FREEDOM FROM WELFARE AND DRUGS

Substance abuse can frustrate even the most intensive welfare-to-work
scheme.

That reality is starting to be confronted by state welfare agencies,
but nowhere as boldly as in Michigan, which in October will begin a
pilot program to screen for illicit drugs in all welfare applicants,
as well as to randomly test those already on the rolls. Those who
won't submit to the test, or to drug treatment if they test positive,
forfeit all benefits.

Civil libertarians already have threatened to sue, claiming the
program violates constitutional rights to privacy. Yet drug screening
has become almost routine among the private firms expected to hire
former welfare recipients, who must get used to this drill if they
hope to find jobs.

Indeed, if it's properly funded and executed--a critical
`if'--Michigan's experiment could be an effective method of liberating
individuals from both welfare and drugs. It deserves close scrutiny by
welfare officials in Illinois and elsewhere.

Estimates of the incidence of substance abuse among welfare clients
vary wildly--no one has conducted systematic testing--but range from
20 to 50 percent, with Illinois claiming the lower figure. But it's a
huge problem. A recent drug screening trial at five welfare offices in
Illinois, based on interviews rather than physical tests, turned up
265 substance abusers in just the first month.

A positive result on a drug test should be a signal, not a conviction.
From there, it's up to welfare officials to conduct more thorough
evaluations, preferably by outside consultants, to determine the
nature of the problem and the appropriate treatment.

Proper treatment must follow, whether it's Narcotics Anonymous
meetings for several weeks or inpatient rehabilitation for a few
months. That can be expensive, particularly in the case of single
mothers with children, though nowhere near as costly in the long term
as leaving the problem unattended.

Whatever the approach, this program cannot turn into an exercise in
client-dumping by welfare agencies, like the mental health "reforms"
of the 1970s and 1980s that emptied out institutions without providing
for adequate treatment or support on the outside.

Forcing substance abusers to confront their problem could be the start
of recovery and a new life. If we are serious about helping welfare
recipients get back to work, we must be willing to offer both the
incentive and the assistance to those who must also break free from
substance abuse.