(1990) The Bureau of Labor Statistics noted a high turnover in drug testing plans after a large survey of 145,000 businesses. It found that "overall about 1 of 3 establishments that reported having a drug testing program in 1988 said they did not have one in 1990." Further, "46 percent of the small businesses that reported having a drug-testing program in 1988 did not have one 2 years later."

"Nearly all officers were employed by a sheriff’s office that used criminal record checks (99%), personal interviews (98%), background investigations (98%), and driving record checks (95%) (figure 4). More than 4 in 5 officers were employed by an office that used medical exams (87%), and drug tests (85%). More than two-thirds were employed by one using psychological evaluations (72%) and credit checks (69%). More than half of officers worked in sheriffs' offices using written aptitude tests (58%) and physical agility tests (54%)."

"Illegal drugs are widely used among the arrestee population. Two thirds of all arrestees tested positive for at least one substance in their system at the time of arrest and 15 percent or more in all sites test positive for more than one substance. The most common substances in all but three sites are marijuana, cocaine, opiates and methamphetamine."

"Occupational safety and health stakeholders we interviewed and occupational health practitioners we surveyed told us that primary factors affecting the accuracy of injury and illness data include disincentives that affect workers’ decisions to report work-related injuries and illnesses and employers’ decisions to record them. ... Workers’ fear of disciplinary actions may be compounded by policies at some worksites that require workers to undergo mandatory drug testing following incidents resulting in reported injuries or illnesses, regardless of any evidence of drug use. Several labor representatives described mandatory drug testing policies as a disincentive that affects workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses, and 67 percent of health practitioners reported they were aware of this practice at the worksites where they treated workers in 2008."

The American Management Association has conducted surveys of workplace surveillance and medical testing.
In 1991, drug testing of some kind was conducted by 63% of companies surveyed, growing to 81% in 1996, falling to 66% in 2000 and then to 62% in 2004.
Drug testing of new hires was conducted by 48% of companies in 1991, growing to 68% in 1996, falling to 61% in 2000 and then to 54.5% in 2004.
Drug testing of current employees was conducted by 52% of companies surveyed in 1991, rising to 70% in 1996, falling to 47% in 2000 and then to 44.3% in 2004.

The American Management Association in its 2000 survey on workplace surveillance and medical testing found the following percentages of companies which conduct drug tests:

"Few employers have used impairment testing, and information concerning that experience is very limited and extremely difficult to obtain. The available information, however, indicates that impairment testing is not just a better answer on paper, but in practice as well. Employers who have used impairment testing consistently found that it reduced accidents and was accepted by employees. Moreover, these employers consistently found that it was superior to urine testing in achieving both of these objectives."

In a study of high tech industries, researchers found that "drug testing programs do not succeed in improving productivity. Surprisingly, companies adopting drug testing programs are found to exhibit lower levels of productivity than their counterparts that do not... Both pre-employment and random testing of workers are found to be associated with lower levels of productivity."

(2006) "The 2006 Drug Testing Index showed that positivity for amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamine and methamphetamine as a percent of all tests for the substance) declined 20 percent to hit to a new low level among federally mandated, safety-sensitive workers – 0.28 percent, down from 0.35 percent in 2005. Among the general workforce, positivity for amphetamines declined 12.5 percent – from 0.48 percent in 2005 to 0.42 percent in 2006. In addition, the number of positive tests for marijuana, as a percent of the total number of tests for the drug, was down 6.3 percent among the U.S. general workforce compared to 2005 – to 2.38 percent from 2.54 percent. The 2006 Drug Testing Index summarizes the results of more than nine million workplace drug tests performed by Quest Diagnostics between January and December 2006.

"Overall, the testing data indicated that drug use by employees and applicants fell to the lowest level since Quest Diagnostics began publishing the Drug Testing Index in 1988. Of all urine workplace drug tests performed by Quest Diagnostics during 2006 for the combined U.S. workforce, 3.8 percent had positive results, compared to 4.1 percent in 2005 and 13.6 percent in 1988."

