In some states, it has been discussed that all recipients of public funds be drug tested before money can be received. In some instances, this act of drug testing would be for individuals receiving food stamps, cash welfare benefits, and unemployment compensation. In other states, it is only people receiving benefits under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) that would be affected. There are people who support both sides of these issues. There have been correlations found between drug use and welfare dependency . For some, drug testing should be done since people are receiving funds from tax dollars. These same people may be subject to drug testing as a means of their employment. Therefore, it is argued, people being supported by their tax dollars should undergo the same scrutiny. Proponents for the other side stipulate that peoples’ 4th Amendment rights are violated, the right to not be subject to search and seizure, if there is mandatory drug testing . Additionally, it is a violation of civil rights and liberties, assumes welfare recipients are drug users, reduces the potential for employment to be had, and there is no child care available for parents if they are in treatment . Literature shows that most people on welfare do not use drugs . Lastly, some studies indicate that welfare would only be reduced from three percent to five percent if drug testing policies were placed on recipients . This paper will explore both sides of the issue and provide examples of court cases which support each side as well.
West Virginia is just one state to consider the drug testing of recipients of TANF, food stamps, and unemployment compensation. If a participant fails the test, they would be retested two months later. If the second drug test is failed, at that time their benefits would be revoked. In Hawaii, a similar bill would enable random drug testing of welfare recipients. The rationale would be that recipients may be using money provided to them by the government to fund their drug buying habits. Arizona has introduced the concept of drug testing as a means to be able to balance the budget. If recipients tested positive, their benefits would be revoked the first time. The Arizona state Department of Economic Security. There are opponents of the bill, however, that argue that if benefits are taken away from parents, it is the children who will suffer .
In 1996, the Welfare Reform Act, which created the present TANF program, stated that states are required to perform drug test on welfare recipients but that the funds that are earmarked for TANF cannot pay for the testing. States could use Medicaid or other funds to cover the cost of the testing program. Opponents state that by using Medicaid money to test welfare recipients’ money is being drained from a fund that needs to cover other expenses as a priority. Also, the TANF mandate does not call for any type of treatment program to be required nor can TANF money be used to fund drug treatment programs. Additionally, by pulling mothers away from their children, states Malika Saada Sarr, director of The Rebecca Project for Human Rights, children will be pulled away from a stable family situation. Family treatment programs should be a part of the solution and included in any states’ reform mandate plans .
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) completed an analysis in 2008 that estimated that lab fees alone for testing welfare program participants would be $42 just for the lab fees. The Legal Action Center noted that by implementing mandatory testing, there may be some saved welfare dollars, but more money would be spent on criminal justice and health care expenses. Additionally, the Legal Action Center noted that the proposed drug test only detect recent drug use, do not test for alcohol, and add stress to the relationship formed between clients and their caseworkers .
However, 61% of employees in the United States undergo drug testing of some form at their place of employment. Proponents say if those paying the taxes to support government programs are getting tested, the recipients of these programs should be tested as well .
Arizona opponents to drug testing inquire as to how the safety and welfare of the children of those who test positive will be protected. Just in the state of Arizona, 84,000 welfare recipients live in 38,500 households. Of those who do receive benefits, 63,000 of them are minors. In just Arizona, testing of welfare recipients is estimated to cost the government $3.4 million. This is just for the testing to be completed. There is no treatment of any kind included in these numbers .
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has taken a slightly different approach to the idea of testing welfare recipients for drug use. They implemented a six month trial program in one county to test recipients who are currently on probation or those that, in the past five years, have had a felony drug conviction. These recipients do not have the same constitutional right to privacy as does the average citizen. If it appears to be working after three months, the program will be expanded to include two other counties, each one for a six month period of time. Failing the drug test means a referral to a county drug and alcohol center and a second failed screening would result in benefits being revoked for 12 months. A third failure permanently bars an individual from receiving benefits. The estimated savings in welfare costs for the program when it gets rolled out statewide, if that happens, is projected to be around $400 million .
An article in Columbia, MO, states that by targeting welfare recipients for drug testing that the government would only be targeting people who get government payments. The article further implies the law would be treating all government assistance recipients as potential drug offenders . The Texan version of the bill has recipients who fail the test losing benefits for six months and a second failure results in an additional year with no benefits. The third failure is permanent removal from the program. In this version, however, children never have their benefits reduced. Instead, another responsible adult, usually another family member, would receive the benefits on behalf of the offenders’ children .
TANF already is full of limitations. There is a five year limit to how long benefits can be collected. Mothers collecting benefits have only two years to find gainful employment. One study found that welfare recipients are 50% more likely that the general public, but most other reports conclude that a more realistic number is about 10%. In 1998, a study by Kaestner found that if a person has used drugs in the last year they are more likely to be on welfare in the future.
A study focused on recipients in Michigan indicated that mothers on welfare have a higher rate of mental health issues. Many of the recipients also did not complete high school; possessed few, if any, marketable work skills; were more likely to be victims of discrimination in the workplace; and be less likely to have a car or driver’s license. Opponents say that the poor are being targeted with these programs. It assumes that welfare recipients are drug users and that being poor is in itself a crime. The ACLU supports the position that just because poor individuals have asked the government for help their right to privacy should not be violated .
