Report to Congressional Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

June 2005 FEDERAL 

DISABILITY 

ASSISTANCE 

Wide Array of 

Programs Needs to be 

Examined in Light of 

21st Century 

Challenges 

GAO-05-626 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-626.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robert E. 

Robertson at (202) 512-7215 or 

RobertsonR@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-626, a report to 

Congressional Committees 

June 2005

FEDERAL DISABILITY ASSISTANCE

Wide Array of Programs Needs to be 

Examined in Light of 21st Century 

Challenges 

More than 20 federal agencies and almost 200 programs provide a wide 

range of assistance to people with disabilities, including employmentrelated services, medical care, and monetary support. About half of these 

programs serve only people with disabilities while the rest serve people 

both with and without disabilities. In fiscal year 2003, more than $120 

billion in federal funds was spent on programs that only serve people 

with disabilities, with over 80 percent of these funds spent on monetary 

support (see figure below). In addition, considerable funds are spent on 

people with disabilities by programs that also serve people without 

disabilities, like Medicare and Medicaid. 

Federal Spending for Wholly Targeted Programs by Primary Type of Assistance, Fiscal Year 

2003 

8%

86%

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

1%

Other

2%

Employment-related

2%

Medical care

Education

Monetary support

The program challenges cited most frequently in our recent survey of 

nearly 200 programs serving people with disabilities are largely 

consistent with several of the key findings from past reports that led 

GAO to place federal programs supporting people with disabilities on its 

high-risk list. Both our recent survey and our past work have identified 

challenges in (1) ensuring timely and consistent processing of 

applications; (2) ensuring timely provision of services and benefits; (3) 

interpreting complex eligibility requirements;( 4) planning for growth in 

the demand for benefits and services; (5) making beneficiaries or clients 

aware of benefits and services; and (6) communicating or coordinating 

with other federal disability programs. 

In light of the vital role federal programs play in providing assistance to 

people with disabilities and in helping to ensure an adequate national 

labor force, we have identified a number of factors that are important to 

consider in assessing the need for, and nature of, program 

transformations including (1) program design issues; (2) fiscal 

implications of proposed program changes; and (3) feasibility of 

implementing program changes.

In 2003, GAO designated 

modernizing federal disability 

programs as a high-risk area 

requiring urgent attention and 

organizational transformation to 

ensure that programs function as 

efficiently and effectively as 

possible. GAO found that although 

social attitudes have changed and 

medical advancements afford 

greater opportunities for people 

with disabilities to work, the Social 

Security Administration and the 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

have maintained an outmoded 

approach that equated disability 

with inability to work. 

We have prepared this report under 

the Comptroller General's authority 

as part of a continued effort to help 

policy makers better understand the

extent of support provided by 

federal programs to people with 

disabilities and to assist them in 

determining how these programs 

could be better aligned to more 

effectively meet the needs of 

individuals with disabilities in the 

21st century. This report identifies 

(1) the wide array of federal 

programs that serve people with 

disabilities, and (2) the major 

challenges these federal programs 

face in the 21st century. In 

addition, GAO presents factors 

policy makers and program 

administrators should address in 

assessing whether, and how, they 

could be transformed to better 

meet 21st century challenges. 
Page i GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 

Background 4 

Over 20 Different Agencies Administer Almost 200 Programs That 

Provide a Wide Range of Assistance 5 

Federal Programs That Support People with Disabilities Face An 

Array of Challenges 17 

Key Factors to Consider in Transforming Programs for the 21st 

Century 21 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 27 

Appendix II Federal Programs Serving People with Disabilities 31 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 42 

Tables 

Table 1: Federal Agencies That Administer Programs Assisting 

People with Disabilities 7 

Table 2: Number of Programs Serving People with Disabilities, by 

Federal Agency and Primary Type of Assistance 12 

Figures 

Figure 1: Primary Types of Assistance Provided by Federal 

Programs to Individuals with Disabilities, Indicating 

Percentage of Programs Providing Such Assistance and 

Examples of Programs 8 

Figure 2: Number of Federal Programs Providing Various Primary 

Types of Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities 9 

Figure 3: Percentage of Federal Programs Providing Multiple Types 

of Assistance 10 

Figure 4: Federal Spending for Wholly Targeted Programs by 

Agency, Fiscal Year 2003 15 

Figure 5: Federal Spending for Wholly Targeted Programs by 

Primary Type of Assistance, Fiscal Year 2003 16 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Figure 6: Key Factors and Questions Concerning Transformation of 

Programs Serving Individuals with Disabilities 22 

Abbreviations 

CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

CFFR Consolidated Federal Funds Report 

DI Disability Insurance 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

SSA Social Security Administration 

VA Department of Veterans Affairs 

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-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

June 2, 2005 

Congressional Committees 

In 2003, GAO designated modernizing federal disability programs as a 

high-risk area—one that requires urgent attention and organizational 

transformation to ensure that programs function in the most economical, 

efficient, and effective manner possible. This designation was based on 

more than a decade of research focusing primarily on the nation’s largest 

disability programs, which are administered by the Social Security 

Administration (SSA) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). GAO’s 

work has found that these programs are neither well aligned with 21st 

century realities nor are they well-positioned to provide meaningful and 

timely support for Americans with disabilities. For example, despite 

opportunities afforded by medical and technological advancements and 

the growing expectations that people with disabilities can and want to 

work, federal disability programs remain grounded in an approach that 

equates medical conditions with the incapacity to work. Given the 

projected slowdown in the growth of the nation’s labor force, it is 

imperative that those who can work are supported in their efforts to do so. 

Yet federal disability programs are not well-positioned to provide this 

support. Solutions to these problems are likely to require fundamental 

changes, including regulatory and legislative action. 

In addition to disability programs operated within SSA and VA, there are a 

number of other federal programs that provide various levels of support to 

individuals with disabilities. We have prepared this report under the 

Comptroller General’s authority as part of a continued effort to help policy 

makers better understand the extent of support provided by federal 

programs to people with disabilities and to assist them in determining how 

these programs could more effectively meet the needs of individuals with 

disabilities in the 21st century. In this report, we (1) identify the many 

federal programs that play a role in supporting people with disabilities and 

(2) identify some of the major challenges that federal programs face in 

supporting people with disabilities in the 21st century. We also present 

factors that we believe are important for programs to consider in assessing 

whether, and how, they could be transformed to better meet 21st century 

challenges. As this report may prove helpful in the deliberations of 

committees with oversight responsibilities or jurisdiction over disability 

issues, we have addressed this report to each of these committees. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

To obtain information on federal disability programs and the challenges 

they face, we (1) reviewed the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance1

(CFDA) and agency Web sites to identify federal programs that provide 

assistance to people with disabilities; (2) conducted a Web-based survey of 

the programs we identified to obtain descriptive information on these 

programs and the challenges they face; (3) interviewed selected agency 

officials and officials from disability advocacy organizations to obtain 

additional information on the challenges federal programs face; and 

(4) reviewed pertinent agency documents, GAO reports, and academic 

research on disability issues. We conducted our work between March 2004 

and March 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. For more details about our scope and methodology, 

see appendix I. 

More than 20 federal agencies and almost 200 programs serve people with 

disabilities in a multifaceted and complex manner. About half of these 

programs serve only people with disabilities, while the rest serve people 

both with and without disabilities. Together these programs provide a 

wide range of assistance such as employment-related services, medical 

care, civil protections or legal services, education, and monetary support. 

Multiple agencies administer programs that provide similar types of 

assistance, but these programs often serve different populations of people 

with disabilities because of varying eligibility criteria. For example, the 

Department of Education and the Department of Veterans Affairs have 

separate programs that provide vocational rehabilitation services to 

American Indians and veterans, respectively. In fiscal year 2003, over 

$120 billion in federal funds were spent on programs that only serve 

people with disabilities, with over 80 percent of these funds spent on 

monetary support.2

 Although insufficient data were available to estimate 

the total additional funds spent on people with disabilities by programs 

that also serve people without disabilities, this amount is significant given 

that benefit payments in fiscal year 2002 for people with disabilities for 

 1

 The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance is a database of all federal programs 

available to state and local governments (including the District of Columbia); federallyrecognized Indian tribal governments; territories (and possessions) of the United States; 

domestic public, quasi-public, and private profit and nonprofit organizations and 

institutions; specialized groups; and individuals. 

2

 The $120 billion estimate represents reported obligations for fiscal year 2003 and includes 

administrative costs for some programs (i.e., those that included these costs when 

reporting total program spending to us). 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

two such programs alone—Medicare and Medicaid—amounted to about 

$132 billion. 

The challenges cited most frequently in our recent survey of nearly 200 

programs serving people with disabilities are largely consistent with 

several of the key findings from our past reports that led GAO to place 

federal programs supporting people with disabilities on its high-risk list. 

