Problem Definition

In the 2013-2014 legislative session, an overwhelming majority of Republican legislators in

Georgia agreed that taxpayer dollars are being frivolously spent to supplement recipients illegal
drug habits. In an effort to curtail fraudulent activities, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) applicants and recipients may soon be required to submit to a drug test in order
to receive benefits (legis.ga.gov). Greg Morris represents District 156 and is the sponsor of this
controversial legislation. The problem, as perceived by Representative Morris, suggests that
nearly 2 million SNAP recipients are using tax payer dollars to support illicit drug habits. If
SNAP recipients and applicants are using their SNAP benefits to buy drugs, the evidence to
support that would be based on conjecture. The former food stamp program now referred to as
SNAP is a federally funded program that helps low income families and individuals with
nutrition assistance. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 879,493 Georgian households
received SNAP benefits in 2012 of which 57.1% were children under 18 and 26% were seniors
over 60 (fns.usda.gov, 2012).
Who is affected?
Overall, families, children, and older adults will be severely impacted by this bill.
Children and elderly are the most vulnerable people unable to purchase food for themselves.
Food is a needed and basic necessity for all people. SNAP assistance is in place to give people
access to food.
Research indicates disabled individuals, and individuals receiving Supplemental Security
Income are more likely to receive food stamps. When children are living in a home, individuals
are twice as likely to receive food stamps than not. Moreover, the use of food stamps is more
prevalent among women, Hispanic and African Americans. Also, research indicates that food
stamp use decrease with age. Individuals from 65 to 74 use food stamps at a much higher rate
than individuals 85 and over (Fuller-Thomson, E., & Redmond, M., 2008).
Moreover, food insecurity is extremely prevalent in rural communities. As a result, the
Middle Georgia Community Food Bank organization infused a volunteer driven mobile pantry
program designed to provide food to families and seniors in rural areas on a monthly basis
(www.mgcfb.org).
My point is, the implications are quite severe when people do not have access to food.
According to AGOVINO, T. (2014) the SNAP program suffered severe cut backs in November,
2013. In November, the Federal government cut the SNAP budget by $5 million. Almost
2,000,000 residents in New York received benefits from the SNAP Program. However, at least
40% of New York residents who were using SNAP benefits also relied on the support from food
pantry and soup kitchens. More than 48% of food pantries and soup kitchens ran out of food.
Congress is debating reducing the SNAP program by another $9 million. Food insecurity has
reached historic highs. Unfortunately, families are at high risk of experience malnutrition and
hunger.
I was raised to understand that when disasters such as this occurs in other areas to not be
nave. The ripple effects are far reaching and what happens in one geographical location will
certainly have its impact in another geographical location (Agovino, T., 2014).
To make matters worse, Georgia has experienced a back log of people waiting to receive
SNAP benefits and stand the chance of losing $76,000 in federal funds (Associated Press News,
2014). To imply that people may not have access to food is serious.

State and local data
In an effort to substantiate the legislators claim that SNAP benefits were being spent to
purchase illicit drugs, I began to objectively searched for evidence that would support this claim.
In 2013, Georgia convicted 16 individuals in an unprecedented food stamp fraud scheme
(Bainbridgega.com, 2013). Moreover, the USDAs Food Nutrition Supplement (FNS) program
conducted 42,437 cases of fraud hearings and prosecutions in Georgia. The FNS disqualified
12,078 individuals from participating in the SNAP program according to the State Activity
Report. The recipients were disqualified due to undisclosed intentional program violations and
trafficking. Furthermore, investigative and fraudulent claims show a significant decrease of 8.48
percent (2012). While these investigative reports clearly identify fraud activity and violation of
SNAP benefits, these reports do not provide direct evidence linking food stamp recipients to
illicit drugs.
Next, I began to critically examine the correlation between TANF benefits and illicit drug
users to determine if TANF applicants were indeed using drugs. Over the past several years,
legislators in eight states have passed legislation for TANF recipients and applicants to undergo
drug testing prior to receiving benefits. The results are as follows: In Utah, 2.6% of those
individuals tested was determined to be positive. However, the rate of those found positive was
still much lower than the national rate of 8.6%. (Kelly, 2013). Another state that miserably
failed to prove their point was Arizona, where 87,000 people were drug tested over a period of 3
years which resulted in only 1 person testing positive (Kelly, 2013). Arizona saved money after
all because 1,633 people did not return their urine sample and were eventually cut off from
receiving food stamps (Kelly, 2013). However, according to Ferguson Studies have shown, in
fact, that welfare recipients use drugs at a significantly lower rate than the general population
(Ferguson, 2012).
According to Craig, Representative Morris acknowledged that he does not have specific
evidence of any people on food stamps using illegal drugs. But he noted that one in five
Georgians receives food stamps. Given the high incidence of drug use in society, Morris said, its
reasonable to assume some food stamp recipients are on drugs (March 11, 2014).
The fact of the matter is there is certainly more than enough evidence and research that
exists to confirm the incongruency between food stamps and illicit drug use. This bill has more
to do with social control of the poor. According to Swan, R., Shaw, L., Cullity, S., Roche, M.,
Halpern, J., Limber, M., & Humphrey, J., many politicians manipulate the public by insinuating
welfare claimants should not be trusted making it so arduous to obtain benefits that only those
who are desperate would choose to apply (2008).