United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 

U.S. Senate 

FOOD STAMP 

PROGRAM 

Use of Alternative 

Methods to Apply for 

and Maintain Benefits 

Could Be Enhanced by 

Additional Evaluation 

and Information on 

Promising Practices 

May 2007 

GAO-07-573 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

May 2007

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM 

Use of Alternative Methods to Apply for 

and Maintain Benefits Could Be 

Enhanced by Additional Evaluation and 

Information on Promising Practices 

Highlights of GAO-07-573, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate 

One in 12 Americans participates in 

the federal Food Stamp Program,

administered by the Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS). States 

have begun offering individuals 

alternatives to visiting the local

assistance office to apply for and

maintain benefits, such as mail-in 

procedures, call centers, and online services. GAO was asked to

examine: (1) what alternative

methods states are using to

increase program access; (2) what 

is known about the results of these 

methods, particularly on program 

access for target groups, decision 

accuracy, and administrative costs; 

and (3) what actions states have

taken to maintain program integrity

while implementing alternative 

methods. GAO surveyed state food

stamp administrators, reviewed

five states in depth, analyzed FNS 

data and reports, and interviewed 

program officials and stakeholders. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the

Secretary of Agriculture direct FNS 

to (1) work with the Economic 

Research Service (ERS) to enhance 

their research agendas to include 

projects that would determine the 

effects of alternative methods; (2) 

conduct analyses of data received

from states implementing waivers

or demonstration projects waiving 

the face-to-face interview; and 

(3) disseminate and regularly 

update information on promising

practices states are using to

implement alternative methods. 

FNS and ERS generally agreed with

GAO’s findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations. 

All states use mail and about half of states use or have begun developing online services and call centers to provide access to the food stamp program. 

Almost all states allow households to submit applications, report changes, 

and submit recertifications through the mail, and 26 states have

implemented or are developing systems for households to perform these 

tasks on-line. Almost half of the states are using or developing call centers

and states also are allowing households to participate in telephone 

interviews instead of an in-office interview. States have taken a variety of 

actions to help households use on-line services and call centers, such as 

sending informational mailings, holding community meetings, and using 

community partners. 

Insufficient information is available to determine the results of using 

alternative methods. Few evaluations have been conducted identifying the 

effect of alternative methods on program access, decision accuracy, or 

administrative costs. Evaluating the effectiveness of alternative methods is 

challenging in part because limited data are available, states are using a

combination of methods, and studies can be costly to conduct. Federal and 

state officials reported that while they believe alternative methods can help 

households in several ways, such as increasing flexibility and efficiency in 

the application process, certain types of households may have difficulty 

using or accessing alternative methods. In addition, technology and staffing 

challenges may hinder the use of alternative methods. 

To maintain program integrity while implementing alternative methods, the 

states GAO reviewed used a variety of strategies, such as using software to 

verify the information households submit, communicating with other states 

to detect fraud, or using finger imaging. Although there has been some 

concern that without frequent in-person interaction with caseworkers, 

households may not submit required documents on time and thus be denied 

benefits on procedural grounds (“procedural denials”), GAO’s limited 

analysis of FNS data found no considerable fluctuations in the rate of 

procedural denials in the five states between fiscal years 2000 and 2005. The

states GAO reviewed have instituted several approaches to prevent 

procedural denials. 

Call Center Caseworker Answering Calls 

Source: GAO.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-573.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at 

(202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. 
Food Stamp Program

Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

All States Use Mail and About Half of States Use or Have Begun 

Developing On-line Services and Call Centers to Provide Access 

to the Food Stamp Program 10 

Information on Results Is Limited, but States We Reviewed Cite 

Advantages and Challenges Using Alternative Access Methods 18 

States Report Taking Actions to Maintain Food Stamp Program 

Integrity While Using Alternative Methods 32 

Conclusions 35

Recommendations for Executive Action 36 

Agency Comments 36 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38 

Appendix II State-by-State Use of Alternative Methods and 

Waivers of the Face-to-Face Interview 42 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Acknowledgments 44 

Related GAO Products 45 

Tables 

Table 1: Process to Apply for and Maintain Food Stamp Benefits 8 

Table 2: Administrative Flexibility Available to States to Waive the 

Face-to-Face Interview 14 

Figures 

Figure 1: Food Stamp Participation and Poverty Trends 6 

Figure 2: Office-based Method Compared with Alternative Methods 

of Applying for Food Stamp Benefits 9 

Page i GAO-07-573
Food Stamp Program

Figure 3: Number and Percentage of States Making On-line 

Services Available to Food Stamp Households 12 

Figure 4: Number and Percentage of States Making Call Centers 

Available to Food Stamp Households 13 

Figure 5: Actions Used to Assist Households with On-line Services 16 

Figure 6: Actions Used to Assist Households with Call Centers 17 

Figure 7: FNS Monitoring of Indiana’s Plan to Implement 

Alternative Access Methods 21 

Figure 8: States’ Use of Measures to Monitor Performance of Online Services 23 

Figure 9: States’ Use of Measures to Monitor Performance of Call 

Centers 24

Figure 10: Use of Alternative Access Methods in Texas 30 

Figure 11: Use of Alternative Access Methods in Florida 31 

Abbreviations 

EBT Electronic Benefits Transfer 

ERS Economic Research Service 

FNS Food and Nutrition Service 

FSP Food Stamp Program 

PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 

QC quality control 

SSI Supplemental Security Income 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

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 ii GAO-07-573
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

May 3, 2007

The Honorable Tom Harkin 

Chairman 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tom Harkin 

Chairman 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

United States Senate 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Almost 1 in every 12 Americans participates in the federal Food Stamp 

Program, which helps low-income individuals and families purchase 

nutritious food, such as meat, dairy products, fruits, and vegetables. In 

fiscal year 2005, the program, jointly administered by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and the states, 

provided about $29 billion in benefits to nearly 26 million people, about

half of whom were children.1

Almost 1 in every 12 Americans participates in the federal Food Stamp 

Program, which helps low-income individuals and families purchase 

nutritious food, such as meat, dairy products, fruits, and vegetables. In 

fiscal year 2005, the program, jointly administered by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and the states, 

provided about $29 billion in benefits to nearly 26 million people, about

half of whom were children.1

Although participation in the program has increased substantially in recent 

years, about 40 percent of people who were eligible for the program did 

not participate in 2004, the most recent year data are available. Elderly 

individuals, non-citizens that may have limited English proficiency, and 

working families have consistently participated at lower rates than the 

eligible population as a whole and FNS has targeted these subgroups to 

increase participation. Even though there are many reasons people may 

not participate in the program, some research has shown that the 

administrative burden of applying for and maintaining eligibility for 

benefits may be a factor, particularly for people who are elderly or who 

work during the hours local public assistance offices are open.

Participation in the program generally requires individuals to submit an 

application, participate in an interview at initial application and at least 

annually, provide verification of certain information, report certain 

changes in household circumstances while receiving benefits, and reapply

for benefits at the end of the certification period (recertification). While 

completing the Food Stamp Program application and recertification 

process has traditionally involved visiting the local assistance office in 

person for interviews or to submit applications and other documentation,

Although participation in the program has increased substantially in recent 

years, about 40 percent of people who were eligible for the program did 

not participate in 2004, the most recent year data are available. Elderly 

individuals, non-citizens that may have limited English proficiency, and 

working families have consistently participated at lower rates than the 

eligible population as a whole and FNS has targeted these subgroups to 

increase participation. Even though there are many reasons people may 

not participate in the program, some research has shown that the 

administrative burden of applying for and maintaining eligibility for 

benefits may be a factor, particularly for people who are elderly or who 

work during the hours local public assistance offices are open.

Participation in the program generally requires individuals to submit an 

application, participate in an interview at initial application and at least 

annually, provide verification of certain information, report certain 

changes in household circumstances while receiving benefits, and reapply

for benefits at the end of the certification period (recertification). While 

completing the Food Stamp Program application and recertification 

process has traditionally involved visiting the local assistance office in 

person for interviews or to submit applications and other documentation,

Food Stamp od Stamp Program

 

7-573

 1

 Preliminary FNS data indicate that participation continued to grow to nearly 27 million 

people receiving about $30 billion in food stamp benefits in fiscal year 2006. 

Page 1 GAO-07-573
states have begun offering alternatives in the last several years, such as 

mail-in procedures, call centers, and on-line services. 

While FNS has allowed states to adopt these new ways of accessing the 

program, it also has a quality control system in place to monitor program 

integrity. Under this system, FNS monitors decision accuracy, including 

how accurately states determine food stamp eligibility and calculate 

benefits. In addition to monitoring the payment error rate, FNS estimates 

the rate of cases denied, suspended, or terminated incorrectly, which is 

called the negative error rate. FNS and USDA’s Economic Research 

Service (ERS) also fund Food Stamp Program research. 

To understand what alternative approaches states are using to help 

households apply for and maintain benefits and what is known about the 

results of using these methods, we examined: (1) the alternative methods 

to the traditional application and recertification process states are using to 

increase program access; (2) what is known about the results of these 

methods, particularly on program access for target groups, decision 

accuracy, and administrative costs; and (3) what actions states have taken

to maintain program integrity while implementing alternative methods. 

To answer these questions, we surveyed food stamp administrators in the 

50 states and the District of Columbia2

 to collect information on what 

alternative methods states are using or planning to use (mail, call centers,

on-line services), how performance of these methods is measured, and 

what is known about the results of using these methods. To augment 

information from our state survey, we conducted four site visits (Florida, 

Texas, Utah, and Washington) and one set of semi-structured telephone 

interviews (Pennsylvania). We selected states that have at least one FNSapproved waiver of the face-to-face interview requirement and reflect 

some variation in state participation rates. We also considered

recommendations from FNS officials, advocacy group representatives, and 

researchers. For each of the five states we reviewed in depth, we 

interviewed state officials administering and developing policy for the 

Food Stamp Program, local officials in the assistance offices and call 

centers where services are provided, and representatives from communitybased organizations that provide food assistance. We analyzed data 

provided by FNS and the states we reviewed in depth to provide 

background for our discussions with officials about state trends for 

 2

 In this report, we refer to all 50 states and the District of Columbia as states. 

Page 2 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
specific measures (participation, payment accuracy, administrative costs, 

and reasons for denial). We also reviewed FNS reports and related studies. 

We held discussions with program stakeholders, including officials at FNS 

headquarters and regional offices, and representatives of advocacy

organizations. Appendix I explains our methodology in more detail. We 

performed our work from September 2006 to March 2007 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

All states use mail and about half of states use or have begun developing

on-line services and call centers to provide access to the Food Stamp 

Program. Almost all states told us they allow households to submit 

applications, report changes, and submit recertifications through the mail, 

and 26 states have implemented or are developing systems to allow 

households to submit applications, report changes, or submit 

recertifications on-line. In addition, almost half of the states are using or 

developing call centers and states are also using flexibility authorized by 

FNS to increase use of the telephone as an alternative to visiting the local 

assistance office. For example, FNS has approved administrative waivers 

allowing 20 states to substitute a telephone interview for the face-to-face 

interview for all households at recertification without needing to 

document that coming into the office would be a hardship for the 

household. States have taken a variety of actions to help households use 

on-line services and call centers, such as sending informational mailings, 

holding community meetings, and employing call center staff who speak 

languages other than English. States are also relying on community-based 

organizations, such as food banks, to help households use alternative 

methods. For example, four of the five states we interviewed provide 

grants to community-based organizations to inform households about the 

program and help them complete the application process. 

Results in Brief 

Insufficient information is available to determine the results of using 

alternative methods to provide access to the Food Stamp Program, but 

federal and state officials reported that despite some challenges, they 

believe these methods are making it easier for some households to access

program benefits. Few evaluations have been conducted to identify the 

effect of alternative methods on program access, decision accuracy, or 

administrative costs. FNS has two studies under way that will describe 

implementation of alternative methods such as on-line services and call 

centers, but it is unlikely that these studies will use research approaches 

that would identify the effect of alternative methods. Further, while states

reported monitoring the performance of call centers and on-line services,

none of the states has conducted evaluations that would identify the effect 

Page 3 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
of the alternative methods on program access, decision accuracy, or 

administrative costs. State officials reported implementing a combination 

of methods over time, making it difficult to isolate the effect of specific 

methods. Despite this, federal and state officials said that they believe that 

giving households alternatives to visiting the food stamp office can help 

improve access to benefits. For example, in the five states we reviewed in 

depth, officials and community partners said that allowing telephone 

interviews is especially beneficial for working families and the elderly 

because they reduce barriers from transportation, child care, or work 

responsibilities, as well as the stigma of visiting the assistance office. 

However, officials and community partners also said that certain types of

households, such as those with limited English proficiency, the elderly, 

and those with mental disabilities, may have difficulty using on-line 

applications and navigating call center phone systems. The advantages of 

alternative methods to households also may depend on the technology and 

staff available. For example, on-line applications without electronic 

signature capability have limited benefit because households are required 

to also submit an actual signature through mail, fax, or in person. Further, 

inadequate numbers of staff and unskilled staff may limit the advantages 

of alternative methods because households may not be able to receive the 

information and assistance needed to successfully apply for or maintain 

benefits. 

The five states we reviewed used a variety of strategies to maintain 

program integrity while implementing alternative methods, some of which 

were in place long before implementation of the alternative access 

methods. All five states used software to help with verification of 

household circumstances by, for example, matching state food stamp 

caseloads against wage reporting systems and other databases to identify

unreported household income and assets. Nationwide, about half of the 

states participate in quarterly matches with other states to detect 

households receiving food stamp benefits in more than one state at a time. 

In addition, all five states we reviewed developed special caseworker 

training on topics such as how to detect misinformation provided by a 

household over the telephone. State and local food stamp officials told us

they believed that using alternative methods had not increased the 

frequency of fraud and abuse in the program because the verification 

process is the same whether or not a worker sees an individual face-toface. There has been some concern that without face-to-face contact with

caseworkers, households may not know when or how to submit 

paperwork or complete other tasks and would thus be denied benefits on

procedural grounds (“procedural denials”). However, our limited analysis 

of FNS data found no considerable fluctuations in the rate of procedural 

Page 4 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
denials in the five states between fiscal years 2000 and 2005. To prevent 

improper procedural denials, the five states we reviewed instituted such 

approaches as reviewing case actions, correcting addresses for returned 

mail, and changing automated systems to prevent caseworkers from 

prematurely denying cases. 

To improve USDA’s ability to assess the effectiveness of its funded efforts, 

we are recommending that the Secretary of Agriculture: direct FNS and 

the Economic Research Service (ERS) to work together to enhance their 

research agendas to include projects that would determine the effect of 

alternative methods on program access, decision accuracy, and 

administrative costs of the Food Stamp Program; and direct FNS to 

conduct analyses of data received from states implementing waivers or 

demonstration projects waiving the face-to-face interview and require 

states implementing waivers or demonstration projects to collect and

report data that would facilitate such analyses. Further, to help states 

implement alternative methods to provide access to the Food Stamp 

Program, we are recommending that FNS disseminate and regularly 

update information on states’ implementation of alternative methods to 

the traditional application and recertification process. FNS and ERS 

generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations 

and cited steps the agency is taking to monitor and evaluate state 

implementation of alternative access methods. FNS and ERS also provided 

technical comments, which were incorporated into the report as 

appropriate.

The federal Food Stamp Program is intended to help low-income 

individuals and families obtain a more nutritious diet by supplementing 

their income with benefits to purchase eligible foods at authorized food 

retailers, such as meat, dairy products, fruits, and vegetables, but not items 

such as soap, tobacco, or alcohol. FNS pays the full cost of food stamp 

benefits and shares the states’ administrative costs—with FNS usually 

paying slightly less than 50 percent—and is responsible for promulgating 

program regulations and ensuring that state officials administer the 

program in compliance with program rules.3

 The states administer the 

Background 

 3

Reimbursements for food stamp administrative costs in 44 states are adjusted each year to

subtract certain food stamp administrative costs that have already been factored into these 

states’ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) grants. As a result, these states 

receive less than 50 percent of their administrative costs. See GAO, Food Stamp Program: 

States Face Reduced Federal Reimbursement for Administrative Costs,

GAO/RCED/AIMD-99-231 (Washington D.C.: July 23, 1999). 

Page 5 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
program by determining whether households meet the program’s eligibility 

requirements, calculating monthly benefits for qualified households, and

issuing benefits to participants through an electronic benefits transfer 

system. 

Program Participation In fiscal year 2005, the Food Stamp Program issued almost $28.6 billion in

benefits to about 25.7 million individuals per month, and the maximum 

monthly food stamp benefit for a household of four living in the 

continental United States in fiscal year 2007 was $518. As shown in figure 

1, program participation decreased during the late 1990s, partly due to an 

improved economy, but rose again from 2000 to 2005. The number of food 

stamp recipients follows the trend in the number of people living at or 

below the federal poverty level. 

Figure 1: Food Stamp Participation and Poverty Trends

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Number of persons (in millions)

Source: GAO analysis of FNS and U.S. Census data.

Year

Persons in poverty

Food stamp participants

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Notes: Poverty data are by calendar year and participation data are by fiscal year. 

Preliminary FNS data indicate that participation will continue to grow to nearly 27 million people 

receiving about $30 billion in food stamp benefits in fiscal year 2006.

Page 6 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
In addition to the economic growth in the late 1990s, another factor 

contributing to the decrease in number of participants from 1996 to 2001 

was the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which added work requirements 

and time limits to cash assistance and made certain groups ineligible to

receive food stamp benefits. In some cases, this caused participants to 

believe they were no longer eligible for food stamps when TANF benefits 

were ended.4

 Since 2000, that downward trend has reversed, and experts 

believe that the downturn in the U.S. economy, coupled with changes in 

the Food Stamp Program’s rules and administration, has led to an increase 

in the number of food stamp participants. 

Eligibility for participation in the Food Stamp Program is based primarily 

on a household’s income and assets. To determine a household’s 

eligibility, a caseworker must first determine the household’s gross 

income, which cannot exceed 130 percent of the poverty level for that year 

as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services, and net

income, which cannot exceed 100 percent of the poverty level (or about 

$1,799 per month for a family of three living in the continental United 

States in fiscal year 2007). Net income is determined by deducting from 

gross income a portion of expenses such as dependent care costs, medical 

expenses for elderly individuals, utilities costs, and housing expenses. 

Determination of 

Eligibility and Benefits 

The Process of Applying 

for and Maintaining 

Benefits 

The application process for the Food Stamp Program requires households 

to complete and submit an application to a local assistance office, 

participate in an interview, and submit documentation to verify household 

circumstances (see table 1). Applicants may need to make more than one 

visit to the assistance office to complete the application process. After 

eligibility is established, households are certified eligible for food stamps 

for periods ranging from 1 to 24 months, depending on household 

circumstances and state policy. While households are receiving benefits, 

they must report changes in household circumstances that may affect

eligibility or benefit amounts. States may choose to require households to 

 4

As GAO and others have reported previously, following the passage of PRWORA, there is

evidence that food stamp participation dropped as eligible recipients did not apply for food

stamps because they incorrectly assumed that if they were ineligible for TANF, they were 

also ineligible for food stamps. See U.S. GAO, Food Stamp Program: Various Factors Have

Led to Declining Participation, GAO/RCED-99-185 (Washington D.C.: July 1999) for more 

details. 

Page 7 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
report changes within 10 days of occurrence (incident reporting) or at 

specified intervals (periodic reporting). States also have the option to 

adopt a simplified system, which further reduces the burden of periodic 

reporting by requiring households to report changes that happen during a

certification period only when their income rises above 130 percent of the

federal poverty level.5

 Once the certification period ends, households must 

reapply for benefits, at which time eligibility and benefit levels are 

redetermined. The recertification process is similar to the application 

process. Households can be denied benefits or have their benefits end at

any point during the process if they are determined ineligible under 

program rules or for procedural reasons, such as missing a scheduled 

interview or failing to provide the required documentation. 

