This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-238
entitled 'Drug Offenders: Various Factors May Limit the Impacts of 
Federal Laws That Provide for Denial of Selected Benefits' which was 
released on September 27, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

September 2005: 

Drug Offenders: 

Various Factors May Limit the Impacts of Federal Laws That Provide for 
Denial of Selected Benefits: 

GAO-05-238: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-238, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Several provisions of federal law allow for or require certain federal 
benefits to be denied to individuals convicted of drug offenses in 
federal or state courts. These benefits include Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, federally assisted housing, 
postsecondary education assistance, and some federal contracts and 
licenses. 

Given the sizable population of drug offenders in the United States, 
the number and the impacts of federal denial of benefit provisions may 
be particularly important if the operations of these provisions work at 
cross purposes with recent federal initiatives intended to ease 
prisoner reentry and foster prisoner reintegration into society. 

GAO analyzed (1) for selected years, the number and percentage of drug 
offenders that were estimated to be denied federal postsecondary 
education and federally assisted housing benefits and federal grants, 
contracts, and licenses and (2) the factors affecting whether drug 
offenders would have been eligible to receive TANF and food stamp 
benefits, but for their drug offense convictions, and for a recent 
year, the percentage of drug offenders released who would have been 
eligible to receive these benefits. 

Several agencies reviewed a draft of this report, and we incorporated 
the technical comments that some provided into the report where 
appropriate. 

What GAO Found: 

For the years for which it obtained data, GAO estimates that relatively 
small percentages of applicants but thousands of persons were denied 
postsecondary education benefits, federally assisted housing, or 
selected licenses and contracts as a result of federal laws that 
provide for denying benefits to drug offenders. During academic year 
2003-2004, about 41,000 applicants (or 0.3 percent of all applicants) 
were disqualified from receiving postsecondary education loans and 
grants because of drug convictions. For 2003, 13 of the largest public 
housing agencies in the nation reported that less than 6 percent of 
9,249 lease terminations that occurred in these agencies were for 
reasons of drug-related criminal activitiessuch as illegal 
distribution or use of a controlled substanceand 15 large public 
housing agencies reported that about 5 percent of 29,459 applications 
for admission were denied admission for these reasons. From 1990 
through the second quarter of 2004, judges in federal and state courts 
were reported to have imposed sanctions to deny benefits such as 
federal licenses, grants, and contracts to about 600 convicted drug 
offenders per year. 

Various factors affect which convicted drug felons are eligible to 
receive TANF or food stamps. This is because state of residence, 
income, and family situation all play a role in determining 
eligibility. Federal law mandates that convicted drug felons face a 
lifetime ban on receipt of TANF and food stamps unless states pass laws 
to exempt some or all convicted drug felons in their state from the 
ban. At the time of GAOs review, 32 states had laws exempting some or 
all convicted drug felons from the ban on TANF, and 35 states had laws 
modifying the federal ban on food stamps. Because of the eligibility 
requirements associated with receiving these benefits, only those 
convicted drug felons who, but for their conviction, would have been 
eligible to receive the benefits could be affected by the federal bans. 
For example, TANF eligibility criteria include requirements that an 
applicant have custodial care of a child and that income be below state-
determined eligibility thresholds. Available data for 14 of 18 states 
that fully implemented the ban on TANF indicate that about 15 percent 
of drug offenders released from prison in 2001 met key eligibility 
requirements and constitute the pool of potentially affected drug 
felons. Proportionally more female drug felons than males may be 
affected by the ban, as about 27 percent of female and 15 percent of 
male drug offenders released from prison in 2001 could be affected. 

Federal Benefits That May Be Denied to Drug Offenders 
Description 
Federal benefit: TANF; 
Description: Cash assistance designed to meet a needy familys ongoing 
basic needs. 
 
Federal benefit: Food stamps; 
Description: Food assistance payments to low-income households. 

Federal benefit: Postsecondary education; 
Description: Federal Pell Grants, Stafford loans, and work-study 
assistance. 

Federal benefit: Federally assisted housing; 
Description: Public housing primarily for low-income families with 
children and vouchers for private-market assistance for very low-income 
families. 

Federal benefit: Denial of Federal Benefits Program; 
Description: Federal postsecondary student loans, federal licenses 
(e.g., for physicians, pilots, and others), and procurement contracts, 
among others. 
 
Source: GAO analysis of federal law. 

[End of table] 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-238. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Laurie Ekstrand at (202) 
512-8777 or ekstrandl@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Estimated Number of Drug Offenders Denied Federal Postsecondary 
Education, Housing, and Certain Contracts and Grants Varies by Type of 
Benefit: 

State Exemptions to the Federal Bans on TANF and Food Stamps and Other 
Factors Affect the Percentage of Drug Offenders That Would Have Been 
Eligible to Receive the Benefits: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Assessing How Many Drug Offenders Were Estimated to Be Denied Federal 
Postsecondary Education and Federally Assisted Housing Benefits and 
Certain Grants and Contracts: 

Estimating the Percentage of Convicted Drug Felons That Would Have Been 
Eligible to Receive TANF or Food Stamps and the Factors Contributing to 
These Estimates: 

Data Sources Used in Preparing This Report: 

Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food Stamps Benefits Legal Framework 
and Methodologies: 

Legal and Administrative Framework: 

State Exemptions to the Federal Bans on TANF and Food Stamps: 

Methods for Estimating the Percentage of Drug Felons Potentially 
Affected by the TANF and Food Stamp Bans: 

Data on the Race of Drug Offenders Who Meet Selected TANF Eligibility 
Criteria: 

Appendix III: Denial of Federal Postsecondary Education Benefits to 
Drug Offenders: 

Legal Framework for Denying Federal Higher Education Benefits: 

Administration of the Denial of Federal Higher Education Benefits: 

Methods for Estimating the Numbers of Persons and Amounts of Federal 
Assistance Affected by the Provisions: 

Estimates of the Numbers and Amounts of Federal Assistance Affected by 
Controlled Substances Convictions: 

Limited Data on the Long-Term Impacts of Denying Federal Postsecondary 
Education Assistance: 

Limited Data on Racial Minorities and the Denial of Federal 
Postsecondary Education Benefits: 

Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted Housing Benefits for Drug-
Related Criminal Activity: 

Legal Framework Relating to the Denial of Housing Benefits for Drug-
Related Criminal Activity: 

HUD and PHA Roles in Denying Federally Assisted Housing Benefits for 
Reasons of Drug-Related Criminal Activities: 

Number of Denials of Federally Assisted Housing Benefits: 

Several Factors Can Contribute to the Reported Low Number of Denials 
because of Drug-Related Criminal Activities, but Potential Impacts Are 
Unclear: 

Data on the Race of Persons Denied Federally Assisted Housing Were 
Infrequently Provided: 

Appendix V: Legal and Administrative Framework for the Denial of 
Federal Benefits Program: 

About the Law: 

Administration of the Law: 

Use of the Denial of Federal Benefits Program Provisions: 

Assessing the Impacts of the Denial of Federal Benefits Program: 

Reliable Data by Race of Persons Receiving the DFB Are Not Available: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Provisions of Selected Federal Law and the Corresponding 
Benefits That May Be Denied to Certain Drug Offenders: 

Table 2: Selected Federal Legal Provisions Providing for Denial of 
Benefits to Drug Offenders: 

Table 3: General Eligibility Criteria to Receive Selected Federal 
Benefits and Federal Agencies Responsible for Administering Programs: 

Table 4: Number and Percentage of Tenants and Applicants for Federally 
Assisted Housing Benefits That Were Denied Benefits for Reasons of Drug-
Related Criminal Activities in Selected Large PHAs in 2003: 

Table 5: Status of States on the TANF and Food Stamp Ban as of 2004: 

Table 6: Types of State Exemptions (Modifications) to the Federal Ban 
on TANF, by States within the Types of Modifications, as of 2004: 

Table 7: Types of State Exemptions or Modifications of the Federal Ban 
on Food Stamps, by States within the Types of Modifications, as of 
2004: 

Table 8: Number of States in Each TANF and Food Stamp Ban Status 
Category and Percentage of Drug Offense Arrests in 2002 Occurring in 
the States within Each Ban Status Category: 

Table 9: Estimated Number of Drug Felons Released from Prison during 
2001, in 14 of 18 States That Currently Maintain the Ban on TANF: 

Table 10: Estimated Parental Status of Drug Offenders, by Gender and 
Region of the Country: 

Table 11: Estimated Percentages of Drug Offenders Released from Prison 
in 2001 That Met Selected Guardianship and Earned Income Limits to 
Receive TANF benefits: 

Table 12: Periods of Ineligibility for Federal Higher Education 
Assistance Based on Type and Number of Controlled Substance Offense 
Convictions: 

Table 13: Data Used to Estimate the Number of Persons Denied Federal 
Education Assistance because of Drug Convictions and Estimated Amount 
of Federal Assistance Denied: 

Table 14: Estimated Number of Persons Denied Federal Education 
Assistance because of Drug Convictions and Estimated Amount of Federal 
Assistance Affected: 

Table 15: Evictions from and Denials of Admission into Public Housing 
for Reasons of Criminal Activity, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003: 

Table 16: Public Housing Lease Terminations at Selected Public Housing 
Agencies, by Reason for Termination (Criminal Activities and Drug-
Related Criminal Activities), 2003: 

Table 17: Housing Choice Voucher Program Terminations of Assistance at 
Selected Public Housing Agencies, by Reason for Termination (Criminal 
Activities and Drug-Related Criminal Activities) of Assistance, 2003: 

Table 18: Selected Public Housing Agencies' Actions Reported on 
Applications for Admission and Denials of Admission into Public Housing 
for Reasons of Criminal Activities and Drug-Related Criminal 
Activities, 2003: 

Table 19: Housing Choice Voucher Program, Selected Public Housing 
Agencies' Actions Reported on Applications for Assistance and Denials 
of Assistance for Reasons of Criminal Activities and Drug-Related 
Criminal Activities, 2003: 

Table 20: Periods of Ineligibility for Which Benefits Can or Must Be 
Denied under Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, as Amended: 

Abbreviations: 

ABAWD: Able-Bodied Adults without Dependent: 

ACF: Administration for Children and Families: 

AOUSC: Administrative Office for United States Courts: 

BJA: Bureau of Justice Assistance: 

BJS: Bureau of Justice Statistics: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

DFB: Denial of Federal Benefits: 

ED: Department of Education: 

EFC: Expected Family Contribution: 

FAFSA: Free Application for Federal Student Aid: 

FNS: Food and Nutrition Service: 

GEDgeneral equivalency degree: 

HCV: Housing Choice Voucher: 

HEA: Higher Education Act: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

ONDCP: Office for National Drug Control Policy: 

MASS: Management Operations Certification Assessment System: 

NCRP: National Corrections Reporting Program: 

PHA: public housing agency: 

PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 
of 1996: 

TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USSC: United States Sentencing Commission: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

September 26, 2005: 

The Honorable Robert C. Scott: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Bobby L. Rush: 
House of Representatives: 

During recent years, several hundred thousand persons per year in the 
United States were convicted in federal and state courts of drug 
offenses such as felony drug trafficking and misdemeanor drug 
possession. Provisions of federal law allow that these convictions may 
render these individuals ineligible to receive selected federal 
benefits. The benefits include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
(TANF), food stamps, federally assisted housing, postsecondary 
education grants and loans, and certain federal contracts and licenses. 
Depending upon the federal benefit, drug offenders may be prohibited 
from receiving assistance for periods that range from 1 year to 
life.[Footnote 1]

You asked us to assess the impacts of these provisions. An important 
first step in assessing the impacts is to determine how many people 
could be affected by these provisions. The number and the impacts of 
federal denial of benefit provisions may be particularly important if 
the operations of these provisions work at cross purposes with recent 
federal initiatives intended to ease prisoner reentry and foster 
prisoner reintegration into society. This report analyzes two 
interrelated questions about the number or percentage of drug offenders 
that could be affected by the provisions: 

(1) In specific years, how many drug offenders were estimated to be 
denied federal postsecondary education benefits, federally assisted 
housing, and selected grants, contracts, and licenses? (2) What factors 
affect whether drug offenders would have been eligible to receive TANF 
and food stamp benefits, but for their drug offense convictions, and 
for a recent year, what percentage would have been eligible to receive 
these benefits?

You also asked us to address the impact of federal benefit denial laws 
on racial minorities and the long-run consequences of having benefits 
denied. The final sections of appendices III, IV, and V in this report 
include discussions of the data limitations related to estimating the 
impacts on racial minorities. Where information was available, we also 
identify in the appendices some of the possible long-run consequences 
of denial of benefits. 

To estimate the extent to which drug offenders were denied federal 
postsecondary education, federally assisted housing benefits, and 
selected federal licenses, grants, and contracts, we obtained and 
analyzed data from several agencies. We analyzed Department of 
Education data on persons who applied for federal postsecondary 
education assistance such as Pell Grants and who reported that they had 
convictions that prohibited them from receiving federal postsecondary 
education benefits.[Footnote 2] We analyzed Bureau of Justice 
Statistics (BJS) data on the educational attainment of a nationally 
representative sample of drug offenders on probation. From officials at 
17 large public housing agencies (PHA) we obtained information about 
their experiences in denying federally assisted housing benefits to 
persons because of their drug-related criminal activities.[Footnote 3] 
We analyzed data on evictions and denials of admission into public 
housing that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 
obtains from PHAs that manage units in the Public Housing Program. From 
the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) we obtained data on persons 
reported to be denied selected federal licenses, grants, and contracts 
by federal and state judges. 

To estimate the extent to which convicted drug felons would have been 
eligible to receive TANF and food stamp benefits apart from their 
felony drug offense conviction, we obtained and analyzed the most 
recently available data compiled by BJS on the familial and economic 
characteristics of drug offenders in prison. We analyzed these data to 
estimate the number of drug offenders that met selected eligibility 
criteria to receive these benefits, and we applied our estimates from 
the BJS prisoner data to data on drug offenders released from prison in 
14 of 18 states that fully implemented the federal bans on TANF and 
food stamps. Because of the limited data on persons actually denied 
TANF and food stamp benefits, we provide rough estimates of the 
proportions of drug offenders that met selected eligibility criteria to 
receive these benefits rather than of the number of such offenders 
actually denied these benefits. 

To identify the various factors that contributed to our estimates of 
those potentially affected by federal provisions that provide for 
denial of benefits, we interviewed officials from the federal agencies 
that administer the federal benefits that may be denied, researchers 
who have studied the denial of federal benefits and related issues, and 
officials of various associations who represent PHAs, which are the 
agencies that manage federally assisted benefits. We also reviewed 
published studies on the denial of federal benefits. 

We assessed the reliability of the data that we used in preparing this 
report by, as appropriate, interviewing agency officials about their 
data, reviewing documentation about the data sets, and conducting 
electronic tests. We used only the portions of the data that we found 
to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes in this report. We provide 
a more detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and general 
methodology in appendix I. In appendices II through V, we further 
discuss our methodologies for each of the federal benefits that we 
reviewed. 

We conducted our work from March 2004 through July 2005 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Relatively small percentages of applicants but thousands of persons 
were reported to be denied postsecondary education benefits, federally 
assisted housing, or selected licenses and contracts as a result of 
federal laws that provide for denying benefits to drug offenders during 
the years for which we had data. In relation to postsecondary education 
loans and grants, during academic year 2003-2004--one of the years in 
our review--about 41,000 applicants (about 0.3 percent of total 
applicants) either reported that they had drug offense convictions that 
disqualified them from receiving assistance or left the question blank, 
which also disqualified them from receiving federal assistance. In 
relation to public housing, among 13 of the largest PHAs in the nation 
that responded to our request for information about both lease 
terminations and reasons for denial of housing assistance that occurred 
during 2003, less than 6 percent of the more than 9,200 lease 
terminations that occurred in these agencies were reportedly for 
reasons of drug-related criminal activities--such as illegal 
distribution or use of a controlled substance. About 5 percent of the 
roughly 29,000 applications for admission into public housing in 15 of 
the largest PHAs in the nation were reportedly denied admission for 
reasons of drug-related criminal activities. From 1990 through the 
second quarter of 2004, sentencing judges in federal and state courts 
reported that they denied benefits such as licenses, grants, and 
contracts to an average of about 600 convicted drug offenders per year. 

Various factors affect which convicted felony drug offenders may be 
eligible to receive TANF or food stamps. This is because state of 
residence, income, and family situation all play a role in determining 
eligibility. Federal law mandates that convicted felony drug offenders 
face a lifetime ban on receipt of TANF and food stamps unless states 
pass laws to exempt some or all such drug felons from the ban. At the 
time of our review, 32 states had laws exempting some or all convicted 
felony drug offenders from the ban on TANF, and 35 states had done so 
for the ban on food stamps. TANF eligibility requires that an applicant 
have custodial care of a child and that income be below eligibility 
thresholds. For food stamps, income and work requirements are used to 
determine eligibility. Thus, only those drug offenders who meet these 
requirements could be denied benefits because of their convictions. 
From available data for 14 of the 18 states that fully implemented the 
ban on TANF, we estimated that about 15 percent of drug offenders 
released from prison in 2001 met key eligibility requirements and 
constitute the pool of potentially affected felony drug offenders. The 
custodial parent requirement results in proportionally more female drug 
felons potentially affected by the TANF ban than males. For food 
stamps, we estimated that in 12 of the 15 states that fully implemented 
the federal ban on food stamps, about 23 percent of drug offenders 
released from prison during 2001 were custodial parents of minor 
children with incomes that could make them eligible to receive food 
stamps. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General; the 
Secretaries of the Departments of Education, Agriculture, and Housing 
and Urban Development; the Assistant Secretary of the Administration 
for Children and Families, the Director of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy; the Research Director of the United States Sentencing 
Commission; and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts for their review and comment. We received technical 
comments from the Departments of Justice, Agriculture, and Education, 
and from the United States Sentencing Commission and the Administrative 
Office of the United States Courts, which we incorporated into the 
report where appropriate. 

Background: 

Selected provisions of federal law explicitly prohibit specific 
categories of drug offenders from receiving certain federal benefits 
for specified periods.[Footnote 4] Table 1 identifies key provisions of 
federal law that provide for denial of benefits specifically to drug 
offenders and the corresponding benefits that may or must be denied to 
drug offenders. 

Table 1: Provisions of Selected Federal Law and the Corresponding 
Benefits That May Be Denied to Certain Drug Offenders: 

Provisions of federal law: Section 115 of the Personal Responsibility 
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996a (21 U.S.C.  862[A]); 
Federal programs identified in provisions allowing for denial of 
benefits: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; 
Description of the benefits that may or must be denied: Cash 
assistance, vouchers, and other forms of support designed to meet a 
needy family's ongoing basic needs. 

Federal programs identified in provisions allowing for denial of 
benefits: Food Stamp Program; 
Description of the benefits that may or must be denied: Food assistance 
payments to low-income households and those transitioning from welfare 
to work.

Provisions of federal law: Section 438 of the Higher Education Act 
Amendments of 1988 (20 U.S.C.  1091(r))[B]; 
Federal programs identified in provisions allowing for denial of 
benefits: Postsecondary education assistance; 
Description of the benefits that may or must be denied: Federal Pell 
Grants, Stafford loans, and work-study assistance. 

Provisions of federal law: Section 5101 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
1988 (42 U.S.C.  1437d(l)(6));[C] Section 428 of the Housing and Urban 
Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 (42 U.S.C.  
1437n(f)); and section 577 of the Quality Housing Work and 
Responsibility Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C.  13662); 
Federal programs identified in provisions allowing for denial of 
benefits: Federally assisted housing: Low-rent Public Housing Program; 
Description of the benefits that may or must be denied: Public housing 
primarily for low-income families with children.

Federal programs identified in provisions allowing for denial of 
benefits: Federally assisted housing: Housing Choice Voucher Program 
(formerly known as Section 8 Housing); 
Description of the benefits that may or must be denied: Private market 
housing assistance for very low-income families, the elderly, and the 
disabled. 

Provisions of federal law: Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
1988 (21 USC  862); 
Federal programs identified in provisions allowing for denial of 
benefits: Denial of Federal Benefits Program; 
Description of the benefits that may or must be denied: Federal 
postsecondary student loans, federal licenses (e.g., for physicians, 
pilots, and others), and procurement contracts, among other benefits. 

Source: GAO analysis of federal law. 

[A] Pub. L. No. 104-93, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996). 

[B] Pub. L. No. 105-244, 112 Stat. 1581 (1998). 

[C] Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181 (1988). 

[D] Pub. L. No. 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2511, 2640 (1998). See 
appendix V for details about other federal provisions that affect the 
denial of federally assisted housing benefits. 

[End of table]

Except for federal licenses, procurement contracts, and grants under 
Denial of Federal Benefits Program, the benefits that may or must be 
denied are benefits that are generally provided to low-income 
individuals and families. TANF, food stamps, federally assisted 
housing, and Pell Grants are low-income programs. The Denial of Federal 
Benefits Program, established under Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse 
Act of 1988, as amended, provides that federal and state court judges 
may deny all or some of certain specified federal benefits to 
individuals convicted of drug trafficking or drug possession offenses 
involving controlled substances. Additional details on each of the 
programs may be found in appendices II, III, IV, and V. 

The provisions differ on key elements. For example, they establish 
different classes of drug offenders that may or must be denied 
benefits, and they provide for different periods that drug offenders 
are rendered ineligible to receive a benefit and whether or not 
benefits can be restored. Some of the provisions allow that drug 
offenders may become eligible for benefits upon completing a recognized 
drug treatment program. 

Provisions established by the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), as amended, which 
govern the TANF and food stamp programs, provide that benefits must be 
denied to persons convicted of a state or federal felony drug offense 
that involves the possession, use, or distribution of a controlled 
substance that occurred after August 22, 1996, the effective date of 
these provisions. Students become ineligible to receive federal 
postsecondary education benefits upon a conviction of either a 
misdemeanor or a felony controlled substances offense. Loss of 
federally assisted housing benefits can occur if individuals, relatives 
in their household, or guests under a tenant's control engage in drug-
related criminal activity, regardless of whether the activity resulted 
in a conviction.[Footnote 5] Local public housing authorities, which 
administer federally assisted housing benefits, have discretion in 
determining the behaviors that could lead to loss of certain federal 
housing benefits. Under the Denial of Federal Benefits Program, judges 
in federal and state courts may deny a range of federal licenses, 
contracts, and grants to persons convicted of controlled substances 
drug trafficking and drug possession offenses. 

