Pubdate: Tue, 21 Nov 2000
Source: National Post (Canada)
Copyright: 2000 Southam Inc.
Contact:  300 - 1450 Don Mills Road, Don Mills, Ontario M3B 3R5
Fax: (416) 442-2209
Website: http://www.nationalpost.com/
Forum: http://forums.canada.com/~nationalpost
Author: Donna Laframboise

ONTARIO'S WELFARE PLAN NEEDS A FIX

Last week, Ontario announced plans to become the first Canadian 
jurisdiction to subject welfare recipients to mandatory drug treatment. At 
a press conference, John Baird, the Social Services Minister, luridly held 
up a fistful of hypodermic needles and declared that those "who refuse 
treatment or who won't take tests on request will lose their benefits."

Reaction was swift and predictable. The Canadian Civil Liberties 
Association (of which I am a vice-president), characterized the plan as a 
"urinary witch hunt." A Toronto Star editorial accused the government of 
"rubbing the noses of the needy in yet another humiliation." News reports 
observed that the Privacy Commissioner is against the idea.

In addition to all the philosophical arguments, however, there are 
hard-nosed, practical reasons to be wary of such a plan.

Mr. Baird says he has read "studies that suggest mandatory drug treatment 
can be just as effective as voluntary treatment." What he forgets to 
mention is that the vast majority of such studies involve criminals, not 
welfare recipients.

In point of fact, research on the coerced drug treatment of welfare 
recipients barely exists. Initiatives of this sort are so new there hasn't 
been adequate time to determine whether they work or not.

The mandatory treatment programs that function well are actually an 
invention of the U.S. criminal justice system. In recent years, that 
country has pioneered drug courts -- where offenders are offered a choice 
between jail time and drug treatment. But two of the biggest reasons for 
the success of drug courts will be missing from Ontario's plan.

First, those who receive drug treatment are a select group. In some 
jurisdictions, only a third of the individuals charged with drug offences 
are considered eligible for the treatment option. Ontario, on the other 
hand, appears well on its way to coercing any welfare recipient who fails a 
drug test into treatment -- irrespective of whether the person is a casual 
or chronic user, and regardless of whether treatment has any hope of 
working in their particular case.

Second, specially trained drug court judges maintain frequent contact with 
those receiving drug treatment and are empowered to penalize them in a 
variety of ways if they get off track, including jailing them briefly.

In the case of welfare recipients, the state's coercive options are 
considerably more limited. The leverage amounts to an on/off switch: Give 
people their cheques or cut them off. This is the difference between being 
in an elevator that stops at every floor and one that plunges directly to 
the basement.

Mr. Baird points to five U.S. states that, he says, also link drug 
treatment with welfare benefits. But when telephoned by the National Post, 
all five said their concern is "substance abuse" -- a far broader notion 
than the "drug addiction" Mr. Baird is selectively targeting.

It is difficult, as Mr. Baird says, "to get a job and hold a job if you're 
addicted to drugs." But it's equally difficult to find and keep a job if 
you have a drinking problem or are addicted to prescription medication. If 
the point is to help people get "off welfare and back on their feet again," 
highlighting only one kind of addiction makes little sense.

Currently, drug treatment programs in this country are notorious for one 
thing: waiting lists of six months or longer. Mr. Baird claims a 
"caseworker here in Toronto recently told me she believes the majority of 
her clients would voluntarily participate in a drug treatment program" (my 
emphasis).

If this is the case, why not try that option first? Why not focus on making 
such programs truly available to all who need them? What's the rush to 
implement an expensive, intrusive system if we aren't sure it's even necessary?

Premier Mike Harris likes to keep his campaign promises, and that his 
party's election blueprint promised such drug treatment. But Ontario's 
welfare rolls are in an historic 33-month decline. Things are going well.

On the other hand, this initiative has the makings of a nightmare. In 
Miami, so many drug treatment programs were set up so fast to support drug 
courts there, the media had a field day exposing the substandard facilities 
and incompetent staff. Baltimore experienced similar problems.

There is a modest amount of speculation -- but precious little hard 
evidence -- that state-imposed drug treatment reduces welfare rolls noticeably.

Instead, this is the kind of idea that gives conservatives a bad name, that 
contributes to the stereotype of mean-spirited SOBs sitting around 
inventing ways of making life miserable for the poor.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager