������Ƶ

Utah’s recent plan to drug test its TANF applicants, like from a range of other states, earlier this summer after it was revealed that a mere 12 applicants failed the test – which cost taxpayers to administer.

So why is the state now that the policy resulted in savings of over $350,000?

I’m glad you asked.

Where does the $350,000 figure come from? It’s not from applicants who actually failed the drug test and were denied benefits – like I said, there were only 12 of them. And in Utah, average TANF benefits for a family of three only amount to .

No, instead, these “savings” came from the “ 250 people in need of assistance were deterred from applying because of the drug test. We don’t know why, and there’s no indication that most or even any of these would-be applicants were abusing drugs. Yet , this outcome is a policy success.

Academics who study public assistance have a term for this – it’s . Make it so frustrating and so time-consuming and so humiliating to access benefits, the theory goes, and fewer people will do so, even if they qualify. Even if accessing those benefits could make a difference between putting food on the table and going hungry, or between paying rent and being evicted, these families will be put off by or unable to satisfy the requirements of the process and state caseloads will decline.

This has never been a sound or conscionable feature of public policy – and it certainly isn’t at a time when , good jobs , and food insecurity is affecting .

Moreover, drug test requirements are one of the most pernicious kinds of red tape due to their – and their utter wastefulness. A —mincing no words and referring to the tests as an “inane money-eating sham”—summed up some of the recent statistics from states that have implemented a policy like Utah’s. A few examples:

• In Arizona, after 87,000 screenings, 1 person failed the drug test – saving the state a whopping $560
• In Oklahoma, the state spent $74,000 on drug testing applicants, only 29 of whom failed
• Florida’s short-lived drug testing program in 2011 yielded a net loss of $45,780

In other words, the tests are not only stigmatizing – they’re also a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Furthermore, research has shown that low-income people are no more likely to use drugs than higher-income people; a by the World Health Organization actually found that “people with higher incomes [are] more likely to use both legal and illegal drugs.” In Utah, in fact, the rate of TANF recipients who tested positive was – well below the national drug usage rate of 8.9%. This is not evidence-based policy and it benefits no one. As Jamelle Bouie in the Daily Beast, “the only thing ‘gained’ from mandatory drug testing is the humiliation of desperate people.”

Indeed, ultimately, policies that single out TANF recipients for drug tests are one more manifestation of a public assistance system that reflects and consistently reinforces a distrust of low-income people. We’ll assume that you’re a drug user until you prove otherwise – despite the significant costs to the state. When you’re applying for food assistance or paltry cash benefits, we’ll assume that you might have lottery winnings stashed away – and just how poor you are through burdensome paperwork requirements. And while we’re at it, .

It’s time to stop designing policy based on stereotypes, and to instead focus our efforts on creating opportunities for low-income families to both meet their immediate needs and plan for a better future. Then we can celebrate a real policy success.