Debit cards issued to provide assistance to Colorado welfare recipients have been used to withdraw cash at ATM's in strip clubs, casinos, bingo halls and amusement parks an investigation has found.
While state law bans welfare transactions at liquor stores, casinos and bingo halls, it does not at strip clubs.
The withdraw the money so they can pay the child support in person.
Whover missed that should be fired. I am sure no one deliberatly intended for the cards to be useable at those businesses
Two ways to fix it:
A. Add such businesses to the list of prohibited uses
B. Do away with welfare altogether
> B. Do away with welfare altogether
Yea... Right. Let's stop building roads too.
AS3
Notice that nobody is chiming in with option #3, being to do away with strip clubs.
But my guess is those atm cards will only work at the clubs that do not serve alcohol.
> Debit cards issued to provide assistance to Colorado welfare recipients have been used to withdraw cash at ATM's in strip clubs, casinos, bingo halls and amusement parks an investigation has found.
> While state law bans welfare transactions at liquor stores, casinos and bingo halls, it does not at strip clubs.
Of course it shouldn't be, the question is what percentage of the cards are used at strip clubs, casinos, and bingo halls? I would willing to bet that it doesn't happen very often.
In Oklahoma, we're trying to pass a law requiring any recipient of "social services" (including unemployment) to take a periodic piss test. You oughta hear the 'public' outcry.
(tongue-in-cheek)How can the government be so invasive by trampling on our Constitutional Rights?
go figger..
> In Oklahoma, we're trying to pass a law requiring any recipient of "social services" (including unemployment) to take a periodic piss test.
Same here.
Who ever receives gvmt. money should have to.
Including ALL government employees.
IMHO, forcing people to have their piss checked is just more of that right wing need to punish and humiliate people for being poor. Sick stuff!
> ... You oughta hear the 'public' outcry.
Some day some state with some kahoonies will get that badly needed legislation through. Then it will go to the supreme court and hopefully be upheld.
Kind of ironic that they can make somebody put a PBT on their ignition switch just to start their OWN car. But they won't make a welfare mom living with her boyfriend go by the same rules, as she just keeps pooping out babies.
The "system" is broke. I always like the part where people pay perhaps $1000 of federal tax, then get back a $6000 or more tax "refund" based on "credits". It's all BS
(rant off)
When you reward irresponsibility - guess what you get more of??
Different report on Florida drug testing
Seems like some fuzzy math going on here by somebody...
Sorry - Sources cited had to be cropped due to excessive length. See link for full listing of sources.
Background
In May 2011, the Florida Legislature passed and Governor Rick Scott signed into law HB 353[1] requiring applicants for Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA, Florida’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program) to have a negative drug test before receiving cash benefits. Federal welfare reform legislation signed by President Clinton in 1996 specifically allows states such discretion.[2] Florida’s Department of Children and Families implemented the drug testing requirement on July 1, 2011. On September 7, 2011, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida announced a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new law.[3]
Drug Testing Process
Not all cash assistance applicants are required to get a drug test. According to Department of Children and Families (DCF) officials, agency specialists perform an initial screening to determine if an applicant is otherwise eligible before requiring a drug test. This is important as typically 37,400 applicants for TCA are processed monthly, but only about 7,000 (19 percent) are determined eligible and given cash assistance.[4]
DCF tests 10 major categories of drugs.[5] Most drugs have to have been used within the past few days to be detected, although some are detected in a urine sample as long as six weeks after usage (42 days)[6], as shown in Table 1.
Applicants must pay for the test themselves (about $30) at one of more than 340 approved sites statewide.[7] However, if they test negative for drugs, the State reimburses the cost of the test with the first month of cash assistance benefits. Those who test positive for drug use are ineligible for cash assistance for one year, but may reapply after six months if they provide proof of completing substance abuse treatment.
Given this, applicants who are drug users have a big incentive to never get tested at all (since the TCA application requires that all drug test results are reported to DCF).[8] From the perspective of the applicant, to not complete the application process is better (and cheaper) than testing positive for drug use and definitively losing eligibility for six months to a year.
A Temporary Cash Assistance application remains active for 45 days before it is closed for being incomplete (if no drug test is ever completed).[9] Therefore, applicants who apply in one month (say July) but do not complete the drug test will likely have their application closed and be denied cash assistance the following month (August).
Levels of Reported Drug Use and a Past Florida Pilot Program
According to a 2009 federal survey, 4.5 percent of pregnant women aged 15 to 44, 10.6 percent of non-pregnant women in the same age category, and 17.0 percent of unemployed adults used illicit drugs during the month prior to being surveyed.[10] These major categories provide some possible benchmarks against which DCF results could be measured.
In addition, a decade ago a State-funded pilot program in Jacksonville that drug-tested cash assistance applicants reported a 3.8 percent positive test rate.[11]
Initial Results in Florida
To truly understand the results of this new policy it is critical to note that denials for incomplete applications due to missing drug test results do not appear until the following month. This is shown in Table 2 and in the DCF data.
Almost all drug-related denials by DCF are for missing drug test results. According to DCF, in July there were only 9 applicants denied for a drug-related reason, but the number of drug-related denials climbed to 565 in August (reflecting the one month lag). Of these 574 total drug-related denials, only 9 were for a positive test. [12] Almost all remaining applicants never completed a drug test even though these individuals completed all other steps in the application process and were determined eligible once DCF received negative drug test results.
As previously noted, it can be assumed that all drug-related denials in July 2011 (9) and August 2011 (565) were for July applicants, given the time lag for closed applications due to missing drug test results.
Table 2 shows that for July, 9.6 percent of otherwise qualified applicants for cash assistance were denied for a drug-related reason. With an approximate annual savings to the state of $1,608 per drug-related denial (see Table 3), these 574 denials from July 2011 represent annualized savings to Florida taxpayers of $922,992. The cost of reimbursing the 5,390 approved applicants with a negative drug test ($30 average for each) reduces this annualized savings figure by $161,700, for a net savings to taxpayers of $761,292 for the first month of the program alone. Since Florida’s initial denial rate is 9.6 percent, the State is currently saving an estimated $5.71 on drug testing for every $1 it spends reimbursing approved applicants with negative drug tests who ultimately receive cash assistance. If these July trends continue throughout the first year, the drug testing requirement will save Florida taxpayers $9,135,504 from July 2011 through June 2012.
What is unclear is why the total number of cash assistance approvals in July, even if all drug-related denials were to have been approved, is about 10 percent lower than June 2011.
Last year, July 2010 approvals were higher than in June 2010. August 2010 was higher than both June and July 2010. Thus, this does not seem to be a seasonal fluctuation as the experience during the 2010 summer months was much different than during the 2011 summer months. It may be a result of otherwise qualified drug users not even applying given the recent drug test requirement. This trend will be studied further in future reports. Given the significant decline in August 2011 approvals, it appears to be a very significant trend and quite likely related to the drug testing requirement, as the economy did not change radically from June through August.
As also shown in Table 3, for the program to generate savings for the State of Florida, just 1.87 percent of those who would otherwise be approved for cash assistance would have to be denied for a drug-related reason. Remember, July 2011 drug-related denials totaled 9.6 percent of otherwise qualified applications—much higher than the 1.87 percent break-even point.
Policy Recommendation: Expand Drug Testing to Current Recipients
Given the positive initial experience of Florida’s cash assistance drug testing requirement, the Foundation for Government Accountability recommends the program be expanded to include testing of all current recipients of cash assistance as well.
Drug Testing Requirements Becoming More Common in Other States
Drug testing for public assistance applicants is being considered in at least ten states this year, and has already passed in Missouri.[13] Arizona already drug tests welfare applicants.[14] In addition, in July Indiana became the first state to require drug testing for state-funded job training programs. A positive test in Indiana does not affect the individual’s unemployment benefits, which are separately administered.[15] Last week, Linn State Technical College, a public two-year college in Missouri, announced it was drug screening the general student body.[16]
Given the initial experience in Florida, this trend will likely continue and accelerate across the nation.
