Partially WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS: ''' ~ A REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND A SURVEY OF WORKSITES

Transcription

1 l 314 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH and Sexual Inequalty." Pp n Women and Household Labor, edted by S. Berg. Beverly Hlls, CA: Sage. Verbmgge, L "Role Burdens and Physcal Health of Women and Men." Women and Health 11: Wrght, K. & Beach, S.R.H "Martal Therapy and Employee Assstance Programs." Journal of Employee Assstance Research 1: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The author acknowledges partal support from Tranng Grant No. T32-AA-07473, awarded to the Unversty of Georga by the Natonal Insttute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholsm (NIAAA). The author s ndebted to Steven Heach, Terry Blum, Sandra Hanson, Peggy Hargs, end Paul Roman for helpful comments, and also thanks Lnde Whte for prepazng the manuscrpt. Partally WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS: ''' ~ A REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND A SURVEY OF WORKSITES TERRY C. BLUM DAIL L. FIELDS STUART H. MILNE CHESTER S. SPELL ~' Georga Insttute of Technology ~; n ~, Prvate sector employers are experencng ncreased governmental regulaton end pressure to utlze drug testng for job applcants and employees at ther workstes. Publc polcy s espousng organzatonally sponsored drug testng as benefcal not only to the workplace but to socety n general. Lttle l ~ rgorous research has been conducted, however, to support the foundatons f~ \ of ths publc polcy. Ths paper revews the extant research on ths topc and S then presents results of e study conducted at 342 workstes. The data l ' descrbe varous facets of drug testng end related practces and comperes them over several organzatonal characterstcs. Implcatons based on the ~ ;, study's results are presented for those nvolved wth drug testng programs. ~!~!~ ~,- ~ ~ ~ w I ~ I 'I n response to evdence of cessble or kept wthn the propretary drug use among employed ndvd- sector, rather than beng avalable for I II uals, publc polcy n the Unted scentfc scru4ny. Further, much of the States has attempted to nfluence publc research that was contracted to justfy ',', and prvate sector employers to test publc polcy was not conducted wth prospectve and current employees or adequate peer revew nput at the desgn evdence of drug use. Research, however, and mplementaton phases. Also, many ' ~' has played a very lmted role n develop- studes were performed after publc pol- ~ II' d,, ng ths publc polcy or assessng ts cy had already set the drecton for!" I!; mpact on the prvate sector. Whle publc and prvate sector drug testng publc polcy has been successful n programs. ~~ ~I nfluencng the prolferaton of drug test- There has been a consderable ncrease ~ ng programs, not much s known about over the past seven years n the number, the effects of these programs. Ths s and proporton of employers who volun-, ~., partally because the research to date s tarly drug test job applcants and em- III ~C l;~ nconclusve. Much of t s not generalz- ployees. Government regulatory and con- ~a~ able, havng been conducted wth nade- tradng agences are placng greater ~I~ quate methodologes, Other data are nac- pressure and requrements on employers ~'' ~ ~ `y I I, Journal of &mployee Assstance Research, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Wnter 1992), ' ~j~ ~~'`f ~ by the Employee Assstance Professonals Assocaton, Inc. ',,,, 315

2 316 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 317 to drug test current employees. These regulatons are no longer narrowly drected at partcular ndustres, but now nclude categores of occupatons that cross a dversty of ndustral settngs (U.S. Department of Transportaton, 1992a; U.S.Department of Defense, 1992). Gven the development of the drug testng ndustry, t s unlkely that drug testng wll be sharply reduced, no matter what evdence, pro ar con, s produced through research. It s mportant, however, that decson makers have as much nformaton as possble regardng drug testng to the end that extant programs can be changed or mproved to better meet organzatonal and socetal goals. Ths paper revews exstng research on how workplaces have addressed drug use, ncludng adoptng sanctons and dscplnazy polces, offerng rehabltaton treatment to employees, and testng employees for drug use. Ths revew reflects some of the lmtatons of the avalable body of research as a source for nformed polcy makng for publc and prvate sector workplaces. Followng ths revew, some new data are presented from a survey of a dverse group of workstes. These data descrbe the prevalence of the varous types and combnatons of drug testng performed (e.g. pre-employment, employee for-cause, employee random), the percentage of drug tests that are postve, the extent to whch employee drug use s consdered a problem, the types of sanctons that are appled to employees that use drugs and how they are appled, how these employees are treated n terms of rehabltatve actons such as Employee Assstance Programs (EAPs), and the genetal atttudes toward drug testng of Personnel/Human Resource managers at these stes. Ths nformaton s presented for the overall sample and compared across a varety of organzatonal types and workforce demographcs. I. Lterature Revew Harrs and Heft (1992) dentfed three general approaches used by employers to address drug-related problems n the workplace. These ncluded sanctons, such as suspenson when substance use s detected, rehabltatve programs such as EAPs, and drug testng programs nvolyng job applcants, current employees, or both. The range of alternatve organzatonally mposed sanctons for drug use n the workplace s a partcularly under-researched area (Harrs &Heft, 1992). In 1986, a study sponsored by the Amercan Management Assocaton (AMA) focused on a sample of 1,090 frms (representng a response rate of only 11%) found that only 8% fred employees For testng postve for drugs. The remander ether suspended the employee or ssued offcal wemngs n conjuncton wth referral to an EAP or other rehabltaton optons (Mas, 1987). Addtonal surveys sponsored by the AMA showed more puntve approaches, fndng that, n the companes surveyed whch drug test employees, 22% mmedately termnated those testng postve for drugs, 21% suspended or put such employees on probaton, and 70% referred these employees to treatment or counselng (Greenberg, 1988, 1989 & 1990). Ffty-one percent of ths sample of more than 1,000 organzatons reported havng a formal EAP. Other studes have nvestgated the mpact of sanctons on other llct behavors. For example, t has been found that the severty of the antcpated sanctons s at least as sgnfcant a factor n deterrence as the lkelhood of beng detected (Harrs &Heft, 1992). If the severty of formal sanctons s mportant n reducng employee drug use, frms termnatng employees who test postve should have less drug usage than employers usng progressve dscplne. On the other hand, there may be many other factors, such as average employee educaton level, age, end ncome level that nfluence the mpact of sanctons on drug use. For example, older and better educated employees may be less lkely to use llct drugs regardless of possble organzatonal penaltes. In addton, employees wth hgher ncomes may perceve they have more to lose from a postve drug test. Clearly, more extensve research s needed that compares employee drug use at two types of workstes, those emphaszng puntve responses wth those that emphasze rehabltatve approaches, such as counselng and ongong treatment. A. Drug Testng and Other Human Resource Programs The connecton of applcant and employee drug testng wth rehabltatve servces and other personnel/human resource programs s to some extent a study n contradctons. Frst, alcohol abuse s treated as a problem needng correctve acton only n cases where t nhbts role relatonshps and/or work performance. By shazp contrast, any presence of drugs n en employee's urne s generally consdered evdence of a drug problem n need of correcton. In addton, applcants testng postve for drugs are generally excluded from the organzaton, whle current employees testng postve are ofren offered some form of rehabltatve treatment. Clearly, the reacton to drug users by employers s dfferent dependng on whch sde of the employment lne a person Falls (Roman &Blum, 1992). The dfference n treatment of applcants compered to employees may occur because employers have no nvestment n job applcants, but do have an nvestment n the frm-specfc tranng and sklls of exstng employees. Ths could make the cost/beneft rato for rehabltaton of employees attractve when evaluated over several years of remanng employment. One of the most prevalent rehabltatve responses to workplace drug problems s an EAP. Whle EAPs orgnally were developed to address employee alcoholsm n the workplace, ther role has broadened to nclude not only help for employees wth substance abuse problems, but also assstance coverng a host of other personal dffcultes (Roman & Blum,1992). EAPs have become much more prevalent throughout the 1970's and 1980's (Harrs &Heft, 1992). For example, by 1992, more than half of the workstes wth over 250 employees had an EAP. Blum and Roman (1992) estmate that today about 45% of all full-tme employees have access to an EAP. Followng the logc that employees represent nvestments, the prevalng vew among managers seems to be that employee drug testng programs should not operate "n a vacuum" (Raman & Blum, 1992). For example, a 1988 AMA survey found that n 80% of the companes surveyed, employee drug testng was part of an ntegrated system where the employee was elgble to receve help (Greenberg, 1989). Smlarly, a survey by The Conference Board (1989) of 680 organzatons found that almost half screened applcants for drug use, that 80% of those that drug test had procedures for supervsors to address suspected drug abuse, and that those frms that drug test employees were twce as lkely to provde substance abuse educaton actvtes as those whch dd not. In a sepazate survey conducted n 1988, Blum (1989) found that 46% of a sample of 125 larger workstes (over 250 employees) drug tested employees or applcants. Over half of these workplaces also had an EAP. The nteractons of drug testng wth other human resource management functons were llustrated n ths study. For example, stes located n small towns tended to test all applcants f other stes n the same labor market also dd so. Ths was an apparent attempt to avod hrng 'I

3 318 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH I DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 319 those rejected by other frms for testng postve. Workplaces that were facng labor or skll shortages were less lkely to reject all applcants who tested postve. Locatons that ndcated they had problems wth absenteesm were more lkely to do "for reasonable cause" testng. Frms wth concerns about levels of Worker's Compensaton clams were also more lkely to do for-cause testng but less lkely to have an EAP (Blum, 1989). Whle many employers are wllng to make rehabltaton alternatves avalable for employees, they are not nearly as wllng to consder hrng applcants who test postve for drugs. For example, one study found that almost 90% of managers engaged n recrutment on college campuses ndcated they would not hre an applcant who tested postve (Babbush, 1987). Another survey reported 94.3% of those workstes that test applcants refused to hre any applcant that faled a drug test (Murphy ~ Thornton, 1992). The excluson of job applcants solely on the bass of drug test results could lead. to potental adverse mpact snce blacks tend to test postve more frequently than whtes (Normand & Salyards, 1989; Harrs & Hefr, 1992; Mensch & Kandel, 1988; Roman &Blum, 1992). The potental for adverse mpact exsts f the rato of black selecton to whte selecton based on drug test results s less than SO% (Harrs & Hefr, 1992). For example, Normand and Salyards (1989) report that black applcants for post offce jobs had a postve drug test rate over twce that for whte applcants (14% vs. 6.5%). Analyses reported by Harrs and Heft (1992) showed that usng both the data on whch the Zwerlng et al. (1990) and Normand, Salyards and Mahoney [1990) studes of post offce applcants were based, the rato of black selecton rate to whte selecton rate based on drug testng results was 89% (both data sets were n very close agreement). Whle adverse mpact for blacks n a legal sense would not be ndcated by ths rato, other workstes may reach the 80% mark, partcularly f drug test results are combned wth other selecton crtera. Further, ethcal and socetal concerns mght transcend the legal defnton (Roman & Blum, 1992). Fnally, research nvestgatng the effects of work stress and stran on employee consumpton of alcohol and drugs s somewhat mxed. There s however some emprcal support for the concept that employees may adapt to stressful work envronments by consumng alcohol and/or drugs to cope, possbly n assocaton wth other co-workers (Harrs & Heft, 1992). Whle some employers mght agree that poor workng condtons and badly desgned jobs mght ncrease employee alcohol and drug use, the prevalng vew seems to be that EAPs and smlar rehabltatve strateges are avalable for any casualtes of company work lfe. There seems to be lttle employer nterest or actvty n modfcaton of work context, job desgn or other human resource components n response to perceved drug and alcohol problems among employees. B. Trends n Workplace Drug Testng Estmates of the proporton of work locatons that perform some type of drug testng have ncreased substantally over the past 7 years. For example, a 1986 survey of personnel/human resource managers who were members of the Amercan Socety of Personnel Admnstrators showed that 22% of the respondent companes engaged n some form of drug testng (Gomez-Meja & Balkn, 1987). Ths sample represented 190 frms (response rate of 38%) that were large enough to have a professonally managed personnel department. In 1987, a study ndcated that about half of the Fortune 1000 companes surveyed conducted drug testng, as compared to 20% of those wth less then $500 mllon n annual sales (Mas, 1987). Although these fndngs were based on a very low survey response rate (11%), the estmate for large companes was supported by a sepazate 1987 survey by AMA n whch 43% of respondent frms wth sales of over $500 mllon reported testng job applcants (Greenberg, 1988, 1989, 19g0). In contrast, only 16% of the frms contacted by AMA that had less than $50 mllon n sales performed any drug tests. Another 1987 study based on nformaton from 1,200 employers reported that just under 30% of these Frms drug tested job applcants, wth an addtonal 20% ndcatng they would ntate screenng by 1988 (Babbush, 1987). In 1988, an AMA survey ndcated ncreases n drug testng of both applcants and current employees. Thrty-eght percent of all the organzatons n the 1988 sample screened applcants compazed to 28% for 1987; 36% tested current employees as opposed to 28%the year before (Greenberg, 1989, 1990). In 1991, Guthre and Olan (1991) showed that the proporton of a sample of Fortune 1000 frms (response rate of 39%) that dd some type of drug testng had ncreased to 48%. Harrs and Heft (1992) recently reported that the proporton of employers performng some type of drug testng s as hgh as 63%, wth 74% of these frms testng employees "for reasonable cause" but only 9% conductng random employee tests. These estmates, however, are based on surveys domnated by larger companes and wth relatvely low response rates (less than 50%). The mpact of restrctng samples to larger organzatons s evdent n a study by Hayghe (1991) whch showed that only 2.6% of the frms wth under 50 employees (whch consttute over 90% of all employers n the naton) had a drug testng program of some type n Hayghe also found that only 9% of large (over 250 employees) frms that reported havng drug testng n 1988 had dropped the program by 1990, compared to a 46% rate of program termnaton among those wth fewer than 50 employees. The mpact on generalzablty of low response rates to surveys s unknown, snce there s no nformaton avalable comparng the companes that do not respond wth those that do. Whle most manufacturng and utlty companes wll not hre applcants who test postve, companes n servce ndustres ere more lkely to contnue consderaton of such applcants for employment (Murphy &Thornton, 1992). Ths dfference may result from greater safety concerns n the manufacturng and utlty locatons. Overall, workplace safety s generally the most common reason gven for drug testng, reported n one study by over 70% of the respondents who dd testng (Mas, 1987). At present, most workplace drug testng s drected at job applcants and employees who show evdence of beng under the nfluence at work. However, the fastest growng practce s random drug testng of current employees. Whle pencl and paper and other physologcal tests (e.g. har) can be used, the most wdely used drug test by far s urnalyss (Harrs &Heft, 1992). Although more expensve than other alternatves, urnalyss s the most accurate type of testng mnmzng legal and morale problems for companes (Harrs & HeB, 1992). It s also requred by the Federal agences that mandate testng for contractors and regulated ndustres (U.S. Department of Transportaton, 1992b). The survey data summarzed n ths secton ndcates the followng: Drug testng programs aze prmarly a large company practce, wth more than half of the Fortune 1000 companes performng some type of drug test, as compared wth less than 5% of small employers. The exstng surveys show that 75% to 90% of larger employers that

