State supervision, punishment and poverty: The case of drug bans on welfare receipt

DOI10.1177/1462474520959433
Published date01 July 2021
Date01 July 2021
Subject MatterArticles
Article
State supervision,
punishment and poverty:
The case of drug bans
on welfare receipt
Amanda Sheely
London School of Economics and Political Science,
London, UK
Abstract
This article explores the relationship between supervisory approaches to governance,
punishment, and poverty among people with drug convictions. Tying government assis-
tance to supervision could improve employment and economic outcomes. However, if
experienced as punishment, recipients may forgo financial assistance and be more likely
to experience poverty. Using information on policies that restrict access to welfare for
people with drug felony convictions in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) and the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP), this paper
makes two contributions. First, it documents state variation in the balance between
supervision and punishment in these bans. Second, using data from NLSY97, it esti-
mates how individuals’ likelihood of being in poverty is related to state SNAP drug ban
policies. States have shifted away from overtly punitive policies denying access to wel-
fare toward policies that increase supervisory requirements, especially for SNAP. This
shows that punitiveness extends beyond work activation programs like TANF.
Additionally, poverty among people with drug convictions is almost half in no ban
states compared to those in full ban states. While poverty is lower in states that include
supervisory requirements than in those for which a drug conviction fully blocks access
to welfare, this difference was not statistically significant.
Keywords
poverty, state variation, supervision, welfare
Corresponding author:
Amanda Sheely, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, Bloomsbury WC2A
2AE, UK.
Email: a.sheely@lse.ac.uk
Punishment & Society
2021, Vol. 23(3) 413–435
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1462474520959433
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
Introduction
Theorists contend that governance in the U.S. has shifted dramatically, with crim-
inal justice and welfare systems increasingly working together to control the behav-
ior of socially marginalized people through punishment and supervision
(Gustafson, 2011; Wacquant, 2009). Punitive drug laws and other policies that
have increased incarceration rates have been criticized as seeking to isolate, con-
tain, and exclude marginalized segments of the population, especially African
American men (Lynch, 2012). Welfare provision has also changed. Support has
been redirected towards working families and away from the deeply poor (Shaefer
et al., 2019). Beckett and Western (2001) argue for a resulting new penal-welfare
regime, marked by increased incarceration rates and reduced welfare support for
socially marginal groups.
In this view, punishment forms part of a wider system whose aim is to shape the
behavior of poor people. Behavior modif‌ication includes setting expectations or
goals; supervising people to make sure they are meeting those goals; and punishing
those who fail to do so. As stated by Wacquant (2010: 199), both social welfare
and penal policies are now “informed by the same behaviorist philosophy relying
on deterrence, surveillance, stigma and graduated sanctions in order to modify
conduct.” Importantly, this shift to supervision is often justif‌ied as a means to
improve economic and other social outcomes of poor people. Rather than simply
withdrawing state support, Lawrence Mead (1997) observes that this ‘new pater-
nalism’ will increase the likelihood that the poor will constructively engage in
programs that will help them overcome the personal barriers that keep them in
poverty.
In the criminal justice system, this shift can be evidenced by the widespread use
of community supervision, in which people are allowed to serve time in the com-
munity, as long as they meet the behavioral conditions imposed. Indeed, the
majority of people under the supervision of the criminal justice system are in the
community completing a period of probation or parole (Phelps, 2017). Supervision
is also a key part of welfare provision. The focus of welfare services has changed
from providing benef‌its with the aim of alleviating f‌inancial need to reducing
welfare use, promoting marriage, as well as preparing and actively pushing recip-
ients into work (Schram et al., 2010). Welfare case managers used to primarily
determine f‌inancial eligibility for programs; they must now also match recipients
with appropriate services to increase their employability, create job search require-
ments, monitor recipient compliance with these requirements, and decrease f‌inan-
cial assistance (i.e. sanction) recipients who fail to do so (Raffass, 2017). Moreover,
in both criminal justice and welfare systems, people who are supervised also
become eligible for services beyond those available to other poor people, including
job training and substance abuse treatment. Miller and Stuart (2017) have asserted
that it is through their supervision that socially marginal groups become simulta-
neously eligible for both coercion and care.
414 Punishment & Society 23(3)

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT