1. Risk Management Loss Control Metrics That Matter Jason Bible, MSM, ARM, CHMM Risk Manager The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston 1851 Crosspoint Drive, OCB 1.330 Houston, Texas 77054 (713) 500-8100 Jason.p.Bible@uth.tmc.edu

2. Colleges & Universities as Worksettings Very unique places of work due to the potential for simultaneous exposures to all four hazards types Physical Chemical Biological Radiological And a diverse “population at risk” Students, faculty, staff, visitors, others

3. Training Gap There are over 4,700 colleges and universities in the U.S. Interestingly, none the loss control professionals who serve them were formally trained on how universities operate This lack of understanding results in a lot of frustration and confusion Enhanced understanding can improve services and support

4. Objectives To begin to articulate the risk control needs of an institution, we first must understand its characteristics To accomplish this, we need some basic descriptive institutional data such as…

5. Institutional Measures How big is your campus? How is size measured? What measures are important (e.g. resonate with resource providers?) What risks are present? How are these risks managed? Are these risks real or hypothetical? How might you determine that? How does management determine that?

6. Loss Prevention Measures How many staff? In your opinion, are you over or understaffed? How would you know? How would others know? How are you performing? Within the context of the mission of your institution, is your program viewed as hindering or helping? How is your program’s performance measured? In your opinion, are these measures true indicators of performance? What do the clients served really think of your program? Do clients feel there are real (or perceived) loss prevention program duplications of effort?

7. Loss Prevention Staffing An age old question: how many EH&S (or loss prevention) staff should I have? Perhaps an equally important question is: what can we realistically hope to obtain from a benchmarking exercise involving staffing metrics? At best, we can likely only achieve a reasonable estimation of “industry averages”, such as number of EH&S FTE’s for an institution exhibiting certain characteristics

8. Sampling of Possible Staffing Predictors and Influencing Factors Quantifiable Institution size Number of labs Level of funding Population Geographic location Deferred maintenance Public/private Medical/Vet schools Disjunct campus Non-quantifiable Regulatory history & scrutiny Tolerance of risk by leadership Level of trust/faith in program Ability of EH&S program to articulate needs

9. Desirable Characteristics of Predictors for Benchmarking Consistently quantifiable Uniformly defined by a recognized authority Easily obtained Meaningful and relevant to decision makers (provides necessary context) Consider something as simple as the definition of “number of EH&S staff”

10. Suggested Definition “EH&S Staff”: technical, managerial, and directorial staff that support the EH&S function Suggest including administrative staff, but it probably doesn’t make a big difference Can include staff outside the EH&S unit, but must devote half time or greater to institutional safety function (0.5 FTE) Example Safety person in another department Student workers (>0.5 FTE) Contractors included only if on-site time is half time or greater (0.5 FTE) Example – contract lab survey techs, yes if >0.5 FTE Fire detection testing contractors, likely no.

11. Preliminary Results Findings indicated that Total NASF and Lab NASF are the most favorable (statistically significant) and pragmatic predictors On a two dimensional graph, we can only show 2 parameters, but the relationship between sq ft and staffing is clear.

13. Predictability of Various Models (based on n = 69) Total campus sq ft Lab + non-lab sq ft ln (total campus sq ft) ln (lab) + ln (non lab sq ft) Med/vet school General “others” category BSL3 or impending BSL4 R Squared Value X47.69 X50.46 x64.90 X71.10 xx78.19 xxx78.41 xxx80.05

14. # EH&S FTE = e [(0.516*School) + (0.357*ln (Lab NASF)) + (0.398*ln (Nonlab NASF)) + (0.371*BSL)] - 8.618] Definitions for predictor variables: Lab NASF: the number of lab net assignable square footage Nonlab NASF: the number of non-lab net assigned square footage (usually obtained by subtracting lab from gross) School: defined as whether your institution has a medical school as listed by the AAMC or a veterinary school as listed by the AAVMC; 0 means no, 1 means yes BSL: this variable indicates if the institution has a BSL3 or BSL4 facility; 0 means no, 1 means yes Current Metrics Model R 2 value based on 69 observations = 80%

