I; . I5I _ ' ' -- .“;V v v 4.. IA. ‘-.; - I I" ‘ . "‘ .‘ ; ." ' ' .. 85' ‘I. . ‘ ‘5 .1 '1 . — "‘ I', . v ‘9— l-t~. I - _ . ,..~ .u many,” .. .I.._ . . “ T , -I I. . ‘J‘j. ' ' . .,I. . _ v Q I .- m :-.K“f ":‘J . I 5' 5 - ‘. 5 5 5 I 5 .. ‘ . . 1 V ‘3 51 III 55w p.555": (”55550511 ’I 5 :5 I :. , '. ' f .‘.‘~‘5:i . I ‘ .1555 1515555555555 I’ ' “g 55" 55 I5 I 5555:, 55 5 5 .5 555.; ‘55 5 51:5 3 .5555 5 5'135' . ”[1555555555555 5:13.53: ‘ .5 I5 ‘ .;. s- ..; .iIffl‘ I” Wm 5 54‘9‘5‘95 "‘ . . '5' 26' i’I"‘:J.I I571 "SELF-£5": l I I: ' I 7 r”; 3f.’ : 5 . :5! .5 ‘ . A :‘I I‘ ‘I f5 ' 55 3}; fig”- tf‘fi flag; A 55552; ' I 51'3155I‘5"55:“¥§25,'_II..I:_‘.;,: 5:5 5";?5i’-"‘I" . "3:; $555551“ 3fo H555 1‘5 5ng 5'" 55'“ ._ ‘ #:5jgzs’gig‘ I: 5: .5 } 155.5555“r .5525. 555M; 5,;. - In“? §I55 :54: ,Ig gl 3515555555.} I,“ H . 551555515555.55.5.5IIEI'5EI‘5 I1 I $.55 ’’’’ £53.33} )5; 1. .. ‘_ “III”! I 5W. IvsI-III“?I=I""I“" » I» ' 2 III. III. III .It' 515" .4555‘ i“ 5),} |; bi : 555.1555 ’ 'I ' 5 ‘5'.;5 '5I ;5:‘: 5;; ”:05 5 i" ‘ .51.;51323 I 5 \ I 5 .I 5171- '4 1 :55"! .' ‘n I . I; n5 I‘J. II ,. . 5: I 3‘35.“ 5.55.1? {I ‘5t-5-5W J éflk I 3;; :31. - 531$“ d 1. ..I.. . I “5""55' _5 , 95‘;;:'l‘:' : 1:53555 '{555 1325 'f' 5 JIif'Q'IQj—5h ’ 8 vr” ‘ ,5 5. ‘Jv ' '[5I I I" .‘.- 5: '. I 9.5- 5" 5'.“ 5‘55“ 5‘ ’ I ‘ * ’ 5' :5 h I"_t-. f" ,1 3.4.51“. II}, ‘. :‘5:5» "I. . m u‘ I 1;. ”1- e ‘1 ‘\ It; . - -. ' {‘54 45¢. é-L‘ Q4 «’44:. V 5 5 55 55555.55‘555 5 ”.5; 5 5 5' 5 I - ‘I‘ ”k5 I! ' ‘5 1.5; 5) Erocnfi 3:5 ”‘5?“ 15'1, 5.55 5: -5;5’}.;55555Ir‘:;35¢,42 5555555 ‘I V '555 '5 ('5- .‘555 .555l'pb 5 5sz III”,I . g . _. ::I'..-.~ _ 5555' \55Iln5 5555 ”5:53.555 -. ' . ‘ l‘ Erin; I: 01';' {lj‘l'll I, ‘55;'il '- L.“ ‘ 1:15:13 “4' 65:4? -:5:I ‘5 "Y.5:f- 5“ III5’5’WIII I. IN" 5‘5‘5I5..3:5"I'55J 1'5! "I"5 5“ 5 " 5 555 ‘.5 Oh”: ‘Il “55W: 55 1 I ' 5.5555555551555555 M ' I I 'l ,:I A. )IJ'fl15 5'[. 55:55:. l5:JI:I‘ H‘v“ ‘ . .1 555' II: 5.5 5 '15 5:555:5155 5- 5 5'? 5555:5555 “5555' “.5" “5:55 515 ,II. 51.5 .355." 555555 5ll5‘5 53555555555 5W '5H5I. 55555555555155'55 55"555' I [55:11" {51'5 55 “I" 5(I5I5 “‘55:: \5: 5514'; I;~;v:_'5|' :5 55‘ I, 5I. .5-5 ' 5 5II5 5".1 I 5'5'. ‘5' 5.: “ II " '55 I555.) 5 5 55 : .‘I .' II II. I‘ .I -~ 55H. 'I III 5"" .III‘I'IIIIII‘I55‘5I‘. ' I III 55I III” II" “‘5: I5I.I I .II I ‘I ‘.3'5“I":.5' 5 55 555 IJII5 5555 .II‘5 II 5.”:I II5 .5555 I;,‘ .55555’5 5.5.35 5I'55 55515.1". :;I‘TI‘5I5.?I555~5555 '55 553555 555 55555455515” 5HMI 5.55 41‘ 5 I5I; ..... I5IIH H. y V515 ‘ 5.5155555 55 55555 '55:I ' I51555 5’5‘55 555555555 5555 5. 5555.555 55 555 555555 55555 II II I I'I, '55” 555‘5555155{II5.5I15I5‘5555555r5555555’5555 [555“ 5‘5 ”flu“ I5 5555f:;5I;I|'55 5.5.5 5555 I 5I555555I5l. ,‘JIIII' I‘ "5III55I5II5III I 55 5‘5””. 55.555555555555II55III5'5I5I 55555 55II5 555 55,5555. 5'55 5'5'5I"5'5I.II 5'5‘55’55 5.555" I555 55555555555555)” 555555555555555555555 5,1551558/555555555555555 ”55554” 5III‘5I 56155;,‘5 J 'I 55555 IIIIII 5N II‘III 55I " 5555555555‘ I1‘_ 'F'I‘5‘ I55 I I "I555 55 5[ 5'55 I"'5I 355th III“ 55555555 ,5“: I555 5 .- 55‘I . l 55,55‘5'5'555 I 515555 W555? ' 5'551'5‘5W'555551555H I. “INI'NIII II'lI ‘l [5 5' w 5555555 5555555 5W5" 5'55 “555555 555555 5 555.5 I 5555 III I II‘III5I "5555555 5 5"5 5I5I5 55151554 555555555.‘ 5555555 555! 5II5I5 LIIIHI‘I‘55III‘5 III5III 555I5 5 mm llllllllllUllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllIllllllllllll 3 1293 10463 0961 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE STATUS OF AUTOMOTIVE FLEET SAFETY IN SELECTED FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED STATES presented by Richard Joseph Hornfeck has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Administration and Curriculum (Driver and Traffic Safety Education) Major professor Date June 30, 1982 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 MSU LIBRARIES .——. v RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ‘l‘" r . n Juaa-h~**r“* THE STATUS OF AUTOMOTIVE FLEET SAFETY IN SELECTED FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED STATES BY Richard Joseph Hornfeck A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1982 ABSTRACT THE STATUS OF AUTOMOTIVE FLEET SAFETY IN SELECTED FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED STATES BY Richard Joseph Hornfeck The researcher's purpose in this study was to determine the current status of automotive fleet safety in selected four-year colleges and universities in the United States. In order for this objective to be met, the following categories relating to an institution's fleet safety effort had to be carefully examined and assessed: (1) information relative to the educational institution and its automotive fleet, (21 the extent of the automotive fleet policies and procedures, (3) the extent of the educational and/or train- ing programs, (4) factual data concerning the institution's automotive operation during the 1978-1979 and 1979-1980 school years, and (5) opinions of the person(s) responding to the questionnaire. The primary methods used in researching this study were an extensive review of the literature pertaining to automotive fleet safety and deve10pment of the survey questionnaire. The research survey was limited to a random stratified . .1 (D O 9 3 I f l (I) If Q a .- ‘FROFA' __ vVoo --v--~u “‘ 0-; ‘4 . =-a.-s_“ V “Aw .esy|vlnse ‘. U a ‘ . :F\‘.a' ‘ Hy“- ‘ a 0.1.. ,4“ ubonb‘. . ‘ 4 a ‘ ‘ “e=Cr-::. Richard Joseph Hornfeck sample of 295 four-year colleges and universities in the United States. Stratification of the target pOpulation was determined by the way the institution was governed and controlled and its student population. The initial mailing of the questionnaire and subsequent follow-up brought a total of 120 returns, or 40.7 percent. Data analysis involved the use of descriptive statistical techniques that indicated the percentage of response to each question. The findings were placed in tabular form and expressed in percentages to the nearest tenth when applicable, and other responses were noted in descriptive form. A narrative analysis accompanied each table relative to a particular question. The major findings of the survey indicated that college and university automotive fleet operations were loosely coordinated and managed. Safety practices were a low priority item in the overall fleet Operation. The survey data also indicated that automotive fleets were a necessary part of the day—to-day operation of a college or university; but, institutions did not place much emphasis on their automotive fleet operations. DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Charlene, whose love, understanding and patience were a major contribution to the completion of this study. To my daughters, Sandra, Karen, Helen, and Patricia who also provided the necessary support and encouragement to their Dad. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study could not have been undertaken without the encouragement and cooperation of many fine people at Michigan State University. Special appreciation is extended to Dr. Robert O. Nolan, Professor at Michigan State University and Director of the Highway Traffic Safety Programs, whose continual support, encouragement and guidance as academic advisor have been a constant source of inspiration throughout all phases of my doctoral program and my professional develop- ment. A special thank you is also extended to the other members of my doctoral committee: Dr. Robert E. Gustafson and Dr. Donald L. Smith, Professors in Life Long Education Programs and the College of Education, and Dr. Samuel A. Moore, Professor and Chairperson of the Department of Administration and Curriculum, College of Education. Their suggestions, constructive criticism and constant encourage- ment were deeply appreciated. The data for this dissertation were generously supplied by personnel of the selected colleges and universities throughout the United States. Without their unselfish cooperation, this study could not have been completed. iii Inn-‘7 d‘uv. ‘ "°.'\ .AVA~. A! “‘7‘ vact A," "‘ ‘¢ DEDICAT ACKNOWL Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii EDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . iii NATURE OF THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . 6 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . 7 Importance of the Study . . . . . . . 7 Scope of the Study . . . . . . . . . 8 Definition of Terms Used . . . . . . . 8 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . 10 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 14 Introduction . . . . . . . . 14 Current Automotive Fleet Safety Information Relating to Institutions of Higher Educa- tion . . . . . . . 15 Related Studies in Higher Education . . . 17 Role of the Private and Public Sector in Automotive Fleet Safety. . . . . . . 19 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 METHODS OF PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . 3O Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . 30 The Questionnaire Approach . . . . . . 34 Development of the Questionnaire . . . . 35 Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Mailing Procedures . . . . . . . . . 38 Follow-Up Procedures . . . . . . 39 Methods for Analysis of the Data . . . . 41 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 iv ( Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF SURVEY DATA. . . 44 General Information Relative to the Educa- tional Institution and Its Automotive Fleet O O O O I O O O O O O I O 45 Type of Educational Institution Responding. 45 Student Population of Responding Educa- tional Institution . . . . . 46 Size of Educational Institution in Relation to Number of Administration, Faculty and Staff . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Size of Automotive Fleet for Responding Institution . . . 48 Type of Vehicles Associated with the Auto- motive Fleets. . . . 50 Types of Service Currently Provided by the Automotive Fleets . . . . . . . 52 Location of Automotive Fleet . . . . . 55 Acquisition of Vehicles . . . . . 55 Status of Driver Permitted to Use Automo- tive Fleet Vehicles. . . . . . . . 57 Automotive Fleet Policies and Procedures . . 58 Written Set of Policies and Procedures . . 58 Responsibility for the Management and Supervision of An Automotive Fleet Safety Program. . . . . . 6O Insuring the Automotive Fleet and Its Operators . . . . . . 69 Inspection and Maintenance of Automotive Fleet Vehicles . . . . . 72 Type of Automotive Fleet Records Maintained 74 Location of Automotive Fleet Records. . . 75 Individual Driving Records and Their Use . 77 Accident Report Forms. . . 84 Procedures to Follow When Involved in an Accident with a Fleet Vehicle . . . 86 Review of Accident Reports Involving Fleet Vehicles . . 93 Maintaining All Costs Relative to the Oper— ation of the Fleet . . . 97 Improper Use of Automotive Fleet Vehicles . 98 Terminating, Suspending or Restricting Driving Privileges . . . . . 102 Evaluation of the Automotive Fleet Safety Program. . . . . . . 106 Driver Recognition for Safe and Efficient Performance . . . . . . . . . . 