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 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

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. 

Highlights of GAO-05-238, a report to 

congressional requesters 

September 2005

DRUG OFFENDERS

Various Factors May Limit the Impacts of 

Federal Laws That Provide for Denial of 

Selected Benefits 

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 activities—such as illegal 

distribution or use of a controlled substance—and 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 GAO’s 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 

Federal benefit Description 

TANF Cash assistance designed to meet a needy family’s ongoing basic needs

Food stamps Food assistance payments to low-income households 

Postsecondary 

education Federal Pell Grants, Stafford loans, and work-study assistance 

Federally assisted 

housing 

Public housing primarily for low-income families with children and 

vouchers for private-market assistance for very low-income families 

Denial of Federal 

Benefits Program 

Federal postsecondary student loans, federal licenses (e.g., for 

physicians, pilots, and others), and procurement contracts, among others 

Source: GAO analysis of federal law.

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. 
Page i GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5 

Estimated Number of Drug Offenders Denied Federal 

Postsecondary Education, Housing, and Certain Contracts and 

Grants Varies by Type of Benefit 12 

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 17 

Concluding Observations 21 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 22 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 24 

Assessing How Many Drug Offenders Were Estimated to Be Denied 

Federal Postsecondary Education and Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits and Certain Grants and Contracts 25 

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 26 

Data Sources Used in Preparing This Report 27 

Appendix II Denial of TANF and Food Stamps Benefits Legal 

Framework and Methodologies 30 

Legal and Administrative Framework 30 

State Exemptions to the Federal Bans on TANF and Food Stamps 32 

Methods for Estimating the Percentage of Drug Felons Potentially 

Affected by the TANF and Food Stamp Bans 39 

Data on the Race of Drug Offenders Who Meet Selected TANF 

Eligibility Criteria 49 

Appendix III Denial of Federal Postsecondary Education Benefits 

to Drug Offenders 51 

Legal Framework for Denying Federal Higher Education Benefits 51 

Administration of the Denial of Federal Higher Education Benefits 52 

Methods for Estimating the Numbers of Persons and Amounts of 

Federal Assistance Affected by the Provisions 53 

Estimates of the Numbers and Amounts of Federal Assistance 

Affected by Controlled Substances Convictions 57 

Limited Data on the Long-Term Impacts of Denying Federal 

Postsecondary Education Assistance 59 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

Limited Data on Racial Minorities and the Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits 61 

Appendix IV Denial of Federally Assisted Housing Benefits for 

Drug-Related Criminal Activity 62 

Legal Framework Relating to the Denial of Housing Benefits for 

Drug-Related Criminal Activity 62 

HUD and PHA Roles in Denying Federally Assisted Housing 

Benefits for Reasons of Drug-Related Criminal Activities 64 

Number of Denials of Federally Assisted Housing Benefits 66 

Several Factors Can Contribute to the Reported Low Number of 

Denials because of Drug-Related Criminal Activities, but 

Potential Impacts Are Unclear 76 

Data on the Race of Persons Denied Federally Assisted Housing 

Were Infrequently Provided 77 

Appendix V Legal and Administrative Framework for the Denial 

of Federal Benefits Program 78 

About the Law 78 

Administration of the Law 80 

Use of the Denial of Federal Benefits Program Provisions 81 

Assessing the Impacts of the Denial of Federal Benefits Program 83 

Reliable Data by Race of Persons Receiving the DFB Are Not 

Available 84 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 85 

Tables 

Table 1: Provisions of Selected Federal Law and the Corresponding 

Benefits That May Be Denied to Certain Drug Offenders 5 

Table 2: Selected Federal Legal Provisions Providing for Denial of 

Benefits to Drug Offenders 8 

Table 3: General Eligibility Criteria to Receive Selected Federal 

Benefits and Federal Agencies Responsible for 

Administering Programs 10 

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 14 
Page iii GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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

2004 33 

Table 6: Types of State Exemptions (Modifications) to the Federal 

Ban on TANF, by States within the Types of Modifications, 

as of 2004 35 

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 37 

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 38 

Table 9: Estimated Number of Drug Felons Released from Prison 

during 2001, in 14 of 18 States That Currently Maintain the 

Ban on TANF 42 

Table 10: Estimated Parental Status of Drug Offenders, by Gender 

and Region of the Country 43 

Table 11: Estimated Percentages of Drug Offenders Released from 

Prison in 2001 That Met Selected Guardianship and Earned 

Income Limits to Receive TANF benefits 45 

Table 12: Periods of Ineligibility for Federal Higher Education 

Assistance Based on Type and Number of Controlled 

Substance Offense Convictions 52 

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 56 

Table 14: Estimated Number of Persons Denied Federal Education 

Assistance because of Drug Convictions and Estimated 

Amount of Federal Assistance Affected 57 

Table 15: Evictions from and Denials of Admission into Public 

Housing for Reasons of Criminal Activity, Fiscal Years 

2002 and 2003 67 

Table 16: Public Housing Lease Terminations at Selected Public 

Housing Agencies, by Reason for Termination (Criminal 

Activities and Drug-Related Criminal Activities), 2003 69 

Table 17: Housing Choice Voucher Program Terminations of 

Assistance at Selected Public Housing Agencies, by 

Reason for Termination (Criminal Activities and DrugRelated Criminal Activities) of Assistance, 2003 71 
Page iv GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 73 

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 75 

Table 20: Periods of Ineligibility for Which Benefits Can or Must Be 

Denied under Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, as 

Amended 79 

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 

GED general equivalency degree 

HCV Housing Choice Voucher 

HEA Higher Education Act 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

INDCP 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 
Page v GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. However, 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. 
Page 1 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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.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 

 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 drugrelated criminal activity that could nonetheless result in the loss of federally assisted 

housing benefits. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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.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.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 

 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. 
Page 3 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 
Page 5 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

Selected provisions of federal law explicitly prohibit specific categories of 

drug offenders from receiving certain federal benefits for specified 

periods.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 

Federal programs identified in provisions 

allowing for denial of benefits 

Description of the benefits that may or 

must be denied 

Section 115 of the Personal 

Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996a (21 U.S.C. § 

862a

) 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Cash assistance, vouchers, and other forms 

of support designed to meet a needy family’s 

ongoing basic needs 

 Food Stamp Program Food assistance payments to low-income 

households and those transitioning from 

welfare to work. 

Section 438 of the Higher Education Act 

Amendments of 1988 (20 U.S.C. § 

1091(r))b

 

Postsecondary education assistance Federal Pell Grants, Stafford loans, and 

work-study assistance. 

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) 

Federally assisted housing: Low-rent Public 

Housing Program 

Public housing primarily for low-income 

families with children. 

 Federally assisted housing: Housing Choice 

Voucher Program (formerly known as 

Section 8 Housing) 

Private market housing assistance for very 

low-income families, the elderly, and the 

disabled. 

 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. 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

Provisions of federal law 

Federal programs identified in provisions 

allowing for denial of benefits 

Description of the benefits that may or 

must be denied 

Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act 

of 1988 (21 USC § 862) 

Denial of Federal Benefits Program 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. 

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 
Page 7 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

resulted in a conviction.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 

 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). 
Page 8 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 

Drug offense that may lead to 

denial of benefits Period of benefit denial 

Conditions under which either 

the loss of benefits may be 

limited or benefits may be 

restored 

TANF Persons convicted of felonies for 

certain controlled substance 

related offenses that occurred 

after August 22, 1996 

Lifetime, upon a first felony 

conviction, unless offenders 

reside in states that have opted 

out of or modified the federal ban 

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 

Food stamps Persons convicted of felonies for 

certain controlled substance 

related offenses that occurred 

after August 22, 1996 

Lifetime, upon a first felony 

conviction, unless offenders 

reside in states that have opted 

out of or modified the federal ban 

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 

Postsecondary education 

assistance 

Students convicted of certain 

misdemeanor or felony controlled 

substance-related offenses 

Varies from 1 year to an indefinite 

period for repeated convictions 

Benefits may be restored after 

completion of drug treatment or if 

the conviction is reversed, set 

aside, or otherwise rendered 

nugatory 

Federally assisted housing Varies, but includes applicants, 

tenants, their household family 

members, and guests under their 

control who engage in drugrelated criminal activities whether 

convicted or not 

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 

Benefits may be restored after 

completion of drug treatment, with 

the exception of those persons 

convicted of certain 

methamphetamine offenses 

Certain federal licenses, 

contracts, loans, grants, 

and other federal benefits, 

under the Denial of Federal 

Benefits Program 

Persons convicted of controlled 

substance trafficking and 

possession offenses in federal or 

state courts 

Varies from 1 year to life, 

depending upon the type of 

offense and number of 

convictions 

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. 

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 
Page 9 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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.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. 

TANF, food stamps, federally assisted housing, and Pell Grants are meanstested 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. 

 6

GAO, Drug Control: Difficulties in Denying Federal Benefits to Convicted Drug 

Offenders, GAO/GGD-92-56 (Washington, D.C.: April 21, 1992). 

How Benefit Eligibility 

Requirements May Affect 

whether a Drug Offender 

Loses Benefits 
Page 10 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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

Programs 

Federal benefit 

General eligibility requirements to receive the 

federal benefit 

Federal, state, or local agency responsible for 

administering the benefit 

TANF 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. 

The Administration for Children and Families in the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Food stamps 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. 

The Food and Nutrition Services in the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

Postsecondary 

education assistance 

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

U.S. Department of Education. 

Federally assisted 

housing 

Income eligibility is based on HUD’s local area’s median 

family income determinations. PHAs that manage 

federal housing may establish nonincome preference 

factors. 

Office of Public and Indian Housing within the 

HUD. Local PHAs have responsibility for managing 

federally assisted housing rental units. 

