Work Practices & Employee Engagement / Perception Models

Work Practices & Employee Engagement / Perception Models for Improving Workplace Safety Jan K. Wachter Alcoa Foundation Mr. Pat Yorio, IUP Safety Sciences Department Two Major Approaches to Managing Safety Safety management system approaches Planning; risk identification, analysis, control and reduction; operational control; directives and processes; continual improvement OHSAS 18001, ISO 14001, ANSI/AIHA Z-10 (process based); combination of risk management and quality approaches OSHA VPP (performance based) Behavior-based approaches Employee observations and feedback; critical behavior inventory Problem? Safety management systems will always be flawed: you cant plan and control to such a flawless degree that is practical / economical these systems tend to be inflexible, while work is adaptive flawed people develop and implement these flawed systems Behavior is hard to understand and change The two approaches are an either-or proposition for many organizations

Safety Management Systems Behavioral Approaches Anatomy of an Event (Department of Energy) IUP Research Study (Surveys + Interviews) Safety manager / supervisor survey Which safety management practices tend to reduce accident rates? Employee survey What is the role of employee perception / behavioral constructs in reducing accident rates? Link surveys How do safety management practices and employee perceptions work together to reduce accident rates? Interviews at high performing organizations What human performance tools work in managing human error? Why do these work? Framework for Controlling an Event from a Human Performance Perspective Behavior-based Safety Flawed Flawed Controls Controls Latent Latent Organizational Organizational

Weaknesses Weaknesses (policies, (policies, processesand and processes programs) programs) Safety Management System Initiating Initiating Action Action (Active (Active Error) Error) EVENT EVENT Error Error Precursors Precursors Human Human Performance Performance Tools Tools Worker

Worker Engagement Engagement Employee Survey Results Regarding the Presence of Error Precursors in the Workplace . Mean Response 3.44 At work, there are time pressures. I feel rushed. 2.94 At work, there are mental pressures. I find it difficult to concentrate. 3.31 At work, I conduct many non-routine tasks. 3.01 At work, I conduct many new / unfamiliar tasks. 3.51 At work, I typically have a high workload. 3.72 At work, I typically multi-task doing many different things at the same time. 3.06 At work, I receive work guidance which is at times vague or imprecise. 3.19 At work, there are many distractions around me. At work, there is low likelihood of management detecting a violation of safety rules. 2.71 2.35 At work, safety requirements are very inconvenient to comply with. Measure Legend: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree Correlations between the Presence of Reported Error Precursors and Near Misses, First Aid Injuries and Injuries Beyond First Aid Measure

At work, there are time pressures. I feel rushed. At work, there are mental pressures. I find it difficult to concentrate. At work, I conduct many non-routine tasks. At work, I conduct many new / unfamiliar tasks. At work, I typically have a high workload. At work, I typically multi-task doing many different things at the same time. At work, I receive work guidance which is at times vague or imprecise. At work, there are many distractions around me. At work, there is low likelihood of management detecting a violation of safety rules. At work, safety requirements are very inconvenient to comply with. Note: * p <.05 Near Misses Beyond First Aid First Aid Events Events .19* .16* .12* .10* .11* .03 .10* .08* .06* .06* .02 .03

.08* .06* .04 .05* .04 .01 .16* .08* .05* .23* .16* .09* .09* .08* .06* .19* .10* .09* Employee Survey Results on Performance Modes Used by Workers in Error-Prone Situations Number of workers responding to this inquiry was 2,262 Question: When I am confronted with really abnormal conditions or unusual situations, my strongest tendency is to do which of the following: Percent

Response SKILL-BASED MODE: I stop work and seek guidance as to how to proceed. 41.0% RULE-BASED MODE: I apply rules, procedures, and protocols and use them as guidance as to how to proceed. 27.8% KNOWLEDGE-BASED MODE: I draw upon my own existing knowledge and use it as guidance as to how to proceed (e.g., thinking things through on the spot). 22.2% Framework for Controlling an Event from a Human Performance Perspective Behavior-based Safety Flawed Flawed Controls Controls Latent Latent Organizational Organizational Weaknesses Weaknesses (policies, (policies, processesand and

processes programs) programs) Safety Management System Initiating Initiating Action Action (Active (Active Error) Error) EVENT EVENT Error Error Precursors Precursors Human Human Performance Performance Tools Tools Worker Worker Engagement Engagement Interview Results: Top 10 human performance improvement tools (from high performing organizations)

