Janie & Jeff

Care to help a pregnant lady out? This was a paper I wrote for my Social Welfare Policy class and I’d like to get some feed back from all of you for a presentation I’ll be doing next week. All I ask is that you read through it and answer a few questions. You can post to the blog anonymously or send me a message here on Facebook.

Thanks guys

How did you feel about drug testing as part of applying for government aid before reading the paper?
How do you feel about drug testing as part of applying for government aid after reading the paper?
What information did you find helped you make your decision?
What information would you have liked to have seen included in the paper? (If any)

Historical Background of the Policy

According to the National Conference of State Legislature, “States have proposed drug testing of applicants and recipients of public welfare benefits since federal welfare reform in 1996” (National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2012). Later in 1999, Michigan launched a pilot program that would require thousands of those applying for aid to take drug tests to qualify for benefits (Meredith, 1999). It purposed that people already receiving benefits at specific locations would be randomly tested and those who test positive need to go into a treatment before they were able to collect welfare money, if they refused treatment or to submit to the drug test then they would no longer be able to receive any benefits (Meredith, 1999).

In 2009, over twenty different states offered up legislation that would require drug testing for public assistance programs and in 2010 at least twelve states had similar proposals but none of these proposals became law because most of the legislation was focused on random drug testing (NCSL, 2012). This was a problem because of a Michigan court case in 2003, Marchwinski v. Howard, which ruled that making welfare applicants take a drug test without reasonable suspicion that they were actually using drugs was unconstitutional (NCSL, 2012). So these policies usually met their end within a short amount of time and offer little information as to how well it actually preformed in cutting welfare costs.

Historically this “War on Drugs” has been going on since the Reagan years when the office of National Drug control Policy was created in 1988 as a response to what was seen as a growing social problem. It held a strong emphasis on addressing the supply side of the drug problem but there were also measures to address the demand side here in the states that included prevention, treatment, and drug education programs (Cummins & DiNitto, 2007). These programs that were meant to decrease drug dependence can still be found in new policy legislation regarding the purpose and validity of drug testing Welfare applicants.

Problems that Necessitate the Policy

The nature of problem is that many people feel that their tax dollars are funding the drug addictions of those who are on welfare, causing a call to hold those accountable who are abusing the system. Drug testing is believed to be a way of ensuring that only those who really need aid and will use it responsibly will receive it. There is also the matter of the overall cost of welfare and the concern of how to save money on this program that isn’t often seen in a positive light by many Americans. Since government entitlement programs are often under scrutiny for their spending, any way to reduce costs is seen as a positive thing.

Also, many people believe that drug use leads to other, more serious crimes which could be avoided if we could eliminate the drug problems that effect the population. However, the more problematic factor could be that “drug use somehow changes the individual’s personality in a lasting way, making him or her into a criminal type” (Hart & Ksir, pp 41. 2011). Crime can also be a secondary factor of being under the influence of drugs or to get money to obtain more drugs for their addiction (Hart & Ksir, 2011).

A cause of the problem is that there are people who misuse government funds and spend money that is supposed to help them improve their quality of life. No matter what the actual number of people who misuse funds is, both sides of the political spectrum can agree that if the funds are not used correctly then they are not really helping anyone. Another cause of the problem is that those who are addicted to drugs may have a handicap when to comes to taking care of themselves. Without going through some kind of treatment program before being given complete responsibility to manage their own finances many resources could be wasted instead of going to those who could use them more effectively.

This policy really affects the poor who receive government aid and those who pay taxes and do not receive aid. Many stereotypes are perpetrated by those who do actually use their government aid to obtain drugs and this causes contention by pitting those who perceive that their money is going to an unworthy cause against all who receive aid. While many would agree that not everyone who is on welfare is undeserving, they do bring relevant criticism that the policy is an ineffective solution to the problem of poverty. This is a nation wide problem that every American will need to deal with at some point in their lives.

