Policy Case Study: Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

{With drug-testing and welfare issues remaining controversial and salient today in a larger debate about the social safety net, this week, I flashback to an analysis I conducted on drug-testing welfare policies and their implications.}

Drug testing for welfare is an issue that has been especially controversial in the wake of the budget tightening many states have had to do in recovering from the economic downturn of 2008. States like Colorado, continuing with their reputation as laboratories of democracy, have pushed forward with laws to limit access to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or welfare, by requiring drug tests (PBS 2012).  However, with any complex policy issue such as welfare, there are many factors that must be considered when developing standards for this kind of drug testing, as 31 states have as of 2011 (HSP 2011). Thus, many evaluative criteria, in this case, must be used in the analysis of this policy, including effectiveness, efficiency, equity, liberty and administrative, social and political feasibility.

To start with, to understand what the policy’s goals are, there is a need to understand how policymakers have defined the problem this policy is meant to target. In most states, the proposal to drug test welfare recipients has mostly been defined in relation to realizing cost savings, although in other states there are a couple of added dimensions, including child well-being and employability, with the overall goal being to reduce the welfare rolls (HSP 2011). Therefore, the problem would be defined under cost savings in that there are simply too many people on welfare rolls for states experiencing economic stress. Those states that emphasize the policy’s need to address child well-being would suggest that the problem is primarily ensuring that TANF funds go to address the needs of children who could otherwise inadvertently be harmed by their parents’ drug use (HSP 2011). Yet others, only focusing on defining the problem of huge welfare rolls resulting from decreased employability, would say that drug testing for welfare benefits would inspire people to get clean and in turn eliminate a major obstacle to employment, which would lead to reduced welfare rolls (HSP 2011).

Now that the problem and its dimensions in relation to the alternative policy have been addressed, it is time to start applying evaluative criteria. In terms of effectiveness, or if the policy will be adequate in addressing the goals laid out (cost savings, ensuring child well-being, increasing employment), my analysis on this front is mixed. I think that the policymakers here were focusing on more proximate rather than root causes of the problem of large welfare rolls (i.e.-focus on cost savings), although it almost seems to hint at addressing potential root causes, which in this case would be increasing employment (reduction of poverty and therefore dependence on welfare rolls) (HSP 2011). One issue I would see with using drug tests is that it would only detect recent drug use and probably not the extent of the problem, such as how often a person uses drugs. Also, alternative drug abuse treatments could be more appropriate in the long run and false positives are possible (HSP 2011). Even considering the latter, I feel like this policy has well-intended goals and is wise to address more than one dimension of the problem (in the states that have all the above as goals in considering this policy), making it seem like a reasonable approach considering resource constraints. Still, I feel that more underlying factors like alternative treatment or therapy should have been given greater emphasis in this policy.

Meanwhile, efficiency and administrative feasibility was definitely more of a problem in considering the drug testing policy. The costs include the population being tested (those that have a recent felony conviction for a drug crime are the ones selected to be tested in most states), purchasing the tests, ensuring that applicants and lab workers are complying with the law, modification of the labs and their computer software, potential drug treatment programs, reimbursement to a person testing negative, and legal fees from potential lawsuits (HSP 2011). Estimates done by the Human Services Policy branch under the Department of Health and Human Services has found that costs in states that have implemented this policy range from $92,487 to $3.4 million and those estimates did not take into account all of the potential cost factors or even all of the states that have implemented such laws (HSP 2011). Moreover, with some states, there is an unknown price tag assigned to the full implementation of this law. In looking at the variability of potential costs, it seems to be a risky approach for a state that could already be undergoing extreme penny-pinching as a result of the economic downturn and that the benefits reaped would seem negligible at the very worst to minimal at best. Studies undertaken on this policy have shown that states, when it came to cost reductions, achieved minimal savings at the most. Testing accuracy can also be variable, bringing more uncertainty into a state’s investment in this kind of policy (Grovum 2014).

Administrative feasibility in this issue is very much tied to the costs associated with the running of such programs in states. The states need to hire competent lab workers, train them to observe laws and lab protocols, and give them the technology they need to accurately analyze drug testing samples (HSP 2011). For states that are pinching their budgets, they might be hard-pressed to train an adequate workforce for all the testing they want to do under the law. If lawmakers wanted to expand their testing population from those with recent drug convictions (from 13%-20%, varies by state) to those with drug convictions up to five years previous (20%+ of TANF applicants), that would mean hiring more personnel and upgrading overall capacity to handle the new demand (HSP 2011). I don’t think that the cost and administrative upgrade would justify the relatively minor benefit a state would get out of that.

Also, I found red flags when I measured the policy up against equity, liberty, political and social criterions. Equity, in terms of public policy, is defined as the population being treated fairly under legislation. I agree with points raised regarding the stigma surrounding welfare and welfare applicants being reinforced as a result of implementation of such policies (Grovum 2014). While it may be an unintended consequence on lawmakers’ parts, it could further discrimination and inequity on those parts of the population most in need of TANF, such as families at or below the poverty line and the unemployed (PBS 2012). However, others argue that this policy would go further in ensuring that those who use drugs can get the help they need and be productive members of society (PBS 2012). A 2011 poll by Rasmussen found 53% of voters nationwide in support of the policy, suggesting somewhat of a divide in public opinion (Rasmussen 2011). Furthermore, there are legal issues that go along with drug testing for welfare benefits. The American Civil Liberties Union has suggested that this law could violate the 4th Amendment provision against unreasonable search and seizures and the right to privacy in those cases where applicants do not have a previous history of drug use or drug related convictions (PBS 2012). Equally divisive is considering the policy from a political feasibility standpoint, with Republicans mainly backing this kind of legislation (as in Colorado), while Democrats, in states like Minnesota, are considering repealing such legislation (Grovum 2014). This policy could face an uphill battle in those states with Democratic majorities or those that could, not to mention the legal challenges from groups like the ACLU looming on the horizon (Grovum 2014).

In conclusion, policy like this is likely to be controversial, especially when it comes to the problems lawmakers are specifically targeting and the segments of the population that would be most affected. My overall opinion of the drug testing for welfare policy is that states with limited resources are trying to get the most for their buck, but a policy like this needs serious re-evaluation to improve its policy outcomes to maximize the return in a state’s investment. Lawmakers should start from scratch or apply this idea in conjunction with other policies that focus on root, rather than proximate causes, of large welfare rolls.

Works Cited:

Grovum, Jake. (2014, March 06). Some States Still Pushing Drug Testing For Welfare. Retrieved October 22, 2014, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/06/stateline-drug-testing-welfare-states/6118111/.

Human Services Policy. (2011, October 11). Drug Testing Welfare Recipients: Recent Proposals and Continuing Controversies. Retrieved October 22, 2014, from https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-recent-proposals-and-continuing-controversies.

Kersey, Lori. (2018, June 03). UN expert: 'Contempt' Drives 'Cruel Policies' in the US. Retrieved June 8, 2018, from https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/un-expert-contempt-drives-cruel-policies-in-the-us/article_bd8e1741-172a-5636-aa5f-16292f067b25.html.

PBS. (2012, March 20). To Receive Welfare, Should Drug Test Be Required? Retrieved October 21, 2014, from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/to-receive-welfare-should-drug-test-be-required.

Rasmussen Reports. (2011, July 20). 53% Support Automatic Drug Testing For Welfare Applicants. Retrieved October 27, 2014, from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2011/53_support_automatic_drug_testing_for_welfare_applicants.