Conducting Worker-Centric Pre-task and Post-task Briefings (e.g., Toolbox Meetings) Self-Checking / STAR Take-A-Minute / Job-Site Review STOP and Seek / STOP When Unsure / Pause When Unsure Questioning Attitude Identifying Critical Steps Coaching and Observation Three-Way (Repeat Back) Communications Concurrent Verification / Peer Checking Procedure Use, Adherence and Review Why Do These Human Performance Tools Work? Heighten workers situational awareness activates workers personal defenses Heighten workers sense of uneasiness ditto ACTIVELY ENGAGE THE WORKER Cognitive, emotional and physical To be aware of the flaws (error precursors) in the safety management system? To be aware of the flaws in themselves? Safety Manager / Supervisor Survey Qualitative Questions What is the most important human performance tool being used (by your organization) for human error prevention or human performance improvement? Qualitative question in survey. What is the degree of worker engagement associated with these human error prevention / human performance improvement tools? Transformed data from qualitative answers provided above. What is the most important tool being used (by your organization) to

engage workers in the safety function? Qualitative question in survey. What is the degree of worker engagement associated with these worker engagement tools? Transformed data from qualitative answers provided above. Description of Engagement Levels for Survey Responses Description Engagement Level 1 VERY PASSIVE; VERY LOW LEVEL 2 PASSIVE; LOW LEVEL 3 NEUTRAL 4 ACTIVE; HIGH LEVEL Survey response is manager-centric and/or the response does not mention the worker at all. It is improbable that the response would engage the worker cognitively, emotionally and/or physically.

Survey response is manager-centric and/or the response does not mention the worker at all. It is unlikely that the response would engage the worker cognitively, emotionally and/or physically. The survey response is neutral. It does not specifically mention the worker and/or it is unclear or uncertain if the response could engage the worker cognitively, emotionally and/or physically. Survey response mentions (or strongly alludes to) the worker The response probably engages the worker cognitively, emotionally and/or physically. 5 VERY ACTIVE; VERY HIGH LEVEL Survey response is clearly worker-centric. The response specifically states an employee action or activity that should engage the worker cognitively, emotionally and/or physically. Percent of Responses in Human Performance Improvement Tool Categories Average score = 2.7 Percent of Human Performance Improvement Tool Responses by Worker Engagement Level

Percent of Responses in Worker Engagement Tool Categories Average score = 3.2 Percent of Worker Engagement Tool Responses by Worker Engagement Level 1 Set of Conclusions st High-performing organizations often cite that using tools that engage their workers is critical to their human performance success pre-task and posttask briefings Current practice: Tools being used across organizations to prevent human error are not necessarily those tools being used by highperforming organizations. The general worker engagement level of these human error prevention approaches is medium/low and can be considered to be somewhat passive. 1 Set of Conclusions st Current practice: Majority of tools that are being used by these organizations to actually engage workers in safety are not generally the same ones that are being used to increase human performance. These engagement tools are also not exceptionally engaging to workers. In order for organizations to enhance human performance and reduce human error, safety managers and their organizations need to become better educated and focused on adopting those human performance tools being used by highperforming organizations today that engage workers. Research Study 1:

An investigation of safety management system practices (and worker engagement) on safety performance outcomes (TRC and DART rates; numbers of accidents) Research Model for Study Number 1 Hiring Practices for Safety TRC and DART Rates Cooperation Facilitation Safety Training Accident Investigation Detection and Monitoring Safe Task Assignment Employee Involvement in Specific Safety-Related Processes Engagement (mediation) Safety Management Practices Pre- and Post -Task Safety Reviews Establishment Sector Communication and Information Sharing Activities

Establishment Size Safe Work Procedures Research Questions Question 1. Is there a significant relationship between the safety management system (or its individual ten safety management practices) with TRC and DART rates? Do sector or organization size matter in the significance/strength of these relationships? Question 2. Is there a significant relationship between the level of safety worker engagement (emotional engagement; cognitive engagement) with TRC and DART rates? Research Questions Question 3. Can safety management practices and/or worker engagement levels be used to individually predict safety performance outcomes as measured by TRC and DART rates? Question 4. Can safety management practices be used to predict worker engagement levels? Question 5. Does worker engagement (emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, and composite) act as a mediator between the safety management system and safety performance outcomes as measured by TRC and DART rates and number of accidents? Correlations for Safety Management Practices and Engagement Levels with Safety Outcomes (Safety Manager Survey) 1. TRC Rate 2. DART Rate 3. Emotional Engagement 4. Cognitive Engagement 5. Engagement Composite 6. System of Safety Management Practices (Total)

