Policy Analysis
Thoroughfares, crossroads and cul-de-sacs: Drug testing of welfare recipients

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.02.011Get rights and content

Abstract

Over the past five years, proposals to introduce drug testing for welfare recipients have proliferated across the globe. In England, it was included in the Welfare Reform Act 2009 (yet never implemented) and in 2013, the New Zealand government introduced legislation which requires claimants to take pre-employment drug tests when requested by a prospective employer or training provider. Similarly, in over 20 US states there have been attempts to initiate drug testing of welfare recipients as a condition of eligibility for welfare, although frequently these controversial plans have either stalled or once introduced they have been halted through legal challenge.

This article examines the process of introducing drug testing of welfare claimants in the UK as part of a broader strategy to address worklessness among problem drug users. Using Hudson and Lowe's (2004) multi-level analytic framework, which disputes ‘top down’ rational models of policy-making, it explores the mechanisms used for challenging drug testing policies. In so doing, it identifies the key policy actors involved, noting the alliances forged and strategies adopted to persuade the government to pursue alternative policies. Whilst the primary focus of the article is on the UK, consideration of the US and New Zealand facilitates comparison of the types of policy networks which emerge to oppose similar policies proposed in different socio-political contexts, and the forms of argument and/or evidence they inject into policy discussions. It is argued that a heavy reliance on rights-based arguments was a feature of opposing drug testing in the UK, US and New Zealand, and these featured more heavily than attempts to refute evidence underpinning these policies. However, there were important differences between jurisdictions in relation to the mechanisms used to challenge drug testing policies. These do not simply reflect the nature of the policies proposed but instead are reflective of different modes of governance, which influence the character of the policy networks formed and their judgements about the most effective ways of opposing what they regard as essentially flawed policies.

Section snippets

Drug testing and the welfare reform in the UK

We can trace proposals to drug test those wishing to claim out-of-work benefits to the 2008 drug strategy.

[W]e do not think it is right for the taxpayer to help sustain drug habits when individuals could be getting treatment to overcome barriers to employment. So, we will explore the case for introducing a new regime which provides more tailored and personalised support than that which is currently provided. … In return for benefit payments, claimants will have a responsibility to move

Engaging stakeholders

The Green Paper invited members of the public and interested organisations to respond to the proposals through posing 29 questions, which resulted in responses from over 300 organisations including a number of drug action teams, drug treatment providers and drug sector organisations (DWP, 2008b).5

The US experience

Provisions to drug test welfare recipients were introduced though Section 902 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996, forming a small component of a wide-ranging piece of legislation which transformed the provision of welfare in the US (see Midgley, with Stewart, Piachaud, & Glennerster, 2008). As we have already noted, not all states sought to introduce drug testing: initially the majority did not, and Michigan uniquely adopted a policy of universal drug

Concluding comments

Through charting the trajectory of proposals to introduce drug testing of welfare recipients in three countries, we have uncovered examples of policy cul-de-sacs in the US and policy thoroughfares in New Zealand and some US states. The position in UK is more complex and might be described as a policy crossroads. Whilst there are no plans at present to drug test welfare recipients, it has been widely speculated that once Universal Credit is implemented fully,11

Conflict of interest

None declared.

References (42)

  • M. Monaghan et al.

    Work and the journey to recovery: Exploring the implications of welfare reform for methadone maintenance clients

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2013)
  • R. Bloom

    The Daily Show tells Florida Legislators: “I think I’m Gonna Need you to Pee into this Cup”

    (2012)
  • S. Bailey et al.

    Bailey, Harris & Jones: Civil liberties cases, materials, and commentary

    (2009)
  • N. Barker et al.

    From social security to individual responsibility: Sanctions, conditionality and punitiveness in the Welfare Reform Bill 2009 (Part One)

    Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

    (2009)
  • D. Best et al.

    The potential of recovery capital

    (2010)
  • A. Deacon

    Learning from the US?. The influence of American ideas upon ‘New Labour’ thinking on welfare reform

    Policy and Politics

    (2000)
  • A. Deacon

    Perspectives on welfare

    (2002)
  • A. Deacon

    Justifying conditionality: The case of anti-social tenants

    Housing Studies

    (2005)
  • A. Deacon et al.

    A new welfare settlement?. The Coalition Government and welfare-to-work

  • Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

    No-one written off: Reforming welfare to reward responsibility: Public Consultation, Cm 7363

    (2008)
  • Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

    Raising expectations and increasing support: Reforming welfare for the future, Cm 7506

    (2008)
  • D. Dolowitz et al.

    Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making

    Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration

    (2000)
  • Drugscope

    No one written off – Reform welfare to reward responsibility: Response from Drugscope, October 2008

    (2008)
  • Drugscope

    Welfare Reform Bill: Proposed benefit regime for claimants dependent on or with a propensity to misuse dugs, Second Reading Briefing by Drugscope

    (2009)
  • Drugscope

    Welfare Reform Bill (claimants dependent on drugs etc), Public Bill Committee Stage, Drugscope Briefing and Amendments

    (2009)
  • P. Dwyer

    Welfare rights and responsibilities: Contesting social citizenship

    (2000)
  • K. Duke

    From crime to recovery: The reframing of British Drugs Policy?

    Journal of Drug Issues

    (2012)
  • F. Gains

    Executive agencies in government: The impact of bureaucratic networks on policy outcomes

    Journal of Public Policy

    (2003)
  • P. Gregg

    Realising potential: A vision of personalised conditionality and support

    (2008)
  • N. Harris

    Getting problem drug users (back) in employment. Part One: Social Security and problem drug users: Law and policy

    (2008)
  • H.M. Government

    Drugs: Protecting families and communities: The 2008 drug strategy

    (2008)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text