Opponents in the controversy regarding new requirements for prison instructors to take urine tests for drug use detection cannot agree on the accuracy of the tests.

While research done by an independent prison watchdog group indicates a five percent minimum error rate, its director said he is “not surprised” to hear of the 20 percent error possibility reported by NIU Provost Kendall Baker. Still, this is no reason for NIU and SIU to balk about the Department of Corrections’ testing policy, said Mike Mahoney, director of the not-for-profit John Howard Association.

Baker reported the “20 percent margin of error in the basic urine test… ” in a Feb. 26 letter to DOC Director Michael Lane.

NIU and SIU decided not to renew decades-old teaching contracts with the state DOC rather than subject instructors to the test. The contracts expired June 30. NIU and SIU are the only schools in the prison program to protest. The schools argue teachers in the prison program are not DOC employees, and each university has the right to choose its own faculty.

The JHA describes the limitations of the tests in an April 13 policy statement on drugs and drug testing in prisons. “…The Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique (EMIT) test, the most frequently used test to detect traces of drugs in urine, is of questionable validity,” according to the statement.

“…‘False positives’ may be triggered by the use of common foods and drugs such as poppy seeds and non-prescription cold medicines and have occurred in approximately five percent of properly prepared samples. Some studies suggest a much higher degree of error. Even the manufacturer of the EMIT test suggests that independent confirmation of tests results should be obtained…”

The statement goes on to urge that all positive test results be confirmed by “an independent and alternative method of analysis.” The statement suggests frequent, random searches of all persons entering the prison, including the use of dogs and detection machines and urine tests for inmates and staff to confirm ‘reasonable suspicion’ only.

“… Further, staff who may test positive may not be nonetheless bringing drugs into prison and may be of little danger to the prison community, although the use of drugs cannot be tacitly condoned….” the statement says.

A 10 percent inaccuracy level is very possible in the tests, said NIU Health Service Director Rosemary Lane. “What’s usual in a test like this is a high incidence of false positives,” she said. “It’s possible that one out of every 10 positives don’t represent a true positive.”

Lane said these figures are for the first test on a sample, and she recommends a second test be done to confirm results.

“Some people’s blood tests positive for everything,” Lane said. The blood of lupus victims often tests positive for several things, including syphillis.

“NIU is right,” Lane said. “There’s no reason to suspect they (the instructors) are smuggling in the prison. There’s no grounds for suspicion of this nature.”

A higher error rate for drug testing is reported by Dale Geiringer, California coordinator for the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws. “I’ve seen error rates of 25 percent to zero percent on the first time.” He acknowledged a second test would greatly reduce the possibility for error.

Even if all testing procedures were followed exactly, Geiringer said lab sources told him there is a standard two percent error rate due to clerical mix-ups.

Nic Howell, DOC chief Public Information officer, debunked the 20 percent figure quoted by Baker. “As I understand it, this is an excellent, efficient and accredited testing process.