Perpetual Punishment: A State-by-State Analysis of Welfare Benefit Bans for People with Prior Felony

February 2023

Perpetual Punishment:

A State-by-State Analysis of Welfare Benefit Bans for People with Prior Felony Drug Convictions

Malik Neal and Tatyana Hopkins, John R. Lewis

Social Justice Fellows

Economic Opportunity & Criminal Justice

Introduction

In 1992, with a presidential election looming, then-candidate Bill Clinton famously pledged to “end welfare as we know it” by breaking, what he believed to be, the cycle of welfare dependency.1 Four years later, as president, he signed a bill into law that did just that: the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), also known as the “Welfare Reform Act.”

Building on years of anti-welfare sentiment, PRWORA fundamentally overhauled America’s welfare system. The law was designed to both decrease dependency on the government and shift more social welfare responsibilities to the states. It sought to achieve these aims by ending a 61-year-old federal entitlement born in the New Deal era and replacing it with new and more rigid eligibility restrictions, time limits, lifetime bans, and work requirements.2 Specifically, PRWORA established a new cash assistance program— Temporary Assistance of Needy Families (TANF), also known as welfare—which effectively moved control of welfare administration to the states. It also made substantial changes to the renamed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps. In addition, one lasting change included PRWORA’s lifetime ban on SNAP and TANF benefits to people convicted in state or federal courts of felony drug offenses.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), TANF’s predecessor, was originally limited only to white single mothers, who were not expected to work. Black women were largely excluded until the 1960 when a welfare movement led by Black mothers successfully fought for the expansion of assistance. Despite the largest share of AFDC recipients being white, public perception shifted. Bolstered by media reports and opportunistic politicians, taxpayers stopped visualizing AFDC recipients as white single mothers and started envisioning them as Black, or “welfare queens,” a caricature invoked by President Reagan to symbolize the indolence of welfare recipients. Such narratives contributed to the weakening of support for AFDC and led many policymakers to place a great emphasis on “personal responsibility.”

CPAR | Perpetual Punishment: A State-by-State Analysis of Welfare Benefit Bans for People with Prior Felony Drug Convictions

The ban, introduced during the height of the “War on Drugs,” was intended to be “tough on crime.” As the provision’s sponsor, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), explained in Congress: “If we are serious about our drug laws, we ought not to give people welfare benefits who are violating the nation’s drug laws.”3 Gramm and others saw the provisional ban as both an extension of punishment to people convicted of drug crimes and as a means to deter such actions. The provision unanimously passed with little debate. Importantly, PRWORA gave states the ability to opt-out or modify their use of the bans through state legislative reform.

Today, many states have opted-out of or modified their lifetime SNAP and TANF bans for people with drug felony convictions. Currently, for SNAP, 25 states and the District of Columbia have completely opted out of the ban, 25 have made modifications, and one (South Carolina) still maintains a lifetime ban. For TANF, 26 states and the District of Columbia have opted out of bans, 17 have made modifications, and seven still enforce a lifetime ban. Thus, in many states across the country, people, already impoverished, are denied crucial assistance because of their past convictions. Moreover, because Black Americans are subjected to the uneven enforcement of drug laws, such bans continue to maintain and exacerbate racial disparities.4

To assess the impact of this policy, this study examines the current landscape of SNAP and TANF benefits for people with prior felony drug convictions. We survey 50 states and the District of Columbia to sort bans at the state level, including a breakdown of modified bans in the states where applicable. We then use publicly available datasets to estimate the impact on the general population, as well as Black Americans and women, in particular. We then provide an assessment of the impact of the ban and its rationale, concluding that this ban—a relic of the War on Drugs—is not only ineffective but counterproductive. Finally, we conclude with policy recommendations on changes to eliminate the ban and other barriers faced by formerly incarcerated people.

“If we are serious about our drug laws, we ought not to give people welfare benefits who are violating the nation’s drug laws.”

Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX)

SNAP & TANF Benefits: Crucial for People Formerly Incarcerated

Each year, more than 600,000 people return to neighborhoods across America after serving time in state or federal prison.5 Additionally, 9 million more people cycle through local jails each year.6 These returning citizens are often locked out of opportunities such as housing, education, employment, and social services—which too often leads to being trapped in a cycle of poverty. It is precisely for this reason that food and cash assistance through SNAP and TANF are crucial for formerly incarcerated people.

