514 10TH STREET NW, SUITE 1000
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
TEL: 202.628.0871 • FAX: 202.628.1091
STAFF@SENTENCINGPROJECT.ORG
WWW.SENTENCINGPROJECT.ORG

Life Sentences:
Denying Welfare Benefits
To Women Convicted Of Drug Offenses

By
Patricia Allard

February 2002

This report was written by Patricia Allard, Policy Analyst for The Sentencing Project, with
support provided by a fellowship from the Lindesmith Center (now the Drug Policy Alliance).
Additional support provided by the Open Society Institute, the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation, and individual contributors. The author wishes to thank Andrea Ritchie
for her research assistance and comments on drafts, and Ryan King for his research assistance,
and Judy Appel, Beverly Bain, Lisa Crooms, Veronica Davidson, Michelle Jacobs, Robin Levi,
Marc Mauer, and Malcolm Young, for their review and comments on drafts.
The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization engaged in research and advocacy on
criminal justice issues.
Copyright © 2002, by The Sentencing Project. Reproduction of this document in full or in part
in print or electronic format only by permission of The Sentencing Project.
For further information:
The Sentencing Project
514 Tenth St. NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 628-0871
www.sentencingproject.org

CONTENTS

I.

Introduction

1

II.

Implementation of the Lifetime Welfare Ban

2

III.

Impact of the Lifetime Welfare Ban
4
National Impact.............................................................................................................4
Racial and Ethnic Impact ..............................................................................................6

IV.

Impact of the Ban on Lives of Women and Children
8
Lack of Transitional Income ........................................................................................8
Inability to Meet Life’s Basic Necessities ........................................................... 9
Family Dissolution ............................................................................................. 10
Safe and Suitable Living Environments ............................................................. 11
Consequences of the Ban on the Well-Being of Children ................................. 13
Access to Anti-Poverty Resources ............................................................................ 14
Educational Prospects ........................................................................................ 14
Employment Prospects ...................................................................................... 17
Drug Treatment Prospects ..................................................................................21

V.

The Impact of Drug Policies

25

VI.

Recommendations

27

VII.

Conclusion

29

Appendix — Methodology

30

Tables
Table 1 — State Implementation of Lifetime Welfare Ban

3

Table 2 — Women Affected by Welfare Ban, 1996-1999

5

Table 3 — Women Convicted of Felony Drug Offenses by Race and Ethnicity

7

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN
CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES
I.

INTRODUCTION

In 1996, the federal government embarked on welfare reform,1 dismantling a 60-year old social
welfare system. Under the welfare reform act, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
has been replaced with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a federal block grant
program that imposes time limits and work requirements on welfare recipients. Section 115 of
the welfare reform act, a provision of the act that has received little attention, stipulates that
persons convicted of a state or federal felony offense involving the use or sale of drugs are
subject to a lifetime ban on receiving cash assistance and food stamps.2 This provision applies
only to those convicted of drug offenses. Thus, offenders released from prison after serving a
sentence for murder, for example, are eligible for welfare benefits and food stamps, but not those
who have a conviction for possessing or selling a small quantity of drugs. Examining the impact
of the lifetime ban is now of particular importance, as Congress will spend the coming year
determining which provisions of the welfare reform act it should reauthorize.
The felony drug provision was introduced and ratified with bipartisan support after just two
minutes of debate, with no discussion as to whether this provision would serve any significant
purpose in furthering the objectives of welfare reform.3 Congressional records indicate that the
stated objective of the drug provision in the welfare reform act was to further the goals of distinct
government initiative, namely the “war on drugs.” Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), sponsor of the
felony drug provision, stated in no uncertain terms that the provision should be enacted as yet
another demonstration of the U.S.’ resolve to fight the “war on drugs.” Gramm opined that “if we
are serious about our drug laws, we ought not to give people welfare benefits who are violating
the Nation’s drug laws.”4 Although drug felonies were the sole offenses written into the
legislation as disqualifying offenses, there was no Congressional debate at all regarding whether
violent or other crimes should be similarly categorized.5
This report is the first national analysis documenting the impact of the lifetime welfare ban on
women and their children.6 Presently, 42 states are enforcing the ban in full or in part. We find
that an estimated 92,000 women are affected by the ban in the 23 states for which we were able
to obtain data. Since the application of the lifetime welfare ban only began in 1996, the number
of women affected will increase substantially in the coming years.

1

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193 (welfare reform
act).
2
Ibid., s 115(a). The lifetime ban applies to convictions for illegal conduct taking place after August 22, 1996, the
date PRWORA was enacted.
3
142 CONG. Rec. No 109, Sec. 8498 (daily ed. July 23, 1996).
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Although far more men than women are convicted of drug offenses, this report examines the impact on women
since they represent the overwhelming number of primary caregivers and welfare recipients.

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

2

The ban also currently places over 135,000 children in these states at risk of neglect and
involvement with the criminal justice system due to the prospect of reduced family income
support. Further, there are significant potential societal costs - in the areas of criminal justice,
health, and child welfare - associated with the ban.
In recent years, there has been increasing documentation of the disparate impact of the “war on
drugs” on African American and Hispanic communities. However, these analyses have generally
focused on impacts related to the criminal justice system. As this report documents, legislative
action in the areas of welfare reform and the war on drugs is revealing the intersections of the
drug war, criminal justice system, welfare reform and other social policy arenas, which combine
to create a disparate impact on African American women and Latinas.
The lifetime welfare ban has a disproportionate impact on mothers of color for two reasons.
First, due to racially biased drug policies and enforcement of drug laws, drug offenses account, in
large part, for the rapid growth in the number of African American women and Latinas under
criminal justice supervision.7 Second, as a result of race and gender-based socioeconomic
inequalities, African American and Latina mothers are highly susceptible to poverty and as such,
are disproportionately represented in the welfare system.

II.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LIFETIME WELFARE BAN

The drug provision of the welfare reform act applies to all states unless a state legislature elects
to either modify or opt out of the provision. As of December 2001, 42 states enforce the ban in
full or in part, and only eight states and the District of Columbia have opted out. As seen in Table
1, 22 states have adopted the drug provision in full, while 20 states have modified it.
Of the states that have modified the ban, several limit ineligibility for welfare benefits to persons
convicted of particular drug offenses, such as manufacturing or distributing illegal substances.
Louisiana and North Carolina have replaced the lifetime ban with a one-year or six-month
ineligibility period, respectively. In several states a drug conviction will lead to the denial of
either food stamps or TANF benefits but not both. In December 2001, Massachusetts modified
the lifetime ban, such that persons convicted of drug offenses are now eligible for food stamps.
However, those who serve a prison term for a felony drug offense will be denied cash assistance
for the first 12 months following their release, unless they meet specific exemptions, including
pregnancy, care of a disabled child or child under the age of 2, or qualify for a domestic violence
waiver. In several partial opt-out states, mothers remain eligible for TANF and food stamps
provided they either participate, enroll in, or successfully complete a drug treatment program,
while in other states, such as Wisconsin, drug treatment is not required, but mothers are subject
to random drug tests. Mothers who test positive for drugs lose their eligibility immediately.

7

Marc Mauer, Cathy Potler, and Richard Wolf, Gender and Justice: Women, Drugs, and Sentencing Policy,
(Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project, November 1999).

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES
Table 1

3

State Implementation of Lifetime Welfare Ban
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas !
California
Colorado !
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida !"
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois #
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana $
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts $ "
Michigan
Minnesota %
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina $
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island ! "
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas &
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin %
Wyoming
U.S. Total

DENIES
BENEFITS ENTIRELY
X
X
X

PARTIAL DENIAL/
TERM-DENIAL

BENEFITS DEPENDENT
ON DRUG TREATMENT

OPTED OUT OF
WELFARE BAN

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
22

10

10

9

! States denying benefits only for certain drug offenses. Arkansas, Florida, Rhode Island: the sale of drugs only. Colorado: purchasing drugs
with food stamps benefits. Persons become ineligible for food stamps only.
# Illinois limits ineligibility to persons convicted of sale of drugs or possession of a large quantity of drugs. Person convicted remains eligible
for food stamps.
$ In Louisiana, eligibility is subject to a one-year waiting period after release from custody or conviction date, while in North Carolina, the
waiting period is six months. In addition, ex-offenders in North Carolina are required to either have successfully completed a drug treatment
program or be participating in one to have their eligibility restored. In Massachusetts, only individuals incarcerated for a drug conviction are
ineligible for cash assistance during the first 12 months after release, unless the individual qualifies for an exemption under section 110(e) of
Chapter 5 of the Acts of 1995 (including, pregnancy, disability, caring for a disabled child or an eligible child under age 2) or qualification for a
domestic violence waiver.
" Persons with a drug conviction remain eligible for food stamps.
& In Texas, persons convicted of possession or sale of drugs are ineligible for food stamps only.
% In Wisconsin and Minnesota, persons convicted of drug offenses are not required to enter drug treatment programs to receive their benefits,
but they must submit to regular drug tests.

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

III.

