National Collegiate Athletic Association

The NCAA News - News and Features

April 20, 1998

SPORTS SCIENCES NEWSLETTER

Drug-testing study shows state of drug-education programs at member schools

Last year's NCAA survey of athletic trainers at member schools showed gaps in services offered to student-athletes in the area of structured and continuous alcohol, tobacco and other drug programs.

Responses in this category varied greatly among divisions. Fifty-eight percent of Division I-A schools reported operating a drug-education program, while 58 percent of Division I-AA and 84 percent of Division I-AAA reported having such programs. Fifty-four percent of Division II and 38 percent of Division III schools said they offered these programs to their student-athletes.

In the fall of 1997, 469 athletic trainers from NCAA member schools responded to a survey concerning drug testing and educational programming on their campus. Fifty-six percent of those schools report having in operation a drug/alcohol educational program for student-athletes.

This was the first time the survey, which has been conducted since 1984, was sent to athletic trainers. Previously, the survey was sent to athletics directors, who would forward them to athletic trainers. Of the 929 questionnaires mailed, 469 were returned, generating a response rate of 59.4 percent.

To enhance programming on their campus, many schools take advantage of the various NCAA-sponsored programs designed to assist in wellness education. The most popular include: Sports Sciences speakers grant program, CHOICES alcohol-education grant, the Betty Ford Center Professional in Residence program, APPLE (Athletic Prevention Program-ming and Leadership Educa-tion), and TEAM (Techniques for Effective Alcohol Manage-ment).

A substantial 74 percent of respondents said their schools refer student-athletes to campus or community agencies for treatment if necessary. Thirty-one percent reported providing educational sessions for each team, while 45 percent held educational sessions for the entire body of student- athletes. Fifty-eight percent brought in outside speakers for special presentations. Peer-education programs from other student-athletes were held by 19 percent of respondents' schools. Seventeen percent held drug/alcohol-abuse evaluations.

In addition, 55 percent worked with other departments on campus such as the health center, counseling family services, freshman-orientation office, campus-life office, medical school or the recreational sports department. Fifty-four percent of respondents said that funding for drug/alcohol-education programs comes from the athletics department budget. Other sources listed were other university department budgets (22 percent) and grants. Sixteen percent had other sources of revenue, such as the counseling department and NCAA and grant funding.

Educational sessions were held once a year for 37 percent of respondents, while 25 percent held sessions once a semester.

Understanding of the NCAA's tobacco policy was strong, with 90 percent correctly responding that the Association bans the use of tobacco products by student-athletes and games personnel during all practices and competition.

Only 49 percent of schools reported banning alcohol from recruiting visits (zero tolerance) and 43 percent of respondents had no school policy concerning alcohol during such visits.

Institutional drug testing

A total of 43 percent of respondents reported having a drug-testing program for student-athletes in operation, while six percent reported actively planning to begin such a program.

As with the drug/alcohol education questions, responses differed greatly among divisions. For example, 83 percent of I-A schools reported operating drug-testing programs. The numbers at other levels were Division I-AA, 58 percent; Division I-AAA, 65 percent; Division II, 41 percent and Division III, seven percent.

Fifty-five percent of respondents said their schools had a plan for treating and rehabilitating student-athletes found to have drug/alcohol dependency problems; 18 percent do not have such a plan.

The survey showed that more 50 percent of the institutional drug-testing programs are characterized by the following:

* Coaches and other staff are not tested along with student-athletes (94 percent).

  • A specific written policy on drug-testing is given to the student-athletes (95 percent).

  • Student-athletes sign an institutional waiver or drug-testing consent (99 percent).

  • Drug-testing is mandatory (92 percent).

  • Testing is for cocaine (87 percent), marijuana (86 percent), amphetamines (84 percent), and anabolic steroids (43 percent).

  • Specimens are sent to commercial laboratories with confirmation by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.

  • The student-athlete, director of athletics, coach, athletic trainer and team physician are notified of the results of the first positive test.

  • The student-athlete, director of athletics, coach, athletics trainer, team physician and the parents of the student-athlete are informed of results from the second or third positive tests.

  • In addition to a discussion with the coach, the student-athlete is referred to a drug counselor after the first positive test.

  • After the second positive test, the student-athlete, after discussion with the coach, participates in enforced drug-education and may be suspended from the team.

  • After the third positive test, the student-athlete may be removed from the squad.

    NCAA drug-testing program

    The survey sought to assess the membership's desire to add testing for marijuana to the nonchampionship program, which does not test for any street drugs. Eighty-six percent of respondents favored such a change. Respondents also were asked whether they believe student-athletes who test positive for street drugs (such as marijuana) should receive a lesser sanction than those who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs. Eighty percent said student-athletes testing positive for either type of substance should receive the same or no less of a sanction.

    Given the results of the survey, what can the NCAA do to initiate or advance member schools' drug-education and drug-testing programs? Comments from the survey include establishing a mandatory drug-education program on every campus as well as expanding the current drug-testing program to include all divisions and more sports. As a membership organization, we look to you for further comments and suggestions concerning these issues as well as any others you see as priority issues with drug-education and testing.

    Those with questions or suggestions on the survey may contact Beth Binkley at the NCAA national office (telephone: 913/339-1906; e-mail: ebinkley@ncaa.org).