Drug_Testing_Recipients_of_Federal_Aid_Funds

Outline Thesis Statement: Although there is a growing consensus approving the drug testing for welfare recipients, the long term costs involved with such a plan could be substantially higher than the testing is supposed to save. I. The welfare reforms of 1996 included many changes to a system that had been in place for many years. A. One of the changes allowed individual states to drug test those applying or receiving welfare benefits. B. States would be responsible for putting people back to work, or risk having Federal allotments cut. II. Some studies show the percentages of drug use is no higher for those that receive welfare benefits than it is for people who do not. III. The method of drug screening chosen will have an impact on final costs, and drug tests will have instances of false positives. There will be more costs involved with administering another test, the more accurate the test, the higher the cost. A. Urine analysis is the cheapest type of drug screening; it is also the least accurate. B. Hair analysis is more accurate for the history of drug use; it is also more expensive. C. Blood analysis is the most accurate, and is the most invasive. IV. Government aid comes in many forms. Incentives, grants, low interest loans, health care, education and welfare, just to name a few. A. There will be enormous costs involved with the impending lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of singling out one specific group to be drug tested based on the type of aid received. B. Some states have decided to supply a questionnaire to ask about drug use, and to test based on these answers. C. Some courts have already decided this type of testing is illegal. Minnesota just lost a major lawsuit by the ACLU challenging drug testing. V. The argument for drug testing for welfare recipients is an extremely emotional subject. No one is suggesting turning a blind eye to drug use. The facts are, drug use is bad and illegal. A. Again, studies have shown drug use is not proportional to amount of government aid received. B. The TANF payments made to the welfare recipients isn’t a large sum of money individually. C. Only one program, TANF will be affected, and it will only amount to a 25% reduction of benefits. The testing alone will cost more than the reduction amount. VI. In conclusion, there are those that will always try to manipulate the system. A. TANF funding is well below tax gap. B. Resources should be used where there would be the most financial gain C. The countries poorest are being singled out as political scapegoats.   James Cole Franchesca Battle ENG-111-35 April 21, 2011 William Jefferson Clinton stood before the members of Congress on January 23, 1996, presenting his State of the Union Address. In this address he challenged the Congress to “send me a bipartisan welfare reform bill that will really move people from welfare to work and do the right thing by our children.”(Clinton) Congress did just that. On August 22, 1996, Mr. Clinton signed the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act”. Welfare Term limits was imposed on recipients for the first time. Reductions were made in payments to recipients and the States had the responsibility to decrease their welfare rolls or have their funding cut by the federal government. Included in this act, Section 902 states the federal government shall not prohibit individual states from drug testing welfare recipients (Ways and Means pg. 20). A few States have decided to implement this program in order to decrease their welfare numbers. Although there is a growing consensus approving the drug testing for welfare recipients, the long term costs involved with such a plan could be substantially higher than the testing is supposed to save. There are restrictions on which programs allow drug testing as a condition of eligibility. The largest programs, Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), and Aid to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled do not fall under state allowed testing (Idaho pg.3). The only federally funded program that allows drug testing as a condition of eligibility is Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) (Idaho pg.8). Studies have shown the percentage of drug use is no higher for those that receive welfare benefits than it is for people who do not. In a 1996 study conducted by the National Institutes of Health, the prevalence of illicit drug use or drug abuse among welfare recipients ranged from 1.3%-3.6%. The individuals that were tested had received benefits from the five major welfare programs (TANF, WIC, SSI, Medicaid, and Food Stamps). The results were surprisingly similar to the results found in individuals tested that had never received welfare benefits (1.5%) (Bradley). Another item for consideration is the testing methods used. The method of drug screening chosen will have an impact on the final costs. The most common and least expensive type of testing is urine analysis. It is also the least