🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
The debt limit agreement reached over the weekend included broadening food stamps access for some groups, while restricting access for others. The debate over which groups deserve food security is not new, but these debates often fail to recognize that broadening access to food stamps not only benefits program participants, it's also good for our communities and our collective public safety.
Research often found that places with higher food stamps participation (and welfare participation, generally) have lower crime rates. But, these studies, which examine trends across places, usually cannot rule out other factors (like labor markets, demographic changes, population health) that may contribute to higher welfare participation and lower crime rates.
As researchers who study the criminal legal system, we conducted a recent study that focused on one aspect of food stamps policy—the lifetime ban on SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits for people convicted of drug-related felonies—to identify how limiting access to SNAP through this policy influenced arrest rates. The lifetime ban on SNAP (as well as TANF, or the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) benefits has been in place since the welfare overhaul of 1996, but states can modify or repeal the ban. To date, 21 states still have the ban in place with full or modified conditions, all of which create barriers to access.
Repealing the SNAP ban would not only help alleviate food insecurity following release from incarceration, but it will also increase public safety by reducing recidivism (future crimes by people with prior convictions) among a high-risk group.
We examined rearrest rates for people convicted of drug-related felonies before and after the ban was implemented in California. Even though California modified the ban in 2004 and opted out entirely in 2015, the state initially defined separate cutoff dates for SNAP and TANF bans. This distinction enabled us to estimate the impacts of each program separately, which is unusual since most states followed federal guidance providing a cutoff date shared by both programs. To estimate the effects of the SNAP ban, we compared arrest rates for people convicted immediately before the bans (and not subject to the bans) and after the bans. Over a 5 year period, being banned from SNAP resulted in an 1.5 percent increase in arrest rates.
We also studied how the effects of being banned from SNAP varied across California counties. As a county-administered state, California counties have considerable discretion over how they administer SNAP programs, outreach, and recertification processes. This variation is apparent in SNAP participation rates and average benefits received by participants. Importantly, in counties with more accessible programs, being banned from SNAP resulted in a 3.2 percent increase in arrest rates over a 5 year period. In counties with less accessible programs, being banned from SNAP had no measurable effects on recidivism.
Our findings make clear that repealing the federal SNAP ban for people convicted of drug-related felonies is one way to be smart on crime for our communities. And, importantly, Congress will soon consider repealing the federal ban with the Re-Entry Support Through Opportunities for Resources and Essentials (RESTORE) Act, which is a bipartisan bill to repeal the ban on SNAP benefits for people convicted of drug-related felonies.
Repealing the SNAP ban alone is not enough. Rather, our research emphasized that SNAP programs also must be accessible to all eligible individuals. Reducing barriers to SNAP, such as removing work requirements, can increase initial uptake and participation; constituencies will see these returns as one form of crime control policy that lifts their communities, especially their most vulnerable community members.
Naomi F. Sugie is an associate professor in the criminology, law and society department at the University of California, Irvine. She has a Ph.D. in sociology and social policy, as well as a specialization in demography, from Princeton University.
Carol Joan Newark is the executive director of the Harm Reduction Institute in Santa Ana, Calif. She received her Ph.D. in criminology, law, and society from UC Irvine.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
