Drug Testing for welfare recipients

[nikki1920]

The birth control aspect is offered to men as well, FWIW. This economy has really humbled some people who thought they were too "good" for public assistance. I had ideas of what my clients would be like when I started working here, but I was proven wrong. A small minority of my clients would fit the "welfare stereotype".

If a person has been convicted of distributing drugs, they are not eligible for assistance for 10 years or life, I cant remember which. The policy used to be possession or distribution, but now its just distribution. That JUST changed.

ETA: Food stamps are supposed to supplement a family's food budget. Too many rely on it to be their only provision for food, and have no idea how they've used up their monthly benefits by the 10th of the month. They are supposed to purchase only food products with it (can't use them to pay for already prepared items, like the rotisserie chicken), but people and stores find ways around it.

Welfare has been rebranded. (As of August 22, 1996, don't ask how I know this date, lol!) These are not "welfare" programs, they are public assistance. Food Stamps are now SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I think we need to make people who receive assistance more accountable for proving HOW, if at all, they are trying to better their situation. There are too many people who are content to sit back and let the state take care of them and their children, but get beligerent when I need them to verify how they are paying for their expenses when they have no income. "Ms Nikki1920, why are you all in my business? Why do you need to know that?" EYE don't need to know anything, but you came in here, said you needed assistance and I need some information to determine how much, if any, assistance you are entitled to receive. If you don't want to give me the info, there is the door and have a great day.

[DaemonSeid]

PM Mama and co.

The big picture is that there are enough people on welfare who do not abide by the law and make it worse for everyone else who works within the law to get on and WANT to get off.

If you can, write down some of the stereotypes of people that you see on welfare and see what you come up with.


- women (more notably single mothers)

- under educated and functionally illiterate

- 'flashy' clothes

- 'shady' associates

- live in poor areas

add more in...

[SydneyK]

I don't see how making a list of stereotypes is going to help this discussion in any way.

[nikki1920]

I know the state of SC has that kind of program. Whether or not it works, I don't know. If a FS recipient does not attend the employment and training orientation, then their benefits stop until they do OR they can be exempted from it. Budgeting is not a high priority.

IASK: if a person is making no progress because there are simply no jobs available, then what? How do you determine progress?

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by nikki1920

IASK: if a person is making no progress because there are simply no jobs available, then what? How do you determine progress?

Progress, to me, is not only determined by getting a job. And in this recession there are going to be plenty of people who cant get one. I think the goal of training and education is not only to make workers more employable, but to also help them better themselves and take steps toward a career and not just a job. The job market isn't like it used to be. It used to be that a person could get a job with one company and work for that same company until they retire (My gdad worked for GM for years after the airforce). That doesnt happen any more so people have to look for more than just a job because those come and go quickly.

If there are no jobs available then the person should be taking steps toward building a career. There isnt much any person can do if no one is hiring. If it is quite evident that jobs arent available (as it is now) then progress would be determined by what the person is doing to better themselves via education and training. If a person hasn't found a job in three months, but has enrolled in a GED course and is investigating educational programs (post GED) then that is progress. If the person is taking the courses that are mandatory and performing well in them then that is progress. Another exhibition of progress is volunteering. If a person is giving their time to community service and are having a positive impact then that is progress. A person also could volunteer to do a job for no pay to gain experience. That is progress.

Progress to me is that person taking steps to make themselves better and to plan and prepare for the future. When that person takes steps job or no job in the right direction then I have no problem with them getting assistance.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Progress, to me, is not only determined by getting a job. And in this recession there are going to be plenty of people who cant get one. I think the goal of training and education is not only to make workers more employable, but to also help them better themselves and take steps toward a career and not just a job. The job market isn't like it used to be. It used to be that a person could get a job with one company and work for that same company until they retire (My gdad worked for GM for years after the airforce). That doesnt happen any more so people have to look for more than just a job because those come and go quickly.

If there are no jobs available then the person should be taking steps toward building a career. There isnt much any person can do if no one is hiring. If it is quite evident that jobs arent available (as it is now) then progress would be determined by what the person is doing to better themselves via education and training. If a person hasn't found a job in three months, but has enrolled in a GED course and is investigating educational programs (post GED) then that is progress. If the person is taking the courses that are mandatory and performing well in them then that is progress. Another exhibition of progress is volunteering. If a person is giving their time to community service and are having a positive impact then that is progress. A person also could volunteer to do a job for no pay to gain experience. That is progress.

Progress to me is that person taking steps to make themselves better and to plan and prepare for the future. When that person takes steps job or no job in the right direction then I have no problem with them getting assistance.

So what does the person with an MBA, or an engineering degree, or masters degree, and 10-15 years experience in their field do? Not all unemployed people are uneducated or inexperienced or non-professionals - in fact, in my state, which is the most educated in the country, I'd say the vast majority are not. I will never forget going to the unemployment office for a mandatory "audit" and class and being surrounded by people with graduate degrees (including PhDs) who were all being told that they needed to check out getting their GED or an associates degree from the local community college. WTF? The "teacher" of the course was embarassed giving that kind of lecture to people who were mostly more educated than he was! There is nothing they can do for people who already have an education and vast job skills; they just haven't been set up for that.

Also, if people don't have jobs, and banks aren't loaning money for student loans as freely as they used to, how are people supposed to pay for more college and training?

I've said it before, but I'll say it again, if people think it's bad now, just wait til six months from now, when people's unemployment runs out! You ain't seen nothin yet!

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

"RSI" requires the "rational" part to apply. Clearly the self-interest involved isn't always rational (as a term of art) so let's just ignore that part and consider this a social system rather than an economic system. It is a social system. I am not saying it is an economic system I am saying that the people are making economic decisions (ie: to keep welfare or not)

Also, my question is simply why you think this will decrease efficiency? Simply due to the cost involved?

I think that this will decrease efficiency in many ways. The cost will be huge and I think that the number of drug users will turn out to be insignificant (as in the amount wouldnt be enough to warrent all the testing). I'd say less than 20 percent of people on welfare are on drugs so that means that you'll be paying for 80% of the people to take tests (an inconviencing them) when they really dont need them. If you're going to test you'd have to do so randomly and multiple times in the year (because if you just scheduled it then people would be able to "beat" the test). And if these are tests where the person goes into a closed room and is not monitored then they could cheat the test as well. Then there is the issue of what you're going to do after a person has failed the test. Are you going to simply kick them off of welfare and let them fend for themselves? That doesnt seem likely because most of the people on welfare have children (or are in some way or another incapable of caring for themselves) and it is defeating the purpose to make more children homeless because of their parents drug use. If you do just completely cut them off then you have to spend money to increase law enforcement and place more stress and need for money on the court system because crime will surely go up. These children will end up in foster care which is already streched to its limits and thus that will need more funding. If you don't outright kick them off of welfare then it would make lawmakers look like idiots for having known drug users on welfare taking up tax dollars and not do anything about it. This means that they'd have to put more money into rehab programs (that druggies may or may not want to get into and that may or may not be successful). If rehab doesnt work out then you're back to the original point where you either kick them off of welfare and place the burden elsewhere or keep them on welfare and look like a complete idiot. And the big kicker is that all of this will be over only 1/5 of the people actually on welfare. More of the dollars that are going into welfare are ultimately going to be used by those that deserve them the least. So that means that 1/5 of the people then are pushed to the forefront of an issue that already has a plethora of image issues. Now the image of welfare suffers damage and even fewer tax payers will want to pay for it while it needs more tax payer dollars.

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

So what does the person with an MBA, or an engineering degree, or masters degree, and 10-15 years experience in their field do? Not all unemployed people are uneducated or inexperienced or non-professionals - in fact, in my state, which is the most educated in the country, I'd say the vast majority are not. I will never forget going to the unemployment office for a mandatory "audit" and class and being surrounded by people with graduate degrees (including PhDs) who were all being told that they needed to check out getting their GED or an associates degree from the local community college. WTF? The "teacher" of the course was embarassed giving that kind of lecture to people who were mostly more educated than he was! There is nothing they can do for people who already have an education and vast job skills; they just haven't been set up for that.

Also, if people don't have jobs, and banks aren't loaning money for student loans as freely as they used to, how are people supposed to pay for more college and training?
The government would be paying for that training. Im not talking the government paying for your BA or BS but maybe medical assistant program or something.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again, if people think it's bad now, just wait til six months from now, when people's unemployment runs out! You ain't seen nothin yet!

@bolded:
Im willing to bet that the education level on average of welfare recipients is a high school diploma (though that is changing now with the economy where it is). So, the people on welfare being highly educated is probably specific to your state or very few states.

Welfare was not designed for highly educated highly capable people. Unemployment can only go so far and it can only help so much. This program wasnt made to help everyone out. If you have a PhD my expectations of what you should be doing for yourself without the government are much higher. Our schools are in desperate need of teachers and our military needs people as well. If you have a PhD then it is my opinion that you have far more options than a person with no education does. There are plenty of foreign countries and companies that need educated people. They need doctors and lawyers and professors. Your opportunities are so much more vast with a masters or a PhD that honestly I am much less concerned about you than I am about someone who is uneducated. The military wont take you if you dont at least have a highschool diploma or the equivilant. If you have a PhD and you cant get ANY other job then the military is always in need of people and you'll make much more than you can on unemployment. You wont make what you're worth, but you'll make enough to survive.

[AGDee]

You can't join the military when you're 50 and have health problems. I think you're thinking of a totally different population than the people who are losing their jobs right now. The military is absolutely not an option for everybody. My brother was turned down in his 20's with his Masters in Health Administration because he had high blood pressure.

Moving to a foreign country would be an interesting proposition. No jobs in America? Then leave. Leave the best country in the world, seriously? I would never ever consider living in any other country. I don't see that as an option for the majority of people.

Our school districts sure aren't hiring. They're cutting back. And, you need a teacher's certificate to teach. PhDs don't generally have teaching certificates or an ability to teach. Unless you're referring to teaching at the university level. With as difficult as it is to get student loans right now, I imagine college enrollments will be dropping some and I don't think Universities are going to be hiring either.

The people I know who are getting laid off are mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, statisticians, accountants, finance specialists, marketing, management.. mostly in their late 40s and early 50s. They have careers and skills but there aren't enough jobs for them all. They aren't qualified to teach anywhere because they are Masters level people. They have aging parents they are caring for and kids in high school and college. They definitely aren't in the position to walk away from their houses and family to find a new job.

I know one guy who works on the line for Ford. He worked in Michigan and his family was all here. He got involuntarily transferred to Kansas City and for the last THREE years has been maintaining two households because they can't sell their house and don't want to pull their kids out of their schools as teenagers to live in a studio apartment in Kansas City, which is all they can afford if they don't sell their house. He keeps hoping to get a transfer back here. I just see people panicking everywhere. When you go from a 6 figure income to $346 a week, you can't make your bills, even if you lived modestly. If you have a family of 5, you can't make it on $346 a week.

It's looking like major doom and gloom again. I felt hopeful for a while, but all around me, people are panicking.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

If you have a PhD and you cant get ANY other job then the military is always in need of people and you'll make much more than you can on unemployment. You wont make what you're worth, but you'll make enough to survive.

Do you think it's so easy to waltz right into the military?

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I think that this will decrease efficiency in many ways. The cost will be huge and I think that the number of drug users will turn out to be insignificant (as in the amount wouldnt be enough to warrent all the testing). I'd say less than 20 percent of people on welfare are on drugs so that means that you'll be paying for 80% of the people to take tests (an inconviencing them) when they really dont need them. If you're going to test you'd have to do so randomly and multiple times in the year (because if you just scheduled it then people would be able to "beat" the test). And if these are tests where the person goes into a closed room and is not monitored then they could cheat the test as well. Then there is the issue of what you're going to do after a person has failed the test. Are you going to simply kick them off of welfare and let them fend for themselves? That doesnt seem likely because most of the people on welfare have children (or are in some way or another incapable of caring for themselves) and it is defeating the purpose to make more children homeless because of their parents drug use. If you do just completely cut them off then you have to spend money to increase law enforcement and place more stress and need for money on the court system because crime will surely go up. These children will end up in foster care which is already streched to its limits and thus that will need more funding. If you don't outright kick them off of welfare then it would make lawmakers look like idiots for having known drug users on welfare taking up tax dollars and not do anything about it. This means that they'd have to put more money into rehab programs (that druggies may or may not want to get into and that may or may not be successful). If rehab doesnt work out then you're back to the original point where you either kick them off of welfare and place the burden elsewhere or keep them on welfare and look like a complete idiot. And the big kicker is that all of this will be over only 1/5 of the people actually on welfare. More of the dollars that are going into welfare are ultimately going to be used by those that deserve them the least. So that means that 1/5 of the people then are pushed to the forefront of an issue that already has a plethora of image issues. Now the image of welfare suffers damage and even fewer tax payers will want to pay for it while it needs more tax payer dollars.



@bolded:
Im willing to bet that the education level on average of welfare recipients is a high school diploma (though that is changing now with the economy where it is). So, the people on welfare being highly educated is probably specific to your state or very few states.

Welfare was not designed for highly educated highly capable people. Unemployment can only go so far and it can only help so much. This program wasnt made to help everyone out. If you have a PhD my expectations of what you should be doing for yourself without the government are much higher. Our schools are in desperate need of teachers and our military needs people as well. If you have a PhD then it is my opinion that you have far more options than a person with no education does. There are plenty of foreign countries and companies that need educated people. They need doctors and lawyers and professors. Your opportunities are so much more vast with a masters or a PhD that honestly I am much less concerned about you than I am about someone who is uneducated. The military wont take you if you dont at least have a highschool diploma or the equivilant. If you have a PhD and you cant get ANY other job then the military is always in need of people and you'll make much more than you can on unemployment. You wont make what you're worth, but you'll make enough to survive.

I wasn't really remarking specifically about people on welfare. It was a bit of a hijack. I agree with you that for the most part people on welfare probably do not have education. My remarks were about unemployed people in general. The attitude you have toward the unemployed is the same as that of the leaders of this country for the past decade, and frankly it's just not as progressive as we need to address the issues of today. I'm of the opinion that we DO need to care about educated people that are unemployed, just as much as we need to care about people that don't have a hs diploma or college degree. If there are no jobs for people with a college degree, what incentive is there for people to get educated? Also, our society cannot exist just on restaurant workers, baristas, lawyers and doctors. We NEED other high wage-earning jobs and the professions that earn them. We should be very worried when the only jobs in our country are at quick serve restaurants.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by nikki1920

I know the state of SC has that kind of program. Whether or not it works, I don't know. If a FS recipient does not attend the employment and training orientation, then their benefits stop until they do OR they can be exempted from it. Budgeting is not a high priority.

IASK: if a person is making no progress because there are simply no jobs available, then what? How do you determine progress?

This is true in Michigan as well. Additionally, unless you are a parent, there is no welfare. Our only welfare is ADC (Aid for Dependent Children). There is also the Bridge Card (food stamps, basically, in the form of a debit type card) but they aren't for all that much, really.. not nearly as much as I spend on groceries, even if I eliminate the basics, and they are only good for food, not toilet paper, soap, etc. There are food banks also. There is Section 8 housing, but you still have to pay something for that. The thing I see getting abused most is Social Security Disability. I know of people on SSD who are working under the table and collecting their SSD. If they can work, they shouldn't be eligible for SSD.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by AGDee

This is true in Michigan as well. Additionally, unless you are a parent, there is no welfare. Our only welfare is ADC (Aid for Dependent Children). There is also the Bridge Card (food stamps, basically, in the form of a debit type card) but they aren't for all that much, really.. not nearly as much as I spend on groceries, even if I eliminate the basics, and they are only good for food, not toilet paper, soap, etc. There are food banks also. There is Section 8 housing, but you still have to pay something for that. The thing I see getting abused most is Social Security Disability. I know of people on SSD who are working under the table and collecting their SSD. If they can work, they shouldn't be eligible for SSD.

Regarding the welfare and parent thing... apparently it's the same with Medicaid. I have a friend with a serious medical problem. She doesn't have insurance. She is working in her profession, and if the economy was good she'd be doing well. (commission type job, one that you have to go to school for) She tried to get medicaid and they basically told her she could get it if she had kids. (not those exact words) Here she is, a working law-abiding individual affected by the economy, and she can't get any help. You're almost better off going and having a kid out of wedlock so you can get help.

[AGDee]

You can't really make any money at all if you're single and need to be on Medicaid. The reason having kids helps is because you can make more money if you have dependents. The financial requirements for medicaid are really tough. Your friend is the perfect example of the working uninsured.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

Here she is, a working law-abiding individual affected by the economy, and she can't get any help. You're almost better off going and having a kid out of wedlock so you can get help.

Pretty much. That's one of the reasons we have generations of families living in housing projects and on welfare.

[nikki1920]

Medicaid, by definition, is a program for children under 19, pregnant women (ends 60 days after birth for mom unless she meets the income requirements) and FAMILIES with low or no income AND for adults over age 65, legally blind or legally disabled (i.e, disability determined by Social Security Administration). There is also a program that helps those who have Breast, Cerivcal and Ovarian cancer. There maybe programs that are available for people who aren't qualified for Medicaid. Again, I can only go by what we do here in my county in Va. Your friend should start at the health department and ask if there are any insurance programs for people who can't get Medicaid.

The reasons you have generations of families in housing projects and on welfare are a lot more varied than that, munchkin.

ADC doesn't exist anymore, the name of that program has been changed to TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families)