Kyle Bowler
Final Research Paper
April 23, 2012
Will Drug Testing Help the Welfare System?
There are many pros and cons regarding drug testing welfare recipients before they are able to receive financial benefits. My paper will give a short description of what welfare is and when the first testing program was introduced. I will give reasons why some people believe it is a violation of their rights, how testing is not fail proof, and how the cost will be greater than the benefit. I will give the opposing sides arguments from those that are in favor of drug testing and believe it will benefit the welfare system, help the children and the parents if they are using drugs, and also save the taxpayers money. Government leaders and most of the general public are looking at it from a financial point of view while welfare recipients are viewing it from a constitutional point of view. It is a double edged sword because it is the governmental court system and the judges that are not backing the drug testing idea because of the 4th Amendment.
What is Welfare?
Welfare is a public assistance program designed to help people who are not able to support themselves fully. The online site Welfare Information states that Welfare encompasses those government programs that provide benefits and economic assistance to no or low income individuals. It can also be defined as financial assistance to impoverished individuals which is supplied through the taxes paid by the working class. Improving the quality of life and living standards for the poor and underprivileged is one of the main goals of welfare (Welfare Information). When a person is not receiving an income, or only has low earnings, they may be eligible for welfare benefits that will help meet a satisfactory standard of living by providing a minimum amount of financial assistance. These benefits are provided from the income of the working class people through the social security taxes that are deducted from their paychecks (Welfare Information).
A quote from the Missouri State Constitution says: "all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness...all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design." In other words, when the government welfare system does not help you, it fails at its primary purpose, to ensure people are treated equally and given the opportunities to have lives worth living. Government welfare programs exist for the purpose of serving those in need (Missouri Secretary of State).
The first drug testing program
Michigan introduced the first drug testing program in 1999. The Drug Detection Report. 9.22 (Nov. 18, 1999): p169 stated that October 1999, Michigan's Family Independence Agency put in place the nation's first program requiring welfare applicants and recipients to take a urine test as a condition of receiving benefits. Refusal to submit to a drug test or failure to comply with a substance abuse treatment plan could lead to denial of income support and other benefits under the Michigan program for families with dependent children (Drug Detention Report). U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts soon after issued a temporary restraining order just five weeks after the program was in operation. The courts stated that it would reconsider it again if the bill had a clause requiring “probable cause” before administering the test. The American Civil Liberties Union (Nov 10, 1999) claimed that the drug tests showed an eight percent positive rate, a percentage that they claim is consistent with the general population. Of 268 people who were tested, 21 tested positive for drugs. All but three of the positive results were for marijuana (ACLU). This was the start of many bills being proposed using different wording.
Those against testing stand firm on their beliefs
The most powerful argument against drug testing for welfare benefits stems from the constitutional standpoint. Organizations such as the ACLU have argued that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from being searched without probable cause (ACLU).
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
One of the loudest voices against drug testing comes from the ACLU. In an article in the August 2010 issue of Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly it stated that Michael J. Steinberg the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and attorney Greg Gibbs of Flint wrote a letter to the CEO of the Flint Housing Commission reminding him of the Michigan court ruling by U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts to issue the temporary restraining order, in that unless there is a public safety concern, "suspicionless" testing of all welfare recipients was a violation of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure (Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly). Even though the letter was defending the rights regarding governmental housing it went on to state that "Flint housing tenants would be subjected to humiliating tests only because they are receiving assistance from the government. Yet, corporate executives and individuals who receive government funds are not forced to urinate in a cup as a condition of receiving funds." The letter went on to give executives of General Motors, who received a federal bailout, as examples. Another point that was stated in the same letter was that mandatory drug testing was an "ineffective" and "fiscally irresponsible" way to deal with drug abuse. Instead of drug tests, which cost an average of $42 each not including the costs of running the program, the money would be better spent on training government workers to screen and refer, and to expanding the treatment system (Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly).
The United States Supreme Court has definitively ruled that urine testing is an intrusion on privacy, both during collection of the sample and when the sample is tested. In an online article by UCLA Professor of Law, Adam Winkler June, 2011 he writes that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that government collection and testing of urine constitutes a “search” subject to the demands of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. When the testing is carried out by a government agency it falls under the regulation of the fourth amendment. As a result, probable cause must exist prior to conducting a drug test (Winkler). Cheylen Davis of the Free Lance Star wrote many Senators are in agreement that drug testing is a violation of individual’s rights and is a bad idea as the following opinions state:
Senator Yvonne Miller (D-Norfolk) asked "Are we testing any other group of people for drugs besides poor people? It's clear what's really going on here: some legislators think that poor folks are more likely to abuse drugs -- which is just not true. The state should never single out a single group of people for discrimination" (Davis, Chelyen).