The period of ineligibility to receive benefits varies. Under PRWORA, 
as amended, unless states enact laws that exempt convicted drug 
offenders in their state from the federal ban, TANF and food stamp 
benefits are forfeited for life for those convicted of disqualifying 
drug offenses. State laws may also result in a shorter period of denial 
of these benefits. Students are disqualified from receiving federal 
postsecondary education benefits for varying periods depending on the 
number and type of disqualifying drug offense convictions. A first 
conviction for possession of a controlled substance, for example, 
results in a 1-year period of ineligibility, while a first conviction 
for sale of controlled substance results in a 2-year period of 
ineligibility. Upon subsequent convictions, the period of ineligibility 
can extend indefinitely. 

Federally assisted housing benefits may also be denied for varying 
periods of time, depending upon the number and types of drug-related 
criminal activities. The minimum loss of benefit is 3 years in certain 
circumstances, and the maximum is a lifetime ban. For example, for 
persons convicted of certain methamphetamine offenses, the ban is 
mandatory and for life. Under the Denial of Federal Benefits Program, 
the denial of certain other types of benefits by judges, such as 
federal grants and contracts, can range from 1 year to life depending 
on the type of offense and number of convictions. 

In some cases, the period of benefit ineligibility may be shortened if 
offenders complete drug treatment. For example, students may have their 
postsecondary education benefits restored if they satisfactorily 
complete a drug treatment program that satisfies certain criteria and 
includes two unannounced drug tests. Under the Denial of Federal 
Benefits Program, the denial of benefits penalties may, for example, be 
waived if a person successfully completes a drug treatment program. 
Other than offenders who were convicted of methamphetamine offenses, 
drug offenders that successfully complete drug treatment may receive 
federally assisted housing benefits prior to the end of their period of 
ineligibility. In states that have passed laws so specifying, drug 
offenders may shorten the period of ineligibility for TANF and food 
stamp benefits by completing drug treatment. (See table 2.)

Table 2: Selected Federal Legal Provisions Providing for Denial of 
Benefits to Drug Offenders: 

Federal benefit: TANF; 
Drug offense that may lead to denial of benefits: Persons convicted of 
felonies for certain controlled substance related offenses that 
occurred after August 22, 1996; 
Period of benefit denial: Lifetime, upon a first felony conviction, 
unless offenders reside in states that have opted out of or modified 
the federal ban; 
Conditions under which either the loss of benefits may be limited or 
benefits may be restored: Loss of benefit is limited when offenders 
reside in states whose exemptions either opt out of the federal ban or 
provide for restoration of benefits. 

Federal benefit: Food stamps; 
Drug offense that may lead to denial of benefits: Persons convicted of 
felonies for certain controlled substance related offenses that 
occurred after August 22, 1996; 
Period of benefit denial: Lifetime, upon a first felony conviction, 
unless offenders reside in states that have opted out of or modified 
the federal ban; 
Conditions under which either the loss of benefits may be limited or 
benefits may be restored: Loss of benefit is limited when offenders 
reside in states whose exemptions either opt out of the federal ban or 
provide for restoration of benefits. 

Federal benefit: Postsecondary education assistance; 
Drug offense that may lead to denial of benefits: Students convicted of 
certain misdemeanor or felony controlled substance-related offenses; 
Period of benefit denial: Varies from 1 year to an indefinite period 
for repeated convictions; 
Conditions under which either the loss of benefits may be limited or 
benefits may be restored: Benefits may be restored after completion of 
drug treatment or if the conviction is reversed, set aside, or 
otherwise rendered nugatory. 

Federal benefit: Federally assisted housing; 
Drug offense that may lead to denial of benefits: Varies, but includes 
applicants, tenants, their household family members, and guests under 
their control who engage in drug-related criminal activities whether 
convicted or not; 
Period of benefit denial: Varies, but a minimum of 3 years for those 
with a prior eviction for drug-related criminal activities and 
mandatory lifetime denial for persons convicted of certain 
methamphetamine offenses; 
Conditions under which either the loss of benefits may be limited or 
benefits may be restored: Benefits may be restored after completion of 
drug treatment, with the exception of those persons convicted of 
certain methamphetamine offenses. 

Federal benefit: Certain federal licenses, contracts, loans, grants, 
and other federal benefits, under the Denial of Federal Benefits 
Program; 
Drug offense that may lead to denial of benefits: Persons convicted of 
controlled substance trafficking and possession offenses in federal or 
state courts; 
Period of benefit denial: Varies from 1 year to life, depending upon 
the type of offense and number of convictions; 
Conditions under which either the loss of benefits may be limited or 
benefits may be restored: Benefits may be restored after the individual 
has completed a drug treatment program, has otherwise been 
rehabilitated, or has made good faith efforts to participate in 
treatment but is unable to complete treatment because of lack of 
programs or ability to pay. 

Source: GAO analysis of selected provisions of federal law and agency 
documents. 

[End of table]

The legislative history of these provisions is silent as to whether 
they were intended to do more than provide for denying federal benefits 
to drug offenders, such as deterring drug offenders from committing 
future criminal acts. For example, our 1992 report indicated that in 
the floor debates over the Denial of Federal Benefits Program, some 
members of Congress expressed the opinion that even casual drug use 
should result in serious consequences, such as the loss of federal 
benefits.[Footnote 6] With respect to prohibiting drug offenders from 
public housing, congressional findings made in 1990 and amended in 1998 
address the extent of drug-related criminal activities in public 
housing and the federal government's duty to provide public and other 
federally assisted low-income housing that is decent, safe, and free 
from illegal drugs. 

How Benefit Eligibility Requirements May Affect whether a Drug Offender 
Loses Benefits: 

TANF, food stamps, federally assisted housing, and Pell Grants are 
means-tested benefits. To receive the benefits, individuals must meet 
certain eligibility criteria. These criteria vary with the benefit. For 
instance, states determine maximum earned income limits for TANF, but 
to receive food stamps, the federal poverty guidelines are generally 
used in determining eligibility. To receive federally assisted housing, 
local area median income is used. Additionally, most adults eligible 
for TANF and some adults eligible for food stamps must meet specified 
work requirements to participate in the programs. Table 3 summarizes 
the general eligibility requirements for the federal benefits discussed 
in this report and identifies the federal, state, and local agencies 
responsible for administering the programs. 

Table 3: General Eligibility Criteria to Receive Selected Federal 
Benefits and Federal Agencies Responsible for Administering Programs: 

Federal benefit: TANF; 
General eligibility requirements to receive the federal benefit: States 
determine which needy families receive benefits. A needy family must 
consist of at least one child living with a relative or may consist of 
a pregnant woman. Eligibility for benefits is based on a variety of 
factors, including earned income limits, and work and education 
requirements; 
Federal, state, or local agency responsible for administering the 
benefit: The Administration for Children and Families in the Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Federal benefit: Food stamps; 
General eligibility requirements to receive the federal benefit: In 
most states, household gross income cannot exceed 130 percent of the 
federal poverty level, and net income cannot exceed 100 percent of the 
poverty guidelines, and most states place limits on household 
assets.[A] Unless exempted by law, all food stamp recipients are 
subject to some type of work requirements. Able-bodied adults without 
dependent children must meet more stringent work requirements to 
receive benefits; 
Federal, state, or local agency responsible for administering the 
benefit: The Food and Nutrition Services in the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA). 

Federal benefit: Postsecondary education assistance; 
General eligibility requirements to receive the federal benefit: 
Requirements include a high school diploma or general equivalency 
degree (GED); acceptance into or active enrollment in an eligible, 
degree-granting institution; and family income requirements.[B]; 
Federal, state, or local agency responsible for administering the 
benefit: U.S. Department of Education. 

Federal benefit: Federally assisted housing; 
General eligibility requirements to receive the federal benefit: Income 
eligibility is based on HUD's local area's median family income 
determinations. PHAs that manage federal housing may establish 
nonincome preference factors; 
Federal, state, or local agency responsible for administering the 
benefit: Office of Public and Indian Housing within the HUD. Local PHAs 
have responsibility for managing federally assisted housing rental 
units. 

Federal benefit: Licenses, contracts, and loans under the Denial of 
Federal Benefits Program; 
General eligibility requirements to receive the federal benefit: 
Professional competency and specific licensure requirements as defined 
by regulations; 
Federal, state, or local agency responsible for administering the 
benefit: The Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains records of the 
information it receives from state and federal court officials about 
persons denied benefits under this program, and the General Services 
Administration includes this information on its list of persons 
excluded from federal procurement or nonprocurement programs, to which 
other federal agencies have access. 

Source: GAO analysis of federal and state requirements and agency 
documents. 

[A] For 2003, 130 percent of the federal poverty level was roughly 
equivalent to $1,654 per month for a family of three, and the net 
income threshold for a family of three was about $1,272 per month. Net 
income is determined by taking into account a number of approved 
deductions from gross income. 

[B] Students must be considered as either dependents or independent of 
their parents for the purposes of financial aid, and the share of 
family income and assets that are expected to be available for a 
student's education is determined by certain formulas. 

[End of table]

Not all persons who meet the general eligibility requirements to 
receive federal benefits participate in the respective programs. Our 
recent study on programs that aim to support needy families and 
individuals shows that the portion of those eligible to receive the 
benefits that actually enrolled in the programs varied among 
programs.[Footnote 7] Among families eligible to participate in TANF in 
2001, between 46 percent and 50 percent were estimated to be 
participating in the program. For food stamps in 2001, between 46 
percent and 48 percent of eligible households were estimated to 
participate in the program. For federally assisted housing, between 13 
percent and 15 percent of eligible households in 1999 were estimated to 
be covered by the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program and between 7 
percent and 9 percent of eligible households in 1999 were estimated to 
be covered by the Public Housing Program. Further, the Department of 
Education reports that among all applicants for federal postsecondary 
education assistance in academic year 2001-2002, about 77 percent of 
the applicants that were eligible to receive Pell Grants applied for 
and received them. 

Drug offenders would be directly affected by the federal provisions 
that allow for denial of low-income federal benefits when, apart from 
their disqualifying drug offense, they would have qualified to receive 
the benefits. For example, if a drug offender is not in a financially 
needy family and living with her dependent child, the drug offender 
would not be eligible for TANF benefits aside from the drug offense 
conviction.[Footnote 8] To be directly affected by the ban on food 
stamps, a drug offender would have had to meet income tests and work 
requirements, unless the work requirements are, under certain specified 
circumstances, identified as not applicable by federal food stamp laws; 
otherwise, the offender's ineligibility to receive the benefit would 
disqualify him, as opposed to his drug offense. Because the ban on the 
receipt of TANF and food stamps is for life, an offender who is not 
otherwise eligible to receive the benefits at one point in time might 
become otherwise eligible to receive the benefits at a later point in 
time and at that time be affected by the provisions of PRWORA. 

To be otherwise eligible to receive federal postsecondary education 
assistance, a person convicted of a disqualifying drug offense would, 
at a minimum, have to be enrolled in or accepted at an institution of 
higher education, as well as meet certain income tests. To be otherwise 
eligible for federally assisted housing benefits, a person would have 
to meet income tests. 

Estimated Number of Drug Offenders Denied Federal Postsecondary 
Education, Housing, and Certain Contracts and Grants Varies by Type of 
Benefit: 

We estimated that among applicants for federal postsecondary education 
assistance, drug offenders constituted less than 0.5 percent on average 
of all applicants for assistance during recent years. In general, the 
education attainment level of drug offenders is lower than that of the 
general population, and this lower level affects drug offenders' 
eligibility for federal postsecondary assistance. Among selected large 
PHAs that reported denying applicants admission into public housing 
during 2003, less than 5 percent of applicants were denied admission 
because of drug-related criminal activities. PHAs have discretion in 
developing policies to deny offenders for drug-related criminal 
activities. Federal and state court sentencing judges were reported to 
impose sanctions to federal benefits to fewer than 600 convicted drug 
offenders in 2002 and 2003, or less than 0.2 percent of felony drug 
convictions on average. 

An Estimated 17,000 to 41,000 Drug Offenders Lost Selected Federal 
Postsecondary Education Benefits in Selected Years: 

According to Department of Education data on applicants for federal 
postsecondary education assistance for the academic years from 2001-
2002 through 2003-2004, less than 0.5 percent on average of the roughly 
11 million to 13 million applicants for assistance reported on their 
applications that they had a drug offense conviction that made them 
ineligible to receive education assistance in the year in which they 
applied. These numbers do not take into account the persons who did not 
apply for federal postsecondary education assistance because they 
thought that their prior drug convictions would preclude them from 
receiving assistance or any applicant who falsified information about 
drug convictions. Using these data and Department of Education data on 
applicants that received assistance for the academic years 2001-2002 
through 2003-2004, we estimated that between 17,000 and 20,000 
applicants per year would have been denied Pell Grants, and between 
29,000 and 41,000 would have been denied student loans if the 
applicants who self-certified to a disqualifying drug offense were 
eligible to receive the benefits in the same proportion as the other 
applicants. (See app. III for details on our methods of estimating 
these figures.)In general, the educational attainment levels of persons 
convicted of drug offenses is less than that of persons in the general 
population. This results in proportionately fewer persons eligible for 
these education benefits than in the general population. Our analysis 
of data from the only national survey of adults on probation that also 
reports on their educational attainment indicates that among drug 
offenders on probation during 1995,[Footnote 9] less than half had 
completed high school or obtained a general equivalency degree (GED)--
prerequisites for enrolling in a postsecondary institution. By 
comparison, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report, about 
18 percent of adults in the general population had less than a high 
school degree. More recent data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission on 
roughly 26,000 drug offenders sentenced federally during 2003 indicate 
that half of them had less than a high school degree, about one-third 
had graduated from high school, and about 18 percent had at least some 
college.[Footnote 10] In addition, our analysis of BJS data on drug 
offenders released from prisons in 23 states during 2001 indicate that 
about 57 percent of these drug offenders had not completed high school 
by the time they were admitted into prison; about 36 percent had 
completed high school or obtained a GED as their highest level of 
education completed; and the remainder had completed some postsecondary 
education. 

In Selected PHAs Less Than 6 Percent of Residents and Applicants Were 
Denied Federally Assisted Housing during 2003 because of Drug-Related 
Criminal Activities: 

We obtained data from 17 of the largest PHAs in the nation on the 
decisions that they made to deny federally assisted housing benefits to 
residents or applicants during 2003.[Footnote 11] Thirteen of the 17 
PHAs reported data on both (1) the number of leases in the Public 
Housing Program units that they manage that ended during 2003 and (2) 
the number of leases that were terminated for reasons of drug-related 
criminal activities. These 13 PHAs reported terminating leases of 520 
tenants in the Public Housing Program because of drug-related criminal 
activities. The termination of a lease is the first step in evicting 
tenants from public housing. Tenants whose leases were terminated for 
reasons of drug-related criminal activities constituted less than 6 
percent of the 9,249 leases that were terminated in these 13 PHAs 
during 2003.[Footnote 12] Among these PHAs, the percentage of 
terminations of leases for reasons of drug-related criminal activities 
ranged from 0 percent to less than 40 percent. These PHAs also reported 
that the total number of lease terminations in 2003 and the volume of 
denials for drug-related activities were generally comparable with 
similar numbers for the 3 prior years. (See app. IV for data for each 
PHA that responded to our request for information.)Fifteen PHAs acted 
on 29,459 applications for admission into the Public Housing Program 
during 2003. Among these applicants seeking residency, we estimated 
that less than 5 percent were denied admission because of their drug-
related criminal activities. The PHAs also reported that they acted on 
similar numbers of applicants and made similar numbers of denial 
decisions in the prior 3 years. Table 4 shows the data on lease 
terminations and denials of admission in two federally assisted housing 
programs. 

Table 4: Number and Percentage of Tenants and Applicants for Federally 
Assisted Housing Benefits That Were Denied Benefits for Reasons of Drug-
Related Criminal Activities in Selected Large PHAs in 2003: 

Housing program: Public Housing Program; 
Type of action taken by PHAs: Lease terminations; 
Number of PHAs reporting data: 13; 
Number of actions: 9,249; 
Estimated overall percentage of actions due to drug-related criminal 
activities: 5.6%[B]; 
Among PHAs,[A] range of percentage of actions due to drug-related 
criminal activities: 0% to 39.3%. 

Type of action taken by PHAs: Admissions decisions; 
Number of PHAs reporting data: 15; 
Number of actions: 29,459; 
Estimated overall percentage of actions due to drug-related criminal 
activities: < 5%; 
Among PHAs,[A] range of percentage of actions due to drug-related 
criminal activities: 0.4% to 6.9%. 

Housing program: HCV Program; 
Type of action taken by PHAs: Terminations of assistance; 
Number of PHAs reporting data: 9; 
Number of actions: 12,703; 
Estimated overall percentage of actions due to drug-related criminal 
activities: < 2%; 
Among PHAs,[A] range of percentage of actions due to drug-related 
criminal activities: 0.07% to 6.1%. 

Type of action taken by PHAs: Admissions decisions; 
Number of PHAs reporting data: 9; 
Number of actions: 21,996; 
Estimated overall percentage of actions due to drug-related criminal 
activities: < 1.5%; 
Among PHAs,[A] range of percentage of actions due to drug-related 
criminal activities: 0.7%[C]. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from selected public housing agencies. 

[A] Among PHAs that reported the data. 

[B] This figure represents the actual percentage of actions taken due 
to drug-related criminal activities. 

[C] Only one PHA reported denying HCV assistance for reasons of drug-
related criminal activities. 

[End of table]

We also obtained and analyzed data from HUD on the number of evictions 
and denials of admission into public housing during fiscal years 2002 
and 2003 that occurred for reasons of criminal activity, of which drug-
related criminal activity is a subset. More than 3,000 PHAs reported to 
HUD that in each of these years there were about 9,000 evictions for 
reasons related to criminal activity and about 49,000 denials of 
admission for reasons of criminal activity. As a percentage of units 
managed by these PHAs, evictions for reasons of criminal activity in 
each of these years amounted to less than 1 percent of units managed, 
and denials of admission amounted to about 4 percent of units managed. 
Evictions and denials for reasons of drug-related criminal activities 
would have to be equal to or, much more likely, less than these 
percentages. 

On the basis of data that 9 PHAs were able to report about terminating 
participation in the HCV Program during 2003, we estimated that less 
than 2 percent of the decisions to terminate assistance in the HCV 
program (of the roughly 12,700 such decisions) were for reasons of drug-
related criminal activities. In addition, 9 PHAs reported that they 
acted on 21,996 applications for admission into the HCV Program and 
that less than 1.5 percent of applicants were denied admission for 
reasons of drug-related criminal activities. 

Discretionary Authority May Allow Some to Receive Housing Benefits, but 
Supply Limitations May Be a Significant Barrier: 

Local PHAs that administer federally assisted housing benefits have 
discretion in determining whether current tenants or applicants for 
assistance have engaged in drug-related criminal activities that 
disqualify them from receiving housing benefits. HUD requires PHAs to 
develop guidelines for evicting from or denying admittance into 
federally assisted housing to individuals who engage in drug-related 
criminal activity. A November 2000 HUD study on the administration of 
the HCV Program described the variation in PHA policies on denying 
housing to persons who engaged in drug-related criminal activities. HUD 
concluded that because of the policy differences, some PHAs could deny 
applicants who could be admitted by others.[Footnote 13] For example, 
some PHAs consider only convictions in determining whether applicants 
qualify for housing benefits, while others look at both arrests and 
convictions. Some look for a pattern of drug-related criminal behavior, 
while others look for evidence that any drug-related criminal 
activities occurred. In addition, among PHAs, the period of 
ineligibility for assistance arising from a prior eviction from 
federally assisted housing because of drug-related criminal activities 
ranged from 3 to 5 years. (See app. IV for a summary of selected PHA 
policies.)Any imbalance between the supply of and demand for federally 
assisted housing may also affect whether drug offenders are denied 
access to this benefit. The stock of available federally assisted 
housing units in the Public Housing Program is generally insufficient 
to meet demand. PHAs may have long waiting lists, up to 10 years in 
some cases, for access to federally assisted housing. As PHAs generally 
place new applicants at the end of waiting lists, a drug offender who 
might be disqualified from federally assisted housing but who applies 
for housing assistance could go to the end of a PHA's waiting list. 
Until that applicant moved to the top of the waiting list, the limited 
supply of federally assisted housing, and not necessarily a drug 
offense conviction, would effectively deny the applicant access to the 
benefit. 

Limited Use of the Denial of Federal Benefits Program Sanctions: 

Between 1990 and the second quarter of 2004, BJA received reports from 
state and federal courts that 8,298 offenders were sanctioned under the 
Denial of Federal Benefits Program in federal and state courts. This 
amounted to an average of fewer than 600 offenders per year. The Denial 
of Federal Benefits Program provides judges with a sentencing option to 
deny federal benefits such as grants, contracts, and licenses. About 62 
percent of the cases reported to be sanctioned under the Denial of 
Federal Benefits Program occurred in federal courts, and the remaining 
38 percent occurred in state courts. For recent years (2002 and 2003), 
BJA reported that fewer than 600 persons were denied federal benefits 
under the program. In 2002, there were more than 360,000 drug felony 
convictions nationwide. On average, less than 0.2 percent of these 
convicted drug felons were sanctioned under this program. 

According to the BJA data, state court judges in 7 states have imposed 
the sanction, and state court judges in Texas accounted for 39 percent 
of all cases in which drug offenders were reportedly denied benefits 
under this program by state court judges. Federal judges in judicial 
districts in 26 states had reportedly imposed denial of benefits 
sanctions, and federal judges in Texas accounted for 21 percent of the 
cases in which federal judges reportedly denied benefits. The pattern 
of use of sanctions under this program, with substantially more use in 
some jurisdictions than in others, may indicate that there are drug 
offenders in some locations who could have received the sanction but 
did not. (See app. V for more information about this program.)We 
previously reported on the relatively limited use of this 
sanction.[Footnote 14] We reported then that many offenders who could 
be denied access to federal benefits would also be sentenced to prison 
terms that exceed the benefit ineligibility period; therefore, upon 
release from prison, the offenders would not necessarily have benefits 
to lose. BJA officials reported that as of 2004, about 2,000 convicted 
drug offenders were still under sanction under the Denial of Benefits 
Program, as the period of denial had expired for the other sanctioned 
offenders. 

