Drug Testing
Program Basics / Proposed Governor's Budget Changes
Governor Walker’s budget proposed to deny public assistance and unemployment insurance benefits to certain Wisconsin residents who test positive for illegal drug use. The budget requires several state agencies that administer public assistance to request waivers from the federal government to allow the state to conduct drug screening and drug tests as a condition for benefit eligibility for childless adults. Programs affected by drug testing include BadgerCare Plus, FoodShare, TANF, Wisconsin Works (W-2), and unemployment insurance. BadgerCare Plus currently serves over 155,000 childless adults who will be subject to drug testing if the Department of Health Services (DHS) receives a waiver from the federal government to test beneficiaries.
The proposed drug testing program mechanics are unclear and did not specify how the drug testing will be paid for, if agencies would have the authority to institute consequences associated with a positive test result, if any appeal opportunities would be offered to individuals, and what treatment would be available for those with a positive test result.
In addition to being constitutionally dubious, the drug testing provisions will do little to actually help people with substance abuse disorders. While decreasing drug use and abuse is beneficial to public health, program participants who lose their benefits will suffer the health effects of no longer being able to achieve food security, access healthcare, and meet other basic needs. Additionally, the drug testing provision will only further stigmatize poor people who already face challenges and social embarrassment in relation to the benefits they need for survival.
The Legislature amended many of the Governor's drug testing proposals as applied to different state programs. These changes weer not uniform across all programs with drug testing requirements, so please read each individual program's section to learn more about any new drug testing requirements that are applicable to that specific program.
Case Study - Florida:
In 2011, Florida became the first state to pass suspicionless drug testing for TANF benefits into law. After litigation lead by the ACLU, a federal court ruled that that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people against unreasonable government searches. In the four months that this law was in place, 4,086 TANF applicants were drug tested and only 2.6% of those individuals had a positive test result. Meanwhile, Florida spent over $118,000 reimbursing TANF applicants who tested negative in addition to administrative costs, staff costs, and litigation costs to the state.
There is little evidence to support the assertion that people who receive public assistance use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. If states are genuinely interested in helping people on public assistance with substance abuse disorders overcome addiction problems, they would be better off focusing their resources on proven substance abuse treatment programs instead of focusing on general drug testing regimes that raise serious constitutional concerns and lack evidentiary support.
The proposed drug testing program mechanics are unclear and did not specify how the drug testing will be paid for, if agencies would have the authority to institute consequences associated with a positive test result, if any appeal opportunities would be offered to individuals, and what treatment would be available for those with a positive test result.
In addition to being constitutionally dubious, the drug testing provisions will do little to actually help people with substance abuse disorders. While decreasing drug use and abuse is beneficial to public health, program participants who lose their benefits will suffer the health effects of no longer being able to achieve food security, access healthcare, and meet other basic needs. Additionally, the drug testing provision will only further stigmatize poor people who already face challenges and social embarrassment in relation to the benefits they need for survival.
The Legislature amended many of the Governor's drug testing proposals as applied to different state programs. These changes weer not uniform across all programs with drug testing requirements, so please read each individual program's section to learn more about any new drug testing requirements that are applicable to that specific program.
Case Study - Florida:
In 2011, Florida became the first state to pass suspicionless drug testing for TANF benefits into law. After litigation lead by the ACLU, a federal court ruled that that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people against unreasonable government searches. In the four months that this law was in place, 4,086 TANF applicants were drug tested and only 2.6% of those individuals had a positive test result. Meanwhile, Florida spent over $118,000 reimbursing TANF applicants who tested negative in addition to administrative costs, staff costs, and litigation costs to the state.
There is little evidence to support the assertion that people who receive public assistance use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. If states are genuinely interested in helping people on public assistance with substance abuse disorders overcome addiction problems, they would be better off focusing their resources on proven substance abuse treatment programs instead of focusing on general drug testing regimes that raise serious constitutional concerns and lack evidentiary support.
Resources
For more information about drug testing and public benefits, visit these resources:
