# Presentation: 524424

## How Random is Your Testing Program?

- Presented by
- Robbie L. Sarles

## Requirements

- 49 CFR Part 655 (a)
- ...the minimum annual percentage rate for random drug testing shall be 50 percent of covered employees; the random alcohol testing rate shall be 10 percent.

## Requirements

- 49 CFR Part 655.45(g)
- Each employer shall ensure that random drug and alcohol tests conducted under this part are unannounced and unpredictable, and that the dates for administering random tests are spread reasonably throughout the calendar year. Random testing must be conducted at all times of day when safety-sensitive functions are performed.

## RANDOM TESTING

- Keys to successful testing - Scientifically valid method of selection
- Each employee has an equal chance of being selected
- Replacement back into random pool after selection
- Update pool immediately prior to draw
- Random number selections should be made as frequently as possible
- - Only USDOT safety-sensitive employeescan be included in the pool

## RANDOM TESTING (CONTINUED)

- 	 - Scientifically valid method of selection
- Choose replacement number only if employee is unavailable during the testing period because of legitimate excuse
- Operational difficulties are not legitimate excuses
- 	 - Test distribution
- Spread throughout the year, draw period, day
- Weekends, holidays, late night, early morning
- Whenever safety-sensitive functions are performed

## RANDOM TESTING (CONTINUED)

- 	- Unannounced testing
- Test immediately after notifying individual
- Drugs:  anytime on duty
- Alcohol:  only before, during, or just after
- 	 - Exercise care in scheduling substitute employees so    no advance warning it given

## RANDOM TESTING ISSUES

- Non-routine and sporadic performance of safety-sensitive function - Drug tests, anytime during shift - Alcohol tests just before, during, or after    performance of safety-sensitive function

## Fluctuating employee base - Number in pool X percent of testing - Number of draws to be conducted per year

- RANDOM TESTING ISSUES

## Program administrator in pool - alternative contact notified when administrator’s number is selected

- RANDOM TESTING ISSUES

## 2005 RATE OF TESTING

- Equal to 50% of safety-sensitive employees subject to testing for drugs
- Equal to 10% of safety-sensitive employees subject to testing for alcohol
- FTA rates should be considered minimums; can establish higher rates in policy
- Should increase rate to account for test cancellations to ensure compliance - do not over sample

## Consortium random rate can be applied to pool size of individual transit system or to total consortium regardless of the number of consortium members - must equal, and can exceed, FTA rates

- 2005 RATE OF TESTING

## RANDOM TESTING PROCEDURES

- Employee selection and notification cannot be predictable
- Employees must not receive advance notice
- Employees must proceed immediately to the collection site upon notification of test

## Document the selection process including numbers drawn, date, and time of notification and collection
Avoid group testing
Measure in place to ensure confidentiality and integrity of process - limit number of individuals involved

- Avoid group testing
- Measure in place to ensure confidentiality and integrity of process - limit number of individuals involved

- RANDOM TESTING PROCEDURES

## RANDOM TESTING DOCUMENTATION

- Method of random number selection and employee notification
- Numbers selected for each draw
- Test schedule
- Time/date of notification of employee for test

## Documentation of method used to determine the type of test conducted (e.g., drug only, alcohol only, both)
Chain of custody and alcohol testing forms for each test conducted
Test results for each test conducted

- Chain of custody and alcohol testing forms for each test conducted
- Test results for each test conducted

- RANDOM TESTING DOCUMENTATION

## Successful Random Testing

## Spread Evenly	

- Tests need to be spread evenly throughout the year, testing period and day
- Tests conducted whenever safety-sensitive functions are performed
- Weekends, holidays, early morning, late night, etc.

## Scheduling

- Identify employee coverage schedules
- Identify employees selected for testing
- Identify testing window
- Schedule tests within the available testing window

## Employee Coverageby Day

## Employee Coverageby Hour

## Testing Windowby Day

## Testing Windowby Hour

## Scheduled Testsby Day

## Scheduled Testsby Hour

## Scheduled Testsby Year

|   | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Jan | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 |
| Apr | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| May | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |  | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dec | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

## Unsuccessful Random Testing

## Unsuccessful Examples

- Tested on same day

- Tests conducted on the same day and out of testing window

## Unsuccessful Examples (cont.)

- Tested outside of window and off duty

- Tests conducted at the same time for all employees

## Unsuccessful Examples (cont.)

|   | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Jan | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Apr | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| May | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 |
| Jul | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |  | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 |
| Dec | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | x | 0 | 0 | 0 |

- Tests conducted during the same days each month

## Most Common Patterns

- Testing at the same time of day
- Testing during the same weeks every period
- No tests during weekends
- No tests during holidays
- No tests during peak hours

## Random selection of testing days does not necessarily result in the desired distribution.
Policies to schedule tests within XX days of notification
Dependence on TPA to schedule tests can be problematic

- Policies to schedule tests within XX days of notification
- Dependence on TPA to schedule tests can be problematic

- Most Common Patterns

## Most Common Excuses

- “There isn’t someone to fill in during the test.”
- “That person was out sick on the day they were scheduled to test.”
- “It isn’t efficient to pull a driver off of a route in the middle of the day.”
- “WE JUST DON’T HAVE THE TIME!”

## Recidivism in Public Transit

- FTA survey located at:
- 	_[http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/survey/](http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/survey/)_

## Survey Results

- 50.42% of responses were from Direct Recipients
- 50.42% of responses were from Rural Transit Systems
- 38 states represented by respondents.
- Over 16,000 employees reported.

## Consequences

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Test Result |  |  |  |  | Consequence |  |  |  |  |  |   |
| Positive –
Drugs |  | Positive-
Alcohol |  | Test
Refusal |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
| 90 |  | 84 |  | 99 | The employee is terminated after the first violation. |  |  |  |  |  | 79.20% |
| 33 |  | 33 |  | 21 | The employee is given a second chance, but is terminated for a second violation. |  |  |  |  |  | 16.80% |
| 0 |  | 0 |  | 0 | The employee is given two or more additional opportunities to return to work. |  |  |  |  |  | 0.00% |
| 4 |  | 8 |  | 5 | Other (please explain):  |  |  |   |   |   | 4.00% |

## Positive Test Results by Year

|   | Test Result |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Year | Positive - Drugs | Positive -Alcohol | TestRefusal |
| 1995 | 136 | 9 | 5 |
| 1996 | 156 | 15 | 11 |
| 1997 | 114 | 10 | 10 |
| 1998 | 127 | 5 | 3 |
| 1999 | 110 | 11 | 3 |
| 2000 | 173 | 3 | 16 |
| 2001 | 167 | 4 | 18 |
| 2002 | 152 | 3 | 16 |
| 2003 | 135 | 5 | 8 |
| 2004 | 137 | 11 | 10 |
| 2005
(compared to 1995) | 123
 (9.56% decrease) | 19
(111% increase) | 10
(100% increase) |

## Positive Test Results by Substance*

| Marijuana | Cocaine | Opiates | Amphetamine | PCP | Alcohol |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 318 | 319 | 26 | 99 | 4 | 95 |

- *includes pre-employment test results

## Second Chance Policies

| Year | How many employees completed the Return-to-Duty testing process? | How many employees were on a 1 year follow-up testing program? | How many employees were on a 2 year follow-up testing program? | How many employees were on a 3 year follow-up testing program? | How many employees were on a 4 year follow-up testing program? | How many employees were on a 5 year follow-up testing program? |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1995 | 16 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 1996 | 29 | 23 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| 1997 | 19 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1998 | 19 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 1999 | 17 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2000 | 72 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 27 |
| 2001 | 65 | 14 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 38 |
| 2002 | 67 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 42 |
| 2003 | 56 | 18 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 31 |
| 2004 | 48 | 14 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 27 |
| 2005 | 47 | 10 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 33 |

## Second Positive Test Results

|   | Marijuana | Cocaine | Opiates | Amphetamine | PCP | Alcohol |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Within 1 year | 38 | 34 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 0 |
| Within 2 years | 12 | 16 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Within 3 years | 12 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Within 4 years | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Within 5 years | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| After 5 years | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|  | 23.27% | 19.12% | 3.85% | 29.29% | 0.00% | 0.00% |

- 73.94 % tested positive for the same substance as the first positive test.

## Second Positive Test Results (cont.)

|  | Number of employees who tested positive a second time during the follow-up testing program. |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|   | 1 year Program | 2 year Program | 3 year Program | 4 year Program | 5 year Program |
| < 1 year | 26 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 41 |
| 1-2 years | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 25 |
| 2-3 years | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 16 |
| 3-4 years | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| 4-5 years | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| > 5 years | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

## Positive Test Results by Safety-Sensitive Category

|   | Operators | Maintenance | Security | Dispatchers | Non-operator CDL holders | Other |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1st Positive | 265 | 148 | 4 | 14 | 6 | 0 |
| 2nd Positive | 91 | 39 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| 3rd or more Positive | 17 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Recidivism | 40.75% | 27.70% | 0.00% | 7.14% | 50.00% | 0.00% |

## Positive Test Resultsby Age Range

|   | <25 years | 26-34 | 35-44 | 45-54 | 55-64 | 65-74 | >75 years |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1st Positive | 31 | 122 | 204 | 197 | 80 | 2 | 0 |
| 2nd Positive | 2 | 13 | 28 | 57 | 14 | 2 | 0 |
| 3rd or more Positive | 0 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Recidivism | 6.45% | 11.48% | 16.67% | 31.98% | 18.75% | 100% | 0.00% |

## Positive Test Resultsby Employee Tenure

*(*includes pre-employment testing)*

|   | <5 years | 5-9 years | 10-14 years | 15-19 years | 20-24 years | 25-29 years | 30-34 years | 35+ years |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1st Positive | 308 | 81 | 49 | 48 | 53 | 22 | 7 | 2 |
| 2nd Positive | 41 | 21 | 11 | 15 | 16 | 7 | 2 | 0 |
| 3rd or more Positive | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Recidivism | 14.94% | 32.10% | 24.49% | 31.25% | 35.85% | 36.36% | 28.57% | 0.00% |

## Slide 44

## 2004 DRUG TEST RESULTS

- 0.89% of random drug tests industry-wide were positive
- Drugs detected most frequently	- Marijuana	57.12%	- Cocaine	32.59%
- Large urban operators - positive random rate of 0.051%*
- Small urban operators - positive random rate of 0.18%*
- Rural operators - positive random rate of 0.069%*
- Transit systems - positive random rate of 0.73%
- Contractors - positive random rate of 1.49%

- *2003 data reflected; 2004 data not available to date.

## 2004 ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS

- 0.11% of random alcohol tests industry-wide were confirmed positive
- Large urban operators - positive random rate of 0.19%*
- Small urban operators - positive random rate of 0.13%*
- Rural operators - positive random rate of 0.03%*
- Transit systems - positive random rate of 0.1%
- Contractors - positive random rate of 0.15%

- *2003 data reflected; 2004 data not available to date.

## Why is Random Testing so Important?

- Detect & Deter

## Drug use in persons aged 18 – 25 (in percentages)

| Drug | TIME PERIOD |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Lifetime |  | Past Year |  | Past Month |  |
|  | 2002 | 2003 | 2002 | 2003 | 2002 | 2003 |
| ANY ILLICIT DRUG1 | 59.8 | 60.5 | 35.5 | 34.6 | 20.2 | 20.3 |
|      Marijuana and Hashish | 53.8 | 53.9 | 29.8a | 28.5 | 17.3 | 17 |
|      Cocaine | 15.4 | 15 | 6.7 | 6.6 | 2 | 2.2 |
|           Crack | 3.8 | 3.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
|      Heroin | 1.6 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
|      Hallucinogens | 24.2 | 23.3 | 8.4b | 6.7 | 1.9 | 1.7 |
|           LSD | 15.9b | 14 | 1.8b | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
|           PCP | 2.7 | 3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0 | 0.1 |
|           Ecstasy | 15.1 | 14.8 | 5.8b | 3.7 | 1.1b | 0.7 |
|      Inhalants | 15.7 | 14.9 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
|      Nonmedical Use of 
Any Psychotherapeutic2 | 27.7a | 29 | 14.2 | 14.5 | 5.4a | 6 |
|           Pain Relievers | 22.1b | 23.7 | 11.4 | 12 | 4.1a | 4.7 |
|           Tranquilizers | 11.2b | 12.3 | 4.9 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 1.7 |
|           Stimulants | 10.8 | 10.8 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
|                Methamphetamine | 5.7 | 5.2 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
|           Sedatives | 2.1 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| ANY ILLICIT DRUG OTHER THAN MARIJUANA1 | 40.1 | 40.2 | 20.2 | 19.7 | 7.9 | 8.4 |

- Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003 and 2004.

