DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 294 024
CE 050 061
AUTHOR
TITLE
INSTITUTION
REPORT NO
PUB DATE
NOTE
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
Stevens, L. Nye
Employee Drug Testing. Testimony. Statement (Summary)
of L. Nye Stevens, Associate Director, General
Government Division, before the Subcommittee on
Employment Opportunities, Committee on Education and
Labor, House of Representatives.
General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. General
Government Div.
GAO-T-GGD-88-14
21 Apr 88
lOp.
Legal/Legislative /Regulatory Materials (090)
MFOl/PCOl Plus Postage.
Adults; *Drug Use; ^Employees; ^Employer Attitudes;
Employer Employee Relationship; *Employment
Practices; Job Application
*Drug Use Testing
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
At the request of Congress, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) conducted a study of drug testing of employees by
employers. To identify and obtain the most recent surveys on drug
testing policies and practices in the private sector, the GAO
searched 14 computerized bibliographic files and discussed
information needs with representatives of 35 public and private
organizations knowledgeable about drug testing practices. From this
search, 10 usable surveys were found and analyzed. The survey data
indicate that (1) drug testing is a common, but not universal private
sector practice, more likely among larger firms; (2) firms are more
likely to test applicants than employees; (3) more firms plan to
implement drug testing in the future; (4) some firms do not provide
confirmatory tests to employees or applicants who initially test
positive; (5) some firms retest employees or applicants using the
same type of test as that used initially; and (6) some firms do not
tell applicants that the reason they were not hired was because of a
positive drug test. The GAO plans to continue the study on drug
testing in the workplace and to determine the regulatory controls
over drug testing laboratories. (KC)
********************************
* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *
* from the original document. *
***********************************************************************
United States General Accoimting OfBce
GAO
Testimony
r\l
o
*^For Release Employee Drug Testing
O on Delivery
jjjExpected at
10:00 a.m. EDT
Thursday
April 21, 1988
Statement of
L. Nye Stevens, Associate Director
General Government Division
Before the
Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities
Committee on Education and Labor
House of Representatives
us DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and improvenieni
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES JNFORMmTION
/ CENTER (ERIC)
4G This document has been reproduced as
received Irom the person or organization
originating it
O Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quality
* Pointsof view or opinions stated in this docuh
ment do not necessarily represent official
OERt position or policy
g|^(^\T-GGD-88-14
2
EMPLOYEE DRUG TESTING
SUMMARY OF STATEMENT BY
L. NYE STEVENS
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION
In response to a request by Congressman Charles E. Schumer, GAO
obtained and reviewed 10 surveys on private sector drug testing.
GAO's objective was to summarize the information in these surveys
concerning the extent and nature of employee drug testing in the
private sector.
On the basis of the available survey data and pattern of response
across surveys, GAO believes some summary observations can be
made about private sector drug testing as practiced by survey
respondents. The survey data indicate that:
— drug testing is a common, but not universal private
sector practice;
— firms are more likely to test applicants than
employees ;
— larger firms, as measured by the number of employees,
are more likely to drug test; and
— more firms plan to implement drug testing in the
future.
Regarding the treatment of individuals subjected to drug
testing, the surveys show that, although they are generally in
the minority, there are firms that:
— do not provide confirmatory tests to employees or
applicants who initially test positive,
— retest employees or applicants using the same type
of test as that used initially, and
— do not tell applicants that the reason they are not
hired was because of a positive drug test.
For a number of methodological and statistical reasons, the
survey results should not be considered a statistically valid,
representative sample of the population of businesses nationwide.
The data from the surveys are only indicative of the drug testing
practices reported by the firms that responded.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee r it is a
pleasure to appear before you today to testify on the extent and
nature of employee drug testing in the private sector. Inasmuch
as H.R. 691 would apply to private sector drug testing programs^
we believe this testimony will provide a useful characterization
of the existing programs that could be affected by the proposed
legislation.
At the request of Congressman Schumer^ we reviewed recent
surveys on private sector drug testing. Our report entitled
Employee Drug Testing: Information on Private Sector Programs
(GAO/GGD-88-32r March 2, 1988) summarizes the information
contained in the individual survey reports and relates it to some
of Congressman Schumer's specific concerns about private sector
drug testing practices.
Results in brief
Overall r the surveys indicate that drug testing is a common^
but not universal private sector practice and that drug testing
may become more common in the future. The surveys also suggest
that larger firmsr in terms of the number of persons employed^
are more likely to drug test and that firms with testing programs
are more likely to test applicants than employees.
V7ith regard to the treatment of individuals who are drug
testedr the surveys show thatr although they are generally in the
minority^ there are firms that do not provide confirmatory tests
to employees or applicants who initially test positive. There
are also firms reporting that they do not tell applicants that
the reason they were not hired was because of a positive drug
test.
Before providing further details in support of these
observations and additional survey information^ we will briefly
describe the surveys used and mention some of the methodological
qualifications that need to be kept in mind concerning this
survey data.
Overview of the surveys
To identify and obtain the most recent surveys on drug
testing policies and practices in the private sector, we searched
14 computerized bibliographic files. We also discussed our
information needs with representatives of over 35 public and
private organizations knowledgeable about drug testing practices.
In the endr we identified 12 surveys with items on drug testing.
However, we considered only 10 surveys usable for our purposes.
ERIC
4
In general, large and medium sized firms — as measured by the
number of employees — responded to the surveys. Roughly half or
more of the firms responding to five of the surveys said that
they employed over 500 persons. Three other surveys
characterized the responding firms as among the nation's largest
business organizations. For example, one survey focused only on
Fortune 100 firms, which in 1987 employed a total of about 8.5
million people.
The data from these surveys are reasonably current. Of the
10 surveys, 5 were published in 1987, 4 in 1986, and 1 in 1985.
The primary purpose of most of the surveys was to obtain
information about drug testing, or workplace drug abuse which
included drug testing.
The number of firms being surveyed ranged from a low of 100
in one survey to a high of approximately 35,000 in another. The
percent of surveys returned ranged from less than 1 percent to
100 percent. The actual number of respondents providing
information ranged from a low of 60 in one :>arvey to a high of
over 1,900 in another.
Interpreting survey results
Before discussing the survey results, certain qualifications
must be made concerning the use and interpretation of the data.
For a number of methodological and statistical reasons which are
detailed in our report, the survey results should not be averaged
or considered a statistically valid, representative sample of the
population of businesses nationwide.
For most of the surveys, certain limitations, such as low
response rates and selective samples, preclude projecting the
results beyond the group. of businesses that actually responded to
the surveys.
Despite these restrictions, we believe these surveys are a
useful source of information about private sector drug testing.
The figures obtained from the surveys are indicative of the drug
testing practices reported by the firms that responded. This
constitutes a large number of corporations reflecting a broad
cross section of the nation's businesses.
The extent of drug testing
All 10 surveys provided some information on the prevalence
of testing, and almost all the surveys differentiated between
programs for employees and those for applicants. The results
indicate that across the surveys a number of the responding
companies, though not a majority, had drug testing programs. The
highest figures were reported in two surveys that focused on some
of the nation's largest companies. Roughly half the respondents
to these two surveys indicated that they had a testing program.
At the low end of the spectrum, another survey said that only 9
percent of the responding firms had an employee drug testing
program.
The majority of surveys also showed that firms were more
likely to test applicants than employees. In one survey, 55
percent of the respondents said that they tested applicants.
This was the highest percentage reported across all surveys
concerning the extent of drug testing.
The surveys indicated that larger organizations were more
likely to have drug testing programs. For example, in one of the
surveys only 16 percent of the firms with less than 500 employees
had drug testing programs while 36 percent of the firms with
5,000 or more employees had testing programs. Four of the
surveys looked at the percent of firms testing for drugs
relative to their number of employees. All four surveys shewed
that a greater percentage of the largest firms have testing
programs.
The surveys also suggest that drug testing may become more
common. A number of firms that were not testing at the time of
the survey said they were planning to do so in the foreseeable
future. The lowest figure reported across surveys for firms
planning to test was 3 percent while the highest figure reported
was 20 percent. One survey noted a concern that if the trend
toward drug testing continues, drug users may gravitate to those
organizations known not to test and that other employers will
have to follow suit as a matter of self-protection.
The testing methods most often used
In all five of the surveys that inquired about drug testing
methods, the majority of survey respondents reported urinalysis
as the method they used. In those surveys that asked about who
performs the testing, the majority of firms reported using
independent laboratories.
Seven of the surveys raised the question of confirming
initial positive tests with a second test. Although the majority
of firms in five of the surveys said they performed some kind of
retest, performing a confirmatory retest was not a universal
practice. Less than half the firms reported retesting in the
other two surveys.
Further, it appears that retesting was less common for
applicants than for employees. In two of the three surveys that
specifically reported on retesting of applicants, less than half
of the firms said that they provided follow-up testing for job
applicants who failed an initial test.
Three surveys made the distinctions among the following: 1)
retesting with some other confirmatory test, 2) retesting with
the same type of test as the initial test, and 3) no retesting.
Although more firms reported retesting with some other type of
urinalysis test, there were firms reporting that they used the
same test. Otner confirming tests included some that were more
Sophisticated, such as one of several chromatography urine tests.
Who receives drug testing and why
Among firms that tested employees, the majority of firms
cited testing for cause, such as after an accident, as the reason
for testing. As one survey noted, this type of testing may be
prevalent because it is less controversial and has support in the
courts.
To a lesser extent, firms used random or periodic testing
for employees. The percent of firms reporting they did random
testing ranged from 23 percent to 10 percent across the seven
surveys providing information on this type of testing. It
appears that testing for selected jobs, such as those involving
safety, is more common than random testing, but only two surveys
provided figures on this form of employee drug testing. In these
surveys, 38 percent and 34 percent of the firms reported testing
for selected jobs.