4

IMPACT OF THE LIFETIME WELFARE BAN

National Impact
This analysis of the impact of the 1996 welfare reform act is drawn from state sentencing and
correctional data compiled by various law enforcement, correctional and court agencies. The
figures provided in this report should be considered estimates, in light of a variety of reporting
problems in different states. Some state agencies, for example, were able to provide data for
incarcerated women drug offenders, but not for those on probation. In other jurisdictions, state
officials were not able to avoid ‘double-counting’ some felony drug offenses; e.g. a woman
convicted of a drug offense in 1997, and therefore subject to the ban, may be counted twice if
convicted of another drug offense in 1999. Even with these data limitations, the overall figures
provided in this report are substantial and relevant for public policy consideration (A complete
description of the methodology used can be found in the appendix.).
Although 42 states implement the ban, the 28 states imposing immediate and lifetime ineligibility
for welfare benefits following a conviction were selected for review.8 In the remaining 14 states,
eligibility is either denied for a specific period of time or dependent on a person’s participation in
a drug treatment program. Of the 28 states that met these criteria, we obtained data from 23.
Breakdown by race and ethnicity is provided where possible. The data compiled covers the
period from 1996 to 1999.
Table 2 presents our findings on the current impact of the lifetime welfare ban, providing totals
for 23 states. Of the states covered by the report, 19 deny cash assistance and food stamps for
possession or sale of drugs, three states restrict the lifetime ban to sale offenses, and three states
deny either cash assistance or food stamps, but not both.9 Using state conviction and correctional
data, we estimate that more than 92,000 women in 23 states that enforce the ban in full or in part
have had a felony drug conviction since the adoption of the legislation and will be affected by the
lifetime welfare ban. There are currently no national data on the number of women who have
actually been denied benefits as a result of the ban. The figure of 92,000 represents the number of
women who are now ineligible to receive benefits for the rest of their lives.
The national figures in some respects represent a conservative estimate of the number of women
affected by the ban.
For instance, data was not compiled for the states (Louisiana,
Massachusetts and North Carolina) which only impose a time limit rather than a lifetime ban.
However, the impact of denying welfare assistance for even a year on the rehabilitative efforts of
women reentering their communities should not be underestimated. In addition, some women
who are eligible for welfare benefits have been improperly denied benefits by state welfare
agencies for either misdemeanor convictions, or for conduct prior to August 22, 1996, the
implementation date of the ban.10

8

These include the 22 states with a complete lifetime ban as well as the 6 states that either limit the ban to certain
types of drug convictions, or deny food stamps or cash assistance but not both.
9
Illinois and Florida are counted in each of the latter two categories because they impose the ban only for sale of
drugs and also deny cash assistance but not food stamps.
10
Amy E. Hirsch, “Some Days are Harder Than Hard”: Welfare Reform and Women with Drug Convictions in
Pennsylvania, (New York, N.Y.: The Center on Crime, Communities and Culture, October, 1999), p.52.

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

Table 2
Women Affected by Welfare Ban, 1996-1999
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois (Cook County)
Indiana
Kansas
Maine
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Total

Number of
Women
1,339
481
5,132
1,394
37,825
323
485
8,608
931
10,298
1,281
1,231
71
2,480
6,429
146
273
3,068
156
1,837
4,700
3,686
123
92,297

5

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

6

Those states in which welfare assistance depends on women’s participation in drug treatment
programs were also not included. However, the national shortage of drug treatment programs
which service mothers and their children can be expected to result in a significant number of
women in these states being denied TANF and food stamps. We also note that in seven states
officials were not able to provide data that eliminates any double-counting of women who may
have had a felony drug conviction in different years.11 Our findings include:
•
•
•

Over 92,000 women are currently affected by the lifetime welfare ban.
The ban is already having a dramatic impact in a number of states – in California, 37,825
women are affected, in Illinois, 10,298, and in Georgia, 8,608.
While there are no overall data on the children of these offenders, using Bureau of Justice
Statistics, we estimate that 135,000 children will potentially be affected by the lifetime
welfare ban.12

Racial and Ethnic Impact
Table 3 provides a racial and ethnic breakdown of the number of women affected by the ban in
the 21 states for which we were able to obtain data. Maine and South Dakota are omitted, as state
officials were unable to provide a racial or ethnic breakdown. It documents that:
•
•
•
•
•

11

More than 44,000 white women, nearly 35,000 African American women, and almost 10,000
Latinas are affected by the ban.
48% of the women affected are African American or Latina.13
In five states African American women represent the majority of women subject to the ban –
Alabama (61%), Delaware (65%), Illinois (Cook County) (86%), Mississippi (54%), and
Virginia (63%).
In Pennsylvania and Texas, African American and Latina women represent more than 50% of
the women affected by the ban.
Of the states we examined, the number of Latinas affected by the ban is particularly high in
some, including Arizona (26%) and California (21%).

Possible double-count in Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Texas.
Lawrence A. Greenfeld and Tracy L. Snell, Women Offenders, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 1999), p.7, shows that 70% of women under correctional sanction are mothers
and average 2.11 children.
13
Percentage obtained from the total number of women affected by the ban, including women identified as other or
unknown.
12

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

7

Table 3
Women Convicted of Felony Drug Offenses by Race and Ethnicity !
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois (Cook County)
Indiana
Kansas
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Total

White
526
315
3,991
774
19,168
102
278
4,320
832
1,029
648
903
1,054
4,613
121
214
1,334
904
1,795
1,313
91

Black
813
64
1,066
199
8,471
211
207
4,182
8
8,820
587
245
1,339
1,713
0
2
1,227
907
2,283
2,304
29

Hispanic
–
14
–
364
7,772
10
–
68
57
432
28
61
12
60
4
11
407
–
622
53
2

44,325

34,677

9,977

! The table does not include other racial or ethnic groups, or women identified as ‘unknown’.

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

IV.

8

IMPACT OF THE BAN ON LIVES OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN

I don’t want [cash assistance] for the rest of my life. I just want it until I can get back on my feet –
so I can focus on my recovery, get myself together. I have no income whatsoever right now and I
need something. Now it matters because I’m trying to do the right thing. They [drug treatment
counselors] tell you not to go get a job the first six months to focus on your recovery. What are
you supposed to do if you can’t get welfare? The children are going to suffer. At least a year – to
get yourself a job.
Pennsylvania Woman Affected by the Lifetime Ban14

Women who have sufficient resources and/or social networks will be able to make the transition
from prison or probation to the community successfully and not require welfare assistance. But
for women who would otherwise need assistance, the ban is likely to have a devastating impact.
Nationally, Department of Justice data show that nearly 30% of women in prison had been on
welfare in the month prior to their arrest, and as such we anticipate a significant number of
women will require public assistance immediately upon their release from prison.15 The lifetime
welfare ban will have a serious effect on women’s ability to overcome addiction, to raise their
children, find work, and access drug treatment services. The combined effect of the ban and other
recent social policies - public housing and post-secondary financial aid restrictions - will also
diminish women’s ability to access education opportunities and housing. Women recovering
from addiction require time and support as they rebuild their lives – to house and feed themselves
and their children while they successfully recover from addiction, gain marketable skills, and find
stable and sustainable employment.
Welfare assistance is a pivotal transitional mechanism for poor and low-income families who
face economic insecurity. The effectiveness of this transitional mechanism is dependent on two
essential components: (1) transitional income assistance for daily living; and (2) concrete antipoverty resources, such as education, sustainable employment, living wages and drug treatment.
The absence of either component makes the transition out of poverty very difficult for families
and, in some cases improbable.

Lack of Transitional Income
Under welfare reform, women convicted of drug offenses are not offered any transitional
benefits, and immediately lose access to TANF and food stamps for life. The loss of welfare
benefits not only affects them, but also results in lower subsistence income for their families.
The drug provision of the welfare reform act reduces a family’s allocation by the mother’s share
of total benefits. In other words, a single-mother of one will receive cash assistance and food
stamps to cover the expenses of her child, but not her. As asserted by Senator Phil Gramm, the
sponsor of the provision, “[w]hat an individual does does not affect the eligibility of that
individual’s children or other family members.”16 While this is true, a mother’s ineligibility and
14

Hirsch, p.87.
Greenfeld, p. 8.
16
142 CONG. Rec. No. 109, Sec. 8498 (daily ed. July 23, 1996).
15

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

9

loss of benefits will nonetheless put a severe strain on household resources and on her ability to
support and care for her children. For women released from prison, often with only one bus fare,
the burden may be insurmountable.