Licenses, contracts, 

and loans under the 

Denial of Federal 

Benefits Program 

Professional competency and specific licensure 

requirements as defined by regulations. 

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. 

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 
Page 11 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

the portion of those eligible to receive the benefits that actually enrolled in 

the programs varied among programs.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.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 

 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. 
Page 12 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

for federally assisted housing benefits, a person would have to meet 

income tests. 

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 drugrelated 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. 

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 

Estimated Number of 

Drug Offenders 

Denied Federal 

Postsecondary 

Education, Housing, 

and Certain Contracts 

and Grants Varies by 

Type of Benefit 

An Estimated 17,000 to 

41,000 Drug Offenders Lost 

Selected Federal 

Postsecondary Education 

Benefits in Selected Years 
Page 13 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

attainment indicates that among drug offenders on probation during 1995,9

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.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. 

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 2003.11 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 

 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. 

10United States Sentencing Commission, 2003 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, 

Washington, D.C.: United States Sentencing Commission. Published annually. 

11We 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. 

In Selected PHAs Less 

Than 6 Percent of 

Residents and Applicants 

Were Denied Federally 

Assisted Housing during 

2003 because of DrugRelated Criminal Activities 
Page 14 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

terminated in these 13 PHAs during 2003.12 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 

Type of action taken 

by PHAs 

Number of PHAs 

reporting data

Number of 

actions

Estimated overall 

percentage of actions 

due to drug-related 

criminal activities 

Among PHAs,a

range of 

percentage of 

actions due to 

drug-related 

criminal activities

Public Housing 

Program 

Lease terminations 13 9,249 5.6%b 0% to 39.3%

 Admissions decisions 15 29,459 < 5% 0.4% to 6.9%

HCV Program Terminations of 

assistance 

9 12,703 < 2% 0.07% to 6.1%

 Admissions decisions 9 21,996 < 1.5% 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. 

 12Leases may end or be terminated for a variety of reasons, including a tenant’s failure to 

make payments due under the lease. 
Page 15 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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.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 

 13Deborah 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. 

Discretionary Authority 

May Allow Some to 

Receive Housing Benefits, 

but Supply Limitations 

May Be a Significant 

Barrier 
Page 16 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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 

Limited Use of the Denial 

of Federal Benefits 

Program Sanctions 
Page 17 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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.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. 

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. 

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 

 14See GAO, Drug Control: Difficulties in Denying Federal Benefits to Convicted Drug 

Offenders, GAO/GGD-92-56, (Washington, D.C.: April 21, 1992). 

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 

Eighteen States Fully 

Implement the Federal Ban 

on TANF, as the Remainder 

Have Enacted Legislation 

to Exempt Some or All 

Convicted Drug Felons 
Page 18 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 2002.15 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. 

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.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—

 15State-level data on the number of felony drug convictions are not collected by federal 

agencies or by organizations that monitor state court activities. 

16In 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. 

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 
Page 19 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 
Page 20 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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.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 

 17The 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. 

In States That Fully 

Implement the Ban on 

Food Stamps, About OneFourth of Drug Offenders 

Released from Prison in 

2001 Were Parents Who 

Could Have Been Eligible 

for Food Stamps 
Page 21 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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.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. 

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 

 18Within 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. 

Concluding 

Observations 
Page 22 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 23 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

Laurie E. Ekstrand, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 24 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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, 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 25 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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. 

Assessing How Many 

Drug Offenders Were 

Estimated to Be 

Denied Federal 

Postsecondary 

Education and 

Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits and 

Certain Grants and 

Contracts 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 26 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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 

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 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 27 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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 

Data Sources Used in 

Preparing This Report 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 28 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 29 GAO-05-238 Denial of 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. 

Impacts of the Federal 

Provisions on Racial 

Minorities and Long-Run 

Impacts of Denying 

Federal Benefits 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 30 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 

(PRWORA)1

 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, 1996.2

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.3

 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.4

 TANF nonassistance 

can include drug treatment, job training, emergency Medicaid medical 

services, emergency disaster relief, prenatal care, and certain public health 

assistance. 

 1

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

2

See 21 U.S.C. § 862a(d)(2). 

3

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. 

4

As defined at 45 C.F.R. § 260.31(b). 

Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Legal and 

Administrative 

Framework 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 31 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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.5

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.6

 Gross income cannot exceed 130 

 5

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. 

6

Eligibility requirements are less stringent for elderly disabled persons. 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 32 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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.7

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. 

 7

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. 

