Drug Testing For Welfare Applicants Resurrected In Michigan

Officials in Michigan's Department of Human Services want to bring back drug testing of welfare recipients, a controversial practice that Michigan courts struck down more than a decade ago. The new policy would differ from the one enacted under Republican Gov. John Engler in 1999, which required a urine test to apply for benefits and would have subjected recipients to random drug screenings.

The new screenings would target those applying for benefits from the Family Independence Agency (FIA). DHS Director of Marketing and Public Relations David Akerly told the Detroit News the department has already conducted a feasibility study and plans to work with the legislature to overcome potential legal challenges.

"Our research shows it can be done. We have people in prominent roles here in the department who feel it should be done," Akerly told the News. "Exactly how and when that would happen is to be determined. It is very early in the process."

Michigan state Rep. Jeff Farrington (R-Utica) introduced a bill on Dec. 13 that would require applicants take a drug test to qualify for FIA benefits. Under the proposed bill, which is still up for discussion, recipients who passed a drug screening would have the cost of the test deducted from their first benefits payment.

Not surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged Michigan's original drug-screening measures in court, opposes the effort to resurrect the practice.

Michael J. Steinberg, legal director for the Michigan ACLU, gave the Detroit News his evaluation of the renewed drug testing effort.

"In some ways, it's better in that it requires some degree of reasonable suspicion before they make people pee in a cup," he said. "In other ways, it's actually more harsh. Welfare recipients would have to pay for their own testing. If they can't afford to pay, they're cut off [from financial assistance] completely."

Demanding drug screening for government benefits has become a popular talking point for Republicans around the country.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott began enforcing mandatory urine testing for all the state's welfare applicants in July, until a federal judge blocked the move with an injunction in October.

Scott's crusade sparked similar legislation in other states, including Rep. Farrington in Michigan.

And as HuffPost's Arthur Delany has reported, Republican lawmakers in a dozen state legislatures also want to tie drug screening to unemployment benefits, even though little data supports their argument that drug use among unemployed workers is a major problem.

Current federal law prevents most states from denying unemployment benefits for reasons not tied to the basis of a worker's unemployment. But Republicans in the U.S. House, led by Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, are fighting to change the law. Part of the GOP jobs package passed this month allows states to determine their own drug testing guidelines.

The bill is unlikely to become law however, because Democrats in the Senate are unreceptive to the measure.

Comments

[kmh 005]

06:38 PM on 01/09/2012

Hello. I just wanted to make a few comments. First of all, I, along with the representatives who are trying to implement this bill are not mocking the fact that there is poverty in this world. We all know this. I believe in drug testing for welfare recipients. I know and believe there are an overwhelmingly amount of people that are in need of assistance. Don't you want the people that respect the fact that they are receiving assistance from the government to get that assistance. I also know that there is a number of people who abuse the system. Just think if we slowly filtered out the abusers. Knowing that the U.S. has a growing amount of social programs, I believe that these tests could allow for the people that are deserving have a chance to achieve a higher quality of life. This may allow for the very low budgets the states' have to acquire some sort of surplus and maybe implement social programs that actually help.

[reasonshouldrule]

09:45 PM on 01/02/2012

Michigan has a plurality of republicans in its legislature, and now with a republican governor, they have stepped up their usual "small government, non-intrusive" efforts to control the population.

Most welfare recipients in Michigan are families and individuals who have suffered hard times because of low employment. Children are among these families.

This is typical of the republican agenda. Small government indeed.

[Joe Cochran]

09:54 AM on 01/16/2012

I understand that people have suffered and times have been tough recently for some, but what is your feeling on those that use these programs (welfare, foodstamps, ect.) indefinitely. You have to be honest and true in the belief that there are individuals that have become dependent on these programs whether through self applying or through generational role modeling. I strongly believe that programs should be designed to give a hand up (temporary aid) and not a hand out (permanent aid). How would you suggest we cut the 'lifer's" off these programs?

