Last summer, Tennessee became one of 12 states requiring drug testing of certain welfare recipients prior to receiving benefits. Six months after the fact, the number of recipients who have been denied benefits due to suspected drug use is relatively small. Similar results have been reported among other states with drug testing programs in place. Depending on who you talk to, the laws and their respective results can be good or bad.
Before getting to the debate, let us look at the raw numbers from Tennessee. According to the Tennessean, just over 16,000 people applied for the state's Family First cash assistance program from July through December of last year. Thirty-seven were denied benefits after testing positive for drugs. Another 81 applicants did not complete the application process after being asked to take a drug test. That means 107 people would be considered, at least statistically, to have been impacted by Tennessee's law.
Some Tennessee lawmakers hail the low numbers as proof that the law is working. They claim that the mere threat of being caught encourages welfare recipients to stay off drugs. However, such thinking is pedestrian, at best. On the other end of the scale, those who oppose drug testing of welfare recipients claim such laws discriminate against the poor under the false assumption that they are more likely to use drugs than other recipients of government benefits. Their thinking is equally pedestrian.
Structuring the Laws
In order to get to the heart of the debate, one must understand how drug testing laws for welfare recipients are structured. All of the states that now have drug-testing programs in place have written their laws in such a way as to avoid the same fate suffered by the Florida law late last year. That law was struck down by an appeals court that determined it was discriminatory because it forced all recipients of welfare benefits to undergo screening regardless of whether or not there was reasonable cause. The court ruled that such a broad application violated individual protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
In response to that ruling, Tennessee and the other states modified their regulations to make them 'suspicion-based'. In Tennessee, it works like this: all new welfare applicants must complete a three-question drug screening designed to determine whether a suspicion of drug use exists. If an applicant answers 'yes' to any of the questions, they are required to take a drug test prior to receiving benefits. Here's the problem: applicants can lie. And to believe there is no lying taking place is to also believe that drug users are willing to admit, on paper, that they use.
System Inherently Flawed
When one looks honestly at mandatory drug testing laws for welfare recipients, it is easy to see that the system is inherently flawed. If requiring a drug test violates the constitutional protection against unwarranted search and seizure, then a basis of suspicion must be established in order to require a test. Nonetheless, the method for establishing suspicion is flawed if it depends on people being honest about something that would result in a denial of benefits. Simply put, why would the average drug user admit his or her behavior knowing full well that it would destroy any hope of receiving welfare?
The fact that 37 people in Tennessee did respond in the affirmative is fairly surprising. Perhaps they were unaware of what the possible consequences of their drug use involved. Alternatively, perhaps they truly were honest people who wanted to do the right thing. Kudos to them if that is the case. However, it is quite likely that the vast majority of welfare recipients who do use drugs will, and do, lie about it.
Incidentally, the state of Tennessee spent just over $5,000 to administer the drug-testing program through its first six months. They have not said officially how much money they have saved in unpaid benefits as a result of the 107 people who ended up not on welfare. But that is something to seriously consider.
Should welfare recipients continue to be tested for drug use in Tennessee and the other 11 states with such laws? If so, is the current suspicion-based model sufficient when a questionnaire is used to establish suspicion? Tennessee may have succeeded in keeping 100 or so people off the welfare rolls, but it is hard to believe there are no other drug users among the remaining 15,900 to be approved for benefits last year.
Comments