Table 1: Process to Apply for and Maintain Food Stamp Benefits 

Apply for benefits While receiving benefits Recertify for benefits 

• Complete and submit application to 

assistance office 

• Participate in an interview 

• Submit documentation to verify 

information provided in the application 

and interview

• Report changes in household 

circumstances—such as household 

composition, income, and expenses—

that may affect eligibility or benefit 

amounts 

• Complete and submit recertification 

application to assistance office

• Participate in an interview at least 

annually 

• Submit documentation to verify 

information provided in the application 

and interview 

Source: GAO analysis of FNS information.

While applying for and maintaining food stamp benefits has traditionally 

involved visiting a local assistance office, states have the flexibility to give 

households alternatives to visiting the office, such as using the mail, the 

telephone, and on-line services to complete the certification and 

recertification process. Alternative methods may be used to support other 

programs, such as Medicaid or TANF, since some food stamp participants 

receive benefits from multiple programs. Figure 2 illustrates a traditional 

office-based system and how states can use a number of alternative 

methods to determine applicants’ eligibility without requiring them to visit 

an assistance office. 

 5

 The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill) included 

provisions intended to simplify program administration, such as allowing states the option

of using simplified/semiannual reporting systems for most households, not just those with 

earned income. FNS reported in October 2006 that 47 states have adopted some form of

simplified reporting, allowing most households to report changes only when their income

rises above 130 percent of the poverty level. A FNS study suggested that simplified 

reporting policies have contributed to a reduction in the food stamp payment error rate. 

Page 8 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Figure 2: Office-based Method Compared with Alternative Methods of Applying for 

Food Stamp Benefits

Source: GAO analysis.

Household completes and 

signs application, then 

submits application in 

person to the local 

assistance office

Household is interviewed in 

person at the local 

assistance office 

Assistance office copies

household’s supporting 

documents and adds copies

to the paper case file

Household delivers

additional documentation 

to the local assistance 

office

Case worker verifies household information and 

determines eligibility and benefit amount

Household visits the local 

assistance office to get an 

application

Household may be 

interviewed by telephone 

Household may supply 

additional documentation 

by fax, mail, or on line

Household may complete, 

sign and submit application 

on line, or submit paper 

application by mail or fax

Assistance office scans

household’s supporting 

documents and adds to 

electronic case file

Office-based method Alternative methods

Page 9 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
FNS and the states share responsibility for implementing a quality control 

system used to measure the accuracy of caseworker decisions concerning

the amount of food stamp benefits households are eligible to receive and 

decisions to deny or end benefits. The food stamp payment error rate is 

calculated by FNS for the entire program, as well as every state, by adding 

overpayments (including payments higher than the amounts households 

are eligible for or payments to those who are not eligible for any benefit), 

and underpayments (payments lower than the amounts households are 

eligible for). The national payment error rate has declined by about 40 

percent between 1999 and 2005, from 9.86 percent to a record low of 5.84

percent. FSP payment errors are caused primarily by caseworkers, usually 

when they fail to keep up with new information, and by participants when 

they fail to report needed information. Another type of error measured by 

FNS is the negative error rate, defined as the rate of cases denied, 

suspended, or terminated incorrectly. An example of incorrectly denying a 

case would be if a caseworker denied a household participation in the 

program because of excess income, but there was a calculation error and 

the household was actually eligible for benefits. FNS also monitors 

individual fraud and retailer trafficking of food stamp benefits.

6

According to our survey, almost all states allow households to submit 

applications, report changes, and submit recertifications through the mail, 

and 26 states have implemented or are developing systems to allow 

households to perform these tasks on-line. Almost half of the states are 

using or developing call centers and states are also using flexibility 

authorized by FNS to increase use of the telephone as an alternative to 

visiting the local assistance office. States have taken a variety of actions to 

help households use on-line services and call centers, such as sending 

informational mailings, holding community meetings, and using 

community partners to assist households. 

Program Integrity 

All States Use Mail 

and About Half of 

States Use or Have 

Begun Developing Online Services and Call 

Centers to Provide 

Access to the Food 

Stamp Program 

 6

 For more information on food stamp payment accuracy and trafficking, see Food Stamp 

Program: States Have Made Progress Reducing Payment Errors, and Further Challenges 

Remain, GAO-05-245. (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2005) and Food Stamp Trafficking: FNS 

Could Enhance Program Integrity by Better Targeting Stores Likely to Traffic and

Increasing Penalties, GAO-07-53. (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 13, 2006). 

Page 10 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Many states are allowing households to apply for food stamp benefits, 

report changes in household circumstances, and complete recertification

through the mail and on-line. 7

• Mail-In Procedures. Results of our survey show that households can 

submit applications through the mail in all states, report changes 

through the mail in all but 1 state, and submit recertifications through 

the mail in 46 states. For example, Washington state officials told us 

that the recertification process involves mailing a recertification 

application package to households that they can mail back without 

visiting a local assistance office. 

Almost All States Allow 

Households to Apply for 

Food Stamp Benefits and 

Maintain Eligibility by Mail 

and about Half of the 

States Are Using or 

Developing On-line 

Services 

• On-line Services. All states we surveyed reported having a food stamp 

application available for households to download from a state website, 

as required by federal law, and 26 states (51 percent) have

implemented or are developing Web-based systems in which 

households can submit initial applications, report changes, or submit 

recertifications on line (see fig. 3). Most on-line applications were made 

available statewide and implemented within the last 3 years and states 

developing on-line services plan to implement these services within the 

next 2 years. All of the 14 states that reported currently providing online services allow households to submit initial food stamp applications 

on-line, but only 6 states allow households to report changes and 5 

states allow households to complete recertification on- line.8

 Of the 14 

states that reported using on-line applications, 2 reported they were 

only available in certain areas of the state. Only two states (Florida and 

Kansas) reported in our survey that the state closed program offices or 

reduced staff as a result of implementing on-line services. 

 7

 See appendix II for state-by-state information on use of alternative methods. 

8

 Utah began piloting an on-line application with electronic signature capability in March 

2007. Because this was after the time our survey was conducted, Utah is not included in the

14 states that currently provide on-line services. FNS reported in October 2006 that nine 

states nationwide allow applicants to submit the application with an electronic signature. 

Page 11 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Figure 3: Number and Percentage of States Making On-line Services Available to

Food Stamp Households

27%

24%

49%

Source: GAO survey.

On-line services in development

(12)

On-line services available

(14)

Not using on-line services

(25)

Almost Half of States Are 

Using or Developing Call 

Centers and Using 

Telephone Interviews as an 

Alternative to Visiting the 

Local Assistance Office 

Many states are using call centers, telephone interviews, or other 

technologies to help households access food stamp benefits or 

information without visiting a local assistance office. 

• Call Centers. Nineteen states (37 percent) have made call centers 

available to households and an additional 4 states (8 percent) have 

begun development of call centers that will be available to households 

in 2007 (see fig. 4). Households have been able to use call centers in 

seven states for more than 3 years. Of the 19 states using call centers, 

10 reported that call centers were only available in certain areas of the 

state. Only two states (Texas and Idaho) reported using private 

contractors to operate the call centers, but Texas announced in March 

2007 that it was terminating its agreement with the private contractor 

(see fig. 10 for more details). FNS officials told us that the Idaho 

private call center provides general food stamp program information to 

callers, while inquiries about specific cases are transferred to state 

caseworkers. Indiana reported in our survey that the state plans to pilot 

call centers in certain areas of the state in August 2007 using a private 

contractor and complete a statewide transition in March 2008. Only 

two states (Florida and Arizona) reported in our survey that the state 

closed offices or reduced staff as a result of implementing call centers. 

Page 12 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Figure 4: Number and Percentage of States Making Call Centers Available to Food

Stamp Households

37%

8%

55%

Source: GAO survey.

Call centers in development

(4)

Call centers available

(19)

Not using call centers

(28)

Most states with call centers reported that households can use them to 

report changes in household circumstances, request a food stamp 

application and receive assistance filling it out, receive information about 

their case, or receive referrals to other programs. Only four states reported 

using their call centers to conduct telephone interviews. For example, 

local officials in Washington told us that households use their call center 

primarily to request information, report changes in household 

circumstances, and request an interview. Telephone interviews are 

conducted by caseworkers in the local assistance office. 

• Telephone Interviews. Many states are using the flexibility provided 

by FNS to increase the use of the telephone as an alternative to

households visiting the local assistance office. For example, FNS has 

approved administrative waivers for 20 states that allow states to 

substitute a telephone interview for the face-to-face interview for all 

households at recertification without documenting that visiting the 

assistance office would be a hardship for the household.9

 In addition to 

making it easier on households, this flexibility can reduce the 

administrative burden on the state to document hardship. FNS also 

 9

 See appendix II for names of states with administrative waivers that allow substitution of 

a telephone interview for the face-to-face interview. 

Page 13 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
allows certain states implementing demonstration projects to waive the 

interview requirement altogether for certain households. States we 

reviewed varied in terms of the proportion of interviews conducted 

over the phone. For example, Florida state and local officials estimated 

that about 90 percent of the interviews conducted in the state are 

completed over the telephone. Washington state officials estimated 

that 10 percent of application interviews and 30 percent of 

recertification interviews are conducted by phone. Table 2 describes 

the types of flexibility available to states and how many are taking 

advantage of each. 

Table 2: Administrative Flexibility Available to States to Waive the Face-to-Face Interview 

Description of flexibility Availability 

Year 

 available or first 

 approved by FNS Number of statesd

 

Hardship policya

Substitute telephone interview for face-to-face 

interview at application or recertification for all 

households experiencing a hardship as determined 

by the state. Hardship must be documented in the 

case file. 

