Abstract
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) revised eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), permanently banning individuals with past felony drug-related convictions, but allowing states to opt out or modify bans. By 2024, 28 states and Washington, DC, fully opted out and 21 states modified PRWORA; only South Carolina maintains a full ban. However, because federal restrictions remain, state legislatures episodically consider reintroduction of restrictions or bans. Household food insecurity exacerbated by SNAP restrictions increases risk of both recidivism and adverse family health. To strengthen advocacy arguments for full SNAP access, we examined state-level public discourse regarding PRWORA policies, including stakeholders and arguments highlighted. We analyzed local media coverage of PRWORA/SNAP legislative and related activity, identifying 84 stories between 1997 and 2022. State-specific case studies compared coverage in states considering lifting (West Virginia), relaxing (Missouri), or tightening (Pennsylvania) PRWORA provisions. Although most coverage was positive towards lifting bans, stories lacked content on nutrition or health policy. Without repeal of the 1996 federal statute, state-specific PRWORA provisions continue to threaten SNAP access. Nutrition advocacy should monitor and influence public discourse about this social justice issue, to shape policies protecting vulnerable populations from food insecurity.