People transitioning from jail and prison often face rates of food insecurity far higher than others.7 In 2019, 20% of formerly incarcerated people reported suffering from food insecurity, a rate nearly double that of the general population.8 A study in Rhode Island concluded that 70% of people on probation experienced food insecurity, compared to 13% of the general population.9 The prevalence of food insecurity among people returning from jail and prison is likely related to the fact that people with convictions often are paid low earnings and face higher rates of unemployment due to factors such as discrimination in hiring. The unemployment rate for formerly incarcerated people is 27%—five times higher than the general population— and an overwhelming majority fall below the federal poverty line.10 Food assistance from SNAP and cash assistance and work training through TANF can be important resources to help alleviate these challenges.

Bans for People with Prior Felony Drug Convictions

Economic outcomes for Black returning citizens are also particularly concerning.11 Formerly incarcerated Black women and men both have unemployment rates nearly double that of their white counterparts.12 Additionally, wages for formerly incarcerated Black people are lower when compared with their white counterparts.13 These already low wages may be reduced further by debt incurred because of incarceration, such as legal fees, child support, and fines.14 These economic barriers extend beyond the returning citizen to their family, which may include dependent children.

According to one report, one in nine Black children have a parent in jail or prison.15 Due to SNAP and TANF bans, low-income households receive less support overall. While a parent with a drug-related felony conviction can still receive assistance for dependent children, the parent’s ineligibility means the family receives significantly less benefit than if the parent were eligible. Lifting the drug felony ban could provide more resources to children with formerly incarcerated parents experiencing poverty. Although poverty can have long-term effects on children who experience it, even small cash benefits, like TANF, can have lasting positive effects on children’s health and outcomes.16

Further, research makes clear that the denial of food and cash benefits is likely to increase recidivism rather than reduce it.17 According to a 2017 Harvard Law School study, access to SNAP and TANF benefits reduced the risk of reincarceration by 10% within one year.18 Further, a study on SNAP bans in Florida concluded that people subjected to a ban were 9.5% more likely to commit a subsequent offense.19 As public assistance can be key to helping individuals and their families meet their basic needs, a full lift of SNAP and TANF bans can be necessary to support and develop healthy returning citizens, families, and communities.

Where Do the States Stand?

PRWORA grants states the option to remove or modify lifetime bans. This study sorts each state into one of three categories:

• Full Ban: State prohibits individuals with felony drug convictions from accessing public assistance under any circumstances and for a lifetime.

• Partial Ban: State allows individuals with felony drug convictions to access public assistance under certain conditions and requirements applied generally or on a caseby-case basis through court mandates and community supervision requirements. Such requirements might include drug testing, participation in drug treatment programs, and/or completion of probation and parole.

• No Ban: State has formally opted out of federal lifetime bans and does not prohibit individuals from accessing benefits solely based on felony drug convictions.

The number of states that have either ended their use of bans and/or have modified their bans has increased steadily since 1997. In 1997, more than half of states had full bans on TANF and SNAP for people with drug convictions.20 Today, only one state (South Carolina) has a full ban for SNAP, and seven (Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, and Georgia) have full bans on TANF. Some states (Nevada, Kentucky, and Illinois) have made such changes as recently as 2021. There are still presently more bans and partial bans on TANF than on SNAP (see Tables 1 & 2). This is likely because TANF involves general cash assistance whereas SNAP is limited to only food.

The largest shift, however, has been from states with full bans to partial/modified bans (see Table 3 & 4). States such as Indiana21 and Maryland22 still require TANF recipients convicted of a drug felony to be subject to tests for substance abuse. Colorado requires people convicted of a drug-related felony to take “meaningful steps toward rehabilitation” including drug treatment.23 Some states also require successful participation in or completion of probation or parole.24 While these partial bans are a positive alternative to full bans, they still impose restrictions on people accessing needed assistance and benefits.