Senator Mark Herring of Virginia said, "Very few of those who qualify for temporary public assistance use illegal drugs. This new $2.7 million program will, in fact, cost Virginia taxpayers more than it will save, and divert resources away from families truly in need" (Davis, Chelyen).
Sen. Mamie Locke (D-Hampton) said, "We give money to plenty of organizations and people without testing them for drugs. Why aren't we drug testing the employees of Virginia corporations we give tax credits to? What about the CEOs of companies that have state contracts? I am appalled by conservatives who just don't respect the work ethic of poor Virginians" (Davis, Chelyen).
The benefits of drug testing
It is not uncommon to hear people expressing their concerns about how their tax dollars are spent. The subject is in the news everyday with the political debates and the upcoming elections. The Associated Press Published on February 24, 2012 that Conservatives who say welfare recipients should have to pass a drug test in order to receive government assistance have momentum on their side. The issue has come up in the Republican presidential campaign, with front-runner Mitt Romney saying "it's an excellent idea" (Drug abuse weekly).
Florida’s Governor Rick Scott believes drug testing is the right thing to do, he states in a news article in CNN Politics “It’s the right thing for taxpayers. It’s the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don’t want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs.” In a newsletter for “Michaels House” a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center dated July 8, 2011 it stated that the incentive not to use drugs is a positive aspect to the new legislation. If knowing that your cash aid depended upon your ability to produce a clean sample and pass a drug test could help you to stay clean, then it’s likely that you’ll be able to spend your time going to school or looking for a better job that pays more than welfare and so more quickly reduce your need for state assistance. Working Americans pay taxes on the money that they earn and those taxes are used for programs such as welfare. If a person has to pass a drug test to be employed and pays taxes, people receiving these programs should have to pass a drug test to be able to receive them (CNN Politics).
In an article in The New York Times, October 11, 2011 Ellen Brandom, a Republican state representative in Missouri feels that “Working people today work very hard to make ends meet, and it just doesn’t seem fair to them that their tax dollars go to support illegal things.” Supporters of the policies note that public assistance is meant to be transitional and that drug tests are increasingly common requirements for getting jobs (New York Times). In another article from the Saginaw News posted on MLive, January 6, 2012, Representative Ken Horn, R-Frankenmuth, says he supports drug testing welfare recipients.“We want to make sure tax dollars that are being paid in the state of Michigan are being used for their intended purpose,” (MLive).
Unfortunately, Testing is not always right
As with all test there are reasons that the results aren’t always correct. As stated in the USA Today September4, 2004 Drug testing is inconsistent, and false positives are common. According to “Poppy Seed Peril: Eat a Bagel, Lose Your Baby." Reason an online magazine Mar. 2011. Drug testing is not always foolproof. Elizabeth Mort and Alex Rodriguez had been home from the hospital for barely a day when caseworkers from Lawrence County Children and Youth Services, accompanied by a police officer, came and took their newborn baby. The officials kept the child for five days before admitting they had made a mistake--all because of a poppy seed bagel. Mort ate the bagel two hours before she was admitted to New Castle's Jameson Hospital, where her daughter, Isabella, was born on April 27. She did not realize that her snack could trigger a positive urinalysis result for opiates or that the hospital has a policy of reporting such results to the county (Reason Mar. 2011).
It is apparent that mistakes can be made and that many determining factors must be considered based on each individual. There are different things that can cause a failed test for example, food and prescription drugs can show up as positive drug use in test results.
Will the cost of testing out weigh the savings?
There are 4 common ways that a person can be tested for drug usage. The oldest and the most prevalent is the urine test. It is the cheapest and the fastest way to check for drug usage followed by a saliva test or better known as a mouth swab. It is a bit more expensive than a urine test, but still considerable cheaper than a hair and blood tests. In MLive from the Saginaw News it is stated that it is unclear how much drug testing welfare recipients would cost — 12 states were surveyed by the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation for the federal Department of Health and Human Services, who found costs ranged from $92,487 to $20 million. In Michigan, that would not prove a net savings. States at the higher end of the price spectrum also included drug treatment in their costs. Urinalysis runs from $25 to $44 per test and hair follicle testing costs $75 to $150 per test (MLive).
