IBJNews

Indiana House backs drug tests of welfare recipients

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Some welfare recipients would face drug testing in order to keep receiving benefits under a proposal approved Monday by the Indiana House.

The proposal would require all applicants for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to complete a written screening test for possible drug abuse problems. Those identified as possible drug abusers would need to undergo a drug test, and anyone who fails would have to take part in a treatment program and pass later drug tests to continue receiving benefit payments.

Representatives voted 78-17 to approve the bill, sending it to the Senate for consideration.

Some Democrats said they opposed the proposal over worries of too few affordable drug treatment programs, noting some rural areas have none.

"There are no safeguards to help people," said Rep. Vanessa Summers, D-Indianapolis. "We don't know that in the 92 counties of Indiana whether or not there's a treatment plan or treatment program for them."

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville, said it was aimed at helping those with drug abuse problems and improving the home environment for children exposed to parents and others who abused drugs.

McMillin said welfare agency workers would provide those who fail the drug tests with information about available treatment programs and provisions of the bill would allow them to still receive benefits as long as they stuck with treatment. He said those failing the drug tests would be responsible for paying treatment costs, but maintained that would be better than spending money from welfare benefits on buying illegal drugs.

The maximum benefit payment from Indiana's TANF program for a family of four is $346 a month, according to state figures. McMillin said federal laws won't allow drug testing for those receiving food stamps and Medicaid.

"They're the people who need the most help," McMillin said. "This is designed to get them help."

The results of the drug test couldn't be used for a criminal investigation, although child welfare authorities would be notified if a parent or guardian fails a test.

The nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency estimates it would cost about $1.2 million to start the testing program, although McMillin said he believed much of that would go for initial expenses and be less in later years.

The Republican-dominated House last week rejected efforts by Democrats to have legislators face drug tests. McMillian said that effort was a distraction and its supporters could offer it as a separate bill.

Rep. David Niezgodski, D-South Bend, said he believed it was hypocritical not to have legislators undergo the testing and questioned spending so much money on the program when millions of dollars have been cut from state programs.

"When did we open up the faucet?" he said. "I think this is bad precedent."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • What a Waste!!
    USA Today had the program costing $1.5MM to start plus ongoing expenses. Maximum benefit for a family of four is $346/month. I have seen estimates that this may only save the state $1.19MM in benefits. Florida did this and found 2.6% of the people tested were positive. This is a waste of time and energy.
  • Yes!
    Yes. Please begin with the legislators to be drug tested, and follow up with the CEOs and boards of any company receiving corporate welfare. Get the entire Simon, Irsays and Marsh families urine NOW, as well as Colts and Pacers teams tested. My bet is you will find a lot of illegal narcotics in those bloodlines, but also quite a bit Viagra and Cialis, too.
  • Test Everyone
    Watch out Jim Irsay- the drug test is coming your way. If the poor are tested, so should everyone who receives any money from the gov. Anyone who gets a sweet heart deal from the gov should be tested.
  • Test Away My Friends!!!!
    To reguire me to pass a routine drug screen in order to get employed and exempt yourself is supreme arrogance. This goes for the welfare state and the congress alike! Tests for all or not at all I say! FYI: People without a drug or alcohol problem don;t have to sit around and try convince everyone else they don't have a drug problem. It's only those who are obviosly impared and in trouble who spend time, effort and money to get around a problem that everyone on earth can see!
  • All Created Equal (?)
    I was raised and believe thet you don't ask others to do things your not willing to do yourself. Having said that, If you require my son to take a drug test for an 8.50/hr job at one of the 23 taco bells you own, and you also happen to be a lawmaker of any kind or sheriff or judge.... then you should also be tested. I believe it should be mandatory random. Also, while on the subject of lawmakers, If your not gonna let me smoke anywhere quit selling me the d-a-m-n things in the first place. You have no issues spending the money you earn for things other than its intended purpose (cough) on kids medical ONLY (cough) so be thankful.
  • sensible welfare reform
    I don't have a problem with people who are receiving MY TAX $$ while sitting on their rears watching TV instead of working getting tested. The demo's idea of testing people who work for their $$ is typical. As long as they can give away your and my $$ to people who don't want to work but can afford drugs, alcohol and tobacco on OUR $$ they don't care. The Democrats national motto: Long Live the Entitlement Nation....They keep us elected!
  • GOP garbage
    Leave it up to the GOP to refuse to take a drug test and force it on the poor. What about oil companies having to prove no enviromental harm is caused by their drilling, shipping or use before they receive their billion dollar subsidies? Other than that, this has already been found unconstitutional in another state. And the Gop is fully behind it...what does that tell you about the Republican party? IT is just more proof that the GOp is the Rich white party. Goodbye GOP...your days are numbered

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

    2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

    3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

    4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

    5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

    ADVERTISEMENT