Economics - Research and Studies

According to a study funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and published by the Southern Economic Journal in 2001, "Nonchronic drug use was not statistically related to either of the labor supply measures, indicating that light or casual drug use did not lead to negative effects on the labor supply."

Adolescents - Drug Testing
"Drug testing of any kind, including for cause or suspicion, was not a significant predictor of marijuana use. These results remained for all samples, even after controlling for student demographic characteristics."

"In conclusion, this study found that chronic drug use was significantly related to employment status for men and women. On the other hand, male chronic drug users were less likely to participate in the labor force, but no significant relationship existed between chronic drug use and labor force participation for females. Perhaps the most important finding of this study, however, was the lack of any significant relationships between nonchronic drug use, employment, and labor force participation. An implication of this finding is that employers and policy makers should focus on problematic drug users in the same way that they focus on problematic alcohol users."

"Similar to results for marijuana use, drug testing of any kind and drug testing for cause and suspicion were not significant predictors for use of other illicit drugs among students in grades eight, 10, and 12. Within the high school subsamples, use of illicit drugs among high school male athletes and current marijuana users was not significantly different based on drug testing at the school. Even after controlling for student demographic characteristics, drug testing was not a significant predictor for other illicit drug use in any of the samples."

"Drug testing of athletes was not a significant predictor of marijuana use by male athletes in high school."

"No DAT [Drug and Alcohol Testing] deterrent effects were evident for past month use during any of four follow-up periods. Prior-year drug use was reduced in two of four follow-up self-reports, and a combination of drug and alcohol use was reduced at two assessments as well. Overall, drug testing was accompanied by an increase in some risk factors for future substance use. More research is needed before DAT is considered an effective deterrent for school-based athletes."

"In the HLM (Hierarchical Linear Modeling) analyses for students in grades eight, 10, and 12, drug testing (of any kind) was not a significant predictor of student marijuana use in the past 12 months. Neither was drug testing for cause or suspicion."

"The deterrent effect of drug and alcohol testing was present for the index of past year illicit drug use and combined drug and alcohol use, each at two follow-up time points. If DAT were to have an impact, the expected deterrent effect likely would be that the policy would alter recent (e.g., past month) use of drugs or drugs and alcohol, since student-athletes were under the threat of testing during that time period, but not during the summer months. However, no differences were noted at any of the four follow-up time points for past month indices of use of drugs or use of drugs and alcohol. With 16 opportunities overall to demonstrate a substance-use deterrent effect during 2 years and four follow-up assessments (Table 3), only four effects were significant. The significant effects for past year drug use and alcohol and drug use were not independent, as both scales included drug use."

Researchers on a grant from NIDA found that school drug testing has no impact on student drug use. According to the researchers, "Does drug testing prevent or inhibit student drug use? Members of the Supreme Court appear to believe it does. However, among the eighth-, 10th-, and 12-grade students surveyed in this study, school drug testing was not associated with either the prevalence or the frequency of student marijuana use, or of other illicit drug use. Nor was drug testing of athletes associated with lower-than-average marijuana and other illicit drug use by high school male athletes. Even among those who identified themselves as fairly experienced marijuana users, drug testing also was not associated with either the prevalence or the frequency of marijuana or other illicit drug use."

According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, "Drug testing of students is more prevalent in schools where drugs are used, kept or sold than in schools that are drug free. While only 23 percent of drug-free schools drug test students, 38 percent of non-drug-free schools conduct some type of drug testing. "Drug testing is not associated with either significantly lower risk scores or lower estimates of student body drug use. The average risk score of teens attending a school that is not drug free but has drug testing is 1.69; the average risk score of students at non-drug-free schools without drug testing is 1.50. The estimate of students using illegal drugs averages 40 percent for non-drug-free schools with testing and 34 percent at non-drug-free schools without testing."