4 320 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS have testng programs test job applcants (Mas, 1987; Guthre & Olan, 1991; Murphy &Thornton, 1992). In addton, 65% to 75% of these t"rms test employees "for reasonable cause".e. suspcon of drug use (Mas, 1987; Murphy & Thornton, 1992). The proporton of larger frms that requre random drug tests of employees has ncreased substantally, from only 2% n 1987 to over 30% n a sample contacted n 1991 (Murphy ~ Thornton, 1992). The organzatons n 1991 that tested randomly tended to be mltary or government organzatons, whle servce sector organzatons were least lkely to perform random tests on employees (Murphy &Thornton, 1992). In general, manufacturng companes and utltes ere more lkely to drug test than frms n bankng, fnance, or wholesale/retal trade (Babbush, 1987; Murphy & Thornton, 1992). Larger employers n manufacturng ndustres are perhaps more lkely to drug test applcants because they have greater potental safety and lablty rsks. These frms also often pay hgher wages than smaller companes and those n servce ndustres, and therefore probably attract e surplps of job applcants. In ths lght, drug testng to exclude applcants may help these companes avod costly accdents and rehabltaton blls, whle not lmtng ther avalable labor supply. The fate of job applcants who test postve for drug use, however, then becomes socety's problem, and lttle or no research has been conducted on the outcomes of those who are dened employment through use of ths practce. C. Reasons for Workplace Drug Testng There are numerous ratonales that could explan why employers would ncur the expense of drug testng. These nclude a) concern for job safety, b) belefs that drug use s mmoral, c) fear that employee drug use leads to theft, volence, unpredctable behavor, reduced productvty and/or lower qualty of work, d) concern for satsfacton of other employees, and e) belef that drug testng contrbutes postvely to a company's mage (Roman &Blum, 1992). Whle any or all of these may be accurate, the underlyng economc arguments for drug testng hnge to a large extent on ether a) the dea that drug use s prevalent enough among prospectve or current employees to warrant testng, b) the dea that the payoffs to companes assocated wth drug testng applcants and employees s great enough to justfy the addtonal expense, or c) the dea that drug testng s necessary to meet government requrements or pressures. 1. Prevalence of Drug Use Estmates of the prevalence of drug use among employees vary dependng on the type of drug nvolved and whether data s based on self-reports or results of drug tests. Drug tests can detect use of cocane, barbturates, etc. n the past 3 days, and use of marjuana n the past 30 days. Overall, studes have ndcated that the prevalence of drug use by workng persons has declned over the past 5 years, and that drug use of all types s about twce as hgh aznong unemployed as employed persons (Voss, 1989). Estmates of drug use among 1736 workng adults n the 1987 Natonal Insttute of Drug Abuse household survey were 11% for marjuana use n the past month (18% n the past year), end 2% for cocane use n the past month (6 percent n the past 12 months). Males, younger (18-34 years old) employees, and those employed n the sklled trades had sgnfcantly hgher rates of self-reported use (Cook, 1989). Smlar estmates of use were reported by a 1988 Departrnent of Labor survey of 7500 frms n whch respondents reported an overall rate of postves of 8.8% for all current employ- ees who were tested. About 12% of the applcants tested postve (U.S. Department of Labor, 1989). However, two years later, Angln and Westland (1989) Found lower rates n a study usng drug test data from four Calforna laboratores descrbng preemployment drug screens and employee drug tests performed "for reasonable cause." The rate of postves for ndvduals so tested ranged from 1.5 to 7.5% for marjuana, and were less than 2% for cocane, opates and amphetamnes. These percentages, whch are probably based upward due to ncluson of "for reasonable cause" testa whch tend to have a hgher rate of postves, are consstent wth Cook's 1987 estmates for cocane, but sgnfcantly lower than the estmates for marjuana. Moore and Swafford (1993) found smlar estmates of use n a study of an employee testng program at a large hosptal over a one year perod n whch 2.25% of 3,514 pre-employment screens were postve. In ths case, 55% of the postve tests were reversed after revew by medcal offcers (almost all for bazbturates, Valum, Darvon, and related drugs). Allowng for some overlap among employees testng postve For marjuana, cocane and other drugs, the overall prevalence of drug use among employees appears to be n the range of 5 to 7%. However, the most recent data n these studes s from 1990, when almost all tests of employees were "for reasonable cause." 2. Payoffs From Drug Testng In general, the studes comparng the employment outcomes for drug users wth non-drug users show mxed results. Some studes ndcate that drug use may be a poor predctor of employment success or falure. For nstance, McDanel (1988) examned the ablty of pror drug use to predct performance related mltary dscharges wthn 4 years of enlstment. Sxteen percent of the sample of 10,188 applcants for mltary servce n had been dscharged for poor performance n ths tme frame. Correlatons between drug use and unsutablty were found to be low (.OS), wth those ntatng drug use at an earler age, those arrested for use of drugs, and those wth a hgher frequency.of use (over 50 tmes) havng hgher dscharge rates than others testng postve. McDanel concluded that employers can use much better predctors of applcant employment sutablty than drug test results. Ths fndng was also supported by Parsh (1989) n a study wth lmted statstcal power of 180 applcants who were subsequently hred for hosptal jobs. Although the 22 applcants who tested postve had hgher turnover rates, more warnngs n ther fles and lower performance evaluatons than those testng negatve, none of these relatonshps were statstcally sgnfcant. Other studes suggest that drug users are more lkely to be njured on the job, to have job related accdents, to be nvoluntarly termnated for job-related reasons and to have hgher rates of absenteesm. For example, Zwerlng et al. (1990) studed a sample of 2537 postal employees who had accepted postons wth the postal servce from September 1986 to January The new hres had all been screened for drugs durng the applcaton process, wth S% testng postve for marjuana and 2.2% for cocane, other drugs or combnatons of drugs. Analyss ndcated that those subjects who tested postve for marjuana had ncreased levels of nvoluntary turnover (13.6% for those testng postve versus 6.4%). Those testng postve for cocane and the other drug groups dd not have sgnfcantly hgher rates of turnover, voluntary or otherwse. However, marjuana-postve subjects had more accdents, njures and dscplnary acton than those testng negatve. The absenteesm rate was also '1

5 f JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH hgher for those testng postve for both marjuana and cocane than for those testng negatve for all drugs. The authors note that alcohol use (not measured) may have confounded some of the relatonshps here. Usng test results from 4220 postal servce job applcants who were subsequently hred and completed ther 90 day probatonary perod, Normand and Salyards (1989) found that of these new hres, 5.7% tested postve for marjuana, 2.2% for cocane, and less than 1% for other drugs. The odds of testng postve were hgher for blacks, males, and those years old. Absence rates of those testng postve for drugs (4.39%) were not sgnfcantly hgher than for those testng negatve (3.0%). However, nvoluntary turnover rates were sgnfcantly hgher (13.3%) for those testng postve than for those testng negatve (9.5%). Normand and Salyards (1989) noted that elgble applcants that tested postve were also less lkely to be hred than those testng negatve. (Drug tests were done on 5465 applcants and 4375 of these were eventually hred.) A possble explanaton for ths result s that elgble applcants testng postve were elmnated at a hgher rate than non-users durng medcal and other checks of sutablty. Mxed results from drug testng were also reported by Sherdan and Wnkler (1989) who studed employees of the Georga Power Company. Ther study consdered age, job type and year of hre n relaton to rate of postve drug tests, absenteesm, and other performance measures. The number of demotons for employees testng negatve were sgnfcantly hgher than for those testng postve, possbly because drug-postve employees are more lkely to be fred, rather than smply demoted. Overall, those testng postve were not absent any more than workers testng negatve. In fact, for absenteesm due to sckness only (not docked tme) employees testng postve for marjuana had fewer average hours of absenteesm than the average for the entre workforce. Ths study, however, dd not nclude adequate controls and may be confounded wth alternatve explanatons. Crouch et al. (1989) examned data collected from Utah Power and Lght for employees who tested postve, EAP clents and a control group matched on age, sex, job type, and tenure. Workers who tested postve had hgher rates of absenteesm than the controls and EAP clents. Contrary to expectatons, those testng drug postve had lower medcal expenses than those n the control group, and the EAP clents had lower accdent rates than dd the controls. Other studes have examned the effects of drug testng on reducng employee drug use. Despte manageral belefs about the effectveness of drug testng n reducng employee drug use and assocated problems, the emprcal support for these outcomes s mxed at best. For example, Blum (1989) reported that n a sample of 439 employee assstance programs (EAPs) located across the naton, there was no dfference n the number of EAP cases nvolvng drug or alcohol use/abuse between workstes that drug tested applcants and those that dd not. However, many, but not all, of these employees were hred before applcant testng was adopted. A nne yeaz study by Sray et al. (1990) coverng 18,000 ndvduals n the U.S. mltary servce showed that self-reported drug use substantally decreased after a polcy of dscharge for drug use was mplemented n As self-reported drug use decreased, reported use of alcohol ncreased durng the frst two years of the study ( ). Also, over the tme of ths study, the fact that sample members became older and more educated could also explan a porton of the reducton. Taggart (1989) collected data on applcant and "for reasonable cause" testng at the Southern Pacfc Ralroad. Postve test rates for drugs and alcohol declned from 23% to 5% over the perod Interestngly, the dramatc decreases n percentages were accompaned by subslental ncreases n number of tests performed, whch rases the possblty that the observed decrease occurred because the sample tested contaned a broader representaton of employees. For example, n % of the 125 tests performed were postve (15 postves); n the next year 721 tests were done and 6.2% were postve (45 postves). These studes ndcate dfferent rates of postves and dfferent, but somewhat nconsstent, effects on employment outcomes. Generally, lower rates of postve drug tests over tme can ether be nterpreted by a deterrent effect assocated wth: the adopton of drug testng, or alternately by mproved accuracy of test results due to use of better laboratory procedures and%or ncreased confrmaton of postve results. The estmates of overall cost beneft to organzatons from applcant and employee drug testng, whch are hghly nfluenced by many assumptons about cost factors, beneft factors, number of tests performed, and rates of postves, range from about $160 per employee n the frst year of employment to about $800 per employee over an average tenure of 10 years (Harrs &Heft, 1992). However, Normand, Salyards and Mahoney (1990), whose study of postal workers contans the strongest support For the effcacy of applcant drug testng to reduce turnover costs, cauton that ther results are predctve and suggest only assocaton, not causalty. There are smply too many other varables other than drug use wthn organzatons that ere not taken nto account by these studes, but whch could dfferentally mpact employee selecton or performance. For DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 323 example, some researchers (Sten et al., 1988; Kandel &Yamaguch, 1987) suggest that nvolvement wth drugs s a sngle facet of a lfestyle reflectng other devant behavors. Snce these behavors would probably be exhbted or made apparent durng other parts of the selecton process, drug usng applcants would be dsqualfed for employment at hgher rate than non-drug users wth or wthout a drug test. Zwerlng et al. (1990) also note that ther results ndcate that some of the prevous clams for the sze of these effects of drug testng are nflated. For example, n ther study, marjuana users were nvolved n 55% more accdents and sustaned 85% more njures than those testng negatve. Ths s n contrast to other studes clamng 200% or more dfferences n accdents end 400 k more njures for ndvduals testng postve for marjuana. Many cost-beneft analyses of drug testng have been based on such fgures, leadng these authors to suggest reevaluaton of the estmates of the cost of drug abuse to ndustry and the relatve economc benefts of applcant drug screenng. 3. Regulatory Requrements and Pressures. The proporton of employers conductng drug tests has also grown n part n response to ncreasng emphass on antdrug programs n the workplace from Federal government agences who regulate certan ndustres and exert pressure on all employers to shoulder the burden of the war on drugs. Whle there has been a Federal drug abuse treatment and preventon effort n place for over 20 years, the Drug Free Workplace Act, passed n 1989, placed specfc focus on work settngs as a prmary place to attack the drug problem (EAPA, 1993). Whle ths act does not requre workplace drug testng, t places responsblty on companes dong busness wth the Federal