## Drug use in persons aged 26 and older (in percentages)

| Drug | TIME PERIOD |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Lifetime |  | Past Year |  | Past Month |  |
|  | 2002 | 2003 | 2002 | 2003 | 2002 | 2003 |
| ANY ILLICIT DRUG1 | 45.7 | 46.1 | 10.4 | 10.3 | 5.8 | 5.6 |
|      Marijuana and Hashish | 40.8 | 41.2 | 7 | 6.9 | 4 | 4 |
|      Cocaine | 15.9 | 16.3 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
|           Crack | 3.9 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
|      Heroin | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0 |
|      Hallucinogens | 14.1 | 14.2 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
|           LSD | 10.5 | 10.8 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|           PCP | 3.5 | 3.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | * |
|           Ecstasy | 2.6b | 3.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
|      Inhalants | 8.6 | 8.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
|      Nonmedical Use of Any Psychotherapeutic2 | 19.3 | 19.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 2 | 1.9 |
|           Pain Relievers | 11.1 | 11.5 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
|           Tranquilizers | 8.3 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
|           Stimulants | 9.3 | 9 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
|                Methamphetamine | 5.7 | 5.7 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
|           Sedatives | 5.1 | 4.8 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| ANY ILLICIT DRUG OTHER THAN MARIJUANA1 | 29.3 | 29.3 | 6 | 5.9 | 2.7 | 2.6 |

- Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003 and 2004.

## Average Cost for New Hire Employee

- National average across all industries of $6,398 per new hire
- Cost includes advertising, recruiting, screening and testing, interviewing and training.

- http://www.benchmarkportal.com/newsite/faq/faq.taf?category=Hiring%20New%20Employees

## Average Costs of Substance Abuse Treatment

- Inpatient - $3,840 per treatment course
- Outpatient - $1,433 per treatment course

- http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/costs/costs.htm

## National Drug Treatment Information

- 33% of treatment program admissions were employed full or part-time

## National Drug Treatment Information

- 56% of employed treatment program admissions were for alcohol abuse

## Drug Abuse Statistics for Full Time Workers

- Among full-time workers aged 18 to 49 years in 2000, 8.1 percent reported past month heavy alcohol use, and 7.8 percent reported past month illicit drug use
- In the past year, 7.4 percent of these workers were dependent or abusing alcohol, and 1.9 percent were dependent or abusing illicit drugs

## Drug Abuse Statistics for Full Time Workers (cont.)

## Benefits of Random Testing

- US studies show that substance abusers (including alcohol) are 33% less productive, three times as likely to be late, four times as likely to hurt others at work or themselves, five times as likely to sue for compensation, and ten times as likely to miss work.

## Benefits of Random Testing

- When the State of Ohio introduced random drug testing they found absenteeism dropped 91%, there were 88% less problems with supervisors and 97% decrease in on-the-job injuries.

## Benefits of Random Testing

- A Wisconsin cardboard factory was contacted recently by their insurers who were worried about high levels of injuries. Random drug testing was introduced and accidents fell 72% the following year, with an 80% decrease in days lost as a result.

## Resources

- _[http://www.drugpak.com/index.shtml](http://www.drugpak.com/index.shtml)__ _
- Random testing software
- _[http://www.fta.dot.gov/](http://www.fta.dot.gov/)_
- _[http://said.dol.gov/SearchResult.asp](http://said.dol.gov/SearchResult.asp)_
- Substance Abuse Information Database
- _[http://www.samhsa.gov/](http://www.samhsa.gov/)_
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

## Robbie L. Sarles

- RLS & Associates, Inc.
- 3131 S Dixie Hwy
- Suite 545
- Dayton, OH 45439
- 937-299-5007
- _[www.rlsandassoc.com](http://www.rlsandassoc.com/)_