15. Staffing Predictors The data from 69 institutions from across the country indicate that four variables can account for 80% of the variability in EH&S staffing: Non lab net assignable square footage Lab net assignable square footage Presence of Medical or Vet School Existence of BSL-3 operations These predictors important because they are recognized and understood by those outside the risk control profession With the collection of more data, the precision of the model could likely be improved to the benefit of the entire profession

16. Caveat Note: even an estimate for the number of EH&S staff doesn’t give us any indication about their proficiency and effectiveness So what should we be measuring in loss prevention? And how should we communicate what loss prevention does?

17. Why Metrics? “When you measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; But when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.” -William Thomson, Lord Kelvin Note; Kelvin also said man wouldn’t fly

18. Metrics What measures? What units? How often to collect the data? How to communicate the information?

19. Measures versus Metrics A metric is a unit of measurement that objectively quantifies an organization’s performance -What’s measured gets managed

20. What Measures? Compliance External Internal Client Satisfaction External Internal Losses Personnel Property Financial Expenditures Revenues

21. Measurements as Indicators Output - workload number of individuals trained surveys or inspections completed violations assessed Outcomes – does the program achieve its desired results is safety training or inspections effective in reducing injury or illnesses

22. What Units? $ (Cost) Square feet Time Number of events

23. Fire & Occupational Safety Individuals trained Number of inspections Deficiencies identified and resolved Incident response Plan reviews

25. Risk Management & Insurance Program Number of first reports of injury by population type by location by cause Equipment floater losses other retained losses Fleet description Certificates of insurance issues

28. FY07 Property Losses Losses incurred but covered by UTS Comprehensive Property Protection Program MSB sprinkler loss total of $460,000 Currently pursuing subrogation to at fault contractor, $250,000 retained by deductible Losses incurred but covered by 3rd party RRF Fire $10-$14 Million Potential retention of $1-$3M Retained losses Water leak in MSI $210,000 Theft total $65,000 (predominantly laptops) Electrical power disruption no implicated in any losses Other losses $65,000 Retained Property Loss by Peril ( Total $645,895)*

29. Help Avoid the 3 Main Causes of Property Loss at UTHSC-H The three main causes of property loss at UTHSC-H in FY06 were water leaks, theft, and electrical power interruption. These three perils resulted in over $331,000 in direct loss and untold disruption to teaching, research, and service activities. The deductible for the UTS Comprehensive Property Protection Program is $250,000 per occurrence, in FY06 none of the losses exceeded the per occurrence deductible, however the sum of retained losses exceeded the deductible by $140,000. In special cases additional insurance can be purchased*. Summarized below are simple steps that can be taken to avoid such losses. Potential For LossSimple Prevention MeasuresFor more information and assistance Water Damage Water damage accounted for $221,000 of loss in FY06. Water can enter a lab or office from the same floor or from the floor above. Move equipment off of the floor and cover when not in use. Evaluate possible purchase of supplemental insurance for certain types of equipment* Contact Facilities Planning and Engineering for more information, (713)500-3498. Theft Theft accounted for $90,114 of loss in FY06, the majority of which were theft of laptops, PDAs and cell phones. Secure laptops, PDA’s, or cellular phones. Always backup data and keep it in a physically separate location. For more information about how to lock a PC or laptop: http://www.uth.tmc.edu/med http://www.uth.tmc.edu/med /msit/howdoi/physical_security.htm Evaluate possible purchase of supplemental insurance for certain types of equipment* Contact University of Texas Police Department for more information, (713)794-4357. Electrical Power Interruption Electrical power disruption accounted for $20,000 worth direct losses in FY06. However this is not reflective of the loss of priceless research specimens. Ensure that all critical equipment has backup power or has the ability to alert local personnel when power or temperature is disrupted. The production of duplicate or split samples is encouraged. Finally, some buildings are equipped with the necessary infrastructure to provide monitoring of temperature. Contact Facilities Planning and Engineering for more information, (713)500-3498. *Information about the purchase of additional insurance can be obtained by contacting Risk Management; 713-500-8100.

