BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
BILL NO: SB 384
S
AUTHOR: Benoit
B
VERSION: April 20, 2009
HEARING DATE: April 28, 2009
3
FISCAL: To Appropriations
8
4
CONSULTANT:
Hailey
SUBJECT
CalWORKs eligibility: drug testing
SUMMARY
Establishes random drug testing for CalWORKs recipients and
requires recipients who fail the test to complete a
one-year drug treatment program to avoid loss of CalWORKs
aid.
ABSTRACT
Current federal law :
1. Permits, under the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Welfare Reform Act)
and the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, substance
abuse testing of welfare recipients.
Current state law :
1. Establishes the CalWORKs program to provide cash aid
and welfare-to-work services to qualifying households.
2. Classifies persons as ineligible for CalWORKs aid if
they have been convicted since December 31, 1997, of a
drug-related felony.
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 384 (Benoit) Page
2
3. Allows counties, if a recipient is determined to have a
substance abuse problem, to assign a recipient to a
substance abuse program and sanction the recipient if he or
she is not satisfactorily complying with the criteria for
participation in the welfare-to-work activities.
This bill :
1. Directs the State Department of Social Services (DSS)
to establish a drug testing program, on a random selection
basis, for persons receiving aid under the CalWORKs
program.
2. Defines "drug," "drug testing," and "random selection
basis."
3. Requires recipients of aid, as a condition of
eligibility, to undergo drug testing if so ordered by DSS.
4. Requires any recipient of aid who fails a drug test to
complete successfully a one-year drug treatment and remain
drug free during that program in order to maintain aid.
5. Directs DSS to discontinue CalWORKs aid to any
recipient who fails to complete the drug treatment program
as required.
6. Directs DSS to seek any federal approvals necessary to
implement these provision.
7. Provides for reimbursement, through the Commission on
State Mandates, for costs incurred by county government in
the implementation of these provisions.
FISCAL IMPACT
Unknown
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Need for the bill
The author reports that a child named "RJ," who is now in
his teens, was born prematurely and was exposed in utero to
heroine, methamphetamine, alcohol, and cocaine. He has
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 384 (Benoit) Page
3
cerebral palsy as a result of premature birth and drug
exposure. The cost of services, according to the author,
was millions of dollars during the first few months of the
child's life. In addition, "Over the years, numerous
additional services have been afforded to RJ for his
accommodations at school and within daily life."
According to the author, during her pregnancy RJ's mother
used AFDC cash assistance to support her drug habit.
(Note: Aid for Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC,
was the cash assistance program replaced in 1996-97 by a
new federal program and, in California, by CalWORKs.) The
author reports that once this mother's children were born,
they would enter foster care, as did RJ. The author
believes that it is in the interest of the state as well as
in the interests of children's well-being to ensure that
children born to a CalWORKs recipient be drug free, and
that treatment is in order for any recipient who may be
using illegal substances. Random drug testing is a valid
and legal way to identify persons in need of treatment.
Changes in welfare policy since 1996-97 include drug
treatment
County eligibility workers are trained to screen for
several different needs when applicants apply for CalWORKs
aid. The program offers services that include
transportation vouchers to get to and from work, child
care, resume making classes, and mental health treatment.
In particular, eligibility workers are trained to identify
drug dependency in applicants or current recipients. This
identification process continues throughout a recipient's
tenure to assure that any dependency issues are addressed.
The law provides that any time an eligibility worker is
concerned that a recipient has a substance abuse problem
that will interfere with their ability to find or keep a
job, that person must be referred to a county drug
treatment program and they are to do the evaluation and
determine what treatment is necessary. The regulations
further provide that once the county has evaluated that
someone has a substance abuse problem, their
welfare-to-work plan must be based on that evaluation, and
may include "appropriate treatment requirements."
The failure to comply with treatment requirements may
trigger consequences for the recipient. For example, a
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 384 (Benoit) Page
4
recipient who has been determined to have a substance abuse
problem, based on an evaluation, and whose case plan
included a requirement to attend treatment, could be
sanctioned for failure to participate in that treatment
program.