Another population that is affected by this policy would be those who are drug abusers. Many of these policies have drug treatment programs that would greatly benefit those who are looking to better their lives and receive help getting clean. This addresses the idea that the government puts too much of our drug abuse control fund into efforts that try to control the drug itself rather than into teaching people how to live in a world where drugs will always exist (Hart & Ksir, 2011).

Policy Description

Since the election, there are now a few different states that are implementing this kind of policy. In Utah they are requiring individuals applying for cash assistance to fill out a questionnaire screening for illegal drug use (NCSL, 2012). If they suspect that there is reason to believe the person is participating in illegal drug activity then the applicant must take a drug test. If the test is positive, the individual is required to go through a drug treatment program and remain clean in order to receive benefits or else the state will terminate benefits for applicants who refuse to take the test (NCSL, 2012).

In Georgia they are requiring drug tests for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families by notifying Applicants of mandatory drug tests at the time of their application (NCSL, 2012). The applicant is required to pay for the test and if it is found positive they are ineligible for benefits for one month until they can retest again (NCSL, 2012). If an individual with a child tests positive it does not affect the child's eligibility for benefits because the benefits can be transferred to go through a protective payee who must also pass a drug test (NCSL, 2012).

In Tennessee applicants with test positive are ineligible for benefits for one year but they can reapply after six months if they complete a substance abuse treatment program and have two negative drug tests (NCSL, 2012).

This policy is meant to be a screening tool for welfare applicants so that those who test positive for drugs are not allowed to receive government benefits for a period of time. This would also reduce costs by disqualifying these who may use government aid to fund a drug addiction because there is an expectation that there are a disproportionate amount of people who are drug addicts on welfare compared to the average population. As you can tell from the previous information this policy has been implemented in slightly different ways depending on the state.

Rational Policy Evaluation

The program goals include first and foremost, cutting costs to the welfare program. The idea is that since many of the poor are believed to misuse entitlement program funds in order to supplement their illicit substance habit that we can use testing to cut off these funds to them, in turn bringing down the overall cost of the program. The second goal would be getting those who are believe to be an undeserving portion of the poor off of government assistance. Drug crimes are seen as quite appalling to the American public as it is reflected in our incarceration rates of those who participate in them. Just over half of all federal inmates are imprisoned for drug related offences (Cummins & DiNitto, 2007).

Those who were in favor of this policy in Florida were looking at the percentages of drug test fail rates and monetary savings to show that this was an effective policy. However, over 2 percent of applicants failed the test while another 2 percent are not completing the application process for unspecified reasons, not netting the kind of results that they were expecting (Whittenburg, 2011).

Some controversy was created when it was discovered that the Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, was the one who started the company, Solantic, back in 2001 that was contracted to do these drug tests (Bender, 2011). Another non-target group that benefited from this policy was the company itself. Since it serves many people that are uninsured, Solantic stood to gain a lot of money either way, either from reimbursement from the state of Florida or from the welfare applicants themselves (Bender, 2011).

The actual cost of the tests averages about $30 per person and if we take the same fail rate from Florida of 2%, assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test negitive (Whittenburg, 2011). This compares with the $32,200-$48,200 that the state would save annually on one month's worth of applicants who are rejected because they tested positive (Whittenburg, 2011).

In one year the money saved on all applicants who tested positive would add up to $40,800-$98,400 in savings for the cash assistance program that is predicted to cost $178 million overall (Whittenburg, 2011). So sadly we do not see a great decrease in moneitary savings but there is a possiblity that these findings indicate that drug use among those who recive welfare is more of a sensationalized problem rather then a legitimit epidemic.

There are variables however, including the fact that not all of the applicants denied would have collected them for the full year, applicants who fail their drug test can reapply six months, the cost of staff hours, and they did not take into account the other resources that would be spent on implementing this program. The program could alos become very costly as well if it becomes a legal problem. The ACLU has challenged the constitutionality of the program and is consitering a lawsuit (Whittenburg, 2011).

An indirect cost of the program is the legal aspect of requiring drug tests to these who are receiving government aid. Much of the conflict centers around the Fourth Amendment, which puts limits on what kind of searches that the state can carry out. In 1997, the case of Chandler v. Miller was brought to the Supreme Court which voted 8-1 to strike down the Georgia law requiring those who were running or holding state offices to pass a drug test because it was stated that drug testing was an unreasonable search (Cohen, 2011). Opponents to this policy are arguing that this is nothing more then another way to strip the poor of their rights.

Another indirect cost would be that the children of those who become ineligible for government assistance will be the population that suffers the most, thus leaving them to a future of poverty with no support to make their way out. We do see that some state programs, like Florida’s and Georgia’s, have taken that into account and provided ways for children to still receive aid. However, not every state with this kind of policy has those same safe guards in place.

References

Bender, M. C. (2011, April 14). Gov. Rick Scott finalizes deal to sell his holdings in urgent care

chain Solantic. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/gov-rick-scott-finalizes-deal-to-sell-his-holdings-in-urgent-care-chain/1163630

Cohen, A. (2011, August 29). Drug Testing the Poor: Bad Policy, Even Worse Law. Time.

Retrieved from

http://ideas.time.com/2011/08/29/drug-testing-the-poor-bad-policy-even-worse-law/#ixzz2EM4SWvfI

Cummins, L. K., & DiNitto, D. (2007). Chapter 10; Providing social services: Help for

Children, the Elderly, and Individuals with Mental Illness. In Social Welfare Politics and Public Policy (6^th ed.) (pp 400). Boston, MA; Pearson Education.

Hart, C. L., & Ksir, C. (2011). Chapter 2; Drug use as a Social Problem. In Drugs, Society &

Human Behavior (14^th ed.) (pp 38-42). New York, NY; McGraw-Hill.

Meredith, R. (1999, May 30). Testing Welfare Applicants for Drugs. The New York Times. Retrived from

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/30/us/testing-welfare-applicants-for-drugs.html?pagewanted=all

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2012). Drug Testing and Public Assistance. Retrieved from

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/drug-testing-and-public-assistance.aspx?vm=r&s=1

Whittenburg, C. (2011, August 24) Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results.

The Tampa Tribune. Retrived from http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/?vm=r&s=1

I should be thankful that my biggest problem has been getting enough to eat. My whole first trimester I had morning sickness (Poorly named BTW), which caused me to lose about 3lb and miss a lot of church. The nurse was not happy with me when I went in for my check up so I was thankful that this last check up showed that I gained 2lb.
I'll be getting my 20 week ultrasound next week so I'll know if we're having a boy or a girl. People keep asking me if I know what the baby will be because there seems to be a lot of expecting mothers/fathers who express that they/their wives have the gift of baby telepathy, hence, they know what gender their baby is before they go in for their 20 week ultrasound.

I don't think I have that.

I've had dreams that it is a girl, though in one of the dreams she had a freakish nose for a baby and I was devastated, but I've been referring to the baby as a boy. So either way I can't be wrong! I think I've found the secret to this baby telepathy trick...
Either way most of our baby stuff that we have is pink and flowery so this little boy will have to be very comfortable in his gender despite stereotypical color preference.

The naming process is still... in process.
Boy names so far; Johnathan.
Thats it. No middle name, no other names, nothing else comes to mind when I think of boy names. But if I were having triplets I, half jokingly, told Jeff that we would have to name them Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego. Those are probably the worst biblical names that one could pick out for a child so I suppose if I go that route I should stick with Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Girl names; Nixie Ann.
No other girl names either. Which could be a bad thing because while I love the name "Nixie" (It's just so dang cute) I am weary of whole "Give your child a crazy/unique name" trend that this seems to fall under. Oh well, I'll just have to let her know when she is old enough that she really doesn't have hipster parents, we're super uncool and embarrassing.