Self-Reported Drug and Alcohol Use and Attitudes Toward Drug Testing in High Schools With Random Student Drug Testing

Abstract

Many schools implement random student drug testing (RSDT) programs as a drug prevention strategy. This study analyzes self-report surveys of students in eight secondary schools with well-established RSDT programs, comparing students who understood they were subject to testing and students who understood they were not subject to testing. Students subject to testing reported significantly less marijuana and other illegal drug use than students in the same schools who were not subject to testing, and also had more positive attitudes toward testing. Alcohol use, which was not tested for in seven of the eight schools, did not differ between groups. This study provides evidence that awareness of eligibility for drug testing in schools with well-established RSDT programs is associated with lower rates of drug use.

KEYWORDS:

• alcohol use
• drug testing
• drug use
• prevention
• youth

Notes

^a From chi-square tests of proportions.

^b Excludes surveys from one school that tested for alcohol; excluding this school, the respective Ns were: Tested = 2,061, Not Tested = 1,388.

^a From chi-square tests of proportions.

^a From chi-square tests of proportions.

^b Excludes surveys from one school that tested for alcohol; excluding this school, the respective Ns were: Tested = 366, Not Tested = 529.

One of the original eight school districts recruited for the demonstration project withdrew prior to project onset; however, there were two participating high schools in one school district, leaving eight high schools (grades 9 to 12) to participate in the study. Schools were located in Alabama, Idaho, Indiana (3), Kentucky (2), and Michigan.

There were no significant demographic differences between students included and excluded from the study in regard to gender, grade level, race/ethnicity, or percentage participating in athletics and/or other extracurricular activities.

Because all schools tested student athletes, it was not possible to make comparisons within this population. Also, students participating in both athletics and extracurriculars were excluded from these two subgroups.