6 '.t ~ ~~ ~~~,;,~ 324 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH government to assure that ther employees do not possess, dstrbute or use llct drugs at work. Ths legslaton and related government polces ndrectly place demands on employers to adopt drug testng to demonstrate they are actng n accord wth the vew that employee drug use s unacceptable, as well as mplyng that employers should actvely screen employees and applcants for sgns of usage. In lght of patterns of Federal nterventon n other areas of the employment relatonshp (e.g. equal employment opportuntes and affrmatve acton), larger employers n partcular may beleve they need to adopt drug testng because t shows support for the current Federal polcy or because these companes perceve that they wll be requred to test n the future (Meyer & Rowan, 1991; Ledvnka & Scarpello, 1991; Pfeffer & Salanck, 1976). Other prvate employers may adopt drug testng programs because t enhances ther legtmacy, or s perceved as somethng that companes of smlar sze or type are dong. Ether of these forces may lead employers to nsttutonalze drug testng as a personnel practce (Meyer &Rowan, 1991). Some Federal agences, such as the Departments of Defense and Transportaton, have also adopted rules requrng grantees and contractors to establsh employee drug testng programs (U.S. Dept. of Transportaton, 1992b). Whle covered employers have generally moved to adopt polces that place employees on notce that random drug tests could be performed, the volume of random tests actually performed may be lmted. Some Federal agences are ncreasng the requrements and regulatons on employee testng, as evdenced by the Department of Transportaton's recently announced ntenton to expand requrements for random drug testng to cover all ntrastate commercal drvers, n addton to nterstate drvers currently covered. These new regulatons prescrbe certan procedures (e.g. splt sample) that employers must use n performng employee drug screens. Over the long term. ncreased emphass on drug testng may lead to ntensfed competton wthn work organzatons and human resource management departments for lmted resources that mght be dstrbuted between preventon, rehabltaton end drug use detecton approaches (EAPA, 1993). D. Atttudes about Drug Testng In general, the lmted research that has been done suggests that managers beleve that drug testng helps reduce an organzeton's problems assocated wth employee drug use. For example, more than half of a sample of 234 human resource managers from companes that perform drug tests consdered testng an effectve way to address drug abuse (Mas, 1987). These HR managers consttuted 21.7% of those respondng to ths survey. The overall response rate was 11%. A separate sample of personnel managers who were members of the Amercan Socety of Personnel Admnstrators consdered drug testng programs most effectve when supported by ancllary actvtes ncludng EAPs, tranng of supervsors to detect drug abuse, and educatonal programs (Gomez-Meja & Balkn, 1987). Testng programs that targeted specfc groups of employees (those n safetysenstve postons) tended to be the ones perceved most effectve, as opposed to those that tested all employees or applcants. Although the research s lmted, some studes ndcated that employees are wllng to accept drug testng at work f t s done n a way that s far to employees and respects ndvdual prvacy. LeRoy's (1991) survey of unon members showed that these employees generally favored drug testng of some type under restrctons "where the prvacy of workers s protected" (76.6%). Only 2% favored unrestrcted testng; whle the rest (21.4%) opposed drug testng of any knd. Those who favored drug testng tended to beleve that drug testng should be part of the barganng a~eement wth the unon. Another study focusng on employee atttudes (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991) tested the proposton that drug testng wll be accepted by employees to the extent t s seen as far. Based on a sample of 195 employees of a pathology lab (80% response rate), ths study found that trust n management, commtment to the organzaton, and employee performance (based on performance evaluatons) were sgnfcantly and postvely related to employee perceptons of procedural justce, but not to employee perceptons of farness of outcomes of drug tests. Ths result seems to suggest that f the overall management-employee relatonshp s postve, employees may accede to drug testng even though they may not lke beng tested. E. Summary Ths body of research, whch s lazgely descrptve n nature and nconclusve concernng the effcacy of workplace drug testng, cannot at ths pont provde ether the busness communty or makers of socal polcy wth defntve deas of what employers or employees are gettng out of drug testng programs. Rather, t seems that much of the decson to drug test, manfested n ts ncreasng prevalence throughout many ndustres, may be drven by government polcy (whch agan could be based on nconclusve research) and by perceptons of the extent of drug abuse n socety orgnatng from the mass meda. In a sense, merely testng applcants or employees for the presence of drugs may amount to a lose/lose proposton for employers and employees. Employers may be losng n the sense they may not DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 325 be achevng the expected results n terms of protectng ther workstes from the negatve effects of drug abuse. Drug testng alone may gve employers a false sense of securty as to ts effects. Ths s because throughout these studes,-even when rates of postves for drugs decreased, other changes n the organzaton may have occurred that may have also mpacted the rate of drug usage, such as sanctons mposed or rehabltaton programs ntated concurrent wth drug testng. Further, several of the studes examnng future performance of those employees who tested postve for drugs and were hred showed some dfferences (compared to non-drug users) n sutablty for employment, but n many cases the dfferences were not large enough to be cost benefcal from the perspectve of the employer. Fnally, less nvasve methods of determnng applcant sutablty than drug testng may be just as, f not more, effectve and less costly than drug testng. Whle most of the work revewed here suggests that rates of postve results do decrease some after startng drug testng, t s not far to say that ths decrease s due to testng tself, or f any reducton n drug use represents any real gan from the employers (or employees) vewpont. Future research would do well to consder drug testng not as a soltary human resource practce, but ts effect should be consdered n concert wth the rest of the human resource practces n effect at workstes. Partcularly, these studes should examne the experences at workstes where drug testng s a stand-alone devce n comparson wth stes where management vews testng as only one aspect of an ntegrated alcohol/ drug program. Thus, there s a current unmet need to conduct studes that carefully examne the effect of drug testng, sanctons for drug use and rehabltaton programs all wthn the doman of human resource practces. In addton t s mportant to

7 326 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH closely examne how testng s done, partcularly n rural areas or smaller workstes. Ths work could nclude nvestgatng the chan of custody of the samples taken from employees, whether confrmatory tests aze done, end the qualfcatons of those ndvduals revewng such tests (such as Medcal Revew Offcers), as well as ther relatonshps to the laboratores conductng the tests. Research along these lnes may go a long way to fnally nformng busness and publc polcy makers on the woth of workplace drug testng and the ways t may be effcently mplemented. From the precedng revew t s evdent that the exstng research results are not partcularly rgorous, but do seem to pont to some general trends. These nclude: The proporton of larger employers who conduct drug tests of applcants and/or employees has ncreased over the past 7 years. The proporton of employers wth less than 50 workers that have drug testng programs s much smaller. Although the majorty of the companes that test employees tend to recognze that drug testng should be ntegrated wth other human resource practces such as EAPs, almost half take puntve actons aganst employees who test postve. Most companes wll not hre applcents that test postve, but wll ofren offer rehabltaton alternatves to employees wth such test outcomes. Most employee tests ere conducted "For reasonable cause," but the proporton of employers who conduct random tests of employees s ncreasrg, partly n response to Federal regulatory pressures. In the remander of ths paper, we present data descrbng drug testng practces at over 300 work locatons end assess the extent to whch these practces are consstent wth these trends. The analyses also nvestgate the relatonshps between organzatonal characterstcs such as ndustry type, sze, and workforce demographcs and drug testng practces at the workste level. II. Drug Testng Data IYom 342 Workstes Ths secton provdes descrptve results of an emprcal study that addressed some of the ssues surroundng drug testng and drug abuse as they relate to specfc workstes. The data are presented on two levels. Frst, nformaton s reported on the overall sample, and ncludes such data as the prevalence of drug testng n ts varous forms, presence and enforcement of drug abuse polces, and presence of EAPs. Second, specfc facets of perceved drug abuse and drug testng aze contrasted by vazous workste characterstcs such as urban vs. rural locaton, ndustry type, sze, and workforce demographcs. Ths level of analyss has an advantage as an explanatory tool n that the extent and type of drug testng programs present, as well as the perceptons of a drug abuse problem and the organzatonal responses to t, are not lkely to be the same across all types of organzatons. Ths may account for same of the conflctng results among many of the studes revewed n the frst secton of ths paper. Ths study collected data from a sample of medum to large (200+ employees) workstes n the state of Georga employng a grand total of approxmately 243,000 workers. These stes were surveyed from 1991 to early Of 404 elgble workstes contacted, 342 agreed to partcpate, representng a response rate of 84.8%. Whle all the sampled workstes were n Georga, they comprse a broad representaton. The sample was a dverse one, wth all of the major ndustral classes found n the Standard Industral Classfcaton (SIC) codes repre- sented. Two hundred and twenty-sx of the stes (65 k) were nvolved n manufacturng; 16 stes (5%) were nvolved n wholesale or retal trade; 23 stes (7%) were nvolved n the fnancal, nsurance, or real estate ndustres, end 16 stes were hosptals (5%). The remanng stes (18%) were nvolved n ether communcaton, transportaton, or other servces. The sample was also representatve of the urban and rural areas throughout the state. One hundred and forty of the stes (41%) were located n the Atlanta Standard Metropoltan Statstcal Area (SMSA), 52 (15%) were located n the other SMSAs n the state, end the remander of the sample (44%) were located n rural (non-smsa) areas. Face-to-face sem-structured ntervews were conducted wth the hghest rankng human resource manager at each workste. At the tme of each ntervew, the respondent was also asked to complete and return a questonnare to the researchers by mal. The response rate to. the questonnare was 82%. Results for the Overall Sample DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 827 Prevalence of Testng Programs Table 1 shows the relatve proportons of workstes that do pre-employment drug testng, drug test employees "for reasonable cause," or drug test employees at random. The table also shows the relatve frequency of combnatons of these testng programs. The most common stuaton (at almost 40 k of the workstes) was the combnaton of pre-employment and "for reasonable cause" testng. Ths was followed by dong no drug testng at all, the stuaton at 22% of the workstes. Respondents were asked at the tme of the ntervew to assess the lkelhood of any changes occurrng n ther drug testng programs wthn the Followng year. As shown n Table 1, there were few respondents who foresaw any chance of present drug testng programs beng dscontnued, whether pre-employment, "for reasonable cause," or random. On the other hand, one-thrd of the respondents at workstes not engagng n pre-employment testng and 42% of the respondents at stes not engagng n "for reasonable cause" testng foresaw at least a moderate chance of such a program beng ntated wthn the next yeaz. Random testng of employees, however, appeazs lkely to reman the least used drug testng practce n ths sample, at least nto the foreseeable future. Only 17% of the stes not dong random drug testng foresaw any reasonable chance of t beng adopted. However, snce 82% of the sample does not random test, ths percentage does represent some 14% of the total sample that may adopt random testng n the near future. Number of Drug Tests Performed and Rate of Postve Results The magntude of drug testng programs, as expected, vared wdely throughout the sample. Wthn the year prevous to the ntervew, the average number of pre-employment tests conducted at these workstes was 159. The varaton n number of preemployment tests performed wthn that perod ranged from zero at seven workstes to over 1000 at four workstes. Of the 62 stes dong random tests, none had actually been performed durng that year at 16 (62%) of them, and the medan number of random tests performed was However, thrteen of these stes had done over 100 random tests wthn that year, skewng the mean number to 116. In the case of "for reasonable cause" drug testng, a smlar dscrepancy emerged between the medan and mean number of tests performed. Snce 37% of these stes had actually done no "for reasonable cause" tests durng the prevous year, the medan number performed was 2.0, whle the mean was At stes dong pre-employment drug testng, the mean rate of postves reported was 6.6% (medan = 5.0%). Same 1~ ::.-ate

8 ~'~ 328 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH ~, I Teble 1 Drug Testng Practces n the Overall Sample ~~ (N=342) ~ ~ ~,Prevalence of Drug Testng Types Number of Workstes Type of Testng t` Pre-employment Testng 241 (70%) '~, 214 (63%) For Reasonable Cause Testng 82 (18%) Random Testng Combnatons of Drug Testng Types Number of Workstesa - Type of Testng Pre-employment Only 48 (14%) For Reasonable Cause Only 21 ~ s ~ ~ Random Only ~ 4 ( 1%) Pre-employment and Random 4 ( 1%J Random and For Reasonable Cause 135 (39%) Pre-employment end For Reasonable Cause 54 (16 k) All 3 Types 76 (22%) No Drug Testng ''. f Lkelhood of Contnung Drug Testng!,' Lkelhood of Testng Contnung Type of Testng Done Hgh Moderate Pre-employment 237 (99%) 2 ( 1%) For Reasonable Cause 208 (98%) 4 ( 2%) Random 5996 ( %) 12% C._,~.,,.,,!~ Lkelhood of Begnnng Drug Testng (for stes not currently engaged) ~ ~ ~ Lkelhood of Testng Begnnng Wthn Next Years Type of Testng Hgh Moderate Low None! Pre-employment 19 (20go) 12 (13%) 22 (2390) 43 (450) For Reasonable Cause 26 (21%) 26 (21%) 21 (17%) 51 (41%) Random 19 ( 7%) 27 (3090) 54 (20%) 170 (63%) Due to roundng, percentages may not add up to 100%. 20% of the stes reported no postve results, wth the hghest postve test rate reported at 65%. Postve test rates exceedng 20% were reported at 18 stes. In the case of "for reasonable cause" drug testng, a somewhat dfferent pattern n postve test rates s revealed. Whle the mean rate of postves for these programs was 33.8%, the medan rate was only 10%, reflectng the fact that 57 workstes dong "for reasonable cause" tests reported no postve results. Interestngly, another 31 stes reported a postve test rate of 100%, ndcatng that the term "for reasonable cause" may mean dfferent thngs at dfferent workstes. Some stes evdently use the "for reasonable cause" test as a confrmatory measure when drug use s strongly suspected, whle others routnely perform these tests afrer all accdents (123 stes noted ths as part of ther polcy). For stes dong random tests, 22 (48% of those reportng) had a postve rate of 0. The mean rate of postves was 3.4%, and only 4 stes had a rate of postves above 10%. Consequences of Falng a Drug Test For the majorty (57%) of workstes, applcants testng postve for drugs were gven the opportunty to apply for employment after some tme had elapsed (usually a perod of 6 months to a year). Respondents at workstes wthout ths polcy generally reported that applcants turnng up drug postve had no chance for hre at any future tme (42%). At only one ste were those testng postve hred anyway, and at one ste the postves were handled on a case-by-case bass. As would be expected, there s a greater varety n organzatonal response to current employees who fal a drug test. The most typcal response (37%) for falng a "for reasonable cause" drug test s counselng and/or referral to an approprate drug treatment program as avalable. One-thrd of the stes dong these tests termnated employees testng postve, and another 5% dd not termnate but dscplned n some way, such as wth suspenson. The remanng stes handled employees falng drug tests on a case-bycase bass. Consequences for falng drug tests performed at random were somewhat smlar, but revealed a slght reversal of termnaton over counselng/rehabltaton, wth termnaton (38%J as the most common outcome, followed by counselng (33%) and dscplne (9%). The remander of the random testng workstes handled postves on a case-bycase bass. Prob]ems wth Drug Testng Progmms At workstes where pre-employment drug testng was performed, respondents were asked what, f any, problems they had encountered n conjuncton wth such testng. The most commonly mentoned problems were cost (mentoned by 5% of these respondents) and DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 329 the overall logstcs of the testng program (mentoned by 6%). One hundred end seventy-four respondents (73% of those respondng) reported no problems wth pre-employment testng. Of the respondents at workstes dong "for reasonable cause" testng, 68% reported encounterng no problems wth ther testng program. When problems were reported, those most frequently cted were concern about employee opposton (9% of these respondents) and the cost of testng (5%). At the 62 workstes dong random testng, 72% of the respondents reported encounterng no problems wth t. For those that dd report a problem, concern for employee opposton was gven most frequently (11%). Reasons for Not Drug Testng At workstes not supportng pre-employment testng, the most common reason cted by respondents for not dong so (44%) was a perceved lack of need for such testng. Ths was also true at stes not supportng "for reasonable cause" drug testng, where 39% of those respondents cted ths as a reason. Some 82% of the workstes n the sample dd not engage n random drug testng of ther employees. The most common reasons cted for not dong so were concern For legal ssues (cted by 38% of respondents), and perceved lack of need (cted by 28%). Polces Related to Drug Use An overwhelmng majorty of the workstes n the sample reported havng a formal polcy n place coverng workplace related drug use (95%). At these workstes, the polces specfcally forbd drug use on the job (100%), drug use on the property (99%J, drug possesson on the job (98%), drug possesson on the property (97%), and reportng to work under the nfluence of drugs (100%). Nnety-nne percent of these workstes reported that the polcy was wrtten, and 98% beleved that employees were clearly made aware of t. When asked to evaluate the consstency

9 330 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH wth whch these polces were enforced as stated, 71% ndcated "always," 25% reported "usually," 3% "rarely" and 1% "never." As to the consequences an employee faces after a frst offense volaton of these polces, 31% of the workstes reported that attempts would be made to counsel or rehabltate the employee n some way, 13% reported that the employee would be subject to progressve dscplne, 25% reported that the case would be handled on an ndvdualzed bass, and 30% of these workstes reported that the employee would be termnated. However, f a second offense volaton should occur, only 15% of the workstes would contnue attempts at counselng/rehabltaton, 31% would move to or contnue wth progressve dscplne, 17% would contnue wth- an ndvdualzed approach, but 65% would now termnate that employee. Other Organzatonal Actvtes Related to Drug Abuse and Drug Testng One hundred eghty-nne of the stes (55%) reported havng substance abuse preventon actvtes n place (such as meetngs, educatonal programs, or nformaton gven to employees by such means as pamphlets, paycheck "stuffers" etc.). Stes supportng pre-employment drug testng were also much more lkely to have some type of substance abuse preventon actvty n place. One hundred and ffty-two [63%) of the stes that test applcants had these programs, whle only 37 of the non-testng stes (37%) had them. Inspectons of employee property or survellance of employees were done by only a mnorty of the stes (22%) n the sample. The presence of pre-employment testng was not sgnfcantly related to whether a ste engaged n these actvtes, wth 22.5% of the pre-employment testng stes engagng n them, and 21.5% of the stes not testng applcants dong so. There was also no sgnfcant dfference n percentage of stes testng applcants vs. non-testers that had employees under survellance. At over half (53.2%) of the workstes n ths study, an EAP was n place. As s evdent from the data presented on consequences of falng a drug test or beng apprehended n a drug polcy nfracton, attempts are often made by organzatons at some sort of counselng or rehabltaton of employees so dentfed. EAPs are a major component of most organzatonal rehabltaton efforts. Examnng the relatonshp between presence of EAPs and drug testng programs, t was revealed that workstes supportng pre-employment testng were not sgnfcantly more lkely to support an EAP than those stes wthout a pre-employment drug testng program (55% of testng stes and 50% of the non-testng stes had EAPs). Interestngly, and perhaps an ssue of some greater concern, s the fact that workstes engaged n drug testng employees on a random bass were less lkely to have an EAP n place. Of the 62 random drug testng stes, 42% supported an EAP, whle 56% of the workstes not dong random testng supported such a program. The type of drug testng most assocated wth EAP presence was "for reasonable cause" testng. Of the 214 stes dong such testng, 124 (58%) had an EAP n place (about the same percentage as for the overall sample). For stes wthout "for reasonable cause" testng, only 58 (45%) had EAPs. It would seem, then, that the majorty of workstes nsttutng "for reasonable cause" testng of employees were not usng such testng as a standalone devce, but were also supportng other human resource programs to address employee drug abuse problems f dentfed. Apparently the same cannot be sad for those workstes nvolved wth random drug testng. Ths may reflect the fact that many of these stes (60 k) reported dong random testng only n response to government regulatons, regulatons that do not also mandate such programs as EAPs. Ths stuaton should concern polcy makers, snce n dealng wth employees who test postve, the optons open to workstes wthout such rehabltatve programs ere lkely lmted to termnaton of that employee, resultng n an ndvdual beng thrown out nto the general socety not only wth a potental drug problem, but now also unemployed. Results by Workste Characterstcs Workste Characterstcs For the purposes of the analyses whch follow, workstes were categorzed as: 1) urban, located wthn an SMSA (56% of the stes) or rural, outsde an SMSA (44%J; 2) engagng n ether manufacturng (65%J or servce (35%); 3) havng at least one unon (27%) or no unon (73%J; 4J the number of employees at each workste, categorzed as 1 = < 325 employees (25%), 2 = employees (27%), 3 = 500+ employees (48%) (the mean number of employees was 712); 5) the percentage of the total workforce (management and non-management) at the ste that was black, categorzed as 1 = < 25% (31%), 2 = 25 49% (42%), and 3 = 50%+ (27%) (the mean percentage of black employees was 37.1%); 6) the percentage of the total workforce that was female, categorzed as 1 = G 40% (33%), 2 = 40 59% (28%), and 3 = 60%+ (39%) (the mean percentage of female employees was 50.16%); 7) the average age of the total workforce, categorzed as 1 = < 30 (19%), 2 = (55%), 3 = > 39 (26%); 8) the average educatonal level of the DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 331 total workforce, categorzed as 1 = less than hgh school dploma (23%), 2 =hgh school dploma or equvalent (50%), 3 =some college (18%), 4 = college degree /techncal school certfcate (9%); 9) the scope of operatons of the organzaton operatng the workste, categorzed as 1 = local, a sngle ste operaton (23%), 2 = regonal, operatng only n the state or regon (14%), and 3 = natonal/nternatonal, operatng throughout the Unted States and/or the world (63%); and 10) whether the workste supported an EAP (53%) or not (47%). Perceved Impact of Drug Abuse on the Workste Tables 2 and 2a descrbe the results of respondents' perceptons of the mpact drug abuse was havng on ther workstes overall, and specfcally on safety, productvty and absenteesm at the tme of the ntervew. These are expressed as mean values based on a scale rangng from 1 = No Impact to 4 = Major Impact, and ere compared across organzatonal characterstcs. The mean perceved mpacts for the entre sample vary between mnor (2) and moderate (3). Workste sze was a sgnfcant factor n all four of these ssues, wth respondents at larger stes consstently expressng perceptons of greater mpact of drug abuse on ther workstes. Wth the excepton of the area of workste safety, where the trend was n the same drecton but dd not reach statstcal sgnfcance, ths pattern was repeated relatve to the concentraton of black employees at the ste, wth those workstes wth hgher proportons of black employees reportng greater mpact of drug abuse. The reverse was true for the concentraton of female workers at the ste. Workstes wth the most women n ther workforce perceved sgnfcantly less mpact of drug abuse on safety and productvty, and whle the mean re-

10 332 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH Table 2 Organzatonal Characterstcs and The Human Resource Managers' Perceptons of the Impact of Drug Abuse on ther Workste Mean Ratng Of Extent of Impact.b Impact Impact on Impact on Impact on Organzatonal Characterstcs Overall Safety Productvty Absenteesm Oveell (N=342) Workste Sze I) Under 325 amps (N=88) ~~' 2.08' 2.19~ ~ 2j amps (N=92) 2.29'1 2.27' ' 3) Over 500 amps (N=164) 2.37' 2.32' 2.42' 2.69' Percent Black Employees 1) Under 25% (N=99) 2.18' ' ) 25-50% (N=137) 2.21' ' ) Over 50% (N=89) 2.48'' ' 2.78' Percent Female Employees ) Under 40% (N=108) ] 40-59% (N=93) ' ) Over 80% (N=129) Average Employee Age 1) Under 30 (N=61) ) 310 (N=176) ) Over 40 (N=83) Average Educaton Level 2.82z.a,a 1) Less then Hgh School (N=78) Z.SB~'9'4 2.51~~s~ ) Hgh School (N=164) 2.24' 2.19' ' 3) Some College (N=68) 2.07' ' 4) College (N=18) 2.00' ~ 1.72' Scope of Operatons 1) Local (N=79) ) Regonal (N=48) ) Natonal/Internatonal (N=214) Bolded groupngs ndcate statstcal dfferences (alpha =.05) wthn the group. The superscrpts ndcate whch groups) were sgnfcantly dfferent from the group superscrpted, a superscrpt of "1" et the thrd group mean ndcatng that group 1 s sgnfcantly dfferent from group 3. For example, the mean of perceved overall mpact of drug abuse s 2.01 for workstes wth fewer than 325 employees, end ths s sgnfcantly less then the mean reported mpact for workstes wth employees (2.29) end workstes wth over 500 employees (2.37). b Means are based on the followng scale: 1= No Impact; 2 =Mnor Impact; 3 =Moderate Impact; 4=Major mpact. sponses for overall mpact and absenteesm were also lower for those stes, they were not sgnfcantly so. Also, the hgher the educaton level of the workforce, the lower the mpact of drug abuse reported by respondents. These dfferences were sgnfcant for all but the mpact on productvty. Interestngly, whle employee age dd show an nverse relatonshp wth the reported mpact of drugs, n no stuaton was t sgnfcantly so. Not surprsngly, manufacturng workstes reported sgnfcantly hgher perceved mpacts of drug abuse n all Four stuatons. Ths was also true for unonzed workates, but ths may DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 333 Table 2a Organzatonal Characterstcs and The Human Resource Managers' Perceptons of the Impact of Drug Abuse on ther Workste Organzatonal Characterstcs Impact Overall Mean Ratng Of Extent of Impacte,b Impact on Safety Impact on Productvty Impact on Absenteesm Workste Locaton 1) Urban (N=192) ) Rural (N=150) Workste Industry 1) Manufacturng (N=226) ) Non-manufacturng (N=116) Workste Unonzaton 1) Unon (N=92) ~ ) Non-unon (N=250J Workete EAP Presence 1) EAP Workste (N=182) ) Non-EAP Workste (N=160] y,gg Workete Drug Testng Presence 1) Drug Testng Workste (N=268) ) Non-Drug Testng Workste (N=78) e Boldng ndcates groups that were sgnfcantly dfferent at alpha =.05 by a t-test of means. For example, the mean on reported perceved mpact of drug abuse on safety s 2.34 for rural workstes whch s sgnfcantly greater than that reported for urban workstes (2.09). b Means are based on the followng scale:l= No Impact; 2 =Mnor Impact; 3 =Moderate Impact; 4=Major mpact. be due consderably to the Fact that these stes are overwhelmngly n the manufacturng sector. EAP presence made vrtually no dfference n perceved mpact. Locaton was sgnfcant n that rural stes perceved a greater mpact on safety, whch may also be somewhat accounted for by the fact that the rural stes are more heavly manufacturng than those n the SMSAs. Lookng at those workstes that were supportng any of the types of drug testng practces as opposed to those not dong so, the non-testng stes reported sgnfcantly less mpact n all four stuatons. Cauton must be exercsed n nterpretng these results, however. It s not only plausble that those stes not drug testng were not dong so because they truly perceved less of a problem wth drugs at ther ste. Smlarly, nonadopters may have conscously or unconscously justfed ther lack of drug testng by downplayng the potental For drug related problems at ther ste. Further, the data should not be nterpreted to mean that drug testng s not effcacous because those stes. that were drug testng reported perceptons of greater mpact of drugs on ther workste than those not testng. There s no data from these drug testng stes on ther perceptons of the drug problem at a tme when they were not drug testng, and therefore these responses could reflect a genune or at least perceved mprovement. Drug Testng Practces-Tables 3 and 3a summarze the contrasts n drug testng practces across the dfferng organzatonal characterstcs. Ch-square testng revealed statstcal sgnfcance for overall dfference between testng types wthn specfc organzatonal characterstc groupngs for sze, percent female,

11 334 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH Table 3 Organzatonal Characterstcs end Drug Testng Practces Percentage of stes dong each testng types No Drug Applcants Employees Employees Organzatonal Characterstcs Testng Only Only &Applcants Percent of Total Workstes (N=342) Workete Sze* 1) Under 325 amps (N=86) ) amps (N=92) ) Over 500 amps (N=164) ', Percent Black Employees ' I) Under 25% (N=99) ) (N=137) ~I;' 3) Over 50% (N=89) Percent Female Bmployees* 1J Under 40%(N=108) 3.7~'' 13.9 Z 83 ~9.8~~3 2) 4~59 ~0 (N=93) 21.5' ' 3) Over 60% (N=129) 40.0'~~ ' ~ 389'' Average Employee age 1) Under 30 [N=61) J 3110 (N=176) J Over 40 (N=83) 15.7' Average Sducallon Level"' ) Less then Hgh School (N = 78) Z I.I3~ "4 2) Hgh School (N=164) 20.1" " 3) Some College (N=68) 32.4' J College (N=18) 50.0'' ' Scope of Operatons 1) Local (N=79) a ) Regonal (N=48) ) Natonal/Internatonal (N=214) ' 54.7 Bolded groupngs ndcate statstcal dfferences (alpha =.05) wthn the group. The ~superscrpts ndcate whch groups) were sgnfcantly dfferent from the group superecrpted, a ~' superscrpt of "1" at the thrd group mean ndcatng that group 1 s sgnfcantly dfferent from p. group 3. For example, the percentage of workstes dong no drug testng s 40.0% far workstes wth more than 60% female employees, and ths s sgnt"cantly greater than the percentage of workstes wth 40-59% female employees not dong drug testng (21.5%) and of workates wth :: leas than 40% female employees not dong drug testng (39%). Indcates overall sgnfcant ch-square test (alpha =.05) for all 4 groups of testng by all groups n ths organzatonal category. jl educaton level, scope of operatons, locaton, ndustry type and unonzaton. Specfcally, larger workstes were more lkely to test both applcants and current employees, and those workstes wth more female and more educated employees were more lkely to test nether. Ths would appear to reflect the common percepton that drug use correletes postvely n socety wth beng male and less educated. Interestngly, whle the concentraton of black employees was nversely related to no drug testng, t was not sgnfcantly so. Even more nterestng was the fact that the pattern for employee age was reversed, wth those DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 335 Table 3a Organzatonal Characterstcs and Drug Testng Practces Percentage of stes dong each testng type No Applcants Employees Employees Organzatonal Characterstcs Test Only Only &Applcants Percent of Total Workstea (N=342J Workste Locaton* 1J Urban [N=192) g.4 SY,p 2) Rural (N=150) Workste Industry* 1) Manufacturng (N=226J ) Non-manufacturng (N=116) Workste Unonzaton* 1) Unon (N=92) ] Non-unon (N=250) Workste EAP Presence* 1) EAP Workste (N=182) g,g 2) Non-EAP Workste (N=160) Boldng ndcates groups that were sgnfcantly dfferent at alpha =.05 by a t-test of means. For example, the percentage of workstes dong no drug testng s 27.6% for urban workstes whch s sgnfcantly greater than the percentage of rural workstes dong no drug testng (15.3%). Indcates overall sgnccant ch-square test (alpha =.05) for ell 4 groups of testng by all groups n ths organzatonal category. stes wth older workforces more lkely to test both applcants and employees and sgnfcantly less lkely to do no testng at all. Ths would appear to run counter to the mpresson that the potental for drug abuse decreases wth age. Ths s dffcult to nterpret n a bvarate analyss, however, snce the age factor may well be subsumed wthn a more powerful determnant of the presence of drug testng. Local (sngle ste) operatons were more lkely to test employees only, whch may reflect the realty of a potentally lmted job market For many of these stes, whch may dscourage applcant screenng. As expected, manufacturng stes were more lkely to test both employees and applcants and less lkely to do no testng, and ths pattern repeated For the unonzed stes, agan lkely reflectng ther relatonshp to the manufacturng sector. Ths was also true for rural stes, whch ere also more heavly manufacturng, and may also be more lmted n ther optons n dealng wth drug abuse than stes n urban locatons and may therefore be relyng heavly on drug testng to deal wth these problems. Interestngly, although not sgnfcant, EAP stes also were more lkely to drug test applcants and employees and less lkely to test nether. Gven socetal and organzatonal concerns about due process, ths may suggest that workstes wthout EAPs are mare hestant to dentfy problems wth whch they have lttle or no resources to deal. Rates of Postve Drug Tests and Confr moton Praclces-Tables 4 and 4a show comparsons of the percentage of postve drug test results for each testng type (pre-employment, for reasonable cause, random) across the workste characterstcs. For reference purposes, the medan number of tests performed per 100 employees s also reported for each category.

12 ~ ~. "?~j~', 336 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH Table 4 ~ I ~ Organzatonal C6aracteratcs, Number of Drug Teats Performed, Rates of Postve Drug Test Results and Percentage of Workstes Confrmng Poatvea I' ~' postve drug teats/medan number of testa performed per 100 employeesa,b %Confrmng Organzatonal Characterstcs Pre-Emp Random For Cause Postves 444~ Workete Sze C~'~', 1) Under 325 amps (N=86) 6.8/ / / G 2) amps (N=92) 5.8/ / / r. ~~~ 3) Over 500 amps (N=184) 7.2/ / / ' Percent Black Bmployees 1) Under 25% (N=99) 5.2'/ '/ ,6/ '' 2J 25-49% (N=137) 5.93/ '/ / ) Over 50% (N=89) 9.7''/ ' '/ / ' Percent Female Employees ', 1) Under 40% (N=108) 7.4/ / / ~- -,~~,: ~ 2) 30-59% (N=93) 6.1/ / / f 6~; ~ 3) Over 60%(N=129) 6.3/ / / Average Employee Age 1) Under 30 (N=61) 9.3/ / / ~. 2) (N=178) 8.3/ / / ) Ove 40 (N=83) 5.9/ / / ~~ Average Educaton Level 1) Less than Hgh School (N=78) 9.3'/ ~~'/ / `~ t 2) Hgh School (N=164) 8.7/ '/ / ~ 3) Some College (N=68) 3.7'H '/ / ~- ~ - 4) College (N=18) 3.5/13.2 0/ / f Scope of Opere4one ~y ~ ~ I) Local (N= 79) 8.3/ / / ) Regonal (N=48) 8.5/ / / "~ '' ~ ~~ k ~~~ 3) Natonal/Internatonal (N=214) 6.0/ / / d;.,_ '~~"~,~ e Bolded groupngs ndcate statstcal dfferences (alpha =.05) wthn the group. The,~~ : superscrpts ndcate whch groups) were sgnfcantly dfferent from the group superscrpted, a II superscrpt of "1" at tha thrd group mean ndcates that group 1 s sgnfcantly dfferent from group 3. For example, the mean number of postve pre-employment drug testa at workates wth more than 50% black employees s 9.7, and ths s s~fcantly greater than the mean number of 1 postves at workstes wth 2519% black employees (5.9) and at workstea wth less then 25% black employees (5.2). ;~ b T'he frst number presented s the percentage of postve drug test results and the number after the slash s the medan number of tests performed per 100 employees. (I ' In several cases sgnfcant relaton- had a much hgher percentage of falure ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~' sh P s between P ercent P ostves and the on both P re-em P to Yment and random - F- `~, workplace characterstcs were revealed. drug tests than dd other stes. Interest- '~~ ` These were for the proporton of black ngly, among the relatvely low number of ;,, employees, average educatonal level of stes dong random testng (62), the rate of y' ~ the workforce, ndustry type, unonze- postves was over three tmes that of stes '~' lon and EAP presence. Workstes where wth less than 50% blacks. Ths data may a majorty of the employees were black support other fndngs ndcatng drug DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 337 Table 4a Organzatonal Charactersttce, Number of Drug Testa Performed, Ratea of Postve Drug Test Results an d P ercen t age o f W or k' stes Confrm~ng puet~vee % postve drug tests/medan number of tests per 100 employeesa,b % Confrmng Organzatonal Characterstcs Pre-Emp Random For Cause Postves Workste Locaton 1) Urban (N=192) 6.3/14.8 3,0/ /0.7 7g,g 2) Rural (N=150) 7,0/16,1 3.7/ / Workste Induahy 1) Manufacturng (N=226) 7.2/ / /0.8 g2,7 2) Non-manufacturng (N=116) 4.7/ / / Workste Unonzaton IJ Unon [N=92) 8.9/ / / ) Non-unon (N=250) 5.5/ / / Worlcslte EAP Presence 1) EAP Workste (N=182) 5.2/ / / J Non-EAP Workste (N=160) 8.5/ / / Are Postves Confrmed? 1) Yes (N=218) 6.3/ / / ) No (N=48) 8.8/ / / e Holdng ndcates groups that were sgnfcantly dfferent at alpha =.05 by e t-test of means. For example, the mean number of postve pre-employment drug tests at manufacturng workstes s 7.2, and ths s sgnfcantly greater than the mean number of postves at non-manufacturng workstes (4.7). The frst number presented s the percentage of postve drug test results and the number after the slash s the medan number of tests performed per 100 employees. use among blacks s hgher than that n the general populaton. However, t s not known whether whte or black employees or applcants at these stes are the ones more lkely to test postve. It s also not known whether such race dfferences are found among applcants subject to preemployment screenng. It should also be noted that there was less lkelhood of confrmaton of postve results n the workstes wth a majorty of black employees, the absence of whch could nflate the rate of postve results. Not surprsngly, average educatonal level was nversely related to percent postves. Stes where most employees had relatvely lttle educaton (less than a hgh school dploma) had sgnfcantly hgher rates of postve results on preemployment and random drug testng than stes wth more educated workforces. Manufacturng stes had sgnfcantly hgher rates for pre-employment drug testngthan non-manufacturng stes, perhaps reflectng a dfferent type of applcant at these workstes. The falure rate for preemployment testng was also sgnfcantly hgher at stes that were unonzed and stes wthout EAPs. Agan, the results for unonzed stes may be confounded wth those for manufacturng stes, snce unonzed stes are also manly manufacturng ones. The fact that the EAP stes had lower rates of postve results on pre-employment testng may reflect the fact that these stes are more desrable places to work, attractng a hgher calber of applcant, or at least applcants who do not fal an applcant drug test.

