I’m seeing people that I really respect reposting a message about the new Florida drug testing for welfare law, and I just have to address it.  I believe in the right to free speech, even when I disagree with the message, but I also believe that people should look at all sides of an issue before taking a position, especially publicly.

I wonder how many of those people have actually applied for state benefits.  Those who have not tend to think of welfare as an easy to get handout.  They tend to think of welfare recipients as stereotypes: lazy, having babies to get state benefits instead of working, making money that goes unreported so they can net more benefits, driving Lexus’ to pick up groceries with food stamps, etc.  The common thread is the mentality that people on welfare WANT to be on welfare rather than being independent.  In my opinion, making that assumption is comparable to judging someone based on their color, religion, sex, disability, sexuality, or any other factor independent of character.

I’m on welfare.  Or, I was, until the end of May.  I applied for benefits when I was laid off from my job in December.  I’d like to share my experience….a much more common experience than the rare abuse of the system that people seem compelled to believe is the rule rather than the exception.  I applied for food stamps and medical coverage.  The income limits are so low for cash assistance that even with only $720 income monthly for four people, (which is enough for my $600 mortgage and my power bill, when I am not running the heat or a/c), I knew did not qualify so I did not bother to apply.

I had to provide:

• signed statements from my old employer (and then the payroll company when they would not accept the paper from my employer-faxes I paid for since I don’t have a fax machine at home)
• proof of the kids’ immunizations
• birth certificates (which I had to replace at $10/each)
• proof of my son’s Survivor’s benefits (I’m sure they have access to that info electronically, but I had to drive to a neighboring county to the office to get a letter)
• proof of enrollment in school
• divorce papers (I had to pay to fax this multipage document three times because they kept losing it)
• my bank account numbers and balances
• information about all my property and its value, essentially just my vehicle in my case

In all, I’d say it cost me about $75 to provide them with all the information they required to make a decision.  I stood to gain more than that in benefits, so it was a good investment, and thankfully I applied before I was down to nothing.  Most people who apply don’t WANT to apply…they don’t want to be dependent on welfare.  So they try everything they can to handle it on their own, and by the time they apply, there isn’t anything left to invest.  I’d love to know how many cases that would qualify are denied because of not providing data that the state can access electronically.  I know Child Support Enforcement can use the IRS database and birth records to track noncustodial parents…I’m sure DCF (Department of Children and Families, Florida’s agency for child and elder protection and welfare) does too.

But I still wasn’t done proving myself worthy.

There is a state statute that says that welfare recipients must comply with Child Support Enforcement.  I objected to registering with CSE.  My girls’ father and I divorced in 2005 and he was ordered to pay $300/month in child support.  I asked for a smaller amount than I was entitled to because he has full custody of his son, without receiving any financial support from the mother, ever.  I knew he couldn’t continue to provide for his son on his own if he had to pay more, and $300 was all I needed to pay his share of their food, clothing, and shelter.  In the years since our divorce, if he wasn’t living with us and providing direct support by sharing the bills, he was paying support.  Every payday, he put cash in my hand.  I have to say that he has always been reliable about providing support to our girls.  Had he paid it to the CSE system, it would have delayed my receipt of these funds by up to a week, AND they charge HIM a fee for their ‘services’.  Another factor is that I am terrified of CSE.  In the early days of our marriage, every year they would take him to court for arrears in support for his oldest daughter…every year we gave our tax refund to satisfy the support we owed, but for some reason that makes NO sense to anyone, they hold the funds for 180 days before releasing them to the custodial parent.  We went in with proof that the funds needed to catch up our account were already given, but they didn’t care.  They threw him in jail every year, leaving me alone to provide for our two children and even HIS son.  (In a twist, had we been on welfare then, we probably could have been able to pay support for her without starving our own children.)  I’m petrified that’s what they will do again, and what good will he do ANY of his kids while sitting in jail…how are parents supposed to support their kids from jail?  They denied food stamps for me based on my ‘lack of cooperation’ with CSE because I won’t hand over control of my child support situation to them.  The kids can still receive benefits, but not me, because I am ‘noncompliant’. (You would think they would be happy that my family doesn’t need these additional services-it is only costing taxpayers MORE money to force everyone to go through CSE whether there is a need or not.  So much for small government.  Not EVERY family or personal issue needs to be handled by Big Brother…but essentially I was penalized for having a fantastic relationship with my ex-husband.  And even worse?  The alternative was that he would be penalized even though he has never been noncompliant in supporting our children.  I wonder how many well-functioning families have been thrown into turmoil because of being forced to hand over control of their child support situation to this agency.)

After about 30 days, the children received Medicaid and food stamps.  (I had Medicaid for 14 days, then it was pulled, even though my case says I was eligible.  I have no idea about that.)  The food stamps have ensured my kids have been able to have a decent dinner every night, and I am thankful for them.  Now that school is out, and I have them home all day, I will need the help even more.  I really don’t mind that I only eat once a day.  I’ve lost weight, as a result.  But my kids need healthy food, whether I’ve been able to find another job or not.

My certification ran out at the end of May, so I submitted a review on May 10th to be sure there was plenty of time for them to look it over.  I thought, they already have everything they need..it shouldn’t be an issue.  But now they want me to prove that I receive ‘child support privately’. I’m not sure how I’m supposed to prove that, so I just had Brian write a statement and I’ve been trying to fax it for weeks now.  The fax number is always busy.  June 6th was the deadline.  I have no idea what to do now…I just keep trying to fax the paper, every day..even though it’s probably too late now.

I’ve worked since I was 16 or 17.  I’ve paid taxes most of if not all of my adult life, so people just like me have help in situations like mine.  I don’t mind it at all.  I think it’s my responsibility as a member of this society to contribute toward others.  I am the very reason these programs exist, but even I have had to jump through hoops-sometimes repeatedly.  It’s not easy at all to qualify for the assistance these programs provide.  Had I not had the money for copies, faxing, gas, etc, or a home address for paperwork to be sent to, or a phone to receive or make calls to the caseworker…or the intelligence to field the barrage of requests for things I had already submitted, I wouldn’t have been approved at all. And people without those things probably don’t have family to turn to for help.  They just go without.  (Until someone reports them to DCF for not providing for their kids properly and then the very agency they went to for help takes their children away.)

Getting back to drug testing welfare applicants…

I anticipate that the drug test will cost around $35, and that cost is paid up front by the applicant.  If the results are negative, the applicant will be reimbursed.  (Although I have to question with what method reimbursement will take place, and how long it will take for that to happen.  From my experience, the government is quick to take our money and slow to return it.)  If the results are positive, they can designate another adult to receive benefits for any minor children, but that adult will also have to be drug tested, with the same conditions.  There is nothing in place to provide any help to those who test positive with substance abuse counseling, education, or treatment…all they get is six months of being barred from applying for benefits.

The number of families who do not have $35+ to pay for a drug test is going to be huge.  These are families who are already struggling or they wouldn’t be applying for help…$30 is a water bill unpaid, a week or two of diapers, several meals, gas to job hunt for the week.  They will either go without, or turn to other agencies to help bridge the gap this requirement will create, only raising their dependency on public assistance programs.  Another issue I have is with the other adult appointed to receive benefits for children whose parent has tested positive.  Testing negative on a drug test is not a qualified indicator of morality…I wonder how many families will have their benefits stolen by unscrupulous appointees.

This regulation relies on many assumptions:

• that if you test positive for drugs (which, in the case of marijuana, may have been used well before even applying for benefits) you must be using state benefits for your children to pay for them.  That assumption is full of holes, beginning with the fact that the people tested haven’t even been awarded benefits yet, which means the assumption ACTUALLY is:
• that if you test positive for drugs, you must be a bad parent and morally corrupt enough to spend your children’s benefits on your drug habit. Using drugs does not, in and of itself, make you a bad parent, and it certainly does not mean you would spend your babies’ benefits on your drug use, any more than passing a drug test means you are morally superior and would never spend your babies’ benefits for other selfish reasons.
• that if you test positive for drugs, you are a regular drug user and buyer.  Who can say they don’t know someone who occasionally will smoke a joint or do a line with friends, but never buys it or has their own stash?  I’m NOT making any moral statement on that practice.  I am SIMPLY saying that testing positive, especially for something that could have been consumed just once, at any time within the last month, does not mean you are an addict or that you have a dependency, and it does NOT mean you spend any money on drugs.  It certainly CAN mean that, but this regulation makes that assumption, across the board.

It’s not that I disagree with the sentiment that it’s unfair that job applicants get drug tested and welfare applicants don’t.  That really *is* incongruous and I don’t have a solution for that.  What bothers me is that this perpetuates the myth that the average welfare applicant or recipient is not worthy of helping and places the onus on the applicant to prove themselves beyond financial need, and even more so, that this places yet another barrier for families that need the most help. Welfare reform is a valid concern, but this tactic will only temporarily reduce the bottom line.  Rick Scott’s leadership style is to satisfy the taxpayers of today with reducing spending, regardless of the effect it will have on future taxpayers.  His education budget cuts alone prove our children (our future!) are not his main concern-the budget is.  We may pay less out in state funds due to this regulation and his other cuts for a time…but in the long run it will cost us, not only in other programs that will be more heavily relied upon but more importantly, in our future, as a society.  I agree that something needs to be done about wasteful spending…but am I the only one who sees that the people responsible for cutting the budget are almost never willing to look at their own offices and salaries and those of their high ranking cronies?  No, they look to the poorest, the little people, the low man on the totem pole to bear the brunt of their slashing.

And, you really ought to know that just before taking office, the governor who signed this law turned over his company which specializes in drug testing, to his wife.  In his mind, this is not a conflict of interest.  But I can not help but be suspicious. Among other things.

Read More