State Exemptions to 

the Federal Bans on 

TANF and Food 

Stamps 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 33 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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

State TANF status Food stamp status State exemptions laws (effective date) 

Alabama Ban Ban 

Alaska Ban Ban 

Arizona Ban Ban 

Arkansas Modify the ban Modify the ban Ark. Code Ann. § 20-76-409 (July 1997) 

California Ban Modify the ban Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 18901.3 (September 2004) 

Colorado Modify the ban Opt Out Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 26-2-305, 26-2-706 (July 1997) 

Connecticut Modify the ban Modify the ban Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17b-112d (July 1997) 

Delaware Ban Modify the ban Del. Code Ann. tit. 31, § 605 (July 2003) 

Florida Modify the ban Modify the bana Fla. Stat. Ann. ch. 414.095 (May 1997) 

Georgia Ban Ban 

Hawaii Modify the ban Modify the ban Haw. Rev. Stat. § 346-53.3 (June 1997) 

Idaho Modify the ban Modify the ban Idaho Code § 56-202 (July 2000) 

Illinois Modify the ban Opt out 730 Ill. Comp. Stat 5/1-10 (June 1997) 

Indiana Modify the ban Modify the ban Ind. Code § 12-20-16-6 (July 2003) 

Iowa Modify the ban Modify the ban Iowa Code § 239B.5 (October 1997) 

Kansas Ban Ban 

Kentucky Modify the ban Modify the ban Ky. Rev. Stat Ann. § 205.2005 (July 1998) 

Louisiana Modify the ban Modify the ban La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 46:233.2(July 1997) 

Maine Opt out Opt out Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, §§ 3104(14), 3762(17) 

(April 2002) 

Maryland Modify the ban Modify the ban Md. Ann. Code 88A, §§ 50A, 65 (July 2000) 

Massachusetts Modify the ban Opt out 2001 Mass. Adv. Legis. Serv. 177, § 4400-1000 

(December 2001) (reenacted annually ) 

Michigan Modify the ban Modify the ban 1997 Mich. Pub. Acts 109, § 622 (August 1997) 

(reenacted annually) 

Minnesota Modify the ban Modify the ban Minn. Stat. § 256J.26 (July 1997) 

Mississippi Ban Ban 

Missouri Ban Ban 

Montana Ban Ban 

Nebraska Ban Modify the ban Neb. Rev.Stat. § 68-1017.02 (August 2003) 

Nevada Modify the ban Modify the ban Nev. Rev. Stat § 422.29316 (January 1998) 

New Hampshire Opt out Opt out N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 167:81-a (August 1997) 

New Jersey Modify the banb Modify the banb, c N.J. Stat. Ann. § 44:10-48 (January 1997) 

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 44:10-48.1(January 2000) 

New Mexico Opt out Opt out N.M. Stat. Ann. § 27-2B-11(C) (March 2002) 

New York Opt out d Opt out d 1997 N.Y. Laws § 121436 (August 1997) 

(reenacted annually) 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 34 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

State TANF status Food stamp status State exemptions laws (effective date) 

North Carolina Modify the ban Modify the ban N.C. Gen. Stat. § 108A-25.2 (July 1997) 

North Dakota Ban Ban 

Ohio Opt out Opt out Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5101.84 (September 1997) 

Oklahoma Opt out Opt out 1997 Okla. Sess. Laws 414 § 28 (September 1997) 

Oregon Opt out Opt out Or. Rev. Stat. § 411.119 (July 1997) 

Pennsylvania Modify the ban Modify the ban 62 Pa. Stat. § 405.1(i) (February 2004) 

Rhode Island Opt oute, f Opt oute, f R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 40-5.1-8, 40-6-8 

(Modify: July 1997, Opt-out: July 2004) 

South Carolina Bang Bang 

South Dakota Ban Ban 

Tennessee Modify the ban Modify the ban Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 71-3-154, 71-5-308 (July 2002) 

Texas Ban Ban 

Utah Modify the ban Opt out Utah Code Ann. § 35A-3-311 (July 1997) 

Vermont Opt out Opt out 1997 Vt. Laws 61, § 131 (June 1997) 

(reenacted annually) 

Virginia Ban Ban 

Washington Modify the banh Opt outh, i Wash. Rev. Code § 74.08.025 

(modify: April 1997; opt out: March 2004) 

West Virginia Ban Ban 

Wisconsin Modify the ban Modify the ban Wis. Stat. §§ 49.79, 49.145, 49.148 (October 1997) 

Wyoming Ban 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. 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 35 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 Jerseya

Conditional upon undergoing required drug treatment 

Coloradob

Hawaii 

Iowa 

Illinois c

Kentucky 

Nevadaa

Pennsylvania 

Tennesseed

Utah 

Washingtone

Conditional upon not failing required drug tests 

Marylandf
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 36 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

Eligibility to participate in TANF restored 

Minnesotag

Wisconsin 

Following a waiting period 

Louisianaa, h

Massachusettsh

North Carolinai

Conditional upon not violating conditions of parole or probation supervision 

Connecticut 

Idaho 

Michigang

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. 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 37 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 

Californiaa

Delaware a, b

Florida 

Nebraskaa

Conditional upon undergoing required drug treatment 

Hawaii 

Iowa 

Kentucky 

Nevadab

New Jerseyb

Pennsylvania 

Tennesseec

Conditional upon not failing required drug testing 

Marylandd

Minnesotae

Wisconsin 

Following a waiting period 

Louisianaf

North Carolinag

Conditional upon not violating conditions of probation or parole supervision 

Connecticut 

Idaho 

Michigane

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 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 38 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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 ban Food stamp ban 

TANF/food 

stamp ban 

status category 

Number of 

statesa

Percentage of 

drug arrestsa

Number of 

statesa

Percentage of 

drug arrestsa 

Implement the 

ban fully 

 18 43.8% 15 22.0%

Modified the ban 23 46.6% 20 57.1%

Opted out of the 

ban 

 9 9.6% 15 20.9%

Total 50 100.0% 50 100.0%

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

a

Excludes the District of Columbia. 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 39 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 

Methods for 

Estimating the 

Percentage of Drug 

Felons Potentially 

Affected by the TANF 

and Food Stamp Bans 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 40 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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 

Methods to Obtain StateSpecific Data on the 

Number of Drug Felons 

Released from Prison 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 41 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 

1997.8

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). 

 8

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. 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 42 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

Table 9: Estimated Number of Drug Felons Released from Prison during 2001, in 14 

of 18 States That Currently Maintain the Ban on TANF 

Number of prisoner 

releases 

Percentage 

distribution of 

prisoner releases

All drug felons released from prison 

Total 95,940 100%

Males 83,528 87%

Females 12,412 13%

First releases of drug felons from a new court commitmenta

Total 51,332 100%

Males 44,230 86%

Females 7,092 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. 

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, 

Methods of Estimating the 

Percentage of Drug Felons 

That Meet TANF Eligibility 

Requirements 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 43 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 and region of 

drug offenders 

Percentage of drug 

offenders that were 

parents of minor children 

Percentage of drug 

offenders that were 

custodial parents of minor 

childrena

Female offenders 

Northeast 64.1% 35.1%

Midwest 69.9% 48.1%

South 66.4% 44.6%

West 62.5% 29.9%

Male offenders 

Northeast 61.4% 24.5%

Midwest 66.6% 31.0%

South 65.0% 29.1%

West 65.3% 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. 

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 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 44 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 statedetermined 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. 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 45 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

Table 11: Estimated Percentages of Drug Offenders Released from Prison in 2001 

That Met Selected Guardianship and Earned Income Limits to Receive TANF 

benefits 

Estimated percentage of drug offenders released 

from prison that were custodial parentsa and income 

eligible for TANF 

Lower bound Upper bound

Total 13.6% 16.4%

Males 11.7% 14.5%

Females 25.4% 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. 

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. 

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, 

Factors Contributing to a 

Decrease in the Percentage 

of Drug Felons That Would 

Be Otherwise Eligible to 

Receive TANF 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 46 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 statedetermined 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. 

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. 

In recent years, drug felons sentenced to probation account for about onethird 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 

Change in Status after 

Release from Prison Could 

Increase the Percentage of 

Drug Felons Affected by 

the Ban 

Drug Felons Sentenced to 

Probation 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 47 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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 lowerbound 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 

Drug Offenders Affected 

since the Ban Went into 

Effect 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 48 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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.9

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 

 9

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. 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 49 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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 

Data on the Race of 

Drug Offenders Who 

Meet Selected TANF 

Eligibility Criteria 
Appendix II: Denial of TANF and Food 

Stamps Benefits: Legal Framework and 

Methodologies 

Page 50 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 
Appendix III: Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits to Drug 

Offenders 

Page 51 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

The Higher Education Act of 1965,1

 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.2

 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 WorkStudy program.3

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. 

 1

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

2

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). 

3

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. 

Appendix III: Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits to Drug 

Offenders 

Legal Framework for 

Denying Federal 

Higher Education 

Benefits 
Appendix III: Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits to Drug 

Offenders 

Page 52 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 Period of Ineligibility 

Possession of a controlled substance 

First offense 1 year 

Second offense 2 years 

Third offense Indefinite 

Sale of a controlled substance 

First offense 2 years 

Second offense Indefinite 

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

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. 

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.4

 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. 

 4

The FAFSA provides a worksheet that guides students in determining whether they have a 

disqualifying drug conviction. 

Administration of the 

Denial of Federal 

Higher Education 

Benefits 
Appendix III: Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits to Drug 

Offenders 

Page 53 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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.5

(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. 

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. 

 5

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. 