All states 1978 All states

Waiver at recertification 

Substitute telephone interview for face-to-face 

interview for all households at recertification without 

documenting hardship. 

States with waivers 1992 20 

Waiver at initial certificationb

Substitute telephone interview for face-to-face 

interview for all households at initial certification 

without documenting hardship. 

States with waivers 2005 3 

Combined Application Projectsc

Households can apply for food stamps at the same 

time they apply for or are recertified for Supplemental

Security Income (SSI) with the Social Security 

Administration. Households are not required to have 

a separate interview to apply for food stamps. 

States with demonstration 

projects 

1995 • 10 have implemented 

• 6 approved or pending 

approval but have not 

implemented

• 5 more have been 

invited to submit 

proposals 

Elderly/Disabled Demonstration Projects 

Simplify the application process for elderly and/or 

disabled households in part by waiving the interview 

altogether. 

States with demonstration 

projects 

2002 2

Source: GAO analysis of FNS information.

Page 14 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
a

These hardship conditions include, but are not limited to: illness, transportation difficulties, care of a 

household member, hardships due to residency in a rural area, prolonged severe weather conditions, 

or work or training hours that prevent the household from participating in an in-office interview. States

must document hardship. The regulations also allow states to opt to substitute telephone interviews

for face-to-face interviews for all households that have no earned income and in which all members 

are elderly or disabled. 

b

Limited to no more than 50 percent of the statewide caseload. 

c

The Food Stamp Act of 1977 included several access provisions, such as addressing the use of mail, 

telephone, or home visits for certification and joint food stamps and SSI application processing. Since 

1986, federal law has required that applicants for or recipients of SSI must be informed of the 

opportunity to file a food stamp application at the SSA office when applying for SSI. 

d

See appendix II for specific state information. 

• Other Technologies. Some states reported implementing other 

technologies that support program access. Specifically, according to 

our survey, 11 states (21 percent) have implemented an Integrated 

Voice Response (IVR) system, a telephone system that provides 

automated information, such as case status or the benefit amount, to 

callers but does not direct the caller to a live person. In addition, 11 

states (21 percent) are using document management/imaging systems 

that allow case records to be maintained electronically rather than in 

paper files. 

All five of the states we reviewed have implemented in at least certain 

areas of their state mail-in procedures, on-line services, call centers, 

waiver of face-to-face interview at recertification, and document 

management/imaging systems. Three of the five states (Florida, Texas, and 

Washington) have implemented an integrated voice response system and 

two (Florida and Utah) have implemented a waiver of the face-to-face 

interview at initial application. 

Page 15 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
States have taken a variety of actions to help households use on-line 

services and call centers, such as sending informational mailings, holding 

community meetings, and employing call center staff who speak languages 

other than English as shown in figures 5 and 6. 

States Report Taking 

Several Actions to Help 

Households Use 

Alternative Methods 

Figure 5: Actions Used to Assist Households with On-line Services 

0 369 12 15

Informational CD-ROMs

Mailings

Frequently-asked questions

Training/workshops

Community meetings

Multiple pathways on Web

Community partners

Number of states

Source: GAO survey.

14

7

8

9

11

12

2

Page 16 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Figure 6: Actions Used to Assist Households with Call Centers 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Informational CD-ROMs

Training/workshops

Community meetings

Community partners

Mailings

Telephone access for

hard-of-hearing

Staff that speak languages

other than English

Number of states

Source: GAO survey.

15

3

5

10

13

13

2

States are using community-based organizations, such as food banks, to 

help households use alternative methods. All states implementing on-line 

services (14)10 and about half of states with call centers (10 of 19) use 

community partners to provide direct assistance to households. Among 

the states we reviewed, four provide grants to community-based 

organizations to inform households about the program and help them 

complete the application process. For example, Florida closed a third of 

its local assistance offices and has developed a network of community 

partners across the state to help households access food stamps. Florida 

state officials said that 86 percent of the community partners offer at least

telephone and on-line access for completing and submitting food stamp 

applications. Community partner representatives in Washington, Texas, 

and Pennsylvania said that they sometimes call the call center with the 

household or on their behalf to resolve issues. Pennsylvania provides 

grants to community partners to help clients use the state’s on-line 

 10 Utah began piloting an on-line application with electronic signature capability in March 

2007. Because this was after the time our survey was conducted, Utah is not included in the

14 states that currently provide on-line services. 

Page 17 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
services. In addition to the assistance provided by community-based 

organizations, H&R Block, a private tax preparation firm, is piloting a 

project with the state of Kansas where tax preparers who see that a 

household’s financial situation may entitle them to food stamp benefits 

can electronically submit an application for food stamps at no extra 

charge to the household.

Insufficient information is available to determine the results of using 

alternative methods to access the Food Stamp Program, but state and 

federal officials report that alternative methods are helping some 

households. Few evaluations have been conducted that identify the effect 

of alternative methods on food stamp program access, decision accuracy,

or administrative costs. Although states monitor the implementation of 

alternative methods, isolating the effects of specific methods is difficult, in

part because states typically have implemented a combination of methods 

over time. Despite the limited information on the effectiveness of 

alternative methods, federal and state officials believe that these methods 

can help many households by making it easier for them to complete the 

application or recertification process. However, technology and staffing 

challenges can hinder the use of these methods. 

Information on 

Results Is Limited, but 

States We Reviewed 

Cite Advantages and 

Challenges Using 

Alternative Access 

Methods 

Few Evaluations Have 

Been Conducted and 

Determining the 

Effectiveness of Specific 

Methods Can Be Difficult 

Few federal or state evaluations have been conducted to identify how 

using alternative methods, such as on-line applications or call centers, 

affects access to the Food Stamp Program, the accuracy of caseworker 

decisions about eligibility and benefit amounts, or administrative costs. 

Few evaluations have been conducted in part because evaluating the 

effectiveness of alternative methods is challenging, given that limited data 

are available, states are using a combination of methods, and studies can 

be costly to conduct. 

FNS and ERS have funded studies related to improving Food Stamp 

Program access, but none of these previous studies provide a conclusive 

assessment of the effectiveness of alternative methods and the factors that 

contribute to their success (see app. I for a list of the studies we selected 

and reviewed). Although these studies aimed to evaluate local office 

practices, grants, and demonstration projects, the methodological 

limitations of this research prevent assessments about the effectiveness of 

these efforts. An evaluation of the Elderly Nutrition Demonstration 

Federal Evaluation and 

Monitoring 

Page 18 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
projects used a pre-post comparison group design to estimate the impact

of the projects and found that food stamp participation among the elderly 

can be increased. 11 Two of the projects evaluated focused on making the

application process easier by providing application assistance and 

simplifying the process, in part by waiving the interview requirement. 

However, one of the drawbacks of this study is that its findings are based

on a small number of demonstrations, which affects the generalizability of 

the findings.

Two related FNS-funded evaluations are also under way, but it is unlikely 

these studies will identify the effects of using alternative methods.12

• An implementation study of Florida’s efforts to modernize its system 

using call centers and on-line services involves a descriptive case study 

to be published in late summer 2007, incorporating both qualitative and 

quantitative data. The objectives of the study are to: describe changes 

to food stamp policies and procedures that have been made in support 

of modernization; identify how technology is used to support the range 

of food stamp eligibility determination and case management 

functions; and describe the experiences of food stamp participants, 

eligible non-participants, state food stamp staff, vendors, and 

community partners. This study will describe Florida’s Food Stamp 

Program performance over time in comparison to the nation, other 

states in the region, and other large states. Performance data that will 

be reviewed includes program participation in general and by

subgroup, timeliness of application processing, payment error rates, 

and administrative costs. However, the study will not isolate the effect

of the modernization efforts on program performance. 

• A national study of state efforts to enhance food stamp certification 

and modernize the food stamp program involves a state survey and 

case studies of 14 states and will result in a site visit report in late 

summer 2007, a comprehensive report in March 2009, and a public-use 

database systematically describing modernization efforts across all the 

states in May 2009. The national study will focus on four types of 

 11 Evaluation of the USDA Elderly Nutrition Demonstrations, Scott Cody and James Ohls, 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., May 2005. 

12 In addition to studies that are under way, the fiscal year 2008 Food Nutrition and 

Consumer Services budget request, which includes FNS, includes $2 million to support 

Food Stamp Modernization and Innovation Projects to study the impact of new Food

Stamp Program service delivery models on program access, payment accuracy, and 

administrative costs. 

Page 19 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
modernization efforts: policy changes to modernize FSP application, 

case management, and recertification procedures; reengineering of 

administrative functions; increased or enhanced use of technology; and 

partnering arrangements with businesses and nonprofit organizations. 

The goals of the study include documenting outcomes associated with 

food stamp modernization and examining the effect of these 

modernization efforts on four types of outcomes: program access, 

administrative cost, program integrity, and customer services. This 

study will compare performance data from the case study states with 

data from similar states and the nation as a whole, however, this 

analysis will not determine whether certain modernization efforts 

caused changes in performance. 

USDA has also awarded $5 million in fiscal year 2006 to 5 grantees in 

Virginia, California, Georgia and Alabama to help increase access to the 

program, but there is currently no plan to publish an evaluation of the 

outcomes of these projects. The participation grants focus on efforts to 

simplify the application process and eligibility systems and each grantee 

plans to implement strategies to improve customer service by allowing 

Web-based applications and developing application sites outside the 

traditional social services office. Grantees are required to submit quarterly 

progress reports and final reports including a description of project 

activities and implementation issues. 