31. UTHSC-H Employee Injury Reports and Workers’ Compensation Insurance Premium Trends, FY01 to 08 Note: insurance premium influenced predominantly by market conditions, employee census, employee payroll, and injury frequency and severity Oversight by SHERM $560,000 in overall premium reduction since FY04 87 fewer reported injuries from previous year 49 fewer injuries requiring medical care

32. No Care or Lost Time (18% response rate) Care But No Lost Time (57% response rate) Supervisors (13% response rate) Was this the first time you have reported an injury or exposure at UTHSC-H?67%(Y) 33%(N)62%(Y) 38%(N)37%(Y) 63%(N) Prior to the reported injury event, were you aware of your obligation to report any injury or exposure?88%(Y) 12%(N) 96%(Y) 4%(N) Did you receive a copy of the completed first report of injury form?70%(Y) 30%(N)62%(Y) 38%(N)96%(Y) 4%(N) To your knowledge has the source of your injury or exposure been addressed?81%(Y) 19%(N)88%(Y) 12%(N) Did you encounter any issues with the reporting process that you didn’t know or anticipate?12%(Y) 88%(N)38%(Y) 62%(N)27%(Y) 73%(N) Our records indicate that you did not receive any health care in response to your injury or exposure. Who made the determination that health care was not needed? 72% Yourself 9% Supervisor 19% Other Have you experienced any residual affects from your injury or exposure?9%(Y) 91%(N)12%(Y) 88%(N) Where did you access health care?53% Employee Health 20% Student Health 27% Other Please indicate your impression of the level of service provided by the health care provider who addressed your injury or exposure? 38% Very Good 44% Good 6% Average 0% Poor 12% Very Poor Were you able to easily access the necessary Supervisor's First Report of Injury form?92%(Y) 8%(N) If any assistance was needed in order to complete and submit the Supervisor's First Report of Injury form, was this assistance readily available? 46% (Y) 8% (N) 46% (none needed) Were you provided with the information needed for you to effectively manage the affected employee?100%(Y) 0%(N) Survey of Employees and Supervisors Filing UTHSC-H First Reports of Injury in 2007 (Email based Zoomerang survey for period February 1, 2007 to August 31, 2007) Injured Employees Requiring Care and Loss Time (n = 39): Not Included in survey, as each injured worker that accrues lost time is assigned a case manager to personally assist in the rehabilitation process. Employees requiring care, but no loss time (n = 28) Employees not requiring care, no loss time (n = 179) Employee Population (not reporting any injuries, n = 4,181)

33. Comparison of Annual Institutional Loss Control Costs (EH&S Budget) to People and Property Risk Financing Costs (WCI & Property) Risk Transfer Academic InstitutionsHealth Institutions

34. Comparison of Annual Institutional Loss Control Costs (EH&S Budget) to People and Property Risk Financing Costs (WCI & Property) Risk ControlRisk Transfer Academic InstitutionsHealth Institutions

35. Academic InstitutionsHealth Institutions Risk Transfer and Risk Control Cost per Square Foot per Institution As of December 2006 (Source: THECB Annual Report) Risk TransferRisk Control

36. How Often Should Metrics be Reported? “Smell the cheese often so you know when it is getting old.” - Spencer Johnson Ongoing metrics communicate the effectiveness of processes (possible interactions?) “Every time you get the chance” – Emery

37. Communicating Metrics Focus on outcome metrics Select emerging issues and opportunities to communicate Report on strategic goals Remember to tie it to the mission of the organization

38. Another Important Caveat “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted” Albert Einstein