In 1997-98, the first year that the substance abuse program
services were offered, only $1 million of the $22 million
allocated was utilized. Two years later as the program
matured, the allocation grew to $107 million and 99 percent
of that amount was utilized. Since then, utilization of
the program's services has consistently increased.
Random drug testing
The author points out that the United States Supreme Court
has found drug testing to be valid and legal, upholding its
use in cases including student athletes, jobs, prisons, the
military, police and fire departments, and other government
agencies. It has also, according to the author, upheld
businesses utilizing pre-employment drug testing. The
author reports that in 1988, Congress passed the Drug-Free
Workplace Act, allowing employers the right to use drug
tests as a basis for employment, which was followed by
federal guidelines allowing for the random drug testing of
federal employees.
The federal statute upon with the CalWORKs program is based
allows states to use drug tests to determine program
eligibility, and that statute also gives states the
authority to disqualify for eligibility any person
convicted of a drug felony.
The Assembly Human Services Committee, in its analysis of
AB 2389 last year, noted that California's legislative
counsel issued an opinion in 1995 that random drug testing
of Aid to Families with Dependent Children and of food
stamp recipients is a violation of the United States and
California Constitutions. [Ops. Cal. Legis. Counsel, No.
24022, (June 23, 1995)] That committee analysis also cited
case law that "suspicionless" drug testing of applicants
for and recipients of public assistance benefits is an
unconstitutional search and seizure under the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. [Marchwinski
v. Howard, 60 Fed. Appx. 601 (6th Cir. 2003)]
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 384 (Benoit) Page
5
Are drug treatment programs generally "year-long"?
According to the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
(DADP), individuals progress through drug addiction
treatment at various speeds, so there is no predetermined
length of treatment. However, research has shown
unequivocally that good outcomes are contingent on adequate
lengths of treatment.
DADP notes that, generally, for residential or outpatient
treatment, participation for less than 90 days is of
limited or no effectiveness, and treatments lasting
significantly longer often are needed. For methadone
maintenance, 12 months of treatment is the minimum, and
some opiate-addicted individuals will continue to benefit
from methadone maintenance treatment over a period of
years.
A study done by the National Institute on Drug Abuse showed
that length of stay in drug treatment was associated with
decreases in drug use. Clients who stayed in treatment the
longest were most likely to reduce or eliminate their
pre-treatment drug use. This finding was consistent for
all drugs except crack.
DADP concludes that many people who enter treatment drop
out before receiving all the benefits that treatment can
provide. Successful outcomes may require more than one
treatment experience. Many addicted individuals have
multiple episodes of treatment, often with a cumulative
impact. Extensive studies done by the Treatment Research
Institute show similarities between addiction and other
chronically relapsing medical conditions such as asthma,
Type II diabetes, and hypertension. Addiction experts
widely recognize addiction as a chronically relapsing brain
disease that cannot be cured but can be managed.
Related legislation
This bill is similar to AB 2389 (Benoit), which was
introduced in 2008 and failed passage in the Assembly Human
Services Committee.
Arguments in opposition
Opponents argue that current law allows drug testing if a
caseworker suspects drug abuse and that this bill would
result in unfunded increases in administrative workload.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 384 (Benoit) Page
6
Opponents also believe that suspicion-less drug testing in
the federal TANF program is unconstitutional. They cite
Michigan's former drug testing program, struck down by a
federal court. Diverting resources away from treatment to
random testing, opponents contend, will have a negative
impact on overall drug treatment of CalWORKs clients.
POSITIONS
Support: None received
Oppose: American Civil Liberties Union
California NORML
California State Association of Counties
City and County of San Francisco
County Alcohol and Drug Program
Administrators
Association of California
County Welfare Directors Association of
California
Marijuana Policy Project
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Western Center on Law and Poverty
-- END --