Although few evaluations have been conducted, FNS monitors state and 

local offices and tracks state implementation of alternative methods to 

improve program access. FNS also collects and monitors data from states, 

such as the number of participants, amount of benefits issued, 

participation rates overall and by subgroup, timeliness of application 

processing, payment errors, negative errors, and administrative costs. FNS 

regional offices conduct program access reviews of selected local offices 

in all states to determine whether state and/or local policies and 

procedures served to discourage households from applying for food 

stamps or whether local offices had adopted practices to improve 

customer service. FNS also monitors major changes to food stamp 

systems using a process where FNS officials review and approve plans 

submitted by states related to system development and implementation, 

including major upgrades. States like Texas, Florida, and Indiana that have 

implemented major changes to their food stamp system, such as moving 

from a local assistance office service delivery model to call centers and online services, have worked with FNS through this process. Figure 7 

describes FNS’s monitoring of Indiana’s plan to implement alternative 

access methods. 

Page 20 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Figure 7: FNS Monitoring of Indiana’s Plan to Implement Alternative Access 

Methods

FNS has approved Indiana’s plan to begin piloting a new eligibility system, including 

on-line services, call centers, and document management/imaging system with 

electronic case records in August 2007, and to implement the system statewide in 

March 2008. The state plans to outsource to a private contractor the responsibility 

for collecting application data and verification documents and processing reported 

changes. The plan includes keeping local assistance offices open in every county 

and transitioning most of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration 

employees to work for the private contractor. 

FNS is requiring the state agency to monitor the implementation and operation of 

the system and FNS plans to conduct on-site visits and review available data to 

monitor operations. FNS has requested that Indiana submit to them monthly reports

and provided suggested reporting elements, but did not require the state to provide 

any particular data. Examples of the suggested data elements include: total 

applications filed, the disposition of cases, and amount of benefits authorized. FNS

has requested that the state also report on monthly performance as compared to 

the corresponding period in the previous year. Because FNS has not required the 

state to submit certain data to them, it is not known at this time what information will 

be available or how it will be used to evaluate the performance of the state's new 

system.

Source: GAO analysis.

FNS has also encouraged states to share information about their efforts to 

increase access among states, but states reported needing additional 

opportunities to share information. FNS has funded national and regional

conferences, travel by state officials to visit other states to learn about 

their practices, as well as provided states a guide to promising practices 

for improving program access.13 The guide contains information about the 

goal of each practice, the number of places where the practice is in use, 

and contact information for a person in these offices. However, this guide 

has not been updated since 2002 and, for the most part, does not include 

any evidence that these efforts were successful or any lessons that were 

learned from these or other efforts.14 In 2004, in response to 

recommendations from our prior report,15 FNS compiled and posted 19 

 13State Best Practices Improving Food Stamp Program Access, USDA, FNS, (June 2002). 

14Advocacy groups such as the American Public Human Services Association and the Food 

Research Action Center also make information available on food stamp outreach and 

access in best practices guides, on their Web sites, or through conferences. 

15 Food Stamp Program: Steps Have Been Taken to Increase Participation of Working 

Families, but Better Tracking of Efforts Is Needed, GAO-04-346 (Washington, D.C.: March 

5, 2004). 

Page 21 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
practices aimed to improve access from 11 states. FNS also has a form 

available on its website where states can submit promising practices to 

improve access, but to date, practices from this effort have not been 

published. In our survey, 13 states (about 25 percent) reported needing 

additional conferences or meetings with other states to share information. 

States also report monitoring use of alternative methods in the Food 

Stamp Program, but have not conducted evaluations of their effectiveness. 

In our survey, states reported monitoring several aspects of the 

performance of on-line services. As shown in figure 8, states most 

commonly used the number of applications submitted, the number of 

applications terminated before completion, and customer satisfaction to 

monitor the performance of on-line services. For example, Pennsylvania

state officials monitor performance of their on-line system and meet 

regularly with community partners that help households submit 

applications for benefits to obtain feedback on how they can improve the 

system. Florida state officials told us they use responses to on-line 

feedback surveys submitted at the end of the on-line application to assess 

customer satisfaction with the state’s on-line services. 

State Evaluation and 

Monitoring 

Page 22 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Figure 8: States’ Use of Measures to Monitor Performance of On-line Services 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Administrative cost savings

Payment accuracy

Accuracy of information

contained on the Web site

Timeliness of application processing

Customer satisfaction

Number of applications

terminated before completion

Number of applications

that are submitted on-line

Number of states

Source: GAO survey.

13

5

7

7

8

10

3

States also reported in our survey monitoring several aspects of the 

performance of their call centers. As shown in figure 9, most states with 

call centers reported monitoring the volume of transactions and calls to 

the center, customer satisfaction, the rate of abandoned calls, and the 

length of time callers are on hold before speaking with a caseworker. For 

example, Utah officials monitor several measures and added additional 

staff to the call center after observing increased hold times when they

were implementing the call center to serve the Salt Lake City area. In 

addition, Washington state officials told us that they monitor call centers 

on an hourly basis, allowing call center managers to quickly increase the 

number of staff answering phones as call volumes increase. 

Page 23 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Figure 9: States’ Use of Measures to Monitor Performance of Call Centers 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Rate of first contact resolution

Number of times an individual

client calls about a particular issue

Timeliness of application processing

Payment accuracy

Administrative cost savings

Number of calls transfered

to other systems

Accuracy of information

provided by call center staff

Hold time

Average answer speed

Call length

Abandonment rate

Customer satisfaction

Number of calls answered

during a specified time period

Number of transactions

completed through call center 

Number of states

Source: GAO survey.

14

5

8

9

13

13

13

13

13

13

14

3

11

6

Despite these monitoring efforts, no states reported conducting an 

evaluation of the effectiveness of on-line services in our survey and only 

one state reported conducting such an evaluation of its call centers. The 

report Illinois provided on its call center described customer and worker 

feedback on the performance of the call center, but did not provide a 

conclusive assessment of its effectiveness. Seven states implementing 

Combined Application Projects (CAP)16 have submitted reports to FNS 

including data on the number of participants in the CAP project compared 

with when the project began, but do not use methods to isolate the effect 

 16 Combined Application Projects (CAP) allow one-person SSI households to file a 

shortened food stamp application form and waive the face-to-face interview requirement.

Page 24 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
of the project or determine whether participation by SSI recipients would 

have increased in the absence of the project. Two of the five states we 

reviewed said they planned to conduct reviews of their system. For 

example, Washington is conducting an internal quality improvement 

review of its call centers. It will compare call center operations with 

industry best practices and promising new technologies, and will identify 

the costs, services offered, and best practices used by the call centers. 

Few evaluations have been conducted, in part because evaluating the 

effectiveness of alternative methods is challenging. For example, states 

are limited in their ability to determine whether certain groups of 

households are able to use alternative methods because few states collect 

demographic information on households that use their on-line services and 

call centers. Only six states reported in our survey that they collect 

demographic information on the households that use on-line services and 

four states reported collecting demographic information on the 

households that use call centers. In addition, although FNS is requiring 

states with waivers to the face-to-face interview to track the payment 

accuracy of cases covered by these waivers, FNS has not yet assessed the 

effects of these methods on decision accuracy because it has not collected 

enough years of data to conduct reliable analyses of trends. Further, 

evaluations that isolate the effect of specific methods can be challenging 

because states implement methods at different times and are using a 

combination of methods. For example, Washington state implemented call 

centers in 2000, an on-line application and CAP in 2001, and document 

imaging and a waiver of the face-to-face interview at recertification in 

2003. Sophisticated methodologies often are required to isolate the effects 

of certain practices or technologies. These studies can be costly to 

conduct because the data collection and analysis can take years to 

complete. For example, the two studies that we reviewed that aimed to 

isolate the effects of specific projects each cost over $1 million and were 

conducted over more than 3 years. Although evaluating the effects of 

alternative methods is challenging, FNS is collecting data from states 

through the waiver process that could be analyzed and previous ERSfunded studies have used methodologies that enable researchers to 

identify the effect of certain projects or practices on program access. 

Evaluation Challenges 

Page 25 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Despite the limited information on the effects of alternative methods, 

federal and state officials report that alternative methods, such as the 

availability of telephone interviews, can help many types of households by 

making it easier for them to complete the food stamp application or 

recertification process. Some state and local officials and community 

partners noted, however, that certain types of households may have

difficulty using some methods. Moreover, some officials also described 

how technology and staffing challenges can hinder the use of these 

methods. 

According to federal and state officials we interviewed, alternative 

methods can help households in several ways, such as increasing 

flexibility, making it easier to receive case information or report changes 

to household circumstances, or increasing efficiency of application 

processing. In addition, community partner representatives from some 

states we reviewed said that the availability of telephone interviews helps 

reduce the stigma of applying for food stamp benefits caused by visiting an 

assistance office. 

Federal and State Officials 

Report Alternative 

Methods Help Some 

Households Access Food 

Stamp Benefits, but 

Technology and Staffing 

Can Present Challenges 

Advantages of Alternative 

Methods 

• Increased flexibility. Federal officials from the seven FNS regional 

offices said that alternative methods help households by reducing the 

number of visits a household makes to an assistance office or by 

providing additional ways to comply with program requirements. 

Moreover, all of the states in our survey that currently have on-line 

services and more than half of the states that currently operate call 

centers, reported that reducing the number of visits an individual must 

make to an office as a reason for implementing the alternative

methods. For example, in Florida a household may submit an 

application or recertification through any one of the following access 

points -- on-line, mail, fax, community partner site, or in-person at the 

local assistance office. Additionally, in certain areas of Texas, it is 

possible for households to apply for food stamps without ever visiting a 

local assistance office because the state has made available phone 

interviews and on-line services. Reducing the number of required visits 

can be helpful for all households, according to state officials or 

community partner representatives in two of the states we reviewed. 

• Easier access to case information and ability to report changes.

According to officials in the five states we reviewed, alternative 

methods, such as call centers, automated voice response systems, or 

electronic case records, make it easier for households to access 

information about their benefits and report changes to household 

circumstances. For example, in Washington, a household may call the 

automated voice response system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to 

Page 26 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
immediately access case information, such as appointment times or 

whether their application has been received or is being processed. If 

the household has additional questions, they can call the call center 

where a call center agent can view their electronic case record and 

provide information on the status of their application, make decisions 

based on changes in household circumstances reported to them, inform 

them of what verification documents are needed or have been received, 

or perform other services. 

