Evaluation of FTA Drug Abuse Testing Program April 2008 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Evaluation of fta drug abuse testing program april 2008
Download
1 / 34

  • 59 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Evaluation of FTA Drug Abuse Testing Program April 2008. Jerry Powers, FTA Office of Program Management – Safety & Security. Evaluation Analysis Opportunities. Use DAMIS data and external cost measures to develop a cost benefit model

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Evaluation of FTA Drug Abuse Testing Program April 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Evaluation of fta drug abuse testing program april 2008

Evaluation of FTA Drug Abuse Testing ProgramApril 2008

Jerry Powers, FTA Office of Program Management – Safety & Security


Evaluation analysis opportunities

Evaluation Analysis Opportunities

  • Use DAMIS data and external cost measures to develop a cost benefit model

  • Compare DAMIS data to SAMIS data to determine safety benefit from the D&A Program

  • Raise the bar – provide customer service. Opportunities to use DAMIS to help agencies justify D&A expenditure apart from it just being a regulatory requirement

  • Show where to focus efforts/funding - areas for improvement


Charter prove the effectiveness of the d a program in achieving fta strategic goal

CHARTERProve the Effectiveness of the D&A Program in Achieving FTA Strategic Goal

  • Promoting public safety by eliminating transit-related deaths, injuries, and property damage

    USE:

  • Maturing DAMIS data together with:

    • Safety Data (SAMIS/NTD)

    • Audits/Technical assistance experience and data

    • Other Industry and Government D&A measures

    • Creative analysis


New measures of cost and safety benefits money lives mayhem

New Measures of Cost and Safety BenefitsMoney, Lives & Mayhem

Cost Benefit

  • Show cost saving to Transit Industry due to elimination or mitigation of D&A using employees

  • Second chance programs have significant cost benefit to industry

  • Audits are having a positive effect in terms of safety benefits and cost savings

  • Use baseline rate (1995 or 1996) and subsequent improvement to prove reduction in accidents, fatalities and injuries

Safety Benefit


Outline

Outline

  • Concept and Measures

  • FTA and Testing Costs

  • Benefits

    • Mitigation of Drug & Alcohol positives

      • Pre-employment

      • Random

      • Reasonable Suspicion

      • Refusals

      • Post-Accident

      • Deterrent Effect

    • Safety

    • Audits

    • Second Chance Programs


D a evaluation concept

D&A Evaluation Concept

I. COST BENEFIT

II. SAFETY BENEFIT

Baseline

Baseline

NTD S&S Data

DAMIS

Data

NTD S&S Data

Other Industry

and Government

D&A Cost

Measures

DAMIS

Data

Analysis

Analysis

Merge these

baselines into cost benefit spreadsheet

Of D&A Program

NTD S&S Data

NTD S&S Data

Merge these

baselines to show D&A contributing to accident avoidance

DAMIS

Data

DAMIS

Data

Other Industry

and Government

D&A Cost

Measures


Industry and government d a cost measures

Industry and Government D&A Cost Measures


Damis baseline

DAMIS Baseline

  • Random Positives are on the decline

  • CDL positive rate is higher than other employee categories


Ntd s s baseline

NTD S&S Baseline

  • Transit Industry is getting safer. Incidents, injuries and fatalities are trending down


I cost methodology cost benefit spreadsheet

I. Cost Methodology - Cost Benefit Spreadsheet

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .


Cost methodology unit of measurement

Cost Methodology – Unit of Measurement

  • Each D&A using employee costs the Transit Industry and the overall society $15-20K per year:

    • Health Care Expenditures

      • D&A abuse services

      • Medical consequences

    • Productivity Effects

      • Premature Death

      • Impaired productivity

      • Institutionalization, Incarceration, Crime careers and victims

    • Other Effects

      • Crime effects

      • Vehicle crashes and fire

  • D&A Program eliminates or mitigates users at $15-20K per user per year


Costs

2005

$2,200,000

FTA Total Cost per Year - FY2001

309,190

Total Tests

140,179

Total Random and Reasonable Suspicion Drug Tests

$66.56

Cost per Test - from 1999 Rural

$20,579,686

Actual Cost of Tests

$6.08

Safety Sensitive Employee Productivity Cost (per test)

$853,410

Total National Productivity Cost to Agencies

Cost of Drug & Alcohol Program Personnel at Transit Agencies (per

40.97

Test)

$12,667,514

Total National Administrative Cost to Agencies

$36,300,611

Total Cost

Costs

  • Costs have ranged from $22M-$36M per year since 1995


Savings methodology

Savings Methodology

  • Transit is 0.14% of the US Gross National Product (approximately $17.4 Billion/year in 2005)

  • Cost of Drug use and Alcohol misuse to the US economy is $483 Billion per year – NIDA measure indexed

  • Transit portion of that cost is $677 Million per year. Safety-sensitive are 80% of transit employees. Thus incur $542 Million of that cost.

  • 10.6% of Transportation Workers with drug use and/or alcohol misuse - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Survey

  • Approximately 260,000 safety-sensitive transit employees

  • Thus, ~27,500 incur the $542 Million in annual cost

  • $542,000,000/27,500 employees = $19,700 per year per employee in 2005

  • Deterring or mitigating those 27,500 employees is the basic savings opportunity


Savings methodology1

Savings Methodology


Cost methodology pre employment savings

Cost MethodologyPre-employment Savings

  • Pre-employment testing - eliminated 18,125 users over the course of the Program. These users would have cost the Transit Industry $358 Million in 2005 (18,125*$19,753 = ~$358,000,000).


Cost methodology random savings

Cost MethodologyRandom Savings

  • Random testing - eliminated or mitigated 5701 users over the previous 5 years of the program in 2005. These users would have cost the Transit Industry $112 Million in 2005 (5701*$19,753 = ~$112,000,000).


Cost methodology post accident reasonable suspicion and refusals

Cost MethodologyPost-Accident, Reasonable Suspicion, and Refusals

  • Post Accident positives - eliminated or mitigated 1041 users over previous 5 years in 2005. These users would have cost the Transit Industry $21 Million in 2005.

  • Reasonable Suspicion - eliminated or mitigated 601 over previous 5 years in 2005. These users would have cost the Transit Industry $12 Million in 2005.

  • Refusals - eliminated 1506 users over previous 5 years in 2005. These users would have cost the Transit Industry $30 Million in 2005.


Deterrent effect of random testing

Deterrent Effect of Random Testing

Year to Year calculation – no cumulative effect

If the positive rate remained

the same as at the beginning

of the program, each year there

would be ~2000 more positives

per year

Random Positive Rate


Deterrence random program

Deterrence – Random Program

  • Has saved a total of $347 Million 1995-2005

  • From $9M to up to $56M per year


Cost methodology

Cost Methodology

  • Drug and Alcohol Rules Cost Benefit (Regulatory Impact Analysis) called for a $1.39 Billion benefit over 10 years. An average of $139 million/year.

  • Real data from the first 11 years blows this figure away

    • $3.683 Billion (or $335 million per year average)

Redskins 27

Cowboys 14

It’s Up and…. It’s Good!


Safety methodology d a accidents are comparable with regular accidents in lethality

Safety Methodology - D&A Accidents are Comparable with Regular Accidents in Lethality

  • SAMIS shows and .0071 fatalities per Accident (Collision) 1995 – 1998.

  • DAMIS shows .0077 fatalities per D&A Accident.

  • Thus, D&A has comparable lethality to Overall Safety figures in fatal accidents (8% higher than non-D&A accidents).

  • Fatalities are a function of accidents – bad luck when they occur


Safety methodology show that d a program saves lives and reduces injuries

Safety Methodology - Show that D&A Program Saves Lives and Reduces Injuries

  • D&A Program Reduces Accidents and thus, exposure to Injuries and Fatalities

  • No way of measuring the D&A related accident rate before the program, so…

  • Use 1995 as a baseline


Saving lives it s what s above the curve

Saving Lives: It’s What’s above the Curve

Post-Accident Positive Rate (Drug and Alcohol)

Per Incident

  • Using 1995 as a baseline,

  • the dark wedge represents:

  • 1690 Accidents

  • 13 Fatalities

  • 1486 Injuries

Post Accident Positive Rate


Safety methodology less accidents less mayhem

Safety Methodology -Less Accidents = Less Mayhem

  • DAMIS showed that 3.1% accidents were D&A related in 1995 (Baseline)

  • DAMIS showed that 1.5% accidents were D&A related in 2005 (Improvement)

  • If the rate had remained at 3.1%, 1690 more accidents would have resulted from 1996-2005.

