC-wide self-reporting policy
  for off-base violations:
   •Any off-base LE interaction resulting in a citation or arrest will be
   reported to the Unit Commander
   •Marines required to report incidents to chain of command within 72-
   •Incidents occurring while on leave or TAD will be reported immediately
   upon return
   •Self-reporting requirement could limit Commander’s options
       -Fifth amendment concerns on self-incrimination
       -Although non-judicial punishment would not be precluded, evidence
       would be inadmissible at a trial by court-martial
   •If discipline is not a concern self-reporting is a viable option for earlier
   notification, but will be redundant with record monitoring in place.
                      Unit Commander

• Develop a proposed policy to allow/direct on-base traffic
  violations to be adjudicated by the Unit Commander:
    •Any on-base LE interaction resulting in a citation (1408/1805) will be
    reported to the Unit Commander (copy of ticket sent to unit)
        •Requirement in LE Manual
    •Unit Commander has options for adjudication
        •Take unit action and refer the individual to base traffic court
        •Take no unit action and refer the individual to base traffic court
• These options maintain the Installation Commander’s authority to
               Media Campaign

• Develop a campaign to reinforce the concept of
  “Over the Limit, Under Arrest” to be released Corps wide:
   •DoD Internal Communications, through the PMV TF, is currently
   developing a campaign to be released DoD wide based upon the “Over
   the Limit, Under Arrest" concept
   •HQMC PP&O (PS) is working with DoD Internal Communications to
   monitor the progress of their campaign and offer assistance in its
   •Recommend HQMC/PAO direct installations to utilize DoD Internal
   Communications concept for campaign to reinforce “Over the Limit,
   Under Arrest” upon its release.
             Standardized MOUs

• Establish an MOU that will be used by all installations for
  interaction and cooperation between base activities and
  surrounding agencies in the local community:
   •PP&O (PS) will require each PMO to establish MOU with nearby law
   enforcement agencies
       •Requirement in LE Manual
   •MOU will outline requirement for law enforcement notification and
   turnover, when required to PMO for certain violations committed by
   Marines off-base
       •Commands must be prepared to take custody of their offenders
       •Some installations may have unique circumstances that might
       preclude some desired arrangements in an MOU (overseas, state law
       restrictions, etc)
                     Road Ahead

• Complete HQMC JA review of Self-Reporting Policy (on and off
• Continue to engage DoD Internal Communications in the
  development of DoD/USMC-wide media campaign
• Work with HQMC/PAO to ensure final campaign is implemented
• Initiate review of Policies / Regulations governing the Base Traffic
  Court to identify any changes needed to facilitate Unit Commander’s
  options as it relates to adjudication
• (Beaufort and Miramar) Begin gathering the information required to
  conduct the Private Industry beta test
• Finalize contract and funding for the test period
            15th ESB Tasker Update


      Add MARSOC to ESB Charter

6 December 2006                   Mr. Donald Weightman
Signed Sept 26, 2006
            15th ESB Tasker Update

       SD (Lead) and MARFORS, MEFs (Support):

       Develop recommendations regarding the Marine Internal Consultant
       (MCON) Program.

                                                      Mr. Donald Weightman
6 December 2006
                  MCON Recommendations
   • All MARFOR’s responded via message traffic.
   • All MARFOR’s are in favor of the program
     continuing provided:
        – The MCON’s are supporting their parent MEF and not
          outside elements.
        – HQMC provides clear guidance and direction
          (POA&M) outlining the “Way Ahead” for the program
          to include a manpower resource plan.
        – CMC SD mandate an annual review of the program.

6 December 2006
MCBUL 5100: Marine Internal Consultant
    Duties and Responsibilities

                         MCBul provides long-term
                         vision, goals and guidance
Duties and Responsibilities
            15th ESB Tasker Update
       SD and Naval Post Graduate School:

       Provide ACMC with an update on the civilian lost workday rate data that is
       currently being collected for examination.

       SD work with NPGS to provide assistance needed for the civilian lost
       workday study

                                                                 Capt Robinson
6 December 2006
USMC Civilian Lost Workdays Study
          Capt Tim Robinson, USMC
                      USMC Civilian Lost Workdays: Objectives
   Investigate why USMC civilian lost workdays metric is
    significantly higher than other services
   Apply data analysis to
    Examine reporting techniques & procedures
        •Arethe reports correct?
        •Why is USMC lost workday metric higher than other services?
        •What are influencing factors?
         –Examine       recorded elements
           Location, Job type, Nature of Injury, Injury Circumstances, Employee

           Factors, etc.
        •Could   service reporting methods contribute to difference?
         –Examine       reporting practices
           ►   e.g. how is “lost workday” defined?

   Recommend improvements
                                          USMC LWD: Update

   Received Assistance from NSC
    LtCol Jon Maccartney, Terrie Rockett, CDR Edward
   Received Assistance from DMDC
    Reza Nouri
        •Computes   LWD and compiles Top 40 List
   Started Analysis
    1st Step: Reproduce chart values
    2nd Step: Identify any trends
                                USMC LWD Update: DMDC Data
   Marine civilians categorized as Navy
    double count?
   Use Monitored Command Code (MCC)
    Example MCC “27” captures all Marines
   Different UICs every quarter
    RFI to DMDC to find out why and what reason
   MCCs & UICs don‟t match USMC Codes
   LWD metric computation
    Misleading as a single measure
    Values difficult to reproduce
        –Data   tracking / errors
                                                            LWD Rate Metric
   Highlights LWD by Individual Civilian
    Not by whole organization
        •In   2006 ~40 Individuals accounted for ~80% of LWD
         –High     USMC LWD Rate Value
              ►Driven by 0.3 % of the USMC Civilian Workforce
        •High     LWD Rate
         –Could     indicate
              ►A few individuals with many LWD
              ►A few errors in the data

   Does not take into account hiring/firing
        •Should    be done by pay period and averaged over 26
   Supporting Data
    Data maintenance questions arise
    Errors in Data
   DMDC Data Errors
    Pay periods over 10-days
      •2 weeks x 5 days = 10 total for pay period
      •Increases LWD Metric
    Fiscal Year with more than 260 days
      •26 pay periods/year x 10 days = 260 days/year
      •Increases LWD Metric

   “Repeat Offenders”
    Often miss an entire year
    Only a few drive LWD up disproportionately

   Age is a factor
    Need to compare MC ages to other services.
        •Are   workforces similar in age?
                       Definitions of Measures & LWD Formula
Continuation of Pay (COP)
                                    LWDrate =

Days to recover from injury
                                           COP + LWOP
    •45   days allowed by law                                    x 200,000
Leave Without Pay (LWOP):
                                           Prorated Days
Days to recover from injury
    •beyond    initial 45 COP days
Prorated Days:
                                        100 Employees x 40 hrs x 50 wks
Total paid days per pay period
                                                Days =
Prorated Hours:
                                         COP + LWOP + Reg Days
Converted to Prorated Days
    •Regular   Days
                                         •Prorated   Days should sum to 10
     –    Days worked
                                            – per   pay period
     –    Sick Leave
     –    Annual Leave
    •Continuationof Pay
    •Leave Without Pay
Employees with more than 20 LWDs in 2006
                           U 41 out of 13,266
                           M 76.5% all LWD
                           C 14.5 Days/Pay
                           N   303 out of 160,233
                           V   81.5% all LWD
                               123.27 Days/Pay
                           U   368 out of 220,820
                           A   80.9% all LWD
                               158.82 Days/Pay
                           U   209 out of 158,225
                           A   81.4% all LWD
                               89.4 Days/Pay
                                             Service Comparison
                                   Using Employees with > 20 LWD
                                                  U 41 out of 13266
                                                  M 76.5% all LWD
                                                  C 14.5 Days/Pay
                                                  N   303 out of 160233
                                                  V   81.5% all LWD
                                                      123.27 Days/Pay
0.31 % of Workforce Composes 76.5% of Metric      U   368 out of 220820
                                                  A   80.9% all LWD
0.19 % of Workforce Composes 81.5% of Metric          158.82 Days/Pay
0.31 % of Workforce Composes 80.9% of Metric      U   209 out of 158225
                                                  A   81.4% all LWD
0.13 % of Workforce Composes 89.4% of Metric          89.4 Days/Pay
                                          Thesis Research Milestones
   Timeline                                  January – March 2007
    Academic thesis                           Data Analysis
        •Slower than typical study
                                              April – June 2007
         – No cost
   Done
    Background research
                                              July – Aug 2007
                                               Conclusions &
    Complete data set
   Nov – Dec 2006
                                              Sep 2007
    Student Experience Tour
        •Research   reporting
                                               Final Report
        •Format data
        •Contact local unit in Quantico
         to study reporting procedures
        •Findings to paper
   Data
        •Format   data into usable format using MS Access
        •Insight gained by analysis determined       by data
        •Rift btw NSC & DMDC Data
         –Key   records not included
          ►e.g. total lost workdays often empty
         –Entries   not consistent
          ►lost workdays do not match date records
         –As   a result Analysis will be twofold
          ►Some findings using NSC data & some using DMDC data
    Other services
        •Complete    analysis includes inter-service comparison
         –Need   authorization to access to USA & USAF data
          ►Constrained heavily by time
            15th ESB Tasker Update

       SD (Lead) and M&RA (Support):

       Work with safety managers and M&RA on standardized measurement of
       civilian lost workdays. Provide data and causal factors for USMC reporting

                                                                Mr. Rich Coyle
6 December 2006
16th Executive Safety Board

Safety Performance

            Richard M. Coyle
            Head, Occupational Safety & Health
            CMC Safety Division
          Measuring Safety Performance

• NAVSAFECEN Analysis –
                MCLB Barstow Civilian Lost Workday Rate
   ° LWD Rate reduced by 36% since FY04 – still #1 on Top 40

   ° 88% of civilian LWDs charged in FY06 were for prior year injuries

       – Heavy Penalty for Old Sins – remaining under the microscope

• DMDC Data Collection Process
   ° Unit Identification Codes (UIC)

   ° Barstow consists of MCI-W and LOGCOM commands – one UIC

   ° Excessive Cost to separate/create new UICs

• LWDs - Inaccurate Measurement of Safety Performance
     Measuring Safety Performance

             DMDC Incident Rate


20                            DoD
15                            LOGCOM
10                            MCLB Barstow
5                             USA
0                             USAF
      FY04    FY05   FY06
           Measuring Safety Performance

The Way Ahead
• Continue working with DMDC
   ° Worker comp case management trends – LWD Rate
   ° Safety performance – Incident Rate
   ° DSOC - working toward change for DMDC
   ° New Top 40 List on hold

•For Now
   ° Use WPSR as management tool for tracking safety performance
   ° End reliance on LWD Rates for safety performance

•RECOMMENDATION: Keep this task “OPEN”

6 December 2006

To top