In an article in The Chicago Now written by , January 5, 2012 she states that Florida's program, according to the Tampa Tribune found that drug testing did save the state a bit of money: 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 reimbursements 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. Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 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 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year (Cottrell).
In a report by Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health it states that during the implementation of mandatory drug testing for welfare benefits in three offices in Michigan only 21 people out of the 258 who were tested showed positive results for illicit substances. I decided to use these figures and do some calculations of my own. If I calculate 258 people tested x 35.00 per test (-) 21 failures not reimbursed it would total $8295.00 a month for a total cost of 99,540.00 a year to test. Then if I calculate 21 failures each month for a year = (252) since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits based on $372.00 a month which was the average monthly welfare benefit in 2006 (Wall Street Journal Election 2012) that would total 372.00 (state savings) a month or 4464.00 each year per person x 252 persons a year for a total of 1,124,928.00 per year. Based on this calculation it would save the state 1,025,388.00 a year to test for drugs than what it would cost the state. But unfortunately that is only for the test. There are many other cost that need to be calculated into this total such as laboratory fees, staff time to administer the test, staff time to monitor compliance and eligibility, staff time to deal with increased administrative hearings, modifying computer programs to include drug testing eligibility, substance abuse treatment, and legal fees if the law is challenged. The American Civil Liberties Union estimates that for every individual user discovered, the state’s expenses would be $20,000 or more (ACLU). Calculating this figure based on 252 people, it would cost 5,040,000.00 which will cost the state more than 4 million dollars in expenses. I have found after much research that every state will vary. The cost of treatment depending on the type and extent will be the determining cost factor.
Medscape News Today posted an article stating on March 29, 2005 the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University released a document about some alarming health risks. Specifically, parents who use illegal drugs, abuse alcohol, and use tobacco put 50% of the nation's children, more than 35 million at increased risk of substance abuse and of physical and mental illness (Medscape). The CASA paper also documented that parents who abuse alcohol or illicit drugs are 3 times more likely to abuse their children and 4 times likelier to neglect them than parents who do not abuse these substances( Medscape). Drug testing welfare parents would be one way to monitor the safety of the children. If the parent is found to be using drugs the welfare benefits would be given to a family member such as a grandparent for the care of the child, and the parent would be able to receive the help they need.
Drug testing is not uncommon in the United States. The following drug test timeline was found online at jenkinslegal.com. This timeline shows that drug testing has been being used for many years and has never been a violation of the rights of the individuals taking one.
A TIMELINE OF DRUG TESTING IN THE UNITED STATES
1967 - Presidency, candidate Richard Nixon declares law-and-order the number one goal of his administration with special emphasis on a War on Drugs: "As I look over the problems in this country, "I see one that stands out particularly – the problem of narcotics."
1969 -Washington, D.C. Department of Corrections tests the urine of 129 District prisoners in an effort to prove a casual relationship between crime and drugs.
1971 - The Pentagon prepares to randomly drug test soldiers returning from Vietnam.
1975 - The U.S. Supreme Court declared constitutional an "administrative search exception" to the Fourth Amendment [Committee for GI Rights v. Callaway 518 F. 2D 466, 474 D.C. Cir. 1975] with regard to random drug testing of military personnel.
1985 - Urine testing was a $100 million business. Twenty-five percent of the Fortune 500 corporations had some kind of urine-testing program in place.
1986 - President Reagan issued Executive Order 12564 requiring federal agencies to set up urine testing programs for the purpose of creating ‘drug-free federal workplaces
1987 - The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, finds urine testing of federal prison guards to be constitutional [McDonell v. Hunter, 809 F. 2d 1302 ]
1988 - The U.S 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, finds urine testing of nuclear power plant employees to be constitutional [Rushton v. Nebraska Pub Power Dst, 844 F. 2D 562]
1989 - The United States Supreme Court, finds that all Custom Service employees seeking promotions to certain "sensitive positions” to submit to urinalysis regardless of probable cause or individualized suspicion of drug use. The testing policy had the potential to infringe upon the Fourth Amendment rights of over 120,000 Federal employees.