Inability to Meet Life’s Basic Necessities
I have to pay rent, buy my son clothes, necessities. I need to save for a place. I need to save at
least $200 to apply for [an apartment]. I don’t know how they expect you to live until you can get
a job.
Woman Affected by the Lifetime Ban17

Thus far, no substantive study has been undertaken documenting how women subject to the
lifetime ban have fared since its implementation. However, women denied benefits because of a
drug conviction are likely to face similar economic barriers to those encountered by low-income
and poor families, as well as recent welfare leavers. Due to the limited income at their disposal,
low-income and poor families often have to forego some of life’s basic necessities – such as rent,
medical and dental services, food, appliances, and utilities. For example, a 1992 study showed
that the proportion of persons unable to pay in full either their rent or mortgage and their utility
bills was significantly higher for AFDC (29% and 41% respectively) and poor families (26% and
32% respectively) than non-poor families (8% and 10% respectively).18 Poor families were four
times more likely than non-poor families to have their gas or electricity services cut off, whereas
AFDC families were fives times more likely.19
Recent studies documenting the impact of welfare reform on the well-being of leavers have
found “high levels of distress, including a larger number experiencing hunger and making use of
service providers.”20 In Georgia, one of the states fully implementing the ban, “13 percent of
leavers report often or sometimes not having enough to eat; 38 percent are sometimes or often
unable to afford a balanced meal.”21 The Georgia study also found that 59% of welfare leavers
turned to friends and family members for help in order to make ends meet.22
Mothers denied cash assistance and food stamps are likely to encounter and experience
economic hardships at exponentially higher levels than welfare leavers, TANF or poor families.
The economic hardships faced by mothers subject to a lifetime welfare ban will lead to
overextended and stress ridden caregivers, which will significantly affect their physical and
emotional well-being, and interfere with the healthy development of their children.
For many women subject to the lifetime welfare ban, and especially for African American and
Latina women, reliance on social networks will not be an effective support alternative. Economic
hardships are disproportionately visited upon African American and certain Latino communities,
17

Hirsch, p.88.
U.S. Department of Commerce, “Current Population Reports - Beyond Poverty, Extended Measures of WellBeing: 1992”, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, November 1995), Table 2.
19
Ibid., Table 3.
20
National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, Leaving Welfare, Left Behind: Employment Status, Income, and
Well-being of Former TANF Recipients, (Washington, D.C.: National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support,
October 2001), p. 11.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid., p. 12.
18

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

10

including Puerto Rican, Mexican, and newly emerging communities from Central and South
America.23 Research shows that “Blacks have fewer resources than whites do, and the resources
they do have are often less effective… [T]he social networks of African American women are
often made up of others in similar structural positions.”24 As African American women’s private
safety net is generally less secure than white women’s, they must rely more heavily on their own
ability to provide for themselves and their children. Without access to assistance the likelihood
that women who have been convicted of drug offenses will go without the basic necessities of
life is even greater.

Family Dissolution
If a mother is not able to support her child, we would take the child; and at the end of twelve
months of placement, we have to terminate parental rights unless there are compelling
circumstances. If you’ve made a mistake in your life, it’s very punitive. I imagine it would come
into play as more and more women lose their benefits…Women will lose their kids, will lose
everything in their lives - cash assistance, kids, jobs. Employers won’t hire them with a felony
drug conviction.
Supervisor at the Philadelphia Department of Human Services25

In the past ten years, there has been increasing documentation of the growing incarceration of
mothers, as well as of the devastating impact this has had on family structures. Department of
Justice research shows that 63% of white women and 67% of African American and Hispanic
women incarcerated in state prisons have minor children.26 Many of the children separated from
their mothers due to incarceration will only interact with their mothers in correctional
environments or through letters or telephone calls, while others will have no contact for many
years. Such interference with the parent-child bond will have a serious impact on the
psychological and emotional well-being of mothers and children, which will require significant
attention during a mother’s reentry process. The lifetime ban significantly affects women’s
ability to reestablish environments in which the parent-child relationship can flourish.
Although one of the stated purpose of the welfare reform act is to keep families intact, the
lifetime ban is likely to lead to the opposite result - we can expect to see an increase in the
number of family breakups. With fewer financial resources available, some mothers subject to
the ban may be compelled to place their children in the care of others due to their financial
inability to care for them. More fortunate mothers may be able to place their children in the care
of friends or relatives. Some mothers may be forced to resort to foster care. A 1999 article

23

Marta, Tienda and Lief, Jensen, “Poverty and Minorities: A Quarter-Century Profile of Color and Economic
Disadvantage.” In Divided Opportunities: Minorities, Poverty and Social Policy, Edited by Gary D. Sandefur and
Marta Tienda, (New York, N.Y.: Plenum Press, 1988).
24
Katheryn Edin and Kathleen Mullan Harris, “Getting Off Welfare and Staying Off: Racial Differences in the Work
Route Off Welfare,” In Latinas and African American Women at Work, Edited by Irene Browne, (New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1999).
25
Hirsch, p. 95.
26
U.S. Department of Justice, and U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Survey of Inmates in State
and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997 [Computer file]. Compiled by U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census. ICPSR ed., (Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and
distributor], 2000).

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

11

reporting the impact of welfare reform in Wisconsin supports this proposition, indicating that
“five percent of mothers cut off from federal assistance had to ‘abandon’ their children.”27
Other families are likely to be separated by child welfare services. The reduction of family
income increases the likelihood that children will be characterized as neglected, which is likely to
result in child welfare services intervention. Research shows that every year child welfare
services remove almost 200,000 children from their homes, “with Black children being the most
likely of any group in America to be taken.”28 Contrary to the popular belief that most children
removed from their homes suffer severe abuse or torture at the hands of their caregivers, studies
have shown that “neglect is the most prevalent reason children are in foster care [and] in most
cases the neglect is related to poverty.”29
Mothers unable to secure housing for their families may turn to shelters as a last resort.
Unfortunately, many family shelters do not allow men or adolescent boys to reside in their
shelters.30 Children may have to be separated from their fathers to secure housing, while young
male teens may be forced to leave their families and fend for themselves at an early age or be
placed in foster care until the age of 18. These various types of family dissolution likely to result
from the lifetime welfare ban will have a traumatic impact on children, as well as on mothers in
their rehabilitative phase, and will lead to an increased reliance on the child welfare system.
Safe and Suitable Living Environments
When I leave [the treatment program] I plan to go to transitional housing. I have no idea how to
pay for that without benefits. I don’t want to go back to the same neighborhood, because if I go
back, I'll end up doing the same thing.
Woman Enrolled in a Drug Treatment Program31

Housing difficulties are likely to surface when reduction in family income limits the funds
available for rent. For mothers living in large urban areas with higher rents, finding affordable
and safe housing with reduced cash assistance may prove to be very difficult. This is particularly
significant for African American and Latina women, the majority of whom live in urban areas.
Obtaining public housing may not be a viable alternative for mothers with a drug conviction. In
addition to the extremely long waiting lists for public housing units, a mother’s drug conviction
may be grounds for eviction from or denial of public housing.
In 1996, the federal government implemented the “One Strike Initiative,” authorizing local
Public Housing Authorities (PHA) to obtain from law enforcement departments criminal
conviction records of adult applicants or tenants, for screening and eviction purposes. Local
PHAs also have broad discretionary power to deny housing to or evict a person they determine is
27

Dorothy E. Roberts, “Access to Justice: Poverty, Race, and New Directions in Child Welfare Policy,” 1 Wash. U.
J.L. & Policy 63, p.73.
28
Ibid., p. 71 African American children are disproportionately over represented in foster care, accounting for 56%
of the children waiting to be adopted. Roberts points out that the reason for the overrepresentation of African
American children is in part due to the reality that African American parents are “the mostly likely to lose their
[parental] rights” and their children, “the least likely to be adopted.”
29
Ibid., p. 68.
30
Linda Burnham and Kaaryn Gustafson, Working Hard, Staying Poor – Women and Children in the Wake of
Welfare “Reform,” (Berkeley, CA: Women of Color Resource Center, June 2000), p.17.
31
Hirsch, p. 59.

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

12

illegally using controlled substances.32 Therefore, they are empowered to deny housing to people
who either have a drug conviction or are suspected of drug involvement, and whom they believe
could pose a safety concern.
For mothers living in public housing at the time of their conviction, the “One Strike” initiative
increases the possibility of eviction, while for those seeking public housing upon release, their
chances of obtaining such housing may be diminished, depending on the manner in which PHAs
enforce the policy. Many mothers released from prison turn to the relatives and friends who
cared for their children during their prison term for help upon release. As most of the
incarcerated mothers come from impoverished communities, it is likely that many of their friends
and relatives live in public housing complexes. Under the “One Strike” initiative, a mother
wanting to move in with a relative or friend and possibly with her children while she gets back
on her feet may not be able to do so. Mothers who are evicted from or denied public housing will
have difficulty ensuring the safety of their children. Without adequate, housing the chances of
women staying clean, finding work, and not recidivating are diminished.
The lifetime welfare ban is likely to create conditions forcing mothers to leave or expose their
children to very precarious environments.33 Grandparents and siblings caring for children may
not have the necessary financial resources, as well as the emotional or physical capacity, to fulfill
the needs of children in their care. Relatives or friends taking on the guardianship of the children
may already have their own families, leading to overcrowded households with limited resources,
where the needs of the children may not be met.34
Mothers who do not have the support network to provide continued shelter for their children may
be at risk of homelessness. Others, in desperate need of an additional source of income, may
cohabit with an abusive partner or engage in illegal activity leading to toxic family environments
where substance abuse, violence, and neglect are daily occurrences.35 Some mothers will be
forced to move in with friends or relatives and live in overcrowded households to avoid
homelessness. Under such living conditions, mothers may not always be able to control the
living environments as much as if they had their own household, which can lead to mothers and
their children being exposed to anti-social behavior or victimized by others in the household.36
Some mothers may be so overwhelmed by their economic circumstances that they may develop
mental health problems, and become neglectful or abusive towards their children.
Overcrowded households and family dissolution can increase stress in the lives of children.
Studies have shown that stressful family conditions, including overcrowded households,
turbulence and family dissolution, adversely affect the well-being of children and adolescents,
and can lead to poor engagement in school, emotional and behavioral problems, or
delinquency.37
32

Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996, Pub L. No. 104-120.
“Substantial numbers of children in all types of kinship care face various socioeconomic risks to their healthy
development.” Jennifer Ehrle, Rob Geen, and Rebecca Clark, “Children Cared for by Relatives: Who Are They and
How Are They Faring?,” New Federalism, National Survey of America’s Families, (Washington, D.C.: The Urban
Institute, February 2001), p. 2.
34
Hirsch, p. 65.
35
Ibid., p. 106.
36
Ibid., p. 65.
37
Kristin Anderson Moore and Sharon Vandivere (Child Trends), “Stressful Family Lives: Child and Parent WellBeing”, New Federalism, National Survey of America’s Families, (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, June
2000), p. 1 and Kristin Anderson Moore and Sharon Vandivere (Child Trends), and Jennifer Ehrle (The Urban
33