accurate, yet most widely used type of test. The average cost of urine analysis is about $44 nationally and most drugs are detectable in urine for 1-4 days, with the exception of marijuana and PCP (Poole). Hair analysis is more accurate and can show more positives simply because the period tested can be further than three or four weeks. The current costs for hair analysis are about $115-$150. Blood analysis is more accurate, but is much more costly and invasive and is usually done only with a court order (Poole). Drug testing will also have instances of false positives. There will be more costs involved with the administering of additional tests to either confirm or refute the false positive result adding even more costs. As a result, some states have decided to administer the “Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory” (SASSI) to determine drug abuse. A study in Oklahoma found that the questionnaire could accurately detect drug abuse with a 94% success rate (ACLU). Additionally, Government aid comes in many forms. Incentives, grants, tax credits, low interest loans, subsidies for businesses, along with Welfare and Medicaid. Deciding which programs will be subjected to drug testing will have to be decided in court. There will be enormous costs associated with the impending lawsuits if one group is singled out. The American Civil Liberties Union has already filed lawsuits on behalf of welfare recipients in all states that require drug testing before benefits are paid. Michigan was randomly drug testing their TANF recipients for a total of five weeks until the practice was ruled unconstitutional. This was a landmark victory for the American Civil Liberties Union, and as such, Florida and Kansas shelved their efforts to implement drug testing (ACLU). In these five weeks of testing in Michigan, only 8% of those tested had positive results, which is in line with those that do not receive TANF funds. This, along with the individual states low success rate, has resulted in most states abandoning the practice altogether (ACLU). According to Bob Quinn, Director of the Missouri Association for Social Welfare, lawmakers are not proposing to test wealthier individuals who receive other non-welfare benefits, such as tax credits or incentives (Heavin). The actual costs involved can be taken from the most recent report available. On February 4 2011, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare released the report on the cost analysis of drug testing public assistance recipients. In 2010 there were 1,500 individuals enrolled in the TANF program in Idaho. The average monthly benefit for these individuals is $309. There were two different scenarios studied for the report; scenario one being the testing of all persons approved, and scenario two, the screening of the applicants with the SASSI questionnaire. These two scenarios will be used throughout the rest of the report. In the second scenario, only those whose answers lead to the belief of drug use would be tested. Based on current experiences, the numbers chosen for the report was 13% of applicants needing additional drug testing (Idaho pg.10). The costs of the actual tests were broken down into various areas including contractor testing, rather than do the testing “in house”. These costs had to be added up based on cost per unit, annual cost of testing all recipients, and the annual cost of second drug testing required in 90 days for the 10% that failed the original screening. The 10% figure was obtained by averaging Michigan (8%) and Arizona (12.5%). The scenario one cost was $60,753, while the scenario two costs was $7,898 (Idaho pg.13). There has to be a second test for those that fail the original screening to rule out false positives and other legal substances that will skew a screening. The second screening will cost an additional $15 per drug being screened. As an example, if an eligible participant tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamines, then the second test will be $15 per drug, or $30. The confirming test costs are 19,695 for scenario one, and $2,565 for scenario two (Idaho pg.13). Additionally, extra staff will have to be assigned to administer the SASSI test for scenario two, at a total of $76,125 (Idaho pg. 14). There are also the health hazards to be considered with the handling of bodily fluids during testing and the random acts of violence (throwing) occurring by those in fear of losing benefits during the stressful times of drug screenings. The total estimated costs for state staff administering the tests for scenario one and two respectively are $1,166,591 and $243,157. Total costs of a third party administering the testing is $1,324,725 for scenario one and $263,681 for scenario two (Idaho pgs.17-18). After all costs and expenditures are weighed out, the total estimated savings from reduction of benefits for those that test positive are $13,905 for scenario one and $1,854 for scenario two. The interesting thing to note in the estimated savings is that there are no provisions made for the impending lawsuits. From the report; “As mentioned earlier in this report, Michigan was in a lawsuit over its attempt to implement a random drug testing program for public assistance recipients. The State of Idaho should be aware that if pursuing a random drug testing program, a lawsuit is likely.” (Idaho pg. 17). It should be also noted that as a condition of eligibility for TANF, the family must have dependent children (Ways and Means). The States that have participants that fails the drug tests are reducing the benefits by 25%, or transferring the dependent minor child benefits to a responsible third party (Heavin). This equates to a reduction of benefits of $77. The term limits imposed on TANF of two years concurrently, not to exceed five years in a lifetime (Ways and Means), will equate to a reduced lifetime benefit reduction of (5x12x77=) $4,620. The argument for the drug testing of welfare recipients is an extremely emotional subject. No one is suggesting turning a blind eye to drug use. The facts haven’t changed; drug use is bad for the economy and illegal. The argument to be made here is whether there should be more money allocated for the detection of drug use/abuse. Again, studies have shown that there is not a prevalence of drug use by those receiving TANF funds. Many lawmakers are introducing new bills without looking at the many studies proving the drug testing systems ineffectiveness. The studies show that the term limits themselves have reduced the TANF rolls by 60% (Maginnis). Those that test positive for controlled substances have their benefits reduced by $77, while they are enrolled into a government funded drug rehabilitation program that must be completed as a condition of reinstatement into the program. In conclusion, there will be those that will try to manipulate the system. Whether it is some of the affluent that manipulate taxes and credits, or some of those that receive the only source of federal funding subject to the drug testing requirements being implemented by the state. Federal TANF funding was 17.059 billion in 2010 (HHS). Compare that with the Internal Revenue Service’s estimate that the tax gap in 2005 was 345 billion in 2005 (IRS), which is over 20 times TANF funding. Instead of passing “feel good” legislation that inevitably ends up costing more than the legislation was designed to save, these same resources could be used to collect delinquent taxes owed to the U.S. The priorities seem to have shifted to the country’s poorest and politically weakest sector. If we could collect one-half of the taxes owed to the U.S. every year (345/2=172.5 billion), the U.S could then afford to implement drug testing for TANF recipients, and have enough left over to enroll those that fail the testing into government sponsored drug rehabilitation programs. The idea of drug testing welfare recipients is gaining popularity, but the total costs involved with the implementation of such a system will far outweigh any anticipated savings.   Works Cited American Civil Liberties Union. “Drug Testing of Public Assistance Recipients as a Condition of Eligibility.” ACLU.org. 8 April, 2008. Web. 12 April, 2011. Bradley, Ann “NIAAA Researchers Estimate Alcohol and Drug Use, Abuse, and Dependence among Welfare Recipients.” National Institutes of Health. 24 Oct. 1996. Web. 9 April, 2011. Clinton, William J. “32 WCPD 90 Address before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union.” U.S. Government Printing Office. Volume 32, Number 4. Pgs.90-98. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. 23 Jan. 1996. Web. 10 April, 2011. Committee on Ways and Means. “Summary of Welfare Reforms made by Public Law 104-193, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and Associated Legislation.” U.S. Government Printing Office. Pgs. 104-115. House Ways and Means Committee. 6 Nov. 1996. Print. 12 April, 2011. Heavin, Jane. “Drug Tests Seen as Welfare Rule: Substance Abuse would Sever Aid.” Columbia Daily Tribune. 4 Mar. 2009. Print.Newspaper Source Plus. EBSCOhost. NCLIVE. Web. 4 April, 2011. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. “Drug Testing Public Assistance Program Participants.” Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. 4 Feb. 2011. Print. 13 April 2011. Maginnis, John. “The test of Drug Testing.” New Orleans CityBusiness 24 Sept. 1998. Print. Vol. 19 Issue 4, p15, 1/2p. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCOhost. NCLIVE. Web. 11 April 2011. Poole, Ed. “Drug Testing Costs.” OHS Health and Safety Services. 2011. Web. 13 April, 2011. . Rokyta, Devin. “Editorial: Drug Abuse Treatment Programs Save Idaho Money.” Moscow- Pullman Daily News (ID) 18 Feb. 2011. Print. Newspaper Source Plus. EBSCOhost. NCLIVE. Web. 29 Mar. 2011. The Department of the Treasury. “Update on Reducing the Federal Tax Gap and Improving Voluntary Compliance”. IRS.gov. 8 July 2009. Web. 14 April 2011. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Fiscal Year 2010 Budget in Brief.” Dhhs.gov.No date. Web. 10 April 2011.