7. Safe Work Procedures 8. Employee Involvement 9. Safe Task Assignment 10. Pre- /Post-Task Safety Reviews 11. Detection and Monitoring 12. Accident Investigation 13. Communication and Information Sharing 14. Safety Training 15. Cooperation Facilitation 16. Hiring for Safety TRC Rate DART Rate .74 -.34 -.27 -.32 -.29 -.22 -.30 -.15 -.27 -.16 -.13 -.23 -.27 -.22 -.13 -.33 -.21 -.30 -.27 -.21 -.29

-.13 -.30 -.13 -.16 -.19 -.22 -.16 -.12 Note: All correlations are significant at the p <.05 level. Correlations greater than or equal to .17 or less than or equal to -.17 are significant at the p <.001 level. Safety Management Practice Composites Rank Order (Predicting TRC Rate) Note: Rankings based on squared correlation (R) from simple linear regression models. SAFETY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT / INFLUENCE SAFETY TRAINING TOTAL SAMPLE TRC RATE NON> 500 MANUFACT 500 MANUFACT -URING EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE -URING S TRC RATE S TRC RATE TRC RATE TRC RATE 1 2

1 3 1 2 1 4 1 6 3 4 2 4 2 4 9 3 2 7

5 6 5 5 5 6 5 6 7 3 7 7 7 6 9 8 3 10 8

10 ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION 9 10 8 9 8 HIRING PRACTICES FOR SAFETY 10 8 9 10 4 PRE- AND POST-TASK SAFETY REVIEWS COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SHARING COOPERATION FACILITATION SAFE WORK PROCEDURES DETECTION AND MONITORING TASK-EMPLOYEE MATCHING

Safety Management Practice Composites Rank Order (Predicting DART Rate) Note: Rankings based on squared correlation (R) from simple linear regression models. SAFETY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRE- AND POST-TASK SAFETY REVIEWS EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT / INFLUENCE SAFETY TRAINING SAFE WORK PROCEDURES COOPERATION FACILITATION COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SHARING ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION TASK-EMPLOYEE MATCHING HIRING PRACTICES FOR SAFETY DETECTION AND MONITORING >500 NON 500 TOTAL MANUFACT MANUFACT EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE SAMPLE -URING S DART -URING S DART DART RATE DART RATE RATE

DART RATE RATE 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 4 3 7 4 4 5

6 3 6 6 6 5 6 5 10 3 4 9 7 8 8 5 7 10 7 9

8 5 9 9 8 10 4 10 7 9 8 10 Safety Management Practice Composite Rankings across TRC and DART Rates Note: Rankings based on squared correlation (R) from simple linear regression models. SAFETY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT / INFLUENCE PRE- AND POST-TASK SAFETY REVIEWS SAFETY TRAINING COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SHARING SAFE WORK PROCEDURES COOPERATION FACILITATION

TASK-EMPLOYEE MATCHING ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION DETECTION AND MONITORING HIRING PRACTICES FOR SAFETY GENERALIZED TOTAL TOTAL AVERAGE RANK (ALL SAMPLE SAMPLE RANK ACROSS GROUPS) TRC (ALL GROUPS) (ALL GROUPS) TRC AND AND DART TRC RATE DART RATE DART RATES RATES 1 2 1.5 1 3 1 2.0 2

2 3 2.5 3 4 5 4.5 4 6 5 8 9 7 4 6 8 7 10 5 5.5 8.0 8.0 8.5 5 6 7

7 9 10 9 9.5 10 Regression Results: Prediction of TRC and DART Rates by Safety Management System and Engagement Constructs (Safety Manager Survey) Outcomes Predictor TRC Rate R DART Rate R -.11* .09 -.06* .07 -1.08* .11

