Drug Testing in the Public Sector: An Interpretation Grounded in Rosenbloom's Competing‐Perspectives Model

DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00046
Published date01 July 2001
Date01 July 2001
424 Public Administration Review July/August 2001, Vol. 61, No. 4
Eddie Ade Knowles
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Norma M. Riccucci
University at Albany
Drug Testing in the Public Sector:
An Interpretation Grounded in Rosenblooms
Competing-Perspectives Model
In the last few decades, drug testing has become a major policy issue in the workplace, with a
host of actors competing to promote their own needs and interests. Employers, for example,
seek ways to combat the use and abuse of illegal substances by employees. At the same time,
unions and their employees legitimately seek to limit overly intrusive or unfair methods of test-
ing. The courts have also been major players in the policy arena of drug testing, as witnessed by
the surfeit of case law setting parameters around what is and is not legal and constitutional in
terms of drug testing.
In an effort to move the drug-testing debate forward, this article examines the competing interests
in drug testing, interests that ultimately frustrate the courts, policy makers, employees, and their
unions from reaching a consensus on the use of drug tests in the public sector. To systematically
examine this issue, Rosenblooms competing-perspectives model of public administration is ap-
plied. The article concludes with policy recommendations for public managers.
In the last few decades, drug testing has become a ma-
jor policy issue in the workplace, with a host of actors com-
peting to promote their own needs and interests. Employ-
ers, for example, seek ways to combat the use and abuse of
illegal substances by employees. At the same time, unions
and their employees legitimately seek to limit overly in-
trusive or unfair methods of testing. The courts have also
been major players in the policy arena of drug testing, as
witnessed by the surfeit of case law setting parameters
around what is and is not legal and constitutional in terms
of drug testing.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court issued two pivotal
decisions on drug testing almost a decade ago, there con-
tinues to be a good deal of debate over the viability of drug
testing in the workplace, particularly with respect to the
psychometric soundness of the drug tests themselves. In
an effort to move the debate forward, this article examines
the competing interests in drug testing, interests that ulti-
mately frustrate the courts, policy makers, employees, and
their unions from reaching a consensus on the use of drug
tests in the public sector.1 To systematically examine this
issue, Rosenblooms competing-perspectives model of
public administration is applied. The article concludes with
policy recommendations for public managers.
Rosenblooms Model
David H. Rosenbloom (1983) advanced a competing-
perspectives model of public administration, which has
been extremely useful in studying and analyzing various
phenomena surrounding the enterprise of government
(Brown and Stillman 1985). Briefly, the model holds that
Eddie Ade Knowles is the vice president for student life and an adjunct asso-
ciate professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He has also taught at
Skidmore College and Hostos Community College. He recently earned his
Ph.D. from the Department of Public Administration and Policy at the Univer-
sity at Albany, SUNY. Email: knowle@rpi.edu.
Norma M. Riccucci is a professor of public administration and policy at the
University at Albany, SUNY. Email: Riccucci@albany.edu.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT