Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MindMover

(5,016 posts)
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 04:25 PM Apr 2012

Just 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

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
2. Y'all can save twice as much!
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 04:30 PM
Apr 2012


Meanwhile, some politically connected testing lab rakes in the $$$$.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
3. It was never about saving money..
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 04:33 PM
Apr 2012

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)
6. It was about lining the pockets of Rick Scott's privatized drug testing cronies
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 04:49 PM
Apr 2012

Wasn't his wife or other close relative the private company who profited from administering these tests?

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
8. I believe so..
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 04:52 PM
Apr 2012

Follow the money, best single piece of political advice in the history of the world..

KT2000

(20,577 posts)
10. seem to recall something like that
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 04:58 PM
Apr 2012

repugs don't mind spending tax money - just as long as it goes to the "right" people - the wealthy.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
16. +1
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 02:05 PM
Apr 2012

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)
5. I've heard the "rebuttal argument"
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 04:41 PM
Apr 2012

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)
7. Random drug testing their public employees
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 04:51 PM
Apr 2012

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)
9. Are you kidding me!!!!!!
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 04:53 PM
Apr 2012

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)
11. The whole point was never about "saving" anything at all.
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 05:01 PM
Apr 2012



It was all about putting a lot of money in Rick (the Medicare Thief) Scott's pocket.


UTUSN

(70,686 posts)
12. R#11 & K for, predictable outcomes of Wingnutism. Oh wait, it's ONLY the ACLU!1
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 05:02 PM
Apr 2012

I don't really need to add the sarcasm smilie, do I.

 

Egalitariat

(1,631 posts)
13. Did the study say anything about savings from people who would have otherwise applied for benefits,
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 05:07 PM
Apr 2012

but decided against it because of the testing?

frylock

(34,825 posts)
14. the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 05:33 PM
Apr 2012

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.

 

SATIRical

(261 posts)
15. Really?
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 01:58 PM
Apr 2012

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)
17. the question was whether the required testing discouraged people from enrolling..
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 03:28 PM
Apr 2012

the study also states that yes, people already enrolled in the system opted not to test.

 

SATIRical

(261 posts)
18. Where did you see that it didn't discourage people from enrolling?
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 04:07 PM
Apr 2012

"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.

 

SATIRical

(261 posts)
20. Then how can you claim " the testing program didn't deter individuals from applying for help"? (nt)
Fri Apr 20, 2012, 09:52 AM
Apr 2012
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Just as We Suspected: Flo...