-.58* .09 Emotional Engagement -.97* .11 -.55* .11 Cognitive Engagement -.87* .07 -.41* .05 Safety Management System Engagement Composite Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients reported. * p < .01 Employee Involvement / Influence in Specific Safety-Related Processes Safe Work Procedures Communication and Information Sharing

TRC Rate Pre- Post-Task Safety Reviews Hiring Practices for Safety Cooperation Facilitation Safety Training Accident Investigation Detection and Monitoring Safe Task Assignment Mediator Systems of Safety Management Practices MEDIATION ENGAGEMENT DART Rate Mediation Regression Results (Safety Manager Survey) *p <.05, **p <.01. Mediators Outcomes Engagement TRC Rate DART Rate Predictors

Engagement Composite Emotional Cognitive Engagement Composite Emotional Cognitive Engagement Composite Emotional Cognitive Employee Engagement Composite NA NA NA -.24** NA NA

-.21** NA NA Emotional Engagement NA NA NA NA -.73** NA NA -.26** NA Cognitive Engagement NA NA NA

NA NA -.15* NA NA -.09 Safety Management System .07** .07** .06** -.16* -.15* -.21** -.15* -.13* -.22** .35 .29 .29

.12 .10 .10 .10 .12 .08 Adjusted R Above results show partial mediation through engagement of safety management systems effects on TRC and DART rates. Correlations for Various Constructs (Supervisor & Employee Surveys) (n = 60) 1. Recordable Accidents 2. Lost Time Accidents 3. Emotional Engagement 4. Cognitive Engagement 5. Composite Engagement 6. Safety Management System 7. Safe Work Procedures 8. Employee Involvement 9. Safe Task Assignment 10. Pre- & Post- Task Safety Reviews 11. Detection & Monitoring 12. Accident Investigation 13. Communication & Info Sharing 14. Safety Training 15. Cooperation Facilitation 16. Hiring for Safety 1. Recordable Accidents 2. Lost Time Accidents .91 -.48 -.67 -.63

-.45 -.44 -.37 -.28 -.45 -.41 -.15 -.40 -.08 -.36 .08 -.41 -.59 -.56 -.42 -.38 -.41 -.18 -.49 -.35 -.13 -.41 -.07 -.37 .05 Note: All correlations greater than or equal to .27 or less than or equal to -.27 are significant at the p <.05 level. All correlations greater than or equal to .35 or less than or equal to -.35 are significant at the p = .01 level. Regression Results: Prediction of Number of Recordable and Lost Time Accidents by Safety Management Systems and Engagement Constructs (Supervisor and Employee Surveys) Outcomes Recordable Incidents

R Lost Time Incidents R Safety Management Systems -.03* .20 -.02* .18 Engagement Composite -.59* .40 -.41* .31 Emotional Engagement -.41* .23 -.28*

.17 Cognitive Engagement -.59* .45 -.41* .35 Predictor Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients reported. * p < .01 Mediation Regression Results (Supervisor and Employee Surveys) Mediators Outcomes Engagement Composite Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement Employee Engagement Composite NA NA

NA -.54** NA NA -.35** NA NA Emotional Engagement NA NA NA NA -.29* NA NA -.01 NA Cognitive

Engagement NA NA NA NA NA -.56** NA NA -.37** Safety Management System .04** .03** .04** -.01 -.02 -.00 -.01

-.17 -.00 .38 .29 .38 .41 .29 .45 .32 .23 .36 Predictors Adjusted R Recordable Accidents Lost Time Accidents Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients reported. p <.07, *p <.05, **p <.01. Above results show strong mediation through engagement of safety management systems effects on TRC and DART rates. Results/Conclusions from Study 1 Each of the safety management practices identified in this

study can be used to effectively decrease TRC and DART rates at the establishment level (safety manager survey). Employee involvement; pre- and post-task safety reviews There are some effects of organizational size and sector; organizational size has more impact on the strength of these correlations than sector Increased levels of perceived worker engagement can effectively decrease TRC and DART rates at the establishment level. These safety management practices may work by engaging workers. Additional Quirky Results Accident investigations conducted using a team approach especially teams including employees were associated with lower TRC and DART rates; manageralone accident investigations actually increased accident rates! Employee engagement effects? Training going beyond OSHA compliance (hazard identification, evaluation and control) was associated with lower accident rates; training which was primarily OSHA-compliance related actually increased accident rates! Employee engagement effects? Results/Conclusions from Study 1 Question 1. Is there a significant relationship between the safety management system or its individual ten safety management system practices with TRC and DART rates? YES Question 2. Is there a significant relationship between the level of safety worker engagement (emotional engagement; cognitive engagement; emotional and cognitive engagement composite) with TRC and DART rates? YES Results/Conclusions from Study 1 Question 3. Can safety management systems and/or worker

