This report describes and compares the drug- and crime-related policy restrictions contained in selected federal programs that provide assistance to low-income individuals and families: the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), and the three primary federal housing assistance programs (the public housing program, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, and the project-based Section 8 rental assistance program). These programs were chosen because they serve many of the same families. However, the programs also differ. They have different drug- and other crime-related restrictions, with varying levels of federal administration and discretion for state or local administrators. The drug- and crime-related restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and the housing assistance programs were developed at different times in different laws, but it appears they are intended to serve similar purposes. To some extent, they are intended to deter people from engaging in drug-related and other criminal activity. They may also be intended to punish individuals for engaging in undesirable behavior. Further, when resources are limited, these policies may be intended to direct assistance to other households who are deemed more worthy of assistance. Additionally, particularly for housing assistance programs, drug- and crime-related restrictions may be intended to protect vulnerable communities from the consequences of drug-related and other criminal activity. The report begins by providing a brief overview of the history and evolution of policies establishing drug- and crime-related restrictions in federal assistance programs. It then briefly describes TANF, SNAP, and the three housing programs, and then discusses the specific policies in those programs related to drug testing and drug-related and other criminal activity. It concludes by comparing and contrasting those policies and highlighting considerations for policymakers. Since governments began providing assistance to the poor, policymakers have been concerned with whether those receiving benefits were worthy of assistance. "Worthiness" has been defined both by judgments of economic need—are families or individuals truly unable to meet their needs without assistance?—and judgments of character, often as evidenced by certain behaviors. When the federal cash assistance program began in the 1930s, states were permitted to consider the "moral character" of an applicant as a factor in determining eligibility. This led to states adopting policies that reflected dominant societal expectations at the time about behavior and family structure. Examples of such policies included so-called "suitable home" rules, giving state or local administrators wide discretion to disqualify applicants for assistance, and "man in the house" rules, penalizing unmarried mothers for cohabiting with men. These moral character policies were the subject of controversy and legal challenge; critics condemned such policies, arguing that, among other concerns, they had racial overtones and disproportionately affected black families, particularly black mothers. States that had adopted these policies argued that they discouraged immoral behavior. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, many of the policies related to family structure and behavior were struck down by federal administrative rulings and the courts. Around the same time that morality tests based on family structure were being eliminated in AFDC, worries about rates of crime and drug use were increasing across the nation. Between 1960 and 1980, violent crime rates more than tripled, and rates of drug use also increased significantly. After first declaring a "War on Poverty," the Johnson Administration formed the Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice and declared a "War on Crime." Several years later, the Nixon Administration declared drug abuse "public enemy number one in the United States." The federal "War on Drugs" was intensified by the Reagan Administration, particularly in response to the "epidemic" of crack-cocaine and its associated violence. During this period, policymakers grappled with how best to address concerns about crime and drug use, their causes, and their disproportionate effects in poor communities, particularly predominantly African American urban communities. Policymakers also struggled with the challenge of how to distinguish between drug use as a crime and drug addiction as a public health problem. Specific drug-related sanctions were added to certain federal assistance programs for the first time by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 ( P.L. 100-690 ). The act made it the policy of the U.S. government to create a drug-free America and included both penalties for drug offenders as well as support for drug abuse education and prevention. So-called "user accountability" provisions denied certain federal benefits—namely all grants, loans (including student loans), licenses, and contracts—to persons convicted of certain drug-related crimes. Social Security, welfare programs (including AFDC [now TANF], Food Stamps [since renamed SNAP ], and housing assistance), and veterans' benefits were all exempted from these user accountability provisions in the final law, although earlier versions of the provision had included housing assistance and veterans' benefits in the definition of federal benefits. During debate on these user accountability provisions, supporters argued that they would serve as a deterrent to drug use, while detractors criticized these provisions as "post-conviction penalties" to further punish drug offenders. The act included congressional findings expressing specific concern about the role drugs and drug-related crimes were playing in public housing communities. While the act excluded housing assistance programs from the federal user accountability bans, it did include provisions permitting local administrators to adopt policies restricting persons involved with drugs or drug-related criminal activity from receiving federal public housing assistance and allowing for drug-related and other criminal activity to serve as grounds for termination of tenancy. Less than a decade later, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA; P.L. 104-193 ). PRWORA ended almost four decades of debate about how to reform the nation's cash welfare program. During the welfare reform debates of the 1980s and 1990s leading up to PRWORA, welfare receipt was often mentioned together with crime and drug addiction as problems afflicting the urban "underclass." While the focus of PRWORA was to fundamentally restructure cash assistance to make it time-limited and work-conditioned, it also included provisions to address the associated social ills of crime and drugs. The law made persons convicted of drug felonies subject to a lifetime ban on receiving assistance under both the newly created TANF program as well as the federal Food Stamp program (now SNAP). This provision was added during Senate floor consideration of the bill and was the subject of only limited debate, with four Senators speaking briefly on the topic. The sponsor, Senator Phil Gramm, argued "if we are serious about our drug laws, we ought not give people welfare benefits who are violating the Nation's drug laws." Opponents raised concerns about the implications for people who are addicted and their children. The act also authorized states to drug-test TANF recipients and to sanction recipients who test positive for drug use. It also added prohibitions on assisting "fleeing felons" to all federal assistance programs, including TANF, SNAP, and housing assistance. Just prior to PRWORA, Congress passed a housing law ( P.L. 104-120 ) that significantly expanded crime- and drug-related restrictions in assisted housing programs. The primary focus of the law was to extend the expiring authorizations for a number of housing programs, but it also included a section related to the "safety and security of public and assisted housing." Specifically, the section made people who had been evicted from assisted housing for drug-related activities ineligible for assistance for three years and permitted local administrators to restrict assistance to families based on demonstrated patterns of drug use or alcohol abuse. This law was enacted following President Clinton's 1996 State of the Union address in which he claimed that the nation faced a great challenge to take its streets back from crime, drugs, and gangs. In reference to assisted housing, he stated that "criminal gang members and drug dealers are destroying the lives of decent tenants." Just two years after enactment of PRWORA and P.L. 104-120 , Congress passed the Quality Housing and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1998 (QHWRA; P.L. 105-276 ), a major assisted housing reform law. The law modified and expanded the crime- and drug-related provisions previously enacted in 1988 and 1996. QHWRA also included several provisions to restrict access to housing assistance for persons involved with several specific crimes, namely, production of methamphetamines and sex offenses. In the case of the methamphetamine restriction, the provision was added during floor debate in the Senate, and the discussion of the amendment by its sponsors recounted the dangers associated with exploding methamphetamine production labs, citing several anecdotes related to such labs in assisted housing. The amendment related to sex offenders was also offered as a House floor amendment. The sponsor spoke of a specific anecdote in which a child living in public housing had been assaulted by a person previously convicted of a sex offense, as well as the dangers sex offenders may pose to communities more generally. The following section of the report briefly describes TANF, SNAP, and major housing assistance programs. The next section of the report specifically discusses the drug- and crime-related provisions of these programs. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant provides grants to states, Indian tribes, and territories for a wide range of benefits, services, and activities that address economic disadvantage. TANF is best known for funding basic assistance, state welfare programs for low-income families with children. However, in FY2015, basic assistance represented only 25% of TANF funds. TANF funds a wide range of activities that seek both to ameliorate the effects of and address the root causes of child poverty. In addition to state block grants, TANF includes competitive grants to fund healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives. The TANF cash assistance program provides aid to very poor families with children.