Ramblings-n-Writings

Archive for March 29th, 2009

Just a quick note to let you all know that I’m going to be working on this blog design again. There’s quite a few quirks in it that I’d like to eliminate. I’m pretty sure they’re related to the template, so I’m going to be making some attempts at changing the template but keeping the same look.

If things look a little squirrely the next few days, you’ll know why!

One of the pieces of legislation currently being tossed around the W.Va. Legislature is requiring random drug testing for recipients of government money (welfare, food stamps, unemployment compensation).

I’ve contemplated this idea in the back of my mind for a couple of days and have come to a conclusion. I don’t care for it.

Now, I know someone out there is snickering and thinking, “Yeah, she doesn’t like it because she’ll get caught.” Not so. I’m clean as a whistle. Always have been; always will be. (I’ve read enough comments on other articles to know that if a person rejects the idea of the testing, it automatically makes that person guilty of drug use.)

My reason for not liking the idea of random testing is simple – the local offices don’t need more to do or keep track of. They’re slow enough as is. Throw in a couple hundred random tests each week/month and the system becomes even more bogged down.

Our local DHHR office is somewhat efficient. Usually within a month of your interview, you have a decision … and a mailbox full of mail since the decision for each benefit you applied for comes in its own private envelope. (I love the “paperwork reduction act” that they send with each piece of mail. Reducing their mail volume would save at least one tree per applicant and eliminate a large portion of their postage costs!)

What happens when they add random testing to the mix? Will the application period take longer (drug testing = additional work for caseworker)? Or is the DHHR planning on hiring additional workers to take care of the drug testing results? Applicants typically resort to the DHHR when they are in need. Extending the application process will only hurt those who need the benefits the most.

Another problem I have with adding random testing is the local office’s knowledge of the rules. I know of three separate cases where people should have been eligible for benefits (mainly medical cards) but were denied. By law, they were eligible. The local office didn’t get it right. A phone call to the central office in Charleston fixed the problem in each of those cases. How many other cases are like that?

Honestly, I’ve had to quote the food stamp “laws” to our caseworker in the past. In fact, before I go for an interview, my practice has been to review the laws and any changes. One time I pointed out an inaccuracy in what the caseworker told me versus what the paper said that I was required to sign. The caseworker stated that the paper was incorrect, and he was right! Um, if that’s what you’re making me sign, it better be right…and it was. I checked when I got home.

Now we’re going to burden the local office with an additional step in the process. It can only spell d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r.

Besides the local office incompetencies, I have an issue with random testing on recipients of food stamps only. While I’m sure there is a black market for food stamps and people somehow manage to trade them for drugs, having the EBT card with no cash access is a pretty good safe guard. The only way to use the EBT card for food stamps is to swipe it at a store when you’re buying groceries. Items like alcohol and tobacco are excluded too. So for people receiving only food stamps, no cash assistance, random testing is a waste of state money.

I suppose the argument could be made that the person recieving the food stamps is buying drugs with the extra money saved by having some of their groceries paid for. And I’m sure some do this. Wouldn’t it be prudent to change the application and follow-up procedures to safe guard against this?

• Require recipients to account for their money. Show proof of utility payments, rent/mortgage, food costs, travel costs, bank statements etc. Yes, it would be more paperwork, but it would also alert caseworkers to potential problems. Accountability is one of the best deterrents.
• Develop a budget with the recipient.
• Make more frequent follow-up interviews. Food stamp recipients are interviewed every 6 months. I believe, although I don’t know it for a fact, that welfare recipients are less than that.
• Offer better programs / training for those out of work. Have you ever tried searching for a job on the WorkForceWV website? Oy! It takes a PhD just to figure out it requires codes and all sorts of other useless stuff.
• Do in-home interviews.

Another realization that needs to be made is that a lot people are in these programs because of circumstances outside of their control (lay-offs, disability, cancer, etc.). And most probably don’t want to be in the program but have to be to survive (been there, done that).

But, of course, there are those that abuse the system. The abusers are the ones that should be tracked down and eliminated first since they’re costing the program far more money than others. I know of two individuals that were told by a DHHR caseworker to state that she was separated from her husband, even though she wasn’t, so she would be receive plenty of benefits. Think of the ones that actually do this! How much are they costing the system compared to the drug user? Is there no way to track them down? Again, more frequent in-home interviews would alert caseworkers to discrepancies.

And my final question … If we are subjected to the random testing, will the DHHR / federal gov’t / state gov’t reimburse us for the gas it takes to travel 50 miles round trip to the closest DHHR or hospital lab? I doubt it. When you’re talking about individuals on low or fixed income, gas money can be hard to come by. Some don’t have transportation at all. Will the DHHR / gov’t provide transportation? One refusal of testing, even if transportation is an issue, means denial of all benefits for 2 years.

Unfortunately, for the disfortunate in our state, there’s no union to fight for their rights like happened in the random drug testing for public school teachers case. (And, in case you are wondering, I, as a former teacher, am for the random testing of teachers.)