Get Updates
Mandatory Random Student Drug Testing Reduces Substance Use
Mathematica Report Shows No Impact on Participation in Activities; Attitudes Toward School
Media Advisory: July 13, 2010
Contact: Amy Berridge, (609) 945-3378
Issue: While adolescent substance use has declined in the past 10 years, illicit substance use among youth remains high and a cause of concern. Recent national estimates indicate that before leaving high school, 47 percent of students have used illicit drugs and 72 percent have used alcohol. Alcohol and drug use in adolescence can lead to low academic outcomes, delinquency, and risky sexual behaviors. School-based mandatory-random student drug testing (MRSDT) is one approach to addressing this issue. Under MRSDT, students and their parents sign consent forms agreeing to the students’ random drug testing as a condition of participation in athletics and other school-sponsored competitive extracurricular activities.
Study: To help assess the effects of school-based random drug testing programs, RMC Research Corporation and Mathematica Policy Research conducted an experimental evaluation of the MRSDT programs in 36 high schools from seven districts that received grants from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools in 2006. The study was conducted for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).
Findings:
- Consistent with the goals of the program, students subject to MRSDT reported less substance use than comparable students in schools without MRSDT—in particular, reporting significantly lower use of illicit substances tested under their district policies than their counterparts in schools without MRSDT. A similar, though not statistically significant, pattern was observed on other student-reported substance use measures. Data on students’ use of substances came from student surveys administered by the study team (not from drug tests).
- The MRSDT program had no “spillover effects” on the substance use reported by students not subject to testing and had no effect on any group of students’ reported intentions to use substances in the future.
- Contrary to concerns raised about the possible unintentional negative consequences of random drug testing, the MRSDT program had no effect on the proportion of students participating in activities subject to drug testing or on students’ attitudes toward school and perceived consequences of substance use.
- There was some evidence that impacts of MRSDT were related to the ways in which programs were implemented. Both testing for a larger number of substances and testing for alcohol and tobacco were significantly correlated with lower substance use in the treatment schools relative to the control schools. However, it was not possible to distinguish between these two factors due to the fact that districts that tested for a larger number of substances were also those districts that tested for alcohol or tobacco. Impacts were not significantly related to other implementation characteristics examined.
Quote: “This study was conducted to examine the effectiveness of mandatory random student drug testing using rigorous research methods,” said Susanne James-Burdumy, associate director of research at Mathematica and co-author of the report, “Our study suggests that this approach may be effective in curbing illicit substance use among high school students.”
Report: “The Effectiveness of Mandatory-Random Student Drug Testing.” Susanne James-Burdumy, Brian Goesling, John Deke, and Eric Einspruch, July 2010. Executive Summary.
About Mathematica: Mathematica Policy Research, a nonpartisan research firm, provides a full range of research and data collection services, including program evaluation and policy research, survey design and data collection, research assessment and interpretation, and program performance/data management, to improve public well-being. Its clients include federal and state governments, foundations, and private-sector and international organizations. The employee-owned company, with offices in Princeton, N.J., Ann Arbor, Mich., Cambridge, Mass., Chicago, Ill., Oakland, Calif., and Washington, D.C., has conducted some of the most important studies of education, health care, international, disability, family support, employment, nutrition, and early childhood policies and programs.