No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests [FL]

...The lack of embarrassment is what is driving welfare. It SHOULD be humiliating to take welfare -- that is the biggest incentive to get off it...

Not, like, actually finding a job that pays enough to support your family? Oh, wait, I didn't look at the economy before I asked that...

My mom was on welfare for many years and she hated it. She made it clear to us that she didn't like it, did it to keep a roof over our heads, went to school, got her degree, got a job and got the hell off the dole as soon as she could.

There may be people who are just into the dole (though, truth to tell, our dole is by any measure a whole lot more stingy than that of most other developed nations), but pretty much all the ones I've met were looking for a way out from under the state's thumb as soon as they could find it.

Welfare should never provide more than the lowest paying job. Ever. Period. Yes, I am harsh, but the current system is an incentive to be a parasite. And yes, anyone on welfare is in a parasitic relationship to those of us who actually contribute. Hell, why do you think illeghals get jobs here? Because it's easier and more lucrative to be on the government teat if you are a citizen than to actually work.

Wrong question since they're virtually all passing the drug test.

So, either I pay for welfare or I pay for welfare plus useless drug tests.

virtually all... of 4000 individuals... over a four month period... in a state with over 50,000 FAMILIES on monthly State subsidy.
again: something is *very* odd about the data set.

Not so odd. The drug testing was for applicants, not all recipients. Florida TANF can run for 48 months. The vast majority are one (or none) parent households:

In 2001, about 37 percent of TANF families had no adult recipients. Sixty percent of TANF families had one adult recipient...

50,000/(3*4)=?

so, the cited (but not provided) data covers only new applicants, not people already on the rolls?

The administration of "welfare" programs provides some of us (Democrats?) with good paying jobs in the public sector. As a result, there are also ancillary sub-contracted jobs in the private sector. Drug testing is just expanding the pie, creating more jobs. Never expect to find "savings" in any government program of any kind. That's not their purpose in life.

The administration of "welfare" programs provides some of us (Democrats?) with good paying jobs in the public sector. As a result, there are also ancillary sub-contracted jobs in the private sector. Drug testing is just expanding the pie, creating more jobs. Never expect to find "savings" in any government program of any kind. That's not their purpose in life.

there is that difficult-to-counterargue point

...so, the cited (but not provided) data covers only new applicants, not people already on the rolls?

Yes, the testing was only on new applicants.

...so, the cited (but not provided) data covers only new applicants, not people already on the rolls?

Yes, the testing was only on new applicants.

useless.

...As long as you have your calculator out, go ahead and crunch the NYTimes' numbers and see what you find. You'll find that they "conveniently" left out a lot of key information, *and* failed to provide a link or even a citation to the "state data" they said they used, but spotting the missing information is all part of the exercise.

Be sure to locate the average welfare benefit received by a Florida recipient, and how long the average applicant keeps drawing benefits before leaving the program, and see if it jibes with the NYTimes' numeric claims.

The average TANF family in Florida in 1997 was 2.8 persons, and single parent families are much more common than 2 parent families, as noted in another post.[1] I don't have any reason to believe that's changed much, and it is consistent with national family size numbers from the CRS.[2]

Note that the Florida law, as passed, only penalizes the adult in the household. The kids still get the funding.

(3) If a parent is deemed ineligible for TANF benefits as
109 a result of failing a drug test conducted under this section:
110 (a) The dependent child's eligibility for TANF benefits is
111 not affected.
112 (b) An appropriate protective payee shall be designated to
113 receive benefits on behalf of the child.
114 (c) The parent may choose to designate another individual
115 to receive benefits for the parent's minor child...

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/20 ... xt/er/HTML

The maximum term of benefits would be 4 years. However, per reference [1], the average length of benefits is 2 years. In any case, the penalty on first failure of a drug test, per the law above, is ineligibility for one year, so I'm going to use that to estimate savings.

The difference between the Florida payment for a family of 3 (2.8, rounded up) and 2 (the sanctioned family) is $62/month.[3] The payment by family size data is a little stale (2004), but according to the CBPP[4] they haven't changed since 1996 for a family of 3.

Taking that as a typical case, kicking 108 people off the roles will save ~$80k until they're eligible for retests.

The NYT numbers seem reasonable.

[1] http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/dat ... tanfp7.htm
[2] http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/asse ... L32760.pdf
[3] http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/asse ... L32598.pdf
[4] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3306