CPAR | Perpetual Punishment: A State-by-State Analysis of Welfare Benefit Bans for People with Prior Felony Drug Convictions

Table 1: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Table 2: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

As the above maps illustrate, ending SNAP and TANF bans for people with past drug felony convictions cuts across traditional party lines. States as politically diverse as New York, Rhode Island, Mississippi, and Oklahoma have ended SNAP and TANF bans. In the latter two states, Republicans have held the Governor’s seat and both chambers of legislative chambers since 1992.

CPAR | Perpetual Punishment: A State-by-State Analysis of Welfare Benefit Bans for People with Prior Felony Drug Convictions

Table 3: SNAP: Types of Modifications

REQUIRE DRUG TESTING REQUIRE COMPLETION/ PARTICIPATION IN DRUG TREATMENT

Alabama Arizona Connecticut* Kansas* Maryland Minnesota Missouri Pennsylvania Wisconsin Alabama Alaska Arizona California* Colorado* Connecticut* Florida Hawaii Kansas Maryland Montana* Nebraska Nevada North

REQUIRE SATISFACTORILY SERVING/ COMPLETION OF PROBATION/PAROLE

Pennsylvania* Tennessee* Alabama Alaska Arizona California Connecticut Georgia Idaho Indiana Kansas Maryland Minnesota Missouri Montana Oregon Pennsylvania Texas Arizona* Connecticut* Maryland North Carolina

*Applicable only at court/parole’s discretion

Table 4: TANF: Type of Modifications

REQUIRE DRUG TESTING

REQUIRE COMPLETION/ PARTICIPATION IN DRUG TREATMENT

Alaska Connecticut Hawaii Idaho Pennsylvania Tennessee

Alaska Maryland Pennsylvania

POST-CONVICTION/ RELEASE INELIGIBILITY PERIOD Alaska Colorado Connecticut Florida Hawaii Indiana Montana Minnesota North Carolina Pennsylvania Tennessee Utah

Impact

The 1996 federal ban on SNAP and TANF benefits has—and continues to have—an enormous impact on the lives of people with felony drug convictions. Moreover, given the uneven enforcement of drug laws in the U.S., this impact is particularly acute in the Black community. In our analysis, we develop rough estimates of the impact of these bans since their enactment by using the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Corrections Reporting Program.25 The program collects data annually on prison admissions and releases, including demographic information and conviction offenses. We use the following methodology:

• We limit our analysis to 1997–2015. The year 1997 was one full year after the passage of the federal ban, and 2015 is the last year of the dataset.

• Our estimates only apply to states with full bans, since no reliable data exist on factors for partial bans (e.g., people in treatment programs, the quantity of drugs sold). While seven states have bans on TANF, South Carolina is the only state with a full ban on SNAP.

• Our analysis only consists of estimates. The number of people affected would most likely increase with the inclusion of people in states with partial bans. While we are unable to provide precise estimates for states with partial bans, we do provide a brief analysis of the potential harms of such bans.

CPAR | Perpetual Punishment: A State-by-State Analysis of Welfare Benefit Bans for People with Prior Felony Drug Convictions

KEY FINDINGS:

NEARLY HALF OF A MILLION PEOPLE RELEASED FROM CUSTODY HAVE BEEN INELIGIBLE FOR TANF, AND NEARLY 50,000 FOR SNAP.

As seen in Table 5, for the 18-year period 1997-2015, a combined 479,052 people are estimated to have been affected by TANF bans, and 47,832 people are estimated to have been affected by SNAP bans. Texas has the largest amount of people who have been ineligible for TANF due to a felony drug conviction (166,426) and West Virginia has the least (4,235). In each state with full bans, the most common charge for which people are being released from prison is a drug-related charge.

Table 5: Estimated number of people harmed by TANF and SNAP full bans, 1997-2015

STATES WITH FULL BANS

Punishment: A

Analysis of Welfare Benefit Bans for People with Prior Felony Drug Convictions

BLACK AMERICANS ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY SNAP AND TANF BANS.

While SNAP and TANF bans impact all Americans, the burden falls disproportionately on Black Americans (see Table 6). In Texas, for example, Black Americans make up approximately 12% of the population but account for 40% of the people released from custody on drug felony convictions. Similarly, in Nebraska, Black Americans account for 4% of the population but 23% of people released on drug felony convictions. The most astonishing disparity exists in South Carolina, which is the only state that has both a TANF and SNAP drug felony ban. Black Americans account for 78% of people released on drug felony convictions but comprise only 26% of the state’s population. White Americans make up 66% of South Carolina’s population but only make up 20% of those released on felony drug convictions. Recent data collected by the Department of Health and Human Services show that white and Black Americans use illicit drugs at roughly the same rate.26

Table 6. The percentage of Black population vs. percentage of Black people convicted and release on drug offenes in states with TANF bans, 1997-2015

CPAR | Perpetual Punishment: A State-by-State Analysis of Welfare Benefit Bans for People with Prior Felony Drug Convictions

WOMEN, PARTICULARLY BLACK WOMEN, ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY HARMED BY TANF AND SNAP BANS.

We estimate that nearly 180,000 women have been impacted by the TANF ban (see Table 7). Black women are also particularly at risk. Black women make up 11% of women in the U.S. but account for 32% of those released on felony drug convictions annually. Women are the fastest-growing segment of the incarcerated population, rising more than 475% since 1980.27 Most importantly, approximately 60% of women incarcerated are mothers of minor children, and over 80% of TANF recipients are women.28

EVEN PARTIAL BANS PRESENT SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE RETURNING CITIZEN POPULATION.

While some states have completely opted-out of the federal ban on drug offenders receiving SNAP and TANF benefits, nearly half of states still require people released from prison to comply with certain conditions to maintain eligibility. However, even modified, or partial bans, grounded on misguided rationale—racial stereotypes29 and a perspective that only the strictest of punishments will eradicate the illegal drug market—can be harmful to vulnerable returning citizens. The current ban modifications and requirements—i.e., drug testing, drug treatment, probation/parole, and post-conviction ineligibility—fuel racial disparities and open a revolving door to incarceration.

Table 7. Estimated number of women affected by full TANF ban, 1997 - 2015 STATES WITH FULL BANS

• Drug Testing Requirements: Proponents of drug testing for public assistance applicants and recipients often base their arguments on the suspicion that a sizable amount of people in need of assistance are drug abusers. Thus, suggesting that drug testing requirements would deter drug abuse. However, data reveals this suspicion is unfounded. Only about 5%–10% of welfare recipients have substance abuse disorders, which is only slightly higher than the general population.30 Further, drug testing is expensive (ranging from $92,500 to $20 million)31 and ineffective (in Wisconsin, for example, only 0.3% of welfare recipients tested positive).32 Drug testing can also be inaccurate because urine screens often cannot distinguish between illicit drugs and certain legal prescription drugs.33

• Completion of/Participation in Drug Treatment Requirements: Historically, drug treatment facilities have used their patients’ SNAP and TANF benefits to subsidize the cost of treatment.34 And without access to basic needs, those recovering from substance abuse disorders are less likely to live drug-free in the community and avoid recidivism.35

• Satisfactory Completion of Probation/Parole Requirements: Currently, 4 million Americans are on probation—a period of supervision in the community following a conviction.36 While under supervision, people on probation must comply with burdensome conditions such as paying fines and fees, that they often cannot afford; attending frequent programs and meetings; staying away from people with felony records; and maintaining employment.37 In the end, the conditions of probation set many formerly incarcerated individuals up for failure. While probation and parole are typically framed as a more lenient alternative to incarceration, they are main drivers of mass incarceration, with nearly 350,000 people shifting from community supervision to jail or prison, annually.38 Tying eligibility for public benefits with satisfactory completion of such stringent probation programs, therefore, only serves as a further hinderance for returning citizens.

• Post-Conviction/Release Ineligibility Period: Some states require returning citizens to wait for a period of time after conviction or release to receive benefits. However, formerly incarcerated people are most vulnerable immediately after release;39 therefore, prompt access to necessities, including through social services, is critical to reduce risk of rearrest or reincarceration.