Our past work examining the federal government’s disability programs—

particularly those administered by SSA and VA—revealed challenges these 

programs face in a variety of areas including ensuring timely and 

consistent processing of applications for assistance, ensuring timely 

provision of services and benefits, interpreting complex eligibility 

requirements, planning for growth in the demand for program benefits and 

services, making beneficiaries or clients aware of program services or 

benefits, and communicating and coordinating with other federal 

programs serving individuals with disabilities. Our recent survey of nearly 

200 programs serving people with disabilities indicates that many of these 

programs face challenges similar to those we have previously identified. 

For example, in responding to our survey, 54 percent of the programs that 

provide medical care and 46 percent of the programs that provide 

employment-related assistance reported that planning for growth in the 

demand for assistance was a major or moderate challenge. In addition, 

53 percent of the programs that provide monetary support to people with 

disabilities reported that interpreting complex eligibility requirements was 

a major or moderate challenge. 

Over the past several years, GAO has identified the need to reexamine and 

transform federal disability programs to better position the government to 

meet the new challenges and changing expectations of the 21st century. 

We have identified several key factors that are important to consider in 

assessing the need for, and nature of, program transformations including 

(1) program design issues, particularly those affecting individual work 

incentives and supports; (2) fiscal implications of proposed program 

changes, such as their affordability and effects on federal and state 

spending and tax revenues; and (3) feasibility of implementing program 

changes, which would include considering whether appropriate processes 

and systems are in place including those related to the planning and 

management of human capital and information technology. In addition to 

considering these factors, it is also important that some mechanism be 

established for looking across programs to assess their overall 

effectiveness and integration and whether they achieve similar or 

complementary goals. 
Page 4 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Recent economic, medical, technological, and social changes have 

increased opportunities for individuals with disabilities to live with greater 

independence and more fully participate in the workforce. For example, 

over the past several decades, the economy has shifted towards serviceand knowledge-based jobs that may allow greater participation for some 

persons with physical limitations. Also, advances in medicine and assistive 

technologies—such as improved treatments for mental illnesses and 

advanced wheelchair design—afford greater opportunities for some 

people with disabilities. In addition, social and legal changes have 

promoted the goal of greater inclusion of people with disabilities in the 

mainstream of society, including adults at work. For example, the 

Americans with Disabilities Act supports the full participation of people 

with disabilities in society and fosters the expectation that people with 

disabilities can work and have the right to work. More recently, the 

President announced the New Freedom Initiative, a set of guiding 

principles and initiatives aimed at improving the integration of people with 

disabilities in all aspects of society, including employment. 

Public concern and congressional action have produced a broad array of 

federal programs designed to help people with disabilities. However, our 

prior reviews of the largest federal disability programs indicate that such 

programs have not evolved in line with these larger societal changes and 

therefore, are poorly positioned to provide meaningful and timely support 

for people with disabilities. Furthermore, program enrollment and costs 

for the largest federal disability programs have been growing and are 

poised to grow even more rapidly in the future, further contributing to the 

federal government’s large and growing long-term structural deficit.3

 For 

example, from 1982 to 2002, the number of disabled workers receiving 

benefits under SSA’s Disability Insurance (DI) program doubled from 2.6 

million to 5.5 million, while payments quadrupled from about $14.8 billion 

to $60 billion. Moreover, these disability programs are poised to grow even 

more as baby boomers reach their disability-prone years. This program 

growth is exacerbated by the low rate of return to work for individuals 

with disabilities receiving cash and medical benefits. In addition, the 

projected slowdown in the growth of the nation’s labor force has made it 

more imperative that those who can work are supported in their efforts to 

do so. 

 3

 Long-term budget simulations by GAO, the Congressional Budget Office, and others show 

that, over the long term the U.S. faces a large and growing structural deficit due primarily 

to known demographic trends and rising health care costs. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

We identified over 20 federal agencies and almost 200 federal programs 

that are either wholly or partially targeted to serving people with 

disabilities. These programs provide a wide range of assistance such as 

employment-related services, medical care, and monetary support. 

Multiple agencies run programs that provide similar types of assistance, 

but these programs often serve different populations of people with 

disabilities because of varying eligibility criteria. About 59 percent of the 

programs we identified provide indirect support to people with disabilities 

through means such as grants to states, while the rest provide support 

directly to people with disabilities. In fiscal year 2003, over $120 billion in 

federal funds were spent on programs that serve only people with 

disabilities. Although there were insufficient data available to estimate the 

total additional funds spent on people with disabilities by programs that 

also serve people without disabilities, benefit payments for people with 

disabilities for two such programs alone—Medicare and Medicaid—

amounted to about $132 billion in fiscal year 2002. 

Twenty-one federal agencies—under the jurisdiction of more than 10 

Congressional committees—administer 192 programs that target or give 

priority to people with disabilities (see table 1). However, four agencies—

the departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, 

Veterans Affairs, and Labor—are responsible for over 65 percent of these 

programs. About half of the programs that we identified are wholly 

targeted (targeted exclusively) to people with disabilities. The rest of the 

programs are partially targeted to people with disabilities—they serve 

people with and without disabilities.4

 Specifically, of the 192 programs we 

identified, 95 reported being wholly targeted, and 97 reported being 

partially targeted. The wholly targeted programs reported that they served 

over 34 million beneficiaries or clients in fiscal year 2003, with the largest 

among these—SSA’s DI program and VA’s Veterans Compensation for 

Service-Connected Disability program—serving about 10 million of these 

beneficiaries. Although some of the partially targeted programs we 

surveyed could not provide data on the number of people with disabilities 

they serve, our survey data indicate that these programs served at least 

 4

 We considered a program to be wholly or partially targeted to people with disabilities if it 

met one or more of the following criteria: (1) people with disabilities are specifically 

mentioned in legislation as a targeted group, (2) people are eligible for the program wholly 

because of a disability, (3) people are eligible for the program partially because of a 

disability, (4) people with disabilities are given special consideration in eligibility 

determinations, or (5) people with disabilities are given priority in being served. 

Over 20 Different 

Agencies Administer 

Almost 200 Programs 

That Provide a Wide 

Range of Assistance 

Multiple Federal Agencies 

Administer Programs 

Serving People with 

Disabilities 
Page 6 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

15 million beneficiaries or clients with disabilities in fiscal year 2003, with 

the largest of these programs—SSA’s Supplemental Security Income 

Program—serving about 5.7 million of these beneficiaries.5

 5

 The number of beneficiaries or clients served by these programs in any given year is 

probably significantly higher than the numbers we report here for fiscal year 2003 because 

many programs did not provide us with estimates of the number of beneficiaries or clients 

they serve, or they provided us with estimates for a different fiscal year. Wholly targeted 

programs reported serving a total of about 44 million beneficiaries or clients, 10 million of 

whom were for fiscal years other than 2003. Similarly, partially targeted programs reported 

serving a total of about 22 million beneficiaries, 7 million of whom were for fiscal years 

other than 2003. 
Page 7 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Table 1: Federal Agencies That Administer Programs Assisting People with Disabilities 

Federal agencies 

Number of wholly 

targeted programs 

Number of partially 

targeted programs 

Total number of programs 

supporting people with 

disabilities 

Department of Health and Human Services 17 23 40

Department of Education 27 6 33

Department of Veterans Affairs 20 12 32

Department of Labor 8 14 22

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 6 10 16

Social Security Administration 6 4 10

Department of Agriculture 1 8 9

Department of Transportation 2 4 6

Department of Justice 0 5 5

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission 1 2 3

Office of Personnel Management 2 1 3

Department of Commerce 0 2 2

Department of Treasury 0 2 2

Library of Congress 1 1 2

Access Board 1 0 1

Committee for Purchase from People Who 

are Blind or Severely Disabled 1 0 1

Department of Defense 1 0 1

Department of Energy 0 1 1

Department of the Interior 1 0 1

Railroad Retirement Board 0 1 1

Small Business Administration 0 1 1

Total number of programs in our survey 95 97 192

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Federal programs provide a wide range of assistance to people with 

disabilities (see fig. 1). The most common primary types of assistance 

provided are employment-related services and medical care, although a 

number of programs provide civil protections or legal services, education, 

and monetary support as well as other benefits or services (see fig. 2). 

Federal Programs Provide 

a Wide Range of 

Assistance to People with 

Disabilities 
Page 8 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Figure 1: Primary Types of Assistance Provided by Federal Programs to Individuals with Disabilities, Indicating Percentage of 

Programs Providing Such Assistance and Examples of Programs 

Food

Department of Agriculture –

Food stamps

Employment-Related

Department of Labor –

Work Incentives Grant

Monetary support

Social Security Administration –

Disability insurance

Loans

Department of Veterans Affairs –

Veterans Housing—Guaranteed

and insured loans

Information dissemination

Department of Education –

Special Education—Parent

Information Centers

Education

Department of Education –

Special Education—Grants

to states

Civil protections or legal

services

Department of Justice –

Protection of voting rights

Assistive technology

Department of Defense –

Computer/Electronic

Accommodations Program

Medical care

Department of Health and

Human Services –

HIV Care Formula Grants

Transportation

Department of Transportation –

Capital and Training Assistance

Program for Over-the-Road

Bus Accessibility

Other assistance

Library of Congress –

Library services for the blind

and physically handicapped

Housing

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development –

Shelter Plus Care

3%

2%

8%

6%

16%

4%

15%

2%

9%

9%

3%

10%

15%

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

Personal assistant services

Department of Education –

Independent Living Services for

Older Individuals Who Are Blind
Page 9 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Figure 2: Number of Federal Programs Providing Various Primary Types of Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities 

Most of the federal programs provide more than one type of assistance and 

over one-quarter of the programs provide three or more types of 

assistance to people with disabilities (see fig. 3). For example, the 

Developmental Disabilities Basic Support and Advocacy Grants program 

run by HHS provides multiple types of assistance to people with 

disabilities including housing, education, transportation, and information 

dissemination services. 

Primary type of assistance

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

Partially targeted programs

Wholly targeted programs 

Number of programs

Medical care

Education

Housing

Transportation

Loans

Food

Other

Employmentrelated

Monetary 

support

Information

dissemination

Personal assistant

services

Assistive

technology

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

20

18

11

8 8

5 4 3 2 2 1

13

8

10

7

10 11

11

8

5 3

2 5

17

Civil protections

or legal services
Page 10 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Figure 3: Percentage of Federal Programs Providing Multiple Types of Assistance 

Note: Numbers in this figure do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 

About 59 percent of the programs we identified provide support indirectly 

through other entities such as state agencies or private organizations, 

while the rest provide it directly to people with disabilities. For example, 

the Department of Education’s Preschool Grants program provides special 

education to preschool children with disabilities via funding to state 

education agencies, whereas the Department of Labor’s Coal Mine 

Workers’ Compensation program provides monetary support directly to 

eligible coal mine workers with disabilities. Of the programs that provide 

assistance indirectly to people with disabilities, the most common means 

is through nonfederal government entities (e.g., state or local agencies). 

Multiple federal agencies administer programs that provide similar types 

of assistance to people with disabilities (see table 2). For example, seven 

agencies—including the Social Security Administration, the Committee for 

the Purchase from People who are Blind or Severely Disabled, the Office 

of Personnel Management, and the departments of Agriculture, Education, 

Labor, and Veterans Affairs—administer 28 programs that primarily 

provide employment-related services to people with disabilities. 

Multiple Federal Agencies 

Provide Similar Types of 

Assistance 

0

10

20

30

40

50

47

28

11

5 5

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 or

more

Number of types of assistance provided

Percentage of programs providing assistance

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Page 11 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 
Page 12 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Table 2: Number of Programs Serving Individuals with Disabilities, by Federal Agency and Primary Type of Assistance 

Federal agency 

Monetary 

support 

Medical 

care

Personal assistant 

services Housing Food Education

Employmentrelated

Access Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or 

Severely Disabled 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Department of Agriculture 0 0 0 3 3 0 1

Department of Commerce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Department of Defense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Department of Education 0 0 3 0 0 12 7

Department of Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Department of Health and 

Human Services 2 13 0 0 2 1 0

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 0 0 0 8 0 0 0

Department of Justice 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Department of Labor 4 0 0 0 0 0 10

Department of Interior 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Department of Transportation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Department of Treasury 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Department of Veterans Affairs 7 15 0 1 0 3 3

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Library of Congress 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Office of Personnel 

Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Railroad Retirement Board 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Small Business Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Social Security Administration 4 0 0 0 0 0 4

Total 19 28 3 12 5 18 28
Page 13 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Civil protections 

or legal services Loans Transportation

Information 

dissemination

Assistive 

technology

Other 

assistance Totals

0 0 0 0 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 2 0 9

0 0 0 0 0 2 2

0 0 0 0 1 0 1

3 2 0 2 0 4 33

0 0 0 0 0 1 1

4 0 0 3 0 15 40

3 1 0 2 0 2 16

3 0 0 0 0 0 5

2 0 1 5 0 0 22

0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 5 1 0 0 6

0 0 0 0 0 2 2

0 2 1 0 0 0 32

3 0 0 0 0 0 3

0 0 0 0 0 2 2

0 0 0 1 0 0 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 1 1

0 0 0 2 0 0 10

18 5 7 16 3 30 192

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

Although programs from multiple agencies provide the same primary type 

of assistance, these programs often have varying eligibility criteria that 

may limit the populations served to distinct groups of people with 

disabilities. For example, the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services program run by the Department of Education and the Department 
Page 14 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

of Veterans Affairs’ Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans 

program each provide employment-related assistance, but to distinct 

groups of people.6

 Furthermore, the 28 programs that primarily provide 

employment-related services often have distinct eligibility criteria beyond 

the specific populations served. 

The programs that provide assistance only to people with disabilities spent 

over $120 billion in fiscal year 2003.7

 SSA and VA accounted for about 88 

percent of this amount (see fig. 4). In particular, SSA’s DI program 

accounted for about 64 percent of the total spending for wholly targeted 

programs, and the VA’s Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected 

Disability program accounted for approximately 17 percent of this total. 

Approximately 86 percent of the wholly targeted program spending was 

for programs that primarily provided monetary support to people with 

disabilities (see fig. 5). 

 6

 Approximately 77 percent of the wholly targeted programs we identified limit eligibility to 

a specific population of people who have a disability (e.g., to a certain age group, disability 

type, or population group). 

7

 Of the 95 wholly targeted programs in our analysis, we were able to obtain some type of 

spending data for 85 programs (either from federal government data on program spending 

or from our web-based survey). The $120 billion estimate represents reported obligations 

for fiscal year 2003 and includes administrative costs for some programs (i.e., those that 

included these costs when reporting total program spending to us). However, data on fiscal 

year 2003 obligations were not available or reported for some programs. In those instances, 

some programs instead provided data on outlays or appropriations, and these data, in some 

cases, pertained to a fiscal year other than 2003. For example, in addition to the more than 

$120 billion in fiscal year 2003 obligations that we report, other wholly targeted programs 

reported outlays of over $7 billion in fiscal year 2003. (See appendix I for a more detailed 

discussion of our methodology and see appendix II for a more detailed listing of spending 

by individual programs.) 

Billions Are Spent on 

Programs for People with 

Disabilities 
Page 15 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Figure 4: Federal Spending for Wholly Targeted Programs by Agency, Fiscal Year 

2003 

Note: The percentages in this figure are calculated based on fiscal year 2003 program obligations 

that we were able to identify. Therefore, it does not reflect the spending of a number of programs (and 

agencies) for which we were unable to obtain any fiscal year 2003 spending data or which provided 

data representing program outlays rather than obligations. For example, the Department of Labor’s 

reported outlays of almost $3 billion for wholly targeted programs are not reflected in this figure. For a 

more comprehensive listing of program spending, see appendix II. Numbers in this figure do not add 

up to 100 percent due to rounding. 

1%

Other agencies

2%

HHS

10%

Education

24% VA

SSA

64%

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Page 16 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Figure 5: Federal Spending for Wholly Targeted Programs by Primary Type of 

Assistance, Fiscal Year 2003 

Note: The percentages in this figure are calculated based on fiscal year 2003 program obligations 

that we were able to identify. Therefore, it does not reflect the spending of a number of programs for 

which we were unable to obtain any fiscal year 2003 spending data or which provided data 

representing program outlays rather than obligations. For a more comprehensive listing of program 

spending, see appendix II. Numbers in this figure do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 

In addition to the billions of dollars spent on programs that serve only 

people with disabilities, additional amounts are spent on individuals with 

disabilities by partially targeted programs whose beneficiaries also include 

people without disabilities. While we were not provided with sufficient 

data to determine the total amount spent by all of these partially targeted 

programs on benefits or services for individuals with disabilities,8

 these 

costs are certainly significant given that they include such programs as 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and Medicare. In 2002, SSI 

paid about $26 billion in cash benefits to people with disabilities and 

 8

 Some of these programs were unable to provide us with information pertaining to their 

programs’ spending on people with disabilities because they do not separately track or 

collect spending data for individuals with disabilities. 

8%

86%

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.

1%

Other assistance

2%

Employment-related

2%

Medical care

Education

Monetary support
Page 17 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Medicaid and Medicare together paid about $132 billion in benefits for 

such individuals. 

Both our past work and our recent survey of federal programs supporting 

people with disabilities indicate that these programs face a number of 

challenges. Among these are challenges in ensuring timely and consistent 

processing of applications for assistance, ensuring timely provision of 

services and benefits, interpreting complex eligibility requirements, 

planning for growth in the demand for program benefits and services, 

making beneficiaries or clients aware of program services or benefits, and 

communicating or coordinating with other federal programs. 