[stuart100s]

05:09 PM on 01/02/2012

I don't know why people are objecting to giving welfare recepients, tax money for drugs. What else do these people have to do? They don't have a job to go to, they need to excape reality somehow. They should be admired for their ability to excape responsibility, and to depend on others to pay their way. I am jealous of their ability to sleep in late, go fishing whenever they want, and go shopping on other peoples dime.

[reasonshouldrule]

09:45 PM on 01/02/2012

I have rarely read a more ignorant post.

[stuart100s]

09:14 AM on 01/03/2012

Thanks, that is what I was going for. Now can we give them a raise so they can get a better quality of product both on the street and in the stores.

[oldfashionedparent]

11:12 AM on 01/04/2012

declaring a post ignorant is not an argument. please make a point because you have not.

[stargazer13]

01:31 PM on 01/02/2012

start with elected who pass this bill

[Robert Gudzikowski]

12:12 PM on 01/02/2012

"Wild in the Streets" was an old movie that did the opposite where people over 30 were put in a type of concentration camp.

Has punishing victims become the american way? "What an outrage!"

[reasonshouldrule]

09:46 PM on 01/02/2012

Not the American way. The republican way.

[Robert Gudzikowski]

10:12 PM on 01/02/2012

"Republi cons!"

[oldfashionedparent]

11:13 AM on 01/04/2012

victims of what?

[robert horwitz]

05:34 PM on 01/01/2012

Jeez Republicans are horrible people!

[stuart100s]

05:10 PM on 01/02/2012

Not all of them, I for one am hoping that you get your gov't check on time, this new year.

[reasonshouldrule]

09:47 PM on 01/02/2012

Unfortunately, many of them are. Especially the ones in control of government.

[Godbob]

02:18 PM on 01/01/2012

Those that have good jobs and nice lifestyles would prefer not to see the poor or chronically challenged much less see their money used to support them. If we can get 2% of the welfare population ejected from 'help' by drug testing...mgreat, then we can find other reasons to exclude more so we can drive down the safety net burden we pay... All the while claiming it was their fault. Next We'll fund our local police departments to keep these vagrants out of our neighborhoods and out of sight. If we can get past the liberals we could use the new powers of government to round the poor up, declare them 'lifestyle terrorists' and ship them out of country to be held indefinitely without charge or trial. Think of all the money we can save not providing free lunches in schools.

[reasonshouldrule]

09:48 PM on 01/02/2012

You've made some very good points. Have you been talking to Karl by any chance? :-)

[SvenOle]

01:40 PM on 12/31/2011

Drug testing welfare recipients is certainly a popular idea, but one that is rotten at the core - legally, morally, and economically. Proponents want to waste my tax dollars to line the pockets of the drug testing industry while totally ignoring the fact that the surgeon who is operating on their child is 5 times more likely to be an active drug addict or alcoholic (estimates for addicted docs runs between 10 and 15%) than a welfare recipient in Florida.

This is big, intrusive government at its worst by the very people who say that government is the problem. What hypocrisy! All based on a bigoted stereotype of the poor. Only the drug testing industry will benefit from this misguided policy. Wake up America!

[oldfashionedparent]

11:09 AM on 01/04/2012

what a way to remove a stereotype forever. since these people are't using tax dollars for drugs, they will prove it when they all pass the test with flying colors and this issue will go away forever.

[SvenOle]

01:06 PM on 01/04/2012

That was Joe McCarthy's argument: why should you care about having your phone tapped if you are innocent?

How much data needs to be collected to remove a stereotype? In Florida it was 96% or higher. In addition, if a drug addict happens to get welfare and fails a drug test, where is she going to get the money to feed the habit? Lack of money never kept a drug addict off of drugs. Just one more unintended consequence of what seems to be a good idea.

