General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJust as We Suspected: Florida Saved Nothing by Drug Testing Welfare Applicants
Last year Florida became the first state to pass and fully implement a bill mandating suspicionless drug testing of all applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The law mandated that all applicants pay for the cost of the drug test themselves, and that they be reimbursed if their test came back negative. The law was in effect for a mere four months before the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit and a federal court blocked the law, saying it was unconstitutional.
Today the New York Times released the most comprehensive data yet on how the law fared during the short period of time it was in effect. We already knew that the law was a failure; what we didn't know was just how much of a failure it was.
In the four months that Florida's law was in place, the state drug tested 4,086 TANF applicants. A mere 108 individuals tested positive. To put it another way, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs a rate more than three times lower than the 8.13 percent of all Floridians, age 12 and up, estimated by the federal government to use illegaldrugs. Now might be a good time to remind folks that in the debate over the bill, Gov. Rick Scott argued that this law was necessary because, he said, welfare recipients used drugs at a higher rate than the general population.
The utter absurdity of this law is magnified when you realize how much it cost the state of Florida to run this program. The data released today shows that Florida spent $118,140 reimbursing the overwhelming number of Florida TANF applicants 3,938 to be exact who tested negative for drugs. That is far more than any money saved by the program, at a net cost to the State of over $45,000. And that's only part of the cost to the state to run this program. There are also the administrative costs, staff costs, and, of course, the litigation costs. Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/just-we-suspected-florida-saved-nothing-drug-testing-welfare
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)Let's see how that works out.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Meanwhile, some politically connected testing lab rakes in the $$$$.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Humiliating those who apply for assistance and funneling money to politically connected testing labs was the motivation.
A win-win for the politicians..
Blue Owl
(50,356 posts)Wasn't his wife or other close relative the private company who profited from administering these tests?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Follow the money, best single piece of political advice in the history of the world..
KT2000
(20,577 posts)repugs don't mind spending tax money - just as long as it goes to the "right" people - the wealthy.
Pathetic thing is, the Dem in the race, Alex Sink, said she was open to this as well. Great way of appealing to low-income voters.
zbdent
(35,392 posts)and it is PATHETIC ...
the "argument" goes, more or less, "Hey, I'm glad that it caught 2 or 3 people. The cost doesn't matter. The money's not wasted."
Of course, whenever it's a penny for a social service ... it's wasteful spending ... which should be used to subsidize oil companies.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Let's see how many druggies they catch with that. You must be a druggie for being a civil service employee and not owning or working in a private for profit business, on the government dole. Watch out, Grannie, you will be next for your SS and Medicare. Where is you nice fat 401K that you can pay for your own retirement and health insurance? You must be a low life and a druggie too.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)It cost $45k for the thrill of humiliating the poor, but it is good entertainment.
Who cares about (or can spell) efficacy?
lpbk2713
(42,757 posts)It was all about putting a lot of money in Rick (the Medicare Thief) Scott's pocket.
UTUSN
(70,686 posts)I don't really need to add the sarcasm smilie, do I.
Egalitariat
(1,631 posts)but decided against it because of the testing?
frylock
(34,825 posts)Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases.
So no one decided not to take the drug test? The loss of 330 (8% of 4200) applicants would not show up as a statistical anomaly for those 3 months.
Sorry, I'm not buying that.
frylock
(34,825 posts)the study also states that yes, people already enrolled in the system opted not to test.
SATIRical
(261 posts)"Furthermore, the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help an internal document about TANF caseloads revealed that, at least from July through September, the policy did not lead to fewer cases."
Is all I saw. That is not a legitimate measure. If someone went to enroll and found they were going to be tested, did any back out? All it would take is a couple of hundred to skew the results, which would be in the noise for overall enrollments.