Rep. Rena Moran. Source: David Joles/Star Tribune
Across the country state lawmakers are debating passing or strengthening existing legislation that would require random drug testing of TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families—”welfare”) recipients. Minnesota is one of the few states where legislators are trying to modify an existing drug testing policy for recipients with prior felony drug convictions, through H.F. 1987, authored and introduced by Rep. Rena Moran, and S.F. 1738, authored and introduced by Sen. Jeff Hayden. Currently, as the Senate bill remains in the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, it is unclear as to whether or not it will move forward. In the House, provisions under H.F. 1987 are laid out for possible inclusion in the Health and Human Services Omnibus Bill.
Given that the majority of those enrolled for public benefits in Minnesota are children, this legislation has the potential to substantially impact child welfare practice.
Drug Testing in Minnesota
Under current legislation implemented in 1997 and strengthened in 2012, anyone convicted of a drug felony within 10 years of their application for Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP, Minnesota’s version of TANF), General Assistance, MN Supplemental Aid, Diversionary Work, or Work Participation cash benefits is required to submit to random drug testing. If the recipient fails the test once, their benefits are reduced by 30%, and if they fail twice they are permanently disqualified from receiving any type of assistance.
Both H.F. 1987 and S.F. 1738 seek to modify this policy by making drug testing a choice of the county rather than a required procedure. The proposed mandate also provides counties more freedom in deciding the consequences for an individual they choose to test, where current drug use is discovered.
Opposing Viewpoints
Proponents: Drug Testing Will Save Money and Ensure Appropriate Use of Benefits
While some lawmakers such as MN Reps. Jim Abeler and Tara Mack favor random drug testing policies because they view the process as helping in the identification of people on public benefits who need supportive treatment, for other legislators the primary motivations for implementing drug testing laws are twofold:
1) The idea that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than those in the general population, and
2) The feeling that taxpayer dollars should not be used to support people who may use cash assistance to purchase drugs instead of using the money for their children. Some lawmakers therefore feel that drug testing ultimately saves the state money. MN Representative Steve Drazkowski, who shares this belief, recently commented:
“We don’t want to see well-intended and generous welfare dollars that are intended for kids to be used for drugs instead…Any costs associated with drug testing should be subtracted from any future welfare payments.”
Opponents: Costs More Than It Saves, Perpetuates False Belief
According to the American Civil Liberties Union the belief that welfare recipients use drugs at higher rates is false and unsupported. They cite the example of Florida’s drug testing policy: When Florida Governor Rick Scott implemented a suspicionless random drug testing policy, so few of the welfare applicants actually tested positive for drugs that Florida tax payers ended up paying thousands more dollars reimbursing those individuals who tested negative and were forced to pay for their own tests. The amount of money spent ultimately equaled more than what was saved in public assistance payments on those who tested positive. When the law was stalled after three months of being in effect only 2.6% of recipients had tested positive for drugs, and in 2013 a federal judge declared Florida’s policy unconstitutional, forcing the state to abolish drug testing of welfare enrollees.
The Case in Minnesota
An analysis conducted by the Minnesota Dept. of Human Services discovered that participants in the state’s welfare programs were far less likely to have used illegal drugs or been convicted of drug felonies than the adult population as a whole. According to their study only 0.4% of families participating in MFIP have felony drug convictions compared to 1.2% of Minnesota’s adult population. Counties across Minnesota claim that the current law presents many logistical challenges and costs more money than it saves, especially since no additional funds were allocated to implement the policy. Some county officials say that “the cost of identifying, contacting and testing a tiny number of convicted drug felons will exceed the savings from terminating benefits for the few who fail the drug tests.” In addition, even if the original intention of the law was to get treatment for MFIP recipients who have drug addictions, other opponents like Jessica Webster from the Legal Services Advocacy Project state that no funding exists to provide treatment for people who were to test positive.
Rep. Rena Moran recently echoed a similar concern stating that:
“current drug testing laws place additional burdens on already overwhelmed county welfare systems, costs more time and money than they save, concern only a small fraction of welfare recipients, and encourages the general public to view welfare recipients through a negative lens.”
Implications for Child Welfare
According to Dan Kitzberger, the policy director for the MN Coalition for the Homeless, 66% of MFIP enrollees are children. A report released by the MN Children’s Defense Fund indicates that children on MFIP are often at risk for negative developmental outcomes due to the poverty and environmental stressors they experience. This report also claims that financial sanctions applied to a caregiver’s failure to meet certain MFIP requirements, including removal of benefits for a positive drug test, only forces a family into deeper poverty with the heaviest impact felt by the children. These are important considerations when thinking about the potential impact of H.F. 1987 and S.F. 1738 on child welfare practice, since poverty can increase the likelihood of maltreatment, particularly when there are compounding factors such as substance abuse.
Debates surrounding drug testing laws have been fervent since the overhaul of the U.S. welfare system in the mid-1990s, and these bills continue to be controversial. What are some potential ideas or solutions you have to contribute to this debate? Leave a comment below!
