DHW study says welfare recipient drug testing would cost state more money than it’s worth « IdahoReporter.com
Last year, the Idaho Legislature approved a resolution ordering the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) to undertake a study of how to test welfare recipients for illegal drugs as a way to save money on social program spending.
The report is out and lawmakers may be surprised to see that drug testing may not save as much money as they had originally hoped.
In fact, screening would actually cost the state more money than it would save by paying out less in program benefits. Because Idaho only pays some of the costs of the programs, any savings achieved via testing would be shared by the Gem State and the federal government. The problem with that is Idaho would be required to pay for all testing and could not use money saved by paying out fewer benefits to fund screenings. That means that while Idaho would save money from having fewer people in programs eligible for testing, it would lose more money by instituting testing.
The document lays out two different scenarios through which the state could drug test some welfare recipients. In both cases, estimated savings to all governmental entities is considerably less than $100,000 in welfare benefit payments annually, though Idaho would likely need to use general fund dollars to pay for testing.
The main obstacle in testing all recipients of welfare programs, the department says, are federal regulations prohibiting the practice. Federal rules are in place to prohibit drug testing in some of the Gem State’s largest social programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. Medicaid comprises a large portion of the state’s budget, though Idaho only pays one-fourth of the program’s total cost.
If Idaho chooses to institute drug testing for programs only two would qualify: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in Idaho (TAFI), a cash-assistance program for families making less than 32 percent of federal poverty levels, and Idaho Child Care Assistance Program (ICCP), which provides childcare subsidies to families. TAFI applicants are already given initial drug screenings.
Both programs see some state money, but receive the majority of funding from the federal government.
According to estimates, testing is pricy. Under one scenario in which the state conducts tests on all program applicants, Idaho could fork out as much as $1.16 million for screening, including $920,000 in substance abuse treatment costs. This plan would save the state about $67,905 annually.
In the other scenario where the state gives the survey and only further test those who merit it, it would likely cost Idaho about $243,000, though only $119,000 of that would go to treatment. This method would save the state $8,814.
DHW also gives estimates in which private contractors handle all testing duties and total costs are similar to what it would cost for state employees to carry out the tasks.
The department says it is possible lawmakers could implement a system in which program applicants would have to pay for their own drug screenings, though the report says a provision of that nature could spark a costly legal challenge. DHW says that courts have ruled against forcing low-income citizens to pay for their own screenings.
DHW warns that drug testing comes with risks. The department cautions that some parents might not apply for state aid if a drug screen in involved, thereby denying their children food or basic necessities. The department also says that if testing is implemented in ICCP, it could mean that parents simply avoid obtaining employment because they would fail to qualify for the child care subsidy.
Additionally, the report notes, the state could incur legal fees over testing schemes. The state of Michigan, for example, was involved in a pricy lawsuit after it passed a plan implementing random testing.
Lawmakers received copies of the report Monday and will discuss them in open hearing in upcoming meetings.
Note: Read the full study by DHW here.
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Federation HOTLINE: Reject bill to require licensure for CPS workers, Local 1400 member testifies
Federation HOTLINE: Reject bill to require licensure for CPS workers, Local 1400 member testifies
February 8, 2011
Reject bill to require licensure for CPS workers, Local 1400 member testifies
Another attempt to discount social workers came up for a hearing Tuesday, but it was clear it had little support.
The only person to testify for SB 5513 was the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Pam Roach of the 31st District. It came before the Senate Human Services and Corrections Committee.
Regina Patterson, and social worker in Kelso and a member of Local 1400, said the Child Protective Licensure bill would “intensively cripple the department’s efforts toward the task of protecting children. It would eliminate qualified, trained and experienced workers from the field in an effort to replace them with inexperienced and poorly trained workers.”
Patterson said requiring a master’s in social work doesn’t qualify someone to be a social worker.
She said she had just one class in graduate school that dealt with child and family services.
But SB 5513 “would immediately exclude those with education in the areas of psychology, education, juvenile justice, or other related fields.”
It would cost current CPS social workers at least $5,000 and six years to earn a master’s in social work and many experienced workers can’t afford the time and money.
“We think that is unfair to those dedicated social workers who have through experience proved their value to the mission of child protection, even though they may not have an MSW or official license,” Patterson said.
Posted by WFSEc28 at 3:46 PM FacebookShare to Google Buzz
1 comments:
unhappygrammy said...
Do you honestly think it's fair to have a CPS Caseworker, unlicensed and without needed knowledge of Social Work to have the responsibility of choosing who should keep their children and whose children should be removed? Many of the caseworker's are very young and don't even have families of their own. Without Social Worker Licenses, what makes caseworker's any better than the rest of us when it comes to our families? None of them work toward helping families. They don't have a clue!
February 8, 2011
Reject bill to require licensure for CPS workers, Local 1400 member testifies
Another attempt to discount social workers came up for a hearing Tuesday, but it was clear it had little support.
The only person to testify for SB 5513 was the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Pam Roach of the 31st District. It came before the Senate Human Services and Corrections Committee.
Regina Patterson, and social worker in Kelso and a member of Local 1400, said the Child Protective Licensure bill would “intensively cripple the department’s efforts toward the task of protecting children. It would eliminate qualified, trained and experienced workers from the field in an effort to replace them with inexperienced and poorly trained workers.”
Patterson said requiring a master’s in social work doesn’t qualify someone to be a social worker.
She said she had just one class in graduate school that dealt with child and family services.
But SB 5513 “would immediately exclude those with education in the areas of psychology, education, juvenile justice, or other related fields.”
It would cost current CPS social workers at least $5,000 and six years to earn a master’s in social work and many experienced workers can’t afford the time and money.
“We think that is unfair to those dedicated social workers who have through experience proved their value to the mission of child protection, even though they may not have an MSW or official license,” Patterson said.
Posted by WFSEc28 at 3:46 PM FacebookShare to Google Buzz
1 comments:
unhappygrammy said...
Do you honestly think it's fair to have a CPS Caseworker, unlicensed and without needed knowledge of Social Work to have the responsibility of choosing who should keep their children and whose children should be removed? Many of the caseworker's are very young and don't even have families of their own. Without Social Worker Licenses, what makes caseworker's any better than the rest of us when it comes to our families? None of them work toward helping families. They don't have a clue!
State Audit Questions Qualifications of Family Court Personnel - San Francisco News - The Snitch
State Audit Questions Qualifications of Family Court Personnel - San Francisco News - The Snitch
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-109.pdf
The California State Auditor released a report today questioning the qualifications of experts who make child-custody recommendations for the family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties.
The report, which you can read in full here, found that neither county's family court system could produce adequate documentation of the competence of the psychologists and social workers who make critical recommendations to judges in disputed custody cases.
The audit noted, among other findings, that seven of the Sacramento family court's 20 mediators "appeared not to possess the minimum qualifications and training requirements" for their jobs and and that the Marin family court "did not verify that the mediators had met the initial training requirements" when hiring them.
The audit also found that neither court was keeping track of complaints from families.
"We finally have credible government data to back up the many years of horrific complaints we've received from parents and children whose lives are being destroyed by a family court system run amok," Kathleen Russell of the Marin County-based Center for Judicial Excellence, which has pushed for reform of family courts across the country, said in response to the audit.
Policy matters regarding the state's family courts are emotionally charged, given the nature of the cases and and their life-altering outcomes. Activists have criticized the system for poor custody decisions and a lack of transparency.
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-109.pdf
The California State Auditor released a report today questioning the qualifications of experts who make child-custody recommendations for the family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties.
The report, which you can read in full here, found that neither county's family court system could produce adequate documentation of the competence of the psychologists and social workers who make critical recommendations to judges in disputed custody cases.
The audit noted, among other findings, that seven of the Sacramento family court's 20 mediators "appeared not to possess the minimum qualifications and training requirements" for their jobs and and that the Marin family court "did not verify that the mediators had met the initial training requirements" when hiring them.
The audit also found that neither court was keeping track of complaints from families.
"We finally have credible government data to back up the many years of horrific complaints we've received from parents and children whose lives are being destroyed by a family court system run amok," Kathleen Russell of the Marin County-based Center for Judicial Excellence, which has pushed for reform of family courts across the country, said in response to the audit.
Policy matters regarding the state's family courts are emotionally charged, given the nature of the cases and and their life-altering outcomes. Activists have criticized the system for poor custody decisions and a lack of transparency.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Proposed Bill Would Change Child Questioning Procedures in Abuse Cases on KFYR-TV North Dakota's NBC News Leader
Proposed Bill Would Change Child Questioning Procedures in Abuse Cases on KFYR-TV North Dakota's NBC News Leader
Proposed Bill Would Change Child Questioning Procedures in Abuse Cases
Brian Howell
2/9/2011
Child abuse is one of the most terrible crimes a parent could commit, but some parents are falsely accused and may need more protections. So, lawmakers introduced a bill to address that.
However, many people who deal with the issue on a regular basis are afraid the legislation would jeopardize the safety of victims.
The House Human Services Committee discussed a bill today that would change the way victims under the age of 15 are questioned.
Legislators are considering a bill which would require the parents of suspected child abuse victims to be given the opportunity to be present during their child`s questioning with investigators.
Under current law, authorities don`t have to notify parents until after the interview is completed.
Opponents packed into the committee room to express their concerns. Representatives from law enforcement, social services, state`s attorneys and judges say things are fine the way they are and parents are protected.
"They have the resources to hire an attorney to represent them. And then they have the full rights under state statute and the constitution to protect them. Children don`t have that," said Jim Vukelic, former judge and prosecutor.
Supporters of the legislation say this bill is about protecting parents who are falsely accused.
Rep. Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield said: "The deck is stacked against them, from the standpoint if you have a social worker who is technically neutral, so the courts give high precedence to anything they say and under the assumption they`re only looking out for the child, and they will tend to discount testimony from other experts who testify on behalf of the the parents."
Opponents say the legislation would do more harm than good.
"The forensic interview is supposed to be a neutral environment to allow the child to tell their story," said Paula Condol with Dakota Children`s Advisory Center. "Having a parent in the room will influence the entire process."
Opponents say the legislation would also have a negative economic impact, especially for social services in rural areas.
Proposed Bill Would Change Child Questioning Procedures in Abuse Cases
Brian Howell
2/9/2011
Child abuse is one of the most terrible crimes a parent could commit, but some parents are falsely accused and may need more protections. So, lawmakers introduced a bill to address that.
However, many people who deal with the issue on a regular basis are afraid the legislation would jeopardize the safety of victims.
The House Human Services Committee discussed a bill today that would change the way victims under the age of 15 are questioned.
Legislators are considering a bill which would require the parents of suspected child abuse victims to be given the opportunity to be present during their child`s questioning with investigators.
Under current law, authorities don`t have to notify parents until after the interview is completed.
Opponents packed into the committee room to express their concerns. Representatives from law enforcement, social services, state`s attorneys and judges say things are fine the way they are and parents are protected.
"They have the resources to hire an attorney to represent them. And then they have the full rights under state statute and the constitution to protect them. Children don`t have that," said Jim Vukelic, former judge and prosecutor.
Supporters of the legislation say this bill is about protecting parents who are falsely accused.
Rep. Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield said: "The deck is stacked against them, from the standpoint if you have a social worker who is technically neutral, so the courts give high precedence to anything they say and under the assumption they`re only looking out for the child, and they will tend to discount testimony from other experts who testify on behalf of the the parents."
Opponents say the legislation would do more harm than good.
"The forensic interview is supposed to be a neutral environment to allow the child to tell their story," said Paula Condol with Dakota Children`s Advisory Center. "Having a parent in the room will influence the entire process."
Opponents say the legislation would also have a negative economic impact, especially for social services in rural areas.
