Posted By Jerry Sanderson To complement the formal auditing programme that a colleague runs. He is thinking of carrying out a postal audit that managers will complete themselves and return. Whilst there are inherent flaws in this system as it relies on whoever fills the audit questionnaire being truthful,in a large multi-operational organisation with very limited resources this may prove a useful tool to back up the findings of the formal audits. As the colleague does not have access to the internet(as stated limited resources) he has asked me to ask if anyone has used this type of safety audit system and whether or not it was effective? I will pass on any responses to him.Thank you for your co-operation. Regards. Jerry.

Posted By Neil Budworth Just to add to what Allan has said we have used these in a limited fashion, but the way we use them is as an indicator of activity, so we ask for responses which illstrate that the work has been undertaken. So if we get a poor response or no response we know to target that area. Equally if any of the answers are 'imaginative' we can hold the manager accountable. Best Regards Neil

Posted By John Dodson A system very similar to this has been operated by my organisation (a large County Council) for nearly 10 years. It has been most successfully used as part of a package of measures to audit schools. Each year each school is sent what we call an annual internal monitoring checklist. There are different versions for the different types of school. It covers all of the usual aspects addressed during a full health and safety audit. The monitoring checklist is revised each year (the latest version bears very little resemblance to the first). In particular we have had to be more specific about the questions being asked. For example, earlier versions might ask a simple question about whether LEV in the design and technology workshop had been thoroughly examined and tested by a competent person. Respondents had a simple Yes or No box to complete. Unfortunately this did not always elicit an accurate response! In some cases people said yes when they meant no and in other cases they would put Yes when one item of equipment had been checked but another seven had not! The latest version of the form requires the respondent to identify each piece of LEV and to indicate the date on which it was inspected and by whom. This approach seems to have made the checklist much more effective. The completed forms are reported to both the governing body and the LEA. In the early years response rates of 70% were not uncommon but now the aim is 100% - where a response is not forthcoming (after considerable prompting) a full audit will normally be arranged. Any unclear or incomplete responses are also followed up. The annual inspection checklist complements a five yearly audit of each establishment by a professional health and safety adviser. Part of the audit considers how the monitoring checklists were completed and whether action identified had been addressed. Overall I consider the system to have been very effective in schools. It has encouraged local ownership of health and safety management. When it was first introduced it was not popular but it did reveal whole areas where local managers did not understand health and safety requirements. It therefore lead to a major training programme. The checklist is now much better received and indeed its not unheard of to receive complaints that they have not yet received it! This approach has not worked quite as successfully in all areas of the organisation. To work effectively it does need considerable input although this is mainly by administrative staff (appropriately advised by health and safety advisers). It is a very flexible system and in a particular year could be used to address a particular area of concern. Indeed HSE inspectors in the past have suggested areas which the checklist could concentrate on. If there has been a recent initiative the checklist can assess how well the initiative has been implemented locally. For example, the recent implementation of a Code of Practice on the management of asbestos in schools. We have found that rather than just simply monitoring compliance the checklist actually encourages compliance. John