State Exemptions to the Federal Bans on TANF and Food Stamps and Other 
Factors Affect the Percentage of Drug Offenders That Would Have Been 
Eligible to Receive the Benefits: 

Most states have acted on the discretionary authority provided them 
under federal law to enact legislation that exempts some or all 
convicted drug felons in their states from the federal bans on their 
receipt of TANF and food stamps. That is, these state laws allow that 
convicted drug felons may not be banned for life from receiving TANF 
and food stamps provided they meet certain conditions. For states that 
had not modified the federal ban on TANF, we estimated that about 15 
percent of all offenders and 27 percent of female offenders released 
from prison during 2001 would have met selected eligibility 
requirements and would therefore potentially be affected by the ban. We 
also estimated that among drug offenders released from prison during 
2001 in states that had not modified the federal ban on food stamps 
about a quarter were custodial parents whose reported income was below 
federal poverty thresholds for food stamps. While food stamps are not 
limited to custodial parents, and the ban could affect other drug 
offenders, we limited our analysis to this group. 

Eighteen States Fully Implement the Federal Ban on TANF, as the 
Remainder Have Enacted Legislation to Exempt Some or All Convicted Drug 
Felons: 

A total of 32 states have enacted laws that exempt all or some 
convicted drug felons from the federal ban on TANF benefits. Of these 
states, 9 have enacted laws that exempt all convicted drug felons from 
the federal ban, and these persons may receive TANF benefits provided 
that they meet their state's general eligibility criteria. Another 23 
states have passed laws that exempt some drug felons from the TANF ban. 
The modifications allow that some convicted drug felons may receive 
benefits and generally fall into any of three categories: (1) Some 
states permit felons convicted of drug use or simple possession 
offenses to continue to receive TANF benefits but deny them to felons 
convicted of drug sales, distribution, or trafficking offenses; (2) 
some states allow convicted felons to receive TANF benefits only after 
a period of time has passed; and (3) some states allow convicted drug 
felons to receive TANF benefits conditioned upon their compliance with 
drug treatment, drug testing, or other conditions. (See app. II for the 
status of states' exemptions to the TANF ban.)Using state-level data on 
drug arrests as a proxy for state-level data on drug convictions, we 
estimated that the 9 states that completely opted out of the TANF ban 
and exempted all convicted drug felons from the ban accounted for about 
10 percent of drug arrests nationally in 2002.[Footnote 15] The 23 
states whose exemptions modified the TANF ban accounted for about 45 
percent of drug arrests nationally. For these states with various 
exemptions, it is difficult to determine to which drug felons the ban 
might apply, as participation in the program is contingent upon a 
felon's behavior (such as abiding with conditions of probation or 
parole supervision, or participating in drug treatment). Finally, the 
18 states that fully implemented the TANF ban accounted for about 45 
percent of all drug arrests nationwide. 

In States That Fully Implement the Ban on TANF, about 15 Percent of All 
Drug Offenders Released from Prison in 2001 Were Estimated to Meet TANF 
Eligibility Criteria: 

Using Bureau of Justice Statistics survey data on the family and 
economic characteristics of drug offenders in prison and state-level 
data on the number of drug offenders released from prison during 2001 
in 14 of the 18 states that fully implement the ban on TANF, we 
estimated that about 15 percent of those released from prison were 
parents of minor children, lived with their children, and had earned 
income below the maximum levels permitted by their states of 
residence.[Footnote 16] That is, but for the ban, they may have been 
eligible to receive TANF benefits. We estimated that the majority of 
drug felons--who are single males and not custodial parents--did not 
meet these TANF eligibility requirements and would therefore not have 
been qualified to receive the benefit even in the absence of the 
provisions of PRWORA. (See app. II for additional information about the 
methods used to estimate these quantities.)Female drug offenders 
released from prison in the 14 states constituted about 13 percent of 
drug offenders released from prison in 2001. We estimated that between 
25 percent and 28 percent of these female offenders were parents of 
minor children who lived with their children and whose incomes were 
below state thresholds, and therefore stood to lose TANF benefits. This 
percentage among female drug offenders released from prison is about 
twice that for males. From the available data, we estimated that less 
than 15 percent of male prisoners were parents who lived with their 
children and had earned incomes that would qualify them to receive TANF 
benefits. 

Other factors, which we could not take into account to estimate the 
percentages of drug offenders that could be eligible to receive TANF 
benefits, include citizenship status and total family income. 
Noncitizens with fewer than 5 years of residence in the United States 
are generally ineligible to receive TANF. Several of the states for 
which we obtained data on drug offenders released from prison have 
relatively large noncitizen populations. Therefore, among those drug 
offenders that we estimated could have been eligible to receive TANF 
benefits might be some ineligible noncitizens. In addition, the data 
that we used to estimate whether drug offenders met state income 
eligibility requirements included individual income rather than total 
family income. It is possible that some prisoners would join family 
units with incomes above state TANF eligibility earned income limits 
and would thus be disqualified for benefits. 

Among the drug offenders released from prison during 2001, the 
percentage that may be affected by the TANF ban at any time during 
their lifetimes would be greater than our estimate of those initially 
affected. This is because at a later date some of these offenders may 
meet the general eligibility criteria for receiving benefits. Thus, the 
percentage ever affected by the bans would grow over time. 

Because of data availability, our estimates focus on convicted drug 
felons who were in prison. We do not have data to assess the effect of 
the TANF ban on drug felons who received probation or who were 
sentenced to time in local jails. According to BJS data, nationwide, 
about one-third of convicted drug felons are sentenced to probation. 
Moreover, our estimates apply to the states that fully implemented the 
ban on TANF. Because of complexities associated with state exemptions 
to the federal ban and the lack of sufficiently detailed data, we 
cannot provide an estimate of the percentage of convicted drug 
offenders who could be affected by the ban in the 23 states that 
modified the TANF ban. We note, however, that state modifications to 
the ban may allow convicted drug felons to participate in TANF if they 
abide by the conditions set in the state exemptions (such as abide by 
conditions of parole or probation supervision or participate in drug 
treatment). In these states, unlike in the states that fully implement 
the federal ban, the post-conviction behavior of offenders would help 
to determine whether they could receive the benefit. Other state 
modifications allow drug offenders to receive TANF benefits at some 
point in the future (such as after completing drug treatment or 
receiving a sufficient number of negative drug test results). In states 
that require that drug felons wait before becoming eligible to 
participate in TANF, the federal ban is in effect until the waiting 
period ends. We would therefore expect estimates of the percentage 
affected during the waiting period to be similar to the estimates of 
the percentage affected in the states that fully implemented the 
federal ban. 

In States That Fully Implement the Ban on Food Stamps, About One-Fourth 
of Drug Offenders Released from Prison in 2001 Were Parents Who Could 
Have Been Eligible for Food Stamps: 

At the time of our review, 15 states fully implemented the federal ban 
on food stamp benefits to convicted drug felons, and 35 states had 
passed laws to exempt all or some convicted drug felons in their own 
states from the federal ban on food stamps. Of the 35 states with 
exemptions, 14 states exempt all convicted drug felons from the food 
stamp ban, and 21 have laws that exempt some convicted drug felons from 
the food stamp ban provided that they meet certain conditions.[Footnote 
17] In the 21 states that modified the food stamp ban, the 
modifications are similar to those for TANF and generally include (1) 
exempting persons convicted of drug possession from the ban, while 
retaining it for persons convicted of drug sales, distribution, or 
trafficking; (2) requiring a waiting period to pass before eligibility 
is restored; and (3) conditioning food stamp eligibility upon 
compliance with drug treatment, drug testing, or other conditions. (See 
app. II for the status of states' exemptions to the food stamps 
ban.)States' decisions to exempt all or some convicted drug felons in 
their states from the ban on food stamps affect the proportion of drug 
felons that can be affected by the ban. Using the state-level drug 
arrest data as the proxy for felony drug convictions (as we did for 
TANF), we find that the 15 states that fully implemented the ban on 
food stamps accounted for about 22 percent of all drug arrests 
nationally. Using data from the BJS inmate survey on the family and 
economic characteristics of drug offenders in prison and state-level 
data on the number of drug offenders released from prison during 2001 
in 12 of the 15 states that fully implemented the ban on food stamps, 
we estimated that about 23 percent of those released from prison were 
parents of minor children whose incomes were below the federal poverty 
guidelines. Among male drug offenders, we estimated that about 22 
percent met these conditions, while among female drug offenders, we 
estimated that about 36 percent did.[Footnote 18] We are unable to 
provide an estimate of the percentage of drug offenders that could be 
eligible to receive food stamps as able-bodied adults without dependent 
children. According to USDA, in 2003, this class of food stamp 
recipients constituted about 2.5 percent of food stamp recipients 
nationwide. Food stamps are not limited to custodial parents. However, 
we limited our assessment to custodial parents because of data 
limitations. 

Because the denial of food stamps is a lifetime ban, the number of drug 
offenders affected by the ban will increase over time, as additional 
convicted drug felons are released from prison. 

Also, as with the TANF estimates, data limitations precluded our 
providing estimates for the felony drug offenders that were sentenced 
to probation in 2001 or for the states that modified the federal ban. 

Concluding Observations: 

A complex array of provisions of federal law allow or require federal 
benefits be denied to different classes of drug offenders. There is 
also a good deal of discretion allowed in implementing these laws that 
can exempt certain drug offenders from their application. Our estimates 
indicate that denial of benefit laws potentially affect relatively 
small percentages of drug offenders, although the numbers potentially 
affected in given years may be large. There are a number of reasons why 
the percentages affected may be relatively small. First, large numbers 
of drug offenders would not be eligible for these benefits regardless 
of their drug offender status. For example, those who lack a high 
school diploma are ineligible for postsecondary educational loans or 
grants, and many do not meet eligibility requirement for TANF and food 
stamps. Also, in the case of TANF and food stamps, the majority of 
states have used their discretion to either partially or fully lift the 
ban on these benefits for certain drug offenders. 

It is important to note that although the overall numbers of drug 
offenders that could be affected by the TANF and food stamp bans are 
relatively small in comparison with the numbers of drug offenders, our 
estimates suggest that the effects of the bans disproportionately fall 
on female offenders. This is because they are more likely to be 
custodial parents with low incomes and thus otherwise eligible for the 
benefits. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General; the 
Secretaries of the Departments of Education, Agriculture, and Housing 
and Urban Development; the Assistant Secretary of the Administration 
for Children and Families; the Director of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy; the Research Director of the United States Sentencing 
Commission; and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts for their review and comment. We received technical 
comments from the Departments of Justice, Agriculture, and Education, 
and from the United States Sentencing Commission and Administrative 
Office of the United States Courts, which we incorporated into the 
report where appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General; the 
Secretaries of the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, 
Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development; the Director of the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy; the Research Director of the 
United States Sentencing Commission, and the Director of the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts. We will also make 
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will 
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail at Ekstrandl@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

Laurie E. Ekstrand, Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Federal law provides that certain drug offenders may or must be denied 
selected federal benefits, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families (TANF), food stamps, federally assisted housing, postsecondary 
education grants and loans, and certain federal contracts and licenses. 
Our objectives were to analyze and report on two interrelated questions 
about the number or percentage of drug offenders that could be affected 
by the provisions: (1) In specific years, how many drug offenders were 
estimated to be denied federal postsecondary education benefits, 
federally assisted housing, and selected grants, contracts, and 
licenses? (2) What factors affect whether drug offenders would have 
been eligible to receive TANF and food stamp benefits, but for their 
drug offense convictions, and for a recent year, what percentage would 
have been eligible to receive these benefits?

In addition, we were asked to address the impact of federal benefit 
denial laws on minorities and the long-term consequences of denying 
federal benefits on the drug offender population and their families. 
Because of severe data limitations, we were unable to provide a 
detailed response to this matter. The final section of appendixes II, 
III, IV, and V in this report include discussions of the data 
limitations that precluded us from estimating the impacts on 
minorities. Where information was available, we also identify in the 
appendices some of the possible long-run consequences of denial of 
benefits. 

We limited our analysis of federal laws to those that explicitly 
included provisions that allowed for or required the denial of federal 
benefits to drug offenders. We excluded other provisions that provide 
for denial of benefits to all offenders, of which drug offenders are a 
subset. We also excluded from our analysis provisions that applied to 
offenders only while they are incarcerated and provisions that applied 
to fugitive felons. Other federal laws relating to drug offenders but 
not within the scope of our review include provisions such as those 
making a person ineligible for certain types of employment, denying the 
use of certain tax credits, and restricting the ability to conduct 
certain firearms transactions. Further, because of the limited data 
available on persons actually denied federal benefits, we provide rough 
estimates of either the number or the percentage of drug offenders 
affected by the relevant provisions. We provide an overview of these 
methodologies below but we discuss the specifics of our methodologies 
for analyzing and estimating the impacts of denying specific federal 
benefits in appendices II through V. 

We assessed the reliability of the data that we used in preparing this 
report by, as appropriate, interviewing agency officials about their 
data, reviewing documentation about the data sets, and conducting 
electronic tests. We used only the portions of the data that we found 
to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes in this report. 

We conducted our work primarily in Washington, D.C., at the 
headquarters of five federal agencies--the Departments of Justice 
(DOJ), Agriculture (USDA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 
Education (ED), and Health and Human Services (HHS)--responsible for 
administering the denial of federal benefit laws. We also conducted 
work at the Office for National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)--which has 
responsibilities for national drug control policy--the Administrative 
Office for United States Courts (AOUSC)--which provides guidance to the 
courts for the implementation of statutory requirements--and the United 
States Sentencing Commission (USSC)--which has responsibilities for 
monitoring federal sentencing outcomes. 

Assessing How Many Drug Offenders Were Estimated to Be Denied Federal 
Postsecondary Education and Federally Assisted Housing Benefits and 
Certain Grants and Contracts: 

To estimate how many or what percentage of drug offenders were reported 
to be denied federal postsecondary education and federally assisted 
housing benefits and certain grants and contracts under the Denial of 
Federal Benefits Program, we obtained and analyzed data from agency 
officials. From ED, we obtained data for several years on the number of 
applicants using the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), 
the number of these who reported a disqualifying drug offense 
conviction, the number eligible for Pell Grants, and the number 
receiving Pell Grants and student loans. We analyzed these data to 
generate our estimates of the number of those that reported 
disqualifying drug offenses that would have been eligible to receive 
Pell Grants and student loans. We also obtained Bureau of Justice 
Statistics (BJS) data that reported on the educational attainment of 
nationally representative sample of offenders on probation. We used 
these data, along with USSC data on sentenced drug offenders and BJS 
data on drug offenders released from prison, to assess the education 
levels of drug offenders. To identify factors that could contribute to 
the number of drug offenders denied federal postsecondary education 
benefits, we interviewed officials at ED about federal regulations, 
guidance, and rulings pertaining to the eligibility to receive 
benefits. Appendix III describes in more detail our methods for 
estimating the education of those denied education benefits. 

From a nonprobability sample of some of the largest public housing 
agencies (PHA) in the United States, we obtained information about 
reported actions taken in 2003 in these PHAs to deny persons federally 
assisted housing benefits for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities. We selected large agencies because of the volume of actions 
that they take in a given year and to provide indications of the range 
of outcomes in PHAs in different settings with different populations. 
We also obtained and analyzed data from HUD on persons reportedly 
evicted from or denied admission into public housing for reasons of 
criminal activities. From selected PHAs, we obtained, analyzed, and 
compared termination and admissions policies and procedures used during 
2003 or 2004 to deny federally assisted housing to persons involved in 
drug-related criminal activities. We also spoke with staff from 
selected research organizations, national associations, and PHAs to 
review the eligibility criteria to receive federal benefits. Appendix 
IV describes our methods for assessing denials of federally assisted 
housing. 

From the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), we obtained data on drug 
offenders reported to have been denied federal benefits under the 
Denial of Federal Benefits Program. We spoke with officials at BJA 
about the current operations and plans to enhance the program, and we 
interviewed officials from USSC and AOUSC about the operations of this 
program. We also interviewed ONDCP officials about the array of federal 
provisions that provide for denial of federal benefits and federal 
programs that provide for drug treatment for drug offenders. Appendix V 
describes our methodology for analyzing the Denial of Federal Benefits 
Program. 

Estimating the Percentage of Convicted Drug Felons That Would Have Been 
Eligible to Receive TANF or Food Stamps and the Factors Contributing to 
These Estimates: 

Data limitations concerning the actual number of persons denied TANF 
and food stamp benefits required us to develop estimates of the drug 
offenders that could be denied these benefits in that they had 
characteristics that would have allowed them to qualify to receive the 
benefits except for their drug offense convictions. To determine the 
extent to which drug offenders were otherwise qualified or eligible to 
receive federal benefits, we identified key elements of the eligibility 
to receive federal benefits. We met with officials at the federal 
agencies responsible for administering TANF--the Department of Health 
and Human Services--and food stamps--the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture--to discuss issues related to eligibility to receive these 
benefits. We obtained and analyzed data from BJS on the characteristics 
of drug offenders in prison, and we applied this information to the 
number of drug offenders released from prison during 2001 in states 
that fully implemented the ban on TANF. To determine the current status 
of states that have opted out of or modified federal provisions banning 
TANF and food stamp benefits to persons convicted of drug felony 
offenses, we reviewed state laws and contacted officials at USDA (which 
annually surveys states about the status of their laws in relation to 
the ban on food stamps) and state officials in states that have 
modified the federal ban on TANF or food stamps to discuss the status 
of their provisions regarding the exemptions under their state laws. 
Appendix II provides detailed information on our methodology for 
assessing the TANF and food stamps bans. 

Data Sources Used in Preparing This Report: 

From the following sources, we obtained, assessed the reliability of, 
and analyzed data related to denial of federal benefits that we used in 
developing estimates of the impacts of the federal provisions. To 
assess the reliability of the data, as needed, we interviewed agency 
officials about the data systems, reviewed relevant documentation, and 
conducted electronic tests of the data. We determined that the data 
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. The data 
sources included: 

* Bureau of Justice Assistance: Data on the number of drug offenders 
reported to BJA by state and federal courts as having been denied 
federal benefits under the Denial of Federal Benefits Program from 1991 
to 2004. 

* Bureau of Justice Statistics: 

* Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities in 1997: We used 
these data to estimate the number of convicted drug felons in prison 
that were parents of minor children, lived with their children prior to 
their incarceration, and had incomes within state earned income limits. 
We used these estimates to assess the impacts of the provisions 
allowing for the denial of TANF and food stamp benefits. 

* National Corrections Reporting Program, 2001: We used these data to 
obtain counts of the number of drug offenders released from prison 
during 2001 in selected states. We also used these data to provide 
estimates of the level of education completed from drug offenders 
released from prison during 2001 and in developing our estimates of the 
impacts of the TANF and food stamps provisions. 

* Survey of Adults on Probation, 1995: We used these data, from the 
only national source of data on the characteristics of adults on 
probation of which BJS is aware, to learn about the education levels of 
drug offenders on probation and in developing estimates of the impact 
of denying federal postsecondary education assistance. 

* Selected state corrections and court officials: For selected states 
that fully implemented the ban on TANF and food stamps, we obtained 
data on the numbers of convicted drug felons released from prison in 
during 2001. We used these data in developing estimates of the impacts 
of TANF and food stamps. 

* Department of Housing and Urban Development: We obtained and analyzed 
data from HUD's Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) and Management 
Operations Certification Assessment System (MASS) for fiscal years 2002 
and 2003 on the number of public housing residents evicted because of 
criminal activities (of which drug-related criminal activities form a 
subset), and of the numbers denied admission into the Public Housing 
Program for reasons of criminal activities. 

* Seventeen of the 40 largest PHAs in the nation: We requested 
information from the 40 largest PHAs about the number of decisions they 
made during 2003 to deny federally assisted housing to tenants and 
applicants for reasons of drug-related criminal activities, and we 
obtained data from 17 of these PHAs. Not all 17 PHAs provided responses 
to all of our questions; therefore, we reported data only on the PHAs 
that were able to provide data relevant to the question under review. 
We selected these PHAs from among the 1,531 PHAs that managed both 
Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) programs as of August 
31, 2004. We asked them for information about denials of federally 
assisted housing for reasons of drug-related criminal activities, and 
we also asked them to provide these data based on the race of tenants 
and applicants. HUD does not collect this information. We used these 
data in describing the number of persons denied federally assisted 
housing and in providing information about the race of persons denied 
federal housing benefits. 

* Department of Education: We obtained and analyzed data on the number 
of students applying for federal postsecondary assistance for academic 
years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004. In addition, we obtained 
data on the percentage of these applicants who were eligible to receive 
Pell Grants and of these, the percentage that received them, and we 
also obtained data on the percentage of applicants who received student 
loans. We used these data in developing estimates of the impact of the 
denial of federal postsecondary education assistance. 

In addition, we used published statistical reports from various 
agencies such as BJS; Uniform Crime Reports data on drug abuse 
violation arrests by state; Department of Health and Human Services 
reports on the characteristics of TANF recipients; USDA reports on food 
stamp recipients; and the United States Sentencing Commission's 2003 
Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. 

Impacts of the Federal Provisions on Racial Minorities and Long-Run 
Impacts of Denying Federal Benefits: 

We were asked to address the impacts of the federal benefit denial laws 
on racial minorities and the long-term impacts of denying federal 
benefits on individuals that were denied, their families, and their 
communities. Although very limited, the available information on these 
issues is summarized in appendices II through V. 

To determine the extent of data on the race of persons affected by the 
denial of federal benefit provisions, we asked the officials that we 
interviewed about their knowledge of data on the race of persons denied 
federal benefits. We also spoke with researchers and officials at 
various organizations about their knowledge of available data. To 
address data limitations of HUD data on persons denied federally 
assisted housing because of drug-related criminal activities, we 
requested, obtained, and analyzed data provided by 17 of the largest 
PHAs in the nation on the race of persons denied housing for reasons of 
drug-related criminal activity. 

To determine the current research and data on the potential economic 
and social impacts of the loss of federal benefits on individuals, 
families, and communities, we conducted literature searches to identify 
and review existing studies that have measured the impacts of the 
denial of federal benefits on drug offenders and families. We 
interviewed experts to understand how the incentives for drug 
treatment, as provided in the laws that deny benefits, are likely to 
affect drug addicts' behavior, and we obtained their views regarding 
the effects that incarceration and drug convictions might have on a 
drug felon's potential employment and earnings. 

We conducted our work from March 2004 to July 2005 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework 
and Methodologies: 

This appendix describes the legal and administrative framework for 
denying TANF and food stamp benefits to convicted drug felons and our 
methods for estimating the percentage of convicted drug offenders that 
would have been eligible to receive TANF and food stamps but for their 
drug felony convictions. 