National Implication
If Florida’s policy were replicated nationwide, the fiscal savings would be substantial. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there was an average of 140,842 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families applicants approved each month during Fiscal Year 2011.[17] If, like in Florida, a similar 9.6 percent were denied for drug-related reasons (13,520) with a similar annualized savings as Florida’s, then nationally, a drug testing requirement just for new applicants for just TANF alone could save taxpayers more than $173.3 million every year. Even accounting for the expense of reimbursing testing costs for negative results ($30 times 122,322 applicants monthly with a negative test = $3,819,660) would achieve savings of $10,620,589 monthly or almost $127,447,068 annually for federal and state budgets.
About the author
Tarren Bragdon is president and chief executive officer of the Foundation for Government Accountability, a research and advocacy organization committed to making Florida the most economically vibrant state in America.
Different report on Florida drug testing
"If Florida’s policy were replicated nationwide, the fiscal savings would be substantial...... just TANF alone could save taxpayers more than $173.3 million every year. Even accounting for the expense of reimbursing testing costs for negative results ($30 times 122,322 applicants monthly with a negative test = $3,819,660) would achieve savings of $10,620,589 monthly or almost $127,447,068 annually for federal and state budgets."
I understand the need to cut costs and eliminate waste and fraud.
However, just look at the numbers you are quoting......what is the state budget in Florida.....between 60 and 65 BILLION dollars. $128 million is 0.2 percent of $60 billion.
The amount of outrage over "welfare queens" and what have you is distinctly out of proportion to the actual impact on the budget. It's the same in every state, and it's the same in the national budget as well.
Medicare and Medicaid are around 20% of the national budget. In recent years, Defense has approximately the same portion of the budget pie, and probably has as much (if not more) fraud and waste.....yet the same outcry is not there......why?
>
> Who ever receives gvmt. money should have to.
> Including ALL government employees.
Elected officials as well.
Rick
Different report on Florida drug testing
... here's another one...
...but besides all this Malarkey, as an observer from a European standpoint I've always figured that a country that is unable to serve it's own citizens ain't much of a country and there's a few of em on the planet. Certain groups want government smaller and out of their lives yet they themselves adopt intrusive government programs like this drug testing, and those weird mandatory trans vaginal ultrasounds, the social spying (lets call it the patriots act to make you seem unpatriotic if your against it), and so called health care or lack off (don't get me started there...I get to spend 4 months in Europe for surgery and rehab while workman's comp and health insurance continue to duke it out over here as to who is financially responsible)
It's interesting how two parties can jockey and strategize for power only to find themselves 180° from the positions they held only years or months before. The hive doesn't hum anymore...it just sputters and coughs like a worn out old engine.
Got off track I know but the fingers wouldn't stop.
If you think that spending money on welfare for the poor is too much, take a look at corporate welfare. Maybe we should require ceo's and anyone who works for that company to pee in a cup too. What the heck. Why not make EVERYBODY pee in a cup....
The definition of poor is about like a room full of surveyors trying to agree on NORTH.
Being poor through little or no part of your own choice is vastly different than choosing to play the games that will qualify you as being "poor" for some handout. I know a fellow whose father is an Irish Catholic multi-millionaire. The son is one-half Hispanic. He runs a construction business that is considered disadvantaged because he is a minority, according to the way the rules are written. Daddy's company gets the prime construction contract and the son's gets the gravy jobs.
I don't know what "right wing" has to do with it.
I have to pee in the cup and pass a background check just to be able to step foot on most projects such as schools, airports, and government buildings. And thats on top of company policy that requires me to pee in the cup just to continue to get paid and operate company vehicles/equipment.
Heck, I worked at one site were they would randonly swab the backs of workers throats after lunch to catch drinkers. It's all about safety in some places.
I am sure that most professionals fall into the same situation.
So, these people who are on welfare should be tested too. And they should have to pass background checks too.
Different report on Florida drug testing
:good:
