An administrative rule change to a recent Utah law will have a negative impact on the children of a household receiving TANF or “welfare” funds. This rule change, in plain English, allows the Department of Workforce Services to deny funds to the entire household if one or more members of the household fails to comply with the mandatory drug testing/rehabilitation requirements of Utah law. The intent of the rule change is, perhaps, admirable; it requires all the adults in the household to be clean from illegal substances in order to receive TANF assistance. The effect of the law is not so honorable; in fact, it goes against the oft-stated “family values” of Utah.
In brief, the law requires all adults who file for TANF assistance to complete a questionnaire that will determine if the individual is potentially using illegal substances. If the answers indicate a potential drug abuse issue, the person must then submit to a drug screening; failure to pass the screening results in one of two outcomes: the individual must enter rehab and successfully pass subsequent drug screenings, or the funds are denied to the entire household. “Individuals in the household who have been disqualified from the receipt of assistance because of an IPV are also required to complete a substance abuse questionnaire and otherwise comply with this section.” (R986-200-221. Drug Testing Requirements, Section 1)
The rule, as stated, does not specify the ages of those “required to complete…” etc. one can only (naively) hope that the questionnaire would not be administrated to minors unable to comprehend the implications of the questionnaire; however, that is not germane to my opposition of this rule.
This unforeseen (?) “rule change” to the law that was passed by the legislature would deny ALL benefits to a household if ANY member of the household is not in compliance with the illegal substance issues. To deny children food, medical care, etc. based upon one or more adult’s addiction is inhumane, if not cruel; and it will have long-reaching, negative social-economic effects. To wit: when Johnny goes to school, and the teacher observes unusual behavior; upon discussion she finds the family cannot feed the children and, as required by Utah law, she informs the Division of Family Services. The children are subsequently removed from the home and become wards of the court. Thereafter, they may or may not be placed in foster homes, or adopted (together or separately); they may stay “in the system” until adulthood. The “state” -you and I- will be paying for the cost associated with this “care” including but not limited to the attorneys, court costs, DFS workers, medical care, etc.
Alternatively, the parents may decide to take other negative directions, perhaps to crime to support the children (and, yes their own habits); they may decide to abuse or abandon the children and/or each other. Again, there are negative social-economic results.
I support the intent of the law passed by our governing body; an adult that uses illegal drugs should not receive the benefit of our society’s generosity to the deserving unemployed/underemployed. However, I do not support, nor will I stand by idle, while an agency changes the rules to have a negative impact on children who have no voice.
To Kristen Cox, Executive Director Division of Workforce Services, do NOT implement this “rule change!”
To the citizens of Utah, please contact your legislative representatives, and let them know you do not approve of the agency’s changes to the law.
To those of you outside of Utah who may read this article: be very aware of what is happening in your own state.
Thank you for reading, please feel free to respond.
No comments:
Post a Comment