107 I C. .G F». ..r\\.i&(vfi¢I-IL Chapter V. Automotive Fleet Safety Educational and/or Training Programs . . . . . . . . Crash Prevention Programs . . . . . Driver Improvement Program . . . . . . Ongoing Informational Program . Specialized Training for Operators of Fleet vehiCleS O O O O O O O O O O 0 Automotive Fleet Information for School Years 1978-1979 and 1979-1980 . . . . . . Fleet Vehicle Accidents for School Years 1978- 1979 and 1979-1980 . . . . Reported Accidents Involving Either Person- al Injury or Fatality for School Years 1978-1979 and 1979- 1980 . Employee Work Days Lost Because of Fleet Vehicle Accidents for School Years 1978- 1979 and 1979-1980 . . . . . . Cost of Accidents Involving Fleet Vehicles for School Years 1978-1979 and 1979-1980. Automotive Fleet Mileage for School Years 1978-1979 and 1979- 1980 . . Fleet Vehicle Accidents and Related Law- suits . . . . . . . . . . . Opinions of Person(s) Responding to Question- naire . . . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Support . Support and Cooperation from Other Depart- ments . . Adequateness of Present Fleet Safety Effort Accident Problem Experience. . . . . Opinions Concerning a Comprehensive Fleet Safety Program . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . Findings. . Conclusions. . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Future Research. . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi Page 108 108 111 113 116 117 117 121 122 123 125 126 127 127 128 128 129 130 131 132 132 132 134 140 143 145 146 - . -.‘u-n ' J ,. ~\ 1 #4 IO. 1 “hwy-H v - 3:: t r. r . f. r. r. x .- H H e n n x n. L L C... C: Oz Or on! APPENDICES . . A. Letter to the Campus Insurance Coordinators of Selected Four-Year Colleges and Universities Survey Questionnaire for Selected Four-Year Colleges and Universities in the United States. . . . . . . . . . Follow-Up Letter to the Campus Insurance Coorde inators of Selected Four-Year Colleges and Universities. . . . . . . . . . . Letter to Second Group of Campus Insurance Co- ordinators of Selected Four-Year Colleges and Universities. . . Questionnaire Survey Return Chart List of Respondents . . . . . Private Colleges and Universities. Public Colleges and Universities . . State Colleges and Universities . Responses to Certain Survey Questions Question #llb . . #llc . #11 (Third Part) Question #18. . . Question #26. . Question #27. . . . . . . Question #31a . . . . . . Question #36a . . . . . . #36b . . . . . . . . . #36c . . . . . . . . . #36d . . . . . . . . . Question #37a . . . . #37b . . . . #37c . . . . . . . . . . #37d . . . . . . . . . . Question #38a . . . . . . . . . . #38b . . . . . . . . . Question #39a . . . . . . . . . . #39b . . . . . . . . . . #39c . . . . . . . . . . #39d . . . . . . . Question Question Question #41. #42. #43. #39e . . . . . . . Z : vii Page 153 153 154 165 166 167 169 169 172 174 180 180 180 181 182 183 183 184 185 186 186 186 187 187 187 187 188 188 189 189 190 190 190 191 191 192 Page Question #44 . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Question #45 . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Question #46 . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Question #50 . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Question #52 . . . . . . . . . . . 196 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 viii #4 J Table 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Page Total number of all four-year colleges and universities in the United States within their respective stratum. . . . . . . . . . . 32 Total number of all four-year colleges and universities to receive the questionnaire and the number of returns needed to insure a representative sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Number and percentage of questionnaires re- turned from the various mailings and the number of questionnaires used in the analysis of the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Type of Institution (Question #1) . . . . . . . 46 Total Student Population (Question #2). . . . . 46 Total Administration, Faculty and Staff* (Ques— tion #3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Total Number of Vehicles in Automotive Fleet* (Question #4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Types of Vehicles (Question #5) . . . . . . . . 51 Types of Service Provided by Automotive Fleet (Question #6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Whether or not fleet located in one central location (Question #7). . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Ownership of Vehicles by University (Question #8) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 56 Acquisition of Vehicles (Second Part of Ques- tion #8). o o o o o o o 0'. o o o o o o o o o 56 Status of driver permitted to use fleet ve- hicles (Question #9). . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 ix .4 UI O '4 0\ O 21. 22. 28. K 1’ \‘j .t; 53 Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Whether or not there were written policies and procedures for use of fleet vehicles (Ques- tion #10) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Use of the Automotive Fleet Policies and Proce- dures (Second Part of Question #10) . . . Whether or not one person or department to manage and supervise automotive fleet program (Question #11) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Title of Person or Department in Charge (Second part of Question #11) . . . . . . . . . . . Other assignments and special training for per- son or department (Questions #11b and #llc) Number of persons or departments responsible for fleet safety program (third part of Question #11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whether or not consistency in automotive fleet guidelines (Question #12) . . . . . . . . . Number of departments and/or groups that had vehicles not considered part of fleet (Ques- tion #12a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Names of departments and/or groups that had vehicles not included in the automotive fleet (Question #12b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total number of vehicles considered not to be part of automotive fleet (Question #12c). . How Automotive Fleet Insured (Question #13) Whether or not all vehicles were insured under the same policy (Question #14). . . . . . Whether or not all drivers were fully insured (Question #15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responsibility for insurance if driver not in- sured by institution (second part of Question #15). O O I O O O I O O ‘0 O O O O O O Q C O 0 Whether or not vehicles were periodically in- spected and maintained by one department (Question #16). . . . . . . . . . . Page 58 59 6O 61 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 71 72 1 Tab n: 9 30. 31. 0" II ' on, 36. he V , Table 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. How vehicle maintenance and inspection were administered (Second part of Question #16). Type of Automotive Fleet Records Maintained (Question #17). . . . . . . . . . . . Whether or not fleet records in central loca- tion (question #18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Department or Office that maintained automotive fleet records (Second Part of Question #18) . Number of locations that maintained automotive fleet records (Third part of Question #18). Whether or not there was verification of a person's operator license (Question #19). . . Whether or not driving record examined prior to Operation of fleet vehicle (Question #20). Whether or not driving record was examined if primary responsibility was operating a fleet vehicle (Question #21). . . . . . . . . . . Whether or not driving records maintained on all persons operating fleet vehicles (Ques- tion #22) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Categories maintained in relation to the active driving record (Second part of Question #22). Whether or not driving records were maintained on person whose primary responsibility was operating a fleet vehicle (Question #23). . Categories maintained in relation to active driving record for those persons whose pri- mary job was operating a fleet vehicle (Second part of Question #22) . . . . . . . . Whether or not term "Satisfactory Driving Record" was used (Question #24) . . . . . . Whether or not accident report form used for fleet accidents (Question #25). . . . . . . Type of Accident Report Form Used (Second part of Question #25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Page 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 82 83 83 84 85 58. (I) \o n"; to. V'L i‘l. *3 n- 1‘: he Table 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Page Whether or not employees required to complete accident report form (Question #26) . . . . . 86 Whether or not all accidents reported to a police department (Question #27). . . . . . . 87 Whether or not all accidents reported to fleet supervisor (Question #28) . . . . . . . . . . 88 Whether or not driver required to report to designated person on campus to discuss parti- culars of accident (Question #29) . . . . . . 88 Title of designated person with whom driver discussed accident (Question #29a). . . . . . 89 Whether or not discussion a learning experi- ence (Question #29b). . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Whether or not there was a representative to investigate all accidents (Question #30). . . 91 Title of representative that investigated all fleet accidents (Second part of Question #30) 92 Whether or not one person/group responsible for reviewing all accident reports (Question #31) 93 Title of person/group responsible for reviewing all accident reports (Question #3la). . . . . 94 How designated person/group selected to review all accident reports (Question #3lb). . . . . 95 Length of term for person/group selected to review all accident reports (Question #31c) . 95 Whether or not person/group had authority to determine culpability of errant drivers (Question #Bld) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Whether or not all accident costs tabulated (Question #32). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Whether or not all operational costs tabulated (Question #33). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Whether or not person/group on campus cognizant of all chargeable violations (Question #34) . 99 xii 61. (‘h h) 0 68. 69, 70 , 3 34 w; '1 k” ‘0 Table Page 60. Title of person/office that received infor- mation concerning chargeable violations against driver (Question #34a). 61. O O O O 99 Action taken once information received concern- ing chargeable violations (Question #34b) 101 62. terminated, Whether or not driving privileges could be #35). suspended or restricted (Question 63. . . . . 102 Title of person who could terminate, suspend or restrict driving privilege (Question #35a). 104 64. Reasons why action could be taken against an individual operating a fleet vehicle (Ques- tion #35b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65. Whether or not institution participated in fleet safety evaluation program (Question #36). . . 105 66. Whether or not institution participated in driver recognition program (Question #37) . . 106 . 107 67. Whether or not formal educational or training program used (Question #38) 68. . . . 109 Origin of crash prevention program (Question #38a) 0 o g o o o o o o o o 109 69. Whether or not crash prevention program re— quired of all drivers (Question #38b) 70. O O 110 Whether or not crash prevention program re- quired of driver using own vehicle for school business (Question #38c). . . . . . . 111 71. Whether or not driver improvement program for those who demonstrated a need (Question #39). 