Our past work examining disability programs administered by SSA and VA 

highlighted the challenges that federal programs face in ensuring timely 

and consistent processing of applications for assistance. Both SSA and VA 

have experienced lengthy processing times for disability claims over the 

past several years, with claimants waiting, on average, more than 4 months 

for an initial decision and for more than 1 year for a decision on appeal of 

a denied claim. In addition, we have also pointed out that inconsistencies 

in these agencies’ disability claim decisions across adjudicative levels and 

locations have raised questions about the fairness, integrity, and cost of 

these programs. Our survey provides further evidence of such challenges 

facing programs that provide monetary support. Almost half of these 

programs reported that ensuring timely processing of applications was a 

major or moderate challenge,9

 and more than one-quarter of monetary 

support programs reported that consistent processing of applications was 

a major or moderate challenge.10

 9

 In discussing our survey results throughout the remainder of this section, our figures 

regarding the percentage of programs that considered particular issues to be a “challenge” 

includes programs that identified an issue as either a “major” or “moderate” challenge in 

their responses to our survey. Also, the survey results presented in this section combine 

responses from both grant-making and non-grant-making programs. The responses of 

grant-making programs reflect these programs’ views of the challenges their grantees face. 

A more complete tabulation of the survey results related to program challenges is available 

on the GAO Web site at www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-695SP. 

10 Of all 192 federal programs included in our analysis, including programs providing 

monetary support, 21 percent reported that ensuring timely processing of applications for 

assistance was a challenge and 15 percent reported that ensuring consistent processing of 

applications for assistance was a challenge. 

Federal Programs 

That Support People 

with Disabilities Face 

an Array of 

Challenges 

Timely and Consistent 

Processing of Applications 

for Assistance 
Page 18 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Our past work also identified the challenges encountered by federal 

programs in ensuring timely provision of services and benefits. For 

example, we noted that structural weaknesses in SSA’s DI and SSI 

programs have prevented the agency from offering return-to-work services 

when it may help most—soon after a person becomes disabled. Our survey 

indicates that some other federal programs also face the challenge of 

providing services in a timely fashion. For example, 38 percent of the 

programs that provide employment-related assistance to people with 

disabilities reported that ensuring timely provision of services and benefits 

was a challenge.11 Officials from the Department of Education, for 

instance, told us that of the 80 Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agencies 

they are responsible for overseeing, about half of these agencies operate 

under a special procedure for prioritizing services12 because the demand 

for VR services outweighs the available resources. 

Our past work indicated that SSA and VA’s eligibility requirements are 

complex and difficult to interpret. For example, we have reported that the 

high costs of administering SSA’s DI program reflects the complex and 

demanding nature of making disability decisions. Our survey provides 

further evidence of such challenges for federal disability programs. For 

example, 53 percent of programs providing monetary support to people 

with disabilities reported that interpreting complex eligibility requirements 

was a challenge.13

Our past work noted that federal disability programs are facing challenges 

in planning for the anticipated increase in demand for their benefits and 

services. For example, by the year 2010, SSA expects the number of Social 

Security DI beneficiaries to increase by more than one-third over 2001 

levels. However, our past work found that most of the state Disability 

Determination Services agencies responsible for processing DI claims face 

 11 Of all 192 federal programs included in our analysis, including programs providing 

employment-related assistance, 24 percent reported that ensuring timely provision of 

services and benefits was a challenge. 

12 Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, states that cannot provide vocational rehabilitation 

services to all eligible applicants must provide assurances that those with the most severe 

disabilities will be selected first under “order of selection” criteria. 

13 Of all 192 federal programs included in our analysis, including programs providing 

monetary support, 30 percent reported that interpreting complex eligibility requirements 

was a challenge. 

Timely Provision of 

Services and Benefits 

Interpreting Complex 

Eligibility Requirements 

Planning for Growth in the 

Demand for Services and 

Benefits 
Page 19 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

significant challenges in ensuring there are enough trained staff to handle 

DI as well as SSI claims. Similarly, in our prior work we reported that 

despite VA’s recent progress in reducing its disability claims workload, it 

will be difficult for the agency to cope with future workload increases due 

to several factors, including increased demand for services as a result of 

military conflicts and legislative mandates. Our survey of federal disability 

programs indicates that planning for growth in the demand for benefits or 

services is also a challenge for other programs that support people with 

disabilities. For example, 54 percent of the programs that provide medical 

care and almost half of the programs that provide employment-related 

assistance reported that planning for growth in the demand for assistance 

was a challenge.14 Our discussions with responsible agency officials 

reinforced the challenges posed by potential growth in demand for 

program services or benefits. For example, officials from the Department 

of Labor’s one-stop center program15 told us they are not sure if the 

program has sufficient resources to meet any increased demand for 

services that might result from the outreach they are conducting to people 

with disabilities. 

Our past work highlighted challenges in making beneficiaries aware of 

services offered under federal disability programs. For example, we 

reported that SSA’s work incentives are ineffective in motivating people to 

work, in part, because many beneficiaries are unaware that the work 

incentives even exist. Our survey indicated that 69 percent of programs 

that disseminate information to people with disabilities reported that 

making beneficiaries or clients aware of their programs’ services was a 

challenge.16 The need to make people more aware of disability program 

services has also been noted by other entities. For example, in 1999, the 

 14 Of all 192 federal programs included in our analysis, including programs providing 

medical care and employment-related assistance, 36 percent reported that planning for 

growth in the demand for assistance was a challenge. 

15 The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) requires states and localities to bring 

together a number of federally funded employment and training services into a single 

system—the one-stop system. Funded through different federal agencies, these programs 

are to provide services through a statewide network of one-stop career centers to adults, 

dislocated workers, and youth. 

16 Of all 192 federal programs included in our analysis, including information dissemination 

programs, 38 percent reported that making beneficiaries or clients aware of their programs’ 

services and benefits was a challenge. 

Making Beneficiaries or 

Clients Aware of Program 

Services and Benefits 
Page 20 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities17

suggested that the White House take more action to make people aware of 

programs that support people with disabilities. 

Both our work and the work of others suggests some weaknesses in 

communication and coordination among various federal disability 

programs. In a 1996 report, we noted that programs helping people with 

disabilities do not work together as efficiently as they could to share 

information about their programs and to overcome obstacles posed by 

differing eligibility criteria and numerous service providers. We said that 

the lack of coordination among programs could result in duplication or 

gaps in services provided to people with disabilities. Others have also 

identified the need for greater coordination among federal disability 

programs. For example, in announcing the New Freedom Initiative—a 

federal effort to remove barriers and promote community integration for 

people with disabilities—the President identified policy areas, such as the 

provision of assistive technology, where better federal coordination was 

needed. Also, in a review of programs for low-income adults with 

disabilities, Urban Institute researchers described the safety net 

supporting such individuals as “a tangled web of conflicting goals and gaps 

in needed services.”18 In addition, officials at the National Council on 

Disability told us that although various interagency commissions exist to 

address issues faced by people with disabilities, most of these 

commissions have weak authority or have never met as a group. Our 

survey provides further evidence of the coordination and communication 

challenges facing federal programs serving individuals with disabilities. 

About one-third of these programs indicated that, in their efforts to 

support people with disabilities, they experienced challenges in obtaining 

 17 The Presidential Task Force on the Employment of People with Disabilities was 

established to create a coordinated and aggressive national policy to bring adults with 

disabilities into gainful employment at a rate that is as close to the employment rate of the 

general adult population. The Task Force published a series of reports over the course of 

four years entitled Re-charting the Course.

18 David Wittenburg and Melissa Favreault, “Safety Net or Tangled Web? An Overview of 

Programs and Services for Adults with Disabilities,” Occasional Paper Number 68, The 

Urban Institute, p. 23 (Washington, D.C.; November 2003). 

Communication and 

Coordination among 

Programs Serving 

Individuals with 

Disabilities 
Page 21 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

information from or coordinating with other federal or nonfederal 

programs.19

Over the past several years, GAO, in reporting that the largest federal 

disability programs were mired in outdated concepts of disability, has 

identified the need to reexamine and transform these programs to better 

position the government to meet the challenges and expectations of the 

21st century. In identifying the wide range of federal programs serving 

individuals with disabilities and some of the major challenges these 

programs face, this report raises several questions about whether other 

federal disability programs may also need to be reoriented and 

transformed. In particular, are the nearly two hundred programs that 

provide assistance to people with disabilities well-suited to address these 

challenges, and are they structured in a manner that collectively allows 

them to provide coherent and seamless support to people with 

disabilities? Also, in light of the nation’s large and growing structural 

deficit, do these programs represent the most cost-effective approaches to 

serving individuals with disabilities? 

On the basis of more than a decade of research focusing on the nation’s 

largest disability programs and our review of prior GAO reports examining 

efforts to reform federal programs and transform agencies, we have 

identified several key factors that are important to consider in assessing 

the need for, and nature of, program transformations. In particular, our 

prior work identifying shortcomings in the work incentives and supports 

provided by the largest federal disability programs indicates that these 

basic program design issues need to be addressed. Second, given the tight 

fiscal constraints facing both federal and state governments, programs will 

need to carefully consider the sustainability of current costs and the 

potential costs associated with transformation initiatives. Finally, 

programs will need to evaluate the feasibility of any transformation 

efforts, considering whether appropriate processes and systems—

including those related to the planning and management of human capital 

and information technology—are in place to effectively carry out current 

operations or proposed changes. Figure 6 presents a list of questions that 

may serve as a guide for addressing these factors. 

 19 Although our survey asked programs to report information sharing or coordination 

challenges with both federal and nonfederal programs, most of the respondents who 

reported having such challenges indicated that these challenges related to their 

interactions with other federal programs, either within or outside of their own agency. 

Key Factors to 

Consider in 

Transforming 

Programs for the 21st 

Century 
Page 22 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Figure 6: Key Factors and Questions Concerning Transformation of Programs 

Serving Individuals with Disabilities 

Program Design—Individual incentives and supports: 

• Are the program’s eligibility criteria up to date, taking into consideration (1) medical and 

technological advances; (2) changes in the labor market (e.g., shift toward more service 

and knowledge-based work); (3) social changes (e.g., altered expectations focusing on 

work and self-sufficiency and legal protections for workers with disabilities); and 

(4) changing demographics (i.e., aging of the Baby Boom generation)? 

• Does the program appropriately identify those who can’t work and provide them with 

financial support? 

• Does the program provide effective work supports to individuals to enhance their 

chances of entering, returning to, or staying in the workforce? 

• Does the program provide return to work assistance at the optimal time (i.e., soon after 

a person incurs a disability, when they may be more motivated to return to work)? 

• Should some beneficiaries be required to accept assistance to enhance work capacities 

as a precondition for benefits? 

• Is the program sufficiently coordinated with related programs to provide coherent and 

integrated assistance to individuals with disabilities as well as incentives promoting 

work? 

• Is the program flexible enough to support the changing needs of people with 

disabilities? 

Fiscal implications: 

• What would be the program costs (both short and long term) of specific efforts to 

streamline and modernize disability programs and what are the implications of these 

costs for the nation’s fiscal outlook? 

• What would be the financial benefits (e.g., increased tax revenues from individuals who 

return to work) of such efforts? 

• Who will pay for program benefits and services (e.g., medical and assistive 

technologies) and will beneficiaries be required to defray some portion of the costs? 

• What are the fiscal implications for states and localities and for nongovernmental 

organizations? 

Feasibility of Implementation and Transformation: 

• Has the program established clear standards, and are these standards applied 

accurately and consistently? 

• Does the program have personnel who are capable of carrying out eligibility 

determinations and assessments? 

• Are eligibility determinations and assessments completed in a timely manner? 

• Does the program have appropriate controls in place to ensure program integrity? 

• Does the program make use of information systems which not only facilitate day-to-day 

processing needs but also provide sufficient information for longer term performance 

evaluation and policy assessment? 

Source: GAO. 

In addition to addressing these questions, which will provide a basic 

framework for individually assessing existing programs and proposals for 

transforming them, it is also important that some mechanism be 

established for looking across programs to assess their overall 
Page 23 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

effectiveness and integration and whether they are designed to achieve 

similar or complimentary goals. The diffusion of responsibility for federal 

programs serving people with disabilities across multiple agencies and the 

absence of any clear central authority for guiding a fundamental 

reassessment of federal disability policy will likely pose significant 

impediments to such action. However, a reexamination could serve to 

identify programs and policies that are outdated or ineffective while 

improving the targeting and efficiency of remaining programs through 

such actions as redesigning allocation and cost-sharing provisions and 

consolidating facilities and programs. Our recently issued report 

concerning “21st Century Challenges” identifies approaches—such as the 

use of special temporary commissions to develop policy proposals and the 

exercise of congressional oversight through hearings on the activities of 

federal agencies—that may be used for such a reexamination should the 

Congress choose to pursue this course of action.20 Addressing the 

individual program transformation questions we identify above in 

conjunction with a reexamination of how these programs work 

collectively represent key steps in efforts to meet 21st century social and 

economic expectations of individuals with disabilities and the general 

public. 

Copies of this report are being sent to: the Secretaries of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, 

Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Commissioner of SSA; the Director of 

the Office of Personnel Management; the Administrator of the Small 

Business Administration; the Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Board; 

the Chairperson of the Committee for Purchase from People who are Blind 

or Severely Disabled; the Chair of the Access Board; the Chair of the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission; the Librarian of Congress; 

appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. The 

report is also available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

 20 GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, 

GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005). 
Page 24 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-7215 or RobertsonR@gao.gov. Contact 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 contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix III. 

Robert E. Robertson 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Page 25 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

List of Committees 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Chairman 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Chairman 

The Honorable Max Baucus 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Finance 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi 

Chairman 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Susan Collins 

Chairman 

The Honorable Joseph Lieberman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Homeland Security 

 and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Larry Craig 

Chairman 

The Honorable Daniel Akaka 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

United States Senate 
Page 26 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

The Honorable Jerry Lewis 

Chairman 

The Honorable David R. Obey 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable John A. Boehner 

Chairman 

The Honorable George Miller 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Education and 

 the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Joe Barton 

Chairman 

The Honorable John D. Dingell 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Tom Davis 

Chairman 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Steve Buyer 

Chairman 

The Honorable Lane Evans 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable William M. Thomas 

Chairman 

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Ways and Means 

House of Representatives 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 27 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

For our review, we defined a federal program as a function of a federal 

agency that provides assistance or benefits to a state or states, territorial 

possession, county, city, other political subdivision, or grouping or 

instrumentality thereof; or to any domestic profit or nonprofit corporation, 

institution, or individual, other than an agency of the federal government.1

We defined the scope of our review to include those federal programs 

meeting one of more of the following criteria: (1) people with disabilities 

are specifically mentioned in a program’s authorizing legislation as a 

targeted group, (2) people are eligible for the program wholly because of a 

disability, (3) people are eligible for the program partially because of a 

disability, (4) people with disabilities are given special consideration in 

eligibility determinations, or (5) people with disabilities are given priority 

in being served. Programs that serve individuals without respect to 

disability (i.e., disability is not an explicit criteria for program eligibility) 

but that serve some individuals with disabilities (such as Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families) are beyond the scope of our review. In 

addition, we excluded programs whose principal focus is research, 

demonstrations, training for professionals who work with people with 

disabilities, technical assistance, or special transportation, as well as 

disability retirement programs for federal workers. 

To develop a list of programs that met these criteria, we first conducted a 

systematic search in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 

to identify programs that have some role in serving people with disabilities 

and the respective agencies responsible for administering each of these 

programs. In addition, we reviewed federal agency Web sites to identify 

additional programs that were not included in the CFDA. We then 

submitted the list of programs administered by each agency to that agency 

for verification. (The final list of programs along with some descriptive 

information on each program can be found in app. II.) In developing our 

list, we included federal programs regardless of how the benefit, service, 

 1

 Our definition of a program is derived from the Catalog for Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA), a database of all federal programs available to state and local governments 

(including the District of Columbia); federally-recognized Indian tribal governments; 

territories (and possessions) of the United States; domestic public, quasi-public, and 

private profit and nonprofit organizations and institutions; specialized groups; and 

individuals. The CFDA states that “A ‘Federal domestic assistance program’ may in practice 

be called a program, an activity, a service, a project, a process, or some other name, 

regardless of whether it is identified as a separate program by statute or regulation.” The 

CFDA further notes that “ ‘Assistance’ or ‘benefits’ refers to the transfer of money, 

property, services, or anything of value, the principal purpose of which is to accomplish a 

public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by federal statute.” 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 28 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

or assistance is ultimately delivered to the individual (e.g., directly by the 

federal agency or indirectly by another entity, such as a state agency). 

To obtain information on federal programs supporting people with 

disabilities and the challenges they face, we conducted a Web-based 

survey, which collected basic information on each program, including the 

types of assistance provided, whether the assistance is provided directly to 

beneficiaries or indirectly through other entities, whether the program is 

partially or wholly targeted to people with disabilities, the number of 

beneficiaries served, program spending, and the challenges faced by these 

programs (i.e., obstacles that hindered a program’s ability to effectively 

and efficiently support people with disabilities). (A more complete 

tabulation of the survey results related to program challenges is available 

on the GAO Web site at www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-695SP.) To 

identify the appropriate program officials to respond to the survey, we 

submitted the list of programs that we compiled to liaisons at each agency. 

These liaisons then identified the appropriate respondents at their 

respective agencies. We pretested the content and format of our survey 

with officials from eight programs to determine if it was understandable 

and if the information was feasible to collect, and we refined the survey as 

appropriate. We then sent e-mail notifications to the identified officials of 

299 programs beginning on June 15, 2004, asking them to complete the 

survey by June 28, 2004. To encourage respondents to complete the 

survey, we sent e-mail messages to prompt each nonrespondent 1 and 2 

weeks after the initial e-mail message. We closed the survey on August 16, 

2004. We obtained survey responses from 258 programs, for an overall 

response rate of 86 percent. In addition, for 11 of the 41 programs that did 

not submit survey responses, we obtained descriptive information from 

the CFDA to answer a limited number of survey questions to the extent 

that such information was available. Based on responses to survey 

questions asking programs to identify the criteria they apply in serving 

people with disabilities and the primary type of assistance they provide, 

we identified 192 programs (comprising 64 percent of all programs 

surveyed) that met our criteria for defining programs as either wholly or 

partially targeted towards serving individuals with disabilities. 

Although our survey asked programs to provide spending data, because of 

limitations or inconsistencies in the spending information reported by 

survey respondents, we obtained spending data from the Consolidated 

Federal Funds Report (CFFR)—a database compiled by the Bureau of the 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 29 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Census—for all of the relevant programs listed in this database.2 For 

programs that did not have data reported in the CFFR, we used spending 

information from the survey data. In a few cases where spending data was 

not available from either the CFFR or survey data, we obtained this 

information from the CFDA. To verify the spending data that we present in 

this report, we sent each program an e-mail message asking them to 

confirm the amounts we had identified. While many programs confirmed 

the spending amounts that we listed in our message, others identified 

different amounts. The spending data we present in this report are based 

on the final verified spending amounts identified by programs in their 

response to our e-mail. These data are not entirely consistent across 

programs. For example, while most of these data represent spending for 

fiscal year 2003, some programs instead provided data for other fiscal 

years. Also, some programs included administrative costs in their spending 

figures while others did not include such costs. In addition, while the 

majority of the spending data we report represent program obligations, 

some of the data instead represent outlays.3

 Of the 95 wholly targeted 

programs in our analysis, we were able to obtain some type of spending 

data for 85 programs. However, many partially targeted programs were 

unable to provide us with data pertaining to their programs’ spending on 

people with disabilities because they do not separately track or collect 

such data for these individuals. As a result, we do not present spending 

data in this report for partially targeted programs except for three 

programs (Supplemental Security Income, Medicare, and Medicaid) for 

which we were able to obtain a breakdown of spending on people with 

disabilities from agency documents. 

Because we relied extensively on program spending data derived from the 

2003 CFFR data that are available on-line from the CFFR Web site 

(http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html), we conducted limited tests 

of the reliability of these data, including frequency analyses of critical data 

fields. We restricted our reliability assessment to the specific variables 

that were pertinent to our analysis. These tests indicated that the critical 

 2

 The CFFR reports federal government expenditures or obligations in state, county, and 

subcounty areas of the United States as well as the District of Columbia and U.S. outlying 

areas. Various federal government agencies provide the data for this report from their 

existing reporting systems. 

3

 In addition, several programs provided us with data on their appropriations, rather than 

either obligations or outlays. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 30 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

data fields were sufficiently complete and accurate for the purposes of our 

analysis. 

To obtain additional information on the challenges faced by programs, we 

conducted interviews with federal agency officials and officials from 

disability advocacy organizations, and reviewed pertinent agency 

documents, GAO reports, and academic research on disability issues. 

To identify questions that should be addressed in transforming federal 

disability programs, we reviewed the major findings and recommendations 

that have resulted from the substantial body of GAO research on federal 

disability programs over the past decade. We also examined past GAO 

reports on program reform and organizational transformation throughout 

the federal government. 

Because our questionnaire was not a sample survey, there are no sampling 

errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may 

introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For 

example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the 

sources of information that are available to respondents, or in how the 

data are entered into a database or were analyzed, can introduce 

unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the 

development of the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data 

analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, social 

science survey specialists designed the questionnaire in collaboration with 

GAO staff with subject matter expertise. Then, as mentioned earlier, the 

draft questionnaire was pretested with program officials to ensure that the 

questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend. When the 

data were analyzed, a second, independent analyst checked all computer 

programs. Since this was a Web-based survey, respondents entered their 

answers directly into the electronic questionnaire. This eliminated the 

need to have the data keyed into a database, thus removing an additional 

source of error. 

We performed our work at various locations in Washington, D.C. We 

conducted our work between March 2004 and March 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Federal Programs Serving People 

with Disabilities 

Page 31 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

The following table presents an overview of the 192 federal programs that 

we identified as targeted to people with disabilities. The information 

presented in this table is based mostly on the programs’ survey responses, 

although it also presents data obtained from other sources. In particular, 

the spending information is derived from multiple sources, including 

programs’ survey responses and federal government reports on program 

spending. The spending data we present below represent either 

obligations, expenditures, or appropriations, as indicated by the table 

notes accompanying each reported amount. Due to the various sources 

that we used to identify program spending and possible inconsistencies in 

these data (e.g., differences in the fiscal years for which spending was 

reported by programs), we advise caution in efforts to compare or sum 

spending figures across programs. Also, given the significant limitations in 

the spending data available for partially targeted programs, we do not 

present such data in this table. (See app. 1 for a more detailed discussion 

of our methodology for collecting spending data and other information on 

these programs.) 

Federal Programs Serving People with Disabilities 

Program 

Primary area of 

assistance 

Spending (for 

fiscal year 2003 

unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Direct or 

indirect 

assistance 

to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities

Wholly or 

partially 

targeted to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities 

Access Board 

Access Board Other: Guidelines 

on accessibility 

$4,000,000a,b,c Indirect Wholly 

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or 

Severely Disabled 

Javits-Wagner-O Day Program (Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled) 

Employmentrelated $4,629,000a,b,c Indirect Wholly 

Department of Agriculture 

Assistive & Ergonomic Technology (Target Center, USDA, 

Washington, D.C.) 

Assistive 

technology 

 Direct Partially 

Assistive and Ergonomic Technology (Midwest Target Center, 

St. Louis, Missouri) 

Assistive 

technology 

 Direct Partially 

Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with Disabilities: 

AgrAbility Project 

Employmentrelated $4,002,000a,c Indirect Wholly 

Child and Adult Care Food Program Food Indirect Partially 

Food Stamps Food Direct Partially 

Rural Rental Assistance Payments Housing Indirect Partially 

Appendix II: Federal Programs Serving 

People with Disabilities 
Appendix II: Federal Programs Serving People 

with Disabilities 

Page 32 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Program 

Primary area of 

assistance 

Spending (for 

fiscal year 2003 

unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Direct or 

indirect 

assistance 

to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities

Wholly or 

partially 

targeted to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities 

Rural Rental Housing Loans Housing Indirect Partially 

Section 538 Rural Rental Housing Guaranteed Loans Housing Indirect Partially 

Summer Food Service Program for Children Food Indirect Partially 

Department of Commerce 

Public Telecommunications Facilities Program Other: 

Telecommunication 

and information 

technology 

 Indirect Partially 

Technology Opportunities Program Other: 

Telecommunication 

and information 

technology 

 Indirect Partially 

Department of Defense 

Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program Assistive 

technology 

$4,662,000a,b,c Direct Wholly 

Department of Education 

Access to Telework Loans $20,000,000a,c Indirect Wholly 

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act State Grants Education Indirect Partially 

American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services Employmentrelated $28,399,000d,e Direct Wholly 

American Printing House for the Blind Other: Educational 

materials 

$15,399,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Assistive Technology Act Information 

dissemination 

$22,289,000a,c Indirect Wholly 

Assistive Technology Alternative Financing Program Loans $13,001,000a,f,c Indirect Wholly 

Assistive Technology State Grants for Protection and Advocacy Civil protections or 

legal services 

$4,573,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education State 

Grants 

Education Indirect Partially 

Client Assistance Program Civil protections or 

legal services 

$12,068,000a,g Direct Wholly 

Congressionally-Directed Projects Other: Disabilityrelated earmarks $3,517,000a,c Indirect Wholly 

Gallaudet University Education Direct Partially 

Helen Keller National Center Employmentrelated $8,660,000a,c Direct Wholly 

Independent Living Services Personal assistant 

services 

$68,820,000a,g Direct Wholly 
Appendix II: Federal Programs Serving People 

with Disabilities 

Page 33 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Program 

Primary area of 

assistance 

Spending (for 

fiscal year 2003 

unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Direct or 

indirect 

assistance 

to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities

Wholly or 

partially 

targeted to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities 

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who are Blind Personal assistant 

services 

$27,538,000a,g Direct Wholly 

Independent Living State Grants Personal assistant 

services 

$21,930,000a,g Direct Wholly 

Migrants and Seasonal Farmworkers Employmentrelated $2,306,000a,c Indirect Wholly 

National Technical Institute for the Deaf Education $53,699,000a,g Direct Wholly 

Native Hawaiian Special Education Education $3,100,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Payments for Children with Disabilities Education $50,669,000a,g Indirect Wholly 

