Drug Testing And Public Assistance In Florida

Why is it always Florida?  Ms. Alvarez of the NY Times tells us that their new law requiring Federal welfare recipients to pass a drug test is a bust but the publicaly available caseload numbers suggest she is wrong:

No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

MIAMI — Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.

“Many states are considering following Florida’s example, and the new data from the state shows they shouldn’t,” said Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state last year to stop the testing and recently obtained the documents. “Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t save money, as was proposed.”

Thank heaven for the ACLU, which will fight for your right to party.  On the taxpayer's dime.

The Florida civil liberties group sued the state last year, arguing that the law constituted an “unreasonable search” by the government, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In issuing a temporary injunction in October, Judge Mary S. Scriven of Federal District Court scolded lawmakers and said the law “appears likely to be deemed a constitutional infringement.”

From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,” the document said.

There must be another side to this, yes?

But supporters of the law said four months of numbers did little to discredit an effort they said was based on common sense. Drug users, no matter their numbers, should not be allowed to use taxpayer money, they said.

Is that really all the supporters said? Because a quick search with Google News turns up this story from the politically oriented Florida Current:

Welfare applications jump after injunction on drug testing

Gray Rohrer, 04/17/2012 - 04:30 PM

One month after a federal court judge in Miami issued a temporary injunction against a state law requiring welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits, the number of applications and the amount paid out by the state rose significantly.

Judge Mary Scriven issued the injunction in late October, and by December, applications for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families reached 146,020, a 10.5 percent increase from November. The total amount paid out by the Department of Children and Families, the state agency that administers the program, increased 7.9 percent to $12.5 million – by far the largest month-to-month increase for at least a decade. Since then, the monthly TANF payout has held steady between $12.58 million and $12.62 million in the first three months of 2012.

These guys are trying to make a living in online publishing, so hit their link for more.  A state spokesperson says that most of the jump was for other reasons, but we do note this:

About 2,000 of the 13,914-application increase in December came from people who were eligible for benefits but refused to take the drug test, Follick said.

Still, according to DCF figures, the largest monthly swing in the past 10 years came in February 2005, when the TANF payouts decreased 4.7 percent over the previous month. Plus, the increase in December came in a month when the unemployment rate dropped from 10 percent to 9.9 percent.

So the monthly change in December was double the previous record, but had very little to do with the drug testing injunction.  And even with that caveat, there could be 2,000 people who were deterred from filing for benefits, which might be worth adding to the 108 who took the test and failed.

And one wonders whether we are even talking about the same state. Per the Times, there were 4,086 applicants over the four month period when testing was in effect. But The Current says that there were 146,020 applications in December, up by 13,914. 

OK, maybe the 146,020 is the sum of an ongoing group supplemented by 13,914 newcomers. In which case, the state went from about 1,000 new applicants per month to 13,914 when the injunction on drug testing went into effect.

There does seem to be a story here.  However, since the Times knows which side they are on they let the story write itself, with help from the ACLU.

I'm going to post what I have while I keep poking at this.  As usual, I welcome assistance and insight.

MORE: From the Florida Department of Children and Families website (DCF) I get this report about their TANF caseload:

Don't be deceived by the scary scaling - although the October and November bars are only about half the height of the adjacent bars, the left axis starts at 46,000, not 0.

So we see about a ten percent drop in the caseload from spring 2011 to Oct/Nov 2011, followed by a ten percent rebound after the injunction against drug testing.

The law was signed on June 1 and went into effect on July 1. This pro-testing group, the Foundation for Government Accountability, noted an immediate drop in approvals and caseload:

What is unclear is why the total number of cash assistance approvals in July, even if all drug-related denials were to have been approved, is about 10 percent lower than June 2011. 

Last year, July 2010 approvals were higher than in June 2010.  August 2010 was higher than both June and July 2010.  Thus, this does not seem to be a seasonal fluctuation as the experience during the 2010 summer months was much different than during the 2011 summer months.  It may be a result of otherwise qualified drug users not even applying given the recent drug test requirement.  This trend will be studied further in future reports.  Given the significant decline in August 2011 approvals, it appears to be a very significant trend and quite likely related to the drug testing requirement, as the economy did not change radically from June through August.

I will say that the seeming anomaly held up in September, October and November.

From the DCF website the "Caseload" report (set to TANF expenditures) confirms the uptick in expenditures to $12.5 million and their subsequent numbers.  But I am not finding a report on "applications"; the open/closed caseload report also shows a big uptick in December, but not the 13,914 descibed by The Current.

Still, their theme - something big changed after the injunction - is certainly shown in the publicly available data, even if the ACLU press release as filtered by the Times missed it.

ANOTHER TAKE ON THE 'FAIL' RATE: The Times tells us that only 108 applicants failed the drug test.  The Foundation for Government Accountability provides a different perspective:

For the 7,028 welfare cash assistance applicants approved in the first quarter of the drug testing requirement, another 1,629 were denied for a drug-related reason.  All but 32 of these denials were because the applicants did not get the required drug test at one of 350 drug testing sites across the state.  Thus, in the first quarter, 19 percent of otherwise eligible applicants were denied for a drug-related reason.  For September, these drug-related denials were an astounding 35 percent of all otherwise eligible applicants, as shown in Table 1 on page 3.

If I am grasping this, in the first three months there were 32 outright fails and 1,597 walk-aways.  What a normal walk-away rate might be, and how that compares to the rate with the drug-testing rule in place, is not addressed here.

They make another good point:

The impact of drug testing for welfare cash assistance is having a dramatic impact on approvals for cash assistance.  Approvals for September 2011 (for cash assistance applicants for eligible adults subject to the drug testing requirement) were 62 percent lower than September 2010 and 48 percent lower than in June 2011, the month before the drug testing requirement took effect.[1]

This reduction is exclusive to cash assistance.  Food Stamps and Medicaid approvals are consistent with levels seen throughout 2010 and to date in 2011, as shown in Chart 1.

That drop in TANF cash assistance while Food Stamps and Medicaid stay flat can be seen at their link or by anyone who has downloaded the 'caseloads' Excel file.

I am becoming convinced that the Times picked a side with this coverage. Imagine my surprise.

HOOK, LINE, SINKER: Ed Kilgore of the Washington Monthy believes everything he reads in the Times. Memeorandum rounds up the dupes.

ACLU FACTOIDS: From the ACLU:

There is no heightened level of drug use amongst TANF recipients. Indeed in 2011 just 2 percent of Florida drug tests came back positive for drugs during the law’s brief implementation. That is a rate four times lower than the estimated drug use of Floridians ages 12 and up, according to Justice Department estimates.

That ignores the people who took a pass on both the test and collecting benefits.

On the other hand, Florida is not testing for alcohol use (which is legal but can certainly be abused). I would say that society is drifting towards treating marijuana on  par with alcohol, and as the ACLU notes

Drug tests identify drug usage, not substance abuse problems, and most positive tests identify marijuana users, rather than individuals struggling with addiction.

I suspect that if most tests identify marijuana users it is because marijuana lingers in the system.  As to the many applicants who decline to take the drug test, I imagine data is sparse as to their drug(s) of choice.

One more:

Sanctions on TANF recipients will fall heavily on children. The majority, roughly 75%, of TANF beneficiaries are children from impoverished families.6  Removing or restricting assistance due to the behavior of a parent punishes the child for circumstances beyond his or her control. This proposal would also exacerbate existing stigma associated with receiving unemployment, TANF or other public benefits, and could potentially deter struggling individuals from applying for aid.

Drug testing "exacerbates the stigma"?  Why? Why couldn't an aid recipient wear with pride the notion that he/she cleaned up for the kids?

And if drug testing might deter strugging individuals, it might also motivate them to clean up their act.

All that said, at some point the kids are being held hostage by the parents and We the People need to have some thoughts about how to aproach that.

The ACLU is advocating, not informing. And the Times is not conducting a two-sided debate.

Comments

[Friend or Foe?]

Ronulans Ho!
========

[iqvoice]

I agree with the ACLU... welfare programs are clearly unconstitutional.

[Rob Crawford]

They can have their protection from unlawful search and seizure when I get my protection from taking without compensation.

And they can wallow in all the drugs they want once it's clear working people won't be forced to support their burnt out husks.

[GMax]

Hey Barack, tastes like chicken?

[My placard for a poesy festivus, cancelled by global warming(severe weather warnings)]

Tax poets
Line and rhyme.
Not poor clockslaves
For their time.
========

[Always the short one, it seems.]

I believe this Krazy Kaptcha is doing Rorschach testing on us. I've only failed once, and I can usually only read one of the two words.
=============

[AliceH]

If only they thought to mandate drug tests as part of the commerce clause...

[Or those whose implanted GPS chip is malfunctioning.]

Drug test at the voting booth. Disenfranchise those ridin' clean.
====================

[AliceH]

The "temporary injunction" link seems to go to the wrong case.