Legal and Administrative Framework: 

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 
(PRWORA)[Footnote 19] of 1996 provides that persons convicted of 
certain drug felony offenses are banned for life from receiving TANF 
and food stamp benefits. Specifically, Section 115 of PRWORA, as 
amended, provides that an individual convicted (under federal or state 
law) of any offense that is classified as a felony by the law of the 
jurisdiction involved and that has as an element the possession, use, 
or distribution of a controlled substance shall not be eligible to 
receive TANF assistance or food stamp benefits. The prohibition applies 
if the conviction is for conduct occurring after August 22, 
1996.[Footnote 20]

TANF assistance includes benefits designed to meet a need family's 
ongoing, basic needs (for example, for food, clothing, shelter, 
utilities, household goods, and general incidental expenses) and 
includes cash payments, vouchers, and other forms of benefits.[Footnote 
21] TANF assistance excludes short-term episodic benefits that are not 
intended to meet recurrent or ongoing needs and that do not extend 
beyond 4 months. The federal prohibition on TANF assistance to 
convicted drug felons does not apply to TANF "nonassistance" benefits, 
which include benefits meant to assist an individual's nonrecurring 
emergency needs.[Footnote 22] TANF nonassistance can include drug 
treatment, job training, emergency Medicaid medical services, emergency 
disaster relief, prenatal care, and certain public health assistance. 

The Food Stamp Program provides benefits in the form of electronic 
benefit cards, which can be used like cash for food products at most 
grocery stores. Eligible households receive a monthly allotment of food 
stamps based on the Thrifty Food Plan, a low-cost model diet plan based 
upon National Academy of Sciences' Recommended Dietary Allowances. For 
persons between the ages of 18 and 50 who are also viewed as fit to 
work and who are not the guardians of dependent children, PRWORA 
provides for a work requirement or a time limit for receiving food 
stamp benefits. The provision is known as the Able-Bodied Adults 
without Dependent (ABAWD) provision. ABAWD participants in the food 
stamp program are limited to 3 months of benefits in a 3-year period 
unless they meet certain criteria.[Footnote 23]

PRWORA provides that states may enact a legislative exemption removing 
or limiting the classes of convicted drug felons that are otherwise 
affected by the federal ban on TANF and food stamps. State laws 
providing for exemptions need to have been enacted after August 22, 
1996. 

The Office of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provides federal 
oversight of the TANF program. TANF is funded by both federal block 
grants and state funds, but states are responsible for determining 
benefit levels and categories of families that are eligible to receive 
benefits. State eligibility requirements establish earned income 
limits, and other rules, and these requirements may vary widely among 
the states. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 
provides oversight for the Food Stamp Program, which is the primary 
federal food assistance program that provides support to needy 
households and to those making the transition from welfare to work. 
Eligibility for participation is based on the Office of Management and 
Budget federal poverty guidelines for households. Most households must 
meet gross and net income tests unless all members are receiving TANF 
or selected other forms of assistance.[Footnote 24] Gross income cannot 
exceed 130 percent of the federal poverty guideline (or about $1,313 
per month for a family of two and $1,654 per month for a family of 
three in 2004), and net income cannot exceed 100 percent of the poverty 
guideline (or about $1,010 per month for a family of two and $1,272 per 
month for a family of three in 2004). "Gross income" means a 
household's total, nonexcluded income before any deductions have been 
made. "Net income" means gross income minus allowable deductions. 
Allowable deductions include a 20 percent deduction from earned income, 
dependent child care deductions, and medical expenses, among others. 

According to officials at ACF and FNS, states may implement the 
provisions to deny convicted drug felons TANF and food stamps in a 
variety of ways. Some states administer the denial of benefits by 
requiring applicants to admit to disqualifying felony drug offense 
convictions at the time that they apply for benefits. Also according to 
agency officials, neither agency regularly collects and assesses data 
on the number of persons that self-certify disqualifying drug 
offenses.[Footnote 25]

State Exemptions to the Federal Bans on TANF and Food Stamps: 

We reviewed documentation provided by USDA and for states that exempted 
some or all convicted drug felons from the federal ban on food stamps, 
we reviewed states' laws pertaining to the exemption and we contacted 
officials to determine the status of their state's exemptions to the 
federal bans on TANF and food stamps. Table 5 shows these statuses and 
for states that have enacted exemptions, provides citations to the 
state laws. 

Table 5: Status of States on the TANF and Food Stamp Ban as of 2004: 

State: Alabama; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Alaska; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Arizona; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Arkansas; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Ark. Code Ann.  20-76-409 
(July 1997). 

State: California; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code  
18901.3 (September 2004). 

State: Colorado; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Opt Out; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Colo. Rev. Stat.  26-2-305, 
26-2-706 (July 1997). 

State: Connecticut; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Conn. Gen. Stat.  17b-112d 
(July 1997). 

State: Delaware; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Del. Code Ann. tit. 31,  605 
(July 2003). 

State: Florida; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban[A]; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Fla. Stat. Ann. ch. 414.095 
(May 1997). 

State: Georgia; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Hawaii; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Haw. Rev. Stat.  346-53.3 
(June 1997). 

State: Idaho; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Idaho Code  56-202 (July 
2000). 

State: Illinois; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Opt out; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): 730 Ill. Comp. Stat 5/1-10 
(June 1997). 

State: Indiana; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Ind. Code  12-20-16-6 (July 
2003). 

State: Iowa; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Iowa Code  239B.5 (October 
1997). 

State: Kansas; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Kentucky; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Ky. Rev. Stat Ann.  205.2005 
(July 1998). 

State: Louisiana; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 
46:233.2(July 1997). 

State: Maine; 
TANF status: Opt out; 
Food stamp status: Opt out; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22,  
3104(14), 3762(17) (April 2002). 

State: Maryland; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Md. Ann. Code 88A,  50A, 65 
(July 2000). 

State: Massachusetts; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Opt out; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): 2001 Mass. Adv. Legis. Serv. 
177,  4400-1000 (December 2001) (reenacted annually). 

State: Michigan; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): 1997 Mich. Pub. Acts 109,  622 
(August 1997) (reenacted annually). 

State: Minnesota; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Minn. Stat.  256J.26 (July 
1997). 

State: Mississippi; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Missouri; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Montana; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Nebraska; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Neb. Rev.Stat.  68-1017.02 
(August 2003). 

State: Nevada; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Nev. Rev. Stat  422.29316 
(January 1998). 

State: New Hampshire; 
TANF status: Opt out; 
Food stamp status: Opt out; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.  167:81-a 
(August 1997). 

State: New Jersey; 
TANF status: Modify the ban[B]; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban[B,] c; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): N.J. Stat. Ann.  44:10-48 
(January 1997) N.J. Stat. Ann.  44:10-48.1(January 2000). 

State: New Mexico; 
TANF status: Opt out; 
Food stamp status: Opt out; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): N.M. Stat. Ann.  27-2B-11(C) 
(March 2002). 

State: New York; 
TANF status: Opt out [D]; 
Food stamp status: Opt out [D]; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): 1997 N.Y. Laws  121436 (August 
1997) (reenacted annually). 

State: North Carolina; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): N.C. Gen. Stat.  108A-25.2 
(July 1997). 

State: North Dakota; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Ohio; 
TANF status: Opt out; 
Food stamp status: Opt out; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Ohio Rev. Code Ann.  5101.84 
(September 1997). 

State: Oklahoma; 
TANF status: Opt out; 
Food stamp status: Opt out; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): 1997 Okla. Sess. Laws 414  28 
(September 1997). 

State: Oregon; 
TANF status: Opt out; 
Food stamp status: Opt out; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Or. Rev. Stat.  411.119 (July 
1997). 

State: Pennsylvania; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): 62 Pa. Stat.  405.1(i) 
(February 2004). 

State: Rhode Island; 
TANF status: Opt out[E,F]; 
Food stamp status: Opt out[E,F]; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): R.I. Gen. Laws  40-5.1-8, 40-
6-8 (Modify: July 1997, Opt-out: July 2004). 

State: South Carolina; 
TANF status: Ban[G]; 
Food stamp status: Ban[G]. 

State: South Dakota; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Tennessee; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Tenn. Code Ann.  71-3-154, 71-
5-308 (July 2002). 

State: Texas; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Utah; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Opt out; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Utah Code Ann.  35A-3-311 
(July 1997). 

State: Vermont; 
TANF status: Opt out; 
Food stamp status: Opt out; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): 1997 Vt. Laws 61,  131 (June 
1997) (reenacted annually). 

State: Virginia; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Washington; 
TANF status: Modify the ban[H]; 
Food stamp status: Opt out[H,I]; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Wash. Rev. Code  74.08.025 
(modify: April 1997; opt out: March 2004). 

State: West Virginia; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

State: Wisconsin; 
TANF status: Modify the ban; 
Food stamp status: Modify the ban; 
State exemptions laws (effective date): Wis. Stat.  49.79, 49.145, 
49.148 (October 1997). 

State: Wyoming; 
TANF status: Ban; 
Food stamp status: Ban. 

Source: GAO analysis of state laws as of January 2005 and U.S. 
Department of Agriculture state reports: 

[A] Our analysis of Florida law and conversations with state officials 
led to our classification of Florida as a state that has exemptions 
that modified the food stamp ban. This classification differs from the 
USDA classification, which identifies Florida as a state that fully 
implements a lifetime ban on food stamps for convicted drug felons. The 
discrepancy in classifications may arise from the different methods 
used to determine Florida's status. Annually, USDA surveys states and 
asks them to report their status of implementing the ban. Our analysis 
of Florida law, on the other hand, identifies exemptions that may not 
have been reported in the survey. 

[B] Provision enacted in 1997. 

[C] 1997 provision modified in 2000. 

[D] New York provides for drug use screening of all assistance 
recipients and conditions eligibility on further assessment and 
treatment where social services officials find them necessary. N.Y. 
Soc. Serv.  132. 

[E] Modified in July 1997. 

[F] Opted out in July 2004. 

[G] Some authorities have classified South Carolina as a modification 
state (see S.C. Code Ann.  43-5-1190). However state officials report 
that no specific exemption to the federal ban has been enacted in South 
Carolina. 

[H] Modified in April 1997. 

[I] Opted out in March 2004. 

[End of table]

There are several general types of modifications to the federal ban on 
TANF and food stamps among the states that have modified the ban. These 
modifications may include one or more of the following elements: (1) 
removing from the ban drug felons convicted for drug use or simple 
possession, but implementing the ban for drug sellers or traffickers 
(e.g., possession with intent to distribute offenses); (2) restoring 
benefits to drug felons complying with drug treatment program 
requirements; (3) restoring benefits so long as drug felons have 
negative drug test results over some period of time; and (4) restoring 
benefits to drug felons after various waiting periods, such as a number 
of years after conviction or release from prison. State modifications 
may also include other conditions. For example, Michigan allows 
convicted drug felons to receive benefits provided they do not violate 
the terms of their parole or probation and other conditions are met. 
Tables 6 and 7 show the types of modifications that states have adopted 
for the TANF and food stamp bans, respectively. These tables present 
general categories of different modifications, not an exhaustive 
listing of all specific requirements. For more detail consult the 
statutes listed in table 5. 

Table 6: Types of State Exemptions (Modifications) to the Federal Ban 
on TANF, by States within the Types of Modifications, as of 2004: 

Eligibility to participate in TANF restored: 

To drug users but not to drug traffickers: 
Arkansas, Florida, New Jersey[A]. 

Conditional upon undergoing required drug treatment: 
Colorado[B], Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois [C], Kentucky, Nevada[A], 
Pennsylvania, Tennessee[D], Utah, Washington[E]. 

Conditional upon not failing required drug tests: 
Maryland[F], Minnesota[G], Wisconsin. 

Following a waiting period: 
Louisiana[A,H], Massachusetts[H], North Carolina[I]. 

Conditional upon not violating conditions of parole or probation 
supervision: 
Connecticut, Idaho, Michigan[G]. 

For a 12-month maximum if felon participates in a drug court: 
Indiana. 

Source: GAO analysis of selected states' statutes as of January 2005, 
and information from state corrections and court offices. 

[A] State also requires drug testing (or demonstration of no drug use 
in Nevada). 

[B] State requires individuals to take action toward rehabilitation, 
such as, but not limited to, drug treatment. 

[C] State requires either a 2-year waiting period or participation in 
drug treatment, and also restricts the exemption to drug offenders who 
are not class X or class 1 felons. 

[D] State restricts exemption to drug offenders who are not class A 
felons. 

[E] State also requires there be no more than one conviction in a 3-
year period. 

[F] For current recipients, state also imposes a 1-year ban from date 
of drug conviction. 

[G] State also requires payments must be made to vendors or authorized 
representatives. 

[H] State imposes a 1-year waiting period. 

[I] State imposes a 6-month waiting period and also requires drug 
treatment. 

[End of table]

Table 7: Types of State Exemptions or Modifications of the Federal Ban 
on Food Stamps, by States within the Types of Modifications, as of 
2004: 

Eligibility to participate in food stamps restored: 

To drug users but not to drug traffickers: 
Arkansas, California[A], Delaware [A,B], Florida, Nebraska[A]. 

Conditional upon undergoing required drug treatment: 
Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada[B], New Jersey[B], Pennsylvania, 
Tennessee[C]. 

Conditional upon not failing required drug testing: 
Maryland[D], Minnesota[E], Wisconsin. 

Following a waiting period: 
Louisiana[F], North Carolina[G]. 

Conditional upon not violating conditions of probation or parole 
supervision: 
Connecticut, Idaho, Michigan[E]. 

For a maximum of 12 months if felon participates in a drug court; 
available only through July 1, 2005, unless extended: 
Indiana. 

Source: GAO analysis of selected states' laws and officials from state 
corrections departments court offices. 

[A] State also requires drug treatment. 

[B] State also requires drug testing (or demonstration of no drug use 
in Nevada). 

[C] State restricts exemption to drug offenders who are not class A 
felons. 

[D] For current recipients, state also imposes a 1-year waiting period 
from the date of the conviction. 

[E] State will also impose a 1-year ban from date of drug convictions 
for current recipients: 

[F] State imposes a 1-year waiting period and also requires a negative 
drug test result. 

[G] State imposes a 6-month waiting period and also requires drug 
treatment. 

[End of table]

Estimating the Percentage of Drug Arrests within States That Implement, 
Modify, or Opt Out of the Bans on TANF and Food Stamps: 

To obtain a general assessment of the degree to which state decisions 
to modify or opt out of the federal bans on TANF and food stamps exempt 
drug felons from the federal ban, we estimated the percentage of drug 
arrests that occurred within three groupings of states: (1) those that 
fully implement the bans, (2) those that have modified them, and (3) 
those that have completely opted out of the bans. We used drug arrests 
as a proxy for drug convictions, as state-level data on the number of 
drug felony convictions are not available. We analyzed data from the 
2002 Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports on the number of 
persons arrested for drug offenses in each of the 50 states. Table 8 
reports the relative distributions of drug arrests for the states 
falling into each category for the TANF and food stamp bans. 

Table 8: Number of States in Each TANF and Food Stamp Ban Status 
Category and Percentage of Drug Offense Arrests in 2002 Occurring in 
the States within Each Ban Status Category: 

TANF/food stamp ban status category: Implement the ban fully; 
TANF ban: Number of states[A]: 18; 
TANF ban: Percentage of drug arrests[A]: 43.8%; 
Food stamp ban: Number of states[A]: 15; 
Food stamp ban: Percentage of drug arrests[A]: 22.0%. 

TANF/food stamp ban status category: Modified the ban; 
TANF ban: Number of states[A]: 23; 
TANF ban: Percentage of drug arrests[A]: 46.6%; 
Food stamp ban: Number of states[A]: 20; 
Food stamp ban: Percentage of drug arrests[A]: 57.1%. 

TANF/food stamp ban status category: Opted out of the ban; 
TANF ban: Number of states[A]: 9; 
TANF ban: Percentage of drug arrests[A]: 9.6%; 
Food stamp ban: Number of states[A]: 15; 
Food stamp ban: Percentage of drug arrests[A]: 20.9%. 

TANF/food stamp ban status category: Total; 
TANF ban: Number of states[A]: 50; 
TANF ban: Percentage of drug arrests[A]: 100.0%; 
Food stamp ban: Number of states[A]: 50; 
Food stamp ban: Percentage of drug arrests[A]: 100.0%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Uniform Crime Report data for 2002. 

[A] Excludes the District of Columbia. 

[End of table]

Methods for Estimating the Percentage of Drug Felons Potentially 
Affected by the TANF and Food Stamp Bans: 

To assess the potential impacts of the bans on TANF and food stamps, we 
estimated the percentage of a population of drug felons released from 
prison that would be eligible to receive TANF, and but for their drug 
offense conviction could receive the benefit. By potentially affected, 
we refer to convicted drug felons that we estimated met selected 
eligibility criteria to participate in these benefit programs. 
According to our use of the term "impact," only those drug felons who 
were otherwise eligible to receive benefits actually stood to lose 
benefits as a result of the bans, and could therefore be affected by 
the bans. 

To determine the percentage of drug felons that met selected 
eligibility criteria, we used data from the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics' Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities in 1997. 
This survey is based upon a nationally representative sample of persons 
in state prisons during July 1997. The 1997 data represent the most 
recently available data from this recurrent survey, which BJS conducts 
about every 5 years. We used information from the survey about 
prisoners' parental status, employment, and income prior to 
incarceration in developing our estimates of the percentages of drug 
offenders that were custodial parents and had incomes within allowable 
maximums to qualify for the benefits. 

For both benefits, we provide estimates that are based on drug 
offenders released from prison during 2001 in the subset of states that 
fully implemented either the ban on TANF or food stamps. To the extent 
possible, we limited the data on drug offenders released from prison to 
those who entered prison during 1997 or thereafter. This allowed for a 
period of time between the possible date that a drug felony offense was 
committed and the date that an offender entered prison, and in this 
way, we took into account the implementation date of the ban, which was 
August 22, 1996. 

Because of data limitations, we did not attempt to develop estimates 
for states that modified the bans. For example, some states' exemptions 
to the bans allow that convicted drug offenders may receive benefits 
(provided that they are eligible for them) if they do not fail a drug 
test, if they undergo required drug treatment, if they do not violate 
conditions of probation or parole supervision, or if they meet certain 
other conditions. The data that we used did not include this 
information; therefore, we could not estimate the potential impacts of 
the bans in the states that modified the bans. 

We developed estimates of the potential impact of these bans on the 
population of released prisoners for 1 year, 2001, the most recent year 
for which we obtained data. We did not attempt to develop estimates for 
all persons potentially affected by the bans since they went into 
effect during 1996. We discuss the problems associated with estimating 
all persons potentially affected by the bans in a later section of this 
appendix. 

Data and Methods Used to Estimate the Potential Impacts of the TANF 
Ban: 

To estimate the potential impacts of the TANF ban, we obtained data 
from states on drug felons released from prison, and using these data, 
we applied estimates of the percentages that met selected TANF 
eligibility requirements. These methods are described more fully below. 

Methods to Obtain State-Specific Data on the Number of Drug Felons 
Released from Prison: 

For 14 of the 18 states that fully implement the ban on TANF, we 
obtained data on the number of drug offenders released from prison 
during 2001. We used two sources of data: (1) the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics' National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) and (2) data 
from selected other states. From NCRP, we obtained counts of the number 
of drug felons released from prison during 2001, given that they were 
committed into prison in 1997 or thereafter for a new conviction that 
contained a drug offense. We chose 1997 because the TANF ban went into 
effect on August 22, 1996, and data on the date that ex-prisoners 
committed their drug offense--which is the factor that determines 
whether they are under the ban--were not available in the data that we 
used. From the other states, we obtained comparable data on the number 
of drug offenders released from prison. 

The 14 states for which we obtained data were Alabama, Arizona, 
California, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North 
Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and West 
Virginia. The 14 states account for approximately 97 percent of the 
population in the 18 states that maintain the ban on TANF for drug 
felons. For the 4 states that were excluded from our analysis---Alaska, 
Delaware, Montana, and Wyoming--we were unable to obtain data on 
released prisoners. We also excluded from our analysis states that may 
have implemented the ban in 2001 but as of January 2005 had modified or 
opted out of the ban. 

Across the 14 states, about 96,000 drug offenders were released from 
prison during 2001, given that they had been admitted during 1997 or 
thereafter. This population of all drug felons released from prison 
includes those who were sentenced to prison following their conviction 
for a drug offense, and it also includes offenders who entered prison 
because they had violated conditions of supervision. Among offenders 
who entered prison for a violation of conditions of supervision, some 
may have committed their offenses before the TANF ban went into effect, 
and they would not be subject to the ban. However, some of the released 
prisoners who had violated conditions of supervision may have been 
convicted after the ban went into effect, but the available information 
reported only the date of admission for the violation and not for the 
original sentence. These offenders should be included among the 
population of drug felons that are subject to the ban. Hence, the 
population of all released prisoners might over estimate the number of 
drug offenders in these 14 states who committed offenses after the TANF 
ban had gone into effect. 

About 51,000 of the drug offenders released from prison during 2001 
were those who had been admitted into prison during 1997 or immediately 
after their conviction. While this population of released drug 
offenders includes those whose prison sentence occurred after the ban 
went into effect, this number may under estimate the number of drug 
felons in these states who were subject to the ban. It may do so 
because it will exclude the parole violators who had initially been 
committed after 1997 but whose most recent commitment was for a 
violation of parole that also occurred after 1997.[Footnote 26]

About 87 percent of all drug offenders released from prison during 2001 
in the 14 states for which we obtained data were males, as were about 
86 percent of the first releases. Females constituted 13 percent of all 
releases and 14 percent of first releases (table 9). 

Table 9: Estimated Number of Drug Felons Released from Prison during 
2001, in 14 of 18 States That Currently Maintain the Ban on TANF: 

All drug felons released from prison: Total; 
Number of prisoner releases: 95,940; 
Percentage distribution of prisoner releases: 100%. 

All drug felons released from prison: Males; 
Number of prisoner releases: 83,528; 
Percentage distribution of prisoner releases: 87%. 

All drug felons released from prison: Females; 
Number of prisoner releases: 12,412; 
Percentage distribution of prisoner releases: 13%. 

First releases of drug felons from a new court commitment[A]: 

All drug felons released from prison: Total; 
Number of prisoner releases: 51,332; 
Percentage distribution of prisoner releases: 100%. 

All drug felons released from prison: Males; 
Number of prisoner releases: 44,230; 
Percentage distribution of prisoner releases: 86%. 

All drug felons released from prison: Females; 
Number of prisoner releases: 7,092; 
Percentage distribution of prisoner releases: 14%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics National 
Corrections Reporting Program data for 2001 and data from selected 
states. 

Note: The 14 states are Alabama, Arizona, California, Georgia, Kansas, 
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South 
Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. The 4 excluded states are 
Alaska, Delaware, Montana, and Wyoming. We also excluded states that 
implemented the ban in 2001 but have since modified or opted out of the 
ban. 

[A] New court commitments include only those offenders who were 
sentenced to prison on a new conviction for a drug offense. 

[End of table]

Methods of Estimating the Percentage of Drug Felons That Meet TANF 
Eligibility Requirements: 

To receive TANF assistance, an assistance unit (such as a household) 
must meet the state-mandated definition of a needy family: It must 
either contain at least one child living with an adult relative or 
consist of a pregnant woman. The adult guardian must be related to the 
child by blood, adoption, or marriage (or, if the state provides, the 
adult may stand in for parents if none exist). Further, TANF recipients 
must in general be either U.S. citizens or qualified aliens who entered 
the United States prior to the passage of PRWORA on August 22, 1996, or 
who have lived in the United States for a period of 5 years. States may 
also impose other conditions for receipt of TANF benefits. 

We used data from the 1997 version of the BJS Inmate Survey to estimate 
the percentage of drug offenders who were custodial parents and who had 
monthly incomes within state-determined earned income limits. For 
estimation purposes, we defined a drug offender in the inmate survey as 
a custodial parent if the offender met three conditions: (1) reported 
being the parent of at least one minor child, (2) reported living with 
the child prior to being incarcerated, and (3) reported that the child 
was not in foster care or agency care while the offender was in prison. 
We computed the number of prisoners who met these conditions, and from 
these counts, we estimated the percentages of drug offenders that met 
these conditions. As the data were drawn from a sample, we used 
weighting factors provided by BJS that were based on the original 
probabilities of being selected into the sample that were adjusted for 
nonresponse and information about the sex, race, age, prison security 
level, and type of offense of the total prison population to produce 
national-level estimates. We estimated the percentages separately by 
gender and region of the country. Table 10 shows our estimates of the 
percentage of convicted drug felons that were reported to be parents 
and custodial parents (based on our definition) of minor children. 

Table 10: Estimated Parental Status of Drug Offenders, by Gender and 
Region of the Country: 

Gender of drug offenders: Female offenders: 

Region of drug offenders: Northeast; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were parents of minor children: 
64.1%; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were custodial parents of minor 
children[A]: 35.1%. 

Region of drug offenders: Midwest; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were parents of minor children: 
69.9%; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were custodial parents of minor 
children[A]: 48.1%. 

Region of drug offenders: South; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were parents of minor children: 
66.4%; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were custodial parents of minor 
children[A]: 44.6%. 

Region of drug offenders: West; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were parents of minor children: 
62.5%; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were custodial parents of minor 
children[A]: 29.9%. 

Gender of drug offenders: Male offenders: 

Region of drug offenders: Northeast; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were parents of minor children: 
61.4%; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were custodial parents of minor 
children[A]: 24.5%. 

Region of drug offenders: Midwest; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were parents of minor children: 
66.6%; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were custodial parents of minor 
children[A]: 31.0%. 

Region of drug offenders: South; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were parents of minor children: 
65.0%; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were custodial parents of minor 
children[A]: 29.1%. 

Region of drug offenders: West; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were parents of minor children: 
65.3%; 
Percentage of drug offenders that were custodial parents of minor 
children[A]: 30.8%. 

Source: GAO analysis of BJS Survey of Inmates of State Correctional 
Facilities, 1997. 

[A] We defined custodial parents as inmates that had minor children, 
lived with them prior to their incarceration, and whose children were 
not in foster care or agency care while they were incarcerated. 

[End of table]

We also estimated the income distributions for drug offender parents 
who reported living with their children. In the BJS survey, income is 
reported as the offender's total income in the month prior to the 
arrest leading to the incarceration. Monthly income can be from any 
source and may include illegal income. We omitted from our analysis 
those offenders who reported income from illegal sources, and we 
included only offenders who reported earned income or who were 
unemployed prior to their imprisonment. Offenders who were unemployed 
prior to their imprisonment received a value of zero for earned income. 
We estimated the income distributions separately by gender and region 
to account for differences in employment and earnings between male and 
female offenders, and offenders in different states. We applied the 
regional income distributions to all states within a region, as the BJS 
data did not report the state in which the offender was incarcerated. 

From the income distributions, we estimated the gender-specific 
percentages of drug offenders who had incomes at or below state-
determined earned income limits. The BJS inmate survey data report 
income in intervals, and in many cases, the intervals do not correspond 
directly with the state earned income limits. Therefore, we selected 
income intervals that were as near to the state earned income limits as 
feasible. We generally selected two income intervals for each state: 
one that contained the state earned income limit level but whose lower 
bound was less than the state level, and one that contained the state 
earned income limit but whose upper bound was above the state level. In 
this way, we obtained upper-and lower-bound estimates of the potential 
impacts of the TANF ban. 

To obtain estimates of the percentage of drug offenders released from 
prison who were both custodial parents and were income eligible for 
TANF, as defined above, we applied the gender-specific estimates of the 
percentage of prisoners in each region of the country that met the 
specific TANF eligibility criteria to state-specific counts of the 
number of drug felons released from prison. We used the region of the 
country within which a state was located to obtain estimates for a 
specific state. The result of these operations was to obtain estimates 
of the percentage of drug offenders released from prison who were both 
custodial parents and were income eligible for TANF, as defined above. 
The estimated percentages of drug offenders released from prison that 
met these conditions are shown in table 11. 

Table 11: Estimated Percentages of Drug Offenders Released from Prison 
in 2001 That Met Selected Guardianship and Earned Income Limits to 
Receive TANF benefits: 

Total; 
Estimated percentage of drug offenders released from prison that were 
custodial parents[A] and income eligible for TANF: Lower bound: 13.6%; 
Estimated percentage of drug offenders released from prison that were 
custodial parents[A] and income eligible for TANF: Upper bound: 16.4%. 

Males; 
Estimated percentage of drug offenders released from prison that were 
custodial parents[A] and income eligible for TANF: Lower bound: 11.7%; 
Estimated percentage of drug offenders released from prison that were 
custodial parents[A] and income eligible for TANF: Upper bound: 14.5%. 

Females; 
Estimated percentage of drug offenders released from prison that were 
custodial parents[A] and income eligible for TANF: Lower bound: 25.4%; 
Estimated percentage of drug offenders released from prison that were 
custodial parents[A] and income eligible for TANF: Upper bound: 28.4%. 

Source: GAO analysis of BJS inmate survey data and data for selected 
states as provided by state corrections and court officials. 

[A] "Custodial parent" is defined as one who lived with minor children 
prior to incarceration and whose minor children were not in foster care 
while the offender was incarcerated. 

[End of table]

Limitations to the Estimates: 

We were unable to take into account all of the factors that determine 
whether drug offenders met the eligibility criteria to receive TANF. 
Some of these factors could contribute to reducing the estimated 
percentages of drug offenders who were otherwise eligible; others could 
possibly contribute to increasing the estimated percentages. In 
addition, our estimates for drug offenders released from prison in a 
given year do not apply to drug felons who were sentenced to probation. 
Finally, we are unable to provide an estimate of the percentage of drug 
offenders potentially affected by the ban for the entire period since 
it was implemented. 

Factors Contributing to a Decrease in the Percentage of Drug Felons 
That Would Be Otherwise Eligible to Receive TANF: 

Data limitations preclude our explicitly taking into account all of the 
factors that are related to TANF eligibility. Factors affecting TANF 
eligibility for which we do not have data are the citizenship status 
and length of residency of noncitizens, state-imposed work requirements 
to receive TANF, and individual choices to participate in the program. 
While we were unable to estimate the effect of these factors on our 
estimated percentages that might have been eligible to receive TANF, 
these factors would contribute to lowering our estimates of the 
percentage of drug offenders released from prison that might have been 
eligible to receive TANF. 

Several of the states whose data we analyzed have relatively large 
populations of noncitizens. In general, to qualify for TANF, aliens 
must have at least 5 years of residence in the United States since 
August 22, 1996. Given that our estimates are for 2001, it is unlikely 
that many aliens among convicted drug felons would have qualified for 
TANF. Hence, taking the alien qualification into account would lower 
our estimates of the percentage of drug felons potentially affected by 
the TANF ban. For 2003, ACF reports that 8 percent of adult TANF 
recipients were qualified aliens. 

Individuals within needy families who do not participate in state-
determined work requirements could lose their TANF eligibility. Failing 
to comply with work requirements would reduce the percentage of drug 
offenders that were otherwise eligible to receive TANF. 

In the general population, adult males constitute comparatively small 
numbers of TANF recipients. According to ACF, in 2001 adult males 
constituted about 9 percent of all adult TANF recipients. If we applied 
the general population adult male TANF recipiency rate to our estimates 
of the percentage of all drug offenders released from prison, our 
estimated impact of the TANF ban would be revised downward to about 4 
percent of all of drug offenders released from prison in 2001. 

Change in Status after Release from Prison Could Increase the 
Percentage of Drug Felons Affected by the Ban: 

One factor that could change the estimated percentage of convicted drug 
felons eligible to receive TANF benefits and therefore potentially 
affected by the ban is a change in a felon's eligibility to receive 
TANF. Our estimates of the percentage of prisoners that may be eligible 
to receive TANF are based on attributes existing at the time that 
offenders were in prison. Upon release, these attributes may change, 
and an offender might become otherwise eligible for TANF and therefore 
potentially be affected by the ban. For example, if a drug offender was 
reunited with his or her children after release and met other 
eligibility requirements, this would contribute to increasing the 
percentage of released prisoners that were eligible to receive TANF. 
Alternatively, imprisonment may be a factor that reduces contact with 
children and therefore contributes to decreasing the percentage of drug 
offenders released from prison that are eligible to receive TANF. 

Drug Felons Sentenced to Probation: 

In recent years, drug felons sentenced to probation account for about 
one-third of all convicted and sentenced drug felons. We did not apply 
the information about drug offenders in prison to the drug felons 
sentenced to probation. This is because we do not have data on the 
parental and income characteristics of drug felons sentenced to 
probation. To the extent the drug felons sentenced to probation have 
characteristics similar to those of drug felons released from prison, 
the estimated percentage of probationers that may be eligible to 
receive benefits would be similar to those estimated percentages among 
released prisoners. However, if income levels and other factors differ 
between probationers and prisoners, this could affect the estimates of 
the percentages that would be eligible to receive benefits. 

Drug Offenders Affected since the Ban Went into Effect: 

We do not provide an estimate of all drug offenders potentially 
affected by the ban on TANF since it went into effect. We were unable 
to obtain data on the number of persons convicted of drug felonies 
since the ban went into effect in 1996, as only limited data are 
available. Over time, an individual's attributes that are related to 
TANF eligibility may change. Convicted drug felons who did not have 
characteristics that would make them eligible to receive TANF at one 
point in time could develop these attributes at a later point in time. 
Conversely, the circumstances of convicted drug felons who at one point 
in time were otherwise eligible to receive TANF could change so that 
they are no longer otherwise eligible. To understand the long-term 
impacts of the ban therefore would require data that track individuals 
over time and measure changes in their characteristics that are related 
to TANF eligibility. We know of no such national data on drug 
offenders. 

Our estimates of the percentage of drug offenders released from prison 
in a given year who are potentially affected by the ban represent lower-
bound estimates of the proportion of drug offenders released from 
prison during that year that would ever be affected by the ban. If, 
among those released from prison and estimated not to be eligible to 
receive TANF, any persons became eligible at a later date, this would 
increase the percentage of persons potentially affected by the ban. 
Consequently, the long-term impacts of the ban would be greater than 
the impacts that we estimated for the 1-year release cohort. Similarly, 
if the 1-year estimates of the percentage potentially affected by the 
ban were to hold over time, then a larger percentage of all convicted 
drug felons would be potentially affected by the ban since its 
inception than the percentages that we estimated for 1 year. 

Data and Methods Used to Estimate the Potential Impact of the Ban on 
Food Stamps: 

We focused our analysis of the potential impact of the ban on food 
stamps on drug offenders that were reported to be custodial parents of 
minor children. According to USDA, in fiscal year 2003, adult 
households with children (containing either one or two adults) 
constituted 73 percent of food stamp recipients. Consequently, this is 
likely to be the largest group of drug offenders that could be affected 
by the food stamp ban. We were unable to develop a quantitative 
estimate of the percentage of able-bodied adults without dependents 
(ABAWD) that could be affected by the food stamp ban. ABAWDs, in 
general, may receive food stamps for 3 months within a given 3-year 
period or longer if they adhere to the work requirements specifically 
laid out for ABAWDs. However, we were unable to determine which drug 
offenders constituted the potential pool of ABAWDs. We further gave the 
potential ABAWDs recipients separate consideration because, according 
to USDA reports, in 2003, they constitute 2.5 percent of food stamp 
recipients nationwide even though they form a large share of the 
general population of such persons. We also did not attempt to develop 
an estimate of the impact of the ban for elderly and disabled drug 
offenders. 

For 2003, USDA reported that adult households with children (containing 
either one or two adults) constitute 73 percent of food stamp 
recipients. In contrast, elderly individuals living alone constitute 6 
percent of food stamp recipients, and disabled nonelderly individuals 
living alone constitute 5 percent of food stamp recipients. Single-
adult households--which according to USDA do not contain children, 
elderly individuals, or disabled individuals--constitute 6 percent of 
food stamp recipients. Therefore, adult households with children 
receive food stamps at a rate greater than 12 times the rate at which 
single-adult households receive food stamps. The percentage of single 
adult households receiving food stamps is higher than the percentage of 
ABAWDs receiving food stamps because an individual is not considered an 
ABAWD if the person is pregnant, exempt from work registration, or over 
50 years of age.[Footnote 27]

For 12 of 15 states that maintain the full ban on food stamps, we 
obtained data on the drug felons released from prison during 2001 
(given that they entered prison during 1997 or thereafter). The 12 
states are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, 
North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and West 
Virginia. The 3 excluded states for which we were unable to obtain data 
were Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming. A total of 67,000 drug offenders 
were released in 2001 in the 12 states, and of these, 30,000 were first 
releases from new court commitments. 

We used the BJS inmate survey data to estimate the percentage of drug 
felony prisoners who were parents living with their minor children and 
whose children were not in foster care while they were incarcerated. 
This was our operational definition for a custodial parent. For these, 
we estimated the percentage who had gross incomes within the poverty 
thresholds, based on estimates of family size. Food stamp eligibility 
is based on gross and net income tests. Because data on the deductions 
that are used in determining whether households meet the net income 
tests were not available, our estimates are at best gross income tests. 
We are unable to determine how our use of the gross income test alone 
affects our estimates of the percentage of drug felons released from 
prison that would have been eligible to receive food stamps. 

In general, ABAWDs may receive food stamp benefits for an extended 
duration as long as they meet ABAWD-specific work requirements. This 
means that a large percentage of drug felons could be eligible to 
receive, and therefore potentially be denied, food stamps as long as 
they fell within the income threshold to receive food stamps. However, 
among all food stamp recipients, ABAWDs constitute only 2.5 percent of 
the total. Hence, while we cannot estimate the percentage of ABAWDs 
within the drug offender pool that would be otherwise eligible to 
receive food stamps, the ABAWD participation rate in food stamps in 
general would suggest that relatively few drug offenders who fall into 
this category would participate in the program. 

Data on the Race of Drug Offenders Who Meet Selected TANF Eligibility 
Criteria: 

We assessed the impacts of the denial of TANF and food stamp benefits 
by estimating the percentage of convicted drug felons released from 
prison who were otherwise eligible to receive the benefits. To assess 
whether impacts vary by race, we first assessed whether the percentage 
of drug offenders who met the same eligibility requirements that we 
used to assess the overall impacts of the TANF and food stamp bans 
varied according to race. For example, if larger proportions of black 
than white drug offenders were custodial parents of minor children and 
had earned income that permitted them to qualify for TANF, then we 
would expect to find larger percentages of black drug offenders to be 
affected by the TANF ban, regardless of the racial composition of the 
group of all drug offenders released from prison. 

We used the BJS inmate survey data to compare the estimated percentages 
of black and white drug offenders who were custodial parents (as we 
defined the term previously) and had earned incomes that could qualify 
them to receive TANF. As before, we estimated these percentages by 
gender and region. Our estimates indicated that in one region (the 
South), the percentage of black female drug offenders who were 
otherwise eligible to receive TANF differed from the percentage of 
otherwise eligible white female drug offenders. A larger percentage of 
black female drug offenders in that region were estimated to be 
eligible to receive TANF than white female drug offenders in the 
region. Among male drug offenders, we estimated differences in 
eligibility for TANF in two regions. For both female and male drug 
offenders, the differences in estimated TANF eligibility arose from 
differences in incomes, as there were no differences in the percentage 
of black and white drug offenders that were estimated to be custodial 
parents. 

[End of section]

Appendix III: Denial of Federal Postsecondary Education Benefits to 
Drug Offenders: 

This appendix describes the legal framework for denying federal higher 
education benefits to drug offenders, how the federal provision is 
administered, our methods for estimating the number of students 
affected by the federal provisions, and the impacts of the federal 
provision. 

Legal Framework for Denying Federal Higher Education Benefits: 

The Higher Education Act of 1965,[Footnote 28] as amended, provides for 
the suspension of certain federal higher education benefits to students 
who have been convicted for the possession or sale of a controlled 
substance under federal or state law.[Footnote 29] The controlled 
substance offense may be either a felony or a misdemeanor. Federal 
higher education benefits that are denied to such individuals include 
student loans, Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity 
Grants, and the Federal Work-Study program.[Footnote 30]

The Higher Education Act provision outlines different periods for which 
such drug offenders are ineligible to receive certain federal higher 
education benefits, depending upon the type and number of controlled 
substance convictions. The period of ineligibility begins on the date 
of conviction and ends after a specified interval. Table 12 illustrates 
the period of ineligibility for the federal higher education benefits, 
according to the type and number of convictions. 

Table 12: Periods of Ineligibility for Federal Higher Education 
Assistance Based on Type and Number of Controlled Substance Offense 
Convictions: 

Type and number of drug convictions: Possession of a controlled 
substance: 

Type and number of drug convictions: First offense; 
Period of Ineligibility: 1 year. 

Type and number of drug convictions: Second offense; 
Period of Ineligibility: 2 years. 

Type and number of drug convictions: Third offense; 
Period of Ineligibility: Indefinite. 

Type and number of drug convictions: Sale of a controlled substance: 

Type and number of drug convictions: First offense; 
Period of Ineligibility: 2 years. 

Type and number of drug convictions: Second offense; 
Period of Ineligibility: Indefinite. 

Source: GAO analysis of Section 484 of the Higher Education Act of 
1965, as amended (see 20 U.S.C.  1091(r)). 

[End of table]

This Higher Education Act provision allows for eligibility for federal 
higher education to be restored prior to the end of the period of 
ineligibility if either one of two conditions is met. First, a student 
satisfactorily completes a drug rehabilitation program that includes 
two unannounced drug tests and complies with criteria established by 
the Secretary of Education. Second, a student has his or her drug 
conviction reversed, set aside, or nullified. 

Administration of the Denial of Federal Higher Education Benefits: 

The provisions of federal law mandating the denial of certain federal 
higher education benefits were implemented beginning in July 2000 by 
requiring students who applied for federal assistance to self-report 
disqualifying drug convictions. Students must self-report disqualifying 
drug convictions through the Department of Education's Free Application 
for Federal Student Aid, a form that any student who wishes to receive 
federal student aid must complete.[Footnote 31] The FAFSA is available 
online and is free to use. ED uses the information that applicants 
provide on their FAFSA to determine their eligibility for aid from the 
Federal Student Aid (FSA) programs. Colleges and universities in 49 
states also use information from the FAFSA in making their financial 
aid determinations. ED provides participating colleges and universities 
with a formula to use when making decisions about financial assistance. 

Applicants who either report that they have a drug conviction that 
affects their eligibility or those applicants who do not answer the 
question about drug convictions are automatically ineligible to receive 
federal higher education assistance in the academic year for which they 
sought aid.[Footnote 32] (Below, we refer to this group as FAFSA 
ineligibles.) The drug conviction worksheet of the FAFSA also notifies 
students that even though a drug conviction may render them ineligible 
to receive federal higher education assistance in the application year, 
individuals may still be eligible to receive aid from their state or 
their academic institution. 

Methods for Estimating the Numbers of Persons and Amounts of Federal 
Assistance Affected by the Provisions: 

For several reasons, not all of the FAFSA applicants who self-report a 
disqualifying drug conviction would otherwise have been eligible to 
receive federal assistance; hence, the number of applications 
containing self-reported disqualifying drug offenses overstates the 
number of persons denied federal postsecondary education assistance 
because of a drug offense conviction. 

First, not all FAFSA applicants are eligible to receive all types of 
federal postsecondary education assistance. For example, some 
applicants may have incomes above the levels required to receive Pell 
Grants, and even if they self-reported a disqualifying drug conviction, 
they would not have been eligible to receive Pell Grants. Second, ED 
officials indicated that not all FAFSA applicants become enrolled in 
postsecondary education institutions, and these applicants are not 
eligible to receive federal postsecondary education assistance. Third, 
some individuals may complete the FAFSA application more than one time, 
and by counting only the number of applications, some individuals may 
be double-counted. 

To assess the impacts of the Higher Education Act's provisions that 
render students with disqualifying controlled substances convictions 
ineligible to receive federal postsecondary education assistance, we 
estimated the number of students who self-reported a disqualifying drug 
offense and, absent the controlled substances convictions provisions of 
the Higher Education Act, would have been qualified to receive 
assistance but because of the provisions would not have received 
assistance. 

We developed estimates of the number of applicants for Pell Grants and 
subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans (two of the best-funded 
federal postsecondary education assistance programs) and the total 
amounts of assistance lost, because of their self-reported controlled 
substances convictions. Our methods for estimating these quantities are 
as follows: 

* To estimate the number of students who were denied Pell Grants in a 
given year, we use ED data on the number of FAFSA applicants that 
either self-reported a disqualifying drug offense conviction or left 
this question blank, the group that we labeled as FAFSA ineligibles. 

* As applicants must meet needs-based criteria to make them eligible to 
receive Pell Grants, we then use ED data on the percentage of FAFSA 
applicants that were eligible to receive Pell Grants; we call this 
second group Pell Grant eligibles. 

* We use ED data on the percentage of Pell Grant eligibles that 
actually received Pell Grants, as not all of the students who were 
eligible to receive Pell Grants received them. By multiplying these 
quantities, we obtained a rough estimate of the number of persons who, 
absent the disqualifying drug offense conviction, would have received 
Pell Grants. 

* To estimate the dollar amount of Pell Grants that these recipients 
would have received, we multiplied the average amount of Pell Grants 
(which we obtained from ED) by the estimated number of students denied 
Pell Grants. 

To estimate the number of student loan recipients who were denied 
assistance because of disqualifying drug convictions, we followed a 
method similar to the one that we used to estimate the numbers denied 
Pell Grants. 

* Specifically, beginning with the data on FAFSA ineligibles, we 
applied to this number the percentage of all FAFSA applicants that 
received a student loan. We could not obtain an estimate of the number 
of FAFSA applicants that were eligible to receive student loans 
because, as ED reports, unlike Pell Grants, where there are income 
limitations that can be used to determine eligibility, with student 
loans, eligibility is determined by both income and institution-
specific factors (such as tuition). Thus, our estimate is of the number 
of FAFSA ineligibles that would have received a student loan but for 
their controlled substances convictions. 

* To estimate the amount of student loans denied, we multiplied our 
estimate of the number denied student loans by the average amount of a 
student loan. 

Critical Assumptions in Estimating the Number of Pell Grant and Student 
Loan Recipients Denied Federal Benefits because of Disqualifying 
Controlled Substances Convictions: 

In order to create our estimates for the number of individuals who 
would have received a Pell Grant or a student loan if not for their 
drug conviction, we assume that the characteristics of FAFSA eligibles 
are the same as the characteristics of FAFSA ineligibles. This 
assumption means that the percentage of FAFSA applicants who are 
eligible to receive federal higher education assistance should be the 
same for FAFSA ineligibles (apart from the drug conviction). 

Income is an important determinant of eligibility for both Pell Grants 
and student loans. Specifically, financial need is determined by ED 
using a standard formula established by Congress to evaluate the 
applicant's FAFSA and to determine the student's Expected Family 
Contribution (EFC). The EFC calculation includes various data elements 
including income, number of dependents, net assets, marital status, and 
other specified additional expenses incurred. Different assessment 
rates are used for dependent students, independent students without 
dependents, and independent students with dependents. After filing the 
FAFSA, a student is notified if he or she is eligible for a federal 
Pell Grant and of the student's EFC. 

On the one hand, if FAFSA ineligibles on average have lower incomes 
than FAFSA eligibles, then our estimates of the number of students 
denied benefits are likely to be underestimates of the true number 
denied benefits. This is because we rely on the information about 
eligibility for Pell Grants and student loans from the persons who were 
eligible to receive them, not from the population who are otherwise 
eligible but for their disqualifying drug convictions. On the other 
hand, if FAFSA ineligibles are less likely to be enrolled in 
postsecondary education institutions, as compared with FAFSA eligibles, 
then our estimates of the number denied benefits are likely to 
overestimate the true number denied benefits. 

Data Used to Estimate the Numbers and Amounts Denied Federal 
Assistance: 

Table 13 shows the data that we used to estimate the numbers and 
amounts of federal postsecondary education assistance that was forgone 
to students who, absent their controlled substances convictions, would 
have received federal postsecondary education assistance. The data are 
provided annually for academic years 2001-2002 through 2003-2004. The 
key data elements used to estimate the numbers and amounts of federal 
assistance denied include: 

* the number of FAFSA applicants and FAFSA ineligibles,

* the percentage of Pell Grant eligibles among all FAFSA applicants,

* the percentage of Pell Grant recipients among Pell Grant eligibles,

* the average amount of Pell Grant received,

* the percentage of FAFSA applicants that received student loans, and: 

* the average amount of student loan received. 

The number of FAFSA ineligibles declined from 58,929 in academic year 
2001-2002 to 41,061 in academic year 2003-2004.[Footnote 33] We note 
that FAFSA ineligibles amount to less than 0.5 percent of all FAFSA 
applications. 

Table 13: Data Used to Estimate the Number of Persons Denied Federal 
Education Assistance because of Drug Convictions and Estimated Amount 
of Federal Assistance Denied: 

Number of FAFSA applications; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: 10,961,421; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: 12,021,249; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: 13,009,596. 

FAFSA ineligibles; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: 58,929; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: 42,537; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: 41,061. 

Self-reported drug conviction; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: 48,642; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: 37,451; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: 34,914. 

Drug conviction question not answered; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: 10,287; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: 5,086; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: 6,147. 

FAFSA ineligibles as a percentage of all FAFSA applicants; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: 0.5%; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: 0.4%; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: 0.3%. 

Pell Grant eligibles, recipients, and amounts: 

Percentage of Pell Grant eligibles among FAFSA applicants; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: 51.5%; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: 52.4%; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: 58.0% [A]. 

Percentage of Pell Grant recipients among Pell Grant eligibles; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: 76.9%; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: 75.9%; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: 77.0% [A]. 

Average amount of Pell Grant; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: $2,298; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: $2,436; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: $2,467[B]. 

Stafford student loan recipients and amounts[C]: 

Percentage of FAFSA applicants receiving student loans; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: 70.0% [A]; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: 70.0%[A]; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: 70.0% [A]. 

Average amount of student loan; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: Subsidized loan: $3,378; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: Unsubsidized loan: $3,970; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: Subsidized loan: $3,405; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: Unsubsidized loan: $4,063; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: Subsidized loan: $3,469[B]; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: Unsubsidized loan: $4,162[B]. 

Sources: GAO analysis of FAFSA data provided by the Department of 
Education's FSA Central Processing System; Department of Education data 
on Pell Grant and student loan recipients. 

[A] Estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office. 

[B] Estimates provided by the Department of Education. 

[C] The amounts that may be borrowed are the same whether a student 
receives a Stafford Loan through the Federal Family Education Loan 
(FFEL) Program or through the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan 
Program. 

[End of table]

Estimates of the Numbers and Amounts of Federal Assistance Affected by 
Controlled Substances Convictions: 

In the academic years from 2001-2002 through 2003-2004, we estimated 
that between 17,000 and 23,000 students were denied Pell Grants because 
of their drug convictions, and that the total estimated amount of Pell 
Grants that these students would have received ranged from $41 million 
to $54 million. See table 14. 

Table 14: Estimated Number of Persons Denied Federal Education 
Assistance because of Drug Convictions and Estimated Amount of Federal 
Assistance Affected: 

Number of FAFSA ineligibles; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: 58,929; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: 42,537; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: 41,061. 

Estimated number and amounts of Pell Grants denied. 

Estimated number of students denied Pell Grants because of drug 
convictions, but who otherwise would have received them; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: 23,000; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: 17,000; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: 18,000. 

Estimated amount of Pell Grant denied to students; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: $54 million; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: $41 million; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: $45 million. 

Estimated number and amounts of student loans denied. 

Estimated number of students denied student loans because of drug 
convictions, but who otherwise would have received them; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: 41,000; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: 30,000; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: 29,000. 

Estimated amount of student loans denied to students[A]; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: Lower-bound Estimate: $139 million; 
Academic year: 2001-2002: Upper-bound estimate: $164 million; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: Lower-bound Estimate: $101 million; 
Academic year: 2002-2003: pper-bound estimate: $121 million; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: Lower-bound Estimate: $100 million; 
Academic year: 2003-2004: Upper-bound estimate: $120 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education data. 

[A] Lower-bound estimates were calculated using subsidized loan 
amounts, and upper-bound estimates were calculated using unsubsidized 
loan amounts. 

[End of table]

We provide annual estimates of the numbers affected because the period 
of benefit ineligibility can vary, and a student denied benefits in one 
year may become eligible to receive benefits in a subsequent year. 
Thus, the estimates for one year do not necessarily affect the 
estimates for another year. 

In academic year 2001-2002, there were 58,929 FAFSA ineligibles. During 
that same year 51.5 percent of FAFSA applicants were eligible to 
receive Pell Grants, and 76.9 percent of those who were eligible 
received Pell Grants (as shown in table 13). Multiplying the 58,929 by 
the 51.5 percent and then multiplying this result by the 76.9 percent 
results in the estimate of 23,000 individuals denied Pell Grants who 
otherwise would have received them. To obtain the amount of Pell Grant 
lost to these students during academic year 2001-2002, we multiplied 
our estimated number of students denied Pell Grants (23,000) by the 
average amount of a Pell Grant in academic year 2001-2002 ($2,298). 

Table 14 also shows that between academic year 2001-2002 and academic 
year 2003-2004, an estimated 29,000 to 41,000 students per year would 
have received student loans if not for their drug convictions. The 
estimated total amount of student loans forgone by these students 
ranged between $100 million and $164 million per year. 

Estimates of the Impacts of the President's Proposed Changes to the 
Rules for Denying Drug Offenders' Federal Postsecondary Education 
Assistance: 

The President's fiscal year 2005 budget contained a proposal that would 
have changed the administration of the Higher Education Act provision 
relating to eligibility for federal higher education benefits. Federal 
law disqualifies students who have been convicted of controlled 
substance offenses, in accordance with the period of ineligibility in 
table 12, from receiving federal higher education assistance.[Footnote 
34] As currently implemented by the Department of Education, 
disqualifying convictions are those drug convictions on a student's 
record at the time the student's eligibility is being determined, using 
the rules on the FAFSA worksheet.[Footnote 35] Under the President's 
proposal--which was supported by the Office of National Drug Control 
and Prevention--students would be ineligible for federal higher 
education assistance only if they committed a disqualifying drug-
related offense while they are enrolled in higher education. This 
proposed change would make eligible all students whose controlled 
substance convictions occurred prior to enrolling in higher education. 

Because of data limitations, we are unable to provide reliable 
estimates of the impacts of the proposed changes contained in the 
President's fiscal year 2005 budget proposal. However, we expect that 
the proposal would lower our estimates for the numbers of students 
denied benefits because some individuals would regain their eligibility 
for benefits, and relatively few students enrolled in postsecondary 
education institutions would be expected to both use drugs and be 
convicted of drug crimes. 

Limited Data on the Long-Term Impacts of Denying Federal Postsecondary 
Education Assistance: 

While studies consistently show that the economic returns to higher 
education are positive, we cannot establish a direct link between the 
denial of federal postsecondary aid to students and a reduction in the 
amount of postsecondary education completed by those who were denied 
aid. Moreover, officials at ONDCP also suggested that the provisions of 
the Higher Education Act that provide for denying educational aid to 
drug offenders might contribute a deterrent effect on drug use. 
Similarly, we were unable to identify studies that assess whether 
provisions of the HEA actually helped to deter drug use. Additionally, 
we are unable to address the question of whether these provisions of 
the HEA that deny higher education benefits to drug offenders result in 
net positive or negative effects on society because we were unable to 
find research that conclusively indicates whether these provisions of 
the HEA led individuals to forgo postsecondary education or deterred 
individuals from engaging in drug use and drug-related criminal 
activities. 

Additional formal education--e.g., completing high school or attending 
or completing postsecondary education--has been demonstrated to 
increase annual and lifetime earnings. In its review of the returns to 
education, the U.S. Census Bureau concluded that increases in formal 
education had a positive impact on annual earnings. For example, the 
U.S. Census Bureau reported that for full-time workers between the ages 
of 25 and 64 between 1997 and 1999 the average annual income for those 
who have not completed high school is $23,400, for high school 
graduates it is $30,400, and for those completing a bachelor's degree 
it is $52,200. Average annual income rises higher yet for those who 
obtain advanced degrees. 

This general pattern, that increases in formal education correlate with 
increases in annual earnings, also holds true across an individual's 
lifetime. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that the average lifetime 
earnings, based upon 1997-1999 work experience, for those who have not 
completed high school is approximately $1 million, for high school 
graduates it is $1.2 million, and for those completing a bachelor's 
degree it is $2.1 million. Again, the average lifetime earnings rise 
higher yet for those who obtain advanced degrees. Hence, college 
graduates can expect, on average, to earn nearly twice as much over a 
lifetime as those persons who have only a high school diploma and more 
than twice as much as those who have not completed high school. 

Similarly, a study published by the congressional Joint Economic 
Committee in January 2000 concluded that there is a strong consensus 
among economists that formal education has a positive impact not only 
on personal income but also on society. The study concluded that among 
the positive societal economic returns from increases in formal 
education are the creation of new knowledge (translating into the 
development of new processes and technologies) and the diffusion and 
transmission of knowledge (translating into the expansion of innovative 
techniques such as those found in the high-technology sector). Positive 
societal noneconomic improvements are also associated with increased 
amounts of formal education, which help Americans become better 
mothers, fathers, children, voters, and citizens. These positive 
noneconomic improvements are sometimes called positive neighborhood 
effects. Some of the positive neighborhood effects may be (1) more 
informed and interested voters, (2) decreases in crime, (3) decreased 
dependence upon certain types of public assistance, and (4) decreased 
incidence of illegitimate pregnancies. 

Although the census study and the study conducted by the Joint Economic 
Committee show positive economic and societal impacts of increased 
levels of education, the total net impacts of these benefits are 
difficult to quantify.[Footnote 36] Moreover, these studies do not 
comment on whether the loss of federal education assistance (as occurs 
for drug offenders through the provisions of the HEA) contributes to 
individuals' not completing postsecondary education, or whether those 
individuals who are denied federal education assistance generate the 
necessary funding to attend institutions of higher education in other 
ways. 

Also at issue is whether the provisions of the HEA that deny 
postsecondary education benefits to drug offenders contribute 
positively to society by providing a deterrent to drug use. Research on 
the costs to society from drug use, and drug-associated criminal 
involvement, demonstrated that these costs to society are high. 
Therefore, if the denial of federal higher education benefits deters 
people from engaging in drug crimes, then the provisions might have 
positive economic and noneconomic impacts on society. Some of the 
positive affects of deterrence may include reductions in drug-related 
health care costs, reductions in drug-related crime and associated 
criminal justice costs, and increased national economic productivity. 
In addition, for many offenders and in particular for first-time drug 
offenders, the denial of postsecondary education benefits may delay 
entry into postsecondary education rather than prevent it. 

Limited Data on Racial Minorities and the Denial of Federal 
Postsecondary Education Benefits: 

With the available data, we were unable to determine whether the 
provisions of the Higher Education Act that provide for denial of 
postsecondary education benefits would affect relatively larger or 
smaller numbers of minorities. The FAFSA does not request information 
about applicants' race; therefore ED does not have data on the racial 
distribution of applicants or FAFSA ineligibles. Without data on the 
race of applicants for federal student aid, it is not possible to 
determine whether minorities are denied aid at higher rates than 
whites. 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics' Survey of Adults on Probation in 
1995, which is the only national survey of probationers that includes 
data on the type of offense of conviction and educational attainment, 
indicates that there may be racial differences in the levels of 
educational attainment of drug offenders. The survey indicates that 
black and Hispanic drug offenders on probation complete high school at 
a lower rate than white drug offenders on probation. Specifically, 
while 68 percent of white drug offenders on probation had completed 
high school, 51 percent of black and 46 percent of Hispanic drug 
offenders on probation had completed high school. As completing high 
school (or gaining a general equivalency degree) is a prerequisite for 
enrollment in postsecondary education, these data suggest that lower 
proportions of black and Hispanic drug offenders (at least drug 
offenders on probation) would be eligible to enroll in postsecondary 
educational institutions and would therefore be eligible for federal 
higher education assistance. 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted Housing Benefits for Drug-
Related Criminal Activity: 

This appendix provides background on the legal and administrative 
frameworks for denying federally assisted housing benefits to persons 
who engage in drug-related criminal activities, our methods for 
estimating the numbers of persons denied benefits, and how we assessed 
the available data on racial minorities and the limited information on 
potential impacts. 

Legal Framework Relating to the Denial of Housing Benefits for Drug-
Related Criminal Activity: 

Federal law contains a variety of provisions relating to the denial of 
federally assisted housing benefits for certain types of drug-related 
criminal activity. These provisions relate to, among other things, (1) 
who may lose eligibility for federally assisted housing benefits 
because of drug-related criminal activity and (2) screening tools for 
the providers of federally assisted housing to use to determine 
ineligibility for such housing benefits. Motivation for prohibiting 
drug offenders from public housing is reflected, in part, in 
congressional findings made in 1990 and amended in 1998, about drug-
related criminal activities in public housing; these findings stated, 
in part, that (1) "drug dealers are increasingly imposing a reign of 
terror on public and other federally assisted low-income housing 
tenants," (2) "the increase in drug-related crime not only leads to 
murders, muggings, and other forms of violence against tenants, but 
also to a deterioration of the physical environment," and (3) "the 
Federal government has a duty to provide public and other federally 
assisted low-income housing that is decent, safe, and free from illegal 
drugs."[Footnote 37]

Public housing agencies, which are typically local agencies created 
under state law that, under Department of Housing and Urban Development 
guidance, manage and develop public housing units for low-income 
families, are required, for example, to utilize leases that provide 
that any drug-related criminal activity on or off the premises by a 
public housing tenant shall be cause for termination of the 
tenancy.[Footnote 38] This provision also specifically applies to drug-
related criminal activity by any member of the tenant's household or 
any guest or other person under the tenant's control. Similarly, 
federal law requires PHAs and owners of federally assisted housing to 
establish standards or lease provisions that allow for the termination 
of the tenancy or assistance for any household with a member who the 
PHA or owner determines is illegally using a controlled 
substance.[Footnote 39] Federal law further specifies that tenants 
evicted from federally assisted housing by reason of drug-related 
criminal activity are to be ineligible for federally assisted housing 
for a 3-year period, although evicted tenants that successfully 
complete an approved rehabilitation program may regain their 
eligibility before the 3-year period ends. 

Under federal law and implementing regulations, PHAs have the 
discretion to evict tenants for drug-related criminal activity but are 
not required to evict such tenants. Rather, they are required to use 
leases that provide that any drug-related criminal activity on or off 
the premises by a public housing tenant shall be cause for termination 
of the tenancy. Implementing regulations by the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development relating to termination provide that a 
determination of such criminal activity may be made regardless of 
whether a person has been arrested or convicted of such activity and 
without satisfying a criminal conviction standard of proof of the 
activity.[Footnote 40]

With respect to methamphetamine convictions, PHAs are required under 
federal law to establish standards to immediately and permanently 
terminate a tenancy as well as permanently prohibit occupancy in public 
housing for persons convicted of certain methamphetamine offenses 
occurring on public housing premises. PHAs do not have discretion in 
evicting these persons, and the standards also require that Housing 
Choice Voucher Program (formerly Section 8 low-income housing) 
participation be denied to such persons. 

Federal law also provides various screening tools to assist with 
determining possible ineligibility of tenants and applicants for 
federally assisted housing benefits because of drug-related criminal 
activity. These tools come primarily in the form of access to certain 
types of information. For example, under federal law, housing 
assistance agencies are authorized to request access to criminal 
conviction records from police departments and other law enforcement 
agencies for the purposes of applicant screening, lease enforcement, 
and eviction. PHAs have the authority under certain conditions to 
request access to such information with respect to tenants and 
applicants for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Public housing 
authorities are also authorized under federal law to require that 
applicants provide written consent for the public housing authorities 
to obtain certain types of records, such as criminal conviction records 
and drug abuse treatment facility records.[Footnote 41]

HUD and PHA Roles in Denying Federally Assisted Housing Benefits for 
Reasons of Drug-Related Criminal Activities: 

HUD is responsible for establishing the rules and providing guidance to 
PHAs in their administration of federally assisted housing benefits. 
PHAs can manage a single program or multiple HUD programs. HUD's Office 
of Public and Indian Housing oversees the two key rental housing 
assistance programs that we reviewed, namely the Low-Rent Public 
Housing Assistance Program (also referred to as low-rent, or public 
housing) and the HCV Program. 

During the 1990s, PHAs gained broader latitude from HUD and Congress to 
establish their own policies in areas such as selecting 
tenants.[Footnote 42] This included increased latitude in taking 
actions to deny federally assisted housing benefits to persons 
receiving housing benefits and to applicants for benefits. HUD requires 
PHAs to submit for its review and approval annual plans that include, 
among other things, their policies for continuing occupancy and denying 
admission for drug-related criminal activities. 

Recent HUD guidance regarding denying federal housing benefits to 
persons engaged in drug-related criminal activities was issued in its 
"Final Rule," dated May 2001.[Footnote 43] The rule amended existing 
regulations regarding implementing the federally assisted housing 
tenant eviction and applicant screening provisions for drug-related 
criminal activities. 

PHAs' Policies to Address Drug-Related Criminal Activities Vary: 

Termination and admission policies can vary substantially among PHAs 
nationwide. In a baseline study (November 2000) of a stratified random 
sample of the PHAs that were responsible for managing federally 
assisted housing units in the HCV Program, HUD reviewed the 
discretionary authority among PHAs.[Footnote 44] HUD reported that the 
variation among PHAs in conducting criminal background checks could 
legitimately result in an applicant being barred by one PHA even though 
the applicant could otherwise be admitted by another PHA. Some of the 
variations reported in the study include differences in (1) the sources 
used to obtain information about criminal history and drug-related 
criminal activities (e.g., newspaper stories, resident complaints, self-
disclosure, official law enforcement records--federal, state, local); 
(2) the costs (paid by the PHA) associated with obtaining official law 
enforcement criminal background records; (3) the time span covered by 
the criminal history search; and (4) whether consideration is given to 
repeat offenses, only convictions, or arrests and convictions. 

We obtained and reviewed policies from seven of the largest PHAs having 
combined programs--Public Housing and HCV.[Footnote 45] Our review of 
their policies with respect to terminations and admissions for drug-
related criminal activities showed variations in the policies 
established to deny housing benefits. For example, policies regarding 
terminations of leases (for public housing tenants) or termination of 
assistance (for HCV recipients) vary in how they implement the drug-
related criminal activity provisions and in the scope of criminal 
background that can result in terminations: 

* Drug-related criminal activity provisions can range from certain 
types of prohibited behaviors (e.g., those that threaten the health and 
safety of other residents) to certain drug convictions (e.g., drug-
related criminal activity, and methamphetamine in particular). 

* Scope of criminal background can vary by the period of prior criminal 
history that can trigger termination of leases or assistance, the type 
of prohibited drug-related criminal activities (e.g., personal use, 
felonious distribution, etc.), or whether there was a conviction in the 
case. 

Analogously, PHA policies on admissions into public housing or into HCV 
can vary based on a number of factors, and these variations in policies 
can result in differences among PHAs in the types of drug offenders 
that are denied federally assisted housing. 

* Applicant screenings for drug-related criminal activity can occur in 
varying forms (such as an application, interview, or eligibility 
verification) and at varying times--such as before or after placement 
on the PHAs' waiting lists. 

* Sources of criminal history information used can vary, so some PHAs 
cast a wider net than others when searching for prohibited drug-related 
criminal activity. Sources can range from using only local law 
enforcement records to using Federal Bureau of Investigation/National 
Crime Information Center data. 