• Increased efficiency. State or local officials from four of the states 

we reviewed said that implementation of document 

management/imaging systems improves application processing times, 

while local officials in two of the states said that call centers help 

caseworkers complete tasks more quickly. Furthermore, about half of 

the states in our survey that have call centers reported that increasing 

timeliness of application processing and reducing administrative costs 

were reasons for implementing them. State officials in Florida said that 

the document management/imaging system allows a caseworker to 

retrieve an electronic case record in seconds compared to retrieving 

paper case files that previously took up to 24 hours, allowing 

caseworkers to make eligibility decisions more quickly on a case. 

Additionally, a call center agent can process a change in household 

circumstances instantly while on the phone. Caseworkers in 

Pennsylvania said that implementation of a change reporting call 

center has reduced the number of calls to caseworkers at the local

assistance office, which allows them to focus on interviewing 

households and processing applications more quickly. Officials from 

four states we reviewed also said that use of a document 

management/imaging system has resulted in fewer lost documents, 

which can reduce the burden on households of having to resubmit 

information. 

According to some of the state officials and community partners we 

interviewed, the availability of alternative methods can be especially

beneficial for working families or the elderly because it reduces barriers 

from transportation, child care or work responsibilities. For example, 

state officials in Florida explained that a working individual can complete

a phone interview during their lunch break without taking time off of work 

to wait in line at the assistance office. In addition, state officials from three 

of the states we reviewed that have implemented CAP projects told us that 

they had experienced an increase in participation among SSI recipients 

and FNS and officials from two states said that households benefited from 

the simplified application process. In addition, state officials in Florida 

said that on-line services help elderly households that have designated 

Page 27 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
representatives to complete the application on their behalf. For example, 

an elderly individual’s adult child who is the appointed designated 

representative but lives out-of-state can apply and recertify for food stamp 

benefits for their parent without traveling to Florida. 

However, some state and local officials and community partners we 

interviewed said certain types of households may have difficulty using 

certain alternative methods. For example, community partner 

representatives in two states that we reviewed said that those with limited 

English proficiency, elderly, immigrants, or those with mental disabilities 

may have difficulty using on-line applications. Local officials from 

Philadelphia said that the elderly and households with very low incomes 

may have trouble accessing computers to use on-line services and may not 

have someone helping them. A community partner in Florida told us that

sometimes the elderly, illiterate, or those with limited English proficiency 

need a staff person to help them complete the on-line application. In 

addition, those with limited English proficiency, elderly, or those with 

mental disabilities may have difficulty navigating the call center phone 

system, according to officials from two states and community partners 

from another state that we reviewed. A community partner representative 

in Texas said that sometimes he calls the call center on behalf of the 

applicant because a household may have experienced difficulty or 

frustration in navigating the phone system. 

Although officials told us that alternative methods are helpful to many 

households, challenges from inadequate technology or staffing may limit 

the advantages of alternative methods. For example, state officials from 

Texas explained that on-line applications without electronic signature 

capability have limited benefit because households are still required to 

submit an actual signature through mail, fax, or in person after completing 

the on-line application. Texas state officials and community partner 

representatives told us that the lack of this capability limited its use and 

benefit to households. By contrast, Florida’s application has electronic 

signature capability and Florida officials reported that, as of December 

2006, about 93 percent of their applications are submitted on-line. 

Challenges to Using Alternative 

Methods 

Call centers that do not have access to electronic records may not be as 

effective at answering callers’ questions. Officials from Washington state 

and federal officials from an FNS regional office view the use of a 

document management/imaging system as a vital part of the call center 

system. Florida advocates said that households have received wrong 

information from call center agents and attribute the complaints in part to 

call center agents not having access to real-time electronic case records. 

Page 28 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Florida recently expanded its document imaging system statewide, which 

they believe will help address these concerns. 

Further, while four of the five states we reviewed implemented alternative

methods in part to better manage increasing numbers of participants with 

reduced numbers of staff, the staffing challenges certain states 

experienced also limited the advantages of alternative methods. For 

example, inadequate numbers of staff or unskilled call center staff may 

reduce the level of service provided and limit the advantages to 

households of having a call center available to them. Texas and Florida 

have experienced significant staff reductions at a time of increased 

participation, which has affected implementation of alternative methods 

(see figs. 10 and 11). 

Page 29 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Figure 10: Use of Alternative Access Methods in Texas 

In January 2006, Texas piloted in two counties a call center system run by a private contractor to assist state caseworkers in 

gathering the client information needed to determine households’ eligibility for multiple programs, including food stamps. Initially, the 

contractor was responsible for a number of tasks such as scheduling interviews, assisting households with applications, gathering 

verification documents from households, and assembling electronic case records. A March 2006 FNS review of the system found 

several problems related to the performance of the contractor, such as inefficient application processing, long wait times and a high 

abandonment rate for individuals using the call center, and contractor call center agents providing incorrect or confusing 

information to callers. In May 2006, in response to a large backlog of food stamp applications and contractor performance 

problems, the state took back responsibility for processing food stamp applications, with the exception of receiving the applications, 

scanning documents, and scheduling interviews. In December 2006, Texas announced a plan to retain some functions originally 

envisioned to be performed by the private contractor and reduce the terms of the contract. In March 2007, Texas announced that it 

will terminate the contract with the existing private contractor and expects that all duties currently performed by the private 

contractor, such as operating the call centers, will conclude no later than November 2007. During the transition, some of the work 

will continue to be performed by subcontractors while Texas evaluates whether to hire state staff and develop systems for those 

tasks or use different contractors. Texas plans to assess whether they will continue to outsource some of the administrative support 

tasks, such as mailing notices and scanning documents.

Challenges

· State officials reported that between 2002 and 2006, through budget reductions the state reduced its eligibility staff by one-third 

 while experiencing a 45 percent increase in the number of participants. The new system initially called for an additional reduction 

 in staff and closure of about 100 local assistance offices. When implementation of the new system began, the state sent notices 

 of impending layoffs to state eligibility staff and many of them left their positions as a result. In May 2006 when the state took 

back responsibility for processing applications, Texas announced that it would retain an additional 1,000 state workers and pay 

 retention bonuses to keep state staff in place. The state also hired more than 900 temporary employees to help offices 

 experiencing high turnover during the transition.

· Texas state officials told us that they underestimated the level of expertise and training the contractor’s call center agents 

 needed. For example, call center agents delayed the application process by sending applicants multiple requests for missing 

 information, whereas a state caseworker would have known to use data-matching resources or other means to verify the 

 information.

· In addition, state officials attributed Texas’ recent increases in the payment and negative error rates to inexperienced staff 

 handling a large increase in applications following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

· Texas also experienced technology challenges because the state’s new automated case management system, which was 

 developed several years before the legislative mandate to develop call centers, had to be retrofitted to work within the call center 

 model. The private contractor offered an interim technical solution which was determined to be insufficient.

Source: GAO analysis.

Page 30 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Figure 11: Use of Alternative Access Methods in Florida 

Florida began its modernization initiative to save costs following state legislative 

direction. The initiative included closing about one-third of the local assistance 

offices and establishing community partnerships to serve as access locations. The 

state implemented alternative methods gradually by reinvesting funds saved from 

reducing staff and office leases into technology and training, and investing in 

community partnerships. The state strongly encourages households to apply on-line 

by directing individuals visiting the local assistance offices to computers and 

providing computers and training to community partners. State officials reported that 

as of December 2006, about 93 percent of applications were filed on-line. In 

addition, Florida created call centers that provide case and referral information and 

process reported changes.

Challenges

· State officials reported absorbing a 43 percent staff reduction at a time of 

 increasing participation.

· The state has had difficulties providing adequate call center staff to handle the 

 volume of calls. Due to long hold times, households have hung up and not 

 received service, according to community partner representatives. State officials 

 told us that they did not anticipate the large volume of callers when they 

 designed the call center, but that they are working to address the problems.

· Community partner representatives and advocates told us that some community 

 partners do not have the resources or training necessary to assist people with 

 the food stamp application process.

· Florida’s payment and negative error rates increased recently, and state officials 

attribute this in part to fewer staff handling a large increase in applications and 

 disruption following Hurricane Wilma. 

Source: GAO analysis.

While some states face challenges implementing alternative methods, Utah 

state officials said that they have successful call centers because they have

implemented technology incrementally over time and because they use 

state caseworkers experienced in program rules. Utah state officials also 

reported having relatively low caseloads (180 per worker) compared with 

Texas (815 per worker, in 2005). 

Page 31 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
To maintain program integrity while implementing alternative methods for 

applying and recertifying for food stamps, officials from the states we 

reviewed reported using a variety of strategies, some of which were in 

place long before implementation of the alternative access methods. Some 

states used finger imaging, electronic signatures, and special verification 

techniques to validate the identity of households using call centers or online services. In addition, states use databases to verify information 

provided by households and to follow up on discrepancies between 

information reported by the household and information obtained from 

other sources. Officials in the five states we reviewed did not believe that 

the use of alternative methods had increased fraud in the program. 

Further, despite concern that a lack of face-to-face interaction with 

caseworkers would lead to more households being denied benefits for 

procedural reasons, such as missing a scheduled interview, our limited 

analysis indicated no considerable fluctuations in the rate of procedural 

denials and officials from the states we reviewed reported taking actions 

to prevent them. 

Some states have taken several actions to prevent improper food stamp 

payments and fraud while implementing alternative methods. Nationally, 

states have systems in place to protect program integrity and the states we 

reviewed described how they prevent improper payments and fraud as 

they implement alternative access methods. 

States Report Taking 

Actions to Maintain 

Food Stamp Program 

Integrity While Using 

Alternative Methods 

State Actions to Prevent 

Improper Food Stamp 

Payments and Fraud 

• Finger imaging. Nationwide, four states17 currently use finger imaging 

of food stamp applicants to prevent households from applying more 

than once for benefits. FNS officials commented that the agency has 

not concluded that finger imaging enhances program integrity and that 

it may have a negative effect on program access by deterring certain 

households from applying. 

