The new state Department of Corrections’ requirement for drug testing of prison instructors is necessary, said the director of an independent prison watchdog group.

These urine tests are vital to curbing drug use in jail, said Mike Mahoney, head of the not-for-profit John Howard Association. He is also the former deputy warden of the state juvenile center in Joliet.

In past years NIU received yearly state contracts to hold six classes at Stateville Prison near Joliet and six at Dixon Prison but now has chosen not to renew its contract rather than have instructors submit to the urine tests. Southern Illinois University, which began the first prison education program in 1954, declined to renew its contract for the same reason. The schools’ refusals ended a decades-old involvement with the Department of Corrections.

The schools maintain the teachers are not DOC employees and each university has the right to choose its own faculty.

“We are concerned about the trafficking of drugs in prison,” Mahoney said. “The majority of drugs in prison doesn’t come in through the inmates, but rather through the staff. I understand the privacy kinds of issues. But these people have chosen to work there. They’re being paid for it.”

Some teachers in the program come to the prison twice a week; others come once a month. This lack of continual supervision gives the prison another reason to conduct tests, Mahoney said.

“Many (instructors) come in the evenings. It’s not the usual ontrol you have over continuous employees who come everyday,” he said.

Current D0C employees are exempted from the test because it is not part of the agreement in force with the unions. DOC job applicants and providers of food, medical and other services must take the tests.

The DOC policy went into effect in February and NIU instructors were allowed to complete their contract, which ended June 30, without the tests. But no new instructors were allowed to teach from July on in the prisons without them.

Mahoney supports a one-time test for job applicants. “Personally, I think anybody who works in the prisons must be tested. I think that ought to be a condition of employment. Testing subsequent to employment should be based on ‘reasonable suspicion’ and not done randomly.”

While many opponents of the rule cite constitutional reasons, Mahoney said, “I don’t think there is any (constitutional reason). What they (the DOC) are saying is that it’s a condition of employment that you have to submit to a drug test. There is no prosecution if you fail.

“We’re talking about screening in a controlling environment, an environment that is life-threatening for the staff in the terms of the things that can happen. It’s not one of those things that’s nice to do. It’s a necessity. If you don’t want to take the test, don’t work there.”

Mahoney cited a 1987 Department of Justice study to illustrate the connection between drugs and crime. Seventy-five percent of the people arrested in Chicago had illegal drugs in their systems at the time of their arrest, according to the study.

He said he was not surprised to hear of the 20 percent error possibility associated with the first time a sample is evaluated with commonly-used tests. He strongly urged a second test be done on the same sample to confirm the results. “We need to use the best available technology we’ve got and follow-up with a secondary test.”

The John Howard Association has monitored prisons, primarily in Illinois, for 87 years. Fifty-five of its members visit the prisons each month.

The group lobbies, recommends policy changes and members occasionally serve as expert witnesses. It also makes sure that penal institutions obey court rulings.