Welfare Drug Testing: What is the Real Cost?

DeeDee Reece

English Composition II

Professor Renee Reynolds

February 28, 2012

DeeDee Reece

Professor Renee Reynolds

English Composition II

February 28, 2012

Abstract

In July 2011, Florida passed a law which required applicants seeking aid under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to take a drug test. If they pass the test they get benefits; if they fail – nothing! The law was developed to save the state taxpayers money. It was enacted on a biased foundation - without funds the poor can’t support their drug habits! It was mandated without any regard for the consequences of doing so. The problem isn’t taking the test; it’s what it stands for! It crosses the constitutional, social, moral, and ethical boundaries that society deems acceptable. The negative aspects outweighed the good! The testing has been placed on hold while the “real costs” are addressed.

Welfare Drug Testing: What is the Real Cost?

Being poor once meant you lacked funds or the means to support yourself. Today the meaning has been changed to define a person’s character. Florida law suggests the definition of poor is synonymous with drug user. Eligibility for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program now requires applicants to submit to drug testing to receive benefits. The problem isn’t with taking the test but the premise behind it. The law was enacted based on an assumption. People who need assistance have ulterior motives – they are using the money to support drug addictions! The goal of TANF is to provide assistance to the needy; not demoralize them. There are many flaws with the system; however, the solution is not to violate the poor. The drug testing proposal was to save tax payers money by denying benefits to applicants who tested positive. In theory the testing may save the state money; but at what cost? It costs the poor money they don’t have. It costs the poor their civil rights. It costs the poor freedom from discrimination. It costs the governor his integrity. It cost the taxpayers in reimbursement fees and civil lawsuits. So, who will actually benefit from the savings?
A Review of the Literature

Effective July 1, 2011, state Statute 414.0652 (formerly 2011 House Bill 353) mandated drug testing for all applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. It required people to pay for, take and pass a urine drug test in order to be considered eligible for TANF (ACLU, 2011). The testing is challenged as discrimination and a violation of basic human rights. In addition, the non-uniform testing, ethical and moral issues overshadow any benefit the law could have provided. The “real cost” of drug testing is addressed here.

Drug Testing Process In the article, “The Impact of Florida’s New Drug Test Requirement for Cash Assistance”, Tarren Bragdon, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Foundation for Government Accountability, outlines the drug testing protocol. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) does not automatically require a drug test. The applicant must first answer a series of questions to determine if they meet the general criteria. If the guidelines are met they must take a urine drug test in order to qualify for assistance. He further indicated the average cost of the drug screen ranges from $30-35 dollars per test. The applicant must initially pay for the test and if the results come back negative they can receive Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA, Florida’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program). If the results come back positive the applicant becomes ineligible for benefits for one full year. However, “completion of a substance abuse program” (Brandon, 2011) by the applicant will enable the benefits to be reinstated after a 6 month period. The Politics The legality of the testing law immediately came to surface. The ACLU stands by this conviction in their ACLU.org article “ACLU Files Suit in Federal Court Challenges Mandatory Drug Testing of Temporary Assistance Applicants”. They assert “suspicionless, invasive drug testing violates fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches”. Co-Counsel Randy Berg, Executive Director of the Florida Justice Institute, conquers “Floridians don’t lose Constitutional rights because they need temporary assistance” (ACLU, 2011). Another legal problem with the testing is that is not applied to everyone in the same way. The CNN Wire Staff’s article, “Florida Governor Signs Welfare Drug-Screen Measure”, classifies Florida Governor Rick Scott’s testing bill as unconstitutional and not universal for all aid recipients. It further quoted Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL) as saying “Where does he draw the line?” and “Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?” Governor Scott had previously mandated all state employees to take drug tests but he rescinded it when the ACLU sued him under similar grounds (Mak, 2011). The issue of non-uniform testing by all states poses another problem. In order for a law to be fair and just it must applied to everyone in the same way. Drug testing proposals have been discussed in other states but none have mandated the test due to the arguments that the test violates the Constitutional ban on unreasonable searches (Kennedy, 2011). The Social Issue The drug testing law crosses ethical boundaries. A premise behind the law was a majority of applicants were being classified as drug users and Governor Scott said taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for drug users addictions (CNN Wire Staff, 2011). Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida, said “This is just punishing people for being poor” (as cited by Whittenburg, 2011). There is no basis for the classification; it is strictly based on prejudice of a social class. Governor Scott’s mandated law is also morally questionable. In Tim Mak’s article, “ACLU sues to stop Florida Welfare Drug tests”, he alleges that Governor Scott is benefiting from the testing. He further stated the governor previously co-founded Solantic, an urgent medical care chain which performs drug testing. He references a report by the Palm Beach Post as saying the governor divested from the company when he went into office; however, his controlling shares went to a trust in his wife’s name. The Economics There is conflicting information about whether or not the testing will save money in the long run. Initial results indicate only a 2 percent failure rate since the mandated drug testing law was mandated (Whittenburg, 2011). This puts the state on the hook to reimburse all applicants with negative results. According to Department of Children and Families (DCF), in July 2011, 5390 applicants applied and 574 received drug related denials. Only 9 of the 574 tested positive, all the others did not complete the test and were therefore denied (Bragdon, 2011). Preliminary data indicates a $1,608 annual savings per denied applicant. For the 574 denials it results in an annual savings of $922,992 (Bragdon, 2011). The state then owes $161,700 in reimbursement costs to the 5390 approved applicants. This theoretically saves the state $761,292 annually. Ashley Lopez’s article, “Latest Numbers Show What Welfare Drug Testing is Costing the State”, indicates the state is spending more than it’s saving. Her information was obtained from data provided in the New York Times. She quoted ACLU’s Derek Newton as saying: Based on the NYT estimate that the average temporary assistance applicant receives $253 monthly for less than five months, the state has saved $40,480 in denied benefits due to drug testing.” He further added, “The state reimbursed $246,050 for those who passed. The net loss to the state of $200,000 since July does not include the substantial administrative or legal costs. The estimated savings from the denials are a fallacy. If an applicant fails the test they can designate someone else to receive the benefits on their behalf (CNN Wire Staff, 2011). The reallocated money was never factored into the estimated revenue earned from denying benefits. Results Currently the testing has been put on hold while the legal issues are being addressed. The goal was to save Florida taxpayers money. The theory behind it was good; however, the subject and approach were wrong. The Constitution guarantees us freedom from injustice and the right to fight for our rights. Body Paragraphs To test or not to test; that is the question! All stories have a beginning and an end; but what happens in between determines the end. It all started with a proposal to save tax payers money and developed into a law. Effective July 1, 2011, state Statute 414.0652 (formerly 2011 House Bill 353) mandated drug testing for all applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The applicant is first screened to determine if they meet the basic eligibility requirements. If so, they must take and pass a urine drug test in order to be considered eligible for TANF (ACLU, 2011). Tarren Bragdon, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Foundation for Government Accountability, outlined the new TANF criteria: If the results come back negative they can receive Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA, Florida’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program). If the results come back positive the applicant becomes ineligible for benefits for one full year. However, “completion of a substance abuse program” by the applicant will enable the benefits to be reinstated after a 6 month period. The testing seems simple enough. So how does it affect the applicant? The average cost of the drug screen ranges from $30-35 dollars per test which the applicant must pay for at the time of testing (Bragdon, 2011). This is the first problem. Some applicants can’t afford the upfront testing fee. If they don’t take the test this deems them ineligible for benefits. There is no value in targeting the people who are in dire need of assistance. Sometimes we get so caught up in if we “could” do something that we forget why we “shouldn’t” do it! Just for arguments sake, let’s assume they paid for the test. What else does it cost them? Welfare drug testing is costing the poor their civil rights. The legality of the testing was immediately questioned. “Suspicionless, invasive drug testing violates fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches” (ACLU, 2011). On September 6, 