• Electronic signatures. FNS reported in October 2006 that nine states 

use electronic signatures to validate the identity of on-line users of 

their systems. For example, Florida’s on-line application asks

applicants to click a button signifying that they are signing the 

application. Of the states we reviewed, Pennsylvania, Florida, and 

Washington have on-line services with electronic signatures.18

 17 Texas, California, New York, and Arizona. 

18 Utah also began piloting an on-line application with electronic signature capability in 

March 2007. 

Page 32 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
• In-depth interview for high-risk cases. In Florida, a case that is 

considered to have a greater potential for error or fraud is flagged as a 

“red track” case, and it receives an in-depth interview to more fully 

explore eligibility factors. FNS officials commented that Florida uses 

an abbreviated interview with most households and that their in-depth 

interview for red track cases may be equivalent to the standard 

interview process used in other states. 

• Special training for call center agents. Call center agents in the five

states we reviewed are trained to verify callers’ identities by asking for 

specific personal information available in the file or in the states’ 

records. Pennsylvania has developed specialized interview training, 

including a video, for eligibility workers on conducting telephone 

interviews of households applying or recertifying for the Food Stamp 

Program. One element of the training is how to detect misinformation 

being provided by a household. For example, if records indicate that a 

household member is currently incarcerated and benefits are being 

claimed for that person, call center agents are trained to probe for 

additional information. Similarly, Utah trains telephone interviewers to 

request more information if needed to clarify discrepancies in the case,

such as a household reporting rent payments too high to be covered by

the household’s reported income. 

• Data matching. States have used data matching systems for many 

years and all five states we reviewed used software either developed by

the state or obtained through a third-party vendor to help with 

verification of household circumstances. For example, data matching 

software can match state food stamp caseloads against wage reporting 

systems and other databases to identify unreported household income 

and assets. Utah and Washington have developed software that 

automatically compares information provided by applicants and 

recipients with information contained in state databases, such as 

income and employment information. State officials told us that using 

this software greatly reduces the burden on caseworkers, who would 

otherwise have to search multiple databases one at a time. In addition 

to requiring case workers to access state and federal data sources to 

verify information, Texas contracts with a private data vendor to obtain 

financial and other background information on food stamp applicants 

and recipients. After a household has started receiving benefits, states 

conduct additional data matching, and their systems generate a notice 

to the caseworker if there is a conflict between what the household 

reported and information obtained from another source. The 

information in these notices is investigated to ensure that recipients 

receive the proper level of benefits. Finally, about half of all states 

Page 33 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
participate in the voluntary quarterly matching of their food stamp rolls 

with those of other states to detect individuals receiving food stamp 

benefits in more than one state at a time. 

Food stamp officials in four of the states we reviewed said that they did 

not believe the use of alternative methods has increased the frequency of 

fraud and abuse in the program and officials in one state were unsure and 

collecting data to help determine whether the frequency of fraud had 

increased. Texas caseworkers, for example, told us they did not think 

telephone interviews increased fraud because they believed the 

verification conducted by caseworkers and the states’ data matching 

system was sufficient. However, we have previously reported on the risk 

of improper payments and fraud in the food stamp program and since 

there is always risk of fraud and improper payments, particularly given the 

high volume of cases and the complexity of the program, it is important 

that states include additional controls when changing their processes and 

that states continually assess the adequacy of those controls for 

preventing fraud. 

Some program experts have expressed concern that households would be 

denied for procedural reasons more frequently if they had less face-to-face 

interaction with caseworkers, although data have not borne out these 

concerns and states are taking actions to limit procedural denials. During 

our site visits, some officials reported examples of procedural denials 

resulting from alternative methods. For example, community group 

representatives in Florida said that some households were denied benefits 

because they could not get through to a call center agent to provide 

required verification in time. However, they also acknowledged that 

procedural denials due to not providing verification were frequent prior to 

the state implementing these methods. In addition, Texas officials said that 

some households were denied benefits for missing scheduled interviews 

when the private contractor was late in mailing notices of the interview 

appointments. 

State Actions to Limit 

Procedural Denials 

Our limited analysis of FNS data for the five states we reviewed found no 

considerable fluctuations in the rate of procedural denials between fiscal 

years 2000 and 2005. However, a household’s failure to provide verification 

documents was the most common procedural reason for denial, 

suspension, or termination of benefits in the five states we reviewed. 

States we visited described their efforts to help households use alternative 

methods and prevent procedural denials for households that are not seen

in person by case workers. Examples of actions the states we reviewed 

took to prevent procedural denials include: reviewing actions taken for 

Page 34 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
cases that are denied, training caseworkers on preventing improper 

denials, routinely correcting addresses from returned mail, and developing 

automated system changes to prevent caseworkers from prematurely 

denying a case. For example, Utah trains its caseworkers to inform 

households of all deadlines, and their application tracking software 

automatically generates a list of households that have not scheduled an

interview. This list is used by caseworkers to send notices to the 

households. Washington uses its document imaging center staff to process 

case actions associated with returned mail, including quickly correcting 

addresses. 

Over the last several years and for a variety of reasons, many states have

changed their food stamp certification and recertification processes to 

enable households to make fewer visits to the local assistance office.

Given our findings, it is important for states to consider the needs of all 

types of households when developing alternative ways of accessing food 

stamp benefits. Despite making major changes in their systems, FNS and 

the states have little information on the effects of the alternative methods 

on the Food Stamp Program, including what factors contribute to 

successful implementation, whether these methods are improving access 

to benefits for target groups, and how best to ensure program integrity. 

Without up-to-date information about what methods states are using and 

the factors that contribute to successful implementation of alternative 

methods, states and the federal government most likely will continue to 

invest in large-scale changes to their certification and recertification 

processes without knowing what works and in what contexts. Although 

FNS is beginning to study state efforts in this regard, these studies are not 

designed to systematically evaluate whether specific methods contributed 

to achieving positive outcomes. In addition, FNS has not thoroughly 

analyzed the data received from states implementing waivers of the faceto-face interview to determine, for example, whether it should allow states 

to use telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face interviews for all types 

of households without a waiver. Further, while FNS is using its Website to 

disseminate information about promising practices, the information 

available is not up-to-date, making it difficult to easily locate current 

information about specific practices. Enhancing the research, collection

and dissemination of promising practices could be an important resource 

for states that want to provide households effective alternatives to visiting

local assistance offices to receive food stamp benefits. 

Conclusions 

Page 35 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
To improve USDA’s ability to assess the effectiveness of its funded efforts, 

we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture take the following 

actions: 

• direct FNS and the Economic Research Service to work together to 

enhance their research agendas to include projects that would 

complement ongoing research efforts and determine the effect of 

alternative methods on program access, decision accuracy, and 

administrative costs. Such projects would reliably identify the 

alternative methods that are effective and the factors that contribute to 

their success; and 

• direct FNS to conduct analyses of data received from states 

implementing waivers or demonstration projects waiving the face-toface interview and require states implementing waivers or 

demonstration projects to collect and report data that would facilitate 

such analyses. Such analyses would identify the effect of the waivers 

on outcomes such as payment accuracy and could help determine 

whether the use of the waiver should be further expanded or inform 

whether regulations should be changed to allow telephone interviews 

for all households without documenting hardship. 

In addition, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture help states 

implement alternative methods to provide access to the Food Stamp 

Program by directing FNS to disseminate and regularly update information 

on practices states are using to implement alternative access methods to 

the traditional application and recertification process. The information 

would not be merely a listing of practices attempted, but would include 

details on what factors or contexts seemed to make a particular practice

successful and what factors may have reduced its effectiveness. 

We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

for review and comment. We met with FNS and ERS officials on April 16, 

2007, to obtain their comments. In general, the officials agreed with our 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations. They discussed the 

complexity and variability of state modernization efforts and the related

challenges of researching the effects of these efforts. For example, policy

changes, organizational restructuring, and the engagement of community 

organizations in the application process may occur simultaneously with 

implementation of alternative methods and play a significant role in state 

and client experiences. Having multiple interrelated factors creates 

challenges for researching the effects of modernization efforts. 

Nonetheless, the officials highlighted steps the agency is taking to monitor 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

Page 36 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
and evaluate state implementation of alternative access methods. First, 

the officials commented that as modernization evolves, FNS is using its 

administrative reporting system to consistently and routinely track 

changes in state program performance in the areas of application 

timeliness, food stamp participation by subgroups, payment accuracy, and

administrative costs. Second, they stated that the two related FNS-funded 

studies currently underway will be comparing performance data from the 

case study states with data from similar states; however, this analysis will 

not determine whether certain modernization efforts caused changes in 

performance. Third, they stated that FNS plans to analyze data they are 

collecting from states as part of the administrative waiver process to 

determine the effect of telephone interviews on payment accuracy. 

Finally, ERS officials noted that Food Stamp Program access is an area in 

which the agency continues to solicit research from the private sector as 

well as other government agencies and that ERS makes data available to 

support these research efforts. FNS and ERS also provided us with 

technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture, 

appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. We 

will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

at (202) 512-7215 or nilsens@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. 

Sincerely, 

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director 

Education, Workforce, and 

 Income Security Issues 

Page 37 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Appendix I: 

Methodology 

Objectives, Scope, and 

Page 38 GAO-07-573

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To understand what alternatives states are using to improve program 

access and what is known about the results of using these methods, we

examined: (1) what alternative methods to the traditional application and 

recertification process are states using to increase program access; (2) 

what is known about the results of these methods, particularly on program 

access for target groups, decision accuracy, and administrative costs; and 

(3) what actions have states taken to maintain program integrity while 

implementing alternative methods. 

To address these issues, we surveyed food stamp administrators in the 50 

states and the District of Columbia, conducted four state site visits 

(Florida, Texas, Utah, and Washington) and one set of semi-structured 

telephone interviews (Pennsylvania), analyzed data provided by the Food 

and Nutrition Service (FNS) and the selected states, reviewed relevant 

studies, and held discussions with program stakeholders, including 

officials at FNS headquarters and regional offices, and representatives of 

advocacy organizations. We performed our work from September 2006 to

March 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Survey of State Food 

Stamp Administrators 

To learn about state-level use of alternative methods to help households 

access the Food Stamp Program, we conducted a Web-based survey of 

food stamp administrators in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

The survey was conducted between December 2006 and February 2007 

with 100 percent of state food stamp administrators responding. The 

survey included questions about the use of alternative methods to provide 

access to the program, including mail-in procedures, call centers, on-line 

services, and other technologies that support program access. In addition, 

we asked about the reasons for implementing these methods, whether 

states had conducted evaluations of the methods, what measures states 

used to evaluate the performance of the methods, and additional 

assistance needed from FNS. 

Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. 

However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 

nonsampling errors, such as variations in how respondents interpret 

questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses. We took steps 

to minimize nonsampling errors, including pre-testing draft instruments 

and using a Web-based administration system. Specifically, during survey 

development, we pre-tested draft instruments with officials in Washington, 

Arizona, Utah, and Wisconsin in October and November 2006. In the pretests, we were generally interested in the clarity of the questions and the 

Food Stamp Program
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

flow and layout of the survey. For example, we wanted to ensure 

definitions used in the surveys were clear and known to the respondents, 

categories provided in closed-ended questions were complete and 

exclusive, and the ordering of survey sections and the questions within 

each section was appropriate. We also used in-depth interviewing 

techniques to evaluate the answers of pretest participants, and 

interviewers judged that all the respondents’ answers to the questions 

were based on reliable information. 

On the basis of the pre-tests, the Web instrument underwent some slight 

revisions. A second step we took to minimize nonsampling errors was 

using a Web-based survey. By allowing respondents to enter their 

responses directly into an electronic instrument, this method 

automatically created a record for each respondent in a data file and 

eliminated the need for and the errors (and costs) associated with a 

manual data entry process. To further minimize errors, programs used to 

analyze the survey data were independently verified to ensure the 

accuracy of this work. 

After the survey was closed, we made comparisons between select items 

from our survey data and other national-level data.

1

 We found our survey 

data were reasonably consistent with the other data set. On the basis of 

our comparisons, we believe our survey data are sufficient for the 

purposes of our work. 

State Site Visits and 

Structured Interviews 

We conducted four site visits (Florida, Texas, Utah, and Washington) and 

one set of semi-structured telephone interviews (Pennsylvania). We 

selected states that have at least one FNS-approved waiver of the face-toface interview requirement and reflect some variation in state 

participation rates. We also considered recommendations from FNS 

officials, advocacy group representatives, or researchers. We made indepth reviews for each state we selected. We interviewed state officials 

administering and developing policy for the Food Stamp Program, local 

officials in the assistance offices and call centers where services are 

provided, and representatives from community-based organizations that 

provide food assistance.

 1

 We compared our Web-based survey data to data reported by FNS in the 2006 State

Options Report. 

Page 39 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To supplement the information gathered through our site visits and indepth reviews, we analyzed data provided by FNS for the states we 

reviewed. These analyses allowed us to include state trends for specific 

measures (Program Access Index, monthly participation, payment 

accuracy, administrative costs, and reasons for benefit denials) in our 

interviews with officials. To review the reasons for benefit denials, we 

used FNS’s quality control (QC) system data of negative cases used in 

error rate calculations. Specifically, we looked at the number and 

percentage of cases denied, terminated, or suspended by the recorded 

reason for the action in the five states we reviewed for fiscal years 2000 

through 2005. Though our data allowed us to examine patterns in these 

areas before and after a method was implemented, we did not intend to 

make any statements about the effectiveness of methods implemented in

the states we visited and reviewed. Instead, we were interested in gaining 

some insight through our interviews on how alternative methods may have 

affected state trends. Based on discussions with and documentation 

obtained from FNS officials, and interviews with FNS staff during site 

visits, we determined that these data are sufficiently reliable for our 

limited review of state trends. 

Reviews of FNS Data and 

Relevant Studies 

In addition, we selected and reviewed several studies and reports that 

relate to the use of alternative methods to increase food stamp program 

access. These studies included food stamp participation outcome 

evaluations that were funded by FNS and the Economic Research Service 

(ERS) and focused on practices aimed to improve access to the Food 

Stamp Program. To identify the selected studies, we conducted library and 

Internet searches for research published on food stamp program access 

since 1990, interviewed agency officials to identify completed and ongoing 

studies on program access, and reviewed bibliographies that focused on 

program access concerns. For each selected study, we determined 

whether the study’s findings were generally reliable. Two GAO social 

science analysts evaluated the methodological soundness of the studies, 

and the validity of the results and conclusions that were drawn. 

The studies we selected and reviewed include: 

• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food 

Stamp Program Access Study: Final Report, by Bartlett, S., N. 

Burstein, and W. Hamilton, Abt Associates Inc. (Washington, D.C.: 

November 2004). 

• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

Evaluation of the USDA Elderly Nutrition Demonstrations, by Cody, 

Page 40 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

S. and J. Ohls, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (Washington, D.C.: 

May 2005). 

• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, Office of 

Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Evaluation of Food Stamp 

Research Grants to Improve Access Through New Technology and 

Partnerships, by Sheila Zedlewski, David Wittenburg, Carolyn O’Brien, 

Robin Koralek, Sandra Nelson, and Gretchen Rowe. (Alexandria, Va.: 

September 2005). 

• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service,

Evaluation of SSI/FSP Joint Processing Alternatives Demonstration, 

by Carol Boussy, Russell H. Jackson, and Nancy Wemmerus. 

(Alexandria, Va: January 2000. 

• Combined Application Project Evaluations submitted to FNS by seven 

states: Florida, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Texas, and Washington. 

Page 41 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Appendix II: St

Methods and 

Interv

ate-by-State Use of Alternative

Waivers of the Face-to-Face

iew

Page 42 GAO-07-573

Appendix II: State-by-State Use of Alternative 

Methods and Waivers of the Face-to-Face 

Interview 

Mail-in procedures

State

Submit 

application 

Report 

changes Submit recertification 

On-line 

services Call centers

Face-to-face

waiver at 

application 

Face-to-face

waiver at 

recertification CAP 

Elderly

demonstration

project

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware 

District of 

Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii 

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky 

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Food Stamp Program
Appendix II: State-by-State Use of Alternative

Methods and Waivers of the Face-to-Face

Interview

Mail-in procedures

State

Submit 

application 

Report 

changes Submit recertification 

On-line 

services Call centers

Face-to-face

waiver at 

application 

Face-to-face

waiver at 

recertification CAP 

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

Hampshire 

New 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island 

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Total 51 50 46 26 23 3 20 13 2 

Source: GAO survey and FNS.

State has implemented project or waiver

Project approved, not yet implemented

Services available to households within the state

State has begun development of a call center or on-line services 

Elderly

demonstration

project 

Page 43 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and 

cknowledgments 

Page 44 GAO-07-573

Appendix III: GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments 

Sigurd R. Nilsen (202) 512-7215 nilsens@gao.gov

Heather McCallum Hahn, Assistant Director, Cathy Roark, Analyst-inCharge, Kevin Jackson, Alison Martin, Daniel Schwimer, Gretchen Snoey, 

Rachael Valliere and Jill Yost made significant contributions to this report. 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

Food Stamp Program
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Food Stamp Program: FNS Could Improve Guidance and Monitoring to 

Help Ensure Appropriate Use of Noncash Categorical Eligibility. 

GAO-07-465. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2007. 

Food Stamp Program: Payment Errors and Trafficking Have Declined 

despite Increased Program Participation. GAO-07-422T. January 31, 2007. 

Food Stamp Trafficking: FNS Could Enhance Program Integrity by 

Better Targeting Stores Likely to Traffic and Increasing Penalties. 

GAO-07-53. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2006. 

Improper Payments: Federal and State Coordination Needed to Report 

National Improper Payment Estimates on Federal Programs. 

GAO-06-347. Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2006. 

Food Stamp Program: States Have Made Progress Reducing Payment 

Errors, and Further Challenges Remain. GAO-05-245. Washington, D.C.: 

May 5, 2005.

Food Stamp Program: Farm Bill Options Ease Administrative Burden,

but Opportunities Exist to Streamline Participant Reporting Rules 

among Programs. GAO-04-916. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2004. 

Food Stamp Program: Steps Have Been Taken to Increase Participation 

of Working Families, but Better Tracking of Efforts Is Needed. 

GAO-04-346. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2004. 

Financial Management: Coordinated Approach Needed to Address the 

Government’s Improper Payments Problems. GAO-02-749. Washington, 

D.C.: August 9, 2002. 

Food Stamp Program: States’ Use of Options and Waivers to Improve 

Program Administration and Promote Access. GAO-02-409. Washington, 

D.C.: February 22, 2002. 

Executive Guide: Strategies to Manage Improper Payments: Learning 

from Public and Private Sector Organizations. GAO-02-69G. Washington,

D.C.: October 2001. 

Food Stamp Program: States Seek to Reduce Payment Errors and 

Program Complexity. GAO-01-272. Washington D.C.: January 19, 2001. 

Page 45 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
Related GAO Products 

Food Stamp Program: Better Use of Electronic Data Could Result in 

Disqualifying More Recipients Who Traffic Benefits. GAO/RCED-00-61. 

Washington D.C.: March 7, 2000. 

Food Assistance: Reducing the Trafficking of Food Stamp Benefits. 

GAO/T-RCED-00-250. Washington D.C.: July 19, 2000. 

Food Stamp Program: Information on Trafficking Food Stamp Benefits. 

GAO/RCED-98-77. Washington D.C.: March 26, 1998. 

(130601) Page 46 GAO-07-573 Food Stamp Program
GAO’s Mission 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 

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