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

13

Consequences of the Ban on the Well-Being of Children
I have two children that need attention, that have been without a mother’s care for six months.
Given a chance, it will be different.
A mother convicted of a drug offense38

Children who are exposed to stressful family environments have been found to be more likely to
perform poorly in school and experience emotional and behavioral problems. An Urban Institute
study found that 31% of children living under stressful family conditions had low levels of
educational engagement, compared to 17% of other children.39 The researchers also found that
15% of children aged 6 to 11 who lived in stressful family environments had high levels of
emotional and behavioral problems, whereas only 4% of other children experienced similar
problems. Similar findings were found among adolescents as well. Children and adolescents
who do not receive the necessary support to develop into healthy, positive, and productive social
participants are likely to engage in anti-social behavior harmful to society.
A study conducted by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) shows
a link between the maltreatment40 of children, low academic achievement, mental health
problems, drug use, teenage pregnancy, and delinquency.41 Although child neglect and abuse
cuts cross socioeconomic, racial and ethnic lines, African American and Hispanic women who
face greater socioeconomic disadvantages due to race, ethnicity and gender, and lack the
necessary resources to combat such disadvantages, run a greater risk of exposing their children to
neglect. OJJDP’s research shows that children raised in low-income or poor families are more
likely to be victims of maltreatment.42 Denying mothers welfare benefits at a time they may most
need them may prove to be exceedingly punitive to the children for whom they care. Assessing
the societal cost of the lifetime welfare ban may be difficult at this point in time but research
points to the inevitable reality that such punitive policy may in fact lead to an increase in the
number of neglected children at risk of becoming delinquents.
As mothers subject to the lifetime welfare ban struggle to make ends meet, they may be less able
to provide the parental supervision and quality attention that is needed by children. An OJJDP
study conducted in Rochester, New York found that “[e]conomic hardship and stressful life
events led to a lack of parent-child involvement, attachment, and control over adolescents.”43
The study concluded that the lack of parent involvement in their children’s lives increases the
risk of delinquency. Due to limited financial resources, many children will not receive the basic
Institute), “Turbulence and Child Well-Being ,“ New Federalism, National Survey of America’s Families,
(Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, June 2000), pp. 2-3; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, “Family
Disruption and Delinquency,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, September
1999), p. 4.
38
Hirsch, p. 60.
39
Anderson Moore, “Stressful Family Lives: Child and Parent Well-Being,” p. 2.
40
Maltreatment includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, lack of supervision, emotional maltreatment,
educational maltreatment, and moral-legal maltreatment.
41
Barbara Tatem Kelly, Terence P. Thornberry, and Carolyn A. Smith, In the Wake of Childhood Maltreatment,
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, August
1997), Figure 1 and p. 7.
42
Ibid.
42
Ibid., p. 3.
43
Katharine Browning, Terence P. Thornberry, and Pamela K. Porter, Highlights of Findings from the Rochester
Youth Development Study (Fact Sheet), (Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, April 1999).

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

14

necessities of life. According to OJJDP, children who are neglected are almost as likely as
victims of physical abuse to engage in violent crimes during adolescence and adulthood.
The research clearly shows that the well-being of children is intimately linked to the well-being
of their parents. The impact of maltreatment and family dissolution on the well-being of children
is a clear indication that the lifetime welfare ban, although ostensibly targeted only at adults, not
only punishes mothers, who are entitled to well-being in their own right, but their children as
well.

Access to Anti-Poverty Resources
The first thing companies do now is check on criminal history, then they won’t hire you. Even
after a longer time, your criminal record is still held against you. In my caseload, domestic
violence is a problem but the major, major problem is drugs, lack of education, lack of jobs.
Philadelphia probation officer44

Transitional financial assistance represents only one step toward providing women subject to the
lifetime welfare ban with the necessary tools to overcome the barriers they will face upon
returning to their communities. In order for cash assistance and food stamps to be a temporary
source of support, women will need access to anti-poverty resources enabling them to eventually
become self-sufficient and productive members of their communities. Most women subject to
the lifetime welfare ban will need access to at least three critical services – vocational training,
education, and drug treatment. To take full advantage of these programs, low-income women
who lack adequate financial support will require cash assistance and food stamps during this
transitional period.
Educational Prospects
I want to get my GED and get totally educated. I had a good job and they closed down with no
notice. I need to get educated and qualified. I want some backbone, some papers that say I
completed something and I’m capable. I want to get a college degree.
Woman convicted of a drug offense45

Lack of Educational Skills
A significant number of women under criminal justice supervision have a history of low
educational attainment, thus reducing their prospects of finding work with living wages
following a conviction. Forty percent of women on probation, and 44% of women in state
prison, have not graduated from high school or received a GED, and only 21% of women on
probation and 17% of women in state prison have some college education.46 The glaring racial
and ethnic differences in educational opportunity explain, in part, the employment and wage
disparity between women of color and white women. According to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 59% of Hispanic mothers and 50% of African American mothers in state prison have
44

Hirsch, p. 49.
Hirsch, pp. 43-44.
46
Greenfeld, Table 16.
45

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

15

not graduated from high school or received a GED, compared to 27% of white mothers.47 Only
7% of Hispanic mothers have any schooling beyond high school, compared to 15% of African
American mothers and 20% of white mothers.48
Lack of formal education is a key factor contributing to the high levels of low-wage work,
underemployment and unemployment experienced by a significant number of women entering
the criminal justice system. The Census Bureau reports that “there is a strong association
between poverty and education for persons 18 years and older.”49 In an average month in 1990,
21% of persons who had not graduated from high school experienced poverty, while only 6% of
those with one or more years of college were poor. Women with a high school education or less
are more likely to experience low-wage employment (42%) than those who have some college
education (17%).50
Since incarcerated people have limited educational opportunities while in prison, few women
will have the necessary qualifications to successfully compete in the labor market immediately
upon their release from prison.51 Although correctional institutions have increased the number of
general education programs (i.e. adult basic education, GED, high school) available to prisoners
since the 1970s, as of 1996 only 52% of correctional facilities for women offered post-secondary
education.52 Access to college education was further limited in 1994, when prisoners were
declared ineligible for college Pell grants, leading to the inability of an increased number of
incarcerated women, especially low-income women and women of color, to overcome their
socioeconomic disadvantages prior to their release. Even women who received educational
training report that the skills acquired have proven inadequate upon release from prison.53
Women on probation for a felony offense are even less likely to be referred to general education
programs. In 1995, only 7% of all felony probationers participated in such programs.54
Low levels of educational attainment will affect the employment opportunities of women subject
to the lifetime ban to varying degrees, depending on their racial or ethnic background, requiring
greater emphasis on educational opportunities for women of color reentering their communities.
Although between the 1970s and early 1990s, the unemployment rates for young African
American and Latina women were higher than those of young white women at every educational
level, research shows that the unemployment gap between African American and white women,
and between Puerto Rican and white women, dramatically widens for those with low levels of
education. For example, while the unemployment rates of young African American women who
47

Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997 [Computer file].
Ibid.
49
Martina Shea, “Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Poverty 1990-1992,” Current Population Reports (P70-42),
(Washington, D.C.: Census Bureau, January 1995), p. 6.
50
Paul Ryscavage, “Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Labor Force 1992-93 – A Perspective on Low-Wage
Workers,” Current Population Reports (P70-57), (Washington, D.C.: Census Bureau, August 1996), Table B.
“Average hourly earnings in the course of a month were considered low if they were below $5.70 an hour.” Thirty
percent of men with high school education or less experience low-wage employment, while those with college
education are much less likely than their female counterparts to engage in low-wage work (9%).
51
Bruce Western and Katherine Beckett, “How Unregulated is the U.S. Labor Market? The Penal System as a Labor
Market Institution,” 1999, American Journal of Sociology, V. 104, I 4, 1030-1060, p. 1045.
52
Karen F. Lahm, “Equal or Equitable: An Exploration of Education and Vocational Program Availability for Male
and Female Offenders,” Federal Probation, December 2000, vol. 64 No. 2, p. 41.
53
Koons, B., et al. 1997. “Expert and Offender Perception of Program Elements Linked to Successful Outcomes for
Incarcerated Women.” Crime and Delinquency. Sage Publications. 512-532.
54
Thomas P. Bonczar, Characteristics of Adults on Probation, 1995, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, December 1997), Table 11.
48

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

16

did not complete high school ranged from 36% to 53% in the 1970, 1980s, and early 1990s, the
rates for similarly situated young white women high school never reached the 30% mark.55
Research documenting the unemployment rates of young Puerto Rican women who did not
complete high school in the 1980s and 1990s “were between 1.4 and 2.2 times as large as those
of young white women with comparable schooling.”56
The pervasive low levels of educational attainment among women in the criminal justice system,
and the impact this has on their employment prospects signals an urgent need for increased
educational opportunity for women subject to the lifetime ban. Of particular concern are the
higher levels of economic insecurity that African American and Latina women are likely to face
following the imposition of a lifetime welfare ban compared to their white counterparts if they
are not afforded the time and support necessary to pursue educational opportunities.
Facilitating Women’s Educational Opportunities
Many people lacking the employment skills to be competitive in the job market return to school
to improve their skills, but for low-income women convicted of drug offenses, the lifetime
welfare ban, job training programs, excluding former substance abusers, and federal legislative
changes limit educational opportunities.
Although the ban on cash assistance and food stamps does not prohibit women from taking part
in educational and vocational programs and services offered by Departments of Human Services,
the likelihood of accessing such services once they have been taken off welfare rolls is minimal.
Studies documenting the experiences of welfare leavers show that few families leaving welfare
rolls are able to access vital welfare programs and services, for which they remain eligible.57 The
low participation of welfare leavers in such programs is largely due to a lack of public
information - welfare leavers are under the impression that the denial of cash assistance results in
their ineligibility for other programs and services; caseworkers fail to inform welfare leavers of
their eligibility for other benefits and services; and people with limited English proficiency are
not informed of available programs and services because information is not provided in their
native tongue.
Women subject to the welfare ban who are informed of educational and vocational programs may
still not be able to take advantage of these programs because of a lack of transitional income to
support them during the program period. Considering the low levels of educational attainment
experienced by women under criminal justice sanction, ensuring participation in secondary and
post-secondary educational programs is a priority. Of particular concern for Latina women is
access to programs that will increase their English proficiency. To ensure that women receive
the educational skills necessary to compete in the labor market while fulfilling their parental
responsibilities, adequate transitional income is required.