Another issue that is raised is about how those who test positive are going to get treatment for their abuse issues. Women are less likely to enter a drug treatment facility if their children cannot be with them. There are very few treatment centers that are able and/or willing to take in the children of the women who seek help. To further complicate matters, Medicaid has restrictions as to what kind of centers recipients can use to try to conquer their dependency. If there are more than 16 beds that are for the primary treatment of mental illness, those facilities cannot accept Medicaid recipients with a primary diagnosis of substance abuse. There are other women who may not apply for benefits for themselves and their family to avoid being tested for drugs. This hurts the welfare of their children . This same attitude will also push these same women from seeking needed help .
Social workers also need to be trained as to how to help the families who are going to be getting adults tested for drug use. These workers need to be well-trained in dealing with family issues and crises; help those who do test positive undergo treatment; face the stigma of having tested positive and, therefore, are required in some instances to get treatment; and providing for the care of children while the adult who has tested positive is in treatment. For many women, they view their children as the only stable force in their lives. Many of these women are ready face shame and guilt for abusing substances, whereas having to be caught and treated just increases their paranoia. Pregnant women often do not seek benefits because of their drug use, and mandatory testing would mean they might not receive pre-natal care, thus raising the risk of harming their babies. These social workers also need to be trained to deal with comorbid clients, those who have drug abuse issues and also need mental health treatment. Many of these women turned to drugs initially to deal with fear, anxiety, depression, and other antisocial issues. Drug use has become the manner in which they cope with these issues .
Clients, the recipients of care, have often been noted as dealing with social workers who express no empathy, have broken promises, expressed apathy, inattention, and disrespect towards them. Alcoholism is also not addressed the majority of the time. Good social workers respect their clients, do not pass judgment, provide realistic choices and timelines, and see them as a person rather than just a case or file. These same social workers usually have better training, conduct better interviews, engage and assess the client on realistic scales, and reassess when possible. Also, the social workers are receptive to various living and family situations which can include blended, cohabitation, traditional, same-sex, multi-generational, single, foster parents, and matched family units .
When a welfare recipient test positive, it is important to also provide treatment options to help them overcome their dependency on drugs. Options include, but are not limited to day treatment, half-way houses, long-term treatment, and residential care. There are also the non-professional groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. Good treatment programs will involve family members in the process. No matter if the abuse is primarily a social problem, a problem with one’s health, or a criminal problem, the most important aspect to help the abuser is treatment. Those individuals that are found to need treatment through mandatory testing need to have various treatment options and help selecting the one that will best benefit them and their family .
If one of the goals of a state’s plan is treatment of welfare recipients who are found to be using drugs, there needs to be sufficient and adequate treatment models in place. Public welfare agencies, schools, and the justice systems must be willing to help both the abuser and affected family members. Alternative child-care arrangements also need to be in place before recipients are placed in care. The children and their care must be a main focus of programs where they are instituted .
Legal issues about testing welfare recipients must also be weighed. If a person has no suspicion of using drugs, testing that person just because they are on welfare can be seen as a violation of this person’s rights just because they are poor . The courts are heavily involved in this issue in many states. Drug testing falls under the Fourth Amendment since it is viewed as a personal search. A suspicion less search is almost always viewed as a constitutional violation of a person’s rights . Since a warrant would not be issued to test welfare recipients, according to a strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment would deem it unreasonable and therefore, illegal. The only away such testing could be considered is if it falls under the “special needs” clause. The Court has stated:
We have recognized exceptions to [the normal Fourth Amendment requirements]
when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the
warrant and probable-cause requirement impractical. When faced with such
special needs, we have not hesitated to balance the governmental and privacy
interests to assess the practicality of the warrant and probable-cause requirements
in the particular context.
Some explanations of what is constitutionally considered to be a special need include searching a student’s locker if there is a reason to suspect the student of having drugs or weapons on school property, if there is reason for a probation officer to search a parolee with adequate suspicion of criminal activity, and for government officials to impose on highly regulated businesses, such as trucking or conducting a train . In Wyman v. James, the Supreme Court has ruled that searching the home of a welfare recipient with no suspicion is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment . However, in Sanchez v. County of San Diego it was ruled that home visits of those receiving benefits was fine to assess that applicants were claiming sufficient value of worth and to ensure that there were no people in the house reported as being absent, such as a father of children living in the home but the mother claiming that he was not.
The debate will continue. Strong opinions have been formed on both sides. The constitutionality of the mandatory drug testing will continue in the courts. Perhaps, one day, an amendment will be drafted to favor one side. For now, the main effort needs to be placed on programs to help those with the desire to be able to receive rehabilitation services so that they can better care for themselves, their children, and eventually be gainfully employed.
Works Cited
Hope Corman, Dhaval M. Dave, Dhiman Das, and Nancy E. Reichman. "Effects of Welfare Reform on Illicit Drug Use of Adult Women." Economic Inquiry (2013): 653-674. Web.
Michael S. Spencer, Jordana R. Muroff, and Jorge Delva. "Conditional Welfare: A Family Social Work Perspective on Mandatory Drug Testing." Substance Abuse Issues Among Families in Diverse Populations (2000): 3-14. Print.
n.a. "Senate Ok's Welfare Drug Testing." Targeted News Service. Austin, 10 April 2013. Web.
—. "States Consider Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients." Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly (2009): 4-6. Web. 1 April 2014.
Scicchitano, Eric. "Welfare Drug Testing Study Begins." Tribune Business News. 15 January 2012. Web.
Waters, Henry J. "Welfare Drug-Testing." Columbia Daily Tribune. 24 August 2011. Web.
Wurman, Ilan. "Drug Testing Welfare Recipients as a Constitutional Condition." Stanford Law Review (2013): 1153-1193. Web.
