Debate Club

Should Welfare Recipients Be Tested for Drugs? >

Welfare Assistance Is Not Parental Oversight

Welfare recipients are no more likely to have drug problems than anyone else

December 15, 2011

About Matthew Bodie:

Matthew Bodie is a professor and associate dean for research and faculty development at Saint Louis University School of Law. He is also a contributor to PrawfsBlawg, a group blog for legal academics.

We don't want parents on welfare using their money for drugs. Although drug abuse by anyone can endanger life and livelihoods, drug abuse by mothers and fathers may endanger their children. Who is caring for the kids when adults are under the influence?

[GOP: Drug Tests for Unemployment Applicants.]

But drug testing for everyone who receives aid through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, program is not the answer. TANF is the centerpiece of the welfare reforms of 1996 that replaced the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children. One of the key changes to the program was the requirement that those receiving aid move into jobs or "workfare" programs. Recipients must work as soon as they are job-ready, or no later than two years after coming on assistance. That means that states are moving aid recipients into jobs and kicking people off the rolls regardless. The number of family aid recipients has dropped from over 12 million in 1996 to less than 4.5 million in 2010—and this despite a 3 percent rise in the unemployment rate. The program is a far cry from the welfare stereotypes of the 1980s.

Since TANF is temporary assistance for families in financial trouble, there is no particular reason to suspect them of drug use or target them for drug testing. Florida's recent foray into drug testing for its welfare recipients netted only a 2 percent positive rate. National surveys place the rate of illegal drug use at 6 to 8 percent of respondents. Lawmakers have not established that TANF recipients—with low incomes and a strong need for employment—are more likely to have drug problems than others who receive government benefits.

[Neither Left Nor Right Have Answer to Economic Conundrum.]

What about the children? Parental drug use may be dangerous to their families. But drug testing for TANF benefits won't protect public safety. The Supreme Court has upheld drug testing of railway engineers and U.S. Customs agents because of the dangers of drug use in those particular jobs. The testing in those cases was designed to keep drug users out of positions where they could harm the public. A positive TANF test would only mean that the user doesn't get financial assistance. How does that help their children? Child welfare agencies are charged with protecting kids from abuse and neglect; they have the tools to step in when drug use threatens a child's safety. TANF drug testing will only deprive needy families of money.

Workfare recipients have only committed the crime of poverty. There is no reason to suspect them of drug use simply for needing assistance, and no reason to penalize the children for their parents' sins.

Tags:
drugs,
Congress,
unemployment,
republican party
Other Arguments
#1

Yes — We ought to provide aid on the basis of reciprocal obligation

ROBERT RECTOR, Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy at the Heritage Foundation

#2
#3
#4

Yes — Require drug testing only of welfare applicants with a history of substance abuse

LAWRENCE M. MEAD, Professor of Politics and Public Policy at New York University and Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

#5

No — Drug testing welfare recipients is an intrusion into private lives not consistent with U.S. values

PETER CAPPELLI, George W. Taylor Professor of Management at the Wharton School and Director of Wharton's Center for Human Resources

#7
#8

No — Suggesting welfare recipients are worthy of suspicion unfairly singles the group out for disdain

JOY MOSES, Senior Policy Analyst with the Poverty and Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress

#9

No — Drug testing perpetuates myths and scapegoats the unemployed

CHRISTINE L. OWENS, Executive Director of the National Employment Law Project

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I think that all programs that receive cash benefits or food benefits should be drug tested. They should all be available (if they qualify) for medical benefits. It should not cost the state any more $$ because the recipients/applicants should pay for the test and if passed then be reimbursed. The state should not pay for treatment, but they should provide the necessary information. So for everyone who passes there WILL be some who will not and those may make up for the cost. It should not be a matter of whether it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment because you are asking for assistance from the government and you have to sign an application stating that all the information you provide is accurate and if you falsify information you can be sent to jail and/or fined. So if they consent to all of this you also have to provide them with all of your bills and income and titles to the items you own and everything, what is the difference with giving them a sample of urine, hair, or however they choose to test?

Marissa Hart of MI 8:19PM May 16, 2012

This testing program costs more money than it saves. The cost to administer the tests are high, 96% pass the tests (therefore benefits are still given), and the end result is that taxpayers are now paying for benefits and unwarranted tests.

The shortsightedness of those ready to lambaste the "lazy poor" is amazing.

EqualOpp of GA 2:57PM May 09, 2012

I personally think that if I am drug tested to earn a paycheck, then someone who receives assistance from our government should have to be tested also. Tax dollars paid by people such as myself are paying these benefits and we are drug tested. Why should these recipients get money for not working and be allowed to spend it on drugs? I have personally seen a person who receives assistance from our government that drives a new vehicle, wears top of the line clothes, and goes out on a regular basis, but when buying groceries at the supermarket pulls out a LoneStar card. That is the food stamp card for Texas. I just think the whole system of assistance needs reviewed extensively!

Brad of TX 11:22PM May 08, 2012

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.


Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.


You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
Donald Trump Makes Kim Kardashian Look Good

At least Kim Kardashian doesn't take herself seriously.

The Vietnam War Still Haunts Us

History rhymes once again, thanks so much.

'Transcripters' Make Birthers Look Smart

Now the fringe right wants the president's university grades to prove he wasn't a good student.

Obama Must Do More to Protect the Intellectual Property Industry

The Obama administration needs to protect the industry's creativity and innovation.

Is Congress Getting Dumber?

That Congress is speaking at a lower grade level than it was seven years ago may be due to the unfortunate tendency to equate education with elitism.

Obama's Remarkable Silence on Latin American Press Abuses

President Obama's silence on press freedom in Latin America is troubling.

Why the Media Is Giving Romney a Pass on Trump's Birtherism

Why the media hasn't pressed Mitt Romney about Donald Trump's birther fantasies.

Romney's Bain Experience Wasn't Real American Capitalism

The fact that Bain Capital served to make money for investors, not to create jobs, could endanger Romney.

Advertisement