Policy Recommendations

Since the adoption of the federal ban on SNAP and TANF benefits for people with felony drug convictions, we estimate that currently, nearly half a million people have been impacted daily in states that enforce the ban’s provisions fully. Moreover, barriers exist even in states with partial or modified bans. Partial ban requirements such as mandatory drug testing and completion of probation and parole only create additional hurdles for people in need of public assistance. These bans continue to disproportionately harm Black Americans and women. Further, there is no evidence to date that these bans have had a significant positive impact on public safety. On the contrary, by eliminating meaningful support and services to people with felony drug convictions, such bans may contribute to increased recidivism.40 Ending and making reforms to these bans will benefit all Americans, especially Black Americans.

Federal policymakers should consider the following reforms:

• Pass the MEAL Act, which would repeal section 115 of Public Law 104-193 (i.e., the provision that places lifetime SNAP and TANF bans on people with past convictions). This bicameral piece of legislation was introduced during the 117th Congress (2021-2022) by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), and Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT).41 The legislation currently has the support of over 160 groups nationally.42

• Allow individuals who are incarcerated to apply for SNAP and TANF benefits up to 30 days prior to release. Current law stipulates that individuals residing in correctional facilities are not eligible for SNAP and TANF benefits during their stay. However, to ensure people receive benefits, many states, such as Maine, have allowed people to apply within 30 days prior to release. The MEAL Act makes such a change, federally, for SNAP by amending Section 3(m)(5) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.43 Such a change should be included in any reforms to SNAP and TANF.

• Increase funding and support to SNAP and TANF programs. In 2018, Congress passed a bipartisan farm bill, which increased funding to SNAP and directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to undertake a data-driven study to ensure benefits reflected the current cost of food.44 As a result, the maximum SNAP benefit increased by 21%, lifting 2.4 million SNAP participants above the poverty line.45 This increase, which is due to expire in 2023, should be renewed. Additionally, Congress should pass similar legislation for TANF. The annual amount the federal government allocates

Punishment: A State-by-State Analysis of Welfare Benefit Bans for People with Prior Felony Drug Convictions for TANF—$16.5 billion—has not changed since 1996. The real value of that amount has fallen by 40% due to inflation.46 Increasing funding for TANF is critical to providing meaningful support for people with felony drug convictions. Repealing the bans should be paired with a broader push to expand TANF.

As noted above, we recommend that Congress take immediate action to pass legislation to overturn the federal ban on both SNAP and TANF benefits for people with felony drug convictions. Yet, there is also action policymakers can take in the absence of a complete repeal. The following recommendations, albeit not a comprehensive solution, could make a tangible difference:

Congress

• Modify section 115 of Public Law 104-193 by ending the SNAP ban. In 2021, President Biden announced the American Families Plan, which would end the ban on SNAP benefits for people with felony drug convictions.47 Since SNAP is a federal entitlement program, such a change could be introduced in a budget reconciliation package, which only requires 51 votes in the Senate (see, for example, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022).

Federal Agencies

• Expand and encourage federal waivers for states to pre-enroll individuals incarcerated. The USDA which administers SNAP, recently approved a pilot program in Orange County, California to pre-enroll people incarcerated in SNAP up to 30 days before their release.48 Such programs expand access to public benefits, thus decreasing the likelihood that people released from jail or prison will fall through the cracks. USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which administers TANF, should publish guidelines to encourage more state and local participation in the federal waiver program.

• Collect reliable data on race and ethnicity. While federal regulations require that all agencies collect racial demographic data on applicants and beneficiaries of federal assistance programs, the methods of capturing such information are not always desirable. Current policy at the USDA, for example, allows states to determine race through visual observation (such as by observation during interviews). Such collection of data is prone to lead to inaccurate data, as demonstrated by a recent Center for Medicaid Studies (CMS) study.49 In June 2022, the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service

proposed a rule change to end the practice of visual observations and to instead rely on other means such as self-reporting and review of other applications for public assistance.50 This rule should be adopted.

States

• Continue to fully opt out of SNAP and TANF bans. Importantly, since 1996, the most substantial change on this issue has come from states, not the federal government. In 2021 alone, Illinois, Kentucky, and Nevada lifted or modified bans on SNAP or TANF. In the absence of federal legislation, state action is arguably the most viable path forward. States should move to opt out of federal bans completely, with little to no additional requirements. Further, they should codify such changes by amending their state’s public assistance statutes rather than as part of appropriations bills that expire and often require annual renewal.

