Welfare drug testing results - The Orange Mane

Rigs11 · 08-25-2011, 07:13 PM

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results

TALLAHASSEE --
Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

At Scott's urging, the Legislature implemented the new requirement earlier this year that applicants for temporary cash assistance pass a drug test before collecting any benefits.

The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reimbursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year.

Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months.

The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge.

The ACLU has been threatening for months that it may challenge the constitutionality of the program; Tuesday, Newton said his group is still weighing a lawsuit.

DCF spokesman Joe Follick said that families and accountability are the main focuses of the program.

"The taxpayers deserve to know that the money they are spending is being used for its intended purpose," he said. "In this case, with [temporary cash assistance], the purpose is to help families become independent and self-sufficient. If a family receiving [cash assistance] includes someone who has a substance abuse problem, the odds of that money being used for purposes other than helping that family increases."

More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/20...res-ar-252458/

David Wooderson · 08-25-2011, 07:30 PM

Thats cooool. At least ur tryin. just dont be mad yo

David Wooderson · 08-25-2011, 07:30 PM

2% of wha?

Meck77 · 08-25-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rigs11

Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results

TALLAHASSEE -- /[/url]

So Rigs what percent would you say don't really want a job out of that group?

You never answered my question from before. Just what do you do for a living?

broncocalijohn · 08-25-2011, 11:21 PM

Good low number. Those that can't kick the drug habits are not lining up for welfare. Only 2% did and are either oblivious of the new law or they were former Dolphins players that still had growth hormones in their system.
"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

So Newton can't see the difference of someone bettering (is that a word?) themselves compared to welfare aka handout recepients?

Doggcow · 08-26-2011, 02:04 AM

$16 beats a piss test.

Garcia Bronco · 08-26-2011, 05:10 AM

Is it a piss test? Or are the doing mouth swabs?

alkemical · 08-26-2011, 05:37 AM

I think anyone that gets "free $" should be drug tested to make sure the ROI stays at it's highest.

I don't want some stupid college kid drinking and smoking my $ away, then flunking out because he knocked up some chick.

Pony Boy · 08-26-2011, 06:10 AM

Great ...... looks like a bunch of dead beats got off drugs before they applied for welfare

alkemical · 08-26-2011, 06:14 AM

2% seems to be a pretty small #. I wonder what the perception was of the % using drugs before this information came out?

Does this mean people are beating the tests, or that the drug issue in this country isn't what we're constantly told?

peacepipe · 08-26-2011, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alkemical

2% seems to be a pretty small #. I wonder what the perception was of the % using drugs before this information came out?

Does this mean people are beating the tests, or that the drug issue in this country isn't what we're constantly told?

rick scott doesn't realize that a lg majority of drug addicts are ones that can actually afford to have drug habit,ie suburbanites. If you're that poor there is a 98% chance you don't have the money to be a drug addict.

alkemical · 08-26-2011, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacepipe

rick scott doesn't realize that a lg majority of drug addicts are ones that can actually afford to have drug habit,ie suburbanites. If you're that poor there is a 98% chance you don't have the money to be a drug addict.

You don't get high off your own supply...

Kidding kidding -

But ya, suburbanites love their drugs.

spdirty · 08-26-2011, 07:22 AM

Wish they would drug test the house and senate. Hell everyone that receives a government check should be open to getting one. I'd be open to taking one for the CDOT jobs we get. Would probably have to replace at least half of all CDOT inspectors though.

alkemical · 08-26-2011, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdirty

Wish they would drug test the house and senate. Hell everyone that receives a government check should be open to getting one. I'd be open to taking one for the CDOT jobs we get. Would probably have to replace at least half of all CDOT inspectors though.

This has been my stance all along.

ghwk · 08-26-2011, 07:43 AM

Well another theory being put to rest I guess; all poor people on welfare are drug users. Like trickle down and "don't tax the rich and corporations or they won't create jobs" (which they aren't and they aren't) this is another Republican blame it on on someone else fail. It won't change anything however, why let facts get in the way of philosophy.

Requiem · 08-26-2011, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdirty

Wish they would drug test the house and senate. Hell everyone that receives a government check should be open to getting one. I'd be open to taking one for the CDOT jobs we get. Would probably have to replace at least half of all CDOT inspectors though.

Government workers are subject to random drug testing.

alkemical · 08-26-2011, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

Government workers are subject to random drug testing.

Not in all states, and not for all jobs.

Smiling Assassin27 · 08-26-2011, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdirty

Wish they would drug test the house and senate. Hell everyone that receives a government check should be open to getting one. I'd be open to taking one for the CDOT jobs we get. Would probably have to replace at least half of all CDOT inspectors though.

Gotta have probable cause.

Oh wait, there's Obamacare, TARP, Porkulus, Debt Ceiling Legislation...I'd say that's probable cause!

p.s. Jean Schmidt wants some Doritos, pronto.

alkemical · 08-26-2011, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Gotta have probable cause.

Oh wait, there's Obamacare, TARP, Porkulus, Debt Ceiling Legislation...I'd say that's probable cause!

p.s. Jean Schmidt wants some Doritos, pronto.

You don't need probable cause. You just institute the policy.

Requiem · 08-26-2011, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alkemical

Not in all states, and not for all jobs.

Try and make a good case arguing the exceptions, rather than the rule.

alkemical · 08-26-2011, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

Try and make a good case arguing the exceptions, rather than the rule.

Commonwealth of PA only tests for positions that are under the LEO/PEMA umbrella. Everyone else is allowed to party.

gyldenlove · 08-26-2011, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alkemical

2% seems to be a pretty small #. I wonder what the perception was of the % using drugs before this information came out?

Does this mean people are beating the tests, or that the drug issue in this country isn't what we're constantly told?

Interestingly 2% is below the national average of adults using drugs.

Rigs11 · 08-26-2011, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meck77

So Rigs what percent would you say don't really want a job out of that group?

You never answered my question from before. Just what do you do for a living?

This just goes to show that your argument that most of welfare recipients are druggies is bs.I'm a Software QA Engineer for a biotech company.Why does it matter?

ant1999e · 08-26-2011, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rigs11

This just goes to show that your argument that most of welfare recipients are druggies is bs.I'm a Software QA Engineer for a biotech company.Why does it matter?

BS. Were you one of the 2% that tested positive?

alkemical · 08-26-2011, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gyldenlove

Interestingly 2% is below the national average of adults using drugs.

Even more-so interesting.

08-25-2011, 07:13 PM	#1
Rigs11 Ring of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 7,820	Welfare drug testing results Welfare drug-testing yields 2% positive results TALLAHASSEE -- Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows. Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests. The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs. At Scott's urging, the Legislature implemented the new requirement earlier this year that applicants for temporary cash assistance pass a drug test before collecting any benefits. The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reimbursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year. Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly. So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified. Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free. That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants. The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month. But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month. Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year. Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months. The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge. The ACLU has been threatening for months that it may challenge the constitutionality of the program; Tuesday, Newton said his group is still weighing a lawsuit. DCF spokesman Joe Follick said that families and accountability are the main focuses of the program. "The taxpayers deserve to know that the money they are spending is being used for its intended purpose," he said. "In this case, with [temporary cash assistance], the purpose is to help families become independent and self-sufficient. If a family receiving [cash assistance] includes someone who has a substance abuse problem, the odds of that money being used for purposes other than helping that family increases." More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out. According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up. A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs. Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts. "This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor." Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment. http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/20...res-ar-252458/

08-25-2011, 11:21 PM	#5
broncocalijohn Famer of Rings My Dog Richard Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif. Posts: 18,462 Adopt-a-Bronco: Simon Fletcher	Good low number. Those that can't kick the drug habits are not lining up for welfare. Only 2% did and are either oblivious of the new law or they were former Dolphins players that still had growth hormones in their system. "This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor." So Newton can't see the difference of someone bettering (is that a word?) themselves compared to welfare aka handout recepients? Last edited by broncocalijohn; 08-25-2011 at 11:23 PM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Its time to End Corporate Welfare Entitlement Programs	rastaman	War, Religion and Politics Thread	1	05-28-2009 05:03 PM
Ecstasy, the new prescription drug?	alkemical	Orange Mane Central Discussion	13	01-26-2007 07:06 AM
7M in U.S. Jails, on Probation or Parole	Bronco_Beerslug	War, Religion and Politics Thread	41	12-10-2006 11:23 AM
Leigh Steinberg, Williams' agent upset drug test results were leaked	HEAV	Orange Mane Central Discussion	35	02-21-2006 10:00 AM
Prescription Drug Scam - Jumps From $400 Billion To Over $1 Trillion	alkemical	War, Religion and Politics Thread	2	03-03-2005 07:44 PM

08-25-2011, 07:30 PM	#2
David Wooderson Keep fannin the fire Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: New Mexico Posts: 54 Adopt-a-Bronco: Jake Plummer	Thats cooool. At least ur tryin. just dont be mad yo

08-26-2011, 02:04 AM	#6
Doggcow Rebel Laughs At Unbelievers Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,298 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	$16 beats a piss test.

08-26-2011, 05:10 AM	#7
Garcia Bronco Hokie since 1993 Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 45,991 Adopt-a-Bronco: Tom Jackson	Is it a piss test? Or are the doing mouth swabs?

08-26-2011, 05:37 AM	#8
alkemical Guerrilla Ontologist rorrim\|mirror Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Future Posts: 42,691 Adopt-a-Bronco: Prima Materia	I think anyone that gets "free $" should be drug tested to make sure the ROI stays at it's highest. I don't want some stupid college kid drinking and smoking my $ away, then flunking out because he knocked up some chick.

08-26-2011, 06:10 AM	#9
Pony Boy "Whoa Nellie" Rub some dirt on it Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 6,292 Adopt-a-Bronco: mellon head	Great ...... looks like a bunch of dead beats got off drugs before they applied for welfare

08-26-2011, 06:14 AM	#10
alkemical Guerrilla Ontologist rorrim\|mirror Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Future Posts: 42,691 Adopt-a-Bronco: Prima Materia	2% seems to be a pretty small #. I wonder what the perception was of the % using drugs before this information came out? Does this mean people are beating the tests, or that the drug issue in this country isn't what we're constantly told?

08-26-2011, 07:22 AM	#13
spdirty Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bailey Posts: 13,899 Adopt-a-Bronco: Koppen	Wish they would drug test the house and senate. Hell everyone that receives a government check should be open to getting one. I'd be open to taking one for the CDOT jobs we get. Would probably have to replace at least half of all CDOT inspectors though.

08-26-2011, 07:43 AM	#15
ghwk Ring of Famer DOOM BOOM! Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 3,838 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Doomacus	Well another theory being put to rest I guess; all poor people on welfare are drug users. Like trickle down and "don't tax the rich and corporations or they won't create jobs" (which they aren't and they aren't) this is another Republican blame it on on someone else fail. It won't change anything however, why let facts get in the way of philosophy.