I think this is the one re: welfare/drug testing:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2011/10/floridas-mandatory-drug-testing-for-welfare-recipients-enjoined-by-federal-judge.html#trackback

[fdcol63]

Personally, I think just about anyone can clean up and be sober long enough to apply for and start receiving welfare.

But it would be harder to STAY off drugs for longer.

Thus, what's really needed is random testing while people are ON welfare.

[AliceH]

At first glance, it looks to me as though the cost-benefit argument wasn't even considered as a legitimate argument in the injunction reasoning (though the opportunity to poke at it with funny numbers was not resisted). Rather, the judge found find the State did not make the case that non-suspicion based drug tests as an eligibility requirement met the "special needs" exception.

I'll read the injunction article more closely tomorrow and see if there's more clarity then.

[Jack is Back!]

We just added random drug testing for State employees and teachers (I think they are included).

[Ignatius J Donnelly]

Public assistance I can see, but drug testing for job applicants is a waste of time.
Test for the likelyhood of unnecessary surgeries, FMLA and baked goods dependancy.
That would get my support.

[Greg Q]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around how the Left can believe that it's acceptable for the Federal government to force every person to buy health "insurance" policies as a condition of living, but it's not acceptable for the State of Florida to say "we're not going to give money to drug users."

The best I can come up with is "to the Left, all money, everywhere, is theirs." Certainly they don't believe in personal autonomy, since if they did, my right to decide not to buy health insurance would trump their desire that I do it.

[DanInMN]

Wait, so its okay for my last job offer to be contingent on a drug test (which I passed of course) but the 3 or 4 welfare leeches I support through my excessive taxation can do all the drugs they want....got it.

I'm a libertarian, I think in a perfect world, people should be allowed to ingest whatever they like, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences. As a corollary to that, employers should be allowed to choose not to hire people who ingest mind altering substances.

But we don't live in that world and people who live off the sweat of others should not be allowed to continue their self-destruction on our dime.

[Eugene V Debs]

We are like the Borg. We will assimilate you.

[AliceH]

The objection seems centered on the blanket eligibility drug test regardless of suspicion bit. I wonder if a two step process would get through, step 1 being lower maximum benefits across the board, step 2 being offering additional benefits conditioned upon passing a drug test.

Actually, I have no doubt there'd be lawsuits about that also - just curious what the argument would shift to.

[Greg Q]

Alice,

They can still get non-cash benefits w/o passing a drug test, it's only the cash benefits they can't get, assuming I'm reading things correctly.

I really don't see anything wrong with the people of Florida saying they don't want to buy illegal drugs for people.

[M. Simon]

Social Engineering Begets Social Engineering by Eric at Classical Values.

OK. You drive drug users off welfare. Excellent!

Now of course such people will be unable to get jobs as well. Well what will they do? What they have to do. Turn to a life of crime. And Drug Selling is easy to get into. No barriers to entry or exit (like a real job market - not a government controlled one).

And because people on welfare don't need a lot it will drive the price of drugs down. Further.

And on top of that you are enabling the government to develop even more SWAT teams and enforcers. What happens when they turn those forces on you? Fools.

And for all those Conservatives who love the UN [/sarc], the UN has a large Drug Prohibition Division. They have a plan to suit every political persuasion.

Any thing you do to expand government will eventually be used against you. Fools.

[M. Simon]

When you sign on to moral socialism you give the economic socialists license. Because they think economics is a moral issue.

[Greg Q]

M. Simon,

That's was amazingly disjointed. Did you write it while on drugs?

1: It's the people of Florida's money. If they don't want to give it to drug users, that's their right.

2: You are assuming that drug users are helpless pawns of the drugs, and aren't capable of acting like rational human beings. Since a rational human being would say "hey, I need welfare more than I need drugs." That's rather bigoted of you.

3: I'm pretty sure most supermarkets don't drug test their baggers. Are drug users going to have a hard time getting good jobs? Quite possibly. Whose fault is that?

[plemmen]

Under the plan the "children" would not be affected, just the parent(s). A surrogate for the benefit of minor children would be able to accept TANF funds as well as food stamps for the benefit of the minor children. Be advised that I am hearing grumbling that the federal government cutoff for TANF funds is dependent children 18 and below. The grumbling is regarding "all them rich MF'ers what live on momma and daddy's insurance til they 26, MF'ers needs ta pay me fo ma babies til dey 26" is a more or less direct quote from my neighbor (6 children, three over the age of 18, all three in prison for drug dealing, not a one with the same father).