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.

Join the discussion


About The Author

Dustin Hurst serves as the Communication Director for the Idaho Freedom Foundation. He graduated from Boise State in 2009. His work has been featured by Fox News, Townhall, Public Sector Inc., the Daily Caller, Reason, Human Events, the Spokesman Review and more. He and his wonderful wife Julia have two cute kids. The family resides in Middleton.


  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Income At Home, TrimegaLabs. TrimegaLabs said: #drugtest DHW study says welfare recipient drug testing would cost state more money than … – Idaho Reporter […]

  2. save a dollar here and there they add up these are our tax dollars the druggers need to get a life get responsible and we the tax payers of idaho do not need to shell out money so they the druggers can sit and watch soap operas go to the casino and deal drugs as we all know they all know each other feed off society and they make under the table m oney selling drugs and manufacturing them so it is now a win win for them free food housing utilities and they make cash selling and have money to spend on frills because stupid taxpayers support them we are aiding and abetting drugs in this state 65,000 is still good hard earned profit pull yopur head out you have to discourage these freeloaders of society

  3. Dustin, there’s one odd thing in the middle of your report:

    “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.”

    It doesn’t sound like it’s the testing that’s as pricey as the substance abuse treatment, almost 80% of the cited total. My guess is that effective substance abuse treatment would be a good thing to invest in, with beneficial reduction in health care costs, reduced crime, and the possibility of helping people become productive members of society who no longer depend on state and federal assistance.

    • Fort,

      You have a good point. I should have explained that HCR 55 asked the department include treatment costs in official estimates.

      Even if testing was not included, the state would not save any money by testing those on ICCP or TAFI.

      Thanks for the note, sir.

Comments are closed.