NCJ Number
123723
Date Published
1989
Length
54 pages
Annotation
This report, filed by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) describes the private-sector drug-testing program instituted by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1989 for workers in safety-sensitive or security-sensitive positions. The report outlines the status of the program, evaluates DOT's program implementation, describes the legal challenges to the regulations, and compares proposed Congressional legislation on similar drug-testing programs with the DOT program.
Abstract
Despite oversight by the Office of the Secretary, the implementation approaches and plans for program management vary between the six relevant administrations (Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Research and Special Programs Administration, and United States Coast Guard). GAO maintains that the administrations must adhere to certain management practices including providing comprehensive guidance to private-sector employers to develop effective programs, review of drug-testing plans submitted by employers for approval to ensure that the proposals comply with regulations, and monitoring the instituted procedures to ensure employer compliance with the program regulations. The Office of the Secretary must also provide the administrations with guidance on what information to obtain from employers in order to evaluate the overall success of the programs. Union and employee associations have challenged DOT's private-sector drug-testing program on grounds ranging from the constitutionality of drug tests to DOT statutory authority to mandate testing. Legislation proposed by the 101st Congress differ from DOT regulations in that they would require testing for alcohol abuse and include specific criminal and civil penalties for employer noncompliance. The GAO report recommends that the DOT Office of the Secretary work more closely with the administrations to implement efficient management practices and to utilize agency-wide evaluation criteria. 5 tables, 2 appendixes. (Author abstract modified)