BEVERLY TRAN: Feds Sentence Novartis For Drugging Kids
BEVERLY TRAN: Feds Sentence Novartis For Drugging Kids: "Feds Sentence Novartis For Drugging Kids
Trileptal is a common drug that was readily prescribed to foster children and other low income children for false claims and false diagnoses. Novartis paid off doctors to ghostwrite reports to drug kids.
Children in foster care are still being prescribed Trileptal as mood stabilizers and not was it was approved for. Someone needs to ask Maura Corrigan about this."
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Sentenced For Off-Label Drug Marketing
Trileptal is a common drug that was readily prescribed to foster children and other low income children for false claims and false diagnoses. Novartis paid off doctors to ghostwrite reports to drug kids.
Children in foster care are still being prescribed Trileptal as mood stabilizers and not was it was approved for. Someone needs to ask Maura Corrigan about this."
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Sentenced For Off-Label Drug Marketing
Child protection among losers in first round of budget cuts | Minnesota Public Radio News
Child protection among losers in first round of budget cuts | Minnesota Public Radio News
St. Paul, Minn. — Leaders of the the new Republican majorities in the Minnesota Legislature have pledged to balance the state budget by cutting spending.
They've also said those spending cuts would not impact the state's most vulnerable residents, but their first budget bill may break that promise.
Among a package of $900 million in cuts is $13 million a year in funding for Child and Community Service Assistance grants.
The House is scheduled to take up the measure this afternoon.
Counties rely on the funding for a variety of programs, but in the state's most populous county, it's used primarily for child protection.
St. Paul, Minn. — Leaders of the the new Republican majorities in the Minnesota Legislature have pledged to balance the state budget by cutting spending.
They've also said those spending cuts would not impact the state's most vulnerable residents, but their first budget bill may break that promise.
Among a package of $900 million in cuts is $13 million a year in funding for Child and Community Service Assistance grants.
The House is scheduled to take up the measure this afternoon.
Counties rely on the funding for a variety of programs, but in the state's most populous county, it's used primarily for child protection.
The Times Record > Opinion > Editorials > A chance to do what’s right
The Times Record > Opinion > Editorials > A chance to do what’s right
As lawmakers and Gov. Paul LePage begin deliberations on a new two-year state budget, they’d be well-advised to take into account a Jan. 31 federal court ruling granting more than 40 plaintiffs with cerebral palsy, epilepsy and other related conditions the right to join in a class-action lawsuit against the state of Maine.
At issue is whether Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services is doing all it can to enable people with cerebral palsy or epilepsy to live as independently as possible.
Attorney Jeffrey N. Young of the McTeague Higbee law firm in Topsham alleges that for at least 20 years the state has failed to fully meet federal requirements to accommodate many such people who are capable of living in their own homes or in an integrated community setting, if appropriate support services were provided.
As a result, he said, the plaintiffs he represents “have been forced to live in the most restrictive settings — nursing facilities both in and outside Maine.”
The state’s failure to provide the support that would allow the plaintiffs to move from institutional care to less restricted environments, the lawsuit alleges, is a clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Nursing Home Reform Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Judge John A. Woodcock Jr., chief federal judge for the United States District Court of the District of Maine, in his ruling rejected the state’s bid to limit the scope of the lawsuit, concluding “the class is probably larger than the 40-member figure ...”
Woodcock’s ruling also gives credence to Young’s contention that a class-action lawsuit is necessary to force DHHS to correct a “systemic problem” with its procedures and also change its “conduct on an agency-wide basis.”
Woodcock, incidentally, is a 2003 appointee of President George W. Bush.
Obviously, the expense of defending against the threatened class-action lawsuit could be avoided entirely. Presumably, all it would take is for Gov. Paul LePage and the new DHHS Commissioner Mary C. Mayhew to commit themselves to changing any and all state Medicaid and MaineCare practices that might be keeping people with cerebral palsy and other disabilities from living as independently as possible.
Doing so would demonstrate decisively that our governor is as committed to helping Mainers with disabilities live full and productive lives as he has been to paying a good chunk of what the state owes Maine hospitals for past Medicaid services.