55

Mary Corcoran, “The Economic Progress of African American Women,” In Latinas and African American
Women at Work, Editor Irene Browne, (New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999).
56
Mary Corcoran, Collen M. Heflin, and Belinda L. Reyes, “The Economic Progress of Mexican and Puerto Rican
Women,” In Latinas and African American Women at Work, Editor Irene Browne, (New York, NY: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1999), p. 123.
57
Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representative, (Washington, D.C.: United States General Accounting Office, May 27, 1999), p. 9.

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

17

Some job training programs do not admit women with a recent history of drug addiction.
Women are often required to wait at least two years after their recovery to be entitled to access
these services, further limiting their educational and employment opportunities, and accentuating
the need for transitional assistance during such waiting periods.58
Women’s reentry prospects are further limited by the 1998 amendment to the Higher Education
Act.59 Under the Act, anyone with a drug conviction cannot receive federal financial aid to enroll
in a post-secondary institution. The amendment provides that federal financial aid (grant, loan or
work assistance) will be delayed or denied to any person convicted of a drug offense. During the
2000-2001 school year, more than 43,000 college students were affected by the amendment.60
Employment Prospects
Transitional assistance is essential for many women returning to their communities because their
initial job prospects following a conviction are quite often grim. A significant number of women
who come into contact with the criminal justice system have very limited employment skills and
history to rely on when applying for jobs. In addition, having a criminal history represents an
additional barrier to finding employment. The transitional assistance provided through TANF
and food stamps offers the financial and subsistence support women require as they build
employment skills and convince prospective employers of their commitment to join the
workforce.
The Impediment of a Criminal History
Several studies have reported that a criminal record significantly impairs a person’s ability to find
stable and legal employment, as well as to develop earning potential.61 As employers are
generally hesitant to hire someone with a criminal record, particularly former inmates, prior
convictions limit employment opportunities for many ex-offenders to low-wage and low skill
markets where employers cannot be as selective about a criminal record. In addition, some states
facilitate an employer’s ability to screen out ex-offenders by posting their criminal records on the
World-Wide-Web.
Ex-offenders’ employment opportunities are further curtailed by government policies. A
woman’s felony conviction subjects her to a lifetime public employment ban in several states,
including at least six states which enforce the welfare ban in part or in full – Alabama, Delaware,
Iowa, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.62 Although other states do not impose an
automatic ban, state statutes provide for broad and discretionary powers increasing the likelihood
that ex-offenders will be denied public employment in those states. Most states further prohibit
ex-offenders with felony convictions from obtaining certain types of occupational or professional
58

Hirsch, p. 48.
20 U.S.C. 1091(r)(1)
60
Arlene Levinson, “Ban on College Aid to Drug Users Backfires,” The Associated Press, December 30, 2001.
61
Shawn Bushway, “ The Stigma of a Criminal History Record in the Labor Market,” Building Violence: How
America’s Rush to Incarcerate Creates More Violence, edited by J.P. May, (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2000). Roger
Boshier and Derek Johnson, “Does Conviction Affect Employment Opportunities?” British Journal of Criminology,
1974, 14:264-68. Wouter Buikhuisen and Fokke P.H. Dijksterhuis, “Delinquency and Stigmatization,” British
Journal of Criminology, 1971, 11:185-88.
62
Margaret Colgate Love and Susan M. Kuzma, Civil Disabilities of Convicted Felons: A State-by-State Survey,
(Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice, Office of the Pardon Attorney, October 1996).
59

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

18

licenses in fields commonly pursued by women, including childcare, social work, nursing,
dentistry (dental assistant), health, and accounting.63
Incarceration creates additional barriers to marketability in the labor force. Mothers who have a
felony conviction, but were sentenced to probation, fare better in the job market than those who
served a prison sentence.64 This is particularly significant for African American and Latina
women who comprise a substantially greater proportion of the prison population than those who
receive probation. In 1998, African American and Hispanic women accounted for 37% of adult
women on probation, but represented 63% of the state female prison population and 67% of
women in federal prison.65
The stigma of a criminal record will only further compound the barriers already faced by African
American and Latina women seeking employment. The criminalization of African American and
Hispanic communities in the public domain, as well as the stereotypes associated with African
American and Hispanic women, lead to substantial racial and gender discrimination in the hiring
practices of employers.66
Limited Employment Skills, History and Network
A significant number of women under criminal justice supervision experienced high levels of
low-wage work, underemployment and unemployment prior to their arrest. Only half of the
mothers in state prison reported employment in the month before their arrest (of these, 79%
reported full-time employment, 18% part-time employment and 4% sporadic employment).67 A
racial and ethnic breakdown shows that mothers of color experience significantly higher rates of
unemployment than white mothers. Latina women as a group experience the highest rates of
unemployment, followed by African American and white women. Fifty-eight percent of all
Hispanic mothers of minor children did not have a job or business prior to their arrest, compared
to 52% of African American women and 44% of white women.68 With respect to mothers who
were employed prior to their arrest, white women were more likely to be employed full-time than
were African American or Latina women. Eighty-four percent of white mothers incarcerated in
state prison who reported employment before their arrest indicated that they were employed fulltime, while 76% of black mothers and 71% Hispanic mothers were employed full-time.69
Due to limited employment opportunities, women under correctional sanctions experienced high
rates of poverty prior to their arrest. As African American and Latina mothers face greater
63

Ibid.
Bruce Western and Katherine Beckett, “How Unregulated is the U.S. Labor Market? The Penal System as a Labor
Market Institution.” American Journal of Sociology, January 1999, V. 104, I 4, 1030-1060.
65
Greenfeld, Table 16.
66
Mary Corcoran, “Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the United States,” 1995, Annual Review of Sociology,
Vol. 21, 237-267. David Jernigan and Lori Dorfman, “Visualizing America’s drug problems: an ethnographic
content analysis of illegal drug stories on the news, Contemporary Drug Problems 23/Summer, Federal Legal
Publications, Inc., 1996.
67
Christopher J. Mumola, Incarcerated Parents and their Children, (Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2000), Table13.
68
U.S. Department of Justice, and U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Survey of Inmates in State
and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997 [Computer file]. Compiled by U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census. ICPSR ed., (Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and
distributor], 2000).
69
Ibid.
64

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

19

employment insecurity, they are more likely than white women to have lower pre-arrest incomes.
Over 50% of Hispanic mothers and 49% of African American mothers had incomes under $600,
while 39% of their white counterparts had similar incomes prior to arrest. Almost 30% of
mothers in state prison were receiving welfare assistance before their arrest.70 Once again, a
racial and ethnic breakdown shows that a disproportionate number of African American and
Latina women relied on welfare as a source of income prior to their arrest. Thirty-six percent of
black mothers and 31% of Hispanic mothers were welfare recipients, whereas 20% of white
mothers were dependent on welfare benefits.71 Inability to find work that provides living wages
creates economic pressures that often compel women to supplement family income through
illegal means. Twenty-eight percent of mothers report having used illegal sources to supplement
their income.72
Like former welfare recipients, women subject to the lifetime welfare ban will encounter
significant spells of unemployment resulting from labor market conditions, poor employment
histories, or inability to meet work-related expenses, including affordable and safe child care and
transportation. Studies documenting the employment status of former TANF recipients have
found that approximately half the leavers in most states report no earnings in the calendar quarter
in which they left the rolls, and that a significant portion of parents faced “unemployment rates…
slightly higher in the fourth calendar quarter than in the first quarter after leaving welfare.”73 In
every state which conducted a study, it was discovered that one-quarter to one-third of welfare
leavers return to welfare for assistance74 - an option no longer available to women convicted of
drug offenses.
The time women spend under correctional supervision is unlikely to result in improved and
competitive labor skills enabling them to fare better than welfare leavers in the job market once
they lose their benefits. Since the criminal justice system has adopted a “get tough” approach to
offenders rather than a rehabilitative one, prisoners are offered limited opportunities to improve
their marketable skills while incarcerated. In addition, prison officials often fall into traditional
gender stereotyped pitfalls when offering vocational services to women, further limiting their
future employment opportunities upon release. The vocational training offered in women’s
prisons is similar to the type of low-wage work the vast majority of low-income African
American and Hispanic women engage in outside the prison walls.
A national review of both men’s and women’s correctional facilities found that most institutions
continue to provide very gender-specific vocational training. The primary sectors for which
vocational programs are offered to women in prison include technical/sales (i.e. health and
clerical work, and telemarketing), service (primarily cleaning and kitchen work), and
operator/fabricator/labor (primarily sewing).75 The review also revealed that, unlike correctional
institutions for men, “women’s institutions are 604 percent more likely to offer technical/sales
training, 208 percent more likely to offer training in service occupations, and 100 percent more
likely to offer training in the operator/fabricator/labor sector.”76 Men’s correctional facilities are
more likely to offer training in production (i.e. masonry, automotive, electronics, construction,
70

