The reason these rely on surveys instead of urine tests is because courts have deemed mandatory testing to be an unreasonable search, while random testing based

The reason these rely on surveys instead of urine tests is because courts have deemed mandatory testing to be an unreasonable search, while random testing based on reasonable suspicion hasn't been shut down by courts (yet). Florida tried to have mandatory testing for all welfare recipients but the courts threw it out. Nevertheless, these results are really astonishing and I think you're looking at them all wrong. Some bureaucrat in Utah thought that 460 welfare recipients were suspicious and ordered them tested, but only 18 of them tested positive. The bureaucrat was wrong 96% of the time, and the 4% usage rate is both under the drug use rate for the general population of that state (6% self-reported) and over-represented (because these were the 10% specifically selected people that the agency thought were using drugs). Anyway, your profit and loss analysis seems fishy to me. It is highly unlikely that by denying 14 applicants their welfare checks the state of Utah saved anything near 100% of the face value of said check. In fact I would say it is quite likely that the state paid some fraction (with no upper bound) of that on subsequent support for and/or enforcement upon the unsupported people and their families, not to mention the general economic loss of not putting that money in motion.