  • National Transit Database (NTD) Safety & Security module reveals that .0071 fatalities result per accident (collisions, vehicle going off road, and derailments)

  • At an overall DAMIS rate of .0077 fatalities per accident, these 817 accidents would be expected to cause 13.02 fatalities.


The fta drug alcohol testing program

The FTA Drug & Alcohol Testing Program

The decrease in illicit drug use in the transit industry has resulted in the positive rate dropping from 1.76% to 0.81% resulting in:

  • An avoidance of 1,690 accidents that would have produced approximately 13 fatalities and 1486 injuries.

  • The elimination or mitigation through rehabilitation of 29,841 illicit drug users in the transit industry through both testing and deterrence

    3.       Productivity benefits and total societal economic cost avoidance of $3.68 billion dollars


Training cost for new employees

Training Cost for New Employees

  • Transit employee salary – weighted average from 2000 Bureau of Labor Statistics


Cost measures is return to duty and follow up a benefit or a burden

Cost Measures - Is Return-to-duty and Follow-up a Benefit or a Burden?

  • It is estimated that to train new employee, it costs 1/3rd of an employee’s annual salary

  • $1650 per month – D&A Using employee

D&A Abusing

Employee

Costs

Training

Costs for

New Employees


Is second chance policy beneficial to industry yes

Second Chance Programs

Return to Duty and Follow-up

totals

25,624

Return-to-Duty Tests (Both Drugs & Alcohol)

175,247

Follow-up Tests (Both Drugs & Alcohol)

475

Positives - Failed Return-to-Duty Tests (Both Drugs & Alcohol)

2300

Positives - Failed Follow-up Tests (Both Drugs & Alcohol)

10.06%

Percent Positives per Return-to-Duty Employee 1995-2005

6.53

Follow-up tests per RTD employee 1995-2005

Average Transit Salary - 2000

$223,254,981

Savings through the Avoidance of Training Costs

Societal Economic Cost of Employing a Drug User or Alcohol Misuser

(2 months or 1/6 of Average Annual Economic Impact of Each Drug &

Alcohol Using Transit Employee)

$7,571,542

Cost of Additional Testing - Return-to-Duty and Follow-up (assume

$70/test because of Urban focus)

$14,060,970

$24,599,040

Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) Cost (assume $960/ RTD Emp.)

$177,023,429

Net (Savings minus Costs) - Second Chance Programs

Is Second Chance Policy Beneficial to Industry? YES

$28,970.32

  • Benefit is almost 5 times more than the cost ($223M saved in training vs. $46M in costs), or for every dollar spent on Second Chance, industry got almost $5 dollars back.


Cost measures audits

Cost Measures - Audits

  • Expect a hump in Random positive rate after audit as testing gets better – random becomes more random.

  • And systems are generally brought into compliance

  • Good examples: Los Angeles, San Jose, Santa Fe

    OR

  • Random rate decreases as agency relaxes after audit

    OR

  • They go up the year of as agency readies for the audit


Audits

Audits

  • Expected result of Audits - Timeline

Goes up

as result of

better testing

(catch more users)

Audit

Lower

as result of

eliminating abusers

and causing abstinence


Actual audit effect

Actual Audit Effect

  • Drop in the right of the chart shows that audits are effective in discouraging and eliminating substance abusers

  • Audit cost is ~$25K. One user mitigated over one year saves ~$20K


Trends drug metabolization time and positive rates shows actual drug choices

Trends: Drug Metabolization Time and Positive Rates shows Actual Drug Choices

  • Program would seem to be pushing users away from THC (45 days to leave the system) and towards Cocaine (3 days to leave the system)

  • Expect that tests catch actual THC users at a rate 15 times higher than that of actual Cocaine users

    • Multiplying Cocaine rate by 15 gives equivalent actual comparable usage rate

  • Data shows that Cocaine use is 10 to 12 times higher than THC use


Actual usage comparison

Actual Usage Comparison

If Cocaine was testable out to

45 days – the chart would look like

This.


Questions answers

Questions & Answers

Jerry Powers

will be available for

questions

immediately following this presentation

Room 209-210


  • Login