112 72. Whether or not informational program maintained relative to safe and efficient operation of fleet vehicles and highway safety in general (Question #40). . . . . . . . . . . . 113 73. Methods used to conduct ongoing informational program (Question #40a) 74. O o o o o 114 Origin of materials and information for ongoing informational program (Question #40b) . . . 115 xiii .7. Table 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. Whether or not there was specialized training for operators of vehicles with limited vis- ibility and/or handling characteristics (Question #41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accident frequency rate based on the number of vehicles (Question #42). . . . . . . . Accident frequency rate based on mileage driven (Question #42). . . . . . . . . Number of reported accidents involving person- al injury or fatality for the 1978-1979 and 1979-1980 school years (Question #43). . . Number of employee work days lost because of fleet accidents for the 1978-1979 and 1979- 1980 school years (Question #44) . . . . . . Cost of all accidents involving fleet vehicles (Question #45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accrued mileage for the automotive fleets (Question #46) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lawsuits resulting from fleet accidents (Ques- tion #47). g o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Whether or not administration supported pre- sent fleet safety program (Question #48) . . Whether or not support and cooperation re- ceived from other departments (Question #49) Whether or not present fleet safety effort was adequate (Question #50). . . . . . . . . . . Whether or not automotive fleet operations were experiencing an accident problem (Question #51) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Whether or not comprehensive fleet safety program would reduce operating costs of fleet (Question #52) . . . . . . . . . . . xiv Page 116 119 120 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 130 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Number of Vehicles in those Schools Designated as Having Small Fleets (Less than 100 Vehicles). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 2. Number of Vehicles in those Schools Designated as Having Large Fleets (More than 100 Vehicles). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3. Number of Reported Accidents Involving Fleet Vehicles Both On and Off Campus for 1978- 1979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 4. Number of Reported Accidents Involving Fleet Vehicles Both On and Off Campus for 1979- 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 XV Chapter I NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Introduction Colleges and universities in the United States have in the past been regarded as institutions separate from the rest of society and governed by their own rules. However, this setting has been altered for most colleges and univer— sities because they have acquired the complexities of an industrial setting by increasing in size and the services they offer to the public. The major role of the college or university is education with the majority of funding and activities being channeled in that direction. However, college and university personnel are becoming more cognizant of other operations that must occur in support of the educational role; but these support services do not always receive emphasis comparable to those outside of the educational setting. The automotive fleet is one such service that is an integral part of the everyday function of an educational institution. A review of the literature completed during Michigan .. . 1 State University's 1977 Automot1ve Fleet Acc1dent Study revealed minimal information concerning fleet safety ef- forts being carried on in other colleges and universities in the United States. Most of the literature reviewed related to commercial fleets (public and private) and their respective operations. In contrast to commercial fleets, colleges and universities, in general, do not consider themselves to be in the business of operating automotive fleets. Colleges and universities depend upon motor vehicles to support their total operation. These motor vehicles are used both on and off campus for a variety of activities and by a variety of operators. The automotive fleet also con- sumes a substantial amount of the overall operating budget. Management needs to be aware of its overall automotive fleet activity and its responsibility to insure safety and efficiency in its overall operation. Statisticians surmise that if Americans continue to drive as they do, one of every two persons alive today will be either killed or injured in a motor vehicle accident sometime in the future. If this appalling casualty rate is spread evenly among the population, it would mean that one out of every two members of your family, one out of every two close friends and associates, eventually will 1R. J. Hornfeck, "Michigan State University Automotive Fleet Accident Study for Fiscal Years 1974-1975 and 1975- 1976." Final report presented to the Michigan State University Insurance Office and Highway Traffic Safety Center, 18 July 1977. become a with high In 1 disabling The total 13333188 l ng fOr 4 ACClc become a casualty of America's continuing war of attrition with highway hazards.2 In 1980, there were 52,600 deaths and two million disabling injuries that occurred on our nation's highways.3 The total cost to the nation for these highway accidents was approximately 39.3 billion dollars.4 Work related accidents accounted for 13,000 deaths and 2,200,000 disabling injuries in 1980. Of these work re- lated accidents, the motor vehicle accounted for 4,500 deaths and 200 thousand of the disabling injuries.5 In 1980, the total number of work days lost because of work injuries was 245 million, with the injured worker account- ing for 45 million of these lost work days.6 Accidents are the leading cause of death among all persons ages one to thirty-eight. Among persons of all ages, accidents are the fourth leading cause of death.7 The financial cost to the nation for all accidents is a staggering figure. In 1980, the cost of all accidents was 83.2 billion dollars with motor vehicle accidents account- ing for 39.3 billion dollars and work accidents for 30.2 billion dollars.8 2National Safety Council, Accident Facts (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1980), P. 3. 3National Safety Council, Accident Facts (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1981), P. 3. 4 5 6 Ibid, p. 4. Ibid, P. 3. Ibid, p. 24. 7 8 Ibid, p. 9. Ibid, p. 4. t Cu .2 0 .w. Y. 31 sales: .C .1 C C39. COHtI once According to 1979 data from the Virginia Department of State Police, professional and business persons com- prised 14 percent of the drivers involved in all motor vehicle accidents, while commercial drivers (including salesmen) were involved in only 7.6 percent of all motor vehicle accidents.9 All of these statistics point to the fact that accidents are a major problem that directly affect every- one. Motor vehicle accidents and work accidents can be controlled; but it takes time, effort, finances, and concern. The economic-minded businessman learned long ago that it is far less expensive to set up and maintain a program for preventing personal injuries to employees than it is to trust to luck that no one will get hurt.10 In an article by M. H. Wooten, it was stated that: I've never met an employee who wanted to be injured but I've met a lot who didn't know how to avoid it. People must be taught how to avoid accidents and they must also be taught to believe that it can be done. This is part of management's responsibility, as is motivating the employee to remember and continue to work safely. The National Safety Council emphasized that: The need for teaching safety (as a means of self-preservation) is always with us. This need doesn't end when we leave school. In fact, it increases. On-the-job hazards must be discovered 9National Safety Council, Accident Facts, 1980, p. 48. 10National Safety Council, Motor Fleet Safety Manual (Chicago: National Safety CounCil, 1972), p. l. 11M. H. Wooten, "Know-How Is Top Accident Preventer" Journal of Traffic Safety, December 1978, pp. 12-13. by each individual, either "the hard way" (by bitter experience), or "the easy way" (by being pointed out and warned against). If employees know their job hazards and avoid them, they seldom get hurt.12 The National Safety Council indicated that the three main areas of automotive fleet accidents were those arising from (1) vehicle accidents, (2) employee injury accidents, 13 With these three areas of and (3) off-the-job accidents. concern, the National Safety Council's definition of a fleet safety program and one which business and industry follow is: "The fleet safety program encompasses all that the fleet does systematically to prevent accidents, all accidents: vehicle accidents, work injury accidents, and off-the-job accidents."l4 Business and industry cannot afford to operate at a loss; and accidents involving their automotive fleets would surely add to their overall expenses. This is why they feel that by operating a safe driving program, they are not really adding to their duties; but they are actually approaching an inescapable problem in a systematic manner in order to reduce the amount of time, expense, and incon- venience that traffic accidents would otherwise exact.ls 12 p. 1. 13National Safety Council, Small Fleet Guide (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1971), p. 5. 14 p. 9. 15 National Safety Council, Motor Fleet Safety Manual, National Safety Council, Motor Fleet Safety Manual, Ibid, p. 9. On the other hand, college and university administra- tors, unlike commercial fleet administrators, seemingly do not place enough emphasis on automotive fleet safety in their day-to-day operations. With the economy of the 1980's, it is conceivable that colleges and universities should be in the business of operating their automotive fleets in a manner similar to that of business and industry. At the same time, they should also be aware of what other four-year institutions are doing in regard to automotive fleet safety. This research study should enable college and university personnel the opportunity to examine the efforts of other selected institutions of higher education in the area of automotive fleet safety. Statement of the Problem The automotive fleets should be an important part of the day-to-day operations of colleges and universities. To assure safe and efficient use of the automotive fleet, the college and university personnel must be cognizant of what other colleges and universities in the United States are doing in the area of automotive fleet safety. It was found that minimal information was available concerning the automotive fleet safety efforts of colleges and universities in the United States. 