Pubdate: Mon, 25 Mar 2013
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2013 The New York Times Company
Contact: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298

UNFAIR PUNISHMENTS

Congress embraced a destructive policy when it decreed in 1996 that 
people convicted of drug felonies would henceforth be banned for life 
from receiving food stamps or cash assistance unless they lived in a 
state that expressly opted out of the ban.

The bans affected the country's most vulnerable families, including 
women with children. And by denying welfare benefits to former drug 
addicts, the government makes it much harder for them to get access 
to residential treatment, which is sometimes required as a condition 
of release and is often paid for with welfare benefits.

A majority of states have either opted out of the bans or softened 
them in some way. But about a dozen states have adopted the welfare 
ban without modification, while others have preserved obstacles to 
cash assistance and food stamps, with unfortunate consequences.

A new study involving researchers at the Yale University School of 
Medicine suggests that, by forcing former offenders and their 
families to go hungry, the ban on food stamps could well be pushing 
desperate young mothers to prostitution. This, in turn, increases the 
risk of exposure to H.I.V.

The study, to be published in the March-April issue of the journal 
AIDS Education and Prevention, reinforces earlier research 
establishing a link between hunger, risky sexual behavior and 
exposure to the virus. The study was carried out in a collaboration 
between the Yale researchers and All of Us or None, a California 
advocacy group for the rights of inmates and former prisoners. It 
covered 110 newly released inmates, 37 percent of whom were living on 
the streets and 30 percent of whom had minor children at home.

The subjects came from three states: Texas, which completely bans 
food stamps for drug felons; California, which has a partial ban; and 
Connecticut, where people remain eligible for food stamps as long as 
they comply with the terms of their sentences. Alarmingly, more than 
90 percent of those studied had experienced varying degrees of 
uncertainty about how they were going to feed themselves and their families.

People who lived in Texas, which has a full ban, or in California, 
which has a partial ban, were more likely to go hungry. And hungry 
people in general were more prone to risky behaviors like exchanging 
sex for money. But even in Connecticut, which has no ban, far too 
many former offenders and their families were getting too little help.

The researchers call for further study. But it is already clear that 
the bans are counterproductive and that it is time for states that 
have not completely lifted them to do so.

People who have served their time face the hard task of establishing 
new lives in the world beyond prison. They need all the help they can 
get feeding and clothing their families and themselves. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom