Overview
This report analyzes the current landscape of state laws governing access to SNAP (food assistance) and TANF (cash assistance) benefits for individuals with felony drug convictions, following the 1996 federal ban. It provides a comprehensive comparison of state responses, including opt-outs, modifications, and conditions imposed on eligibility.
Federal Background and State Responses
- The 1996 PRWORA imposed a lifetime federal ban on SNAP and TANF for drug felons but allowed states to opt out or modify this ban.
- As of December 2023, only South Carolina maintains a complete ban; all other states have opted out or modified at least one program's restrictions.
- 25 states and D.C. have fully opted out of both bans, granting unconditioned access to benefits for drug felons.
- Four states (Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Utah) have opted out of the SNAP ban but maintain a modified TANF ban.
- Six states (Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, West Virginia) maintain a full TANF ban but have modified or eased SNAP restrictions.
- Fourteen states have modified bans for both SNAP and TANF, imposing varying conditions for eligibility.
Recent Trends and Legislative Activity
- Eight states fully opted out of both bans or expanded access in the last four years.
- Pennsylvania reversed its prior policy and now imposes modified bans with strict conditions for both programs.
- States like Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and South Carolina pursued potential reforms in 2023.
Common Conditions in Modified Bans
- Conditions for eligibility in modified states include completion of sentence, compliance with supervision, program participation (drug treatment/testing), waiting periods, and offense-specific limitations.
- Some states require only sentence completion, while others mandate drug treatment, testing, or more complex requirements.
- A few states, such as Pennsylvania and Tennessee, impose particularly rigorous eligibility conditions including long-term testing and waiting periods.
Variation and Impact of Modified Bans
- Modified bans often extend supervision or treatment requirements beyond sentence completion, sometimes unrelated to the original offense.
- The severity and type of restrictions vary widely, and some modified bans are as punitive as full bans.
State Breakdown: Examples
- Alabama, Alaska, and Connecticut allow eligibility after sentence completion or compliance with supervision terms.
- Indiana and Tennessee require drug treatment, testing, and exclude certain offenses or impose waiting periods.
- California, Idaho, and Texas condition eligibility on compliance with probation or parole requirements.
- States like Nebraska and Missouri restrict eligibility based on the seriousness or number of prior convictions and require program participation.
- Wisconsin, Minnesota, and others require drug testing if conviction was recent.
Summary of National Landscape
- Almost all states have moved away from the full federal ban, though approaches and barriers differ.
- Full opt-outs are most common, but significant minorities still apply modified bans, especially for TANF.
- The diversity of state responses results in a complex patchwork affecting reentry and benefit access for individuals with drug convictions.
Decisions
- Publish detailed state law survey with statutory texts and maps to aid policy analysis and reform advocacy.
Action Items
- TBD – State policymakers/advocates: Use report findings to inform or propose further reforms, particularly in states maintaining bans or onerous conditions.