Pubdate: May 30, 1999
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 1999 The New York Times Company
Contact:  http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://www10.nytimes.com/comment/
Author: Robyn Meredith

OPPOSITION TO PLAN TO TEST WELFARE APPLICANTS FOR DRUGS

DETROIT -- In a controversial and unusual effort to move more welfare
recipients into the work force, Michigan plans a pilot program that
would require thousands of those applying for aid to take drug tests
to qualify for benefits.

Starting in October, Michigan welfare applicants under 65 in three
locations yet to be chosen will be required to take drug tests or
forfeit their benefits. People already receiving benefits at those
locations would be randomly tested.

Those who test positive for illegal drugs would be required to get
treatment to collect welfare money, and those who refuse treatment
would be dropped from the welfare rolls.

Against a tide of opposition from civil libertarians and welfare
experts and mixed reaction from welfare recipients themselves, Gov.
John Engler explained that the program would help those who needed
drug treatment to get it and to obtain jobs.

"The idea is that workplace testing today is so common," Engler said.
"This is a tool that will help identify some of the problems that need
to be treated." Michigan was one of the early leaders nationwide in
the effort to end the decadeslong system of guaranteed welfare
benefits and to replace it with time limits and other changes intended
to force those on welfare to work. Since October 1992, when Michigan's
welfare changes began, the state's caseload has dropped about 60
percent, to 89,866 families from 225,359, the 14th largest drop among
states, according to federal statistics. With many of those most able
to find jobs already working, Michigan is trying a new approach on
welfare. The mandatory drug tests, which other states have considered
but rejected, are just one indication of its new direction. Other
initiatives include a plan to reduce fraud by taking computerized
fingerprint images of those applying for welfare. And the welfare
agency plans to expand its "Project Zero" program to 25 additional
welfare offices around the state, bringing to 60 the number of
locations offering flexible, expanded social services, like child care
and transportation, with a goal of reducing welfare cases in a given
area to zero.

But of all the initiatives, mandatory drug testing has raised the most
concern, especially among civil libertarians, social workers and
welfare experts. Other states have considered similar drug testing
programs but have backed away. Last year, Florida set up a pilot
program in two regions to detect drug-abusing welfare recipients. It
asks drug-use questions of all applicants, but uses physical drug
tests only on those it has reasonable cause to believe use drugs.

Louisiana passed a law in 1997 requiring drug testing for welfare
recipients and certain public employees. But after a task force was
set up to carry out the law, the state decided instead to require
applicants to answer a questionnaire about drug use. Answers to the
questions determine whether a drug test is administered.

New York and Maryland planned to require drug tests but found that
other types of screening like questionnaires were cheaper and more
effective. Four other states -- New Jersey, Minnesota, South Carolina
and Wisconsin -- randomly test welfare recipients with felony drug
convictions. The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties
Union is considering suing the state to challenge the program on
constitutional grounds, arguing that the mandatory drug test violates
the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

"The state is starting from the assumption that the poor are
criminals," said Kary L. Moss, executive director of the ACLU of
Michigan. "The state is saying that if you want money for food and
shelter you have to give up the Fourth Amendment rights that others
have."

Social workers are concerned that the new program could have
unintended consequences.

"It is very demeaning," said Sharon Parks, senior research associate
at the Michigan League for Human Services, a nonprofit organization.
"It might have a real chilling effect on people even coming in and
applying." Welfare experts object to the program and say it has a
number of shortcomings.

"Michigan is the only state in the country that is doing this," said
Gwen Rubinstein, director of policy research at the Legal Action
Center, a nonprofit organization based in New York that focuses on
alcohol and drug policy and tracks drug testing efforts nationwide.
"Drug testing often sounds on the surface like a good idea, but it has
so many flaws." First, Ms. Rubinstein said, drug testing will not turn
up those with alcohol abuse problems, which are more prevalent among
welfare recipients. The tests are intrusive, she said, and casual drug
users who are able to work will test positive along with addicts who
need treatment. Because testing is also expensive, it can divert money
that could otherwise be used for drug treatment and other social
services, Ms. Rubinstein said. Sheldon Danziger, an economist and
professor of social work and public policy at the University of
Michigan who conducted a study of Michigan welfare recipients, said
money used to test for drug use could be put to better use screening
for mental health problems that needed treatment. "A much greater
percentage of women have mental health problems like depression,
anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder than have
substance abuse problems," Danziger said.

But Douglas E. Howard, the new director of the state welfare agency,
defended his plans.

"Michigan's approach is very unique," Howard said. "It is not just
testing; it is testing followed by treatment."

He said the falling welfare caseload in the state dictated a change in
direction. "We're in an economy now where job placement isn't as tough
as it was 10 years ago," he said. "The challenge is in job retention."
The state plans to select the three pilot sites in June, with one
likely to be in Detroit, one in another large city and one in a rural
area, Howard said. Drug treatment availability varies by region, and
the sites chosen will be those with adequate treatment centers.

"What we are trying to do is remove barriers to work," he said. It is
unclear how much the testing and treatment programs will cost because
neither the sites nor the testing material -- urine, sweat or hair
follicles -- have been decided on. Most drug tests cost about $40 a
person, Howard said, but he was not sure how many people would fall
under the jurisdiction of the three locations.

Some welfare recipients here vehemently oppose his plans, and others
applaud them. "It definitely would be humiliating to me," said Barbara
L. Whitfield, 61, who has been raising four grandchildren since her
daughter died nine years ago. "They should find a better way to do
that, a more dignified way." Others supported the plan. "I think it is
a good idea," said Talonda D. Loggins, 25, a mother of three who works
as a nurse's assistant when she can find good child care and collects
welfare when she cannot. "Some recipients are not using their money
the way it is supposed to be used," Ms. Loggins said, adding that the
testing would reduce recipients' use of drugs.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek Rea