1988 - Congress passes the Drug Free Workplace Act requiring companies awarded federal contracts to institute drug testing as a condition of the contract.
1991 - Congress requires random drug testing for any U.S. Worker in safety sensitive positions, such as police officers, firefighters, and public transportation.
1995 - The U.S. Supreme Court favors Washington School District law mandating mass urinalysis for high school and junior high athletes regardless of individual suspicion.
1998 - The U.S. Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation encouraging states to drug test all teenage drivers’ license applicants.
2002 - The U.S. Supreme Court approves suspicionless student drug testing mandating drug testing for all students who wish to participate in any extracurricular activities, including, for example, the chess club, the Honor Society and the marching band (Drug Testing Timeline).
According to an online blog from Nikki Nielson she states that if you’re not a drug user, than taking a few seconds to give someone proof of that at ultimately no cost to you, shouldn’t be a problem. Drug use will keep people from succeeding, it will continue to hold them down, and by allowing them to receive a government check, or any government assistance, isn't the government enabling those few to stay addicted and not have to strive for the next level of success? A drug test may be just what some people need to open their eyes to the world around them. An ultimatum that says, you can stay on welfare, but you are going to have to follow some rules or you can get off of welfare and do what you please. The choice is theirs, to be clean and get a check, or to lay high on whatever they are choosing and not get a check.
Another blog states: This situation begs the question: if a gainfully employed, well-respected man who pays taxes is required to submit urine for periodic narcotic testing, why does the government not require these same tests for recipients of tax-funded programs? Government employees themselves are required to submit to random drug tests. Why is a government-funded program recipient exempt?
According to the March 2012 Newsletter “Governing” numerous states have come to the conclusion that it's cheaper to treat addicts than it is to lock them up. And part of "treating" addicts is often not only getting them into effective drug treatment programs, but also getting them things like stable, affordable housing, job training, and food (Walters, Jonathon, March 2012 Newsletter “Governing).
I believe that I have given you, the reader an opportunity to draw your own conclusion to the welfare drug testing issue. I have given you information from those that oppose it and from those that are for testing. I have factored in cost calculations and opinions to help make an argumentative decision.
Welfare Information
Provides me with basic background information towards welfare.
Missouri Secretary of State: Missouri Constitution
Provides me with a scholar article, Great source towards information on drug testing for welfare.
American Civil Liberties Union
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly
Winkler, Adam (2011) Constitutional Rights
Provides me with a scholar article, Great source towards information on drug testing for welfare.
Davis, Chelyen (2012) House approves welfare drug testing published 02/2012
Provides me with a scholar article, Great source towards information on drug testing for welfare.
CNN Politics
Provides me with a scholar article, Great source towards information on drug testing for welfare.
Michaels House Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Pros and Cons
USA TODAY Pros and Cons to Drug Testing (Sept 2004)
Provides me with a scholar article, Great source towards information on drug testing for welfare.
Sullum, Jacob (Mar 2011) Poppy Seed Peril: Eat a Bagel, Lose Your Baby." Reason Magazine
Sulzberger, A. G. (Oct 2011) States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/us/.html
Provides me with a scholar article, Great source towards information on drug testing for welfare.
Editorial Board (January 2012) In the Margins
Pollack, Danziger, Jayakody and Seefeldt Drug Testing Welfare Recipients http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/research/pdf/drugtest.pdf
Election 2012
, (January 2012) Is Drug Testing Cost Effective
Drug Testing Timeline
Provides me with a background of different drug testing programs.
Markel, Howard MD PhD, Parents and Substance Abuse posted 4/29/05
Walters, Jonathon, March 2012 Newsletter “Governing
Kyle--this is thoroughly researched and well-organized! Excellent work on this project; see my detailed comments on the word copy of your project. Thanks for your hard work this semester!
ReplyDeleteMonarch Recovery is an intensive outpatient drug treatment center and IOP Program in Ventura CA They offer the highest level of care because they do care about the people they help. Patient care comes first and foremost with this addiction treatment center located in Ventura, CA. If you or a loved one is suffering from addiction, I highly recommend reaching out to Monarch Recovery. You can call them at (805) 427-6504, they are located at 1445 Donlon St STE 15 Ventura, CA 93003
ReplyDeleteThis article is excellent, I appreciate your effort here
ReplyDeletedot consultant near me