Methods for 

Estimating the 

Numbers of Persons 

and Amounts of 

Federal Assistance 

Affected by the 

Provisions 
Appendix III: Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits to Drug 

Offenders 

Page 54 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 
Appendix III: Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits to Drug 

Offenders 

Page 55 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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, 

Critical Assumptions in 

Estimating the Number of 

Pell Grant and Student 

Loan Recipients Denied 

Federal Benefits because 

of Disqualifying Controlled 

Substances Convictions 

Data Used to Estimate the 

Numbers and Amounts 

Denied Federal Assistance 
Appendix III: Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits to Drug 

Offenders 

Page 56 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

• 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 2003-2004.6

 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 

Academic year 

2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Number of FAFSA applications 10,961,421 12,021,249 13,009,596

FAFSA ineligibles 58,929 42,537 41,061

Self-reported drug conviction 48,642 37,451 34,914

Drug conviction question not answered 10,287 5,086 6,147

FAFSA ineligibles as a percentage of all FAFSA applicants 0.5% 0.4% 0.3%

Pell Grant eligibles, recipients, and amounts 

Percentage of Pell Grant eligibles among FAFSA applicants 51.5% 52.4% 58.0% a

Percentage of Pell Grant recipients among Pell Grant eligibles 76.9% 75.9% 77.0% a

Average amount of Pell Grant $2,298 $2,436 $2,467b

Stafford student loan recipients and amountsc 

Percentage of FAFSA applicants receiving student loans 70.0% a 70.0%a 70.0% a

Average amount of student loan 

Subsidized loan 

Unsubsidized loan 

$3,378 

$3,970 

$3,405

$4,063

$3,469b

$4,162b

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. 

 6

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. 
Appendix III: Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits to Drug 

Offenders 

Page 57 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 

 Academic year 

2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 

Number of FAFSA ineligibles 58,929 42,537 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

23,000 17,000 18,000

Estimated amount of Pell Grant denied to 

students 

$54 million $41 million $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 

41,000 30,000 29,000

Estimated amount of student loans 

denied to studentsa 

Lower-bound estimate 

Upper-bound estimate 

$139 million 

$164 million 

$101 million

$121 million

$100 million

$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. 

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 

Estimates of the 

Numbers and 

Amounts of Federal 

Assistance Affected 

by Controlled 

Substances 

Convictions 
Appendix III: Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits to Drug 

Offenders 

Page 58 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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.7

 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.8

 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. 

 7

20 U.S.C. § 1091(r). 

8

64 Fed. Reg. 38,504, 38,505 – 38,506 (1999). 

Estimates of the Impacts 

of the President’s 

Proposed Changes to the 

Rules for Denying Drug 

Offenders’ Federal 

Postsecondary Education 

Assistance 
Appendix III: Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits to Drug 

Offenders 

Page 59 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 

Limited Data on the 

Long-Term Impacts of 

Denying Federal 

Postsecondary 

Education Assistance 
Appendix III: Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits to Drug 

Offenders 

Page 60 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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.9

 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. 

 9

Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress, Investment in Education: Private 

and Public Returns (Washington, D.C.: January 2000). 
Appendix III: Denial of Federal 

Postsecondary Education Benefits to Drug 

Offenders 

Page 61 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal 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. 

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 

Page 62 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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 drugrelated 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 lowincome housing that is decent, safe, and free from illegal drugs.”1

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.2

 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 

 1

42 U.S.C. §11901. 

2

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). 

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 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 63 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

termination of the tenancy or assistance for any household with a member 

who the PHA or owner determines is illegally using a controlled 

substance.3

 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.4

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 

 3

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.

4

24 C.F.R. § 5.861. 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 64 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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.5

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.6

 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 2001.7

 The rule amended existing regulations regarding 

implementing the federally assisted housing tenant eviction and applicant 

screening provisions for drug-related criminal activities. 

 5

See 42 U.S.C. § 1437d, subsections (q), (s), and (t) for provisions related to PHA authority 

to obtain criminal history information.

6

GAO, Public Housing: Small and Larger Agencies Have Similar Views on Many Recent 

Housing Reforms, GAO-04-19 (Washington, D.C.: October 30, 2003). 

7

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

HUD and PHA Roles 

in Denying Federally 

Assisted Housing 

Benefits for Reasons 

of Drug-Related 

Criminal Activities 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 65 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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.8

 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.9

 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 

 8

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. 

9

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. 

PHAs’ Policies to Address 

Drug-Related Criminal 

Activities Vary 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 66 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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 

Number of Denials of 

Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 67 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 

 Fiscal year 

2002 2003

Number of PHAs reporting data 3,103 3,113

Number of public housing units managed 1,164,089 1,156,735

Number of evictions from public housing for criminal activity 9,083 9,325

Number of applications denied admission into public housing 

for criminal activity 

49,207 48,853

Evictions and denials as a percent of units managed by PHAs 

Evictions as a percentage of unitsa 0.8% 0.8%

Denials as a percentage of unitsa 4.2% 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. 

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. 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 68 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 actions10 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.11 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. 

 10Actions 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. 

11HUD 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. 

Selected PHAs Mostly 

Report That Relatively 

Small Percentages of 

Tenants Leases Are 

Terminated for Reasons of 

Criminal Activity or DrugRelated Criminal Activities 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 69 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 leases 

terminated for reasons of 

criminal activities 

Public housing leases 

terminated for reasons of drug-related 

criminal activities 

Public housing 

agency 

Public housing 

lease terminations 

(leading to possible 

eviction) Number

Percentage of 

all terminations 

of leases Number 

Percentage 

of all 

terminations 

of leases

Percentage 

of 

terminations 

of leases for 

reasons of 

criminal 

activities

Atlanta (GA) 320 78 24.4% 38 11.9% 48.7%

Cincinnati (OH) 721 21 2.9% 13 1.8% 61.9%

Cuyahoga County 

(OH) 1,654 102 6.2% 84 5.1% 82.4%

Indianapolis (IN) 207 36 17.4% a a a 

Jacksonville (FL) 1,299 70 5.4% 47 3.6% 67.1%

Los Angeles (CA, 

City of) 373 109 29.2% 51 13.7% 46.8%

Los Angeles (CA, 

County of) 170 51 30.0% 26 15.3% 51.0%

Memphis (TN) 28 17 60.7% 11 39.3% 64.7%

Nashville (TN) 260 148 56.9% 90 34.6% 60.8%

New Orleans (LA) 233 133 57.1% 83 35.6% 62.4%

Newark (NJ) 1,720 27 1.6% 20 1.2% 74.1%

Oakland (CA) 146 35 24.0% 7 4.8% 20.0%

Philadelphia (PA) 2,324 133 5.7% 50 2.2% 37.6%

Portland (OR) 65 a a a a a 

San Bernardino 

County (CA) a 8 a a a a 

San Diego County 

(CA) a a a a a a 

Santa Clara 

County (CA) 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% b 

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

a

Data were missing or not reported. 

b

Not applicable. 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 70 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

Further, although the data on lease terminations for reasons of drugrelated 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 drugrelated 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 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 71 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 drugrelated 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 

 

HCV terminations for 

reasons of criminal activities 

HCV terminations for reasons of drugrelated criminal activities 

Public housing 

agency 

HCV 

terminations of 

assistance Number

Percentage of all 

terminations of 

assistance Number 

Percentage 

of all 

terminations 

of 

assistance

Estimated 

percentage 

of all 

terminations 

of 

assistance

Atlanta (GA) 855 11 1.3% a a < 25%

Cincinnati (OH) 98 14 14.3% 6 6.1% b 

Cuyahoga 

County (OH) 1,214 14 1.2% 6 0.5% b

Indianapolis (IN) 247 a 25% to 50% c a a < 25%

Jacksonville (FL) 5,770 26 0.5% 4 0.07% b 

Los Angeles 

(CA, City of) 

4,468 a < 25% c a a < 25%

Los Angeles 

(CA, County of) 

1,080 a < 25% c a a < 25%

Memphis (TN) 3 a < 25% c a a 51% to 75%

Nashville (TN) 720 a < 25% c a a < 25%

New Orleans 

(LA) 

2,241 a < 25% c a a < 25%

Newark (NJ) 8 a < 25% c a a < 25%

Oakland (CA) a a 51% to 75% c a a > 75%

Philadelphia (PA) 1,445 54 3.7% 11 0.8% b 

Portland (OR) 380 71 18.7% a a a 

San Bernardino 

County (CA) 1,009 47 4.7% a a < 25%
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 72 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

 

HCV terminations for 

reasons of criminal activities 

HCV terminations for reasons of drugrelated criminal activities 

Public housing 

agency 

HCV 

terminations of 

assistance Number

Percentage of all 

terminations of 

assistance Number 

Percentage 

of all 

terminations 

of 

assistance

Estimated 

percentage 

of all 

terminations 

of 

assistance

San Diego 

County (CA) 1,010 42 4.2% 27 2.7% b 

Santa Clara 

County (CA) 922 4 0.4% a a < 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. 

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. 

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 drugrelated criminal activity are most likely to be either a subset of or 

Selected PHAs Report That 

Relatively Small 

Percentages of Applicants 

Are Denied Admission for 

Reasons of Criminal 

Activity or Drug-Related 

Criminal Activities 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 73 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 applications denied 

because of criminal activities 

Public housing applications denied 

because of drug-related criminal activities 

Public housing 

agency 

Number of 

actions taken on 

applications for 

public housing Number

Percentage of all 

actions taken on 

applications for 

assistance Number 

Percentage 

of all 

actions 

taken on 

applications 

for 

assistance

Estimated 

percentage 

of all 

actions 

taken on 

applications 

for 

assistance 

Atlanta (GA) 608 56 9.2% a a a 

Cincinnati (OH) 5,785 359 6.2% 24 0.4% b 

Cuyahoga 

County (OH) 2,307 282 12.2% a a < 25%

Indianapolis (IN) 506 75 14.8% a a a

Jacksonville (FL) 970 22 2.3% a a a 

Los Angeles 

(CA, City of) 3,920 295 7.5% a a < 25%

Los Angeles 

(CA, County of) 1,217 44 3.6% a a > 75%

Memphis (TN) 420 157 37.4% 4 1.0% b 

Nashville (TN) 2,093 137 6.5% 127 6.1% b 

New Orleans 

(LA) 365 12 3.3% 12 3.3% b 

Newark (NJ) 2,359 600 25.4% 163 6.9% b 

Oakland (CA) 674 59 8.8% a a 51% to 75%

Philadelphia (PA) 5,400 226 4.2% a a a 

Portland (OR) 2,319 22 0.9% a a a 

San Bernardino 

County (CA) a 147 a a a < 25%

San Diego 

County (CA) a a a a a a 

Santa Clara 

County (CA) 516 0 0.0% 0 0.0% b 

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

a

Data were missing or not reported. 

b

Data reported in previous column. 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 74 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 75 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 

 

HCV denials of assistance for 

reasons of criminal activities 

HCV denials of assistance for reasons of 

drug-related criminal activities 

Public housing 

agency 

Number of 

actions 

taken on 

HCV 

applications 

for 

assistance Number

Percentage of all 

actions taken on 

HCV applications 

for assistance Number 

Percentage 

of all 

actions 

taken on 

HCV 

applications 

for 

assistance

Estimated 

percentage 

of all 

actions 

taken on 

HCV 

applications 

for 

assistance

Atlanta (GA) 3,886 57 1.5% a a < 25%

Cincinnati (OH) 3,138 79 2.5% a a 25% to 50%

Cuyahoga County (OH) a 49 a a a a 

Indianapolis (IN) 390 12 3.1% a a 25% to 50%

Jacksonville (FL) 4,191 91 2.2% a a a 

Los Angeles (CA, City 

of) 

53,426 a < 25% d a a < 25%

Los Angeles (CA, 

County of) 

1,711 a < 25% d a a < 25%

Memphis (TN) 0 0 c 0 c c 

Nashville (TN) 990 a < 25% d a a < 25%

New Orleans (LA) 1,321 8 0.6% a a < 25%

Newark (NJ) 472 a < 25% d a a < 25%

Oakland (CA) a a a a a a 

Philadelphia (PA) 1,483 22 1.5% 10 0.7% b 

Portland (OR) 1,387 53 3.8% a a a 

San Bernardino County 

(CA) a a a a a a 

San Diego County (CA) 4,940 a a a a a 

Santa Clara County 

(CA) 6,200 3 0.05% a a < 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. 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 76 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 drugrelated 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 

Several Factors Can 

Contribute to the 

Reported Low 

Number of Denials 

because of DrugRelated Criminal 

Activities, but 

Potential Impacts Are 

Unclear 
Appendix IV: Denial of Federally Assisted 

Housing Benefits for Drug-Related Criminal 

Activity 

Page 77 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

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 drugrelated criminal activities would have almost eliminated the racial 

difference. 

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 

Page 78 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

The Denial of Federal Benefits Program established under section 5301 of 

the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988,1

 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.2

 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.3

 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. 

 1

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

2

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.” 

3

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.” 

Appendix V: Legal and Administrative 

Framework for the Denial of Federal Benefits 

Program 

About the Law 
Appendix V: Legal and Administrative 

Framework for the Denial of Federal Benefits 

Program 

Page 79 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

Table 20: Periods of Ineligibility for Which Benefits Can or Must Be Denied under 

Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, as Amended 

 Type of conviction offense 

Number of convictions Drug possession Drug trafficking 

First conviction Up to 1 year Up to 5 years 

Second conviction Up to 5 years Up to 10 years 

Third conviction a 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. 

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.4

 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.”5

 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 

 4

21 U.S.C. § 862(e). 

5

21 U.S.C. § 862(b)(2). 
Appendix V: Legal and Administrative 

Framework for the Denial of Federal Benefits 

Program 

Page 80 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

inaccessibility or unavailability of such a program or the inability of such 

individuals to pay for such a program.6

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 

 6

21 U.S.C. § 862(c ). 

Administration of the 

Law 
Appendix V: Legal and Administrative 

Framework for the Denial of Federal Benefits 

Program 

Page 81 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 selfcertify 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. 

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 2003.7

 7

The second quarter of 2004 was the most recent BJA data on the number of offenders 

denied benefits under the DFB. 

Use of the Denial of 

Federal Benefits 

Program Provisions 
Appendix V: Legal and Administrative 

Framework for the Denial of Federal Benefits 

Program 

Page 82 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 
Appendix V: Legal and Administrative 

Framework for the Denial of Federal Benefits 

Program 

Page 83 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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 offenders8

 and suggested that 

there would not be widespread withholding of federal benefits from drug 

offenders.9

 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. 

 8

GAO, Drug Control: Denying Federal Benefits to Convicted Drug Offenders, 

GAO/GGD-92-56 (Washington, D.C.: April 21, 1992). 

9

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. 

Assessing the Impacts 

of the Denial of 

Federal Benefits 

Program 
Appendix V: Legal and Administrative 

Framework for the Denial of Federal Benefits 

Program 

Page 84 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

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. 

Reliable Data by Race 

of Persons Receiving 

the DFB Are Not 

Available 
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 85 GAO-05-238 Denial of Federal Benefits 

Laurie E. Ekstrand, (202) 512-8777 

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. 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(440270) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER