First statistics on drug-testing welfare recipients in FL

[Encryptshun]

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/ ... ar-252458/

This collects only one month of data. It will be interesting to see if this was a representative sample and the inferred trending pans out or if there will be surprises over the next few months.

[stebo0728]

Ya you cant judge something like that off one month of data. Thats not to say the trend wont hold, but theres just no way to know. Will be interesting to see where it goes.

[mattblancarte]

Totally agree about the one month of data. Too soon to call.

However, this statistic is relatively pointless from the get-go. Welfare applicants and recipients are most likely aware of the fact that they need testing.

They will be cheating, avoiding, or going clean before these tests...

[R/T Hemi]

One would guess Florida was a red state after seeing these stats....

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

They didn't even factor in the administrative costs.

From the OP link.

[IBCoupe]

Forget about the costs, what about the fact that Rick Scott just handed $180,000 from the State's coffers to a company he founded and owned stock in up until April?

Update @ 6:45pm ET: Thanks to reader Vashti Brenda Fletchall for pointing out another dimension to this story. Gov. Scott held economic interests in the drug testing company that was awarded the sole contract for drug testing. In April he sold off his stock valued at $62 million in the company he founded in 2001, according to the St. Petersburg Times.

[Encryptshun]

I would like to see the facts around the timing of his sale of the stock as related to news that the company was awarded the sole contract. It would have to be shown that he directly benefitted from the actions of the state or at least the award of contract was no-bid in order for it to be definitively unethical.

Shady? No doubt. Legally verboten? Maybe.