13 338 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH Unonzed stes also had hgher "For reasonable cause" postve rates. Ths may be due to such stes choosng to test employees only when substantal corroboratng evdence s present, n attempts to avod conflcts wth the unon. Stes wth EAPs also had hgher falure rates on "for reasonable cause" tests. These stes may have more formal mechansms for recognzng sgns of drug problems (e.g. supervsor tranng) whch result n a hgher proporton of cases beng "hts" versus stes wthout EAPs, where the procedure for spottng an employee wth a problem may be more varable and even dscretonary among ndvdual supervsors. An ssue of consderable concern related to postve drug tests results s the degree to whch workstes are confrmng these results through addtonal analyss and samplng. It s an accepted prncple that screenng tests be desgned n a manner that ncreases the lkelhood of false postves over false negatves, snce the screen should be dong just that, and not be lettng postves go undetected. The, "safety ney' for ths s the confrmaton, whch should elmnate these false postves. In lght of ths, t s dsturbng that only 82% of ths sample reported that they were confrmng postve drug test results. Even more dsturbng are the patterns where smaller workstes and those wth the hghest proporton of black employees were sgnfcantly less lkely to conduct confrmatory drug tests than larger stes and those wth less blacks, These facts present socal ramfcatons for polcy makers to consder. Organzatonal Responses to Drug Polcy Volatons-Organzatonal responses to frst offense employee nfractons of drug polces are presented n Tables 5 and 5a. These responses nclude-1) mmedate termnaton, 2) progressve dscplne (e.g. suspenson or probaton, perhaps leadng to termnaton after multple offenses), 3) counselng/rehabltalon (e.g. referral to an EAP or other resource) and 4 ) case-by-case revew (handlng each employee based on the partcular crcumstances surroundng the stuaton). It s mportant to note that these results do not reflect the organzatonal response to an employee specfcally falng a drug test, but to any volaton of the drug polces as were descrbed earler n ths paper. Snce these responses were mutually exclusve (f both dscplne and rehabltaton occurred, rehabltaton took precedence), t was possble to determne overall tests of sgnfcance (ch-square) for the categores. Those that proved sgnfcant overall were sze, proporton of black employees, workforce educaton level, workste locaton and presence of an EAP. Specfcally, the comparsons revealed that workstes n the mddle category of sze (325 to 500 employees) were the most lkely to termnate employees, whle larger employers were surprsngly most lkely to offer acase-by-case revew for employees volatng the drug polcy. Of the workforce demographcs, the only sgnfcant relatonshps found were percent black employees and average educatonal level of the workforce. It was found that workstes wth an average level of some college educaton were less lkely to respond to these nfractons wth progressve dscplne than workstes where the average educaton level was a college degree. The proporton of black employees was also related to polces regardng progressve dscplne; stes wth relatvely low numbers of black employees were more lkely to resort to dscplne than stes where the majorty of the workforce was black. At stes wth a majorty of black employees, the lkelhood of mmedate termnaton was sgnfcantly hgher than for other stes. In terms of whether the ste was a local entty, regonal employer, or part of a larger corporaton wth a natonal base, DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 339 Table 5 Organzatonal Characterstcs and Organzatonal Responses to Frst Offense Drug Use Polcy Volatons Percentage of stes dong Bache Organzatonal Immedate Progressve Counselng/ Case-by-Case Characterstcs Termnaton Dscplne Rehab. Revew Overall (N=342J ~ Workste Sze* I) Under 325 amps (N=86) ' 2) amps (N=92) 40.7' ' 3) Over 500 amps (N=164) ' Percent Black Employees" I) Under 25% (N=99) ' ) 25-49% (N=137) 22.5' ) Over 50% (N=89) ' Percent Female Employees 1) Under 40% (N=108) 32.0 ~ ) (N=93) ) Over 60% (N=129) Average Employee Age 1) Under 30 (N=61) J (N=176) ) Over 40 (N=83) Average Educaton Level* 1) Less than Hgh School (N=78) ) Hgh School (N=164) ) Some College (N=68) ' ) College (N=18J ' Scope of Operatons 1) Local (N=79) ) Regonal (N=48) ) Natonal/Internatonal (N=214) a Bolded groupngs Indcate statstcal dfferences (alpha =.05) wthn the group. The superscrpts ndcate whch groups) were sgnfcantly dfferent from the group superscrpted, a superscrpt of "1" at the thrd group mean ndcates that group 1 s sgnfcantly dfferent from group 3. For example, the mean percentage of workstes wth over 50% black employees practcng mmedate termnaton s 40.5%, end ths s sgnfcantly greeter than the mean percentage of workstes wth over 25-49% black employees practcng mmedate termnaton (2z.5%). * Indcates overall sgnfcant ch-aquaretest (alpha =.05) for all 4 groups of testng by all groups n ths organzatonal category. the results ndcate that stes that are part of a regonal operaton are less lkely to offer counselng/rehabltaton than ether local frms (.e:, sngle ste operatons) or branches of natonal or nternatonal organzatons. It s probable that workstes that are part of a natonal or nternatonal operaton have polces determned, or strongly nfluenced, at the corporate level. Such stes are also more lkely to have resources commtted to handlng drug problems n a rehabltatve manner. Prevous research has shown, for example, vrtually all Fortune 1000 stes to have EAPs. Locally based stes may be more lkely than regonal ones to offer

14 340 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH Table 5a Organzatonal Characterstcs end Organzatonal Responses to Fret OH'ense Drug Uae Polcy Volatons Percentage of stes dong Bache Organzatonal Immedate Progressve Counselng/ Case-by-Case Cherectrestcs Termnaton Dscplne Rehab. Revew Overall (N=342] Worlcste Locaton* 1) Urban (N=192) ) Rural (N=150) Worlcete Industry 1) Manufacturng (N=226) ) Non-manufacturng (N=116J Workste Unonzatlon 1) Unon (N=92) ) Non-unon (N=250) Workete EAP Presence* 1) EAP Workste (N=182) ) Non-EAP Workste (N=160) Boldng ndcates groups that were sgnfcantly dfferent at alpha =.05 by e t-test of means. For example, the mean percentage of workstes wthout an EAP practcng mmedate termnaton 45.5 k, end ths s sgn~cently greater than the mean percentage of workstes wth an EAP practcng mmedate termnaton (17.9%). * Indcates overall sgnfcant ch-square test (alpha =.05] for all 4 groups of testng by all groups n ths organzatonal category. counselng because ther labor markets lurng sector s more strongly represented are more lmted and they are therefore n the sample of rural stes. attemptng to conserve a crtcal resource, As expected, the presence of an EAP at.e., local avalable labor. Often these stes a workste had the strongest relatonshp also play a sgnfcant role n the lfe of wth responses to drug polcy volatons. the communty n whch they ere located, Stes wth EAPs were much less lkely to and as such desre to be perceved as a respond wth mmedate termnaton, and "good fellow ctzen" n ther dealngs much more lkely to offer rehabltaton, wth employees. whch s not surprsng snce these are Manufacturng stes were sgnfcantly prmary functons of an EAP. more lkely to practce mmedate term- Organzatonal Practces Related to naton for polcy volatons than non- Drug Abuse-Tables 6 and 6a show a manufacturng stes, and also were less comparson of the percentage of workstes lkely to respond n an ndvdualzed wth dfferent characterstcs that have a) manner. Ths may reflect a greater rgdty conducted searches of employee property n these frms wth respect to polces, or have used survellance of employees to correspondng to the greater rgdty these detect drugs of workste characterstcs, b) stes generally have n operatons com- mplemented substance abuse preventon pared to servce stes, whch more often programs at the workste, and c) have operate n dosyncratc ways. Rural stes establshed an EAP at the workste. were also less lkely to respond to Larger workstes and those located n nfractons wth acase-by-case approach, urban areas are most lkely to have used perhaps due to the fact that the manufac- searches or survellance to detect drug DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 341 Table B Organzatonal Characterstcs and Organzatonal Practces Related to Drug Abuse Percentage of stes dong Bache Searches/ Subs. Abuse Organzatonal Characterstcs Survellance Prevent. Actvtes EAP Ove1'all (N=342) Worlcste Sze 1) Under 325 amps (N=86) 18.6 ' 38.4' J amps (N=92) 35.9' ' 3) Over 500 amps (N=164) 43.3' 68.0' 82.8',2 Percent Black Hmployees 1J Under 25% (N=99) g,53 2] 25-49% (N=137) g,gs 3) Over 50% (N=89) '~~ Percent Female Employees 1) Under 40% (N=108) ) 30-59% (N=93) ) Over 60% (N=129] , Average Employee Age 1) Under 30 (N=161) ) 31 IO (N=176) J Over 40 (N=83) Average Educaton Level 1) Less than Hgh School (N=78) ''' 2) Hgh School (N=164) ) Some College (N=68) ' 4J College (N=18) ' Scope of Operatons 1) Local (N=79) ' 2] Regonal (N=48) J Natonal/Internatonal (N=214) ' Bolded groupngs ndcate statstcal dfferences (alpha =.05) wthn the group. The superscrpts ndcate whch groups) were sgnfcantly dfferent from the group superacrpted, a superscrpt of "1" at the thrd group mean ndcates that group 1 s sgnfcantly dfferent from group 3. For example, the percentage of workstes wth fewer than 325 employees that have conducted searches or survellance s 18.6 k, end ths s sgnfcantly less than the percentage of workstes wth employees that have conducted searches or survellance (35.9q) and workstes wth over 500 employees that have conducted searches or survellance (43.3%). possesson or use. Searches and survellance ntrude on employee prvacy. Thus larger work locatons may have "sold" the use of these tactcs to ther employees n advance and thereby headed off adverse reactons. It may also be that managers n these settngs beleve that workste sze reduces the need for concern over employee objectons because they pay hgher salazes and have better benefts than smaller companes. It s also possble that snce the larger workstes are also more lkely to have substance abuse preventon programs and EAPs n place, the presence of these helpng programs for employees reduces adverse reactons to the more ntrusve practces. Fnally, the absence of sgnfcant dfferences between the percentages of unonzed and non-unonzed companes whch

15 I 342 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 343 Tablc 6a Organzatonal Characterstcs and Organzatonal Practces Related to Drug Abuse Percentage of stes dong Bache Searches/ Subs. Abuse Organzatonal Characterstcs Survellance Prevent. Actvtes EAP Overall (N=342) Workste Locaton 1] Urban (N=192) ) Rural (N=150J , Warkste Industry 1) Manufacturng (N=226) ) Non-manufacturng [N=118) Worlcste Unonzaton ~~~ 1) Unon (N=92j ~ 2) Non-unon (N=250] Workste EAP Presence 1] EAP Workste (N=182J NA 2) Non-EAP Workste (N=160) NA e Boldng ndcates groups that were sgnt"canfly dfferent at alpha =.05 6y e t-test of means. For example, the percentage of workstes wth en EAP that have conducted searches or survellance s 43.4%, and ths s sgnfcantly greater than the percentage of workstes wthoutan EAP that have conducted seazches or survellance (25.6%J. have used searches and survellance suggests that when companes mplement ~ ~~ polcng tactcs, they frst obtan unon ~ f agreement that these are necessary measures. Unonzed workstes are sgnfcantly ~', more lkely than non-unonzed locatons ~; to have some type of substance abuse ' preventon program. Agan, larger stes p 'Il are also more lkely to have preventon programs. Preventon programs represent r,, an employer's nvestment to reduce the ~I' chances of substance abuse becomng a ~ problem that nhbts employee perfor- I,'' ' mance. Snce wages at unonzed locatons are typcally hgher than n nonunonzed stes, non-productve employee tme s a greater expense rsk than n non-unonzed companes. Further, the costs of P reventon P ro 8 rams ma Y be ~I~, more easly justfed than n workstes,! wth lower wages. Larger workstes also may be more ~ ~I lkely to sponsor preventon programs because they have more avalable slack 1 III resources per capta than smaller locatons, and may be subject to greater pressures from government and cvc groups to conduct preventon programs as part of ther socal responsblty. As Table 6a shows, work locatons wth EAPs are also more lkely to have mplemented substance abuse preventon programs than those stes wthout EAPs. Ths s not surprsng, snce work locatons wllng to commt to havng an EAP have selected a more ntegrated approach to employee substance abuse than those who do not have EAPs. Such ntegrated programs often nclude a preventon component. Tables 6 and sa also show the followng categores more lkely to have EAPs: larger workstes (over 500 employees), those wth more educated employees, those whch are part of natonal or nternatonal companes, those located n urban areas, and those wth less than 50% black employees. Vewng EAPs as an employee beneft helps explan the assocaton of EAP presence wth hgher average employee educaton levels and lower proportons of black employees. Specfcally, employees wth greater accumulaton of educaton generally command greater levels of compensaton, ncludng benefts. Snce blacks generally receve lower compensaton across occupatons, hgher percentages of black workers are probably assocated n ths sample wth less munfcent benefts, ncludng EAPs. One mght expect the same pattern to hold For the proporton of female employees, but that s not ndcated by the data. The assocaton of EAP presence wth workste sze, urban locaton, and natonal/nternatonal scope may reflect the nsttutonalzaton of EAP programs as a personnel practce consstent wth the mage of larger, nternatonal frms, and /or the result of compettve labor market condtons. In such workstes, access to better qualty employees requres that the company have such programs. As noted earler, our data do not show hgher rates of postve drug tests for employees or job applcants n urban locatons. Thus t s unlkely that, n contrast to rural workstes, urban workstes adopt EAPs because of greater frequency of employee drug problems. Human Resource Managers' Atttudes Toward Drug Testng Respondents were asked on the malback questonnare to ndcate ther agreement or dsagreement wth varous aspects of drug testng. These tems were factor analyzed and reduced to three scales composed of the average response to the scale tems: 1) drug testng as a postve nfluence on the workste, ncludng a postve mpact on safety, productvty, morale, a help to drug users, and an effectve means of reducng the drug problem (alpha = 0.73), 2) drug testng as a negatve nfluence on the workste, ncludng a negatve mpact on morale, the fact that t s naccurate, too costly, s an nvason of prvacy, s opposed by management, and s opposed by employees (alpha = o.s~), and 3) drug testng as benefcal to socety n general, ncludng ts mpact on natonal securty, publc safety and publc trust (alpha = 0.75). Tables 7 and 7a compare these reported atttudes toward drug testng across organzatonal characterstcs and presence or absence of drug testng at the workste. When asked about drug testng as a postve nfluence on the workste, P/HR managers at locatons dong drug testng were more postve overall. Further, they were more unform n ther responses across organzatons than the managers at stes that do not test at present. P/HR managers' belefs about the postve nfluence of drug testng at locatons wth EAPs was sgnfcantly lower than those of managers at stes wthout EAPs. Snce havng an EAP provdes a company wth more alternatve approaches to dealng wth employee drug use, ths dfference may reflect to some extent the fact that locatons wthout EAPs are more exclusvely relant on drug testng. P/HR managers at workstes that do not currently perform drug testng expressed greater belef that drug testng had a postve nfluence on the workste n those cases where the workforce s more than 50% black, and lower regard for the postve nfluence on the workste where the workforce s more educated. Although our data are unable to dscern whether whtes ar blacks test postve at greater rates, P/HR managers may beleve that testng helps protect the workste from hrng drug users n those stuatons wth more black employees. Conversely, P/HR managers n locatons wth more hghly educated workers may be dealng wth employees who are much less lkely to use drugs, and who have greater resent- ~ ~~~

16 344 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 345 ~ Table 7 Organzatonal Characterstcs and Human Resource Managers' Atttudes Toward Drug Testng at Drug Testng and Non Drug Testng Workstea Mean Responses of Drug Testers/Non-Drug Testers n Agreement that Drug Testng s a;," Postve Influence Negatve Influence Benefcal Organzatonal Chazacterstcs at the Workste at the Workste to Socety Overall (N=342) 3.67/ / /3.21 Workste Sze 1) Under 325 amps (N=86) 3.68/ / /2.92 2) amps (N=92) 3.80/ / /3.35 3) Over 500 amps (N=164) 3.60/ /2.48' 3.34/3.43 Percent Hlack Employees 1) Under 25% (N=99) 3.66/2.98' 2.16/ /2.93 2) 25-49% (N=137) 3.70/ / /3.23 3) Over 50% (N=89) 3.62/3.84' 2.13/ /3.44 Percent Female Employees 1) Under 40% (N=108) 3.67/ / /2.75 2) 30-59% (N=93) 3.66/ / /320 3) Over 60% (N=129) 3.69/ / /3.24 Average Employee Age 1) Under 30 (N=161) 3.87/ / /3.10 2) (N=176) 3.86/ / /3.26 3) Over 40 (N=63) 3.56/ / /3.25 Average Educaton Level 1) Less than Hgh School (N=78) 3.74/ '/ /3.33 2) Hgh School (N=164) 3.74/3.81' 1.94'/ /3.32 3) Some College (N=68) 3.52/ '~~/ /3.02 4) College (N=18) 3.33/ / /3.17 Scope of Operatons 1) Local (N=79) 3.63/ / /3.36 2) Regonal (N=48) 3.77/ / /3.92 3) Natonal/Internatonal (N=214) 3.B6B / /3.10 Means based on a scale of 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly dsagree, hgher scores ndcatng more agreement wth the postve or negatve aspects of drug testng as approprate. The frst number presented s the mean response for drug testng workstes n that organzatonal group and the number efrer the slash s the mean response for non-drug testng workstes n that or~anzetonal group. Bolded groupngs ndcate statstcal dfferences (alpha =.05) wthn the group. The superscrpts ndcate whch groups) were sgnfcantly dfferent from the group superscrpted, a superscrpt of "1" at the thrd group mean ndcates that group 1 s sgnfcantly dfferent from group 3. For example, the mean of expressed agreement wth the postve nfluence of drug testng on the workplace s 2.98 for non-drug testng workstes wth fewer than 25 % black employees, and ths s sgnfcantly less than that for non-drug testng workstes wth over 50% black employees (3.84). NOTE: Statstcal sgnfcance was only determned for comparsons wthn the organzatonal characterstc groupngs, not between testers and non-testers wthn the groups. The overall dfferences n atttudes between testers and non-testers s presented at the end of Table 7a. Table 7a Organzatonal Characterstcs and Human Resource Mangers' Atttudes Toward Drug ~ Testng at Drug Testng and Non-Drug Testng Workates Mean Responses of Drug Testers/Non-Drug Testers n Agreement that Drug Testng s a;e,b Postve Influence Negatve Influence Benefcal Organzatonal Characterstcs at the Workste at the Workste to Socety I ~ Overall (N=342) 3.67/ / /321 Workate Locaton 1) Urban (N=157) 3.60/ / /3.12 2) Rural (N=122J 3.75/ / /3.43 ~~I~: ~ Workste Industry 1) Manufacturng [N=226) 3.65/ / /3.41 ~~ ~ ~~' 2) Non-manufacturng (N=116) 3.72/ / /3.10 ~ "'~~ Workste Unonzaton ~ ~' 1) Unon (N=92) 3.69/ / /3.33 2) Non-unon (N=250) 3.66/ / /3.20 Workste EAP Presence 1) EAP Workste (N=182) 3.67/ / /3.32 I'I ~` :~ 2) Non-EAP Workste (N=180) 3.79/ / /3.13 Does the Workste Drug Testy 1) Yes (N=220) ) No (N=58) '.~. Means based on a scale of 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly dsagree, hgher scores ndcatng more agreement wth the postve or negatve aspects of drug testng as approprate. The frst number presented s the mean response for drug testng workstes n that organzatonal group and the number after the slash s the mean response for non-drug testng workstes n that organzatonal group. Boldng ndcates groups that were sgnfcantly dfferent at alpha =.05 by a t-test of means, For example, the mean of expressed agreement wth the postve nfluence of drug testng on the workplace s 3.62 for non-drug testng manufacturng workstes, and ths s sgnfcantly greater than that for non-drug testng non-manufacturng workstes (3.10). NOTE; Statstcal sgnfcance was only determned for comparsons wthn the organzatonal characterstc groupngs, not between testers and non-testers wthn the groups. The overall dfferences n atttudes between testers and non-testers s presented at the end of ths table. ment toward the ntrusve nature of drug pressed sgnfcantly more negatve be- I When asked ther vews on whether than mans ers at lar er workstes. Ths drug estng was a negatve nfluence at d ffe encet nhoutlook may ~reflctgthe f cg,iii' the workste, P/HR managers n workstes that smaller employers are less lkely to ~ } that do not drug test expressed more have an EAP than larger stes, and t negatve vews about testng than manag- therefore have less satsfactory methods ~~ -,' era at locatons where drug tests are for dealng wth employees who may test performed. As antcpated, ther re- postve for drugs. ~' h sponses concernng the negatve nflu- Agan, P/HR managers at workstes ~~ once of testng vared less across organ- wth employees that have hgher average ~ \ zatons then the responses of P/HR educaton levels and that conduct drug ~~ ~ \ managers n locatons that do drug test. tests reported more negatve vews of the P/HR managers at smaller workstes ex- workste effects of drug testng. Ths,~ ~, I~F ~,. ~'',~~. t t 111 III ~ ~~,,` l~ m,~ ~,

17 I I ', 346 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 347 parallels the fndng from the frst column of Table 7 dscussed above. In addton, P/HR managers at urban locatons that drug test reported sgnfcantly more negatve vews of the effects of drug testng on the workste than those n rural locatons that test. Ths pattern of response s consstent wth the response of P/HR managers at stes wth EAPs that drug test currently. It may reflect the fact that sgnfcantly more urban work locatons n our sample have EAPs than rural workstes. P/HR managers at EAP workstes that drug test reported sgnfcantly more negatve vews toward the nfluence of testng on the workste than managers at testng workstes wthout EAPs. Ths may reflect the vew that rehabltatve approaches lke those offered by EAPs aze most effectvely entered by employees through self or supervsory referral rather than as a result of a postve drug test. Ths more extreme vew concernng the negatve effects of drug testng at those locatons wth EAPs may also reflect a feelng that testng and rehabltatve approaches compete for the same resources wthn the workste. P/HR managers at these stes may desre to have more of these resources avalable for helpng, rather than polcng employees. There are few sgnfcant dfferences n atttudes about drug testng as a potental beneft to socety, wth only those workstes that utlze both drug ~ testng and an EAP agreeng sgnfcantly jf less wth ths proposton. Generally, the mean responses for human resource managers at both drug testng and nondrug testng stes across the several organzatonal characterstcs nvestgated n ths study center around the neutral poston (.e. "3" on the "1-5" scale). Ths pattern of non-commttal responses may ndcate that the relatonshp of drug testng to general socetal ssues s of less relevance to human resource managers than ts relatonshp to the workplace. Concluson Whle the data presented n ths paper have been descrptve n nature, several overall conclusons can be drawn regardng the current state of drug testng practces wthn organzatons. The statstcs here are not meant to be evaluatve n the sense that they can address many of the ssues rased n the frst part of the paper. However, the data collected are more comprehensve than those examned n many other studes, snce they descrbe the relatve frequency and relatonshps between workplace sanctons for drug use, drug testng and related practces, and rehabltaton programs such as EAPs. These three aspects of addressng workplace drug use were cted by Harrs and Hefr (1992) as prncpal areas of research that needed to be addressed. In addton, the relatvely good response rate for ths study and the dverse sample of workstes nvestgated suggests that t makes a contrbuton to knowledge about what organzatons are dong relatve to detectng and addressng employee drug use. Addtonally, ths study examned polcy and practce at a workste level. Compared to measurng employee atttudes, ths level of analyss s more approprate for nvestgatng organzatonal polces and practces that apply to the workste and ts employees. These data provde, therefore, a more accurate pcture of the drug testng arena. The data could be used to determne what knds of changes n publc polcy and drug testng programs would make sense F the goals were to make these programs farer and more effcent. In general, pre-employment drug testng and testng employees "for reasonable cause" contnue to be much more prevalent n the workplace than random testng of employees, and the data ndcate that ths state of affars s lkely to contnue nto the foreseeable future. In terms of organzatonal demographcs and ther relatonshp to testng practces, most consstent across all testng types was that the percentage of females was negatvely related to the presence of any type of drug testng. It was noted that snce manufacturng stes are more lkely to have testng programs and that the jobs n such frms tend to be male-domnated, the effect of female proporton and testng programs may be an ndrect one. Interestngly, whle not related to drug testng tself, the proporton of black employees was related to several drug testng related practces, ncludng lkelhood to termnate employees (wthout rehabltaton), and the lkelhood that the stes do not confrm a drug postve test result through further analyses. Both of these results were n the drecton of beng less favorable from the employee's perspectve n workstes wth a majorty of black employees. Also, n support of some of the prevous research revewed, hgher rates of postves on both preemployment tests and random employee tests were apparent at workstes wth a majorty of black employees. Ths cannot be nterpreted to mean, however, that blacks test postve more often than whtes, snce t could be that whtes, though comprsng a mnorty of the employees at these workstes> were those testng postve. Alternately, these results could be explaned by the fact that, as revealed n ths data, there s sgnfcantly less confrmaton of postve drug tests at these stes. The relatonshp between human resource practces and drug testng programs was also examned. Actvtes related to dealng wth employee drug use, such as substance abuse preventon actvtes, nspectons of employee property (for drugs), survellance of employees (to detect drug possesson or use) and presence of EAPs, were found to have some relatonshps wth employee drug testng programs. Perhaps the most nterestng fndng here was the tendency of workstes dong "for reasonable cause" drug testng to support EAPs. The prasence of a human resource mechansm provdes a way to channel drug-postve employees to approprate programs for drug treatment. The need for such mechansms should be more mportant when the workste s testng current employees rather than just applcants. An organzaton s lkely to perceve t has some nvestment n a traned employee (even on the lowest level), as well as more commtment to those nsde the organzaton than to those outsde. Substance abuse preventon actvtes were also much more lkely to be present at workstes wth EAPs, whch may reflect the nvolvement of EAPs n these actvtes. The most consstent patterns of responses to the atttudnal tems pertanng to drug testng emerged relatve to the presence or absence of drug testng or EAPs at the workste. The data ndcated that compared to non-testng workstes, the perceptons of the human resource managers at workstes where drug testng was done were more postve and less negatve towards drug testng as t mpacted both the workplace and the general socety. Ths pattern was reversed for those stes supportng EAPs, wth the EAP stes less postve and more negatve toward drug testng and ts mpact at both levels. As noted prevously, many aspects of organzatons and ther drug testng programs are examned wthn a bvarate context n ths paper. Workste characterstcs, workforce demographcs, and human resource managers' atttudes are lkely to have more complex relatonshps than s evdenced by these results. These results do reveal, however, the exstence of relatonshps between drug testng practces and varous facets of the workplace.

18 r' ~~ 348 JOURNAL OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE RESEARCH DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 349 REFERENCES Angln, M.D., & Wesfland, C.A "Drug Montorng n [he Workplace: Results from the Calforna Commercal I,abora[ory Drug Testng Project," Pp n Drugs n tke Workplace: Research and Evaluaton Data, N/DA Research Monograph 97, edted by S.W. Gust and J.M. Walsh. Rockvlle, MD: Natonal Insttute on Drug Abuse. Babbush, W.E "Busness and Unverstes Must Team [o Stop Drug Abuse." Personnel Journal 66:47. Blum, T.C "The Presence and Integraton of Drug Abuse In[ervenaon n Human Resource Management." Pp n Drugs n the Workplace: Research and Evaluaton Data, NIDA Research Monograph 97, edted by S.W. Gust and J.M. Walsh. Rockvlle, MD:Natonal InsNmte on Drug Abuse. Blum, T.C. &Roman, P.M "A Descrpton of Clents Usng Employee Assstance Programs." Alcohol Health and Research World 16: Bray, R.M., Mazsden, M.E., Rachel, J.V., & Peterson, M.R "Drugs n the Mltary Workplace: Results of the 1988 Worldwde Survey." Pp n Drugs n the Workplace: Research and Evaluaton Data, Volume II, NIDA Research Monograph 100, edted by S.W. Gust, J.M. Walsh, L.B.Thomas and D.].Crouch. Rockvlle, MD:Natonal InstNte on Dmg Abuse. Conference Boacd, "Surveys Reach Dfferent Conclusons About Prevalence of Drug Testng," Compensaton and Benefts Revew 21(3):13. Cook, R.F., "Drug Use Among Workng Adults: Prevalence Rates and Estmaton Methods," Pp n Drugs n the Workplace: Researchand Evaluaton Data, NlDAResearch Monograph 97, edted by S.W.Gust and J.M. Walsh. Rockvlle, MD: Natonal Insttute on Drug Abuse. Crouch, D.J., Webb, D.O., Peterson, L.V., Buller, P.F., &Rollns, D.E "A Crtcal Evaluaron of the Utah Power and Lght Company's Substance Abuse Management Program: Absen- [eesm, Accdents and Costs." Pp n Drugs n tke Workplace: Research and Evaluaton Data, NIDA Research Monograph 91 eated by S.W. Gus[ and J.M.Walsh. Rockvlle, MD: Natonal Insttute on Drug Abuse. Employee Assstance Professonals Asscea[on (EAPA), The Impact of the Department of Transportaton's Proposed Alcohol Testng Regulntons. Arlngton, VA. Gomez-Meja, L.R., & Balkn, D.B "Dmenso~s and Characterstcs of Personnel Manager Perceptons of Effectve Drug-Testng Programs." Personnel Psychology 40:745. Greenberg, E.R., "Workplace Testng: Results of a New AMA Survey." Personnel Greenberg, E.R., "Workplace Testng: Who's Testng Whom?" Personne166:39. Greenberg, E.R., "Workplace Testng: The 1990 AMA Survey, Part 2." Personnel 67:26. Guthre, J.P., & Olan, J.D., "Drug and Alcohol Testng Programs: Do Frms Consder Ther Operatng Envronment? Human Resource Plannng Harrs, M.M., &Heft, L.L "Alcohol and Drug Use n the Workplace: Issues, Con[roverses, and Drectons for Future Research." Journal of Management 18: Hayghe, H.V., "Ant-Drug Programs n the Workplace: Are They Here to Stay?" Monrhly Inbor Revew Kandel, D.B. & Yamaguch, K., "Job Moblty and Drug Use: An Event Hstory Analyss" Amercan Journal of Socology 92:836. Konovsky, M.A., & Cropanzano, R "Per ceved Pamess of Employee Drug Testng as a Predctor of Employee At6mdes and lob Perfoomance." Journal of Appled Psychology 76: Ledvnka, J, & Scarpello, V.G., Federal Regulaton of Personnel and Human Resowce Management. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publshng Co. LeRoy, M.H "Dscrmnatng Characterstcs of Unon Members' Atttudes Towards Drug Testng n the Workplace." Journal of Labor Research 12: Mas, D., "Company Responses [o Drug Abuse from AMA's Natonwde Survey." Personrsel 64:40. McDanel, M.A. 19&8. "Does Pre-employment Drug Use Predct On-The-JobSutablty7" Personnel Psychology 41:717. Mensch, B.S. & Kandel, D.B "Do Job Condtons Influence [he Use of Drugs?" Journal of HeaUh and Socal Behavor 29: Meyer, J.W. &Rowan, B., "Insttutonalzed Organzatons: Aormal Swcture as Myth and Ceremony." n The New Insttutonalsm n Organzatonal Analyss edted by W. Powell and P. DMaggo. Chcago, IL: Unversty of Chcago Press. Moore, A.B. & Swofford, L.E "Pre- employment Urne Substance Screenng: One Year Experence of a Large Hosptal System." Journal of Occupatonal Medcne 35: Murphy, K.R. & Thornron, G.C "Characterstcs of Employee Drug Testng Polces." Journal of Busness and Psychology 6:295. Newcomb, M.D., & Ben[ler, P.M Consequences of Adolescent Drug Use. Newbury Park: Sage Publcatons. Normand, 7., & Salyards, S "An Emprcal Evaluaton of Pre-employment Drug Testng n the Unted States Postal Servce: Interm Report of Pndngs." Pp n Drugs n the Workplaee: Research and Evaluaton Dafa, NIDA Research Monograph 97, eated by S. W.Gust and J.M,Wa(sh. Rockvlle, MD: Natonal Insttute on Drug Abuse. Normand, J., Salyards, S., &Mahoney, J.l "An Evaluaton of Pre-employment Drug Testng" Journal of Appled Psychology 75:629. Pazsh, D.C "Relaton of the Pre-employment Drug Testng Result to Employment Stems: A One-yeaz Follow-up." Journal of Cenera[ lnterna! Medcne 4:44. Pfeffer, ]. & Salanck, G The F~zrernal Control of Organzatons. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Roman, P.M. &Blum, T.C "Drugs, the Workplace, and Employee-Orented Programmng." Pp n Treatng Drug Problems, vo1.2, edted by D.R.Gersten and H.J.Harwood. Washngton: Natonal Academy of Scences Press. Sherdan, J.R., & Wtlder, H "M Evaluaton of Drug Testng n the Workplace," Pp n Drugs n the Workplace: Research and Evaluaton Dato, NIDA Research Monograph 91, edted by S.W.Gust and J.M. Walsh. Rockvlle, MD: Natonal Insttute on Drug Abuse. Sten, J.A., Newcomb, M.D., &Bender, P.M "Structure of Drug Use Behavors and Consequences Among Young Adults: Multvaa Multmethod Assessment of Frequency, Quandry, Workste, and Problem Substance Use." Journal of Appled Psychology 73:595. Taggart, R.W "Results of the Drug Testng Program at Southern Pacfc Ralroad." Pp n Drugs n the Workplace: Research and Evaluaton Data, NIDA Research Monograph 9I edted by S.}'V.Gust and J.M. Walsh. Rockvlle, MD: Natonal Insttute on Drng-Abuse. Voss, H.L "Patterns of Drug Use: DaW from the 1985 Natonal Household Survey." Pp, n Drugs n the Workplace: Research and Evaluaton Data, NIDA Research Monograph 91, edted by S.W. Gust and J.M.Walsh. Rockvlle, MD: Natonal Insttute on Drug Abuse. U.S. Department of Defense "Proposed Rules." Federal Regster 57(142). U.S. Department of Labor (January 11). "New Survey Measures Extent of Drug Testng Programs n the Workplace." Bureau of Labor Statstcs News Repol No U.S. Department of Transportaton. 1992a (December 10). "Department of Transportaton Proposed Regulatons on Alcohol Testng Programs: Drug Testng Amendments." Transportaton Facts. U.S. Department of Transportaton, 1992b (December 15). "Drug and Alcohol Testng Programs: Proposed Rules." Federal Regster 57(241). Zwerlng, G.C., Ryan, J. 8c Orav, E.J "The Effcacy of Pre-employment Drug Screenng for Marjuana and Cocane n Predctng Employment Outcome." Jourttal of the Amercan Medcal Assocaton 264: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The order of authorshp s alphabetcal. The authors would lke to acknowledge support from Grant R01-DA from the Natonal Insttute of Drug Abuse. v