Conclusion

Many formerly incarcerated people face numerous economic and social challenges to reentry including access to housing, employment, and food insecurity. Such challenges extend beyond the returning citizen to their families, including dependent children. To successfully reintegrate into their communities, returning citizens need to be able to meet their basic needs. Denying food and cash assistance to Americans who have completed their sentences makes it harder for them to start anew and make positive contributions to society.

Banning and restricting the use of SNAP and TANF due to a felony drug conviction does little to deter crime. On the contrary, denying such critical support and service hinders stability and increases the risk of recidivism. Additionally, restricting such public assistance due to felony drug convictions disproportionately affects Black people and other communities of color—reflecting the stark racial disparities in the criminal legal system.

While federal law creates an option for states to opt out of the lifetime ban on food and cash assistance for those with certain drug convictions in their past, the ban must be eliminated in its entirety. Even modified versions of the ban place significant barriers between returning citizens and their ability to support themselves and their families.

Lifting all forms of the ban nationwide is an important step toward encouraging a safe and stable transition for returning citizens and their communities.

CPAR | Perpetual Punishment: A State-by-State Analysis of Welfare Benefit Bans

for People with Prior Felony Drug Convictions

REFERENCES

1 Bill Clinton in 1992 ad: “A plan to end welfare as we know it.” (2016). Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/bill-clinton-in-1992-ad-a-plan-to-end-welfare-as-we-knowit/2016/08/30/9e6350f8-6ee0-11e6-993f-73c693a89820_video.html

2 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Public Law 104-193. 104th Congress. (1996). https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3734

3 Nebbitt, M. L. A. von. (2021). Ex-prisoners are going hungry amid barriers, bans to benefits on the outside. https://phys.org/news/2021-05-ex-prisoners-hungry-barriers-benefits.html

4 Mitchell, O. (2009). IS THE WAR ON DRUGS RACIALLY BIASED? Journal of Crime and Justice, 32(2), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648x.2009.9721270 ; Taifa, N. (2021, May 17). Race, Mass Incarceration, and the Disastrous War on Drugs https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/race-mass-incarceration-and-disastrous-war-drugs

5 Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (n.d.). Incarceration & Reentry. Incarceration and Reentry. Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/human-services/incarceration-reentry-0

6 Id.

7 Dong, K. R., Must, A., Tang, A. M., Stopka, T. J., & Beckwith, C. G. (2018). Food insecurity, morbidities, and substance use in adults on probation in Rhode Island. Journal of Urban Health, 95(4), 564–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-0290-2

8 Testa, A., & Jackson, D. B. (2019). Food Insecurity Among Formerly Incarcerated Adults. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(10), 1493–1511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819856920

9 Dong et al., supra note 7.

10 Couloute, L., & Kopf, D. (2018). (rep.). Out of Prison & Out of Work: Unemployment Among Formerly Incarcerated People. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Wang, L., & Bertram, W. (2022). New Data on formerly Incarcerated People’s employment reveal labor market injustices. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2022/02/08/employment/

14 Christian, S., Children of Incarcerated Parents, National Conference of State Legislatures, March 2009, https://www.ncsl.org/documents/cyf/childrenofincarceratedparents.pdf

15 Paquette, D. (2015). One in nine black children has had a parent in prison. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/one-in-nine-black-children-have-had-a-parent-in-prison/

16 Duncan, G. J., & MaGnuson, K. (2011). (rep.). The Long Reach of Childhood Poverty. https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/media/_media/pdf/pathways/winter_2011/PathwaysWinter11_Duncan.pdf

17 Yang, C. S. (2017). Does Public Assistance Reduce Recidivism? American Economic Review, 107(5), 551–555. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171001

18 Id.

19 Crew, R. E., & Davis, B. C. (2003). Assessing the effects of substance abuse among applicants for TANF benefits. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 17(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1300/j045v17n01_03

20 Wolkomir, E. (2018). How SNAP can better serve the formerly incarcerated. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/3-6-18fa.pdf

21 Indiana Code Title 12. Human Services § 12-14-28-3.3 | FindLaw. (2021). Findlaw https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-12-human-services/in-code-sect-12-14-28-3-3.html