* Periods of ineligibility for prior evictions from federally assisted 
housing can vary by time frame and criminal activity (e.g., drug-
related or violent). Ineligibility periods ranged from 3 to 5 years. 

* The evidence standard for drug addiction can vary to include a 
reasonable cause to believe illegal drug use exists or self-disclosure 
of illegal use on the application itself. 

Number of Denials of Federally Assisted Housing Benefits: 

We obtained data from HUD on the number of evictions from and 
applicants denied admission into public housing during fiscal years 
2002 and 2003 for reasons of criminal activities. In each year, more 
than 98 percent of the PHAs that manage public housing responded to 
HUD's request for data about security within the units managed by the 
PHA, including information on evictions and applicants denied 
admission. HUD's information pertains to persons evicted or denied 
admission for reasons of criminal activity; these data do not 
distinguish between criminal activity and drug-related criminal 
activities. The HUD data also do not include measures of the number of 
tenants or of the total number of applicants screened. To adjust for 
differences in the size of the PHAs, we calculated a rate at which 
applicants were evicted or denied admission into public housing because 
of criminal activities that was based on the number of units maintained 
by all reporting PHAs. These data are reported in table 15. 

Table 15: Evictions from and Denials of Admission into Public Housing 
for Reasons of Criminal Activity, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003: 

Number of PHAs reporting data; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 3,103; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 3,113. 

Number of public housing units managed; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 1,164,089; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 1,156,735. 

Number of evictions from public housing for criminal activity; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 9,083; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 9,325. 

Number of applications denied admission into public housing for 
criminal activity; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 49,207; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 48,853. 

Evictions and denials as a percent of units managed by PHAs. 

Evictions as a percentage of units[A]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 0.8%; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 0.8%. 

Denials as a percentage of units[A]; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 4.2%; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 4.2%. 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD Management Operations Certification 
Assessment System (MASS) data. 

[A] Data on the total number of tenants or applicants were not reported 
in the MASS data that we obtained. 

[End of table]

During each of the fiscal years, 2002 and 2003, there were more than 
9,000 evictions (amounting to less than 1 percent of all units managed) 
because of criminal activities. There were about 49,000 applications 
for admission into public housing that were denied for reasons of 
criminal activities (amounting to about 4 percent of all units). As 
drug-related criminal activities are a subset of criminal activities, 
these data suggest that even if all of those evicted from public 
housing for reasons of criminal activity had engaged in drug-related 
criminal activities, terminations leading to evictions would amount to 
less than 1 percent of the public housing units managed by PHAs. 

Selected PHAs Mostly Report That Relatively Small Percentages of 
Tenants Leases Are Terminated for Reasons of Criminal Activity or Drug-
Related Criminal Activities: 

To gauge the extent to which PHAs denied federally assisted housing by 
terminating leases (leading to possible evictions) for drug-related 
criminal activities, we contacted 40 of the largest PHAs in the country 
and asked them to provide data on the number of actions[Footnote 46] 
that they took to evict tenants by terminating leases and of these, the 
numbers that were terminated for criminal activity and for drug-related 
criminal activity.[Footnote 47] Of the 40 PHAs that we contacted, we 
received data from 17. We assessed the data that these PHAs provided 
for reliability. 

As shown in table 16, 15 of 17 PHAs that responded to our request 
provided data on the total number of public housing termination of 
leases. The rate at which PHAs terminated leases for reasons of drug-
related criminal activities varied considerably, from 0 percent in 
Santa Clara County to 39.3 percent in Memphis. The Philadelphia PHA, 
which reported the largest number of lease terminations (2,324), 
reported terminating 50 of these leases (or 2.2 percent) for reasons of 
drug-related criminal activities. The Santa Clara County PHA terminated 
the smallest number of leases (1). Combined, the 13 PHAs that reported 
both the number of lease terminations and the number of terminations 
for drug-related criminal activities, reported ending a total of 9,249 
leases, and 520 of the terminations (or 5.6 percent of the total) were 
for drug-related criminal activities. 

Table 16: Public Housing Lease Terminations at Selected Public Housing 
Agencies, by Reason for Termination (Criminal Activities and Drug-
Related Criminal Activities), 2003: 

Public housing agency: Atlanta (GA); 320; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 78; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 24.4%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 38; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 11.9%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: 48.7%. 

Public housing agency: Cincinnati (OH); 721; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 21; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 2.9%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 13; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 1.8%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: 61.9%. 

Public housing agency: Cuyahoga County (OH); 1,654; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 102; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 6.2%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 84; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 5.1%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: 82.4%. 

Public housing agency: Indianapolis (IN); 207; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 36; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 17.4%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: [A]. 

Public housing agency: Jacksonville (FL); 1,299; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 70; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 5.4%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 47; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 3.6%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: 67.1%. 

Public housing agency: Los Angeles (CA, City of); 373; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 109; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 29.2%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 51; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 13.7%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: 46.8%. 

Public housing agency: Los Angeles (CA, County of); 170; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 51; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 30.0%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 26; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 15.3%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: 51.0%. 

Public housing agency: Memphis (TN); 28; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 17; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 60.7%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 11; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 39.3%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: 64.7%. 

Public housing agency: Nashville (TN); 260; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 148; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 56.9%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 90; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 34.6%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: 60.8%. 

Public housing agency: New Orleans (LA); 233; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 133; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 57.1%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 83; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 35.6%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: 62.4%. 

Public housing agency: Newark (NJ); 1,720; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 27; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 1.6%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 20; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 1.2%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: 74.1%. 

Public housing agency: Oakland (CA); 146; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 35; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 24.0%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 7; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 4.8%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: 20.0%. 

Public housing agency: Philadelphia (PA); 2,324; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 133; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 5.7%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 50; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 2.2%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: 37.6%. 

Public housing agency: Portland (OR); 65; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: [A]. 

Public housing agency: San Bernardino County (CA)[A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 8; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: [A]. 

Public housing agency: San Diego County (CA)[A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: [A]; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: [A]. 

Public housing agency: Santa Clara County (CA); 1; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Number: 0; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of leases: 0.0%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 0; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all terminations of leases: 0.0%; 
Public housing leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of terminations of leases for reasons of 
criminal activities: [B]. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from selected public housing agencies. 

[A] Data were missing or not reported. 

[B] Not applicable. 

[End of table]

Further, although the data on lease terminations for reasons of drug-
related criminal activities are not generalizable to all PHAs that 
manage public housing program units, the information that they provided 
on leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal activities, 
and our calculation of these numbers as a percentage of terminations 
for criminal activities, show wide variation in the extent to which 
drug-related criminal activities predominate among all criminal 
activities that can result in a termination of a lease. In Cuyahoga 
County, for example, 82.4 percent of lease terminations for criminal 
activity were terminations for drug-related criminal activities, but in 
Oakland, 20 percent of the terminations for criminal activity occurred 
as a result of drug-related criminal activities. A majority of the PHAs 
that reported these data also reported that the number of lease 
terminations and the reasons for them (i.e., criminal or drug-related 
criminal activities) were similar to or smaller than the numbers in the 
prior 3 years. 

As shown in table 17, 16 of the 17 PHA respondents were able to provide 
some (although often incomplete) data on actions taken to terminate HCV 
assistance during 2003. Nine of the 16 PHA respondents were able to 
provide data on the number of actions to terminate HCV assistance for 
reasons of drug-related criminal activity or criminal activity. 
However, only 5 of the 9 respondents were able to provide data on the 
number of actions specifically taken to terminate HCV assistance for 
reasons of drug-related criminal activity. These 5 PHAs took 9,537 
actions related to terminating HCV assistance, of which 54 (or about 
0.6 percent) of such actions were for terminating assistance for 
reasons of drug-related criminal activities. 

Four of the 9 PHA respondents were able to provide data on the number 
of actions taken to terminate HCV assistance for reasons of criminal 
activity, and most, but not all, of them provided (at our request) 
broad estimates for drug-related criminal activity based on the total 
number of actions to terminate HCV assistance during 2003. These 4 PHAs 
took a total of 3,166 actions related to terminating HCV assistance, of 
which 133 actions (or about 4.2 percent) were for terminating 
assistance because of criminal activities. Three of the 4 PHAs 
estimated less than 25 percent of their total actions could have been 
for reasons of drug-related criminal activities, and 1 PHA did not 
provide an estimate. Applying the upper-bound broad estimates (25 
percent) to each PHA's total actions would be overstating terminations 
for reasons of drug-related criminal activity because the resulting 
number is most likely to be equal to or be a subset of terminations for 
reasons of criminal activities. From a conservative perspective, it is 
conceivable that the 133 actions also represent terminations of 
assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal activity, thereby 
establishing a maximum rate of denial at 4.2 percent for reasons of 
drug-related criminal activity. 

Seven of the 16 PHA respondents provided only the total number of 
actions taken to terminate HCV assistance, along with a broad estimate 
of the percentages of terminations that could have been for reasons of 
drug-related criminal activity. Six of the 7 PHAs reported less than 25 
percent of their total actions could have been for reasons of drug-
related criminal activities, and one reported 51 to 75 percent. Table 
17 provides the data on terminations of assistance from the HCV 
program. 

Table 17: Housing Choice Voucher Program Terminations of Assistance at 
Selected Public Housing Agencies, by Reason for Termination (Criminal 
Activities and Drug-Related Criminal Activities) of Assistance, 2003: 

Public housing agency: Atlanta (GA); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 855; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 11; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: 1.3%; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Cincinnati (OH); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 98; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 14; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: 14.3%; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: 6; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: 6.1%; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: [B]. 

Public housing agency: Cuyahoga County (OH); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 1,214; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 14; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: 1.2%. 

Public housing agency: Indianapolis (IN); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 247; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: 25% to 50% [C]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Jacksonville (FL); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 5,770; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 26; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: 0.5%; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: 4; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: 0.07%; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: [B]. 

Public housing agency: Los Angeles (CA, City of); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 4,468; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: < 25% [C]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Los Angeles (CA, County of); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 1,080; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: < 25% [C]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Memphis (TN); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 3; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: < 25% [C]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: 51% to 75%. 

Public housing agency: Nashville (TN); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 720; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: < 25% [C]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: New Orleans (LA); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 2,241; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: < 25% [C]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Newark (NJ); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 8; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: < 25% [C]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Oakland (CA); 
HCV terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: 51% to 75% [C]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: > 75%. 

Public housing agency: Philadelphia (PA); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 1,445; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 54; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: 3.7%; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: 11; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: 0.8%; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: [B]. 

Public housing agency: Portland (OR); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 380; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 71; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: 18.7%; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: San Bernardino County (CA); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 1,009; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 47; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: 4.7%; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: San Diego County (CA); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 1,010; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 42; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: 4.2%; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: 27; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: 2.7%; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: [B]. 

Public housing agency: Santa Clara County (CA); 
HCV terminations of assistance: 922; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 4; 
HCV terminations for reasons of criminal activities: Percentage of all 
terminations of assistance: 0.4%; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Percentage of all terminations of assistance: [A]; 
HCV terminations for reasons of drug-related criminal activities: 
Estimated percentage of all terminations of assistance: < 25%. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from selected public housing agencies. 

[A] Data were missing or not reported. 

[B] Data reported in previous column. 

[C] In response to GAO's request, the PHA estimated the percentage 
(within certain ranges) of all action initiated to terminate HCV 
assistance that could have been taken for reasons of criminal activity. 

[End of table]

The majority of PHAs that reported data on terminations from the HCV 
program also reported that the number and types of actions that they 
took during 2003 were similar to the numbers in the prior 3 years. 

Selected PHAs Report That Relatively Small Percentages of Applicants 
Are Denied Admission for Reasons of Criminal Activity or Drug-Related 
Criminal Activities: 

As shown in table 18, 15 of 17 PHAs that responded to our request 
provided data on the number of actions taken on applications for public 
housing. However, only 6 of the 15 respondents provided data on the 
number of actions specifically taken to deny admission into public 
housing for reasons of drug-related criminal activity. Collectively, 
these six PHAs took action on 11,538 applications, of which 330 (or 
about 2.9 percent of) such actions were for denying admissions for 
reasons of drug-related criminal activities. 

Nine of the 15 PHAs did not provide counts of the number of denials for 
reasons of drug-related criminal activity but provided data on the 
number of actions taken to deny admission for reasons of criminal 
activity. In completing our request, 4 PHAs provided broad estimates of 
denials for drug-related criminal activity based on the total number of 
actions taken on applications for public housing, and 5 PHAs did not 
provide estimates. Collectively, these 9 PHAs reported a total of 
17,921 actions related to applications for admission into public 
housing, of which 1,081 actions (or 6 percent) were for denying 
admission for reasons of criminal activities. On the basis of our 
assumption that admission denials for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activity are most likely to be either a subset of or equivalent to the 
admission denials for reasons of criminal activities, we estimate that 
the maximum rate of denial for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activity for these PHAs is 6 percent. 

Table 18: Selected Public Housing Agencies' Actions Reported on 
Applications for Admission and Denials of Admission into Public Housing 
for Reasons of Criminal Activities and Drug-Related Criminal 
Activities, 2003: 

Public housing agency: Atlanta (GA); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 608; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 56; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 9.2%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: Cincinnati (OH); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 5,785; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 359; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 6.2%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 24; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: 0.4%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: [B]. 

Public housing agency: Cuyahoga County (OH); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 2,307; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 282; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 12.2%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Indianapolis (IN); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 506; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 75; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 14.8%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: Jacksonville (FL); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 970; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 22; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 2.3%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: Los Angeles (CA, City of); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 3,920; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 295; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 7.5%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Los Angeles (CA, County of); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 1,217; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 44; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 3.6%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: > 75%. 

Public housing agency: Memphis (TN); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 420; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 157; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 37.4%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 4; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: 1.0%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: [B]. 

Public housing agency: Nashville (TN); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 2,093; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 137; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 6.5%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 127; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: 6.1%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: [B]. 

Public housing agency: New Orleans (LA); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 365; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 12; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 3.3%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 12; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: 3.3%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: [B]. 

Public housing agency: Newark (NJ); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 2,359; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 600; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 25.4%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 163; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: 6.9%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: [B]. 

Public housing agency: Oakland (CA); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 674; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 59; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 8.8%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: 51% to 75%. 

Public housing agency: Philadelphia (PA); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 5,400; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 226; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 4.2%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: Portland (OR); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 2,319; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 22; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 0.9%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: San Bernardino County (CA); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 147; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: San Diego County (CA); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: Santa Clara County (CA); 
Number of actions taken on applications for public housing: 516; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Number: 0; 
Public housing applications denied because of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on applications for assistance: 0.0%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 0; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on applications for 
assistance: 0.0%; 
Public housing applications denied because of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on applications 
for assistance: [B]. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from selected public housing agencies. 

[A] Data were missing or not reported. 

[B] Data reported in previous column. 

[End of table]

As with the other outcomes, the PHAs varied in the extent to which they 
reported that applicants were denied admission into public housing for 
reasons of drug-related criminal activities, and the majority of PHAs 
that provided data for 2003 reported that their activities related to 
actions and denials in 2003 were similar to the numbers in the prior 3 
years. 

As shown in table 19, 14 of the 17 PHA respondents provided some 
(although mostly incomplete) data on actions taken on applications for 
the HCV program. Nine of the 14 PHAs provided data on the number of 
denials of admission into the program for reasons of drug-related 
criminal activities or criminal activity. Of the 2 PHAs that provided 
data on the number of denials for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activity, 1 PHA reported no denials, and the other PHA reported 10 
denials out of 1,483 actions taken on applications, or 0.7 percent. 
Seven PHAs provided data on the number of denials for reasons of 
criminal activity. Among these 7 PHAs, there were a total of 20,513 
reported actions taken on applicants. Of these, 303 were denied 
admission for reasons of criminal activities (or about 1.5 percent). On 
the basis of our assumption that admission denials for reasons of drug-
related criminal activity are most likely to be either a subset of or 
equivalent to the admission denials for reasons of criminal activities, 
we estimate that the maximum for admission denials for reasons of drug-
related criminal activity is 1.5 percent. We could not provide reliable 
estimates for the remaining 5 PHAs that reported incomplete data. 

Table 19: Housing Choice Voucher Program, Selected Public Housing 
Agencies' Actions Reported on Applications for Assistance and Denials 
of Assistance for Reasons of Criminal Activities and Drug-Related 
Criminal Activities, 2003: 

Public housing agency: Atlanta (GA); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 3,886; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
57; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
1.5%; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Cincinnati (OH); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 3,138; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
79; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
2.5%; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: 25% to 50%. 

Public housing agency: Cuyahoga County (OH); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
49; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
[A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: Indianapolis (IN); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 390; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
12; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
3.1%; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: 25% to 50%. 

Public housing agency: Jacksonville (FL); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 4,191; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
91; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
2.2%; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: Los Angeles (CA, City of); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 53,426; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
[A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: < 
25% [D]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Los Angeles (CA, County of); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 1,711; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
[A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: < 
25% [D]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Memphis (TN); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 0; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
0; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
[C]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 0; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [C]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: [C]. 

Public housing agency: Nashville (TN); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 990; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
[A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: < 
25% [D]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: New Orleans (LA); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 1,321; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
8; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
0.6%; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Newark (NJ); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 472; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
[A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: < 
25% [D]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: < 25%. 

Public housing agency: Oakland (CA); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
[A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
[A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: Philadelphia (PA); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 1,483; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
22; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
1.5%; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: 10; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: 0.7%; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: [B]. 

Public housing agency: Portland (OR); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 1,387; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
53; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
3.8%; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: San Bernardino County (CA); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
[A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
[A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: San Diego County (CA); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 4,940; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
[A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
[A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: [A]. 

Public housing agency: Santa Clara County (CA); 
Number of actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 6,200; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: Number: 
3; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of criminal activities: 
Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for assistance: 
0.05%; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Number: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Percentage of all actions taken on HCV applications for 
assistance: [A]; 
HCV denials of assistance for reasons of drug-related criminal 
activities: Estimated percentage of all actions taken on HCV 
applications for assistance: < 25%. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from selected public housing agencies. 

[A] Data were missing or not reported. 

[B] Data reported in previous column. 

[C] Not applicable. 

[D] In response to GAO's request, the PHA estimated the percentage 
(within certain ranges) of all action taken on HCV applications for 
assistance that could have been for reasons of criminal activity. 

[End of table]

Several Factors Can Contribute to the Reported Low Number of Denials 
because of Drug-Related Criminal Activities, but Potential Impacts Are 
Unclear: 

Our review of limited data and interviews with those involved in 
federally assisted housing suggest a number of factors can contribute 
to the relatively low percentages of denials being reported for reasons 
of drug-related criminal activities. As noted in a HUD baseline study, 
variation among PHAs in conducting HCV criminal background checks could 
legitimately result in an applicant being barred by one PHA who would 
otherwise be admitted by another PHA. In addition, a HUD official 
suggested that the percentages of denials that were reported to us by 
selected PHAs can be influenced by whether (1) the PHAs place drug 
users at the bottom of their waiting lists, (2) PHAs differ in the 
treatment of applicants if a household member rather than the applicant 
is the subject of the drug-related criminal activity, and (3) local 
courts presiding over eviction proceedings view the PHAs as the housing 
provider of last resort. In the last instance, the PHA's decision to 
terminate a lease for reason of drug-related criminal activity may not 
be upheld. 

Moreover, comments made during interviews with selected officials on 
matters related to housing were consistent with our analysis of HUD 
data on PHA denials for criminal activity, and the relatively low 
number of denials for drug-related criminal activity provided to us by 
selected PHAs. Regarding the relatively small number of persons whose 
housing benefits were reported as terminated or persons denied program 
participation for reasons of criminal or drug-related criminal 
activities, a representative from the National Association of Housing 
and Redevelopment Officials stated that PHAs are not looking to turn 
away minor offenders (e.g., "the type of people that may have only 
stolen a candy bar") but rather hardened criminals. On the variation in 
denials of federally assisted housing for drug-related criminal 
activities, the Project Coordinator for the Re-Entry Policy Council at 
the Council of State Governments suggested that the barriers to housing 
ex-drug offenders revolve around the discretion afforded PHAs, and that 
these barriers can best be dealt with at the local level by making 
states more aware of the issue, the applicability of the local rules, 
and the need for building collegial relationships with PHAs to develop 
options for housing ex-felons. 

More generally, assessing the impacts of the denial of federal housing 
benefits on the housing communities or on the individuals and families 
that have lost benefits was beyond the scope of our review, given the 
limited data that are available. Officials at HUD reported that they 
have not studied this issue, and our review of the literature did not 
return any comprehensive studies of impacts. In our opinion, any full 
assessment of the impacts of denial of housing benefits to drug 
offenders would have to consider a wide range of possible impacts, such 
as improvements in public safety that result from terminating leases of 
drug offenders; displacement of crime from one area to another with 
perhaps no overall (or area-wide) improvements in crime reduction; as 
well as the impacts on individuals and families, to name a few. Any 
such impact assessments would be complicated by the market conditions 
(limited quantity and high demand) for federally assisted housing and 
the variation in PHAs' policies and practices that would also need to 
be considered. 

Data on the Race of Persons Denied Federally Assisted Housing Were 
Infrequently Provided: 

We requested the PHAs to provide us with data on the race of persons 
who were denied federally assisted housing for reasons of drug-related 
criminal activities. Of the 17 PHAs that responded to our request, few 
provided data by race on (1) the total number of actions taken and (2) 
those actions that were specifically for drug-related criminal 
activity. Only 4 PHAs provided data by race on public housing 
terminations, and 3 PHAs provided data by race on public housing 
admission denials. Four PHAs provided data by race on HCV terminations 
of assistance. Only 1 PHA provided data by race on HCV admission 
denials. 

From these limited data, we were unable to develop reliable estimates 
of racial differences in the frequency of terminations and denials of 
admission into federally assisted housing. In some cases, the number 
reported as terminated for drug-related criminal activities was too 
small to provide stable estimates, and because of the small numbers, 
the estimates of racial differences could exhibit large changes with 
the addition of a few more cases. For example, only 4 PHAs provided 
data by race on the number of leases terminated for reasons of drug-
related criminal activities. In 1 PHA, slightly more than 3 percent of 
all lease terminations of blacks were for drug-related criminal 
activities, while almost 6 percent of all lease terminations of whites 
were for drug-related criminal activities. In this PHA, whites were 
about one and one half times more likely than blacks to have their 
leases terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal activities. In 
this PHA, 110 whites had leases terminated during 2003, and 6 of these 
terminations were for drug-related criminal activities. In a second 
PHA, blacks were three times as likely as whites to have their leases 
terminated for reasons of drug-related criminal activities, as 18 
percent of blacks and 5 percent of whites had leases terminated for 
reasons of drug related criminal activities. But in this second PHA, 19 
whites had leases terminated, and 1 of these was for drug-related 
criminal activities. An addition of 2 whites to the number that had 
leases terminated for drug-related criminal activities would have 
almost eliminated the racial difference. 

[End of section]

Appendix V: Legal and Administrative Framework for the Denial of 
Federal Benefits Program: 

About the Law: 

The Denial of Federal Benefits Program established under section 5301 
of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988,[Footnote 48] in general, provides 
federal and state court judges with a sentencing option to deny 
selected federal benefits to individuals convicted of federal or state 
offenses for the distribution or possession of controlled substances. 
The federal benefits that can be denied include grants, contracts, 
loans, and professional or commercial licenses provided by an agency of 
the United States.[Footnote 49] Certain benefits are excluded from 
deniability under this provision of the law; these include benefits 
such as social security, federally assisted housing, welfare, veterans' 
benefits, and benefits for which payments or services are required for 
eligibility.[Footnote 50] Federally assisted housing, TANF, and food 
stamp benefits may be denied to drug offenders under other provisions 
of federal law. (See app. II for more information on the denial of TANF 
and food stamp benefits, and see app. IV for more information on the 
denial of federally assisted housing benefits.)Federal and state court 
sentencing judges generally have discretion to deny any of the deniable 
benefits for any length up to those prescribed by the law, with the 
exception of the mandatory denial of benefits required for a third drug 
trafficking conviction. More specifically, depending upon the type of 
offense, and conviction and the number of prior convictions, the law 
provides for different periods of ineligibility for which benefits can 
or must be denied. As the number of convictions for a particular type 
of drug offense increases, so does the period of ineligibility for 
which benefits can or must be denied. Table 20 shows these periods. 

Table 20: Periods of Ineligibility for Which Benefits Can or Must Be 
Denied under Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, as Amended: 

Number of convictions: First conviction; 
Type of conviction offense: Drug possession: Up to 1 year; 
Type of conviction offense: Drug trafficking: Up to 5 years. 

Number of convictions: Second conviction; 
Type of conviction offense: Drug possession: Up to 5 years; 
Type of conviction offense: Drug trafficking: Up to 10 years. 

Number of convictions: Third conviction; 
Type of conviction offense: Drug possession: [A]; 
Type of conviction offense: Drug trafficking: Permanent ineligibility. 

Source: GAO analysis of provisions of section 5301 of the Anti-Drug 
Abuse Act of 1988, as amended. 

[A] No period of ineligibility is listed for drug possession offenses 
with three or more convictions. 

[End of table]

With respect to first-time drug possession convictions, a court may 
impose certain conditions, such as the completion of an approved drug 
treatment program, as a requirement for the reinstatement of benefits. 
In addition, the sentencing court continues to have the discretion to 
impose other penalties and conditions apart from section 5301 of the 
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. 

Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, also 
provides that under certain circumstances, the denial of benefits 
penalties may be waived or suspended with respect to certain offenders. 
For example, the denial of benefits penalties are not applicable to 
individuals who cooperate with or testify for the government in the 
prosecution of a federal or state offense or are in a government 
witness protection program.[Footnote 51] In addition, with respect to 
individuals convicted of drug possession offenses, the denial of 
benefits penalties are to be "waived in the case of a person who, if 
there is a reasonable body of evidence to substantiate such 
declaration, declares himself to be an addict and submits himself to a 
long-term treatment program for addiction, or is deemed to be 
rehabilitated pursuant to rules established by the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services."[Footnote 52] Also, the period of ineligibility for 
the denial of benefits is to be suspended for individuals who have 
completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program, have otherwise been 
rehabilitated, or have made a good faith effort to gain admission to a 
supervised drug rehabilitation program but have been unable to do so 
because of inaccessibility or unavailability of such a program or the 
inability of such individuals to pay for such a program.[Footnote 53]

Administration of the Law: 

State and federal sentencing judges generally have discretion to impose 
denial of federal benefits, under section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse 
Act of 1988, as a sanction. This sanction can be imposed in combination 
with other sanctions, and courts have the option of denying all or some 
of the specified federal benefits and determining the length of the 
denial period within certain statutorily set ranges. When denial of 
benefits under section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 is part 
of a sentence, the sentencing court is to notify the Bureau of Justice 
Assistance, which maintains a database (the Denial of Federal Benefits 
Program Clearinghouse) of the names of persons who have been convicted 
and the benefits that they have been denied. BJA passes this 
information on to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), which 
maintains the debarment list for all agencies. GSA publishes the names 
of individuals who are denied benefits in the Lists of Parties Excluded 
from Federal Procurement or Nonprocurement Programs, commonly known as 
the Debarment List. The Debarment List contains special codes that 
indicate whether all or selected benefits have been denied for an 
individual and the expiration date for the period of denial. Before 
making an award or conferring a pertinent federal benefit, federal 
agencies are required to consult the Debarment List to determine if the 
individual is eligible for benefits. 

The Department of Justice also has data-sharing agreements with the 
Department of Education and the Federal Communications Commission. The 
purpose of these agreements is to provide these agencies with access to 
information about persons currently denied the federal benefits 
administered by them. For example, as described in this report, 
students who are convicted of offenses involving the sale or possession 
of a controlled substance are ineligible to receive certain federal 
postsecondary education benefits. In order to ensure that student 
financial assistance is not awarded to individuals subject to denial of 
benefits under court orders issued pursuant to section 5301, DOJ and 
the Department of Education implemented a computer matching program. 
The Department of Education attempts to identify persons who have 
applied for federal higher education assistance by matching records 
from applicants against the BJA database list of persons who have been 
denied benefits. Officials at the Department of Education report that 
the department has matched only a few records of applicants for federal 
higher education assistance to the DOJ list of persons denied federal 
benefits. The individuals whose names appear on the DOJ list may differ 
from those individuals who self-certify to a drug offense conviction on 
their applications for federal postsecondary education assistance. (See 
app. III for more information on this.)The Administrative Office of 
United States Courts is responsible for administrative matters for the 
federal courts. Shortly after the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
1988, AOUSC added the Denial of Federal Benefits sentence enhancement 
to the Pre-Sentence Report Monograph, which provided information to 
probation officers about the availability of the DFB as sanction along 
with its requirements. AOUSC also developed a standard form for federal 
judges to use in reporting the imposition of the Denial of Federal 
Benefits sanctions; the form is part of the Judgment and Commitment 
Order that is completed by the court upon sentencing. 

The United States Sentencing Commission promulgates federal sentencing 
guidelines and collects data on all persons sentenced pursuant to the 
federal sentencing guidelines. After the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse 
Act of 1988, the USSC prepared a guideline for this sanction and 
included it in the Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Annually, USSC 
distributes the Sentencing Guidelines Manual to federal court 
officials. 

Use of the Denial of Federal Benefits Program Provisions: 

Bureau of Justice Assistance data show that between 1990 and the second 
quarter of 2004, 8,298 offenders were reported as having been denied 
federal benefits by judges who imposed sanctions under the Denial of 
Federal Benefits Program. About 38 percent (or 3,128) of these 
offenders were denied benefits in state courts, and about 62 percent 
(or 5,170) were denied benefits in federal courts. About an average 635 
persons per year were denied benefits under the program over the 1992 
through 2003 period, and the number denied in any given year ranged 
from about 428 to 833. The number denied a benefit under the program 
decreased to 428 in 2002 and increased to 595 in 2003.[Footnote 54]

According to BJA data, judges in comparatively few courts used the 
denial of federal benefits provisions. State court judges in 7 states 
and federal judges in judicial districts in 26 states were reported to 
have imposed the sanction. Among state courts, judges in Texas 
accounted for 39 percent of the state court totals, while judges in 
Oregon and Rhode Island accounted for 30 percent and 13 percent, 
respectively. Among the federal courts, judges in judicial districts in 
Texas accounted for 21 percent of the federal totals, while judges in 
North Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Nevada, and Kansas 
accounted for between 8 percent and 15 percent of the totals. Federal 
judges in each of the remaining 19 states accounted for less than 3 
percent of the federal totals. 

Not all of the 8,298 offenders recorded as having been denied federal 
benefits between 1990 and 2004 under the program are currently denied 
benefits. For about 75 percent of these offenders, the period of denial 
has expired. Officials at BJA report that as of April 2004, they 
maintained about 2,000 active records of persons currently under a 
period of denial. 

Relative to the total number of felony drug convictions, the provisions 
of the Denial of Federal Benefits (DFB) Program are reportedly used in 
a relatively small percentage of drug cases. For example, biannually 
between 1992 and 2000, there were a minimum of 274,000 and a maximum of 
348,000 convictions for drug offenses in state courts, or about 307,000 
per year. In federal courts over this same period, there were between 
15,000 and 24,000 drug offenders convicted, or about 19,000 per year. 
As the average annual number of drug defendants in state courts denied 
benefits under the DFB was 223, the rate of use of the DFB in state 
courts averaged about 0.07 percent. Among federal drug defendants, the 
annual average number reported as having received a sanction under the 
program was about 369, while the average annual number of drug 
defendants sentenced federally was about 19,000; hence, the percentage 
of all federal drug defendants receiving a sanction under the program 
was about 2 percent. 

Assessing the Impacts of the Denial of Federal Benefits Program: 

Throughout the history of the program, questions have been raised about 
its apparently limited impacts. In 1992, we reported on the 
difficulties in denying federal benefits to convicted drug 
offenders[Footnote 55] and suggested that there would not be widespread 
withholding of federal benefits from drug offenders.[Footnote 56] 
Officials at BJA also reported that the sanction has not been widely 
used by judges. In 2001, BJA program managers met with some U.S. 
attorneys in an attempt to provide them with information about the 
potential benefits of the program. According to BJA officials, the U.S. 
attorneys responded that they typically used other statutes for 
sanctioning and sentencing drug offenders, rather than the sanctions 
under the Denial of Federal Benefits Program. 

The benefits that can be denied under the program--federal contracts, 
grants, loans, and professional or commercial licenses--suggest some 
reasons as to its relatively infrequent use. Persons engaged in federal 
contracting, for example, are generally engaged in business activities, 
and such persons compose small percentages of federal defendants 
sentenced for drug offenses. Hence, relatively few defendants may 
qualify to use these federal benefits, and therefore relatively few may 
be denied the benefits. 

Reliable Data by Race of Persons Receiving the DFB Are Not Available: 

None of the data sources that we reviewed provided reliable data on the 
race and ethnicity of persons denied federal benefits under the Denial 
of Federal Benefits Program. 

[End of section]

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Laurie E. Ekstrand, (202) 512-8777: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, William J. Sabol, Clarence 
Tull, Brian Sklar, DuEwa Kamara, Geoffrey Hamilton, David Makoto 
Hudson, Michele Fejfar, David Alexander, Amy Bernstein, Anne Laffoon, 
Julian King and Andrea P. Smith made key contributions to this report. 

FOOTNOTES

[1] In this report, we use the term "drug offenders" broadly to refer 
to any person that may be denied federal benefits under the provisions 
that allow or require them to be denied specifically to drug offenders. 
This term applies whether the offender was convicted of a felony or 
misdemeanor drug offense, or whether the offender engaged in a type of 
drug-related criminal activity that could nonetheless result in the 
loss of federally assisted housing benefits. 

[2] The Pell Grant program provides grants (i.e., aid that does not 
need to be repaid) to needy undergraduates. 

[3] Our review covered both the Public Housing Program and the Housing 
Choice Voucher Program. Not all 17 of the PHAs provided responses to 
all of our questions. Below, we report data from the PHAs that provided 
relevant information. 

[4] In addition to federal provisions explicitly denying federal 
benefits for drug offenders, other federal and state provisions may 
restrict convicted drug offenders from accessing certain types of 
occupational opportunities, participating in jury service, obtaining 
drivers' licenses, or exercising voting rights. 

[5] The term "drug-related criminal activity" means the illegal 
manufacture, sale, distribution, use, or possession with intent to 
manufacture, sell, distribute, or use a controlled substance--as 
defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.  
802), 42 U.S.C. 1437d(1). 

[6] GAO, Drug Control: Difficulties in Denying Federal Benefits to 
Convicted Drug Offenders, GAO/GGD-92-56 (Washington, D.C.: April 21, 
1992). 

[7] GAO, Means-Tested Programs: Information on Program Access Can Be an 
Important Management Tool, GAO-05-221(Washington, D.C.: February 25, 
2005). 

[8] Needy pregnant women can also be eligible for TANF benefits, as 
they constitute a family unit for the purposes of TANF. 

[9] The Bureau of Justice Statistics' Survey of Adults on Probation in 
1995 is its most recent nationally representative survey of 
probationers that collects data on education level. These data also 
report the type of offense that led to the probation term. 

[10] United States Sentencing Commission, 2003 Sourcebook of Federal 
Sentencing Statistics, Washington, D.C.: United States Sentencing 
Commission. Published annually. 

[11] We contacted 40 of the largest PHAs in the nation and requested 
information about denials of federally assisted housing assistance. The 
17 that provided us with information are shown in appendix IV. These 17 
are not statistically representative of the more than 3,000 PHAs 
nationwide. While our review covered both the Public Housing Program 
and the Housing Choice Voucher Program, not all 17 of the PHAs provided 
us with information on both types of programs. 

[12] Leases may end or be terminated for a variety of reasons, 
including a tenant's failure to make payments due under the lease. 

[13] Deborah Devine, Barbara A. Haley, Lester Rubin, and Robert W. 
Gray, "The Uses of Discretionary Authority in the Section 8 Tenant-
Based Program: A Baseline Inventory of Issues, Policy, and Practice," 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
November 2000. 

[14] See GAO, Drug Control: Difficulties in Denying Federal Benefits to 
Convicted Drug Offenders, GAO/GGD-92-56, (Washington, D.C.: April 21, 
1992). 

[15] State-level data on the number of felony drug convictions are not 
collected by federal agencies or by organizations that monitor state 
court activities. 

[16] In the 14 states, about 96,000 drug offenders were released from 
prison during 2001, and of these, about 51,000 had been released from a 
new sentence for a drug conviction. The 4 omitted states, for which we 
could not obtain data, accounted for about 3 percent of the population 
of the 18 states that fully implemented the TANF ban. Our estimates of 
the percentage that may have been eligible to receive TANF are based in 
part on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of Inmates of 
State Correctional Facilities. The survey provides data that prisoners 
report about their family and economic characteristics prior to their 
admission into prison. See appendix II for details on our methodology. 

[17] The number of states exempting some or all convicted drug felons 
from the food stamp ban has increased over time. USDA reports, for 
example, that in 2001, 19 states had exemptions for some or all 
convicted drug felons. By 2004, 35 states had some type of exemption. 

[18] Within these 12 states, there were about 67,000 drug offenders 
released from prison during 2001, and of these, about 30,000 were 
released from a new sentence for a drug conviction. Data for the other 
3 states were not available. We have no reason to believe that these 3 
states are substantially different from the other 12 in relation to the 
impact s of the ban. Our estimates of the percentage that may have been 
eligible to receive food stamps are based in part on data from the 
Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of Inmates of State Correctional 
Facilities. The survey provides data that prisoners report about their 
family and economic characteristics prior to their admission into 
prison. See appendix II for details on our methodology. 

[19] Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996) (codified at 21 U.S.C. 
 862a). 

[20] See 21 U.S.C.  862a(d)(2). 

[21] See 45 C.F.R.  260.31. The federal prohibition does not extend to 
assistance from a state's own separate assistance funds such as State 
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds. MOE funds are funds that states are 
required maintain at certain historical state expenditure levels in 
order to receive their full TANF block grants. 

[22] As defined at 45 C.F.R.  260.31(b). 

[23] To be exempt from the ABAWD provisions, an otherwise able-bodied 
person must either (1) live in local areas that provide for a waiver to 
the ABAWD provision; (2) live in a state that utilizes provisions from 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, 252 
(1997) (codified at 7 U.S.C.  2015(o)(6)) that allows for the 
exemption of up to 15 percent of those ineligible to receive benefits 
under the ABAWD provision; or (3) meet her or her local jurisdiction's 
work requirements that provide for an exception to the ABAWD limits. 

[24] Eligibility requirements are less stringent for elderly disabled 
persons. 

[25] Both agencies review case files to determine if individuals that 
were ineligible to receive the benefits received them in error, and 
these reviews may uncover whether a disqualified drug offender received 
benefits. In its 2002 report to ACF on closed cases, the state of 
Maryland reported that it closed 3 cases (out of the 17,861 cases that 
it closed during 2001) because of an individual's disqualifying felony 
drug conviction. 

[26] Our estimates of the percentage of drug felons that meet selected 
eligibility conditions are relatively unaffected by whether we base 
them on all drug offenders released from prison or on first releases 
only. 

[27] Since ABAWDs cannot be older than 50, and USDA defines an elderly 
person as being 60 or older, someone who is over 50 and under 60 is 
considered neither an ABAWD nor elderly. 

[28] Pub. L. No. 89-329, 79 Stat. 1219 (1965). 

[29] See 20 U.S.C.  2091(r). This provision was added by the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-244, 112 Stat. 1581 
(1998). 

[30] Student loans include the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) 
Program and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program. Higher 
education institutions usually participate in one or the other program. 
Depending upon the student's estimated financial need, students may 
qualify for subsidized Stafford loans or, irrespective of financial 
need, unsubsidized Stafford loans, through either program. Pell Grants 
are federal grants that are awarded to students with financial need who 
have not received their first bachelor's degree or who are enrolled in 
programs that lead to teacher certification or licensure. Supplemental 
Educational Opportunity Grants are awarded for the purpose of providing 
grants to needy undergraduate students. The Federal Work-Study program 
provides part-time employment to needy undergraduate and graduate 
students attending participating institutions. 

[31] The FAFSA provides a worksheet that guides students in determining 
whether they have a disqualifying drug conviction. 

[32] This rule did not apply to applicants during the 2000-2001 
academic year, the first year that the drug conviction question 
appeared on the FAFSA. During 2000-2001, students who did not answer 
the question were permitted to receive federal aid. 

[33] We excluded from this analysis the data for academic year 2000-
2001, in which 9,605 persons self-reported a disqualifying drug 
offense, but more than 278,000 left the question blank. Those who left 
the question blank in 2000-2001 were deemed eligible to receive federal 
assistance. 

[34] 20 U.S.C.  1091(r). 

[35] 64 Fed. Reg. 38,504, 38,505 -38,506 (1999). 

[36] Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress, Investment in 
Education: Private and Public Returns (Washington, D.C.: January 2000). 

[37] 42 U.S.C. 11901. 

[38] The term "drug-related criminal activity" means the illegal 
manufacture, sale, distribution, use, or possession with intent to 
manufacture, sell, distribute, or use a controlled substance--as 
defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.  
802). 42 U.S.C.  1437d(l). With respect to termination of tenancy, see 
42 U.S.C.  1437d(l)(6). 

[39] 42 U.S.C.  13662(a). This provision further provides for the 
termination of tenancy or assistance to a household with a member whose 
illegal use (or pattern of illegal use) of a controlled substance, 
among other things, is determined by the PHA or owner to interfere with 
the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by 
other residents. 

[40] 24 C.F.R.  5.861. 

[41] See 42 U.S.C.  1437d, subsections (q), (s), and (t) for 
provisions related to PHA authority to obtain criminal history 
information. 

[42] GAO, Public Housing: Small and Larger Agencies Have Similar Views 
on Many Recent Housing Reforms, GAO-04-19 (Washington, D.C.: October 
30, 2003). 

[43] 66 Fed. Reg. 28,776 (2001) (codified at 24 C.F.R. Part 5, among 
others). 

[44] See Devine, Deborah J., Barbara A. Haley, Lester Rubin, and Robert 
W. Gray, The Uses of Discretionary Authority in the Tenant-Based 
Section 8 Program: A Baseline Inventory of Issues, Policy, and 
Practice, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, November 2000. HUD used a stratified random sample of 167 
PHAs out of 1,786 that managed 100 or more units of Section 8 housing. 
These 1,786 represented 70 percent of the 2,553 PHAs, but they also 
represented 98 percent of all units managed by PHAs in the Section 8 
program. The sample was stratified on PHA size (four categories) and 
seven regions. 

[45] We mailed a request for information to 40 of the nation's largest 
PHAs in which we requested data about denying federally assisted 
housing for reasons of drug-related criminal activities. We report on 
these data in subsequent sections. We also requested that the PHAs 
provide us with copies of policies and procedures used during 2003 for 
terminating leases or assistance as well as screening applicants for 
admissions. Seven PHAs provided copies of their 2003 or 2004 policies; 
listed alphabetically, these were the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing 
Authority, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, Housing Authority 
of the City of Los Angeles, Housing Authority of the County of San 
Diego, Jacksonville Housing Authority, Memphis Housing Authority, and 
the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency of Nashville. 

[46] Actions taken by PHAs reflect decisions to terminate leases and 
assistance, as discussed in this section, as well as denying 
admissions, as discussed in a subsequent section of this appendix. 

[47] HUD collects data on lease terminations and denial of admission 
into public housing through its Management Operations Certification 
Assessment System (MASS) data collection. This system reports the 
number of such actions taken for reasons of criminal activities, but it 
does not report data on the number of actions taken explicitly for 
reasons of drug-related criminal activities. 

[48] Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4310 (1988) (codified at 21 U.S.C. 
 862). 

[49] The term "Federal benefit" is defined at 21 U.S.C.  862(d)(1) to 
mean "any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial 
license provided by an agency of the United States or by appropriated 
funds of the United States."

[50] The term "Federal benefit," under 21 U.S.C.  862(d)(1), 
specifically excludes "any retirement, welfare, Social Security, 
health, disability, veterans benefit, public housing, or other similar 
benefit, or any other benefit for which payments or services are 
required for eligibility." 

[51] 21 U.S.C.  862(e). 

[52] 21 U.S.C.  862(b)(2). 

[53] 21 U.S.C.  862(c). 

[54] The second quarter of 2004 was the most recent BJA data on the 
number of offenders denied benefits under the DFB. 

[55] GAO, Drug Control: Denying Federal Benefits to Convicted Drug 
Offenders, GAO/GGD-92-56 (Washington, D.C.: April 21, 1992). 

[56] GAO's opinion was based on the following factors: (1) the views 
held by those who may affect the imposition of the sentence--judges and 
other criminal justice officials--that the sentence would not have much 
impact on many of the offenders convicted in federal and state courts; 
(2) accepted court sentencing practices such as excluding many first-
time drug offenders--such as those charged with drug possession--from 
receiving such a sentence, and (3) federal benefit administration 
policies and practices such as those that preclude the interruption or 
termination of ongoing benefits. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: