Well that worked out well...

[stevo]

You said they were tested randomly.... I said that ALL applicants should be tested.

I think we agree that they all should....

They are tested before they qualify, if they fail, they get no check. Now tell me, how the people that fail are going to have the amount for the test removed from a check that they never get?

Stevo

[Gargamel]

You said they were tested randomly.... I said that ALL applicants should be tested.

I think we agree that they all should....

[stevo]

If you apply for benefits, you should be tested.... period.

Where did I say they SHOULDN'T?

Stevo

[Gargamel]

Let's just work with the raw numbers... they say that ~1,500 people will be tested every month, at a cost of $30 per test.. If 2% fail every month, that is 30 people. The cost for all 1,500 tests is $45,000/month, but since 30 people fail, the state *only* has to pay for $44,100 of that cost. So far, they are $44,100 in the red.

The average savings in a month for them denying those 30 people who failed their welfare is $134. That is a savings of $4,020. Which is a savings of $48k+ in one year. But they already paid the $44,100 for that month of testing. But I think the real issue here is going to be the fact that the 30 people who fail that test the first month, aren't going to be getting tested the next month. And that 2% failure rate is not going to hold up month after month. I see this getting real expensive, real quick.

IF testing was a requirement, if you failed you were denied future benefits, and the cost of the applicant's test were subtracted from the support (if passed), you are still saving money over the course of the money they "would" have received.

Granted, that is not how the law is set up at this time....

[GSRGuy94]

If you apply for benefits, you should be tested.... period.

They were tested. And the VAST majority passed. So they get their money back. If you are on probation and you get drug tested, and you pass, you don't have to pay for the test.

[GSRGuy94]

Let's just work with the raw numbers... they say that ~1,500 people will be tested every month, at a cost of $30 per test.. If 2% fail every month, that is 30 people. The cost for all 1,500 tests is $45,000/month, but since 30 people fail, the state *only* has to pay for $44,100 of that cost. So far, they are $44,100 in the red.

The average savings in a month for them denying those 30 people who failed their welfare is $134. That is a savings of $4,020. Which is a savings of $48k+ in one year. But they already paid the $44,100 for that month of testing. But I think the real issue here is going to be the fact that the 30 people who fail that test the first month, aren't going to be getting tested the next month. And that 2% failure rate is not going to hold up month after month. I see this getting real expensive, real quick.

[Gargamel]

They are tested randomly, and if tested positive, they are denied future benefits, so the only thing that could happen would be to bill the person that failed, and considering they are on welfare I doubt they have the cash/would pay when billed.

Stevo

If you apply for benefits, you should be tested.... period.

[Snatch Napkin]

I see where you're getting confused now.

With the figures posted throughout the article, it seems like the word "annually" is a typo that was missed by a lazy editor who simply uses spell check.

The math doesn't add up if it were $3,400- $8,200 a year.

[Gargamel]

So charge the person that needs the money for the clean test. Makes a lot of sense. The whole premise of this bill was to have the people that test clean NOT PAY FOR THE TEST.

No, The whole purpose of the bill was to not have people using illegal drugs access to "our" money and to save a little dough as well.

For those that pass the test, its a measly fucking 30 dollars for access to a whole lot more of needed support that you will receive.... fuck, just make it 3 "easy" deductions of 10 dollars each over the first 3 checks...

[GSRGuy94]

If you read the whole article, then it says that the state will save a few bucks with this program, even though it is dropping 28,800- 43,200 a month on reimbursements.

With the failed tests, the state gets to keep 38,200 - 42,200 a month.

See it now?

That's not how I read it. Though the article does seem to be a bit unclear.

TALLAHASSEE --

Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

At Scott's urging, the Legislature implemented the new requirement earlier this year that applicants for temporary cash assistance pass a drug test before collecting any benefits.

The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reimbursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year.

Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months.

The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge.

The ACLU has been threatening for months that it may challenge the constitutionality of the program; Tuesday, Newton said his group is still weighing a lawsuit.

DCF spokesman Joe Follick said that families and accountability are the main focuses of the program.

"The taxpayers deserve to know that the money they are spending is being used for its intended purpose," he said. "In this case, with [temporary cash assistance], the purpose is to help families become independent and self-sufficient. If a family receiving [cash assistance] includes someone who has a substance abuse problem, the odds of that money being used for purposes other than helping that family increases."

More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment.

That makes it sound like one months' worth of rejections is equal to $3,400-$8,200 NET a year. When they are talking about the $30k-$40k/month on both sides, that is gross. Less than $100k net savings a year.

[Snatch Napkin]

Same results are posted everywhere you look. Search for yourself?

The figures could very well be true, but it's the angle in which they are discussed that seems skewed.

I will say, though, that reading what you quoted versus the actual article is a stark difference. Your post was way more skewed than the article, in other words.

[FastFox]

There will never ba a way to solve the welfare problem. So, just cut it all by 20 % and let it go. Next, cut all other government expenses by 10 %.

[GSRGuy94]

They are tested randomly, and if tested positive, they are denied future benefits, so the only thing that could happen would be to bill the person that failed, and considering they are on welfare I doubt they have the cash/would pay when billed.

Stevo

Exactly.

[Snatch Napkin]

What part?

If you read the whole article, then it says that the state will save a few bucks with this program, even though it is dropping 28,800- 43,200 a month on reimbursements.

With the failed tests, the state gets to keep 38,200 - 48,200 a month.

See it now?


TALLAHASSEE --

Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free -- leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

At Scott's urging, the Legislature implemented the new requirement earlier this year that applicants for temporary cash assistance pass a drug test before collecting any benefits.

The law, which took effect July 1, requires applicants to pay for their own drug tests. Those who test drug-free are reimbursed by the state, and those who fail cannot receive benefits for a year.

Having begun the drug testing in mid-July, the state Department of Children and Families is still tabulating the results. But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly.

So far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people -- 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested -- fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state -- $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Actual savings will vary, however, since not all of the applicants denied benefits might have actually collected them for the full year. Under certain circumstances, applicants who failed their drug test can reapply for benefits after six months.

The as-yet uncalculated cost of staff hours and other resources that DCF has had to spend on implementing the program may wipe out most or all of the apparent savings, said Derek Newton, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The program will grow costlier yet, he said, if it draws a legal challenge.

The ACLU has been threatening for months that it may challenge the constitutionality of the program; Tuesday, Newton said his group is still weighing a lawsuit.

DCF spokesman Joe Follick said that families and accountability are the main focuses of the program.

"The taxpayers deserve to know that the money they are spending is being used for its intended purpose," he said. "In this case, with [temporary cash assistance], the purpose is to help families become independent and self-sufficient. If a family receiving [cash assistance] includes someone who has a substance abuse problem, the odds of that money being used for purposes other than helping that family increases."

More than once, Scott has said publicly that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. The 2 percent test fail rate seen by DCF, however, does not bear that out.

According to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

A 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

Newton said that's proof the drug-testing program is based on a stereotype, not hard facts.

"This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points," he said. "We're not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we're not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It's obvious-- because they're poor."

Scott's office did not respond to a request for comment.

[GSRGuy94]

Well, I read that as, the who program costs 178 mil, not the testing.

That very well might be it. The article also talks about the costs of the extra manpower and supplies to took to do the testing, so that also could be what it is talking about. I shall delve deeper into it. On a side note, how do you like being a dad?

This is how it should be.


I still say that the article is skewed quite a bit. It reads like it was written with a lean.

Same results are posted everywhere you look. Search for yourself?