22 2017 Maryland Code: Human Services :: Title 5 - Public Assistance :: Subtitle 4 - State Public Assistance Programs :: Part I - Public Assistance to Adults Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2017/human-services/title-5/subtitle-4/ part-i/

23 Colorado Revised Statues, 2018, Title 26. (n.d.). Colorado General Assembly. http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/ images/olls/crs2018-title-26.pdf

24 Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 17. (n.d.). Hawaii General Assembly. https://humanservices.hawaii.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2014/01/17-656.pdf

25 Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2018). National Corrections Reporting Program, 1991-2015: Selected Variables [Dataset]. https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/NACJD/studies/36862/export#

26 Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (2021). Racial/ethnic differences in substance use, substance use disorders, and substance use treatment utilization among People aged 12 or older (2015-2019). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/ rpt35326/2021NSDUHSUChartbook102221B.pdf

27 The Sentencing Project. (2022). Incarcerated women and girls. https://www.sentencingproject.org/fact-sheet/incarcerated-women-and-girls/

28 Women and the Drug War. (n.d.). Drug Policy Alliance. https://drugpolicy.org/issues/women-drug-war

29 Minoff, E. (2020). (rep.). The Racist Roots of Work Requirements.

https://cssp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Racist-Roots-of-Work-Requirements-CSSP-1.pdf

30 Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (2011). (rep.). Drug Testing Welfare Recipients: Recent Proposals and Continuing Controversies. Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-recent-proposalscontinuing-controversies-0

31 Id.

32 Center for Law and Social Policy. (2013). (rep.). Random Drug Testing of TANF Recipients is Costly, Ineffective and Hurts Families. Retrieved from https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2017/04/520.pdf

33 Pollack, H. A., & Reuter, P. (2006). Welfare receipt and substance-abuse treatment among low-income mothers: The impact of welfare reform. American Journal of Public Health, 96(11), 2024–2031. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2004.061762

34 Rubinstein, G., & Mukamal, D., Welfare and Housing—Denial of Benefits to Drug Offenders, in Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment 42 (Marc Mauer & Meda Chesney-Lind eds., 2002). See also Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Eligibility, Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (2019).

35 Id.

36 Friedman, M. (2016, March 29). Just facts: The probation nation. Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/just-facts-probation-nation

37 Jannetta, J., Breaux, J., Ho, H., The Urban Institute, Porter, J., & City of University of New York. (2014). (rep.). Examining Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Probation Revocation. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/ default/files/publication/22746/413174-Examining-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparities-in-Probation-Revocation.PDF.

38 Id.

CPAR | Perpetual Punishment: A State-by-State Analysis of Welfare Benefit Bans for People with Prior Felony Drug Convictions

39 Matthew R. Durose et al., “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010,” U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 2014, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf

40 Yang, supra note 17.

41 Making Essentials Available and Lawful Act of 2021. S. 2667. 117th Congress. (2021). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2667/text

42 Organizational support letter for meal act 2021. (2021). Drug Policy Alliance. https://drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/organizational-support-letter-for-meal-act-2021.pdf

43 Maine General Assembly. (2021). Maine Code 10-44, Chapter 301, Health and Human Services

https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/10/144/144c301.docx

44 Making Essentials Available and Lawful Act of 2021, supra note 41.

45 Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. Public Law 115-334. 115th Congress. (2018). https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3042

46 Hall, L., Saenz, M., & Llobbrea, J. (2021). USDA announces important SNAP benefit modernization

https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/usda-announces-important-snap-benefit-modernization

47 Policy basics: Temporary assistance for needy families. (2022). Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/temporary-assistance-for-needy-families

48 White House. (2021). FACT SHEET: The American Families Plan. The White House.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/

49 Proposal to pre-enroll O.C. inmates in nutrition program prior to release granted Federal approval. (2021, February 8). New Santa Ana. https://newsantaana.com/proposal-to-pre-enroll-o-c-inmates-in-mutrition-program-prior-to-releasegranted-federal-approval/

50 Proposed Rule: SNAP-Revision of Civil Rights Data Collection Methods. (2022, June 27). Food and Nutrition Service: Department of Agriculture. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fr-062722

51 Id.

CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH

Economic Opportunity & Criminal Justice