Program of Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Civil protections or 

legal services 

$16,585,000a,g Direct Wholly 

Projects with Industry Employmentrelated $21,708,000a,g Direct Wholly 

Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facilities Program Employmentrelated $31,400,000a,f,c Indirect Wholly 

Recreational Programs Other: Recreational 

programs 

$2,354,000a,g Indirect Wholly 

Rehabilitation Services Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to 

States 

Employmentrelated $2,480,000,000a,g Direct Wholly 

Special Education—Pre-School Grant Program Education $384,223,000a,g Direct Wholly 

Special Education—Grants for Infants and Families with 

Disabilities 

Other: Early 

intervention 

services 

$429,307,000a,g Direct Wholly 

Special Education—Grants to States Education $8,858,398,000a,g Direct Wholly 

Special Education—Parent Information Centers Information 

dissemination 

$26,327,000a,g Direct Wholly 

Special Education—Technology and Media Services for 

Individuals with Disabilities 

Education $37,962,000a,g Indirect Wholly 

Star Schools Education Indirect Partially 

Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Severe 

Disabilities 

Employmentrelated $37,525,000a,g Direct Wholly 

Tech Prep Education State Grants Education Indirect Partially 

TRIO Student Support Services Education Indirect Partially 

Department of Energy 

Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons Other: Energy 

efficiency 

 Indirect Partially 
Appendix II: Federal Programs Serving People 

with Disabilities 

Page 34 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Program 

Primary area of 

assistance 

Spending (for 

fiscal year 2003 

unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Direct or 

indirect 

assistance 

to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities

Wholly or 

partially 

targeted to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Adoption Assistance Monetary support Indirect Partially 

Aging and Disability Resource Center Information 

dissemination 

 Indirect Partially 

Alzheimer’s Disease Demonstration Grants to States Other: Respite Indirect Partially 

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Information 

dissemination 

 Indirect Partially 

Black Lung Clinics Program Medical care $5,563,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Other: 

Development of 

comprehensive 

systems of care 

$437,140,000a,b,c Indirect Wholly 

Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care 

and Development Fund 

Other: Child care 

subsidies 

 Indirect Partially 

Civil Rights and Privacy Rule Compliance Activities Civil protections or 

legal services 

 Direct Partially 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children 

with Serious Emotional Disturbances 

Medical care $80,078,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Developmental Disabilities Basic Support and Advocacy Grants Other: Systems 

change and 

capacity building 

$133,236,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Developmental Disabilities Projects of National Significance Other: Independent 

living support 

$12,403,000h,g Indirect Wholly 

Disabilities Prevention (Disability and Health) Other: Capacity 

building and 

information 

dissemination 

$25,551,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Early Hearing Detection & Identification Other: Early 

hearing detection 

 Indirect Partially 

Family Support Payments to States Assistance Payments 

(Adult Programs in the Territories) 

Monetary support Indirect Partially 

Grants to Provide Outpatient Early Intervention Services with 

Respect to HIV Disease 

Medical care $19,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Hansen’s Disease National Ambulatory Care Program Medical care Indirect Partially 

Head Start Education Indirect Partially 

HIV Care Formula Grants Medical care $1,022,337,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants Medical care $600,673,000d,e Indirect Wholly 
Appendix II: Federal Programs Serving People 

with Disabilities 

Page 35 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Program 

Primary area of 

assistance 

Spending (for 

fiscal year 2003 

unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Direct or 

indirect 

assistance 

to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities

Wholly or 

partially 

targeted to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities 

Maternal and Child Health Federal Consolidated Programs—

Special Projects of Regional and National 

Significance/Awareness and Access to Care for Children and 

Youth with Epilepsy 

Medical care Indirect Partially 

Maternal and Child Health Federal Consolidated Programs—

Special Projects of Regional and National 

Significance/CISS/Community Systems for CSHCN 

Other: Systems 

building 

$1,873,000a,b,c Indirect Wholly 

Maternal and Child Health Federal Consolidated Programs—

Special Projects of Regional and National Significance/Early 

Detection and Intervention for Children with Autism 

Other: 

Infrastructure and 

support systems 

 Direct Partially 

Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant to the States 

(Title V) 

Other: Systems of 

care 

 Indirect Partially 

Medicaid Infrastructure Grants To Support the Competitive 

Employment of People with Disabilities 

Other: 

Infrastructure and 

coordination 

$35,000,000a,i Indirect Wholly 

Medical Assistance Program—Medicaid Medical care Indirect Partially 

Medicare Hospital Insurance Medical care Direct Partially 

Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance Medical care Direct Partially 

National Family Caregiver Support Other: Multifaceted 

support systems 

 Indirect Partially 

Nutrition Services Incentive Program Food Indirect Partially 

PATH Formula Grant—Homeless Other: Outreach 

and case 

management. 

$41,306,000d,e Direct Wholly 

Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Civil protections or 

legal services 

$34,620,000a,b,j,i Indirect Wholly 

Real Choice Systems Grants for Community Living Other: 

Infrastructure and 

support services 

 Indirect Partially 

Ryan White CARE Act - Title IV: Grants for Coordinated HIV 

Services and Access to Research for Women 

Medical care $69,936,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Dental Reimbursements Medical care $9,843,000a,c Indirect Wholly 

Special Programs for the Aging Title III, Part B, Grants for 

Supportive Services & Senior Centers 

Other: Multifaceted 

support systems 

 Indirect Partially 

Special Programs for the Aging Title III, Part C Nutrition 

Services 

Food Indirect Partially 

Special Projects of National Significance (Ryan White CARE 

Act) 

Medical care Indirect Partially 
Appendix II: Federal Programs Serving People 

with Disabilities 

Page 36 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Program 

Primary area of 

assistance 

Spending (for 

fiscal year 2003 

unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Direct or 

indirect 

assistance 

to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities

Wholly or 

partially 

targeted to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities 

Traumatic Brain Injury Information 

dissemination 

 Indirect Partially 

Voting Access for Individuals with Disabilities—Grants for 

Protection and Advocacy Systems 

Civil protections or 

legal services 

$2,000,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Voting Access for Individuals with Disabilities—Grants to States 

and Local Governments 

Civil protections or 

legal services 

$12,849,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Architectural Barriers Act Enforcement Civil protections or 

legal services 

NA Direct Wholly 

Assisted Living Conversion for Eligible Multifamily Housing 

Projects 

Housing Indirect Partially 

Elderly/Disabled Service Coordinator Program Other: Service 

coordination 

 Indirect Partially 

Fair Housing Initiatives Program Other: Fair housing 

assistance 

 Indirect Partially 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Housing $252,200,000a,g Indirect Wholly 

Lower Income Housing Assistance Program Section 8 

Moderate Rehabilitation 

Housing Indirect Partially 

Mortgage Insurance Rental Housing for the Elderly Loans Indirect Partially 

Multifamily Housing Service Coordinators Information 

dissemination 

 Direct Partially 

Non-Discrimination in Federally Assisted and Conducted 

Programs (on the Basis of Disability) 

Civil protections or 

legal services 

NA Direct Wholly 

Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Entities Civil protections or 

legal services 

NA Direct Wholly 

Public and Indian Housing Housing Indirect Partially 

Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency Information 

dissemination 

 Indirect Partially 

Section 202 Housing Housing Indirect Partially 

Shelter Plus Care Housing $76,822,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Housing $286,652,000a,g Indirect Wholly 

Supportive Housing Program Housing Indirect Partially 

Department of Justice 

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Civil protections or 

legal services 

 Indirect Partially 

Equal Employment Opportunity Civil protections or 

legal services 

 Indirect Partially 
Appendix II: Federal Programs Serving People 

with Disabilities 

Page 37 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Program 

Primary area of 

assistance 

Spending (for 

fiscal year 2003 

unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Direct or 

indirect 

assistance 

to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities

Wholly or 

partially 

targeted to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities 

Protection of Voting Rights Civil protections or 

legal services 

 Indirect Partially 

Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program Monetary support Direct Partially 

Public Safety Officers’ Educational Assistance Education Direct Partially 

Department of Labor 

Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation Monetary support $370,389,000a,c Direct Wholly 

Disability Info.gov Information 

dissemination 

 Direct Partially 

Disability Navigator Employmentrelated $3,000,000a,b,c Indirect Wholly 

Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program Employmentrelated  Indirect Partially 

Employer Assistance Referral Network Employmentrelated  Indirect Partially 

Employment Service Information 

dissemination 

 Indirect Partially 

Energy Employees’ Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program 

Monetary support Direct Partially 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Program Monetary support $2,345,471,000a,c Direct Wholly 

Job Accommodation Network Information 

dissemination 

 Indirect Partially 

Job Corps Employmentrelated  Direct Partially 

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Monetary support $2,817,000a,c Indirect Wholly 

O*Net Information 

dissemination 

 Indirect Partially 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Civil protections or 

legal services 

 Direct Partially 

One-Stop Career Center System Employmentrelated  Indirect Partially 

Small Business and Self-Employment for People with 

Disabilities 

Information 

dissemination 

 Indirect Partially 

United We Ride Transportation Indirect Partially 

Veteran’s Preference in Federal Employment Employmentrelated NA Direct Wholly 

Veterans Workforce Investment Programs Employmentrelated  Indirect Partially 
Appendix II: Federal Programs Serving People 

with Disabilities 

Page 38 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Program 

Primary area of 

assistance 

Spending (for 

fiscal year 2003 

unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Direct or 

indirect 

assistance 

to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities

Wholly or 

partially 

targeted to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities 

Wage and Hour Division Civil protections or 

legal services 

NA Indirect Wholly 

WIA Youth Program (formula grants) Employmentrelated  Direct Partially 

Work Incentives Grant Employmentrelated $20,000,000a,i Indirect Wholly 

Workforce Recruitment Program Employmentrelated $500,000a,b,c Indirect Wholly 

Department of the Interior 

Assistance for Indian Children with Severe Disabilities Education $60,000d,k Direct Wholly 

Department of Transportation 

Capital and Training Assistance Program for Over-the-Road 

Bus Accessibility 

Transportation $6,905,000a,i Indirect Wholly 

Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons 

with Disabilities 

Transportation Indirect Partially 

Capital Investment Grants Transportation Indirect Partially 

FTA general activities and technical assistance related to 

disability issues 

Information 

dissemination 

$3,000,000a,c Indirect Wholly 

Nonurbanized Area Formula Program Transportation Indirect Partially 

Urbanized Area Formula Program Transportation Indirect Partially 

Department of Treasury 

Tax Deduction to remove barriers for the Elderly and Disabled Other: Tax 

deduction 

 Indirect Partially 

Work Opportunity Tax Credit Other: Tax credit Indirect Partially 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled 

Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces 

Transportation $30,013,000d,k Direct Wholly 

Blind Rehabilitation Centers Medical care $59,569,000a,b,c Indirect Wholly 

Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans’ 

Dependents 

Monetary support Direct Partially 

Life Insurance for Veterans Monetary support Direct Partially 

Montgomery GI Bill Educational Assistance (Chapter 30) Education Direct Partially 

Monthly Allowance for Children of Vietnam Veterans Born with 

Spina Bifida 

Monetary support $13,900,000d,l Direct Wholly 

Native American Veteran Direct Loan Program Loans Direct Partially 

Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans Monetary support $2,489,932,000d,l Direct Wholly 
Appendix II: Federal Programs Serving People 

with Disabilities 

Page 39 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Program 

Primary area of 

assistance 

Spending (for 

fiscal year 2003 

unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Direct or 

indirect 

assistance 

to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities

Wholly or 

partially 

targeted to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities 

Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses, and Children Monetary support Direct Partially 

Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Education Direct Partially 

SMI: Psychotic Disorders Medical care $1,655,076,000a,b,c Direct Wholly 

SMI: PTSD Medical care $139,873,000a,b,m,c Direct Wholly 

SMI: Substance Abuse Medical care $44,083,000a,b,c Direct Wholly 

Specially Adapted Housing for Disabled Veterans Housing $17,324,000d,k Direct Wholly 

Spinal Cord Injury Medical care $301,666,000a,b,c Direct Wholly 

Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance Education $275,123,000d,k Direct Wholly 

Traumatic Brain Injury Medical care $12,668,000a,c Direct Wholly 

Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability Monetary support $20,622,189,000d,l Direct Wholly 

Veterans Dental Care Medical care Direct Partially 

Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for 

Service-Connected Death; Compensation for Service 

Monetary support $3,773,937,000d,l Direct Wholly 

Veterans Domiciliary Care Medical care $295,505,000a,b,c Direct Wholly 

Veterans Home-Based Primary Care Medical care Direct Partially 

Veterans Housing—Guaranteed and Insured Loans Loans Direct Partially 

Veterans Medical Care Benefits Medical care Direct Partially 

Veterans Nursing Home Care Medical care $1,684,725,000a,b,c Direct Wholly 

Veterans Prosthetic Appliances Medical care $523,366,000h,g Direct Wholly 

Veterans State Domiciliary Care Medical care Indirect Partially 

Veterans State Hospital Care Medical care $41,937,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Veterans State Nursing Home Care Medical care $327,524,000d,e Indirect Wholly 

Vocational and Educational Counseling for Separating Service 

Members (Chapter 36) 

Employmentrelated  Direct Partially 

Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans Employmentrelated $376,622,000d,k Direct Wholly 

Vocational Training and Rehabilitation for Vietnam Veterans’ 

Children with Spina Bifida or Other Covered Birth Defects 

Employmentrelated $26,000a,b,c Direct Wholly 

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission 

Employment Discrimination Section 501 of the Rehabilitation 

Act (federal employees) 

Civil protections or 

legal services 

 Direct Partially 

Employment Discrimination State and Local Fair Employment 

Practices Agency Contracts 

Civil protections or 

legal services 

 Indirect Partially 

Employment Discrimination Title I of The Americans with 

Disabilities Act 

Civil protections or 

legal services 

NA Direct Wholly 
Appendix II: Federal Programs Serving People 

with Disabilities 

Page 40 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Program 

Primary area of 

assistance 

Spending (for 

fiscal year 2003 

unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Direct or 

indirect 

assistance 

to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities

Wholly or 

partially 

targeted to 

individuals 

with 

disabilities 

Library of Congress 

Access Programs Other: Accessibility 

of facilities and 

services 

 Direct Partially 

Library Services for the Blind and Physically Handicapped Other: Library 

service. 

$50,632,000a,b,c Direct Wholly 

Office of Personnel Management 

Federal Employment Assistance for Veterans Employmentrelated NA Indirect Wholly 

Federal Employment for Individuals with Disabilities Employmentrelated NA Indirect Wholly 

Government Telework Program Guide Information 

dissemination 

 Indirect Partially 

Railroad Retirement Board 

Social Insurance for Railroad Workers Monetary support Direct Partially 

Small Business Administration 

Veterans Entrepreneurial Training and Counseling Other: Multifaceted services for 

small businesses 

 Direct Partially 

Social Security Administration 

AeDib - Electronic Disability Claims Imaging and Processing 

Project 

Employmentrelated  Indirect Partially 

Social Security Benefits Planning, Assistance, and Outreach 

Program 

Information 

dissemination 

$23,000,000a,b,c Indirect Wholly 

Social Security Disability Insurance Monetary support $77,146,763,000d,l Direct Wholly 

Social Security Retirement Insurance Monetary support Direct Partially 

Social Security State Grants for Work Incentives Assistance to 

Disabled Beneficiaries 

Employmentrelated $7,000,000h,g Indirect Wholly 

Social Security Survivors Insurance Monetary support Direct Partially 

State Vocational Rehabilitation Cost Reimbursement Program Employmentrelated NA Indirect Wholly 

Supplemental Security Income Monetary support Direct Partially 

Ticket to Hire Information 

dissemination 

$140,000a,c Indirect Wholly 

Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Program Employmentrelated NA Indirect Wholly 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data and of program information presented in federal government reports (see table notes below).
Appendix II: Federal Programs Serving People 

with Disabilities 

Page 41 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Note: “NA” means Not Available. 

a

Data source: Program-reported data (e.g., through our survey or agency correspondence). 

b

Survey respondent indicated that this figure includes administrative costs. 

c

Expenditure. 

d

Data source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report. 

e

The data sources used for the CFFR vary by major category of federal government expenditure or 

obligation. The spending data for this program are included in CFFR’s “Grant” category, which 

includes formula grants, project grants, block grants, and cooperative agreements. The data for about 

98 percent of all grants reported in the CFFR come from the Federal Assistance Award Data System, 

which represent the federal obligations incurred at the time the grant is awarded. 

f

Data for FY 2001. 

g

Obligation. 

h

Data source: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

i

Appropriation. 

j

Data for FY 2004. 

k

The data sources used for the CFFR vary by major category of federal government expenditure or 

obligation. The spending data for this program are included in CFFR’s “Other Direct Payments” 

category. The data for this category come from the Federal Assistance Award Data System. These 

amounts generally represent obligations incurred during the fiscal year. 

l

The data sources used for the CFFR vary by major category of federal government expenditure or 

obligation. The spending data for this program are included in CFFR’s “Retirement and disability 

payments to individuals” category. The data for this category are compiled by federal agencies for the 

Federal Assistance Award Data System. Reported amounts represent obligations of federal funds 

during the fiscal year. 

m

Data for FY 2002. 
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 42 GAO-05-626 Federal Disability Assistance 

Robert E. Robertson, (202) 512-7215 

The following individuals made important contributions to this report: 

Shelia D. Drake, Erin M. Godtland, Joel A. Green, Mark de la Rosa, David 

J. Forgosh, Mark Trapani, Stuart M. Kaufman, and Daniel A. Schwimer. 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

 (130360) 
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