Oct 092015
 

From Think Progress

Tennessee’s first year of drug testing welfare recipients uncovered drug use by less than 0.2 percent of all applicants for the state’s public assistance system.

The state implemented the testing regime in the summer of 2014, adding three questions about narcotics use to the application form for aid. Anyone who answers “yes” to any of the three drug questions must take a urine test or have their application thrown away immediately. Anyone who fails a urine test must complete drug treatment and pass a second test, or have their benefits cut off for six months.

In total, just 1.6 percent of the 28,559 people who applied for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits in the first year of testing answered one of the three screening questions positively. Out of the 468 people who peed in a state-funded cup, 11.7 percent flunked the test.

You can read the rest of the article HERE.  In an earlier Think Progress article, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arizona were examined for the costs-benefits of their programmes.

As state legislatures convene across the country, proposals keep cropping up to drug test applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, or welfare.

Proponents of these bills claim they will save money by getting drug users off the dole and thus reduce spending on benefits. But states that are looking at bills of their own may want to consider the fact that the drug testing programs that are already up and running haven’t seen such results.

The High Costs And Few Rewards In Each State

The drug-testing regimes in the seven states all differ slightly, but the lack of effectiveness is widespread.

welfare-drug-test-wide-02

In 2011, Missouri adopted a law to require screening and testing for all TANF applicants, and the testing began in March 2013. In 2014, 446 of the state’s 38,970 applicants were tested. Just 48 tested positive.

The budgeted cost for that year’s testing program was $336,297. And, according to numbers provided to ThinkProgress by a Missouri Department of Social Services spokeswoman, the first three years of the program will likely cost the state more than $1.35 million, including start-up costs.  

In 2011, Florida passed a law to require every single applicant for TANF to pass a urine drug test, at his or her own expense (not just those for whom there was a reasonable suspicion). In four month of implementation,108 out of 4,086 applicants tested positive at a cost of $118,140. Applicants who tested negative would be reimbursed by the state. A federal courtstopped the requirement as a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s “unreasonable search and seizures” clause in 2013 — a ruling upheld in December by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The three-judge panel noted that Florida had “not demonstrated a more prevalent, unique or different drug problem among TANF applicants than in the general population.” A 2012 Georgia law like Florida’s, was revised in 2014 to include a “reasonable suspicion” requirement. A spokeswoman for the Georgia Division of Family and Children’s Services told ThinkProgress that the program is “currently on hold, pending a case in the U.S. District Court.” Its ultimate result could determine the constitutionality of the requirements in other states.

Read the rest of the ARTICLE to see how the other states fared.

Too many states are seeing drug testing as a panacea for high welfare costs.  Unfortunately, the costs far out weigh the benefits.  And the causes of job loss or welfare assistance are not uniquely the fault of applicants. But in addition, there are other costs like the affront to a person's dignity.  I can remember the first time I had to go on Unemployment benefits.  I stood at the counter, dressed as if I were going to work, in full blown panic attack mode, shaking like a leaf in a strong wind.  I had to fill out papers but I could not write. With no one at home to assist me, the clerked filled it out as I mumbled answers to her questions.  My face was beet red, my legs like jello.  I finally signed it but the signature didn't resemble my usual signature.  Had I been required to "pee in a cup", I think I would have totally lost my mind.

Is it right to ask people to "pee in a cup" when they are already down, especially when the testing lacks effectiveness?

Share

  12 Responses to “Tennessee’s First Year Of Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Didn’t Go Very Well”

  1. Texas is no different. Sadly. The money that is used for drug testing, can be better utilized for those families who qualify for benefits/support, by giving back the funding to them. Drug testing is expensive and unnecessary.

  2. Another example of wasting taxpayer dollars on a bad program of expensive drug testing.

  3. Y'all keep thinking of the taxpayers.  Sure, drug testing is not cost effective for the taxpayers, but that's not the point.  This is money spent on humiliating people to discourage or at least delay their applications.  The humiliation is a goal in itself.  Anyone who is experiencing poverty needs to be shamed.  The discouragement and delay are good in that it increases the odds of people dying.  Anyone who is experiencing poverty ought to die as soon as possible and "reduce the surplus population."  Furthermore, it is not money down the drain.  It goes to line the pockets of CEOs of companies who manufacture drug testing supplies and equipment and who process the tests.  How could any Republican object to that?  Expecially in Florida, where the main (if not the only) company is owned by the Governor's wife.  Poor Governor, he doesn't get paid enough, he needs extra money from somewhere.  (I hope I don't have to add "snark" to this but ya never know.)

  4. I swear the only reason Rethuglicans are so in favor of drug-testing is so they can use as a campaign slogan …

    “Urine in Good Hands with Rep. U. Ben Scrood”

    Just for further references (see below), it’s well researched that these programs document a LOWER incident of drug-use in welfare recipients than the general population – AND they cost more money than they recoup.

    But like Joanne says, this is NOT about being able to brag of being a “fiscal conservative” (another myth) – this is all about the power of public shaming of people they do NOT like.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/30/the-myth-of-welfare-and-drug-use.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2015/02/17/the-sham-of-drug-testing-walker-scott-and-political-pandering/

    [NOTE: Don't know how they do it, but even w/ 1st AND 3rd Party Cookies blocked, Forbes somehow always is able to set a cookie]

  5. Surprise, surprise–people without money don't spend on drugs…at least in FL there was the excuse the Governor's company(ies) made money off the contract

  6. Sorry, but I don't believe for one moment that state after state starts up these drug testing programs for welfare applicants because these states really think that it will bring down the money they spend on welfare; not when they have proof that it doesn't work that way from the results of programs started earlier in other states. The Republican politicians who push legislation for these programs through their congresses are doing so because they want the labs that do these tests to benefit from the taxpayers dollars, and that it doesn't come back through cuts in welfare isn't their problem.

    Besides making their friends – and family, apparently – make good money on testing, the rhetoric does well with their rabid base who thinks that anyone who is on welfare is a lazy scrounger, who is smoking dope all day on the welfare they receive, until it's their turn to be humiliated by having to pee in a cup. But by then they've voted these Republican lawmakers back into office for their next term.

  7. The Republicans in Kentucky have tried to pass this, too, but so far with no success. This is just another way to humilate people who need help.

    Lynn, I am so sorry you were so nervous about filing for UI benefits.  I am glad you found someone who helped you.

    • Me, too.  Unemployment in CA hasn't required going to an office for many years–phone and on-line start and mailed forms with telephone interviews instead.  Welfare still does call for some face to face time usually though with the extra assessment for referral to other services a person might need (substance abuse treatment, domestic violence services, WIC, etc.).

  8. Back in the day I remember a proposal to sterilize women who apply for welfare.  Drug testing is just another way to punish and subjugate the poor.  It is obscene and should be stopped immediately.  TY for sharing.

  9. All this noise about drug testing to reduce drugies ugetting welfare, is a paen (not a peeing!) to the right wing sheep who simply want welfare stopped…so that the poor can "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" that the conservatives have themselves,very conveniently, cut!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.