'T‘l- aetermx comprehe efforts. tabulati Purpose of the Study The researcher's purpose in this study was to determine the current automotive fleet safety efforts being conducted in selected four-year colleges and universities in the United States. The survey instrument elicited data that gave a comprehensive picture of the institution's fleet safety efforts. This descriptive research provided an accurate tabulation of the current automotive fleet safety efforts of those selected four-year colleges and universities in the United States. Importance of the Study Very little information was available concerning the automotive fleet safety efforts of colleges and universi- ties in the United States. The only way to determine what was occurring in automotive fleet safety programs in institutions of higher education was to personally corre- spond with selected schools. In addition to being time consuming, this approach still did not give one an overall picture. It was anticipated that the college and univer- sity mode of fleet operation would be entirely different from business and industry. This national survey provided valuable assistance in determining how much emphasis col- leges and universities were placing on this phase of their operation. Th1 fied sax; the Cniti of the 91 enrollmer tion was Informati Stra bY the wa (Private, (small, r u! 1 se¢eCtEd : Scope of the Study This research survey was limited to a random strati- fied sample of 230 four—year colleges and universities in the United States. This sample size represented 25 percent of the 913 four-year colleges and universities that have an enrollment of 1,000 or more students. The target popula- tion was selected from The College Blue Book, Macmillan Information, seventeenth edition, 1979.16 Stratification of the target population was determined by the way the institution was governed and controlled (private, public or state) and its student population (small, medium or large). A 25 percent sample was randomly selected from each stratum to help insure a representative sample of the target population. Definition of Terms Used Automotive Fleet A group of motor vehicles operated under unified control. Automotive Fleet SafetyProgram "The automotive fleet safety program encompasses all that management does systematically to prevent accidents, all accidents: vehicle accidents, work injury accidents, and offvthe-job accidents."l7 16The College Blue Book, Tabular Data, Seventeenth Edition. INew York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1979). 17 p. 9. National Safety Council, Motor Fleet Safety Manual, Campps Insurance Coordinator A designated person to receive the questionnaire at the college or university campuses. (It was recommended by personnel from the institutions participating in the pilot study that this individual, "Campus Insurance Coordinator," or someone with a similar title or responsi- bility would be the logical person to contact.) Disabling Injury "An injury which results in death, some degree of permanent impairment, or renders the injured person unable to effectively perform his regular duties or activities for a full day beyond the day of injury."18 Educational Institution A four-year college or university is considered to be an educational institution. Large College or University An educational institution whose student enrollment is more than 15,000. Medium College or University An educational institution whose student enrollment is more than 5,000 but less than 15,000. Motor Vehicle "Any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power: designed primarily for use on public streets or highways, _. 18National Safety Council, Accidents Facts, p. 2. except rails." 9"“ "2"9 .--IHA-\' 10 except a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or 19 rails." Private College or University "An educational institution whose governing board is not subject to public (governmental) control except for charter or statutory provisions, usually because of pri— mary financial support from private rather than public funds."20 Public College or University An educational institution financed largely by public funds but not controlled and/or managed by state government. Small College or University An educational institution whose student enrollment is more than 1,000 but less than 5,000. State College or University An educational institution financed by public funds and controlled and/or managed by state government. Limitations of the Study The following limitations were determined to be inherent in this national survey of colleges and 19American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Associ— ation, Sixth National Conference on Safety Education, Volume IV, Dictionary of Safety Education Terms (Washington, D. C.: American Driver and Traffic Education Association, 1980), p. 40. 20The International Encyclgpedia of Higher Education, Volume 1, (Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1977). p. 488A. 11 universities in the United States. 1. In order to acquire as detailed a picture as possible concerning the current status of automotive fleet safety in institutions of higher learning in the United States, the questionnaire was both lengthy and detailed. 2. The questionnaire itself was a limitation because it was dependent upon a selected person taking both the time and effort to respond to the individual questions. 3. The sample population represented 25 percent of the target population. Inferences were made to the target population based upon those returned. 4. Colleges and universities whose student enroll- ments were less than 1,000 students were not included in the target population. An institution with such a small student enrollment probably would have an automotive fleet of minimal size. Schools of such enrollment were found in the small private school category and this stratum already included 416 schools with a student enrollment greater than 1,000 but less than 5,000. 5. The target population was selected from Th2 College Blue Book which may have eliminated those schools that did not subscribe to this service. This resource was found to be the most extensive and up—to-date publication for listing colleges and universities in the United States. 6. The selection of each college and university for its respective stratum was determined by the information that appeared in The College Blue Book. n «in: cod 4.....( . . - 1.".Ci'338C rt 0 (1. (D (1* (D H 'U '1 o in H {U l O C (I) (D {)1 12 7. Only data collected from the survey questionnaire and information gained from the literature reviewed were included in the study. 8. The study was a descriptive research providing an accurate tabulation of the current automotive fleet safety efforts of selected four-year colleges and universities in the United States. Therefore, it should not be construed to determine what is a good or poor automotive fleet safety program. Overview In Chapter II, pertinent literature is reviewed that related to the automotive fleet operations and other re- lated activities of colleges and universities in the United States. Included in Chapter III are the following: 1. Methods and procedures utilized in preparing the survey instrument. 2. Selection procedures for obtaining the colleges and universities in this survey. 3. Detailed description of the sampling technique used. 4. A detailed outline of the sampling distribution. 5. A complete review of methods used in data tabulation and analysis. Chapter IV contains an analysis of the data and findings, while Chapter V represents the summary, findings, CCHCIUS researcl 13 conclusions, recommendations, recommendations for future research, and discussion of the research survey. Chapter II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction It was evident at the beginning of this investigation that there was minimal information available concerning the automotive fleet safety efforts of colleges and universi- ties in the United States. A comprehensive retrieval from the Michigan State University Library for all materials relating to automotive fleet safety programs and their management, a search of the Dissertation Abstracts, a re— view of the Periodical Index, and a review of the National Safety Council's "Guide to Traffic Safety Literature" dis- closed very little information relating to the automotive fleet safety efforts of colleges and universities in the United States. The literature search did identify some individual studies and information that related directly to automotive fleet safety on individual college and university campuses, but most of the information pertained to automotive fleet safety and its management in the business community. One closely allied research study was identified that involved higher education and the factors that affect college and 14 ”fl“ '.' uuo" 15 university environmental health and safety programs. A review of the literature pertinent to this survey was conducted and will be presented in the following sections: (1) Current Automotive Fleet Safety Information Relating to Institutions of Higher Education, (2) Related Studies in Higher Education, and (3) Role of the Private and Public Sector in Automotive Fleet Safety. Current Automotive Fleet Safety Information Relating to Institutions of Higher Education In 1977, the researcher conducted a study at the Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, entitled "Michigan State University Automotive Fleet Accident Study for Fiscal Years 1974-1975 and 1975-1976.”2 This was a comprehensive study of all accidents involving vehicles in the University's fleet and was jointly supported by the University Insurance Office and the University's Highway Traffic Safety Center. The study was initiated by the insurance carrier for the University's automotive fleet because of concern for the high number of accidents involving the automotive 1James R. Glaze, "Factors Affecting the Viability of Environmental Health and Safety Programs in Institutions of Higher Education" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Univer- sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1977; Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International, 1977). 2R. J. Hornfeck, "Michigan State University Automotive Fleet Accident Study for the Fiscal Years 1974-1975 and 1975-1976." 16 fleet. The insurance carrier recommended that some type of training program and/or fleet safety program be estab- lished for all drivers of University vehicles. A commit- tee of selected University officials decided that before any type of training program could be established certain facts need to be determined and investigated concerning the University's automotive fleet accident rate experience. The completed two-year automotive fleet accident study demonstrated that Michigan State University was ex- periencing a serious accident problem. When the accident data involving University vehicles was compared to accident data for similar-sized fleets and operations as shown in the National Safety Council's 1976 Fleet Accident Rates, the University's rate was determined to be extremely high. In addition to pointing out the high number of accidents, the study also attempted to determine the underlying causes that gave rise to these accidents. Many of the underlying problems exhibited in the study were determined to be of a correctable nature. Suggested recommendations presented in the final report described how Michigan State Universi- ty's automotive fleet accident problem could be improved. An important aspect that surfaced during this indepth accident study was the difficulty in determining how.other institutions of higher education in the United States were coping with the problem of automotive fleet safety. Pri- marily, the literature related specifically to business and industria data ava; In 11 [31'381’5 it: tie Saffipl The r CESCrlbe I Safety p r lQthlfy . rocedUrg EL Ograms .4 It 195 SPEaking I Jam v ‘ “~E E11 Ill-Ohm Hieh ~~er : er 123‘ 9“ ‘ R .e “ NJ.“ ‘ LI- 17 industrial automotive fleet operations with very little data available concerning the automotive fleet safety efforts of colleges and universities. Since available information relative to this target group was limited, problems arose when comparisons across institutions were made. Related Studies in Higher Education In 1977, James R. Glaze conducted a study at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, titled "Factors Affecting the Viability of Environmental Health and Safety 3 Two hun— Programs in Institutions of Higher Education." dred colleges and universities randomly selected from the National Safety Council's Campus Associaton membership were sampled by questionnaire. The purpose of Glaze's study was to investigate and describe the current state of environmental health and safety programs in institutions of higher education and to identify and explicate some principles, guidelines and procedures which might prove useful for organizing such programs.4 It was pointed out in the study that historically ’ speaking, industry has served as the setting for the 3James R. Glaze, "Factors Affecting the Viability of Environmental Health and Safety Programs in Institutions of Higher Education." 4National Safety Council, "How Viable Are Our Safety and Health Programs?" College and University Newsletter, December—January-February, 1978, pp. 3-4. develCE and the ccnpie) long as 61 18 development of environmental health and safety programs, and that similar programs on campuses have not developed commensurately. Colleges and universities have long viewed themselves as set apart from the rest of society and governed by their own rules. However, this setting has changed for many because by increasing in size and complexity, they have acquired many of the characteristics long associated with industry. Glaze pointed out that institutions of higher learning in spite of budgetary problems, the energy crisis, and similar distinctions that always seem to exist have a responsibility to implement an effective campus environ- mental health and safety program. He also stated that the creation of a healthful and safe environment indirect- ly promotes the educational aims of the institution because accidents and disasters can have adverse affects on campus morale and it can also bring unfavorable publi- city upon the institution.5 Implications from Glaze's study relevant to the survey of the current status of automotive fleet safety in colleges and universities in the United States were: 1. A lack of finances and personnel and a lack of understanding and support on the part of campus administrators were the major problems for campus environmental health and safety. 5James R. Glaze, "Factors Affecting the Viability of Environmental Health and Safety Programs in Institutions of Higher Education," pp. 22-23. 19 2. Most respondents felt that environmental health and safety personnel should have strong enforce— ment authority over persons who violated the rules and that this authority was not available. 3. The reference material for environmental health and safety programs should be rewritten and re- organized to meet the needs of higher education rather than the current industrial setting. 4. Enforcement of the rules and the establishment of standards of environmental health and safety were often more difficult to achieve on a college campus because faculty and staff generally enjoyed more freedom and autonomy than the employees in normal industrial situations. 5. The majority of the respondents felt that campuses were safer settings than industrial plants when in reality, according to many writers and commen- tators, the opposite was true because of the diversity that existed on college and university campuses.8 6. College and university environmental health and safety programs must have the interest and parti- cipation of the faculty, staff and students if they are to be effective.9 Role of the Private and Public Sector in Automotive Fleet Safety Upon examination of the overall safety movement, one is made aware that automotive fleet safety programs are relatively new. Historically, the turn of the century was the beginning of the safety movement in heavy industry. With the Workmen's Compensation Law pinpointing the direct 6National Safety Council, "How Viable Are Our Safety and Health Programs?" College and University Newsletter, p. 3. 7James R. Glaze, "Factors Affecting the Viability of Environmental Health and Safety Programs in Institutions of Higher Education," p. 99. 8 9 Ibid, p. 49. Ibid, p. 106. control ThUs , t EVOlvEd tranSPC Sighted K); 20 costs of industrial injuries, and management taking a closer look at accident costs, the safety movement experienced rapid development. Safety had at last joined the management team.10 With the improvement of highway systems during the early 1930's and subsequent increased commercial vehicle travel between cities, automotive fleet safety programs began to appear. In 1934, large commercial motor fleets became increasingly concerned about costly accidents and the rising cost of insurance; and thus declared that the control of accidents would become a high priority effort. Thus, the responsible position of safety supervisor evolved.ll The safety supervisor achieved status in motor transportation through the combined efforts of a few far~ sighted managers, the public's demand that something be done about commercial accidents, insurance companies' concern, government regulatory agencies and the trucking industry's own concern about unnecessary economic losses.12 The National Safety Council assumed a very active role in both supporting and stressing automotive fleet safety. On a regular basis, they wrote and published books, articles, periodicals, newsletters, journals, and statistical reviews pertaining to automotive fleet safety efforts. One such 10James C. Heiken and Mitchell T. Curley, Jr., Motor Fleet Safety Supervision (State College, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University, 1978), p. 3. 11 12 Ibid, p. 1. Ibid, p. 3. 21 publication was the Motor Fleet Safetnganual.l3 Therein was discussed the establishment and operation of a loss prevention program designed to help fleet management set up accident prevention programs or to strengthen existing ones. The National Safety Council emphasized that any group or company that had a large fleet (one hundred or more vehicles) or a small fleet should be concerned about a loss prevention program because anytime a company vehicle moved on or Off the premises it ran the risk of becoming involved in an accident.14 Accidents are not only costly in terms of finances and lost work time, they are also damaging to one's public image because of the adverse publicity. The public expects automotive fleets to be operated in a safe and efficient manner. Fleet managers must accept the fact that because their Vehicles constantly Operate in the public eye, they are subject to close scrutiny. According to the National Safety Council: The cornerstone Of any company activity-- and especially of a safety program-~15 management. The success Of the fleet safety program depends largely upon the top manager-— what he knows about safety, what he thinks and feels about safety, what he expects from the safety program, and how much money, people, and personal participation he will invest in it.15 The National Safety Council explicitly stated that safety should be an integral part of a job, any job. 13National Safety Council, Motor Fleet Safety Manual. Ibid, p. 3. lsIbid, p. 9. 14 22 Achieving a job Objective is important, but achieving those job Objectives without an accident is of equal importance. It further stated that in the training of employees and supervisors, it might be helpful to separate the safety content Of the job from the functional aspect and hold it up for inspection, but in actual performance and supervi- sion, safety should blend in with the functional part of doing the job.16 Indications of how private and commercial automotive fleets looked upon automotive fleet safety can be determined by reviewing articles found in periodicals, journals and newsletters dedicated to safety and, in particular, automotive fleet safety. Many of the articles were authored by fleet safety supervisors, management and loss control specialists for various insurance companies. In a special report prepared by Trevor E. Hughes for the Zarda Brothers Dairy, Shawnee, Kansas, it was pointed out that it was the responsibility of all vehicle Operators and other responsible persons associated with motor vehicle fleets to join in the effort to reduce vehicle accidents 17 Hughes also and the human suffering which it caused. stated that accidents can occur anywhere and to anybody; therefore, accident control was a company-wide problem 16Ibid, p. 19. 17Trevor E. Hughes, "Fleet Safety Program," Report presented to Zarda Brothers Dairy by Royal-Globe Insurance Companies, 21 December 1977. ’ I It“! 23 requiring cooperation at all company levels.18 High operation costs, an unfavorable insurance situation, poor public relations, poor customer relations, and poor employee relations are all potential problems that must be faced by the management that has failed to establish an accident prevention program for its motor vehicle fleet.19 The Huges report was best summed up by saying that accident prevention is not and should not be considered a fringe activity, but it is an activity that will result in controlling Operational losses and improv» ing overall Operating efficiency.20 Charles H. Shaw, Jr., pointed out that there was no logic to the argument that safety hinders productiOn. As a matter of fact, the data showed that safety enhanced production and profits. To cut down on accidents, improve profits, employee morale, public relations, increase production, and improve the company health program, it was suggested that one develop a positive and effective safety program. The cost of safety was always less than the cost of accidents.21 Thomas J. Decker stated that aside from the obvious humane reasons for concentrating on accident prevention, common sense dictates that the economic aspects Of 18 19 20 Ibid, p. 2. Ibid, p. 3. Ibid, p. 4. 21Charles H. Shaw, Jr., "Positive Results Achieved Through An Effective Safety Program," American Transpor- tation Builder, July/August, 1978, pp. 11 and 13. 24 accidents absolutely mandate a company's full effort and attention. He also pointed out that accident costs result in losses--money that never gets a chance to become a profit. This is why today's management of virtually all large company fleet Operators are convinced that the cost of accident prevention is less than the cost of the accident it prevents.22 G. Lincoln Sidwell revealed that most fleet managers were under an ultimatum from top management to cut Operat- ing costs. In examining the cost factors of State Automo— bile Mutual Insurance Company's automotive fleet, it was found that they could divide fleet expenditures into three major areas of cost: operation, maintenance and accidents. Through a fleet safety program that was endorsed by top management, they were able to cut their yearly accident rate of approximately fifteen accidents per million vehicle miles driven to approximately ten accidents 23 per million vehicle miles driven. In an article appearing in Commercial Car Journal, Rich Cross stated that Agway, Inc., the largest private trucking company in the United States (predominantly short haul), had experienced just 8.7 accidents per million 22Thomas J. Decker, "The Accident That Doesn't Happen Is Money In The Bank For Independent Truckers," Journal Of Traffic Safety, September 1976, pp. 8-10 and 38. 23G. Lincoln Sidwell, "Insurance Fleet Cuts Accident Rate with DDC," Journal of Traffic Safety, September 1978, pp. l6-l7. 25 vehicle miles driven in 1979. This low accident rate was attributed to the comprehensive fleet safety program that Agway conducted and fully endorsed. It has been estimated that their driver training program has saved them approxi- mately 325 thousand dollars over the past five years. They best summed up their fleet safety philosophy with the thought that it was a lot cheaper to pay for comprehensive driver training than for a poor accident record and high insurance premiums.24 An earlier article about Agway, Inc., indicated that their reputation depended largely on what the general public saw and experienced with the Agway automotive fleet. It was pointed out that trained drivers were more economical; insurance costs were less because of fewer accidents; and safe driving also meant less time and goodwill lost. Agway felt that selection and training of drivers was only the beginning of a successful accident prevention program. The continuous molding of a driver's attitude was important, and unless safe driving was made interesting and important to drivers, the accident rate of the fleet would suffer accordingly.25 An article describing the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority program stated that their accident rate in 1977 was 31 percent below the national average. In realizing 24Rich Cross, "Agway's 'Double Dose' for Safety's Sake," Commercial Car Journal, March 1980, pp. 119-123. 25"Agway Trains Drivers for Safety," Modern Bulk Transporter, June 1977, pp. 16-18. 26 their low accident rate, it was determined that four elements contributed most: the driving training program, the ACcident Review Board, the defensive driving course, and the safe driver awards.26 In a recent document by two Michigan State University professors, it was demonstrated that companies with better injury record-keeping systems had noticeably lower injury rates. Where cost analysis of injuries and accidents was the rule, the companies had lower injury frequencies than those who did not perform such analysis. The Dohrn Trans- fer Company was indicated as one trucking company that cared and had one of the industry's best safety records to prove it. They treated safety as an Operational problem, rather than a nuisance. They utilized their insurance carrier as an ally by having the loss control specialist promote ways of thinking about safety. "The loss control specialist offers ideas and methodology: he just doesn't fix things."27 In a telephone interview with Mr. John P. Connelly, Director of Fleet Safety Programs for the State of Michigan, he stated that Michigan has been actively involved in con- ducting driver improvement programs for the past ten years and that these programs are for all state employees who drive state vehicles. The programs utilized by Michigan 2 O I O O 6"Well-De31gned Training Programs Lower Acc1dent Rate," Passenger Transport, January 27, 1978, p. 1. 27"Invest in Safety; Save on Insurance," Fleet Owner, January 1979, pp. 66-69. 27 are: (1) an initial driver improvement course, (2) a refresher course required every five years, (3) an accident review board, and (4) periodic traffic safety seminars.28 The programs have resulted in the rate of preventable accidents per million vehicle miles driven steadily declin- ing from 8.36 in 1973 to a low of 3.95 in 1981. Also, the state's insurance carrier indicated that because of their educational effort in driver improvement, the state of Michigan is realizing a yearly savings of one—half to one million dollars on their insurance premiums. In contrast, the yearly budget for the state's overall driver improvement program is one hundred thousand dollars and, in insurance premiums alone, this program has been shown to be cost effective.29 Summary A review of the literature in this chapter included: (1) current automotive fleet safety information relating to institutions of higher education, (2) related studies in higher education, and (3) role of the private and public sector in automotive fleet safety. The review was con- ducted and presented within the framework of indicating the need to determine the current status of automotive fleet 28Telephone interview with John P. Connelly, Director of Fleet Safety Programs, Office Of Management and Budget, Motor Transportation Division, State of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan, 12 May 1982. 29John P. Connelly, telephone interview, 12 May 1982. 28 safety in colleges and universities in the United States. It was found that very few studies involved colleges and universities and their automotive fleet safety programs. Specifically, those contributing to a better understanding of what these institutions were doing in this area were: "Michigan State University Automotive Fleet Accident Study for the Fiscal Years 1974-1975 and 1975-1976," and Glaze's dissertation, "Factors Affecting the Viability of Environmental Health and Safety Programs in Institutions of Higher Education." The Michigan State University study created an awareness of the existing void of readily available infor- mation concerning the automotive fleet safety efforts Of other colleges and universities in the United States. It also singled out areas that needed to be investigated to determine the extent of an institution's fleet safety program. Glaze's research reinforced the fact that colleges and universities as a group did not place as much emphasis on environmental health and safety programs as did business and industry. Also indicated was a lack of reference materials for campus environmental health and safety programs coupled with the fact that the major portion of this literature was presented for the industrial setting. This lack Of reference material was also evident for college and university automotive fleet safety programs. General fleet safety information was readily available 29 with the major sources identified in Chapter II being: the National Safety Council, the National Committee for Motor Fleet Supervisor Training, insurance companies, and professional associations whose primary concern was auto- motive fleet safety. Even though these sources did not include specifics related directly to the college and university setting, they did support the need and concern for automotive fleet safety programs. In Chapter III, the research design used in the survey of colleges and universities will be discussed. Chapter III METHOD S OF PROCEDURE In this chapter is a detailed presentation of the research design which includes: (1) selection of the sample four-year colleges and universities in the United States, (2) description of the sampling technique used, (3) the questionnaire approach, (4) development of the national survey questionnaire, (5) the pilot study, (6) mailing procedures, (7) follow-up procedures, (8) methods for analysis of the data collected, and (9) summary. Selection of the Sample A procedure for selecting the sample population had to be established in order to adequately survey a selected group of four-year colleges and universities in the United States. The most complete and up-to-date listing Of all four-year colleges and universities in the United States was found to be The College Blue Book.1 It proved to be the most comprehensive in terms of listing each school's student enrollment and the manner in which each institution was governed and controlled. Included were 913 four-year 1The College Blue Book, Tabular Data, Seventeenth Edition. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1979). 30 31 colleges and universities in the United States identified as having a student enrollment of 1,000 or more students. Those institutions with less than a 1,000 student enroll- ment were not included in the sample because it was sur- mised that these schools would have very small automotive fleets, if any at all. Most of the schools that were ex- cluded were identified in the small private school category and this stratum already included 416 schools which was the largest of all the strata. Random stratified sampling was used to select the sample population from the target population. The ration- ale for random stratified sampling for four-year colleges and universities in the United States was derived from SamplingOpinions2 by E. J. Stephen and P. J. McCarthy, and Sample-Size Determination3 by Arthur E. Mace. As explained 4 in Statistics by William L. Hays, random stratified samp- ling insures a representative sample so that one can make inferences about the total population that is represented. Stratification of the sample population was determined by the way in which a college or university was governed or controlled and by its student enrollment. There was a total 2E. J. Stephen and P. J. McCarthy, Sampling Opinions (New YOrk: John Wiley, 1958), pp. 103-118. 3Arthur E. Mace, Sample-Size Determination (New YOrk: Reinhold Publishing Company, 1964), pp. 2—3. 4William L. Hays, Statistics, Second Edition (New York: Hold, Rinehard afidFWinston, 1973), p. 290. 32 of nine strata identified and each Of the 913 four-year institutions was placed in their respective stratum. The three categories used to indicate how an institution was governed or controlled were: (1) private, (2) public and (3) state. The institution's enrollment was designated as either (1) small (more than 1,000 but less than 5,000), (2) medium (more than 5,000 but less than 15,000), or (3) large (15,000 or more). All Of this information was identified in The College Blue Book. The data presented in Table 1 represent the size of the sample population for each stratum. TABLE 1 - Total number of all four—year colleges and universities in the United States within their respective stratum Category Number of Schools Percentage Private - Small 416 45.6% Medium 63 6.9 Large 10 1.1 Public - Small 22 2.4 Medium 42 4.6 Large 24 2.6 State - Small 147 16.1 Medium 129 14.1 Large 60 6.6 TOTALS 913 100.0% Description of the Sampling Technique Since the stratification being used was to Obtain a 33 representative sample of all four-year colleges and univer- sities in the United States and would not be used as a cross-reference between the different groups, a 25 percent sample size was taken from each stratum to insure a precise estimation of what was occurring in the area Of automotive fleet safety in the target population. Random stratified sampling was the statistical method used to select the 25 percent sample size which accounted for 230 selected institutions in the United States. In order to estimate what was occurring in the area of automotive fleet safety in all four-year colleges and universities in the United States, a representative sample of the target population had to be acquired. In discussing the size of the representative sample with Doctor Jack L. Shepler,5 a research consultant at Indiana Univer- sity of Pennsylvania, it was recommended that a 20 percent representative sample size would be sufficient to make inferences about the target population. In order to insure a representative sample for the final analysis, a 25 percent sample population was selected to receive the questionnaire. The data presented in Table 2 represent the 25 percent sample size Of all four-year colleges and universities in each stratum and the number of returns needed to insure a 20 percent representative sample in each stratum. 