[oldfashionedparent]

01:20 PM on 01/05/2012

i believe that it is an elitist mentality that says because someone is an addict, they are incappable of breaking their addiction. i believe in the human spirit of dignity that says, when pushed to the breaking point, humans will always right that which is wrong.
when a dog misbehaves, and you continue to give it praise despite the behavior, the behavior continues. when the praise is removed from the behavior, the behavior quickly goes away. humans are ten times as intelligent as animals. i have no doubt that they will figure it out. they just need to be made to figure it out and you do that by not rewarding bad behavior.
you continue to claim this as a false stereotype, yet you fear puting your theory to a test. i would prefer regulated, taxpaying drug test companies make money, than non regulated, violent, family destroying drug dealers make it. if your hatred for drug companies making money trumps your disgust for drug dealers on the street making money, i must assume you favor the latter.

[williamabn]

12:00 PM on 12/31/2011

The random testing for drugs should not be a problem . If a person is testing positive , Well we can assume any money given to the recipient would all or in part go to a drug habit at the expense of the tax payer . I feel the testing should be absorbed by the welfare system itself . It can be justified by the savings alone of not supplying drug habits with tax dollars . Of course we live in a politically correct world and must not ever use common sense .

[seegray]

12:08 PM on 12/31/2011

Florida's testing last year (until it was terminated by the courts) demonstrated that the savings will NOT outweigh the costs (2 percent of recipients tested positive).

Let's try anther rationale then, shall we?

[No More Free Rides]

12:35 PM on 12/31/2011

And when all the facts are properly reported, you would be shocked to know the truth!

From an article posted in the Orlando Sentinal - A reporter’s diatribe on torturing stats and drug-testing
Uncategorized — posted by aaron deslatte on October, 25 2011 8:37 AM

Thanks to DCF, we know we have 14,802 families and 7,028 adults who have been approved for TANF from July through September, 32 applicants who flunked their drug tests, and 1,597 people who walked away without taking it.

What does this tell us about the drug activity of the overall population of TANF recipients?

Seems to me, it did make an impact on those who are receiving while using. Many possibly chose to walk away.

[williamabn]

12:46 PM on 12/31/2011

Would you say you can prove or dispute anything with numbers ? Did we look at the enrollment rate ? Might it have dropped because of people out right refusing or just walking away from the program knowing they would test dirty for drugs ? I think the 2 % that tested positive just were stupid enough to think they could get away with it . Try another rational olalee dokalee ?

[No More Free Rides]

09:54 PM on 12/30/2011

Within the "working" community, it isn't uncommon to drug test employees. This rings true for both the public and private sector. I have been with the federal government for 30 years and have been aware that a urine test could be required of me upon my employers request. If it is acceptable for those of us who work for our pay checks to be confronted with drug screens, what in the heck is the problem with those in which we working people support to being subjected to the same? I vote to test them. I am after all supporting them and if it is good for those paying for their support, then those receiving benefits should be subjected to the same rules.

[seegray]

10:57 PM on 12/30/2011

It isn't acceptable for many of us in the working world. I think we, in the working world, have been a tad complacent with regards to unreasonable demands by our employers that invade our privacy...right now, employers are taking full advantage of employees and we are just grateful to have jobs so we go along with it willingly. In fact, we've done this for far too long and it is way past time for us to put a stop to it all. I find those demands unacceptable; why don't you?

[No More Free Rides]

06:32 AM on 12/31/2011

I don't find drug testing as a requirement of employment to be complacency or an unreasonable requirement to maintain employment. I fully support this initiative and feel it is a good deterrent for many who would otherwise fall prey to the negative aspects of drugs. I have knowledge of two young men in their early 20's who couldn't maintain employment had their per-employment lifestyle continued. Thanks to drug testing, one is now drug free and making near what has taken me 30 years to earn and the other can't find employment. So, who wins here? I suggest the one making good life choices wins. As an employer (I am not an employer, I still hit the bricks for Uncle Sam 5 days a week) I wouldn't want to hire case number two who is not a self thinker but is self absorbed, and is a narcissist. Generally case number two are the worst employees with work ethics like, party first, call in sick when you have had to fun a night (why not call in, you have earned it) and screw the rest of your fellow employees. I would not want to hire them for a plethora of reasons. Safety of all my employees would be priority as well as my desire to find responsible employees. Irresponsible employees are a drain on the workforce and I find using illegal drugs or drugs that are not prescribed to you (also illegal) to be very irresponsible.

[dirtdeviltx]

11:33 PM on 12/30/2011

You nailed it, test them all, it will save a lot of money and cut off the selling of benefits for drugs to a majority of them. Maybe they will get clean and get a job that pays well and also tests. My step son is finding that out the hard way. No test, no job, no benefits!!! Those who need it for the right reasons will just have to buy one less carton of cigs. Small price to pay for free stuff.

[seegray]

12:15 PM on 12/31/2011

Except it doesn't save money....check out the stats from Florida's law this last year. It demonstrates that the savings aren't there. Since those stats are available to anyone with access to google, lets just be more honest about why you want the drug tests done.

[pisedoff]

12:19 PM on 01/02/2012

What jobs? Schneider and his comrades have not helped the job out look with their 1.8 billion give away. So I say again, what jobs?

[archstantn]

09:37 PM on 12/30/2011

I remember seeing a photograph in a magazine, which depicted a starving, wretched elder, laying on the street in some foreign land. Next to this person was a chubby merchant, sitting on some large bags of rice, grinning. The caption to the photograph argued that no American would stand-by, and watch someone starve. That was a long time ago. Given some of the posts I've read here, and, the policies of the Republican Party, I have my doubts that the truism exclaimed in that magazine article is indeed true any longer.

[No More Free Rides]

07:11 AM on 12/31/2011

Some of us Democrats strongly support the drug testing. It has nothing to do with politics. If we are going to support (financially) those who chose poorly (illegal and illicit drug users), then we should expect they be subjected to the same drug testing we who pay taxes are subjected. This, in my opinion will support a more responsible, safer work force.

[vidian6]

06:11 AM on 01/01/2012

I will only believe this, when you advocate testing the people who propose these test. They take state money and make decisions on everyones lives. I would much rather know if they are doing drugs rather than someone who doesn't have a lot of power and influence.

[cdchicago]

09:14 PM on 12/30/2011

I would rather that all employed americans have a government registered drug test quarterly. We live in a world where people are smoking, toking, popping, dropping, injecting, swigging and snorting just about everything that iosn't nailed down or non-portable. Why stop with those drug abusing welfare recipients? Why stop at the state level? How about drug tests for every single working american as well? We can even publish the drug tests of CEO's in their corporate perspectus! Also all government employees including the Legislative, executive and judicial branches. Maybe next we can government mandate health care. Good idea Republicans.

[Orig10]

08:50 PM on 12/30/2011

Let's drug test all defense contractors(the group receiving the largest amount of government welfare). Studies all show that drug testing is an inefficient method for saving money and totally cost ineffective. 96% of the people tested in Florida passed. Average savings 40 to 60 thousand dollars out of $178 million.
Welfare recipients are not the cause of the financial crisis in this country. Greed, corporations, corruption.

[vidian6]

06:13 AM on 01/01/2012

Touche'! And let's not stop there, how about all politicians, Judges, or anyone - who in anyway - receives public funds. Watch how quickly this issue goes away then.

[arb24529]

08:13 PM on 12/30/2011

If the standard NIDA test is sufficient for ALL transportation industry employees, as well as all US MILITARY personnel, ALL Federal Law enforcement, MOST State government personnel, as well as most major companies, how do you get off claiming welfare recipients are above it?
Get real.
Mistakes are possible, but very unlikely in testing done with those protocols. And if all the aforementioned groups are able to work with that as a system, then it stands to reason that the welfare group should be capable of withstanding the same scrutiny.

[PAsteelers]

06:06 PM on 12/30/2011

Urine testing is less accurate than the lie detector tests.

[Steve Lives]

07:03 PM on 12/30/2011

Lie detector tests are a complete myth. You might as well put a colander on the subjects head and plug them into the printer. There is no scientific merit to the methods used. It has become a profitable industry, and so because it is, that makes it valid to those employed by said industry. Its a joke.

[truthocentric]

11:05 PM on 12/30/2011

This sounds like the special effects for a low budget sci-fi movie.