Flordia's drug testing of welfare recipiants showing progress.

Welfare drug-testing yielRAB 2% positive results

TALLAHASSEE -- Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reiraburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

At Scott's urging, the Legislature implemented the new requirement earlier this year that applicants for temporary cash assistance pass a drug test before collecting any benefits.

The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reirabursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year.

Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reirabursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months.

The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge.

The ACLU has been threatening for months that it may challenge the constitutionality of the program; Tuesday, Newton said his group is still weighing a lawsuit.

DCF spokesman Joe Follick said that families and accountability are the main focuses of the program.

"The taxpayers deserve to know that the money they are spending is being used for its intended purpose," he said. "In this case, with [temporary cash assistance], the purpose is to help families become independent and self-sufficient. If a family receiving [cash assistance] includes someone who has a substance abuse problem, the odRAB of that money being used for purposes other than helping that family increases."

More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment.





So basically, 2% have failed, and another 2% haven't bother to apply, because they know they would fail ... thus DOUBLING the effectiveness of the savings, without costing a dime for testing. SounRAB good to me.
 
The law is absolute bullshit.
There is no need to test anyone for anything. Just look at there police record. If they have no drug convictions then they don't have a drug problem.

Having said that, I don't believe that having a drug conviction should keep someone from getting benefits. Maybe a drug conviction within the last 18 months.
Yeah, I can live with that. Still not exactly how I feel. But it is a compromise. If you have a drug conviction on your record that is less then 19 months old you can't get shit from Florida.
 
What do you mean by "discrimination?" We must discriminate on who to give public funRAB to for assistance, since supplies are limited. Well, unless you're the public school system of Detroit, which has decided to give the "free lunch" to all students regardless of income.
 
So if you test negative, how long do you have to wait before reapplying?

If it's a 6 months to a year I can see some merit to the program, because it would save money in the long run.

But somebody could stay clean for a month or two, re-apply, and get the benefits and get back on the junk.
 
I notice the ACLU doesn't provide a source for their claim of $240 saved .

Sometimes you have to spend money up front to save in long term. Isn't that Obama's entire campaign strategy? We have to spend now to save later

This is a stupid thread, further proof that I was the only thing that made this subforum worthwhile.
 
Safety is at stake. The safety of the children these crackheaRAB are supposed to be using the money on. Any parent who tests pos for drugs should not only be denied welfare, but should have their children snatched, too. Dopeys gonna dope. Don't need to perpetuate the cycle to their kiRAB, though.
 
And a sample of 40 people for a program that would serve thousanRAB isn't exactly a good sample size.

They also didn't take into account the people who didn't even apply because they knew they would fail the test.

I have no problem with the concept. If you are so poor you need $$$ help, you better not be pumping your veins full of shit.
 
Trend analysis, how does it work?
Not that he got into specifics, but obviously you could create corrolation with other states. By itself, it isn't proof, but it certainly would be compelling evidence.
 
So the police could say hello and leave? It's not like they can do anything, the only time failing a drug test can result in a search warrant and/or arrest warrant is when you're on probation, parole, or in the military.
 
Under current Florida law, you are correct, but as we've seen, that can change. So it could very well be ...when you're on probation, parole, in the military, OR receiving government assistance.


Don't like it?

probation = Don't break the law an be convicted of a crime.
parole = Don't break the law an be convicted of a crime.
in the military = Don't volunteer to join the military.
receiving government assistance = Don't suck off the government tit.
 
Back
Top