Greenfeld, p. 8.
Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997 [Computer file].
72
Mumola, Table 13.
73
National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, p. 6.
74
Ibid.
75
Lahm, p. 43.
76
Lahm, p. 43.
71

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

20

graphic art, and plumbing) and farm/forestry/fishing careers, skilled trades with higher earning
potential.77 Vocational training in low wage work is unlikely to provide the necessary income to
lead women to self-sufficiency and lift themselves and their children out of poverty.
Recent studies documenting the occupations of parents leaving welfare show that most found
employment in similar fields to those for which incarcerated women are being trained, and
continue to experience significant poverty. The wages earned by welfare leavers ranged from the
minimum wage at the low end to eight dollars per hour at the high end. Although many parents
engage in long work weeks (30 hours to more than 50 hours per week) “[a]ll of the studies
consistently find that parents leaving welfare with earnings are still poor.”78
The economic insecurity of the cohort of African American and Latina women who are
incarcerated is comparable to that of women of color generally, suggesting that the employment
and wage prospects of African American and Latina mothers and white mothers subject to the
lifetime welfare ban will differ significantly. Although the employment rates of Puerto Rican and
Mexican women increased between the 1970s and 1990s, while those of African American
women remained relatively stable during this period, the employment gap between women of
color and white women widened significantly during this same period.79 The unemployment rates
for women of color continue to greatly exceed those of white women. For example, in 1990 the
unemployment rates for young Mexican and Puerto Rican women were twice those for young
white women.80 In addition, research shows that the unemployment rates of African American
women increase much faster than those for white women during recession years, further
widening the racial unemployment gap.81
African American and Latina women denied cash assistance and food stamps will not only have
greater difficulty finding work, but they can also expect to receive lower wages, notwithstanding
similar educational levels and work experience, as their white counterparts. Research shows that
young African American women’s work commitment has “remained steady since 1974, and the
proportion of women who worked full time, full year increased steadily after 1973.”82 The wages
of African American women in the 1970s, although below those of white women, remained
relatively close throughout the period. Notwithstanding this progress, in part due to the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the enforcement of equal opportunity legislation, by 1979 the race-based
wage gap started to widen significantly, and by 1991, the wages of young African American
women were 14 percentage points lower than their white counterparts’.83 Conversely, Puerto
Rican women’s hourly wages were slightly higher than those of white women in 1980, while “the
average Mexican women earned 89 percent as much per hour as did the average white women.”84
By 1990, Puerto Rican and Mexican women earned 98% and 78% as much as white woman.85
Research has shown that the increasing economic disparity between women of color and white
women is attributable in part to “the globalization of markets, the shift from a manufacturing to a
77

Lahm, p. 42.
National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, p. 8.
79
Corcoran, “The Economic Progress of African American Women,” and Corcoran and Heflin.
80
Corcoran and Heflin.
81
Corcoran, “The Economic Progress of African American Women.”
82
Ibid., p. 55.
83
Ibid., p. 39.
84
Corcoran and Heflin, p. 124.
85
Ibid.
78

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

21

service economy, and technological upgrading (for example, computerization) hav[ing] reduced
the demand for low-skilled labor.”86 Further, as manufacturing jobs move out of inner cities, the
employment opportunities of women of color are dwindling, forcing them to find the resources to
either follow the jobs, or upgrade their skills to move into new industries. Some sociologists
advance the proposition that “about one-sixth of the trend in higher racial wage differentials
among young women is due to increases in the level of white women’s schooling vis-à-vis that of
African American women.”87 An additional factor contributing to the increasing employment
and wage disparity is the sudden and rapid influx of white women into the labor market in the
‘70s and ‘80s. Sociologists argue that the increased pool of women workers “available for
employers to choose from expands and so reduces the cost of favoring white women over equally
qualified African American women.”88
Given the varying barriers women face as a result of poor employment skills, criminal histories,
and the racialized and gendered labor market, women should be afforded the time and assistance
needed following a criminal conviction to build marketable skills. This will require vocational
training in areas where women with a criminal record are not automatically excluded and
challenges to such exclusions, as well as training for the types of jobs that provide living wages
along with employment benefits. The availability of transitional assistance while women engage
in substantive vocational training ensures that they are able to house and feed themselves and
their children as they devote themselves full-time to gaining employment skills which will enable
them to eventually become self-sufficient. For many women, vocational training may be
insufficient to reach self-sufficiency, and increased access to educational opportunities for
women, especially African American and Latina women, who are returning to their communities
may be necessary.

Drug Treatment Prospects
I would be in serious pain and couldn’t stop screaming…but he would beat me to keep me quiet.
But sometimes I’d have broken bones, so I couldn’t just be quiet. He would go out and come home
with “medicine”… He’d shoot me up with it. He started buying morphine on the street. It really
helped the physical pain and the emotional pain…Now I try to get it on my own even when he isn’t
beating me because I am addicted.89

The majority of women under correctional supervision struggle with substance abuse, and most
do not receive the assistance necessary to overcome their addiction. Research has shown that
drug treatment plays a critical role in the successful reintegration of ex-offenders into their
communities. The loss of welfare benefits experienced by women convicted of drug offenses not
only impedes their access to treatment, but also undermines successful recovery, and as such,
reduces their chances of returning to more productive lives in their communities.
Substance Abuse Among Women

86

Corcoran, “The Economic Progress of African American Women,” p. 56.
Ibid.
88
Ibid., p. 57.
89
Beth E. Richie, “Six Paths to Crime,” Compelled to Crime: The Gender Entrapment of Battered Women, (New
York: Routledge , 1996), p. 125.
87

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

22

Seventy-four percent of women entering the criminal justice system reported using drugs
regularly prior to their arrest.90 As documented by sociologist Beth Richie in Compelled to
Crime: The Gender Entrapment of Battered Black Women, women are introduced to drugs
because of various social circumstances. While some women are initiated into the world of drugs
by their peers, others turn to drug use as a response to the emotional, physical, or sexual abuse
they suffer during their childhood and/or as adults at the hands of their intimate partners. Some
survivors of abuse start using drugs believing that drug use will lead to greater intimacy between
them and their addicted batterers. One African American woman interviewed by Richie shared
her efforts to reduce the violence in her household and get closer to her abusive partner, which
eventually resulted in her involvement in the sale of drugs,
I remember when I shifted from being angry at him or manipulated by him to feeling really scared
of him…First I thought drugging would make us close, like a real couple…so I started with heroin.
At first it worked. I wasn’t so scared; he was very hot for sex with me, and then he’d sleep a lot.
When we didn’t have money for drugs, I was in real trouble because his abuse got really out of
control. So I started selling as a way to keep us supplied.91

As pointed out by several of Richie’s interviewees, drug use can also serve to relieve the pain of
the abuse. One woman explained that the usefulness of drugs was her ability to self-medicate:
“even if he did beat me, it didn’t seem to hurt as much when I was high, so I thought of it as
‘medicating’ and caring for myself.”92
Unlike middle-class women who experience addiction, most low-income women and women of
color do not have the financial resources to address their personal hardships or abuse with costly
prescription drugs and/or therapy, and as such many will use drugs to self-medicate, which places
them at risk of coming in contact with the criminal justice system. Half the women incarcerated
in state prisons described themselves as daily drug users, and 60% reported using drugs in the
month before their arrest.93 For many women drug addiction is intimately linked to involvement
in criminal activity – prostitution, theft, sale of drugs – which is often engaged in to support their
addiction. Thirty-three percent of women in state prison reported that they committed the offense
for which they were incarcerated to support their addiction, and 40% reported using drugs at the
time of their offense.94 Women on probation have slightly lower rates of addiction, but 38% of
women reported being daily drug users, and 12% said they were under the influence at the time
of the offense.95
Although substance-abusing women may seek outpatient treatment to turn their lives around,
many will not be able to afford assistance until they enter the criminal justice system. Even
women under criminal justice jurisdiction may not gain access to the limited drug treatment
programs offered in correctional facilities or through community corrections programs. While
74% of women prisoners have a history of drug use, only 25% of state and federal prisoners
participate in either drug treatment or other drug abuse programs.96 Racial and ethnic disparities
90

Christopher J. Mumola, Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997, (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January, 1999), Table 6.
91
Richie, p. 124
92
Ibid.
93
Greenfeld, p. 9.
94
Ibid.
95
Christopher J. Mumola, Substance Abuse and Treatment of Adults on Probation, 1995, (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1998), Table 6.
96
Mumola, Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997, p. 10.

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

23

persist in access to treatment programs, with Hispanics and African Americans less likely than
their white counterparts to receive substance abuse treatment or to access substance abuse
programs.97 Women on probation are even less likely than prisoners to receive any form of drug
treatment. In 1995, 50% of probationers had to submit to drug testing, but only 17% received
drug treatment during their probation sentence, further demonstrating the government’s over
emphasis on punitive rather than rehabilitative measures in addressing drug addiction.98
The Impact of the Ban on Drug Treatment for Women
Given the limited availability of drug treatment programs for low-income people, many women
who are subject to the lifetime welfare ban will encounter even greater obstacles in overcoming
their addiction. The ban forces women overcoming addiction into the workforce, which,
according to substance abuse counselors, undermines women’s recovery efforts. In addition, the
ban will impact the availability of drug treatment programs for low-income women.
Drug treatment staff report that cash assistance and food stamps are critical for the successful
recovery of low-income women because women who try to maintain employment in the early
phases of recovery are likely to relapse and quit or lose their job. According to one drug
treatment counselor, “the combination of the stress and frustration of low-wage employment with
the demands of childrearing and the fragility of early recovery is extremely difficult, particularly
for women whose coping skills are limited.”99 Work obligations may also prevent women from
participating in certain intensive drug treatment programs.100
In addition to undermining women’s recovery processes, the ban will also affect the availability
of drug treatment programs. The Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities
strongly oppose the ban because of its effect on drug treatment prospects for those most in need
of substance abuse treatment. In their opposition to the ban, the two groups assert that the drug
provision makes “drug addicts ineligible for any of the effective drug treatment programs that are
being developed by the States and federal Government.”101 They argue that the ban will
undermine treatment programs developed by community health centers across the nation that
help mothers reenter the job force and reunite with their families. Such programs “will be off
limits to the people who need them most.”102 Furthermore, since many residential drug treatment
programs rely heavily on mothers’ welfare benefits to cover their operating expenses,103 lowincome and poor women’s access to treatment may be further diminished.
In New York State, one of the eight states that opted out of the lifetime welfare ban,
representatives of parole and probation agencies strongly urged state legislators to not adopt the
ban because it would jeopardize probation and parole services. These agencies view treatment
97

Only 13% of African American prisoners and 12% of Hispanic prisoners report receiving treatment for substance
during their incarceration in state prison, compared to 17% of white prisoners. The disparity is more significant when
comparing the participation of prisoners in other substance abuse programs. Thirty-six percent of white prisoners
participated in other substance abuse programs, compared to 24% of Hispanics and 32% of African Americans.
Mumola, Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997, p. 13.
98
Mumola, Substance Abuse and Treatment of Adults on Probation, 1995, Table 8.
99
Hirsch, p. 48.
100
Hirsch, p. 54.
101
142 CONG. Rec. No. 109, Sec. 8498 (daily ed. July 23, 1996).
102
Ibid.
103
Legal Action Center, Steps to Success: Helping Women with Alcohol and Drug Problems Move from Welfare to
Work, (New York, NY: Legal Action Center, 1999), p. 18.

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

24

programs as a key element for the successful completion of probation and parole. However, in
states where the ban has been implemented, the loss of transitional assistance may adversely
affect the number of low-income women either granted parole or probation, or successfully
completing it. The Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities also indicate that the
ban “undermine[s] the whole notion of providing drug treatment as an alternative sentence to a
first-time drug offender if the individual requires Federal assistance to obtain the treatment.”104
For many women released from prison, residential treatment programs constitute a critical step in
their recovery process, and toward successful reintegration into society. Women who are unable
to find affordable and safe housing may find that residential drug treatment programs provide a
viable temporary alternative for them and their children. Many residential treatment programs
also provide a panoply of life skills building programs – employment, education, medical care,
parenting skills, and therapy – as well as a structured living environment.
At present, there are limited numbers of residential drug treatment programs accommodating
women and their children. Since the client base of family-centered residential programs is
primarily composed of low-income and poor women, these programs are likely to be the hardest
hit by the lifetime welfare ban. For women whose release from prison or probation status is
contingent on their participation in a residential drug treatment program, a reduction in familycentered residential programs may force women to be separated from their children in order to
enter an adult-only treatment program.
In states where mothers’ TANF and food stamp eligibility is dependent on their participation or
successful completion of a drug treatment program, women may lose their benefits due to a
shortage of available treatment slots. Some women will be forced to choose between treatment
and their children. There continues to an insufficient number of residential drug treatment
programs across the country, forcing women to leave their children to enter programs restricted
to adults. Needless to say, women who are no longer primary caregivers for their children lose
access to welfare benefits. Therefore, even in states that do not automatically deny cash
assistance and food stamps, we can expect that a number of women will lose eligibility due to an
inability through no fault of their own, to comply with a state’s strict requirements.

104

142 CONG. Rec. No. 109, Sec. 8498 (daily ed. July 23, 1996).

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

V.

25

THE IMPACT OF DRUG POLICIES

The detrimental impacts of the lifetime welfare ban are also the result of current drug policies.
Since its inception, the “war on drugs” has had a particularly devastating impact on women.
Between 1990 and 1999, drug offenses have accounted for the largest proportion of growth in the
number of women state prisoners (35% compared to 28% for violent offenses and 21% for
property offenses). During the same period, drug offenses accounted for just 19% of the growth
in the men’s prison population.105 Women are more likely than men to be incarcerated for drug
offenses. Thirty-four percent of women are incarcerated in state prisons for drug charges,
compared to 20% of men.106
Many low-income women could overcome their addiction and avoid contact with the criminal
justice system if they were provided with the necessary support. Although funding for drug
treatment has increased in recent years, the Federal government continues to focus its attention
primarily on criminal justice sanctions to address drug abuse. As demonstrated by federal drug
budget priorities – one-third for prevention and treatment and two-thirds for law enforcement and
incarceration - drug policy relies heavily on punitive measures rather than treatment. This policy
is reflected by the significant gap between the number of people who need treatment and the
number who receive the services necessary to overcome drug addiction. In 1998, approximately
five million people were in need of drug treatment, but only two million actually received it.107
Access to drug treatment for those most in need who lack the financial resources to obtain private
treatment also presents a stark picture. Government agencies mandated to assist families in crisis
have difficulty aiding families struggling with addiction in their households, in part because of
the lack of resources allocated to address substance abuse. In 1997, only 10% of child welfare
agencies were able to place people needing treatment within a month,108 and only 37% of
substance-abusing mothers of minor children received treatment,109 while only 48% of women on
welfare received treatment services.110
For most low-income women and women of color who are either working in low wage jobs
without health insurance, or unemployed or on public assistance, state-sponsored drug treatment
programs are the only viable option to overcome addiction. The emphasis on punishment at the
expense of treatment essentially means that those who can afford treatment are more likely to
receive the help they need, while low-income people who cannot afford treatment are more likely
to be subjected to the criminal justice system.111
The lifetime welfare ban will have a disparate impact on low-income African American women
and Latinas because of discriminatory law enforcement policies and practices, which result in a
105

Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison, Prisoners in 2000, (Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, August 2001), Table 17.
106
Ibid., Table 16.
107
Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy: 2000, (Washington, D.C.: Department
of Justice, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2001), p. 54.
108
Child Welfare League of America, Alcohol and Other Drug Survey of State Child Welfare Agencies (Washington,
DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1998).
109
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Substance Use Among Women in the United
States, (Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1997).
110
Legal Action Center, Steps to Success: Helping Women with Alcohol and Drug Problems Move from Welfare to
Work.
111
The Sentencing Project, Drug Policy and the Criminal Justice System, (Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing
Project, May 2001).

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

26

greater number of African Americans and Latinos coming in contact with the criminal justice
system through the “war on drugs.” This is a result of drug law enforcement efforts that have
been concentrated in inner-city areas where, unlike white middle-class neighborhoods, drug use
and sales are more regularly conducted in public areas, facilitating arrest.112 As a result, women
of color are more likely to come in contact with law enforcement officials.
Although African Americans represent only 13% of monthly drug users,113 a number consistent
with their proportion of the population, they account for “35% of those arrested for drug
possession, 55% of drug possession convictions, and 74% of those sentenced to prison for drug
possession.”114 Latinas and African American women are disproportionately incarcerated for
drug offenses compared to their white, and male, counterparts. In 1997, 44% of Hispanic women
and 39% of African American women incarcerated in state prisons were convicted of drug
offenses, compared to 23% of white women, and 24% and 26% of African American and
Hispanic men, respectively.115

112

The Sentencing Project, Drug Policy and The Criminal Justice System, p. 5.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Summary Findings from the 1999
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, (Washington, D.C.: SAMHSA, November 2000), p. 17.
114
The Sentencing Project, Drug Policy and The Criminal Justice System, pp. 4-5.
115
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997,” Table 4.6.
113

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

VI.

27

RECOMMENDATIONS

The lifetime welfare ban has already had dramatic consequences for the well-being of women,
children and communities. These adverse effects will only worsen over time. During this welfare
reform reauthorization year, Congress is presented with the opportunity to revisit the
effectiveness of its decision to deny welfare benefits to people convicted of drug offenses. As
Congress prepares to assess the welfare reform act, policymakers should consider the following
recommendations to prevent future harms to some of the most vulnerable members of society:
✔Repeal Federal Lifetime Welfare Ban.
•

In light of the detrimental impacts the lifetime welfare ban has on women and children, as
well as family integrity, and the potentially significant child welfare, social and criminal
justice costs associated with the ban, Congress should repeal Section 115(a) of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (lifetime welfare ban).

•

Congressional hearings should be held to hear from various actors directly and indirectly
affected by the ban. Through this process, policymakers and legislators will be provided with
a critical assessment of the impact of the ban on women and their children, as well on local,
state and federal economies.

✔State Modification to Include Services for Women.
•

State governments should opt out of the ban or at least modify it, as provided for under
Section 115(d) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996. While some states have modified the ban by limiting ineligibility to women with drug
sale convictions, other states maintain welfare eligibility provided that a person is enrolled in
or participating in a state approved drug treatment program.

•

In addition to the drug treatment modification, states should consider programs other than
drug treatment that would allow women to maintain eligibility. Since not every woman
convicted of a drug offense has a substance abuse problem, states should provide alternative
programs for these women, such as job training or GED programs, following an assessment
of their needs and the reasons they became involved with drugs. Women’s enrollment in
these alternate programs should allow them to maintain welfare benefits.

✔Repeal Post-incarceration Sentences.
To improve reentry prospects of ex-offenders, and as such to ensure greater public safety and
reduced costs associated with crime, policymakers should repeal legislation that delays or
denies access to vital social benefits, including education, housing and employment to exoffenders. In many states, women’s inability to access various social entitlements critical to
successful reentry undermines women’s commitment and efforts to turn their lives around,
and to provide for their families and become more effective contributing members of their
communities. These include:

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

28

Restrictions on Post-Secondary Financial Aid
• During the 2000-2001 school year, Section 483(f) of the 1998 Amendments to Higher
Education Act of 1965 which delays or denies any form of federal financial aid for postsecondary education to persons convicted of a drug offense, affected over 43,000
students. The amendment undermines the rehabilitative potential of education for exoffenders. A substantial number of studies have shown that providing prisoners or exoffenders with educational opportunities significantly reduces recidivism, and thus
increases public safety and reduces costs associated with criminal behavior.
Public Housing Restrictions
• The federal government’s “One Strike Initiative” provided for under Section 9 of the
Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996, has the potential of leaving many
women subject to the lifetime welfare ban, along with their children homeless, exposing
them to an inordinate number of precarious situations, including those likely to involve
criminal activity. The inability to access public housing constitutes an enormous barrier to
finding work and receiving social benefits, further exacerbating the efforts of low-income
women and women of color subject to the ban to become active social participants, as
well as subverting efforts to create safe communities.
Employment Bans
• Policymakers should reconsider the effectiveness of state and federal statutes that call for
the imposition of mandatory or permissive lifetime bans on government jobs, or
professional and occupational licenses for drug offenders. A lifetime ban policy fails to
recognize that people can overcome addiction and make important social contributions.
The policy not only diminishes job opportunities for ex-offenders, but also results in loss
of access to jobs that are more likely to provide better incomes and, in some cases,
employment benefits.
✔Increase Access to and Quality of Education and Employment Opportunities.
•

State welfare agencies should develop strategies aimed at informing women who are denied
cash assistance and food stamps of the other benefits and services for which they are eligible,
particularly Medicare, job training and educational programs. Such communications
strategies should take into consideration literacy concerns and language barriers.

•

Access to educational opportunities for women should be a priority. Emphasis should be
placed on increasing access to non-traditional fields where higher earning potential and better
working conditions are likely to improve the reentry possibilities of mothers, and reduce the
need for social assistance.

•

Presently, TANF recipients can receive cash assistance while they are participating in
education or training programs for a maximum of 12 months. Educational opportunities
should be provided without restrictions. Many women in the criminal justice system have
very limited educational attainment, and are likely to require more than a year to acquire
sufficient education to enable them to fare better in the labor market and become selfsufficient. This is particularly significant for low-income women of color who continue to
experience lower levels of educational attainment than their white counterparts. Many Latinas

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

29

who are not native English speakers will also need more than 12 months to acquire the
necessary language skills to become competitive in the job market.
✔ Increase Availability and Quality of Drug Treatment.
Several studies have documented that drug treatment not only saves lives, but also reduces a
variety of social problems associated with substance abuse, and as such, saves tax dollars. A
RAND study found that for every dollar allocated to drug treatment, taxpayers save $7.46 in
social costs.
•

Federal anti-drug funding policies, which allocates two-thirds of its budget to law
enforcement and incarceration, should increase the proportion of funds for treatment
programs.

•

Although there has been some progress in increasing the availability of drug treatment
programs for women with children, there continue to be insufficient treatment slots for the
number of mothers requiring treatment. This shortage is of particular concern in states where
eligibility for welfare benefits depends on a mother’s participation in drug treatment.

VII. CONCLUSION
As we have demonstrated, a disproportionate number of women under criminal justice
supervision face serious socioeconomic barriers prior to their contact with the criminal justice
system. Many lack the resources to overcome poverty and abuse, and often turn to illegal means
to survive. Overwhelmingly, women who come in contact with the criminal justice seek to turn
their lives around for themselves and their children. Yet, the lifetime welfare ban, along with
other punitive social policies, makes the possibility of women returning to their communities as
productive members more difficult than before their conviction, and in some cases improbable.
The lifetime welfare ban clearly has an impact that goes well beyond the effects on or barriers
created for individual women. Since the inception of the “war on drugs,” children have been
some of the most affected innocent causalities of misguided drug policies, and the welfare ban is
yet another example of such misguided policies. Children are increasingly at risk of neglect and
of irreparable damage to their family environment. Societal costs associated with the lifetime
welfare ban will extend to the criminal justice and health care systems, as well as child welfare
services, among others.
Racial disparities in criminal justice system, education, and employment exacerbate the effects of
the lifetime welfare ban on African American women and Latinas. Only a multi-pronged
approach to these issues, which recognizes and addresses the intricate links between
socioeconomic barriers, drug policy and the criminal justice system at their full potential will
successfully reduce the disproportionate number of women of color sentenced to a lifetime of
poverty.

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

30

APPENDIX
Methodology
In determining state implementation of the lifetime welfare ban we relied primarily on the May
2000 Legal Action Center’s fact sheet, “State Implementation of the Ban on TANF and Food
Stamps for Individuals Convicted of Drug Offenses.” For the 20 states that have modified the
ban, we obtained detailed information through their legislative web sites. Table 1, “State
Implementation of Lifetime Welfare Ban,” does not represent an exhaustive examination of state
laws addressing Section 115 of PRWORA.
Of the 28 states that impose a lifetime ban on public assistance following a conviction, we were
able to obtain data from 23. Our analysis relies on data compiled by various state agencies departments of corrections, administrative offices of the court, sentencing commissions,
departments of justice, and Attorney General offices. With the exception of two states
(Massachusetts and Texas), all data received was broken down by calendar year. Data was
compiled for the years 1996-1999, with the ban applying to illegal conduct taking place after
August 22, 1996. Only two states (Mississippi and Texas) were able to provide 1996 data
specifically for offenses occurring between August 22, 1996 and December 31, 1996. For all
other states, we used one third of the total for 1996 to develop an estimate of the number of
convictions for the months September to December. The data presented in this report should be
considered as estimates since in many cases, state agencies were not able to provide a complete
level of detail.
Our estimates may result in an undercount in some states and an overcount in other states for
several reasons. In several of the states (Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Montana, South Dakota,
Texas and Virginia) where Departments of Corrections provided data, the agencies were only
able to provide data on women in prison. Therefore, women sentenced to probation are not
included in these states; the only exception is Indiana, where we obtained probation data for
Marion County, the state’s largest county. Government agencies in several states (California,
Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania and Tennessee) only provided data for primary offenses.
Therefore, someone convicted of burglary and drug possession is not included in our estimates
but is, nevertheless, ineligible for welfare benefits. In California and Florida, state agencies
reported that they were only able to provide approximately 70% of their conviction records.
Three states (Maine, Texas, and West Virginia) were unable to provide data for some of the years
covered by the report.
In addition, the data collection sources in Maine and West Virginia are also likely to lead to an
undercount in these states. The data collected for Maine was obtained from the Attorney
General’s office, which does not include the various District Attorney’s offices across the state.
116
As a result, the data from the State of Maine only represents a fraction of the women affected
by the ban. The Division of Criminal Justice Services of West Virginia (DCJS) conducted
annual narcotics arrest surveys from which they provided us with information. The data is limited
in that only those arrests reported to DCJS through the surveys are included in their final tally. As
such, the completeness of the DCJS’s result depends on participation of police departments in
many counties.
116

Both the Administrative Offices of the Court and the Department of Corrections informed us that their databases
could not produce the information requested.

LIFE SENTENCES: DENYING WELFARE BENEFITS TO WOMEN CONVICTED OF DRUG OFFENSES

31

One important factor may result in an overcount in some states. Sixteen of the 23 states covered
by the study were able to ensure that women were counted only once during the specified period,
leaving seven states (Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and
Texas) in which women may have been counted more than once; for example, if a woman had a
felony conviction in 1997 and was subsequently convicted for a new offense in 1999.
Race and ethnic data was obtained for most states, with the exception of Maine and South
Dakota, which provided no racial or ethnic breakdown. In addition, four states (Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, and Tennessee) did not report data for Hispanics. In all states that did provide
an ethnic breakdown, Hispanics were counted independently of racial categories, and therefore
counted only once.
Our estimate of 135,000 children affected by the ban is based on Bureau of Justice Statistics
reports that show that 70% of women under correctional sanction are mothers, with an average of
2.11 children. We therefore applied these proportions to the 92,000 women affected by the ban.