If the impediment to fully meeting our responsibilities toward some of our most vulnerable citizens is inadequate funding, the remedy is no different than what
LePage already has done with respect to paying down the debt owed to the hospitals.
It simply means making it an equal priority to evaluate the needs of people with disabilities in Maine and then fund fully the programs that would enable them to achieve their fullest potential as productive and independent citizens.
In the long run, says Young, the state would spend less money taking that course of action than if it continues paying for people to live in expensive nursing homes.
“Our immediate goal is to assist our clients and enable them to live in settings more integrated in the community,” Young says. “The broader goal of the suit is that by integrating people with disabilities into their communities, they will become more independent and productive citizens. They need to be given the opportunity to live in less restrictive settings.”
Our suggestion, then, to the governor and lawmakers: Besides doing everything you can to make our state more “business friendly,” how about making sure the needs of our most vulnerable citizens receive equal resolve and attention?
Don’t wait for a court ruling to force you to do what’s right.
letters@timesrecord.com
As lawmakers and Gov. Paul LePage begin deliberations on a new two-year state budget, they’d be well-advised to take into account a Jan. 31 federal court ruling granting more than 40 plaintiffs with cerebral palsy, epilepsy and other related conditions the right to join in a class-action lawsuit against the state of Maine.
At issue is whether Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services is doing all it can to enable people with cerebral palsy or epilepsy to live as independently as possible.
Attorney Jeffrey N. Young of the McTeague Higbee law firm in Topsham alleges that for at least 20 years the state has failed to fully meet federal requirements to accommodate many such people who are capable of living in their own homes or in an integrated community setting, if appropriate support services were provided.
As a result, he said, the plaintiffs he represents “have been forced to live in the most restrictive settings — nursing facilities both in and outside Maine.”
The state’s failure to provide the support that would allow the plaintiffs to move from institutional care to less restricted environments, the lawsuit alleges, is a clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Nursing Home Reform Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Judge John A. Woodcock Jr., chief federal judge for the United States District Court of the District of Maine, in his ruling rejected the state’s bid to limit the scope of the lawsuit, concluding “the class is probably larger than the 40-member figure ...”
Woodcock’s ruling also gives credence to Young’s contention that a class-action lawsuit is necessary to force DHHS to correct a “systemic problem” with its procedures and also change its “conduct on an agency-wide basis.”
Woodcock, incidentally, is a 2003 appointee of President George W. Bush.
Obviously, the expense of defending against the threatened class-action lawsuit could be avoided entirely. Presumably, all it would take is for Gov. Paul LePage and the new DHHS Commissioner Mary C. Mayhew to commit themselves to changing any and all state Medicaid and MaineCare practices that might be keeping people with cerebral palsy and other disabilities from living as independently as possible.
Doing so would demonstrate decisively that our governor is as committed to helping Mainers with disabilities live full and productive lives as he has been to paying a good chunk of what the state owes Maine hospitals for past Medicaid services.
If the impediment to fully meeting our responsibilities toward some of our most vulnerable citizens is inadequate funding, the remedy is no different than what
LePage already has done with respect to paying down the debt owed to the hospitals.
It simply means making it an equal priority to evaluate the needs of people with disabilities in Maine and then fund fully the programs that would enable them to achieve their fullest potential as productive and independent citizens.
In the long run, says Young, the state would spend less money taking that course of action than if it continues paying for people to live in expensive nursing homes.
“Our immediate goal is to assist our clients and enable them to live in settings more integrated in the community,” Young says. “The broader goal of the suit is that by integrating people with disabilities into their communities, they will become more independent and productive citizens. They need to be given the opportunity to live in less restrictive settings.”
Our suggestion, then, to the governor and lawmakers: Besides doing everything you can to make our state more “business friendly,” how about making sure the needs of our most vulnerable citizens receive equal resolve and attention?
Don’t wait for a court ruling to force you to do what’s right.
letters@timesrecord.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)