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

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.

• 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.