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.

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.