5Interview with Dr. Jack L. Shepler, Professor and Research Consultant, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania, 5 Janaury 1981. TABLE 2 Cate Private Public State TOTALS 34 TABLE 2 - Total number of all four-year colleges and universities to receive the questionnaire and the number of returns needed to insure a representative sample. 25% 20% Initial Representative Category Population Mailing Sample Private - Small 416 104 83 Medium 63 l6 13 Large 10 3 2 Public - Small 22 6 4 Medium 42 ll 8 Large 24 6 5 State - Small 147 37 29 Medium 129 32 26 Large 60 15 12 TOTALS 913 230 182 The Questionnaire Approach The rationale employed in reaching a decision to use the questionnaire approach to gather data from the 230 randomly selected four-year colleges and universities in the United States was as follows: The questionnaire is a major instrument for data gathering in descriptive-survey studies and is used to secure information from varied and widely scattered sources. The questionnaire is particularly useful when one cannot readily see personally all of the people from whom he desires responses or where there is no particular reason to see the respondent personally. This technique may be used to gather data from any range of territory, sometimes international or national.6 The validity Of the questionnaire in a descriptive survey 6Carter V. Good and Douglas E. Scates. Methods Of Research, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crafts, Inc., 1954), Pp. 606-607. has descz The selected AS pren,’ ic a'flailab 1E lated to SQDCateg l . 7 h ";a‘; Status 02 m 8 D 54c e 35 was described by Spahr and Swenson.7 Raj8 also indicated that the questionnaire approach is a useful method for the collection of data. Development of the Questionnaire The researcher's purpose in this national survey was to determine the status of automotive fleet safety in selected colleges and universities in the United States. As previously stated in Chapter I, minimal information was available on a national scale in this area of safety re— lated to higher education. Therefore, it was determined that this survey instrument should elicit data that would provide as comprehensive a picture as possible and still not be too time consuming for the recipient to complete and return. Five categories were established for the grouping of questions as they related to an institution's fleet safety Operation. Following are the categories and subcategories that guided the develOpment of the questions: 1. General information relative to the educational institution and its automotive fleet. a. Type of institution. b. Size of institution. c. Size, type and use of the automotive fleet. 7Walter E. Spahr and Rinehard J. Swenson, Methods and Status Of Scientific Research (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1930), pp. 232-233. 8Des Raj. The Design of Sample Surveys (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972), pp. 116—117. 36 2. Extent of the automotive fleet policies and procedures. a. Evidence Of written policies and procedures. b. Type Of supervision. c. Support given to the fleet safety program. d. Insurance information. e. Vehicle maintenance and inspection. f. Type of records maintained. g. Accident reporting procedures. h. Safety recognition. 1. Program evaluation. 3. Extent of the educational and/or training programs. a. Availability of such programs. b. Overall educational effort. 4. Factual data concerning the institution's auto- motive fleet Operation during the 1978—1979 and 1979—1980 school years. a. Number Of accidents involving automotive fleet vehicles. b. Personal injuries and/or fatalities. c. Employee work days lost. d. Cost involving automotive fleet accidents. e. Total mileage for the automotive fleet. f. Lawsuits. 5. Opinions of person(s) responding to the questionnaire. The original questionnaire included fifty questions represe: questior advisory and spec this ana and two were inc tional 1; F01 lO'w'i ng hraSEd i '(J bélng inc Simple pg 37 representing all five categories. Copies Of this questionnaire were then submitted to the student's advisory committee for an analysis of wording, content, and specificity of purpose and intent. As a result of this analysis and editing, some questions were rephrased and two questions were deleted. Forty-eight questions were included in the survey that was sent to the educa- tional institutions that participated in the pilot study. Following the pilot study, additional questions were re- phrased and rearranged resulting in fifty-two questions being included in the final questionnaire sent to the sample population. It was decided to send the questionnaire to the "campus insurance coordinator" as this individual would be the most likely to have information concerning the institution's automotive fleet. It was also assumed that the insurance coordinator would have a genuine interest in the safe and efficient Operation of the institution's automotive fleet. Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted with three institutions of higher education in Pennsylvania. Included in the pilot study was a small private college, a large public university, and a medium state university. The pilot study contributed to the accomplishment Of the following Objectives: (1) to determine if the campus insurance coordinator understood in the q addition carefull tions 5: were rep increase were rea 38 the terminology and intent of each question presented in the questionnaire, (2) to determine the clarity of wording in the questionnaire, and (3) to Obtain suggestions, additions and/or deletions needed in the questionnaire. As previously stated, the questionnaire sent to those schools that participated in the pilot study included forty-eight questions presented in five parts. After carefully studying and evaluating the responses and sugges- tions from those participating schools, several questions were rephrased for greater clarity which resulted in an increase in the number of questions. Several questions were rearranged in their order of appearance to afford better continuity to the questionnaire. Mailing Procedures Prior to mailing the questionnaire to the selected campus insurance coordinators, the following steps were employed: (1) the campus insurance coordinator's school name, address and salutation were typed on the letter of explanation, (2) the return envelOpe was prepared and (3) the envelope to be mailed out containing the survey questionnaire, return envelope and letter Of explanation was addressed. Copies Of all the survey material can be found in Appendices A—D. On May 30, 1981, the questionnaires were sent to 230 colleges and universities in the United States. This initial ma. 230 school: the letter identify th- randomly se; returned, t? of questionn Each questio resPondent's abstract of After a SEnt to 1111085 rESPOHL‘h—Ed to Produced addi however, it a ted that they 39 initial mailing produced a response from sixty-four of the 230 schools; a return of 27.8 percent. Each stamped, self-addressed envelope that accompanied the letter of explanation and questionnaire was coded to identify the school and the stratum from which it was randomly selected. As each completed questionnaire was returned, the data received were noted and the total number of questionnaires returned in each stratum was recorded. Each questionnaire was also checked in relation to the respondent's name, title, school, and if they desired an abstract of the completed study. Follow-Up Procedures After a period of four weeks, a follow-up letter was sent to those campus insurance coordinators that had not responded to the initial mailing. This follow—up letter produced additional responses to the original mailing; however, it also produced responses from some who indica- ted that they would be willing to complete the question- naire but they had not received the initial mailing. There were 166 schools contacted in the second mailing which produced a response from thirty-four schools, a return of 20.5 percent. The small private school stratum was the largest of the strata in the initial and follow-up mailings. It was the one stratum in which a greater number of replies was needed. Five of the respondents in this category indicated that the small tc schools, schools nailing: 40 that they felt their automotive fleet operations were too small to warrant completing the questionnaire. Seventeen schools, or 25 percent of the sixty-eight small private schools that did not respond to the initial and follow-up mailings, were randomly selected for a second follow-up by telephone. These schools indicated that they felt that their automotive fleets were too small to warrant their participation in this national survey and that it would be unrealistic for them to furnish the data required by the questionnaire. After the initial mailing, follow—up mailing and tele— phone follow-up, there was still a need to receive a larger number of replies from seven of the strata in order to have a representative sample. It was decided to return to the target population and do another random selection from each strata (excluding small private and the large public schools which already had a representative sample). On September 30, 1981, sixty-five additional colleges and universities received a complete packet Of survey materials. This mailing and subsequent telephone follow-up resulted in thirty-one schools responding to the national survey; a return of 47.7 percent. All three mailing and telephone follow-ups produced a response from 129 schools. Nine of the 129 respondents did not complete the questionnaire for various reasons; two of these reasons were: (1) in their Opinion, their respective fleet was too small and (2) their accident experier tabulati the foil turns of complete 41 experience was too low. Because of this, data analysis and tabulation were based upon 120 completed questionnaires. The percentage of response to the initial mailings and the follow-ups are presented in Table 3. The rate Of re- turns Of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix E and a complete list of the respondents can be found in Appendix F. Methods for Analysis of the Data The findings presented in Chapter IV attempted to relate systematically the current status of automotive fleet safety in the selected four-year institutions of higher learning in the United States. Data analysis involved the use of descriptive statistical techniques that indicated the percentage of response to each question. The mean served as the primary measure Of the central tendency to most of the responses, while the standard deviation was used when applicable. The findings were put in tabular form and expressed in percentages to the nearest tenth when applicable and other responses were noted in descriptive form. A narrative analysis accompanied each table relative to the question. Answers to questions relating to the factual data concerning the automotive fleet Operation during the two specified school years were used to determine the accident frequency rate at each institution. Frequency an... _. 3:52. 3.2:? .Lo ._ 925:: of t: —.. 42 flan.oeo flas.eeo Asm.s~o nsm.swo on“ an we em OOH we own wqwna peaesmm chwmccowumoso assume «sedan: shape: mcwdwmz :hsuom usages: Snomouau omaucoouoe pououesou pcooom pcooow eat:O-om nauzogfiom flmmuficu Hmwuwcu .wump ecu mo mfimzfimcm 0:9 a“ com: mosfim::0«umosq mo popes: ecu pcm mucwdwms mnemna> ecu scum packages mopwm==OMHmo=c mo ommucounoe pcm Hones: u m mqmCLL Ubw>Lcm “NC mgaxkr I c. EQESB 53 .Qucmu ummummc mnu ou cmocsou mmmucmonmm Umusmaoo Hm5p0¢«« .mucopcommmu oma wn ©mum3mcm mm? coflummoo« o.mv vm m.o~ mm m.o H m.mm mm cofluosuumcoo o.mm we m.mv mm l m.m a m.mH ma wofl>umm socmoumsm m.mm HHH m.mm no m.m v m.mm ow mocmsmuCflmz a moa>umm n.0m mHH m.ov av m.m m m.mm «m xnoz mocsouo n.mm voa m.mo on m.m m m.om mm moa>umm >uw>flamo m.mm vm m.ma mm m.m v n.w m coflumosom um>fiuo N.mm boa o.mo mm m.m~ mm m.o H mmwcwmsm m.mm moa h.mm mm >.Hm mm o.o o Hm>mue owEmomo< ~.mn mm m.ov me m.mm we o.o o mucmcsum mafiufisuomm 0.0m mos p.86 om m.o~ mm m.m m mucmcsum mcauuommcmue «*w *C ifiw ¥C *«w «S *«w «G mwmgommmm mmmmm cuom madamuwmmo mJMEmonco Amt :ofiummoov ummah m>wuoeou5¢ >9 Umofl>onm m0fl>umm mo me>B I m mqm<9 Driver m ‘5 the sch and off percent Deliver 54 Driver Education The data in Table 9 reveal that 28.3 percent of the schools provided this service—-18.3 percent both on and off campus, 3.3 percent off campus only, and 6.7 percent on campus only. Delivery Service The data in Table 9 reveal that 86.7 percent of the schools provided this service--63.3 percent both on and off campus, 2.5 percent off campus only, and 20.8 percent on campus only. Grounds Work The data in Table 9 reveal that 96.7 percent of the schools provided this service--40.8 percent both on and off campus, 2.5 percent off campus only, and 53.3 percent on campus only. Service & Maintenance The data in Table 9 reveal that 92.5 percent of the schools provided this service--55.8 percent both on and off campus, 3.3 percent off campus only, and 33.3 percent on campus only. Emergency Service The data in Table 9 reveal that 65.0 percent of the schools provided this service--45.8 percent both on and off campus, 3.3 percent off campus only, and 15.8 percent on campus only. Construction The data in Table 9 reveal that 45.0 percent of the sc and of percen '3 of res locate- \ Fl CUr» % 55 the schools provided this service—-20.8 percent both on and off campus, 0.8 percent off campus only, and 23.3 percent on campus only. Location of Automotive Fleet The data presented in Table 10 indicate the percentage of responses to Question #7--Is your automotive fleet located and/or housed in one central location? TABLE 10 - Whether or not fleet located in one central location (Question #7) Responses Number Percentage* Yes 73 61.3 No 46 38.7 TOTALS: 119 100.0 *Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth. Data in Table 10 reveal that 61.3 percent of the schools' automotive fleets were located and/or housed in one central location while 38.7 percent were not. One respondent did not reply to this question. 'Acquisition of Vehicles The data presented in Table 11 reveal the percentage of responses to Question #8--Are all fleet vehicles currently owned by the institution? TABLE 1 Respo NO I *Actual The schools not. Or 56 TABLE 11 - Ownership of Vehicles by University (Question #8) Responses Number Percentage* Yes 64 53.8 No .2: .153. TOTALS: 119 100.0 *Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth. The data in Table 11 reveal that 53.8 percent of the schools owned all of their vehicles while 46.2 percent did not. One respondent did not reply to the question. Table 12 indicates the percentage of responses to the second part of Question #8 (those that responded NO)--1f NO, please indicate how vehicles are acquired: TABLE 12 - Acquisition of Vehicles (Second part of Question #8) Some Free Responses: Owned Leased Loan Number*: 45 55 15 Percentage**: 81.8 100.0 27.3 *Question answered by 55 respondents. **Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth. The data in Table 12 reveal that 81.8 percent of the fifty-five respondents who answered NO to Question #8 owned some of their fleet vehicles, 100.0 percent leased vehicles, and 27.3 percent acquired vehicles on a free :.. r a. an e «C n C I I F. ‘L i i E 4 .- 0 AL .1 T : D; A I N G G U 0 *\ U. I b. C. C. 57 loan basis. Status of Driver Permitted to Use Automotive Fleet Vehicles The data presented in Table 13 indicate the percentage of responses to Question #9--Please indicate the status of drivergpermitted to use the vehicles in the automotive fleet: TABLE 13 - Status of driver permitted to use fleet vehicles (Question #9) Responses Number* Percentage** Administration 119 99.2 Instructional Staff 113 94.2 Non-instructional Staff 120 100.0 Graduate Assistants 75 62.5 Graduate Students 60 50.0 Undergraduate Students 75 62.5 Other 6 5.0 *Question answered by 120 respondents. **Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth. The data in Table 13 reveal that 99.2 percent of the schools permitted their administration to use fleet vehicles, 94.2 percent permitted instructional staff, 100 percent permitted non-instructional staff, 62.5 percent permitted graduate assistants, 50.0 percent permitted graduate students, 62.5 percent permitted undergraduate students, and 5.0 percent indicated "other" (included in this category were volunteers, other state employees, non-employees with permission, and the president's family). Th ses to I have a : the safe fleet? TABLE 14 58 Automotive Fleet Policies and Procedures Written Set of Policies and Procedures for the Automotive Fleet The data in Table 14 reveal the percentage of respon- ses to Question #10--Does your educational institution have a written set of policies and procedures relating to the safe and efficient use of vehicles in the automotive fleet? TABLE 14 - Whether or not there were written policies and procedures for use of fleet vehicles (Question #10) Responses Number Percentage* Yes 66 56.9 No _50 43.1 TOTALS: 116 100.0 *Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth. The data in Table 14 reveal that 56.9 percent of the schools had a written set of policies and procedures that related to the safe and efficient use of vehicles in the automotive fleet while 43.1 percent did not. Four respondents did not reply to the question.- Table 15 reveals the percentage of responses to the second part of Question #10--If YES, please complete the following: 43...: fi\.‘(\ll\l\rv Lt“.."\\('\("flh "0". r LCFCF I O F (ah +CC_E Cur r + titre .# :< rxhKL MA» cm: m~ mgz<$ 59 .nucmw ummumwc on» on pmpcaou mmmucmoumm GODSQEOU Hmsuo<«* .mucmpcommmn we >Q pmuwzmcm GOwummsO« «.mv mm oz mmHOH£m> comm CH pwomHQ m.om vm mo» mmcHpraom ummam m>Huoeousm may mud .0 5.5 m oz mmum>flup Ham op magmawm>m meme m.mm Ho mow mmcflampflsm ummam w>Hu0Eousm may mn< .b H.vo Nv oz mamscme um>flup m.mm>onEm wumummmm m Ga m.mm vm mow mmcflampfizm ummam m>fluoeouom may 0H4 .m *«mmmucmoumm *umbfisz mmmcommmm cOHummsa mo uumm pcoowmv loae coflummsc mouspmooum pom mmHoHHom ummam m>HDOEO#D¢ 0:» mo mm: I ma mqmca Th1 percent the fir employel indicat‘ Th made av lines w schools Percent 60 The data presented in Table 15 reveal that 35.9 percent of the sixty-six respondents that answered YES to the first part of Question #10 indicated that a separate employee’s driver manual was available, and 64.1 percent indicated a manual was not available. The data also reveal that 92.3 percent of the schools made available to all drivers the automotive fleet guide- lines while 7.7 percent did not. Also, 50.8 percent of the schools placed the guidelines in each vehicle while 49.2 percent did not follow this procedure. Responsibility for the Management and Supervision of An Automotive Fleet Safety Program The data in Table 16 indicate the percentage of responses to Question #ll--Is there one person or depart- ment on your campus that has direct responsibility for the management and supervision of an automotive fleet program? TABLE 16 - Whether or not one person or department to manage and supervise automotive fleet program (Question #11) Responses Number Percentage* Yes 63 54.3 No _§3¢ 45.7 TOTALS: 116 100.0 *Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth. The schools automoti not. Fc Tab second p 61 The data in Table 16 reveal that 54.3 percent of the schools had one department or person responsible for the automotive fleet safety program while 45.7 percent did not. Four respondents did not reply to the question. Table 17 reveals the percentage of responses to the second part of Question #11--If YES, please complete the following: a. What is the title of the person or department in charge? TABLE 17 - Title of Person or Department in Charge (Second part of Question #11) Responses* Number Percentage** Physical Plant 17 27.0 Maintenance Department 15 23.8 Transportation Department 10 15.9 Health & Safety Office 8 12.7 Buildings & Grounds 6 9.5 Campus Security & Safety 5 7.9 Business Operations 1 1.6 Student Admissions _l 1.6 TOTALS: 3 100.0 *Departments were labelled generically because all titles were not exactly alike. **Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth. The data in Table 17 reveal that sixty-three of the respondents who answered YES to the first part of Question #11 indicated the responsibility for an automotive fleet sa eight ca (2) main tion dep office, 9.5 per: (7) busi admissic The Of respc QUGStlQ] b. a C. 3913239 QEEEEEQ 62 fleet safety program was assigned to one of the following eight categories: (1) physical plant, 27.0 percent, (2) maintenance department, 23.8 percent, (3) transporta- tion department, 15.9 percent, (4) health and safety office, 12.7 percent, (5) buildings and grounds department, 9.5 percent, (6) campus security and safety, 7.9 percent, (7) business operations, 1.6 percent, and (8) student admissions, 1.6 percent. The data presented in Table 18 reveal the percentage of responses to the remainder of the second part of Question #11--If YES, please complete the following: b. Is fleet safety_this person's or department's only (LUBE c. Was specific training or preparation in relation to automotive fleet safety received by this person or department members? The data in Table 18 reveal that 1.6 percent of the sixty-two respondents who answered YES to the first part of Question #11 indicated that fleet safety was their only responsibility and 98.4 percent indicated it was not. One respondent did not answer this part of the question. Those that responded NO to Question #llb were asked to indicate other responsibilities. See Appendix G for a complete list of responses. The data in Table 18 also reveal that 29.8 percent of the fifty-seven respondents who answered YES to the .«CF.~—:+IFP-‘F~CWV LC CfKHUK-flwifh (fif\h‘ pkg-I‘Wf‘sni F‘WEIHIII 63 .mmmcommmu mo umwa oumHmEoo HOM o xflpcmmmfi mmm«« .zucmu ammummc may on popcsou mmmucmoumm pmusmeoo Hmouo<« o.ooa hm umqmeoe N.o> mm oz mumbEmE acmEuummmp Ho COmumm mwsu >3 pm>flmowu zummmm m.mm ma «4mm» ummam o>fluoaousm ou coaumHmu :H coflumummmnm Ho mcflcflmuu camwowmm mmz .U o.ooa mm "mA