All six of the surveys reporting on the types of applicants
tested indicated that among firms testing applicants, it was more
common to test all applicants. Across these surveys, 79 percent
to 94 percent of the firms that screen for drugs said that they
tested all applicants.
Reasong for having and not having drug testing programs
Five surveys noted respondents' reasons for having a drug
testing program. Among the reasons often cited for drug testing
were improving workplace safety, increasing productivity, curbing
illegal drug traffic, and reducing employee medical costs. Firms
that did not test generally cited reservations about the costs
and reliability of drug testing as well as the ethical and moral
implications of the process. Other concerns included employee
opposition, legal implications, and some doubts among a few
4
ERIC
7
responding firms that if an employee took drugs, and the test
showed that drugs were present in the body, it would not
necessarily indicate job impairment.
What happens to those individuals testing positive
In the seven surveys that asked about the various actions
taken when an applicant tested positive for drugs, the majority
of firms said that they would not hire job applicants who failed
drug testing. However, a number of firms also indicated that
they would allow reappl icat ion later. Across the three surveys
reporting figures on reappl ication, the percent of firms
indicating they would allow reappl icat ion ranged from 30 to 79
percent. Some firms noted that reapplication may be contingent
on such factors as a negative retest, passage of a specified time
period, or evidence of rehabilitation. Two surveys reported that
the majority of firms would not consider an applicant if the
candidate refused drug testing.
There were more firms that said they would tell applicants
testing positive why they were not being hired than firms that
would not explain the reason for rejection. Across the four
surveys addressing this issue, between 2 and 25 percent of
respondents indicated they would not tell applicants the reason
for rejection.
In all five of the surveys asking about employees who tested
positive, the majority of firms indicated a preference for
rehabilitation rather than dismissal. Across the surveys,
between 52 and 89 percent of responding firms said that they
would refer an employee to a rehabilitative program. Two of the
surveys noted that the choice or combination of actions would be
determined on a case-by-case basis for employees who tested
positive. One survey noted that termination is often the final
outcome, but warnings or suspensions were also frequent
alternatives, particularly for the first offense.
A written drug testing policy can inform managers and
employees of company procedures for dealing with drug use. One
survey asked companies engaging in drug testing if they had a
written policy on drug testing. While the majority of firms said
that they had either a written policy or were in the process of
writing one, 14 percent of the respondents who drug test
indicated that they had no written policy or plans to develop
one. This suggests that, although they are a minority, some
firms operate without written, formal procedures describing their
drug testing program or procedures.
ERIC
5
8
GAP work in progress
Mr. Chairman/ this concludes my overview of the information
contained in the surveys we reviewed. Before completing my
statement/ however/ I would like to briefly describe a related
project we have underway/ also at the request of Congressman
Schumer. This work will examine the degree to which states
regulate laboratories that analyze drug test samples.
As you knoW/ one of the prime concerns regarding employee
drug testing is the ability to ensure accurate test results.
This concern becomes more important when one considers that as
more private sector firms implement drug testing/ more commercial
laboratories may become involved in analyzing the specimens.
The quality and competence of these laboratories have a direct
bearing on the accuracy of test results.
We plan to survey the 50 states next month to determine the
regulatory controls over drug testing laboratories. Among other
thingS/ we will look at licensing requirements/ quality control
standards/ proficiency testing requirements/ personnel
standards/ and state inspection programs.
We have already identified some inconsistencies between
states. As part of the process of developing our survey
questionnaire we contacted officials in 34 states by telephone
and obtained some preliminary information. In 21 of the 34
states contacted/ laboratories must be licensed or approved by
meeting specific laboratory requirements. Requirements in six of
these 21 states include fairness standards and privacy rights for
the individual. Thirteen of the states we contacted/ however/ do
not have standards or regulations that laboratories are required
to meet/ although four currently have drug testing proposals
pending in their state legislatures. We will explore these
differences in greater detail as our work progresses.
We have also noted that under certain circumstances/
laboratories do have to meet minimum federal requirements, such
as when testing Medicare patients or military personnel/ or when
engaging in interstate commerce. However/ when testing private
sector employees/ only the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act
(CLIA)/ a federal law covering laboratories that do interstate
testing/ would apply. CLIA standards include personnel
qualifications/ quality control procedures/ record keeping and
equipment requirements/ and assurances of an acceptable external
proficiency test program.
Laboratories that do not test Medicare patientS/ the
military/ or public sector employees/ and operate solely within
one state/ do not fall under any federal laws. Based on our
preliminary information/ we note that some laboratories in
ERIC
6
9
approximately a third of the 34 states we contacted are
unregulated at the federal or state level.
This concludes my comments ^ I would be pleased to answer
questions.
o ^ 10
ERIC