engagement levels be used to individually predict safety performance outcomes as measured by TRC and DART rates? YES Question 4. Can safety management systems be used to predict worker engagement levels? YES Question 5. Do worker engagement levels (emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, and cognitive and emotional engagement composite) act as mediators between the safety management system and safety performance outcomes as measured by TRC and DART rates? YES, especially when using employee data Research Study 2 Linked employee and supervisor survey results for this research study. Whats the interaction of safety management systems and employee perception / behavioral constructs with reducing accidents? Employee Involvement / Influence in Specific Safety-Related Processes Safe Work Procedures Safety Climate Communication and Information Sharing Procedural Justice Climate Pre- Post-Task Safety Reviews Hiring Practices for Safety Cooperation Facilitation Safety Training Accident Investigation

Detection and Monitoring Safe Task Assignment Recordable Injuries Interactional Justice Climate Mediators Systems of Safety Management Practices Research Model for Study Number 2 Informational Justice Climate Individual Safety Proficiency Social Safety Proficiency Employee Engagement Lost Time Injuries Mediators Safety climate priority placed on safety. Engagement harnessing full selves in active, complete work role performances by driving personal energy into cognitive and emotional labors. Individual safety proficiency captures the degree to which an employee carries out his or her own work safely. It reflects the consistent and proper execution of the safe work behaviors required of the individual. Social safety proficiency captures the interdependent nature of employee safety performance behaviors and is conceptualized to represent the minimum cooperative behavioral elements needed to ensure the safety of the collective.

Mediator: Justice Procedural justice captures an employees perception that practices are developed from accurate information, are unbiased and impartial, conform to an ethical standard, and the opportunity has been extended to employees to influence them. Interactional justice captures an employees perception that they are treated with dignity and respect. Informational justice captures an employees perception that information regarding practices is communicated by the organization in a timely, candid, and honest way. Study Number 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Table Note: All correlations above or below .25 / -.25 are significant at the p = .05 level. All correlations above or below .33 / -.33 are significant at the p = .01 level. SMPs are safety management practices. Mean 1) System of SMPs 2) Individual Safety Proficiency 3) Social Safety Proficiency 4) Safety Climate 5) Engagement 6) Procedural Justice Climate 7) Interactional Justice Climate 8) Informational Justice Climate 9) Recordable Accidents 10) Lost Time Accidents 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

6) 7) 8) 9) 46.46 4.02 .42 3.97 .44 .70 4.01 .66 .63 .56 4.10 .65 .51 .49 .75

3.54 .60 .49 .30 .65 .65 4.00 .61 .56 .52 .74 .74 .70 3.84 .59 .48 .37 .81

.81 .73 .74 1.13 -.35 -.40 -.45 -.47 -.39 -.15 -.48 -.39 1.07 -.31 -.39 -.47 -.41 -.33 -.10 -.42 -.29

.83 MEDIATION ANALYSES The summed measure of the system of safety management practices significantly predicted both the number of recordable injuries ( = -.411, p <.001) and injuries which resulted in days away from work ( = -.392, p <.001) Safety Climate as Mediator Note: Standardized regression coefficients reported. p <.07,*p<.05, **p<.01 PREDICTORS MEDIATOR OUTCOMES SAFETY CLIMATE RECORDABL LOST TIME E INJURIES INJURIES SAFETY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .555** -.154 -.175 SAFETY

CLIMATE NA -.357* -.316* ADJUSTED R .308 .212 .192 Employee Engagement as Mediator Note: Standardized regression coefficients reported. p <.07,*p<.05, **p<.01 PREDICTORS MEDIATOR OUTCOMES EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT RECORDAB LOST TIME LE INJURIES INJURIES SAFETY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .391**

-.197 -.164 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT NA -.326* -.328* ADJUSTED R .153 .197 .126 Interactional Justice Climate as Mediator Note: Standardized regression coefficients reported. p <.07, *p<.05, **p<.01 MEDIATOR PREDICTORS OUTCOMES INTERACTIONA L JUSTICE CLIMATE RECORDABLE INJURIES LOST TIME

INJURIES SAFETY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .581** -.094 -.180 INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE CLIMATE NA -.445** -.294 ADJUSTED R .337 .255 .180 Social Safety Proficiency as Mediator Note: Standardized regression coefficients reported. p <.07,*p<.05, **p<.01 PREDICTORS MEDIATOR OUTCOMES

SOCIAL SAFETY PROFICIENCY RECORDABL LOST TIME E INJURIES INJURIES SAFETY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .477** -.114 -.190 SOCIAL SAFETY PROFICIENCY NA -.396* -.325* ADJUSTED R .227 .141 .131 Conclusion

Many of the employee perception / behavioral constructs investigated act as mediators through which a safety management system works. The personal effects of a safety management system (and its practices) on workers are important in reducing accidents. A safety management system may be a necessary pre-existing condition in order to have a chance to be safe, but it cannot guarantee it. You also need to have positive employee perceptions and engagement related to safety. Thus, you need to have a combination of safety management systems and behavior-nurturing systems in the workplace to better ensure a higher probability of working safely. Models Various structural models (e.g., putting the pieces together) can be theorized based on the correlations previously determined. Safety Program Focused Justice Perceptions + - Safety Specific Job Engagement - Near Misses Job

Distractions A Hypothesized Structural Model Procedural Justice Interactional Justice .77 .81 Safety Program Focused Justice Perceptions Informational Justice .91 Emotional Behavioral .95 .61 -.47 .75 Engagement in the Safety Program

Cognitive .91 -.17 Near Misses R =. 17 R =. 59 -.12 .16 Job Distractions Expanded Structural Model

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • THRILLERS - Varndean College

    THRILLERS - Varndean College

    Costume. Makeup. Figure and Facial Expressions. Lighting. Colour. Iconography. In thrillers, the setting is usually a dark urban space, such as towns or cities which makes it easier for the antagonist to hide and blend in, but many thriller films...
  • Phys 104 - Honors Astronomy - Gardner-Webb University

    Phys 104 - Honors Astronomy - Gardner-Webb University

    Traxoline may well be one of our most lukized snezlaus in the future because of our zionter lescelidge. (attributed to the insight of Judy Lanier) The Montillation of Traxoline It is very important that you learn about traxoline. Traxoline is...
  • The Small Charity Sector Duncan Shrubsole, Director of

    The Small Charity Sector Duncan Shrubsole, Director of

    "The [commissioner] decided on "TUPE plus" for any staff transferring with the daycentres. Essentially this meant increasing salaries and benefits for staff in line with Council increases. They also wanted a no redundancy guarantee. They also wanted savings."
  • What you need to know about…

    What you need to know about…

    RIDDOR, PUWER, DSE. HSE Approved Codes of Practice. Department for Education advice - July 2011. ... But now YOU are the employer if you are a stand-alone academy. The Trust (whatever its status) is the employer if you join a...
  • Update on the Creative and Performing Arts Magnet

    Update on the Creative and Performing Arts Magnet

    Technical Theatre. Video/Broadcast Journalism. Visual Art. Creative Writing. Writing through many genres. Publishing. Writing workshops. Literary journal. National and state-level conferencse. Students won multiple awards this month at the University of Alabama.
  • American Legion Post Officers Portal

    American Legion Post Officers Portal

    POST/DIST/CTY/DEPT. LOG IN PAGE. This is the log in page for Posts, Districts, Counties, and Departments. Once the request is processed by National staff an email is sent to the contact to register the site.
  • PowerPoint Presentation

    PowerPoint Presentation

    District 4, Cincinnati Police Department STARS Presentation 6/12/15. A Typical Day in District 4. Total number of officers in district 4- 142. Number of officers assigned to patrol duties- 88. Average number of officers on the street per shift- 12....
  • As Christians, we are in a war with

    As Christians, we are in a war with

    "(quoted by William Federer, America's Godand Country, 1996, p. 199, emphasis added). Quoted from article titled "Creation or Evolution. Does It Really Matter What You Believe?" Published by the United Church of God, 2001, 2008. page 5. Even though atheist...