EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With funding from the U.S. Department of Education, the Institute for Behavior and Health conducted a survey of nine schools that have been pioneers in the field of student drug testing (SDT). The study was conducted during the 2001-2002 school year and included a telephone screening survey to identify nine schools with successful SDT programs for participation in an indepth survey that was mailed to the designated representative of each school’s SDT program. There were 7 public schools and 2 private schools in the study, from suburban, rural and urban locations in several states throughout the U.S. The programs, which all include random testing, had been in place for an average of 3-4 years. In completing the surveys, the SDT program representative provided information about the program’s policies, procedures, history and results.
The report provides descriptions of each of the 9 school programs and highlights some of the variations in their experiences. One major variation was in the categories of students tested (ranging from athletes only to all extracurricular activities plus student drivers to all students). As might be expected, the consequences of positive tests varied among schools, with only the private schools expelling students after a second positive test. Another variation was in the substances that were routinely tested for. Most included the 5 drugs that form the standard core of drug testing (marijuana, cocaine, amphetamine/methamphetamine, opiates and PCP), but there was considerable variation in how many other substances were included. Linked to the variation in substances tested for was a considerable range in the reported lab fees.
What is most striking in the study’s findings are the common elements identified by these pioneer programs. All of the SDT programs were based upon a health and safety rationale, with the purpose of prevention rather than punishment. In every school surveyed the SDT program was just one part of a larger, comprehensive initiative to keep students safe from drugs. Formal written policies were established and publicized. Procedures were implemented to prevent fraud, ensure accuracy, and protect the confidentiality of test results. None of the schools reported students with positive drug tests to the police. Instead, students were referred to counseling and treatment. Programs’ successes were indicated by reduced number of positive tests, lowered levels of disciplinary problems and, in some cases, self-report survey data. Despite some schools’ concerns about—or direct experience with—legal challenges and objections from particular groups within the community, these SDT programs have persisted and appear to have won increasing support from the various groups. Lessons learned and advice to other schools strongly emphasize the importance of involving the various stakeholders in the planning process and making sure they understand that the program is intended to help students say no to drugs.
While the present study is small and exploratory, the information gathered here may pave the way for further research and technical assistance. Particularly in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, many school districts will be looking for guidance as they consider implementing SDT programs. They can benefit from the experience of these pioneers as they undertake their planning efforts. Download the
full text of the study in PDF.
