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

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
President Obama's Code Pink Heckler Medea Benjamin Was Plain Rude

It's become acceptable for people to interrupt the president while he is delivering a formal speech on a deadly serious topic.

Obama Commerce Nominee Penny Pritzker’s Tax Problem

Obama’s Commerce Department nominee has some Romney-esque tax issues.

Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Advertisement