Posted by Kromey at 3:45pm Aug 29 '11Article describes it in more detail, but here's the Cliff's Notes version:
* Florida implemented mandatory drug testing for applicants requesting welfare cash aid.
* 96% of applicants tested drug-free; 2% have not completed their applications for various (mostly unknown) reasons; 2% have tested positive for drugs and thus been barred from receiving aid for 1 year.
* Despite the low positive test rate, Florida expects to save a few grand to a few tens of thousands.
The article is very careful to point out that the 2% positive rate is well below the roughly 8% usage rate of the population at large (according to the one poll they chose to cite), and very careful to note that this is directly contradictory to the expectations of the governor.
However, the article leaves a few key questions unanswered:
1) How rigorous were the testing procedures? It's trivial to fake a urine sample if you bring it into the lab yourself, harder if you have to pee in the cup on the spot. Also I'm unsure of how reliable the test are: if I were to stay sober for a week before getting the test done, and then immediately resume my habit (now funded in part by the state of Florida!) afterward, would the test show that?
2) Did applications drop off at all, and/or was there a surge of applications just prior to this new law going into effect? If I were coking up or something and was aware of this law (which seems likely given how strongly the governor apparently lobbied for it), I would have either rushed to apply prior to having to get tested, or else not apply at all knowing I wouldn't get it anyway. Or simply fake the test (see #1). In other words, if the population of (potential) welfare applicants has at least the same usage right of drugs as the general population, I'd expect to see a drop in applications submitted as a result of this law, which adds to the savings significantly: no test to reimburse, and no welfare to dole out, and no application to spend government man-hours processing -- a win-win-win for the state!
* Florida implemented mandatory drug testing for applicants requesting welfare cash aid.
* 96% of applicants tested drug-free; 2% have not completed their applications for various (mostly unknown) reasons; 2% have tested positive for drugs and thus been barred from receiving aid for 1 year.
* Despite the low positive test rate, Florida expects to save a few grand to a few tens of thousands.
The article is very careful to point out that the 2% positive rate is well below the roughly 8% usage rate of the population at large (according to the one poll they chose to cite), and very careful to note that this is directly contradictory to the expectations of the governor.
However, the article leaves a few key questions unanswered:
1) How rigorous were the testing procedures? It's trivial to fake a urine sample if you bring it into the lab yourself, harder if you have to pee in the cup on the spot. Also I'm unsure of how reliable the test are: if I were to stay sober for a week before getting the test done, and then immediately resume my habit (now funded in part by the state of Florida!) afterward, would the test show that?
2) Did applications drop off at all, and/or was there a surge of applications just prior to this new law going into effect? If I were coking up or something and was aware of this law (which seems likely given how strongly the governor apparently lobbied for it), I would have either rushed to apply prior to having to get tested, or else not apply at all knowing I wouldn't get it anyway. Or simply fake the test (see #1). In other words, if the population of (potential) welfare applicants has at least the same usage right of drugs as the general population, I'd expect to see a drop in applications submitted as a result of this law, which adds to the savings significantly: no test to reimburse, and no welfare to dole out, and no application to spend government man-hours processing -- a win-win-win for the state!
2% of welfare applicants test positive for drugs - Kromey