There have been public assistance policy discussions on substance abuse issues for a long time. Since federal welfare reforms in the year 1996, several states have made proposals on drug testing of recipients and applicants of welfare gains. Drug testing is permitted as part of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in the federal rule. Almost all states have proposed drug testing and screening in the recent years. More than 20 states proposed legislation that requires drug screening or testing as a requirement for eligibility for the public assistance programs in 2009 (Falk, 2016). More than 12 states had the same proposal in 2010. However, since the major part of the legislation was focused on random drug testing and screening, none of these proposals became law. This is because the proposals were at odd with Michigan Court of Appeals case in 2003. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to subject any welfare applicant to drug testing or screening within Michigan without evidence of drug use. In 2011, this proposal gained momentum. As at March 2016, more than 17 states have proposed to address issues that involve some form of drug testing or screening for public assistance and welfare programs beneficiaries. This paper discusses drug testing for welfare recipients in the United States.
About the legislation
Several states have passed legislation concerning drug screening or testing for public assistance recipients or applicants. Such states include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Michigan, Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Tennessee, Wisconsin and West Virginia among others. The name of the proposed legislation is Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Act of number H.R. 3047-114th Congress (2015-2016) and was introduced in the year 2015. The legislation is currently proposed at the federal level. The legislation aims at the establishment of guidelines that different welfare program recipient such as food stamp and TANF program beneficiaries use to be granted assistance for a passed drug test (Falk, 2016). The program enforces an opportunity for those who receive social welfare support to improve their lifestyles. Home visits and investigation by Child Protective Services of parents who are found to abuse drugs is a requirement of the legislature. If the legislation is effectively implemented, it can improve the lives of children who live in households where adults abuse substances. The clearly stated value of the legislation is amending the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to subject people to checking of individuals’ criminal records for offences related to drug abuse and drug abuse screening. The implied value is to deny TANF the assistance of people who are found to use a controlled substance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Financial effects
Financial effects of the legislature are that it decreases amounts of finances that are issued by the government for these programs since those in the programs can find jobs and help themselves. The federal government is responsible for providing finances for the implementation of the legislature. David Rouzer, who is of the Republican Party, representing North Carolina’s 7th congressional district is a sponsor of this bill.
Who it affects
The proposal has effects on the substance abusers. The proposal discourages substance abuse among those who test positive for substance abuse in that when they get into the programs, they can attend counseling and substance abuse treatments where they can benefit. Applicants who refuse drug tests or screening become ineligible for help. Established gender, class, and race prejudices are put into circulation in ways that show content and reinforcement of power when carrying out the legislative programs. There is a tendency of getting tough on low-income people and mobilizing of racial resentments within racist communities. Black people are sometimes assumed to be more on substance abuse than their white counterparts, hence are often screened and tested. Gender opinioned paragons in the program pose a challenge to women who are seeking help with substance abuse in the program (Foley, 2011).
Social conditions; Economic, political, social and technological factors
The proposal has social effects to substance abusers in that it enables them to improve their social status in the society. Substance abuse has been widely associated with poverty in that the abusers spend most of their income on the drugs. When people become drug addicts, they are not in a position to work effectively hence can easily lose their jobs. The national drug use rate is about 9 % In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants are in the range of 0.003 to 8.4 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. The legislation helps the abusers to eliminate addiction hence they can get jobs and earn income to support their families. Individuals still get difficulties in receiving public assistance even though there is an economic recovery. Different states have found difficulties in providing financial support to the programs. There are individuals of the Democratic and Republican Parties of the programs hence posting discussions discouraging the legislation. The federal government has provided technological appliances that support the programs (Foley, 2011).
Historical links
The federal welfare reforms began in 1996, and thereafter many states have made proposals on drug testing of recipients and applicants of welfare gains. Various states have currently proposed drug testing and screening . Recipients or screening for public assistance or drug testing legislations has been passed in at least 15 states. The current federal law on the legislation is an amendment to the previously enacted law. Many of those apply to all applicants while others entail a language that is specific that there needs to be a reason to have the belief that the individual is engaged in activities of illegal drugs. Others also need a screening process that is specific. Besides, a provision in the 2015 budget was included by the state of Wisconsin to drug test certain persons taking part in the employment and training of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Subcommittee on Human Resources has taken the bill into considerations. This was on July 17, 2015.
Players in support of the proposal
Players in support of this proposal include Delegate Kelli Sobonya, a Republican member, who said that tax money should not be used in drug activities. She says, “We don’t want our tax dollars being used for drug activity or substance abuse,” (Falk, 2016). The program helps people to get the help that they need. Another supporter of the program is Mr. Scott Walker, who is also of Republican Party and believes that a fight will arise with the federal government in court. He said that the goal of the program is to make it easy for people to get jobs but to make it hard to attain government assistance.
Players against the proposal
Players opposing the proposal include Bob Swanson of the Democratic Party, who is the chair of Lansing-based Advocacy group’s board of director. He argues that the proposal treats poor and low-income people discriminatively from other citizens. In his belief, poverty does not come from the use of drugs. He quoted that, "Simply being poor or out of work should not mean you are automatically suspected as a drug user'' (Falk, 2016).The Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) is also opposing the proposal with the argument that there are limited advantages brought by drug screening and testing since the stigma of drug testing has negative effects on people on the welfare.
Sponsor
The bill is sponsored by Republican Congress representative for the state of North Carolina, David Rouzer. There are possibilities of reducing the load in the budgets for various assistance offered hence the United States government is bound to support this bill.
Social justice
The legislation is a socially unjust since random drug tests pose barriers to freedom of many people. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is meant to benefit from the law but instead, it encounters barriers posed by the legislation (Falk, 2016). This law has several benefits directly to drug abusers and indirectly to their families and society as a whole but poses cruelty to families in need and punishes vulnerable groups. It is not proved that recipients of TANF are likely to practice substance abuse than anyone else. The general population has equal chances of abusing drugs just as the recipients of TANF. Most of these recipients are children. The proposal infringes on the rights of people to keep their personal medical conditions private even though they benefit from the public funds offered by the federal government. This is because the proposal requires revealing reasons for the use of certain drugs which may be due to medical conditions as a prerequisite for the drug screens and test. This is not a practice of social justice. The legislation is there unfair. (Falk, 2016).
Further thought
Besides the disadvantages brought about by the implementation of the law, there are several advantages derived from it. Substance abusers can get help since they are provided with treatments and counseling. Their families can benefit from the program as their member who abuses drugs can become a changed person; therefore, there will be reduced violence in the family. Substance abusers who undertake the program are positively impacted and can be employed and work efficiently and effectively hence earning income to support their families (Storti, Grauwe, Sabadash, & Montanari, 2011). The program enables the abusers to stop spending money on buying the drugs; hence they can become more responsible and better people in the society (Silverman, DeFulio, & Sigurdsson, 2012).
Drug screening and testing for welfare recipients are a federal policy which establishes guidelines that the recipients have to undergo testing and screening and pass tests so as to be given assistance. The program enables the recipients to reach help for substance abuse and make their likes better. The policy aims at obtaining its objectives which include but are not limited to; improving lives of children who live with parents and guardians that abuse drugs and increasing the opportunities for the drug abusers to get jobs.
References
Falk, G. (2016). The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant: Responses to frequently asked questions . Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32760.pdf
Foley, C. F. (2011). Welfare payments and crime. The review of Economics and Statistics , 93 (1), 97-112.
Silverman, K., DeFulio, A., & Sigurdsson, S. O. (2012). Maintenance of reinforcement to address the chronic nature of drug addiction. Preventive medicine , 55 , S46-S53.
Storti, C. C., De Grauwe, P., Sabadash, A., & Montanari, L. (2011). Unemployment and drug treatment. International Journal of Drug Policy , 22 (5), 366-373.