2011 the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Navy Veteran Luis Lebron. He does not use drugs, has no criminal record, and meets the income criteria for temporary assistance. He refuses to submit to a drug test due to unreasonable search and a violation of his basic rights. Co-Counsel Randy Berg, Executive Director of the Florida Justice Institute, conquers “Floridians don’t lose Constitutional rights because they need temporary assistance” (ACLU, 2011). The message we’re sending to society is “you’re no longer innocent until proven guilty”. The cost of giving up their rights is much more than they receive! Welfare drug testing discriminates against poor Florida residents. They have to prove their worth by taking a test derived from a law enacted on the basis of prejudice. This is discrimination based solely on a financial situation. Additionally, drug testing is not applied equally to everyone seeking state assistance. There are drug users in all places of society, so why not test everyone? The governor had previously tried to pass a drug testing law which mandated all state employees to take drug tests but rescinded it when the ACLU sued him (Mak, 2011). Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL) questioned Florida Governor Scott’s motives with, “Where does he draw the line? Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?” (CNN Wire Staff, 2011). Furthermore, drug testing is not required by all states. In order for a law to be fair and just it must be applied to everyone in the same way. Drug testing proposals have been discussed in other states but none have mandated it due to the founding principles of the constitution (Kennedy, 2011). So for now only the poor Florida applicants pay the price. The welfare drug testing program costs the governor his integrity. A quote by former president George W. Bush, “At this moment America’s highest economic need is higher ethical standards”, couldn’t apply more! Integrity is based on morals and values - doing what’s right, fair, and ethical! This law has no value. Governor Scott’s proposal to save tax payers money by not having them pay for the poor’s drug additions (CNN Wire Staff, 2011) has no basis for the classification. Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida, said “This is just punishing people for being poor” (as cited by Whittenburg, 2011). Being poor is a condition - not a conviction! The law is also morally questionable. Does the law benefit the taxpayers or the Governor himself? There are allegations that he is benefiting at the expense of others (Mak, 2011). An article in the Palm Beach Post claims the governor previously co-founded Solantic, an urgent medical care chain which performs drug testing. Due to conflict of interest the governor divested from the company when he went into office; however, his controlling shares went to a trust in his wife’s name (Mak, 2011). A law mandated by him, requires drug testing funded by the tax payers, at a company he profits from! So, who actually benefits from the testing? In the long run the drug testing law costs the taxpayers more than it’s worth. The Governor argues that it will save us money but the data doesn’t support it. Initial results indicate only a 2 percent failure rate since the mandated drug testing law was mandated (Whittenburg, 2011) and the taxpayers are on the hook to reimburse the applicants. There is conflicting data on whether or not a tangible savings is generated. The first report indicates the state saves money. In July 2011, 5390 applicants applied and 574 received drug related denials (Bragdon, 2011). The theory is as follows: $1,608 annual savings per denied applicant X 574 denials = $922,992 saved per year (Bragdon, 2011). Next, subtract the reimbursements cost for approved applicants: 5390 applicants X $30 per test = $161,700. This theoretically saves the state $761,292 annually. The next report contradicts this finding. Ashley Lopez, reporter for The Florida Independent, indicates the state is spending more than it’s saving. Her information was obtained from data provided in the New York Times. She quoted ACLU’s Derek Newton as saying: Based on the NYT estimate that the average temporary assistance applicant receives $253 monthly for less than five months, the state has saved $40,480 in denied benefits due to drug testing.” He further added, “The state reimbursed $246,050 for those who passed. The net loss to the state of $200,000 since July does not include the substantial administrative or legal costs.
The problem with both reports is that any proposed savings is a fallacy. If an applicant fails the test they can designate someone else to receive the benefits on their behalf (CNN Wire Staff, 2011). The reallocated money was never factored into the estimated revenue earned from denying benefits. So if you recalculate the math you will come up with the following: $0 dollars saved (money reallocated) – legal costs = substantial loss to taxpayers!
Conclusion
“For every complex problem there is a simple solution that is wrong” a quote by G.B. Shaw, Irish critic and poet, embodies the whole problem with welfare drug testing. There are many flaws with the welfare system; however, drug testing the poor is not the solution. In theory the testing may save the state money; but at whose expense? The “true cost” has nothing to do with money. You can’t put a value on the violation of civil rights, freedom from discrimination, loss of integrity, and the financial burden caused by the drug testing law. The testing has been currently placed on hold and it is unsure if it will be reinstated. In the end, the “real cost” of drug testing outweighed the benefits! The only valuable thing gained was a “costly lesson” that can be best summarized in a quote by Lu Bu-wei, Chinese Prime Minister, 246 B.C., under Emperor Ying Zheng: In making judgments the early Kings were perfect, because they made moral principles the starting point of all their undertakings and the root of everything that was beneficial. This principle, however, is something that people of mediocre intelligence never grasp. Not grasping it they lack awareness, and lacking awareness they purse profit. But while they pursue profit, it is absolutely impossible for them to be certain of obtaining it.

References

ACLU.org. (2011). ACLU files suit in federal court challenging mandatory drug testing of temporary assistance. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/ aclu-files-suit-federal-court-challenging-mandatory-drug-testing-temporary
Bragdon, T. (2011). The impact of Florida’s new drug test requirement for welfare cash assistance. The Florida Independent. Retrieved from http://www. floridafga.org/ 2011/09/the-impact-of-florida-new-drug-test-requirement-for-welfare-cash-assistance/
CNN Wire Staff. (2011). Florida governor signs welfare drug-screen measure. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/politics/florida.welfare.drug.testing_1_ drug-testing-drug-screening-tanf?_s=PM:POLITICS
Kennedy, K. (2011). States eye drug tests for welfare recipients. Crestview News Bulletin. Retrieved from htpp://www.crestviewbulletin.com/articles/states-14156- tests-drug.html
Lopez, A. (2011). Latest numbers show what welfare drug testing is costing the state. The Florida Independent. Retrieved from htpp://www.floridaindependent.com 51662/welfare-drug-testing-costs
Mak, T. (2011). ACLU sues to stop Florida welfare drug tests. Politico. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62977.html
Whittenburg, C. (2011). Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results. The Tampa Tribune. Retrieved from http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare- drug- testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/