FEDERAL

LOW-INCOME 

PROGRAMS

Multiple Programs 

Target Diverse 

Populations and 

Needs

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2015

GAO-15-516

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-516, a report to 

congressional requesters

July 2015

FEDERAL LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS

Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populations and 

Needs

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government provides 

assistance aimed at helping people 

with low-incomes who may earn too 

little to meet their basic needs, cannot 

support themselves through work, or 

who are disadvantaged in other ways. 

With fiscal pressures facing the federal 

government and the demands placed 

on aid programs, GAO was asked to 

examine federal low-income programs.

This report (1) describes federal 

programs (including tax expenditures) 

targeted to people with low incomes, 

(2) identifies the number and selected 

household characteristics of people in 

poverty, (3) identifies the number, 

poverty status, and household 

characteristics of selected programs’ 

recipients, and (4) examines research 

on how selected programs may affect 

incentives to work. For a list of lowincome programs that were $100 

million in obligations or more in fiscal 

year 2013, GAO consulted with the 

Congressional Research Service; 

surveyed and interviewed officials at 

relevant federal agencies; and 

reviewed relevant federal laws, 

regulations, and agency guidance. 

GAO also conducted analyses on lowincome individuals using Census data 

on the SPM and official poverty 

measure and microsimulation data 

from the Urban Institute that adjusts for 

under-reporting of benefit receipt in 

Census survey data. To examine labor 

force effects, GAO reviewed economic 

literature. Selected low-income 

programs were large in dollars and 

helped meet a range of basic needs.

GAO is not making new 

recommendations in this report. GAO 

clarified portions in response to 

comments from one agency.

What GAO Found

More than 80 federal programs (including 6 tax expenditures) provide aid to 

people with low incomes, based on GAO’s survey of relevant federal agencies. 

Medicaid (the largest by far), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the refundable portion of the 

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) comprised almost two-thirds of fiscal year 

2013 federal obligations of $742 billion for these programs. Aid is most often 

targeted to groups of the low-income population, such as people with disabilities 

and workers with children. Survey responses showed that criteria used to 

determine eligibility vary greatly; most common were variants of the federal 

poverty guidelines, based on the Census Bureau’s official poverty measure. 

In 2013, 48.7 million people (15.5 percent), including many households with 

children, lived in poverty in the United States, based on Census’s Supplemental 

Poverty Measure (SPM). This measure takes into account certain expenses and 

federal and state government benefits not included in the official poverty 

measure. The SPM is not used to determine program eligibility; however, it does 

provide more information than the official measure on household resources 

available to meet living expenses. In 2013, the SPM poverty threshold ranged 

from $21,397 to $25,639 for a family of four, depending on housing situations. 

Based on six mutually exclusive household types GAO developed, individuals in 

a household headed by a person with a disability or a single parent had the 

highest rates of poverty using the SPM, while childless or married parent 

households had larger numbers of people in poverty using the SPM. 

In 2012, the most recent year of data available, GAO estimated that 106 million 

people, or one-third of the U.S. population, received benefits from at least one or 

more of eight selected federal low-income programs: Additional Child Tax Credit, 

EITC, SNAP, SSI, and four others. Almost two-thirds of the eight programs’ 

recipients were in households with children, including many married families. 

More than 80 percent of recipients also lived in households with some earned 

income during the year. Without these programs’ benefits, GAO estimated that 

25 million of these recipients would have been below the SPM poverty threshold. 

Of the eight programs, EITC and SNAP moved the most people out of poverty,

however, the majority of recipients of each of the programs were estimated to 

have incomes above the SPM threshold, after accounting for receipt of benefits. 

Research suggests that assistance from selected means-tested low-income 

programs can encourage people’s participation in the labor force, but have mixed 

effects on the number of hours they work. Changes in certain low-income 

programs through the years, including the EITC, have enhanced incentives for 

people to join the labor force, according to studies. While workers who receive 

means-tested benefits face benefit reductions as their earnings rise, research 

shows that various factors limit how much people change their work behavior in 

response. For example, people may not be aware of such changing interactions 

in a complex tax and benefit system or be able to control the number of hours 

they work, according to studies. Research also shows that enhancing work 

incentives can create difficult policy trade-offs, including raising program costs or 

failing to provide adequate assistance to those in need.

View GAO-15-516. For more information, 

contact Kay Brown at (202) 512-7215 or 

brownke@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Letter 1

Background 5

About 80 Programs Provide an Array of Supports for Low-Income 

Individuals and Households 10

Based on the SPM, About One-Sixth of the U.S. Population Lived 

in Poverty in 2013, When Considering Certain Government 

Benefits and Living Expenses 37

Program Recipients’ Income Levels and Household 

Characteristics Reflected Differences in Program Purpose and 

Design 46

Research Suggests Selected Programs Have Generally 

Encouraged Labor Force Participation and Had Mixed Effects 

on Hours Worked 62

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 70

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 73

Appendix II Information Provided by Agencies on Program Purpose and Type 

of Benefit or Service for Low-Income Programs 86

Appendix III Information Provided by Agencies on Federal Obligations 

(Fiscal Year 2013) and Number Served for Low-Income Programs 

(Time Periods Vary) 97

Appendix IV List of Programs Based on Types of Income Eligibility or Targeting 103

Appendix V Federal Agencies’ Evaluation Efforts for Five Selected Programs 110

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development 120

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 122

Tables

Table 1: Selected Elements of the Official Poverty Measure and 

the Supplemental Poverty Measure 8

Table 2: Information Provided by Agencies on Federal Obligations 

and Number Served for 10 Largest Programs Based on 

Fiscal Year 2013 Obligations 14

Table 3: Reported Estimated Reduced Tax Revenue on Tax 

Expenditures for Low-Income People, Fiscal Year 2013 15

Table 4: Target Populations, Type of Assistance, and General 

Level of Fiscal Year 2013 Obligations for Federal 

Programs for Low-Income Populations 17

Table 5: Reported Automatic Eligibility Based on Participation in 

Another Program 29

Table 6: Estimated Number of Individual Recipients and Benefit 

Spending of Eight Selected Federal Low-Income 

Programs by Household Type, 2012 50

Table 7: Information about TRIM3 Estimates Used to Study 

Selected Programs 81

Table 8: List of Federal Low-Income Programs Based on Types of 

Income Eligibility or Targeting 104

Table 9: Federal Agencies’ Recent Efforts to Evaluate Program 

Effects on Participant Outcomes for Five Selected 

Programs, 2010 or Later 112

Table 10: Titles of Impact Evaluations That Focus on Participant 

Outcomes by Program, Started or Completed 2010 or 

Later118

Figures

Figure 1: Household Income or Resources under the Official 

Poverty Measure in Comparison with the Supplemental 

Poverty Measure 9

Figure 2: Reported Federal Obligations for Low-Income Programs 

by Type of Assistance, Fiscal Year 2013 12

Figure 3: Total Federal Obligations for 78 Low-Income Programs 

Compared with Selected Social Insurance Programs, 

Fiscal Year 2013 13
Page iii GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Figure 4: Distribution of U.S. Population by Their Household 

Incomes as a Percent of the Supplemental Poverty 

Measure (SPM) Threshold, 2013 38

Figure 5: Distribution of U.S. Population by Their Household 

Incomes as a Percentage of the Supplemental Poverty 

Measure (SPM) Threshold and the Official Poverty 

Threshold, 2013 40

Figure 6: Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) Poverty Rate by 

State, Using a 3-Year Average—2011, 2012, 2013 41

Figure 7: Distribution of U.S. Population by Household Type and 

Income as a Percent of the Supplemental Poverty 

Measure (SPM) Threshold, 2013 42

Figure 8: Distribution of Individuals from Households Not Headed 

by an Elderly Member or Member with a Disability, by 

Their Household Earnings Status and Incomes as a 

Percentage of the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), 

2013 44

Figure 9: Distribution of U.S. Population by Participation in Eight 

Selected Federal Low-Income Programs and Income 

(Including Program Benefits) Relative to the 

Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) Threshold, 2012 47

Figure 10: Estimated Effect of Combined Benefits of Eight 

Selected Federal Low-Income Programs on Income 

Groups of Individual Participants, According to the 

Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), 2012 51

Figure 11: Estimated Millions of People Who Moved above the 

Supplemental Poverty Measure Threshold Due to 

Benefits from Eight Selected Federal Programs, by 

Household Type, 2012 52

Figure 12: Estimated Millions of People Who Moved above the 

Supplemental Poverty Measure Threshold Due to 

Benefits from Each of Eight Selected Federal Programs, 

2012 53

Figure 13: After Receipt of Benefits from Listed Programs and 

Others, Estimated Distribution of Individual Recipients of 

Eight Selected Federal Low-Income Programs by Income 

as a Percent of the Supplemental Poverty Measure 

(SPM) Threshold, 2012 56

Figure 14: Estimated Distribution of Individual Recipients of Eight 

Selected Federal Low-Income Programs by Household 

Type, 2012 59
Page iv GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Figure 15: Estimated Distribution of Individual Recipients of Eight 

Selected Federal Low-Income Programs by Household 

Earnings Status, 2012 61

Figure 16: Simulation of Marginal Tax Rates with $100 Annual 

Increase in Earnings, Based on Federal Tax Provisions in 

Effect in 2012 (Including Earned Income Tax Credit and 

Child Tax Credit) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program Benefit 65

Abbreviations

ACTC Additional Child Tax Credit

CBO Congressional Budget Office

CHIP Children’s Health Insurance Program

CPS Current Population Survey 

CRS Congressional Research Service 

Census Census Bureau 

EITC Earned Income Tax Credit 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

LIHEAP Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

OMB Office of Management and Budget

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SPM Supplemental Poverty Measure

SSI Supplemental Security Income

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Treasury Department of the Treasury

TRIM3 Transfer Income Model, version 3

USDA Department of Agriculture

WIC Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 

Infants, and Children

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 30, 2015

The Honorable Jeff Sessions

United States Senate

The Honorable Gary Palmer

United States House of Representatives

For decades, the federal government has provided funding for various 

federal programs designed to provide assistance to people who are 

unable to meet their basic needs. Many of these programs offer various 

forms of assistance such as cash aid, food, shelter, and health care for 

those who have limited means or are vulnerable or disadvantaged in 

other ways, such as at-risk children or youth or older individuals in need 

of home support services. Other programs are designed to help lowincome people move toward self-sufficiency through education, training, 

and employment services. From 2007 through 2014, federal spending for 

some of the larger low-income programs increased by about 60 percent, 

according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in part due to the 

recent economic downturn and its aftermath.1

Each year, the Census Bureau (Census) publishes the official (or federal) 

poverty measure—developed in the early 1960s—which is often used as 

a basis for describing people’s level of financial need. For some lowincome programs, it is the starting point for determining financial eligibility 

for assistance. For the past 4 years, Census has also published the 

Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which it recently developed with 

support from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor. 

This measure takes into account more information on people’s resources 

and living expenses than the official measure.

 1

See Congressional Budget Office, Letter to the Honorable Tom Price Regarding 

Spending for Means-Tested Programs (Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2015), which 

includes information on federal spending for a number of large low-income programs: 

Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Supplemental Security Income, 

the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Additional Child Tax 

Credit, among others.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Given fiscal pressures facing the federal government and the increased 

demands placed on low-income assistance programs, we were asked to 

examine current federal low-income programs and provide descriptive 

information on the recipients of low-income programs, including on their 

incomes as a percentage of poverty. Compared with the official poverty 

measure, the SPM provides more information on people’s economic wellbeing, such as by taking into account assistance from more federal lowincome programs.

Our report examines the following questions:

1. What federal programs (including tax expenditures) are targeted to 

low-income individuals?

2. What are the number and selected household characteristics of 

people in poverty based on the SPM?

3. What are the number, incomes (as a percent of the SPM), and 

household characteristics of people receiving benefits from selected 

programs?

4. What is known about how selected low-income programs affect 

incentives to work?

To address our first question, we identified federal programs, including 

tax expenditures (that is, provisions of the federal tax code, such as 

special credits or deductions that reduce a taxpayer’s tax liability), that (1) 

used a measure of low or limited income to determine eligibility, priority 

for assistance, or to target resources; or (2) have target populations that 

are disproportionately poor or have program purposes that presume that 

participants will be low-income. We included programs that targeted 

individuals, families, and communities. Due to their relatively small size, 

we excluded programs totaling less than $100 million in federal 

obligations or reduced tax revenue in fiscal year 2013. To compile this 

list, we built upon a list maintained by the Congressional Research 

Service (CRS), which also developed the selection criteria,2

 2

We relied on the list published in Congressional Research Service, Federal Benefits and 

Services for People with Low Income: Programs, Policy, and Spending, FY2008-FY2009, 

R41625 (Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2011). Since we began our work, CRS issued an 

update. See Congressional Research Service, Federal Benefits and Services for People 

with Low Income: Programs and Spending, FY2008-FY2013, R43863 (Washington, D.C.: 

January 15, 2015).

by adding 
Page 3 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

relevant tax expenditures and asking relevant agencies to suggest 

program additions or deletions consistent with the criteria. We then 

collected information on each program, such as obligation amounts, 

number of participants, types of services, and income eligibility 

requirements, using a survey to the federal agencies that administer 

these programs.3 To address our second question, we used Census’

2013 (calendar year) Current Population Survey (CPS) data to examine 

household incomes as a percentage of the SPM poverty threshold.4 We 

categorized households into six mutually exclusive groups: those headed 

by an elderly member, those headed by a member with a disability, 

childless households, married households with children, cohabiting 

households with children, and single parent households.5

 3

We did not independently verify the legal accuracy of the information provided by the 

agencies, such as program purposes or eligibility requirements. In this report, for ease of 

reference we use the term “federal agency” to refer to the entities that administer these 

programs, although one program is administered by the Legal Services Corporation, 

which is not a federal agency.

To address our 

third question, we described the recipients of eight selected programs, 

including their incomes as a percentage of the SPM poverty threshold, 

benefit amounts, and household types in 2012 (calendar year), the most 

recent year available. We obtained this information from the Transfer 

Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3), a microsimulation model that adjusts 

for substantial underreporting of program participation in the CPS data 

using information from each program on caseloads, benefit amounts, 

eligibility rules and interactions with other programs. TRIM3 is developed 

and maintained by staff at the Urban Institute with funding primarily from 

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Programs we selected 

4

Because the CPS uses a household-based data collection, its data do not include 

individuals living outside of a household residence, such as homeless people or those 

living in institutional group quarters (e.g., correctional facilities, nursing homes). As many 

individuals in these groups may be low-income, estimates of the size of the low- income 

population in this report are likely to be undercounts of the low-income population in the 

United States.

5

When we provide information on poverty using the SPM, we use Census’ definition of a 

“SPM Resource Unit,” which includes related individuals living together, plus coresident 

unrelated children who are cared for by the family (such as foster children) and any 

cohabitors (i.e., unmarried partners) and their children. However, for ease, we use the 

term “households” in this report instead of the SPM Resource Unit. (The Census definition 

of a household differs from its definition of the SPM Resource Unit.). Also, in the few 

cases in which we provide information on poverty using the official poverty measure, we 

use the official measure’s definition of a unit (related individuals living together).
Page 4 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

were generally large federal low-income programs that serve a range of 

basic needs and were available in TRIM3 data. These were: Additional 

Child Tax Credit (ACTC); Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC); housing 

assistance;6 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI); and Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance.7 TRIM3 did not have 2012 data 

on recipients of Medicaid, the largest low-income program.8 To assess 

the reliability and appropriateness of the data we used, we interviewed 

Census and Urban Institute experts on the relevant data, examined 

Census and Urban Institute documentation, and reviewed the analytical 

approach underlying the TRIM3 data. We determined that the data were 

appropriate and sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

Additionally, when we present estimates from survey data, we also 

present the applicable margins of error.9 To address our fourth question, 

we conducted an economic literature review on whether receipt of 

assistance from selected programs affects recipients’ incentive to work.10

 6

Due to the source of the TRIM3 data, for purposes of this analysis, “housing assistance”

may include multiple programs, including nonfederal programs. TRIM3 estimates for 

recipients of housing assistance are based on households who reported in CPS as living 

in public or subsidized housing. These households could include recipients of housing 

programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 

other federal agencies, or state or local governments. Unlike for most other programs, 

TRIM3 does not adjust estimates for recipients of housing assistance to program 

administrative data. 

7

Noncash assistance may also be provided under TANF; however due to limited available 

data on this type of assistance, we focused on TANF cash assistance in this question.

8

Urban Institute staff noted that adjusting for Medicaid under-reporting would require 

detailed data on the actual caseload that was not available to the Urban Institute at the 

time that their simulation work for 2012 was being performed. Additionally, the value of 

Medicaid is difficult to estimate (given differences in people’s medical costs), according to 

Census officials, which is one reason why it is not included as part of the SPM as a 

noncash benefit. 

9

Margins of error are the maximum half-width of the 95 percent confidence interval around 

the estimate. In some cases, the confidence intervals around our estimates are 

asymmetrical; however, we present the maximum half-width for simplicity and for a 

consistent and conservative representation of the sampling error associated with our 

estimates.

10These programs included some of the principal means-tested programs (that is, those 

with financial eligibility tests for individuals or families) for which working-age adults 

without disabilities and their children may be eligible, including SNAP, TANF cash 

assistance, EITC, and to a limited extent, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program.
Page 5 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

We conducted a literature search of relevant studies published within 

recent years (2009 through 2014) and also reviewed some studies that 

were published earlier. This literature review included peer-reviewed 

journal articles, agency documents, and other research determined to be 

methodologically rigorous and reliable. For more information on our scope 

and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to July 2015 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The programs discussed in this report are very diverse. The various 

programs we discuss were created at different times, to serve different 

populations, and in response to different policy issues (see box on next 

page). Programs also vary greatly in terms of how they are structured and 

funded. In addition, programs are administered through a varying 

combination of federal, state, and local agencies, and sometimes private 

organizations. Some programs require state or local agencies to 

contribute a share of nonfederal funds, while others are entirely federallyfunded. Federal funding structures for low-income programs also vary. 

For instance, programs may be funded through program authorization 

acts (mandatory spending) or through appropriations acts (discretionary 

spending). Spending for these programs may be indefinite (in that there is 

no pre-determined ceiling and federal payments will be made for all 

eligible recipients for eligible expenses) or definite (in that the law limits 

the amount of federal spending).11

 11Mandatory spending programs with indefinite amounts are sometimes referred to as 

“open-ended entitlement programs.”

Tax expenditures—such as tax credits, 

deductions, or exclusions—are generally measured as the estimated 

reduction in tax revenue and are generally considered separately from 

Background

Program Overview
Page 6 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

other federal spending, with the exception of some refundable tax credits 

in which credit in excess of tax liability results in a cash refund.

Examples of Low-Income Programs Established over Time

• 1930s- Great Depression and the New Deal: Major social insurance programs 

(not discussed in this report) were created to protect workers against old age and 

unemployment. Assisted housing programs, such as public housing, also started 

during this time. 

• 1960s- The War on Poverty: Various programs were created aimed at educating 

low-income children, youth, and adults to help address the causes of poverty (e.g., 

Head Start, Job Corps, aid to help low-income students in elementary and 

secondary schools). The Food Stamp Program (now known as the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)), which had been a pilot program, was made 

permanent. Medicare (another social insurance program) and Medicaid were also 

established. 

• 1970s- Welfare reform proposed, EITC created: Due to rising caseloads of 

recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which provided 

cash assistance to low-income families, reform was proposed, but did not occur. 

However, major changes to other programs occurred. Aid to low-income 

individuals who were aged, blind, or had a disability evolved into a federally-run 

program: Supplemental Security Income. Section 8 rental housing assistance was 

established, as was the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). 

• 1980s- Tax reform and promotion of work: EITC and Medicaid were expanded. 

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 removed federal income taxes for many of the 

working poor, and the Family Support Act of 1988 was passed to encourage work 

among AFDC recipients.

• 1990s- Decentralization and welfare reform: AFDC was replaced with 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a block grant to states that 

emphasizes work and time-limited cash assistance and gives states wide 

discretion on how to use TANF funds, including for various noncash services.

• 2000s- Great Recession, federal stimulus, healthcare reform: In response to 

the recession, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 expanded 

federal spending for low-income aid, particularly for SNAP and Medicaid. The 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid eligibility (although 

a Supreme Court decision subsequently made Medicaid expansion an option for 

states) as well as established new refundable tax credits for lower-income 

households to subsidize their purchase of private health insurance on health 

insurance exchanges.

Source: Congressional Research Service, Poverty: Major Themes in Past Debates and Current Proposals, R43731 (Washington, 

D.C.: September 18, 2014). | GAO-15-516

Note: GAO did not independently verify the legal accuracy of the information in this box.
Page 7 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

The official measure used today to provide information on how many 

people are “in poverty” in the United States was developed in the 1960s, 

based on the cost of food at that time.12 The official poverty thresholds—

the income thresholds by which households are considered to be in 

poverty depending on their size—are updated annually by Census to 

reflect current prices. HHS uses the official poverty thresholds to update 

the “federal poverty guidelines” each year, which are the basis for 

determining financial eligibility or funding distribution for certain lowincome programs.13

The official poverty measure has not changed substantially since it was 

developed, and concerns about its inadequacies resulted in efforts to 

develop a new measure starting in 1990. For instance, the threshold for 

the official poverty measure (the income level that is used to determine 

who is “in poverty” each year) is based on three times the cost of food 

and does not take into account the cost of other basic necessities, such 

as shelter and utilities. Additionally, in determining a household’s income, 

the official measure considers cash income, but does not include 

additions to income based on the value of noncash assistance (e.g., food 

assistance) or reductions based on other necessary living expenses (e.g., 

medical expenses or taxes paid). A panel on poverty was established by 

the National Academy of Sciences and, later, an interagency technical 

working group suggested ways a new poverty measure could address 

some of these concerns. Based on these suggestions, Census, with 

support from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, developed the SPM in 2010. 

 12Census sets the official measure following the Office of Management and Budget’s 

Statistical Policy Directive 14. See Office of Management and Budget, Definition of 

Poverty for Statistical Purposes, Statistical Policy Directive No. 14 (May 1978), available 

at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html. 

13The federal poverty guidelines issued by HHS are a simplified version of the official 

poverty thresholds issued by Census. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 

requires HHS to update the poverty guidelines at least annually, adjusting them on the 

basis of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. 42 U.S.C. § 9902(2). There 

are some differences between the federal poverty guidelines and the official poverty 

thresholds. For instance, the guidelines vary by family size, while the poverty thresholds 

vary by family size, number of children, and, for households with one or two people, 

whether these members are elderly. Additionally, while the thresholds are the same 

across all states, the guidelines are higher in both Alaska and Hawaii than in the 

contiguous United States. Furthermore, due to differences in the timing of when each 

measure is updated, the poverty guidelines are approximately equivalent to the poverty 

thresholds for the prior year. For the most recent federal poverty guidelines, see Annual 

Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 80 Fed. Reg. 3237 (Jan. 22, 2015).

Poverty Measurement
Page 8 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Each year since, Census has released annual poverty statistics on the 

SPM along with the official measure. The SPM did not replace the official 

measure, which is still used for determining federal poverty guidelines 

that could affect eligibility for some programs. Instead, the SPM is 

primarily used as a research measure, designed to provide information on 

economic need at the aggregate level, nationally or within subpopulations 

or areas.

The SPM differs from the official measure in various ways. In defining a 

family unit that shares resources, in addition to related individuals, the 

SPM household includes unrelated children cared for by the family (such 

as foster care children) and cohabiting unmarried partners (see table 

1).The SPM also defines the threshold of need differently from the official 

measure.

Table 1: Selected Elements of the Official Poverty Measure and the Supplemental Poverty Measure

Official measure Supplemental Poverty Measure 

Who shares 

resources?

Individuals related by birth, marriage, or adoption 

in a household

Those individuals included in the official measure plus 

certain unrelated children and unmarried partners in a 

household

How is need measured 

— i.e., what is the 

poverty threshold?

Three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 

1963, in today’s prices

Adjusted for size of family and age of family 

members

Approximately the 33rd percentile of expenditures on 

food, clothing, shelter, and utilities based on consumer 

expenditure dataa

Adjusted for size of family, number of children and adults 

in the family, place of residence (geographic variation in 

housing costs) and housing tenure (renter, homeowner 

with or without mortgage)

Source: Census Bureau. | GAO-15-516

a

Thresholds are produced at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and use 5 years of quarterly data from the 

Consumer Expenditure Survey.

Also, in determining if a family has sufficient resources to meet necessary 

living expenses, it looks more holistically at a family’s resources and 

expenses (see fig. 1). Individuals or families whose household incomes 

are below 100 percent of the SPM threshold are considered to be in 

poverty based on current levels of need.14

 14For the SPM, we generally use the term “income” to describe both income and noncash 

resources throughout this report.
Page 9 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Figure 1: Household Income or Resources under the Official Poverty Measure in Comparison with the Supplemental Poverty 

Measure

Note: Unlike the official measure, the SPM adjusts for taxes. It subtracts federal, state, and local 

income taxes, and payroll taxes. It also takes into account federal and state tax credits, such as the 

Earned Income Tax Credit, as well as other tax credits.

Housing assistance, in the SPM, is based on households who reported living in public or subsidized 

housing in the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement. These could include recipients of housing programs administered by the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, other federal agencies, or state or local governments.
Page 10 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

We identified 82 federal programs, including several tax expenditures, 

that target low-income individuals, families, and communities to help them 

meet basic needs or provide other assistance.15 For 78 of these 

programs, fiscal year 2013 federal obligations totaled about $742 billion. 

This amount includes federal obligations for two tax expenditures: the 

ACTC and the refundable portion of the EITC.16

 15Programs included are those that (1) used a measure of low or limited income to 

determine eligibility, priority for assistance, or to target resources or (2) have a target 

population that is disproportionately poor or whose program purpose presumes that 

participants will be low-income. We excluded programs totaling less than $100 million in 

federal obligations or reduced tax revenue in fiscal year 2013. We built upon a list 

maintained by CRS (which also developed these criteria) by adding relevant tax 

expenditures, and asking relevant agencies to suggest program additions or deletions 

consistent with CRS criteria. We collected information on each program by surveying the 

federal agencies that administer the programs. We generally maintained how CRS 

counted programs; a different count could result if some programs characterized as a 

single program were counted separately or others were consolidated.

Four additional tax 

expenditures that assisted people with low income, plus the 

nonrefundable portion of the EITC, totaled an estimated $14 billion in 

reduced federal tax revenues for fiscal year 2013.

16A tax credit reduces tax liability dollar-for-dollar. If a tax credit has a refundable portion, 

a taxpayer with a credit in excess of tax liability will receive a cash refund, which results in 

federal spending. The ACTC is the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit. We include 

the ACTC as a low-income “program,” but exclude the nonrefundable portion of the Child 

Tax Credit. According to Treasury officials, the allocation between the ACTC and the 

nonrefundable portion of the Child Tax Credit can depend on circumstances that do not 

affect the total child credit and, therefore, may not necessarily be a meaningful distinction 

when thinking about support for low-income families. In general, however, the ACTC is 

claimed by those with lower tax liabilities and lower income than those that claim only the 

Child Tax Credit. As reported by the Statistics of Income Division of the Internal Revenue 

Service, in 2012, 88 percent of the ACTC went to taxpayers with adjusted gross income 

below $40,000, while 17 percent of the Child Tax Credit went to taxpayers below that 

income.

About 80 Programs 

Provide an Array of 

Supports for LowIncome Individuals 

and Households

Over $700 Billion in 

Federal Obligations in 

Fiscal Year 2013 Was 

Concentrated in Large 

Programs Aimed at 

Meeting Basic Needs
Page 11 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

These programs include those sometimes referred to as “public 

assistance” programs or “means-tested” programs, but are broader and 

more diverse than those terms imply.17 For instance, while many of the 

programs, often referred to as public assistance or means-tested 

programs, help people with low incomes meet basic needs (income 

support, health care, food, housing, or utilities), some of the programs in 

this report provide other types of services, such as child care, services for 

children in foster care, or support services for older individuals. Other 

programs provide education assistance or employment and training 

support with the goal of helping disadvantaged individuals better 

independently support themselves.18

Federal obligations for these low-income programs were concentrated in 

a few large programs (see fig. 2).

(See app. II for information from our 

survey on each program’s purpose and benefit or service provided.)

19 Medicaid accounted for 39 percent of 

the fiscal year 2013 federal obligations for the programs we reviewed,20

 17Public assistance programs are typically considered those that provide cash assistance 

or near-cash benefits, such as food assistance. Means-tested programs are generally 

considered those that provide benefits based on a participant meeting a test of financial 

need.

followed by SNAP, the refundable portion of the EITC, and SSI. In total, 

these four programs comprised almost two-thirds (65 percent) of federal 

low-income obligations in fiscal year 2013 or about $480 billion. For some 

programs, states or other entities also contribute funding, which means 

billions more in nonfederal funds are spent on such programs. For 

example, state expenditures for Medicaid were $194 billion in fiscal year 

2013, accounting for around 40 percent of total Medicaid expenditures. 

For TANF, state expenditures totaled almost $15 billion in fiscal year 

18CRS assigned each program in its list to one of the following categories: health care, 

cash aid, food assistance, education, housing and development, social services, 

employment and training, and energy assistance. In this report, we maintained the 

category assigned to each program by CRS.

19Our survey collected information on federal obligation amounts for each program. 

However, in this report we sometimes also report amounts from sources other than our 

survey. These sources may use different measures other than obligations, such as 

expenditures. In those cases, we have reported the terms used by these other sources, 

although we did not confirm how each source defined those terms.

20The Medicaid amount includes grants to states as well as amounts for a component 

referred to as State Grants and Demonstrations.
Page 12 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

2013, accounting for about 47 percent of total expenditures for the 

program.

Figure 2: Reported Federal Obligations for Low-Income Programs by Type of Assistance, Fiscal Year 2013

Note: Programs totaling over $20 billion in obligations are identified by name. Programs totaling less 

than $100 million in federal obligations in fiscal year 2013 are not included in this figure. Amounts 

include total federal program costs, including program administration, research, and other related 

costs. This figure includes only the refundable portion of the EITC. Tax expenditures other than the 

EITC and the ACTC are not included. For Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the total federal 

obligation amount is divided among three categories: cash aid, employment and training, and social 

services, and counted as a separate program in each category. For SNAP, the obligation amount for 

employment and training ($368 million) is counted in the employment and training category, and 

counted as a separate program in that category. The full name for the Medicare drug subsidy is the 

Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Low-Income Subsidy. The full name for Pell Grants is 

Federal Pell Grants.

Social insurance programs, including Social Security Old-Age and 

Survivors Insurance (Social Security) and Medicare, are not included in 

the programs we reviewed because they are not targeted solely to those 

with low-income.21

 21In this report, we refer to Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance as “Social 

Security” and Social Security Disability Insurance as “Disability Insurance.”

These programs are generally financed by 

contributions from workers and employers, and eligibility for benefits is 
Page 13 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

determined, at least in part, on the basis of an individual’s work history. 

These programs are intended to more universally protect workers from 

lost wages and related benefits due to retirement, disability, or a 

temporary period of unemployment. Some of these programs are very 

large. For example, in fiscal year 2013, Social Security alone totaled $674 

billion in obligations, which is equal to about 90 percent of the total in 

obligations for the 78 low-income programs (see fig. 3).

Figure 3: Total Federal Obligations for 78 Low-Income Programs Compared with Selected Social Insurance Programs, Fiscal 

Year 2013

Note: Federal obligations include administrative costs. Low-income bar consists of 78 programs 

grouped into categories developed by the Congressional Research Service. Low-income programs 

totaling less than $100 million in federal obligations in fiscal year 2013 are not included in this figure.

The 10 largest low-income programs in terms of federal obligations 

accounted for about $600 billion in fiscal year 2013 (82 percent of 

obligations for 78 low-income programs) and served millions of people 

(see table 2). However, according to our survey, while these 10—and 

most of the other 72 programs—collect some information on numbers 

served, programs varied in how they track this information, making it 

difficult to compare information across programs or to know precisely how 

many people are helped overall. (In the next section, we provide an 

estimate of the overall number of recipients in selected programs.) As 

also shown in table 2, agencies reported the number served using 

different units (such as individuals, households, or tax returns) and a 

variety of time periods (annual, monthly; fiscal, calendar, school year; 

cumulative or point-in-time) for each program. See appendix III for 

information on federal obligations, number served, and time periods for all 

82 programs.
Page 14 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Table 2: Information Provided by Agencies on Federal Obligations and Number Served for 10 Largest Programs Based on 

Fiscal Year 2013 Obligations

Federal obligations are for fiscal year 2013, while time periods for number served vary

Program

(type of assistance) 

Fiscal year 

2013 

obligations

(in millions) Number served 

Time period for number 

served (vary based on 

information provided 

by agency)

Medicaid (health care) $287,454a Average of 57.4 million individuals (including 

27.9 million children) per month; total of 72.8 

million individuals were enrolled during the 

year (including 35 million children) 

Average monthly based on 

fiscal year 2013; cumulative 

total for fiscal year 2013

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (food assistance) 

$80,110b Average of 47.6 million individuals 

(or 23.1 million households) per month 

Average monthly based on 

fiscal year 2013 

Earned Income Tax Credit (cash aid) $57,513c 27.9 million tax returns claimed the EITC 

(of these, 24.3 million had a credit that 

exceeded their tax liability) 

Cumulative total for calendar 

year 2012

Supplemental Security Income

(cash aid) 

$56,486d 9.1 million individuals who received at least 1 

payment during the year, not including those 

who only receive a state supplementary 

payment

Calendar year 2013 

Federal Pell Grants (education) $31,887 8.6 million students Cumulative total for 2012-

2013 school year 

Voluntary Medicare Prescription 

Drug Benefit-Low-Income Subsidy 

(health care) 

$22,400e 11.5 million beneficiaries Calendar year 2013 

Additional Child Tax Creditf

(cash aid) 

$21,608 19.8 million tax returns Cumulative total for calendar 

year 2012 

Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 

(housing and development) 

$17,897 2.2 million households with 5.36 million 

persons

Single point-in-time (August 

2014)

Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (cash aid, employment and 

training, and social services) 

$17,334 (of this 

amount, cash 

assistance

totaled 

$6,200)g

Average of 3.5 million individuals receiving 

cash assistance per month (caseload average 

without state supplemental funds)

Average monthly for fiscal 

year 2014 

Medical Care for Low-Income 

Veterans Without Service Connected 

Disability (health care) 

$13,764h 1.4 million veterans Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses. | GAO-15-516

Note: Fiscal year 2013 obligation amounts are rounded to the nearest million. Amounts include total 

federal program costs, including program administration, research, and other related costs.

a

The federal total for Medicaid includes grants to states ($286,920 million) as well as State Grants 

and Demonstrations ($534 million). States provided an additional $194,434 million for Medicaid in 

fiscal year 2013, based on program budget information (this amount reflects state expenditures, not 

obligations).

b

Includes employment and training, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act) supplement, and the Nutrition Block Grant for American Samoa.

c

Includes the refundable portion only.
Page 15 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

d

Includes federal obligations and does not include state supplementary payments.

e

This total is aggregate reimbursements under Low-Income Subsidy in calendar year 2013 (from 

2014 Medicare trustees’ report)

f

The Additional Child Tax Credit is the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit.

g

Includes TANF Family Assistance Grants to States, Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood 

Grants, Tribal Work Programs, and the TANF Contingency Fund. States provided an additional 

$14,995 million for TANF in fiscal year 2013, based on program budget information (this amount 

reflects state expenditures, not obligations). No information on the number of recipients of noncash 

services.

h

This amount is a subset of the amount for veterans in Priority 1-6 listed in the U.S. Budget Appendix, 

Fiscal Year 2015.

In addition to the $742 billion in obligations reported in our survey, in 

fiscal year 2013, the federal government incurred $14 billion in reduced 

tax revenues for the nonrefundable portion of the EITC and four other tax 

expenditures, according to estimates from the Department of the 

Treasury (Treasury) (see table 3). These selected tax expenditures 

directly or indirectly serve low-income people. For instance, the EITC 

goes directly to low-income people by lowering their taxes based on 

individual tax returns filed. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, on the 

other hand, goes to housing developers who provide a certain portion of 

housing units for low-income people.

Table 3: Reported Estimated Reduced Tax Revenue on Tax Expenditures for Low-Income People, Fiscal Year 2013 

Tax expenditure and description 

Estimated reduced tax 

revenue for fiscal year 

2013 (in millions)

Directly benefits low-income individuals

Earned Income Tax Credit: provides a tax credit to reduce the amount of taxes owed for working families 

with children and childless adults who have earned income below specified levels.

$4,070

Exclusion of Cash Public Assistance Benefits: reduces tax liability for recipients of certain federal, state, 

or local cash assistance programs, including TANF, SSI. 

$770

Indirectly benefits low-income individuals

Rental Housing Bonds Interest Exclusion: allows holders of rental housing bonds to exclude interest 

from taxable income. These bonds are used to finance construction of multifamily rental housing units for 

low- and moderate-income families.

$1,000

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: allows developers and owners of qualified low-income housing projects 

to benefit from a tax credit for construction or rehabilitation costs.

$7,410

Work Opportunity Tax Credit: reduces tax liability for employers hiring individuals who qualify for certain 

federal low-income programs, including TANF, SSI, SNAP, and individuals from other specified groups 

considered disadvantaged. 

$900

Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses. GAO did not independently verify the legal accuracy of this information. | GAO-15-516

Note: This table includes estimated reduction in tax revenue and does not include federal obligations 

for tax refunds.
Page 16 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Based on our analysis of agency responses, most low-income programs 

target specific sub-populations and do not serve low-income people 

generally.22 Eligibility for a benefit or service can be based on being part 

of a target population. Broad population groups targeted by these 

programs include children or families with children, the elderly, people 

with some earnings, and students. Programs may target multiple groups, 

according to our survey. For example, the Child and Adult Care Food 

Program supports the provision of free or reduced-priced meals and 

snacks to low-income children and low-income chronically impaired and 

elderly adults, who are in nonresidential group care settings, such as day 

care homes or institutions. In addition, a number of low-income programs 

target narrower population groups, based on agency survey responses, 

such as veterans, disadvantaged youth, people who are homeless, Native 

Americans, migrants, refugees, or rural communities. These tend to be 

smaller programs in terms of dollars, according to our survey. (See table 

4.)

 22Our report focuses on federal program requirements. However, for some programs, 

additional requirements may be set at the state or local level with respect to targeted 

populations, eligibility criteria, work requirements, or time limits. 

Most Programs Target 

Specific Low-Income 

Populations, Including the 

Elderly, People with 

Disabilities, Children and 

Their Families, and a 

Range of Other Groups

Target Populations
Page 17 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Table 4: Target Populations, Type of Assistance, and General Level of Fiscal Year 2013 Obligations for Federal Programs for 

Low-Income Populations 

Agency Program Name

Dollar 

size Elderly

People 

with 

disabilities

Children 

and their 

familiesa

People 

with 

earnings

General 

lowincome

Students 

and 

relatedb Special populations

Cash aid

Treasury Earned Income 

Tax Credit

$$$$$ X X

SSA Supplemental 

Security Income

$$$$$ X X

Treasury Additional Child 

Tax Credit

$$$$$ X X

HHS Temporary 

Assistance for 

Needy Families—

cash aid

$$$ X X

VA Veterans Pension 

and Survivors 

Pension 

$$$ Veterans 

and their 

survivors

Treasury Exclusion of Cash 

Public Assistance 

Benefits

tax 

loss

X

Food assistance

USDA Supplemental 

Nutrition 

Assistance 

Program 

$$$$$ X

USDA National School 

Lunch Program 

(free and reducedprice components)

$$$$ X

USDA Special 

Supplemental 

Nutrition Program 

for Women, 

Infants and 

Children 

$$$ X

USDA School Breakfast 

Program (free and 

reduced-price 

components)

$$$ X

USDA Child and Adult 

Care Food 

Program (lowerincome 

components)

$$$ X X X
Page 18 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Agency Program Name

Dollar 

size Elderly

People 

with 

disabilities

Children 

and their 

familiesa

People 

with 

earnings

General 

lowincome

Students 

and 

relatedb Special populations

USDA Nutrition 

Assistance 

Program for 

Puerto Rico

$$$ X

HHS Nutrition Service 

for the Elderly

$$ X

USDA Summer Food 

Service Program

$ X

USDA The Emergency 

Food Assistance 

Program

$ X

USDA Commodity 

Supplemental 

Food Program

$ X

USDA Fresh Fruits and 

Vegetables

Program

$ X

USDA Food Distribution 

Program on Indian 

Reservations

$ Native 

Americans

Health care

HHS Medicaid $$$$$ X X X Xc

HHS Voluntary 

Medicare 

Prescription Drug 

Benefit-LowIncome Subsidy

$$$$$ X X

VA Medical Care for 

Low-Income 

Veterans Without 

ServiceConnected 

Disability 

$$$$ Veterans

HHS State Children’s 

Health Insurance 

Program 

$$$ X

HHS Consolidated 

Health Centers

$$$ X

HHS Maternal and 

Child Health Block 

Grant

$$ X

HHS Transitional Cash 

and Medical 

Services to 

Refugees

$ Refugees
Page 19 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Agency Program Name

Dollar 

size Elderly

People 

with 

disabilities

Children 

and their 

familiesa

People 

with 

earnings

General 

lowincome

Students 

and 

relatedb Special populations

HHS Family Planning $ X

HHS National Breast 

and Cervical 

Cancer Early 

Detection Program 

$ X

HHS Indian Health 

Service 

$$$ Native 

Americans

HHS Ryan White 

HIV/AIDS 

Program 

$$$ People with 

HIV/AIDS

Housing and development

HUD Section 8 Housing 

Choice Vouchers

$$$$ Xd

HUD Section 8 ProjectBased Rental 

Assistance

$$$ Xd

HUD Community 

Development 

Block Grants

$$$ X

HUD Public Housing $$$ Xd

HUD Homeless 

Assistance Grants

$$$ Homeless

USDA Water and Waste 

Disposal Systems 

for Rural 

Communities

$$$ Rural areas

HUD HOME Investment 

Partnerships 

Program

$$ X

USDA Rural Rental 

Assistance 

Payments

$$ Rural areas

HUD Indian Housing 

Block Grant

$$ Native 

Americans

HUD Supportive 

Housing for the 

Elderly

$ X

HUD Housing 

Opportunities for 

Persons with AIDS

$ People with 

HIV/AIDS

HUD Choice 

Neighborhoods 

Implementation

Grants

$ X
Page 20 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Agency Program Name

Dollar 

size Elderly

People 

with 

disabilities

Children 

and their 

familiesa

People 

with 

earnings

General 

lowincome

Students 

and 

relatedb Special populations

HUD Supportive 

Housing for 

Persons with 

Disabilities

$ X

Treasury Low-Income 

Housing Tax 

Credit

tax 

loss

X

Treasury Rental Housing 

Bonds Interest 

Exclusion

tax 

loss

X

Energy assistance

HHS Low Income Home 

Energy Assistance 

Program

$$$ X

Energy Weatherization 

Assistance

$ X

Social services

HHS Temporary 

Assistance for 

Needy Families -

social services

$$$ X

HHS Head Start $$$ X

HHS Child Care and 

Development 

Fund

$$$ X

HHS Child Support 

Enforcement

$$$ X

HHS Foster Care $$$ Disadvantage

d youth

HHS Adoption 

Assistance

$$$ Disadvantage

d youth

HHS Social Services 

Block Grants

$$$ X

HHS Community 

Services Block 

Grant

$$ X

HHS Affordable Care 

Act Maternal, 

Infant, and Early 

Childhood Home 

Visiting Program

$ X
Page 21 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Agency Program Name

Dollar 

size Elderly

People 

with 

disabilities

Children 

and their 

familiesa

People 

with 

earnings

General 

lowincome

Students 

and 

relatedb Special populations

HHS Older Americans 

Act Grants for 

Supportive 

Services and 

Senior Centers

$ X

LSC Legal Services 

Corporation 

$ X

HHS Older Americans 

Act: National 

Family Caregiver 

Support Program

$ X X

HHS Chafee Foster 

Care 

Independence 

Program

$ Disadvantage

d youth

DHS Emergency Food 

and Shelter 

Program

$ Homeless

DOI Indian Human 

Services 

$ Native 

Americans

Employment and training

DOL Job Corps $$$ Disadvantage

d youth

HHS Temporary 

Assistance for 

Needy Families -

employment and 

training 

$$$ X X

DOL Workforce 

Investment Act 

Youth Activitiese

$$ Disadvantage

d youth

DOL Workforce 

Investment Act 

Adult Activitiesf

$$ X

DOL Community 

Service 

Employment for 

Older Americans 

$ X

USDA Supplemental 

Nutrition 

Assistance 

Program -

employment and 

training

$ X
Page 22 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Agency Program Name

Dollar 

size Elderly

People 

with 

disabilities

Children 

and their 

familiesa

People 

with 

earnings

General 

lowincome

Students 

and 

relatedb Special populations

HHS Social Services 

and Targeted 

Assistance for 

Refugees

$ Refugees

CNCS Foster 

Grandparent 

Program

$ X

Treasury Work Opportunity 

Tax Credit

tax 

loss

X

Education

ED Federal Pell 

Grants 

$$$$$ X

ED Education for the 

Disadvantaged -

Grants to Local 

Educational

Agencies (Title I, 

Part A) 

$$$$ X

ED Improving Teacher 

Quality State 

Grants

$$$ X

ED 21st Century 

Community 

Learning Centers 

$$$ X

ED Federal WorkStudy $$ X

ED Federal TRIO 

Programs 

$$ X

ED Higher Education -

Aid for Institutional

Development 

programs and 

Developing 

Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions 

programs 

$$ X

DOI Indian Education –

Bureau of Indian 

Education

$$ Native 

Americans

ED Federal 

Supplemental 

Educational 

Opportunity 

Grants 

$$ X
Page 23 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Agency Program Name

Dollar 

size Elderly

People 

with 

disabilities

Children 

and their 

familiesa

People 

with 

earnings

General 

lowincome

Students 

and 

relatedb Special populations

ED Adult Basic 

Education Grants 

to States 

$$ X

ED Title I Migrant 

Education 

Program

$ Migrants

ED Gaining Early 

Awareness and 

Readiness for 

Undergraduate 

Programs 

$ X

ED Rural Education 

Achievement 

Program 

$ Rural areas

ED Mathematics and 

Science 

Partnerships 

$ X

ED Indian Education –

Formula Grants to 

Local Educational

Agencies

$ Native 

Americans

Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses, with the exception of information on whether programs were open-ended entitlement programs, which came from the Congressional Research Service. 

GAO did not independently verify the legal accuracy of the information in this table. | GAO-15-516

Notes: Bold italic dollar signs indicate open-ended entitlement programs. $ = $100 million to less than 

$500 million (in obligations for fiscal year 2013), $$=$500 million to less than $1 billion, $$$=$1 billion 

to less than $10 billion, $$$$=$10 billion to less than $20 billion, $$$$$=$20 billion and over. (This list 

excludes low-income programs totaling less than $100 million in obligations or reduced tax revenue in 

fiscal year 2013.) “Tax loss” in the table means a reduction in estimated tax revenue. The 

nonrefundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit results in a reduction of tax revenue that is 

not depicted in this table.

Federal agency abbreviations are as follows: CNCS = Corporation for National and Community 

Service; DHS=Department of Homeland Security; DOI = Department of the Interior; DOL = 

Department of Labor; ED = Department of Education; Energy= Department of Energy; HHS = 

Department of Health and Human Services; HUD = Department of Housing and Urban Development; 

LSC = Legal Services Corporation; SSA = Social Security Administration; Treasury = Department of 

the Treasury; USDA = Department of Agriculture; VA = Department of Veterans Affairs.

Population categories are based on agency responses regarding target populations for each 

program. For some programs, additional targeting criteria may be determined at the state or local 

level.

a

Includes programs targeted to children and families with children.

b

Includes programs aimed at improving educational opportunities.

c

Some states have expanded Medicaid eligibility to low-income individuals who meet financial criteria, 

but do not fall into other target groups.

d

According to HUD officials, local housing agencies have discretion to set preferences in addition to 

the statutory income eligibility requirements, and may target populations such as the homeless or 

working families. A substantial portion of households assisted in these programs are headed by a 

member who is elderly or has a disability, according to HUD officials.

e

This program became “Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Youth Activities” on July 1, 2015.

f

This program became “Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Adult Activities” on July 1, 2015.
Page 24 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Although these programs serve many different populations, relatively few 

target groups account for a large portion of the spending. For example, 

almost two-thirds of the federal expenditures for Medicaid for fiscal year 

2012, the most recent detailed data available, went to people with 

disabilities (42 percent) and elderly individuals (21 percent), according to 

HHS administrative data. Additionally, a recent CRS report examined 

spending amounts for the 10 largest low-income programs in fiscal year 

2011 (the most recent available information at the time for analysis on 

target groups).23 CRS reported that federal spending for these 10 in 2011 

was $623 billion and accounted for over 80 percent of spending for lowincome programs that year. According to CRS analysis, which estimated 

spending across target groups primarily using program data, people with 

disabilities received almost a third of this amount, or $208 billion (primarily 

from Medicaid and SSI).24

As reported by the relevant agencies in our survey, the programs we 

reviewed used various methods to determine the financial eligibility of 

program recipients, be it individuals, families, communities, schools, or 

other entities.

Working families with children received the 

next largest share, about $170 billion, with the refundable tax credits 

accounting for a large portion. The elderly received $96 billion, with a 

large contribution from Medicaid and the low-income Medicare subsidy for 

prescription drugs. Less than 12 percent of the spending in fiscal year 

2011 for the 10 largest programs went to low-income adults who were not 

working, elderly, or had a disability, according to CRS.

25

 23CRS, Federal Benefits and Services for People with Low Income, R43863. In this report, 

the top 10 low-income programs in fiscal year 2011 based on federal spending were: 

Medicaid, SNAP, SSI, EITC, Pell Grants, ACTC, Medicare low-income subsidy, Section 8 

Housing Choice Vouchers, TANF, and Grants for Education for the Disadvantaged (Title 

I). Spending in CRS’s analysis was generally based on obligations, according to CRS.

According to our analysis of agency survey responses, 

the most common criteria, among programs that had individual income or 

24CRS primarily used program administrative data (or data collected in conjunction with 

the administration of a program) to estimate the amount of fiscal year 2011 spending s 

across population groups, although definitions of each population group can vary across 

programs (e.g., elderly or person with a disability). For Medicaid, CRS used Census data 

to estimate the amount of spending for recipients who were not elderly or did not have a 

disability. CRS’s analysis divided spending amounts into mutually exclusive groups. 

25 Agencies reported that some programs have other nonfinancial criteria, such as age, in 

addition to financial or income eligibility criteria. Therefore, the income or financial 

requirements described in this section may not be the sole factor in determining eligibility 

for these programs.

Financial Eligibility Criteria
Page 25 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

financial eligibility criteria, were some percentage of the federal poverty 

guidelines, updated annually by HHS. Other programs had criteria such 

as area median income or specific income amounts. Financial tests may 

be used to determine eligibility, the size of the benefit, or whether a 

service is free or partially subsidized. Below are different types of 

measures used by these programs, as reported by agencies, as follows:

• Twenty programs used the federal poverty guidelines to help 

determine eligibility, although the income limits varied greatly among 

the programs and sometimes within a program. For example, to be 

eligible for the Community Service Employment for Older Americans 

program, individuals must be unemployed, age 55 or older, and have 

incomes no higher than 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. 

Within a program, different populations may have different limits. For 

instance, SNAP generally requires eligible households to have gross 

income no higher than 130 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, 

but households with members who are elderly or have a disability may 

have higher income limits.

• Nine programs used area median income to determine eligibility. The 

measure is based on specified percentages of median family incomes 

for states and metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas within states. 

For example, in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 

(HUD) Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program, eligible families 

generally must have incomes no higher than 50 percent of area 

median income, and 75 percent of newly available vouchers each 

year must go to families with incomes no higher than 30 percent of 

area median income. In fiscal year 2013, according to information 

from HUD, the median family income for states for a family of four 

ranged from $48,300 (Mississippi) to $88,400 (Maryland) with 

variation between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas within 

states.

• Seven programs used specific dollar amounts as a threshold to 

determine eligibility. For example, in general, individuals receiving SSI 

in 2013 had to have monthly incomes no higher than $1,505 if their 

countable income was only from wages, and $730 if their countable 

income was not from wages.26

 26SSA only considers certain types of income when determining SSI eligibility, such as 

wages or unemployment compensation. “Countable” as used in this context means 

income amounts that are considered when determining eligibility. 

The two refundable tax credits are 

based, in part, on earned income and adjusted gross income. For 

SNAP example: determining financial 

eligibility (as of fiscal year 2013) 

(excludes automatic or categorical eligibility;

discussed later) 

• Household gross income < 130 percent of 

federal poverty guidelines (for most 

households)

• Household net income < 100 percent of 

federal poverty guidelines (gross income 

minus certain exclusions and deductions, 

such as certain child care expenses) 

• Household assets (e.g., money in bank 

account) < $2,000 (for most households) 

• In general, households must meet all 

three tests to be eligible for SNAP. 

However, the specific financial eligibility 

criteria may vary, depending on the 

circumstances. For example, some 

households with a member who is elderly 

or has a disability are subject to different 

requirements.

Source: GAO analysis of USDA guidance documents on 

SNAP income eligibility requirements for fiscal year 2013.

| GAO-15-516
Page 26 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

example, in tax year 2013 working families with children that had 

annual incomes below $37,870 to $51,567—depending on filing 

status and the number of dependent children—may have been eligible 

for the EITC. Also, childless people with earnings that had incomes 

below $14,340 ($19,680 for a married couple) could have received a 

small EITC benefit. Depending on the program, income thresholds 

may be adjusted annually, for inflation or other factors.

• Three educational programs used a needs analysis to determine 

eligibility: Federal Pell Grants, Federal Work Study, and Federal 

Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants. This analysis 

calculates the amount a family can be expected to contribute toward a 

student’s college costs and uses that amount to determine the 

student’s eligibility for aid. According to budget information from the 

Department of (Education), about three-fourths of Pell Grant 

recipients in the 2012-2013 school year had annual incomes below 

$30,000.27

• Seven programs allow states or localities to determine financial 

eligibility criteria for individuals or households, generally within certain 

federal limits. For instance, federal law requires that families receiving 

cash assistance funded by the TANF block grant must have a minor 

child; however, states determine financial eligibility criteria and benefit 

amounts, and there is a large amount of variation among states.28

• Three programs determined financial eligibility for individuals or 

households in other ways not captured above, according to agency 

survey responses. Specifically, for the Transitional Cash and Medical 

Services to Refugees, eligible participants include adult refugees, 

asylees, and other specified groups, who meet the income and asset 

tests for TANF or Medicaid, but who are not categorically eligible for 

those programs. The tax exclusion of cash public assistance benefits 

is dependent on the receipt of aid from public cash assistance 

programs. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit provides a tax credit to 

employers who hire people from certain specified disadvantaged 

groups, including certain recipients of SNAP, SSI, and TANF, among 

others.

 27Education, Student Financial Assistance, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request. 

28HHS publishes a compilation of state TANF policies and updates it each year. See HHS, 

Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2013, OPRE Report 2014-52 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).
Page 27 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Thirty-three programs target assistance to low-income communities, 

groups, or other entities, rather than individuals or households, based on 

agency survey responses.

• Twenty-five of these programs targeted or prioritized services to lowincome groups, generally based on a measure of low-income. 

However, these programs may also serve people more broadly and 

not only those who are low-income. For example, funds for the 

Education for the Disadvantaged – Grants to Local Educational 

Agencies (Title I, Part A) program are allocated to school attendance 

areas and schools based on the number of children from low-income 

families. Depending on the percentage of low-income students in a 

school, schools funded by this program may serve all students, or 

must focus services on low-achieving students in the school.

• Eight programs that do not have a measure of low or limited income 

are included as low-income programs because they targeted special 

populations who tend to be disproportionately low-income or are 

presumed to be low-income (e.g., Native Americans or homeless 

individuals and families).

(See app. IV for information on all programs by type of financial eligibility.)

Among all of the programs identified, 11 provide for automatic eligibility 

(also referred to as categorical eligibility), according to our survey. 

Although specific eligibility requirements may vary, some programs allow 

automatic eligibility for people who have already qualified for another, 

specified income-tested program, or if they are a member of a specified 

target population.29 (See table 5 for a summary of our survey results.)30 In 

prior work, we have looked at automatic eligibility and similar provisions 

for programs, including SNAP, WIC, and the school meals programs.31

 29 CRS, Federal Benefits and Services for People with Low Income, R41625. 

30 In our survey we asked agencies to provide a description of automatic eligibility based 

on participation in other programs, if any. We did not ask about automatic eligibility 

provisions for members of a specified target population.

31For example, see GAO, School Meal Programs: Implications of Adjusting Income 

Eligibility Thresholds and Reimbursement Rates by Geographic Differences, GAO-14-557

(Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2014); School Meals Programs: USDA Has Enhanced 

Controls, but Additional Verification Could Help Ensure Legitimate Program Access, 

GAO-14-262, (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2014); and WIC Program: Improved Oversight of 

Income Eligibility Determination Needed, GAO-13-290, (Washington, D.C.: Feb 28, 2013).
Page 28 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

For example, in 2012 we looked at the prevalence of households 

receiving SNAP under expanded automatic eligibility rules, called “broadbased categorical eligibility.” Under these rules, states can allow 

households receiving noncash services funded by TANF (such as a tollfree number or brochure) to be automatically eligible for SNAP. States 

that adopt a broad-based categorical eligibility policy may increase limits 

on household income to up to 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines, 

and remove limits on assets for these households. In that report, we 

found that a relatively small percentage of households in 2010 were 

eligible for SNAP under broad-based categorical eligibility that would not 

have otherwise been eligible (under 3 percent). We also found that these 

households’ incomes were modestly higher (around 150 percent of 

federal poverty guidelines, instead of 130 percent).32

 32GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Improved Oversight of State 

Eligibility Expansions Needed, GAO-12-670, (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2012).
Page 29 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Table 5: Reported Automatic Eligibility Based on Participation in Another Program

Automatically eligible for...

Food assistance Health Energy Social Services

If eligible for...

Program Name SNAP

Child and

Adult Care

Food Programa WICb

National 

School 

Lunch 

Programc

School 

Breakfast 

Programc

Summer 

Food 

Service 

Program

Medicare 

low-income 

subsidyd LIHEAP

Weatherization 

Assistance

Head 

Start

Child 

Support 

Enforcement

Cash aid

Supplemental 

Security Income 

X X X X

(state 

option)

X X

Temporary 

Assistance for 

Needy Familiese

X X X X

(some 

states)

X

(some 

states)

X X

(state 

option)

X

(cash 

assistance)

X X

Food assistance

Supplemental 

Nutrition 

Assistance 

Program (SNAP)

X X X X X X

(state 

option)

Food Distribution 

Program on 

Indian 

Reservations

X X X X

Health care

Medicaid X X X X

Energy 

assistance
Page 30 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Automatically eligible for...

Food assistance Health Energy Social Services

If eligible for...

Program Name SNAP

Child and

Adult Care

Food Programa WICb

National 

School 

Lunch 

Programc

School 

Breakfast 

Programc

Summer 

Food 

Service 

Program

Medicare 

low-income 

subsidyd LIHEAP

Weatherization 

Assistance

Head 

Start

Child 

Support 

Enforcement

Low-Income 

Home Energy 

Assistance 

Program 

(LIHEAP)

X

(state 

option)

Social services

Head Start X

Foster care 

maintenance 

payments

X

Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses. GAO did not independently verify the legal accuracy of the eligibility requirements as reported by the agencies. | GAO-15-516

Note: The Legal Services Corporation program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program give states or local grantees 

discretion in granting automatic eligibility based on participation in other government income-tested programs. Also, some 

programs allow for automatic eligibility based on participation in additional programs not shown here. In addition, this table does 

not reflect any automatic eligibility provisions for members of a specified target population, such as veterans or foster care children 

generally. Other eligibility criteria may also apply for these programs; therefore this table cannot be used to determine eligibility in a 

particular case.

a

Lower-income components only. Automatic eligibility varies depending on whether the potential recipient is a child or an adult.

b

The full name for this program is Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

c

Free and reduced-price components.

d

The full name for this program is Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit-Low-Income Subsidy.

e

Includes cash, employment and training, and social services.
Page 31 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

In addition to eligibility requirements related to income or target 

population, some programs impose work requirements (participants must 

be engaged in work or work-related activity in order to receive benefits or 

services) or time limits (program participation is limited to a specified 

period of time), although most do not, according to our analysis of agency 

survey responses. For three programs—TANF, SNAP, and Transitional 

Cash and Medical Assistance for Refugees—agencies reported both 

work requirements and time limits for at least a portion of program 

recipients, as follows:

• TANF requires states to engage a certain percentage of families with 

a work-eligible individual receiving cash assistance in specified workrelated activities (such as job search and job readiness assistance) or 

face potential financial penalties. In general, TANF also limits 

federally-funded assistance for families with an adult member to 5 

years. States may extend families beyond this 60-month period for 

reasons of hardship for up to 20 percent of their caseloads.33

• Unless otherwise exempt, SNAP requires participants who are 

mentally and physically able to work and between the ages of 16 and 

59 to work at least 30 hours per week, register for work, or participate 

in an employment and training program if assigned by the state SNAP 

agency. Additionally, able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 

49 without dependents are limited to 3 months of SNAP benefits in a 

36-month period, unless they work or participate in a work program for 

at least 20 hours per week. A large portion of SNAP participants are 

not, however, subject to these requirements. Many participants are 

exempt from the program’s work requirements because of age or 

disability.34

 33For more information on TANF work requirements and time limits, see GAO, Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families: Potential Options to Improve Performance and Oversight, 

Also, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has granted 

GAO-13-431, (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2013).

34In fiscal year 2011, almost two-thirds of SNAP participants were not expected to work 

because they were children, elderly, or had a disability, according to CRS’s tabulations of 

SNAP quality control data. See CRS, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): 

A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits, R42505 (Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2014).

Work Requirements or

Time Limits
Page 32 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

waivers to many states from the 3-month time limit in recent years due 

to low numbers of available jobs.35

• Cash assistance under the Transitional Cash and Medical Services 

for Refugees Program is conditioned on the refugee registering with 

an employment agency or service, participating in available job 

training services, and accepting appropriate offers of employment. 

Both cash assistance and medical assistance are limited to 8 months, 

although other types of assistance for refugees may be available for a 

longer period of time, as described below.36

Eleven other programs had work requirements37 or time limits,38

• Work requirements: The EITC and ACTC require eligible taxpayers 

to have earned income, such as from wages or self-employment 

earnings, in order to claim the credits. To be eligible for subsidized 

child care services from the Child Care and Development Fund, 

children must generally have a parent who is working or attending a 

job training or educational program. The Nutrition Assistance Program 

for Puerto Rico also has some requirements for working-age adults to 

engage in certain work-related activities, unless exempt.

as 

identified by the agencies in our survey, as follows:

• Time limits: Several education or employment and training programs 

(Federal Pell Grants, Work Opportunity Tax Credit, and Community 

 35USDA may waive the time limit for a group of individuals in a state if the area in which 

they reside has an unemployment rate over 10 percent, or does not have a sufficient 

number of jobs to provide employment for the individuals. During fiscal years 2011 

through 2013, over 40 states had a statewide waiver from the SNAP time limit, due to a 

lack of sufficient jobs, according to CRS. 

36 For prior work on refugees’ employment outcomes, see GAO, Refugee Assistance: 

Little Is Known about the Effectiveness of Different Approaches for Improving Refugees’

Employment Outcomes, GAO-11-369 (Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2011). 

37For the purposes of this analysis, we excluded a few programs in which the agency 

responded that the program had a work requirement, but the program purpose or the 

program benefit or service was to provide some sort of employment opportunity, such as 

Federal Work Study. Our purpose was to include programs that in effect required a 

recipient to work or prepare for work in exchange for benefits or services not directly 

linked to work, such as food assistance, housing assistance, or supplemental income. 

38For the purposes of this analysis, we excluded programs in which the agency said the 

program had a time limit, but the time limit was based on a child’s age (e.g., children 

under a certain age are eligible), a particular time of year (e.g., food assistance during the 

school year), or the duration of a grant.
Page 33 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Service Employment for Older Americans) specify a maximum length 

of time for receipt of assistance. Under two housing programs, there 

are time limits for providing temporary shelter (Homeless Assistance 

Grants and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS). Also, 

refugees may receive various services, such as social adjustment 

services or citizenship and naturalization services, for up to 5 years 

under the Social Services and Targeted Assistance for Refugees 

Program.

As a whole, the administration of these programs is complex and involves 

many different agencies and entities at the federal, state, and local levels. 

Thirteen federal agencies administer the 82 programs, with three-quarters 

of them overseen by HHS, HUD, Education, and USDA. A relatively small 

number of programs are entirely or mostly federally run (that is, these 

programs are direct benefits provided by federal agencies or are tax 

expenditures administered through the federal income tax system). These 

include some of the largest programs, such as SSI, the refundable tax 

credits, and Federal Pell Grants. For many other programs, various state 

and local agencies, and in some cases private entities, are involved in 

program administration and the provision of benefits and services. 

Additionally, at least 12 different congressional committees are 

responsible for program oversight.39

Based on this report and a review of our prior work, we identified several 

issues that pose difficulties for administering and overseeing this complex 

system of programs as well as efforts to address them. These issues are 

based on our prior reviews of specific low-income program areas and on 

our broader government-wide work. More specifically:

• In a 2011 testimony, we summarized our work that found the array of 

human services programs was too fragmented and overly complex—

for clients to navigate, for program operators to administer efficiently, 

and for program managers and policymakers to assess program 

performance.40

 39We identified the cognizant committees of the 20 programs with the largest amounts of 

obligations in fiscal year 2013.

We identified potential approaches to address these 

longstanding challenges, such as simplifying and streamlining policies 

40GAO, Human Services Programs: Opportunities to Reduce Inefficiencies, GAO-11-531T

(Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2011). 

Federal, State, and Local 

Agencies Administer 

These Programs Through 

a Complex System That 

Can Be Inefficient and 

Difficult to Oversee
Page 34 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

and processes across programs, improving technology,41

• In our government-wide work on fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication, we have recommended that certain agencies responsible 

for low-income program areas take actions, such as increased 

collaboration with other agencies and additional study, to help 

minimize administrative inefficiencies among multiple programs. 

Some of these recommendations have been addressed. See the box 

on page 36 for more information on our open recommendations in 

relevant areas.

and 

fostering innovation and evaluation to improve services and reduce 

costs.

• In our work on the role of evaluation in federal programs, we found 

that evaluations can help program administrators and policymakers 

understand what programs and practices are working and how to 

improve the use of scarce resources, yet federal agencies often do 

not evaluate their programs.42

 41For more information on using technology to improve program services and 

administration, see GAO, Human Services: Sustained and Coordinated Efforts Could 

Facilitate Data Sharing While Protecting Privacy,

For this report, we reviewed the efforts 

of federal agencies responsible for five of the largest programs—

SNAP, SSI, TANF, EITC, and the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 

program—to conduct or sponsor recent evaluations regarding 

participant outcomes. We found that for the four spending programs, 

agencies were engaged in recent evaluation efforts that focused on 

participant outcomes, including employment and self-sufficiency, food 

security, and family outcomes. Unlike the four spending programs we 

examined, Treasury officials said the agency does not conduct 

program evaluations related to program or policy outcomes on the 

EITC or any other tax expenditure. (See app. V.) In our previous 

reports on tax expenditures, we concluded that because tax 

expenditures are not evaluated for performance, it is difficult to 

evaluate their costs and benefits and the extent to which they meet 

intended policy goals. We have recommended that the Office of 

GAO-13-106, (Washington, D.C.: 

February 8, 2013). 

42In a 2013 report, we surveyed over 4,000 federal managers government-wide and found 

that almost two-thirds did not have recent evaluations of their programs (within the last five 

years). However, of those who did, 80 percent said that evaluations were useful in 

improving program management or performance and in assessing program effectiveness 

or value. See GAO, Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of 

Evaluation in Program Management and Policy Making, GAO-13-570 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 26, 2013).
Page 35 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Management and Budget (OMB) set up a performance evaluation 

framework for tax expenditures. This recommendation has not been 

addressed.43

• In a 2014 report assessing aspects of the GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010,44 we concluded that the act’s requirement for OMB to publish 

on a central website a list (inventory) of all federal programs along 

with related budget and performance information45 would be useful for 

better government management.46 Such information could help 

decision makers determine the scope of the federal government’s 

involvement, investment, and performance in a particular area, as well 

as provide critical information that could be used to better address 

crosscutting issues, among other purposes. We recommended that 

OMB take several actions to improve the existing program inventory 

information to make it more useful for decision makers, such as 

including tax expenditures in the inventory and directing agencies to 

collaborate when defining and identifying programs that contribute to 

a common outcome. OMB generally agreed with most of these 

recommendations, but has not yet addressed them.47

 43See GAO, Government Performance and Accountability: Tax Expenditures Represent a 

Substantial Federal Commitment and Need to Be Reexamined, GAO-05-690

(Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2005); Tax Expenditures: Background and Evaluation 

Criteria and Questions, GAO-13-167SP (Washington, D.C.: November 29, 2012), as well 

as http://www.gao.gov/duplication/action_tracker/Tax_Expenditures/action1

44Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). The acronym “GPRA” in the act’s title refers 

to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 

285. 

4531 U.S.C. § 1122. 

46GAO, Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Inconsistent Definitions and Information 

Limit the Usefulness of Federal Program Inventories, GAO-15-83 (Washington, D.C.: 

October 31, 2014).

47GAO-15-83 made eight recommendations regarding federal inventories, to which OMB 

staff generally agreed; however, they neither either agreed nor disagreed with three 

recommendations related to including tax expenditures and additional performance 

information in federal program inventories to increase their usefulness.
Page 36 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

GAO is statutorily mandated to identify and report annually to Congress on federal programs, agencies, 

offices, and initiatives—either within departments or government-wide—that have duplicative goals or 

activities. 

"Fragmentation" refers to those circumstances in which more than one federal agency (or more than one 

organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of national need and there may be 

opportunities to improve how the government delivers these services. 

"Overlap" occurs when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or 

strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries.

"Duplication" occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide 

the same services to the same beneficiaries.

In recent years, GAO has identified fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among some of the low-income 

programs reviewed in this report. See below for the areas identified, the focus of recommendations, and 

whether the recommended actions have been completely, partially, or not addressed. We also include the 

year the program area was first identified by GAO for fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. This information 

was last updated March 6, 2015. 

Training, Employment, and Education: Early Learning and Child Care

Greater coordination efforts across early learning and child care programs could mitigate the effects of 

program fragmentation, simplify children’s access to these services, collect the data necessary to coordinate 

operation of these programs, and identify and minimize any unwarranted overlap and potential duplication.

Identified 2012; addressed

Training, Employment, and Education: Employment and Training Programs

Providing information on colocating services and consolidating administrative structures could promote 

efficiencies.

Identified 2011; addressed

Social Services: Domestic Food Assistance

Multiple actions could reduce administrative overlap among domestic food assistance programs.

Identified 2011; partially addressed

Social Services: Housing Assistance

Examining the benefits and costs of housing programs and tax expenditures that address the same or similar 

populations or areas, and potentially consolidating them, could help mitigate overlap and fragmentation and 

decrease costs.

Identified 2012; not addressed or consolidated.

Social Services: Homelessness Programs: 

Better coordination of federal homelessness programs could minimize fragmentation and overlap.

Identified 2011; addressed.

For more information see www.gao.gov.duplication/action_tracker

Source: GAO. | GAO-15-516

Related GAO Work on Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
Page 37 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

In 2013, 48.7 million people in the United States (15.5 percent of the 

population) lived in poverty according to the SPM, based on our analysis 

of Census data (see fig. 4).48 These people lived in households with 

incomes below the SPM poverty threshold, which measures whether they 

have sufficient resources to meet their basic needs, after taking into 

account government benefits and necessary expenses.49 The SPM 

threshold in 2013 for two adults and two children ranged from $21,397 to 

$25,639, depending on their housing situation, according to Census.50

 48Due to the household-based data collection used by the Current Population Survey, this 

estimate of the number of people living in poverty does not include individuals who were 

homeless or living in institutional group quarters (e.g., correctional facilities, nursing 

homes).

49Throughout this report, we present the number of individuals, not the number of 

households. We calculated the poverty rate of each household and assigned these values 

to each individual in that household for use in our tabulations. 

50The threshold before adjusting for geographic differences in housing costs was $25,639 

for homeowners with a mortgage; $21,397 for homeowners without a mortgage, and 

$25,144 for renters. After adjusting for geographic differences in the cost of housing, the 

threshold ranged from $17,786 for homeowners without a mortgage in Oklahoma 

metropolitan areas to $35,649 for homeowners with a mortgage in California’s San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara metropolitan area. 

Based on the SPM, 

About One-Sixth of 

the U.S. Population 

Lived in Poverty in 

2013, When 

Considering Certain 

Government Benefits 

and Living Expenses

SPM Provides Information 

on the Economic WellBeing of the U.S. 

Population by Taking into 

Account Certain 

Government Assistance 

and Living Expenses and 

Other Factors
Page 38 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Figure 4: Distribution of U.S. Population by Their Household Incomes as a Percent 

of the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) Threshold, 2013

Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. SPM income includes a household’s earned 

and unearned cash income, plus the value of noncash benefits (e.g., food assistance) and tax credits, 

minus necessary expenses (e.g., medical, taxes, and work-related). The SPM poverty threshold is 

based on current expenditures on food, clothing, geographically-adjusted housing, and utilities. SPM 

households include related and certain unrelated individuals who live together, including cohabiting 

partners and foster children, and may consist of a single person. Each estimate in this figure has a 95 

percent confidence interval of within +/- 6 percent of the estimate itself.

In 2013, the SPM poverty rate was slightly higher than the official 

measure’s poverty rate of almost 15 percent. Compared with the official 

measure, the SPM showed more people with incomes in the 50 to 199 

percent range and fewer people with incomes in the lowest and highest 

groups (see fig. 5). Various factors account for the differences in 

distribution. For instance, unlike the official measure, SPM includes the 

value of certain noncash benefits and tax credits, which would increase 
Page 39 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

household income.51 On the other hand, the SPM subtracts necessary 

living expenses, such as taxes paid, medical costs, or work expenses, 

which would reduce household income. The SPM also includes 

cohabitors (unmarried partners), who could affect income by bringing 

additional earnings and expenses into the household. Moreover, the 

poverty thresholds used by each measure—the income level necessary 

to avoid poverty—are different, so the same household could be 

considered below poverty under the SPM and above poverty under the 

official measure. Also, while Census data show that both measures had 

similar trends over time—with overall poverty rates falling slightly from 

2010 to 201352

 51Both the official measure and the SPM include cash income, such as earned income, 

Social Security, pensions, disability benefits, unemployment insurance, and cash public 

assistance (e.g., TANF, SSI, state or local general assistance). The SPM additionally 

includes certain noncash benefits: SNAP, the National School Lunch Program, WIC, 

LIHEAP, housing assistance (which could be from federal, state or local programs), and 

tax credits (federal EITC and ACTC, and state EITC and other refundable credits). The 

value of Medicaid and other health insurance is not included as part of income in the SPM 

due to the difficulty of assessing the value of health insurance. The SPM subtracts out-ofpocket medical expenses from household income, but does not include the value of health 

insurance beyond any effect it may have on reducing out-of-pocket medical expenses.

—the poverty rates of sub-populations varied more. For 

example, under the SPM children had a lower rate of poverty and elderly 

individuals had a higher rate in 2013, compared to the official measure.

52 The official measure’s poverty rate fell from 15.3 percent in 2010 to 14.6 percent in 

2013, while the SPM rate fell from 15.9 to 15.5 percent over the same period, according to 

Census data. Official poverty rates cited in this section include unrelated individuals under 

age 15.
Page 40 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Figure 5: Distribution of U.S. Population by Their Household Incomes as a Percentage of the Supplemental Poverty Measure 

(SPM) Threshold and the Official Poverty Threshold, 2013

Note: Each estimate in this figure has a 95 percent confidence interval of within +/- 5 percent of the 

estimate itself.

Our analysis provides a point-in-time perspective and does not depict 

variation in people’s economic circumstances during the year or over 

multiple years, which may move households in and out of poverty. For 

instance, we looked at annual income and expenses for 2013, but 

household incomes may have fluctuated within that year. A 2014 Census 

report estimated that from 2009 through 2011, almost one-third of the 

population experienced poverty (based on the official measure) for at 

least 2 months; however, over 40 percent of these periods of poverty 

ended within 4 months.53

 53Census Bureau, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Poverty, 2009-2011, Current 

Population Reports P70-137 (Washington, D.C.: January 2014).

Additionally, poverty rates in 2013 may reflect 
Page 41 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

some of the longer-term effects of the recent recession; more current data 

could reflect improved economic conditions.54

Poverty rates also vary among the states. For example, the SPM poverty 

rate ranged from a low of 8.7 percent (Iowa) to a high of 23.4 percent 

(California), using a 3-year average over 2011, 2012, and 2013 (see fig. 

6).55

Figure 6: Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) Poverty Rate by State, Using a 3-Year Average—2011, 2012, 2013

 54According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the effects of the 2008 

recession had begun to fade but were still present in 2013. See R. E. Hall, Quantifying the 

Lasting Harm to the U.S. Economy from the Financial Crisis, Working Paper 20183 

(Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2014).

55Using the same 3-year average, state poverty rates using the official measure (including 

unrelated individuals under age 15) differed from the SPM rates, ranging from 8.3 percent 

in New Hampshire to 21.5 percent in New Mexico. In California, the SPM poverty rate was 

7.4 percentage points higher than its official poverty rate, while in New Mexico and in 

Mississippi the SPM poverty rate was 5.4 percentage points lower. For more information 

on official and SPM poverty rates by state, see Census Bureau, The Supplemental 

Poverty Measure: 2013 (Washington, D.C.: October 2014).
Page 42 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Note: SPM income includes a household’s earned and unearned cash income, plus the value of 

noncash benefits (e.g., food assistance) and tax credits minus necessary expenses (e.g., medical, 

taxes and work-related). The poverty rates in this figure are calculated using income as a percentage 

of the SPM poverty threshold, which is based on current expenditures on food, clothing, 

geographically-adjusted housing, and utilities. SPM households include related and certain unrelated 

individuals who live together, including cohabiting partners and foster children, and may consist of a 

single person.

Individuals below the SPM poverty threshold lived in a variety of types of 

households, according to our analysis of household types using Census 

data (see fig. 7). We found that the highest rates of poverty (SPM) were 

among single parent households (30 percent) and households headed by 

a person with a disability (29 percent).56

Figure 7: Distribution of U.S. Population by Household Type and Income as a Percent of the Supplemental Poverty Measure 

(SPM) Threshold, 2013

However, the largest numbers of 

people below the SPM poverty line were in other types of households. 

About half were in households without children (14.3 million), or married 

households with children (10.4 million). This is in part because these two 

groups are the largest among the overall population.

 56We used a Census Bureau definition of disability, which includes serious difficulty with 

one or more of six activities of daily living: hearing, seeing, concentrating/remembering/

making decisions, walking/climbing stairs, dressing/bathing, or doing errands alone.

In 2013, Many Types of 

Households Experienced 

Poverty Based on the 

SPM, Including 10 Million 

People in Married Families 

with Children
Page 43 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Note: SPM households include related and certain unrelated individuals who live together, including 

cohabiting partners and foster children, and may consist of a single person. Household categories are 

mutually exclusive. Households headed by an elderly person with a disability are placed in the elderly 

category. Households headed by a person who is elderly or has a disability may have children, but 

are not counted as a household with children for this analysis. SPM income includes a household’s 

earned and unearned cash income, plus the value of noncash benefits (e.g., food assistance) and tax 

credits minus necessary expenses (e.g., medical, taxes and work-related). The SPM poverty 

threshold is based on current expenditures on food, clothing, geographically-adjusted housing, and 

utilities. Each estimate in this figure has a 95 percent confidence interval of within +/- 16 percent of 

the estimate itself except people in cohabiting households with incomes below 50 percent of the SPM 

threshold (+/- 30 percent).

Household Type Analysis

For this analysis, we categorized households into six mutually-exclusive types, 

as follows. 

Headed by elderly persons: Households (with or without children) headed by a 

person who is 65 or over, regardless of whether he or she has a disability. The 

head of household may live alone, with a spouse, or with a cohabiting partner.

Headed by persons with disabilities: Households (with or without children) 

headed by a person under 65 with a disability. The head of household may live 

alone, with a spouse, or with a cohabiting partner. We used a Census Bureau 

definition of disability, which includes any serious difficulty hearing, seeing, 

concentrating/remembering/making decisions, walking/climbing stairs, 

dressing/bathing, or doing errands alone.

Without children: Households without children headed by a person under 65 

without a disability. The head of household may live alone, with a spouse, or 

with a cohabiting partner. 

Married with children: Households with at least one child headed by a married 

person under 65 who does not have a disability. 

Cohabiting with children: Households with at least one child headed by an 

unmarried person under 65 who has a cohabiting partner and does not have a 

disability.

Single parent: Households with at least one child headed by an unmarried 

person under 65 who does not have a disability or a cohabiting partner.

Households headed by a person who is elderly or has a disability may have 

children, but are not counted as a household with children for this analysis. 

According to our estimates, 7.2 percent (+/-0.5) of all children in the United 

States in 2013 were in these two household types. We relied on the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement data to determine whether a household fell into a particular 

category. Because program definitions and eligibility requirements vary, these 

categories may not be used to determine eligibility for programs.

Source: GAO. | GAO-15-516
Page 44 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Most people in poverty (SPM) lived in households with at least some 

earnings. About 31 million people, or almost two-thirds of those with 

incomes below the SPM threshold, were in households with earnings—

defined as having at least one member who earned any income at some 

point during the year.57

Poverty rates were much higher for those who did not work or worked 

less during the year. Figure 8 shows that among households headed by 

someone who was not elderly and did not have a disability, households 

without earnings experienced much higher poverty rates than those with 

earnings (62 percent versus 12 percent). Also, over one-third of those 

without earnings had incomes below 50 percent of the SPM threshold.

Another 19 percent were in households without 

earnings in which the household head was elderly or had a disability. Of 

the remaining 19 percent without earnings, about half were in childless 

households.

Figure 8: Distribution of Individuals from Households Not Headed by an Elderly Member or Member with a Disability, by Their 

Household Earnings Status and Incomes as a Percentage of the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), 2013

Note: Household categories are mutually exclusive. Households with earnings had at least one 

member who earned any amount of income from employment or self-employment during 2013. This 

group includes all households meeting this definition, including those whose heads are elderly or 

have a disability. SPM households include related and certain unrelated individuals who live together, 

including cohabiting partners and foster children, and may consist of a single person. The SPM 

defines household income as earned and unearned cash income, plus the value of noncash benefits 

(e.g., food assistance) and tax credits minus necessary expenses (e.g., medical, taxes and workrelated). The SPM poverty threshold is based on current expenditures on food, clothing, 

geographically-adjusted housing, and utilities. Each estimate in this figure has a 95 percent 

confidence interval of within +/- 12 percent of the estimate itself except people in households without 

earnings with incomes from 150-199 percent of the SPM threshold (+/- 15 percent).

 57Some families with earnings were headed by elderly people or people with disabilities.
Page 45 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Our data do not distinguish the amount of time people worked. However, 

Census analysis of SPM data for people aged 18 to 64 who worked at 

least 1 week in 2013 shows that the poverty rate (SPM) among people 

who worked full-time year round was 5.4 percent (nearly 5.5 million 

people), but was 19.6 percent (nearly 8.9 million people) among those 

who worked less than that amount of time.58

 58 Census, Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013.

Some Demographic Groups Experience 

Higher Than Average Rates of Poverty

Our analysis focuses on household types and 

not on other key characteristics. Poverty rates 

can vary widely based on race or ethnicity, 

citizenship, residency, or access to health 

insurance, among others. Examples of groups 

with significantly higher poverty rates than the 

15.5 national average in 2013, using the 

Supplemental Poverty Measure include: 

• Non-citizen: 29.2 percent

• No health insurance: 29.1 percent

• Renter: 27.1 percent

• Hispanic (any race): 26 percent

• Black: 24.7 percent

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, The Supplemental Poverty 

Measure: 2013, (Washington, DC: October 2014). 

| GAO-15-516
Page 46 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

An estimated 106 million people, or about one-third of the U.S. 

population, received benefits from at least one of eight selected federal 

low-income programs at some point during 2012 (see fig. 9). This is 

based on our analyses of the most recent TRIM3 microsimulation data for 

these programs: ACTC, EITC, housing assistance,59 LIHEAP, SNAP, SSI, 

TANF cash assistance,60 and WIC.61

 59TRIM’s estimate for housing assistance is based on households reported in CPS as 

receiving public or subsidized housing, excluding apparently ineligible households. These 

households could include recipients of housing programs administered by HUD, other 

federal agencies, or state or local governments. For this section of the report, we count 

housing assistance as one program. 

The results provide a different 

perspective from national survey data, which often underreport the 

60This section of the report includes information on recipients of cash assistance programs 

under TANF, but not noncash services and other supports funded through the TANF block 

grant. As we noted in prior work, the lack of reporting requirements for states on the 

provision of noncash services funded under TANF provides an incomplete picture of how 

these services contribute to TANF goals. GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: 

More Accountability Needed to Reflect Breadth of Block Grant Services, GAO-13-33

(Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2012).

61Programs selected were generally large federal low-income programs that serve a range 

of basic needs and were available in TRIM3 data. TRIM3 did not have 2012 data on 

recipients of Medicaid, the largest low-income program. 

Program Recipients’

Income Levels

and Household 

Characteristics 

Reflected Differences 

in Program Purpose 

and Design

An Estimated One-Third of 

the U.S. Population 

Received a Low-Income 

Benefit at Some Time in 

2012
Page 47 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

number of low-income program recipients.

62

Figure 9: Distribution of U.S. Population by Participation in Eight Selected Federal Low-Income Programs and Income 

(Including Program Benefits) Relative to the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) Threshold, 2012

Additionally, the TRIM3 data 

allow for unduplicated counts of the total number of people receiving aid 

from more than one program, which is often not possible when using data 

from individual programs. Some programs’ administrative data (e.g., 

federal agency data we reviewed for SNAP, TANF, and WIC) include the 

number of people served each month, but do not track an unduplicated 

count of recipients for the year. The data for low-income programs also 

count recipients in different ways (e.g., individuals, households, families, 

tax filing units), making it difficult to compare receipt of assistance 

consistently across multiple programs. For many of these reasons, the 

results of our analysis in this section will differ from program information 

based on administrative data.

 62The TRIM3 microsimulation model uses each program’s administrative data, such as 

caseloads and benefit spending, as well as program eligibility rules, including state 

variations and interactions between programs, to correct Census CPS survey data for 

under-reporting of means-tested benefits. TRIM3 uses this information to estimate each 

individual’s program eligibility, participation, and benefit amounts. Simulations follow the 

same steps a caseworker would follow to determine an individual or family’s eligibility for 

benefits, including modeling receipt of benefits for some programs on a monthly basis. 

Information on program rules in the TRIM3 model was obtained by the Urban Institute; we 

did not independently verify the legal accuracy of the information. For more information on 

our methodology, see appendix I. 
Page 48 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Note: Programs included in this analysis are the Additional Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax 

Credit, housing assistance (which could be from federal, state, or local programs), Low-Income Home 

Energy Assistance Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Supplemental Security 

Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families cash assistance, and Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Receipt of assistance is assigned based on 

TRIM3 modeling, which adjusts the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey data for 

underreporting of program receipt using program eligibility rules.

The SPM incomes shown in this figure are not the incomes of program recipients when eligibility for 

program benefits was determined. SPM income includes a household’s earned and unearned cash 

income, Social Security, other retirement income, disability and unemployment insurance, state and 

local general assistance, plus the value of benefits from the low-income programs listed in the figure 

note as well as others (e.g., the National School Lunch Program), minus necessary expenses (e.g., 

medical, taxes and work-related). The SPM poverty threshold is based on current expenditures on 

food, clothing, geographically-adjusted housing, and utilities. SPM households include related and 

certain unrelated individuals who live together, including cohabiting partners and foster children, and 

may consist of a single person. Each estimate in this figure has a 95 percent confidence interval of 

within +/- 9 percent of the estimate itself except participants in 3 or more programs with incomes 

below 50 percent of the SPM threshold (+/- 14 percent) and 200 percent or more of the SPM 

threshold (+/- 13 percent).

Of the 106 million people who received assistance from any of the eight 

programs in 2012, 37 percent received assistance from one program, 30 

percent from two programs, and 34 percent from more than two 

programs. The average number of benefits received varied by SPM 

income group. SPM income includes the value of selected benefits; 

accordingly, whether people received assistance from any programs, and 

from how many, would likely affect their overall incomes. On average, 

those with household incomes between 100 and 149 percent of poverty 

based on the SPM received benefits from the highest number of 

programs. Our analysis does not include Medicaid, which is one of the 

largest federal low-income programs and had a total of 72.8 million 

people enrolled during fiscal year 2013.

A percentage of people in all income groups did not receive benefits from 

any of our eight selected programs because they were either not eligible 

for the program or they were eligible but not participating. Among those 

who are eligible, participation rates can vary by program and among subgroups within a program, according to our previous work and other 

studies. For example, HHS has reported that in 2011, the SSI 

participation rate was about 67 percent of adults who were estimated to 
Page 49 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

be eligible, while the TANF participation rate was about 34 percent.63 The 

overall SNAP participation rate was 83 percent in fiscal year 2012, but 

participation varied by income level, household composition, and 

earnings, according to a USDA report.64 Figure 9 also shows that about 4 

million people in the lowest income group (below 50 percent of poverty, 

based on the SPM) did not participate in any programs. These people 

tended to be single nonelderly adults in households without children, 

evenly divided among men and women, based on our analysis. This is 

consistent with other research which indicates that childless households 

with no continuously employed members, headed by nonelderly people 

without disabilities, are generally ineligible for many benefits and have 

much higher rates of poverty than other demographic groups.65

Almost two-thirds of the recipients of the eight programs combined were 

in households with children, including married, cohabiting, and single 

parent households (see table 6). These households also received 58 

percent of the nearly $241 billion in benefits provided by these eight 

programs combined in 2012, according to our TRIM3 analysis.66

 63HHS, Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors: Thirteenth Report to Congress (Washington, 

D.C.: 2013). According to the HHS report, the SSI participation rate of 67 percent is based 

in part on survey data, which does not contain sufficient information to estimate the 

number of children eligible for SSI. Prior GAO work has also looked at participation rates 

across multiple programs and for TANF. See GAO, Means-Tested Programs: Information 

on Program Access Can Be an Important Management Tool,

An 

estimated 81 percent of recipients lived in households with at least some 

annual earnings and received an estimated two-thirds of the combined 

benefit spending.

GAO-05-221 (Washington, 

D.C.: April 8, 2005); and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible 

Families Have Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession’s Impact 

on Caseloads Varies by State, GAO-10-164 (Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2010).

64E. Eslami, Mathematica Policy Research, Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2012 (Washington, D.C.: a 

report prepared at the request of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, July 2014).

65Y. Ben-Shalom, R. Moffitt and J. K. Scholz, An Assessment of the Effectiveness of 

Anti‐Poverty Programs in the United States, Working Paper 17042, (Cambridge, MA: 

National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2011).

66This amount reflects TRIM3 estimates of benefits provided to recipients of selected 

programs in 2012 and does not include program spending that did not go directly toward 

benefits (e.g., program administrative costs). For TANF, spending estimates are for cash 

assistance only. For SSI and TANF, TRIM3 spending data include state supplemental 

programs. For more information on how these estimates are developed, see appendix I.

Program Recipients Were 

Often in Households with 

Children and Households 

with Earnings
Page 50 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Table 6: Estimated Number of Individual Recipients and Benefit Spending of Eight Selected Federal Low-Income Programs by 

Household Type, 2012

Household type

Recipients (in 

millions of 

individuals)

Benefit spending 

(in billions)

Percent of total 

recipients

Percent of total 

spending

Married with children 38.5 $59.9 36 25

Cohabiting with children 7.9 $ 16.9 7 7

Single parent 21.7 $ 62.9 20 26

Without children 17.2 $ 34.2 16 14

Headed by person with a disability 10.5 $ 37.3 10 15

Headed by elderly person 10.2 $ 29.6 10 12

Total 105.9 $ 240.8 100 100

Households with earnings 85.6 $ 158.9 81 66

Households without earnings:

Head is elderly or has disability 10.8 $45.6 10 19

Head not elderly, no disability 9.6 $ 36.4 9 15

Total 105.9 $ 240.8 100 100

Source: GAO analysis of TRIM microsimulation data. | GAO-15-516

Note: For this analysis, household categories are mutually exclusive. SPM households include related 

and certain unrelated individuals who live together, including cohabiting partners and foster children, 

and may consist of a single person. Households headed by an elderly person with a disability are 

placed in the elderly category. Households whose head is elderly or has a disability and who have 

children are not counted as a household with children for this analysis. Programs included in this 

analysis are the Additional Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, housing assistance (which 

could be from federal, state, or local programs), Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance, and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program 

for Women, Infants, and Children. Receipt of assistance is assigned based on TRIM3 modeling, 

which adjusts the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey data for underreporting of program 

benefit receipt using program eligibility rules. Benefit spending totals in this table are TRIM3 

estimates of benefits provided. For most programs, this includes only federal spending on benefits, 

with the exceptions of TANF and SSI, which also include state supplemental programs. Some 

percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. Each estimate in this figure has a 95 percent 

confidence interval of within +/- 7 percent of the estimate itself.

In total, an estimated 25.4 million people moved above the SPM poverty 

threshold due to combined benefits from the eight programs. An 

additional 13.4 million who did not cross over the SPM threshold moved 

out of the lowest income group (below 50 percent of poverty). Moreover, 

10 million who were already above the SPM threshold moved to a higher 

income group (e.g., moved from 100 to 149 percent of poverty to 150 to 

Selected Programs 

Reduced Poverty for 

Millions in 2012, Based on 

Estimates Using the SPM
Page 51 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

199 percent of poverty). To obtain these estimates, we subtracted the 

value of these benefits from beneficiaries’ incomes and recalculated their 

incomes as a percent of the SPM threshold.67

Figure 10: Estimated Effect of Combined Benefits of Eight Selected Federal Low-Income Programs on Income Groups of 

Individual Participants, According to the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), 2012

Overall, fewer people were 

in the lowest income groups (those below poverty) when the value of 

benefits from the eight programs was included (see fig. 10).

Note: Programs included in this analysis are the Additional Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax 

Credit, housing assistance (which could be from federal, state, or local programs), Low-Income Home 

Energy Assistance Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Supplemental Security 

Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families cash assistance, and Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

Receipt of assistance is assigned based on TRIM3 modeling, which adjusts the Census Bureau’s 

Current Population Survey data for underreporting of program benefit receipt using program eligibility 

rules. This figure counts individual program recipients, categorized according to their household’s 

income relative to its SPM threshold. SPM households include related and certain unrelated 

individuals who live together, including cohabiting partners and foster children, and may consist of a 

single person. SPM income includes a household’s earned and unearned cash, Social Security, other 

retirement income, disability and unemployment insurance, state and local general assistance, plus 

the value of noncash benefits from the low-income programs listed in the figure as well as others 

(e.g., the National School Lunch Program), minus necessary expenses (e.g., medical, taxes and 

work-related). The SPM poverty threshold is based on current expenditures on food, clothing, 

geographically-adjusted housing, and utilities. To simulate the effects of program benefits on recipient 

income levels, we subtracted the benefits that all household members received from these eight 

programs combined, then recalculated the household’s income relative to its SPM threshold. Each 

estimate in this figure has a 95 percent confidence interval of within +/- 5 percent of the estimate 

itself.

 67In doing so, we held all else the same and assumed no other changes occurred, such as 

changes to other benefit levels or in people’s behavior. 
Page 52 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program effects varied by household type as well (see fig. 11). The 

largest numbers of people avoiding poverty based on the SPM because 

of selected federal benefits were in households with married parents (9.2 

million) or single parents (7.9 million). Over one-third of program 

recipients living in single parent households were kept out of poverty by 

the combined benefits of the eight selected programs.

Figure 11: Estimated Millions of People Who Moved above the Supplemental Poverty Measure Threshold Due to Benefits from 

Eight Selected Federal Programs, by Household Type, 2012

Note: Programs included in this analysis are the Additional Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax 

Credit, housing assistance (which could be from federal, state, or local programs), Low-Income Home 

Energy Assistance Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Supplemental Security 

Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families cash assistance, and Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

Receipt of assistance is assigned based on TRIM3 modeling, which adjusts the Census Bureau’s 

Current Population Survey data for underreporting of program benefit receipt using program eligibility 

rules. This figure counts individual program recipients, categorized according to their household’s 

type and SPM income. SPM households include related and certain unrelated individuals who live 

together, including cohabiting partners and foster children, and may consist of a single person. For 

this analysis, household categories are mutually exclusive. Households headed by an elderly person 

with a disability are placed in the elderly category. Households whose head is elderly or has a 

disability may have children, but are not counted as a household with children for this analysis. SPM 

income includes a household’s earned and unearned cash, Social Security, other retirement income, 

disability and unemployment insurance, state and local general assistance plus the value of benefits 

from the low-income programs listed in the figure as well as others (e.g., the National School Lunch 

Program), minus necessary expenses (e.g., medical, taxes and work-related). The SPM poverty 

threshold is based on current expenditures on food, clothing, geographically-adjusted housing, and 

utilities. To simulate the effects of program benefits on recipient income levels, we subtracted the 

benefits that each individual received from each of these eight programs, then recalculated the 

household’s income relative to its SPM threshold. Each estimate in this figure has a 95 percent 

confidence interval of within +/- 10 percent of the estimate itself except people in cohabiting 

households with children (+/- 13 percent).
Page 53 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Each of the eight programs lifted a number of recipients above the SPM 

threshold, ranging from 340,000 (LIHEAP) to nearly 8.7 million (SNAP) 

(see fig. 12). Variation in programs’ effects on reducing poverty was due 

to a combination of factors, including the number of recipients in each 

program and value of each benefit. For instance, SNAP and EITC served 

the most people in 2012 and, accordingly, had large effects on moving 

people out of poverty among our eight programs. Housing assistance, on 

the other hand, served many fewer people but provided a higher dollar 

amount of benefits than most other programs, moving almost 37 percent 

of all housing recipients that year out of poverty.

Figure 12: Estimated Millions of People Who Moved above the Supplemental Poverty Measure Threshold Due to Benefits from 

Each of Eight Selected Federal Programs, 2012

Note: Receipt of assistance is assigned based on TRIM3 modeling, which adjusts the Census 

Bureau’s Current Population Survey data for underreporting of program benefit receipt using program 

eligibility rules. Housing assistance could be from federal, state, or local programs. This figure counts 

individual program recipients, categorized according to their household’s SPM income. SPM 

households include related and certain unrelated individuals who live together, including cohabiting 

partners and foster children, and may consist of a single person. SPM income includes a household’s 

earned and unearned cash, Social Security, other retirement income, disability and unemployment 

insurance, state and local general assistance plus the value of benefits from the low-income 

programs listed in the figure as well as others (e.g., the National School Lunch Program), minus 

necessary expenses (e.g., medical, taxes and work-related). The SPM poverty threshold is based on 

current expenditures on food, clothing, geographically-adjusted housing, and utilities. To simulate the 

effects of program benefits on recipient income levels, we subtracted the benefits that each individual 

received from each of these eight programs, then recalculated the household’s income relative to its 

SPM threshold. Each estimate in this figure has a 95 percent confidence interval of within +/- 16 

percent of the estimate itself except WIC (+/- 21 percent) and LIHEAP (+/- 23 percent).

SNAP and EITC Moved 

the Most People above 

Poverty; However, All 

Selected Programs Had a 

Majority of Recipients with 

Incomes above the SPM 

Threshold after Accounting 

for Benefits
Page 54 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Our estimates are consistent with Census analyses using the SPM to 

measure the effects of program benefits on poverty. Census found that 

refundable tax credits (EITC and ACTC combined, along with other 

refundable federal and state tax credits) and SNAP had the largest effect 

on reducing poverty for the population in 2012.68

While each of the programs’ benefits moved some individuals above the 

SPM threshold, the income status of each programs’ recipients’ still 

varied from 50 percent below poverty to more than twice the SPM poverty 

threshold after taking into account the program’s benefits and other 

benefits received (see fig. 13). Figure 13 shows that, for example, 62 

percent of individuals who were eligible for and received SNAP benefits 

for at least one month in 2012 had annual incomes above the SPM 

threshold, after including the value of SNAP and other benefits received, 

which may have included other low-income benefits such as TANF or the 

EITC as well as other benefits such as Social Security or unemployment 

insurance. Some variation among the programs in terms of recipients’

incomes as a percentage of the SPM reflects differences in program 

targeting and design. For instance, the tax credits, ACTC and EITC had 

larger percentages of recipients above the SPM threshold (82 percent 

and 75 percent, respectively), as would be expected since these credits 

are designed to phase out gradually over higher levels of earned income. 

Under the EITC, for example, certain married families with two qualifying 

children may have had nearly $50,000 in earned income in 2013 before 

they became completely ineligible for the credit. A majority of ACTC and 

EITC recipients also lived in households with two adults (married or 

cohabiting) and children, as we will discuss later. In contrast, TANF cash 

assistance had the smallest percentage of people above the SPM poverty 

threshold among our selected programs (57 percent). Generally, TANF 

Of the different age 

groups (children, adults, and the elderly), Census found that children 

benefited the most from low-income programs, particularly from the 

refundable tax credits. Census also looked at the effects of several social 

insurance programs and reported that Social Security had, by far, the 

biggest effect on reducing poverty for the population—more than any lowincome program—especially among the elderly.

 68Census, Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013. Census SPM analysis relies on CPS 

data. Because TRIM3 adjusts for the underreporting of program participation in CPS (in 

terms of benefit amounts and caseloads), the effects on poverty are generally larger for 

each program using TRIM3 estimates than when using CPS data.
Page 55 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

recipients must have very low incomes to qualify for benefits.69 In 

addition, the amount of aid from TANF programs tends to be relatively 

small, although TANF recipients often receive assistance from other 

programs, particularly SNAP.70

 69In 2012, the majority of states required that a single parent with two children earn less 

than $795 a month ($9,540 annually) to receive TANF cash assistance. This is according 

to CRS’s analysis of the Urban Institute’s Welfare Rules Database, a comprehensive 

collection of state TANF rules that is funded by HHS. 

Moreover, as we will discuss, a majority of 

TANF recipients lived in single parent households and did not have 

income from another individual for support.

70According to TRIM3 estimates, in 2012, the average TANF recipient received an annual 

amount of $1,394 in TANF cash assistance, and $3,075 in combined benefits from the 

other 7 programs we studied (with $1,535 of that amount from SNAP). These averages 

include participants who participated in TANF for one month of the year up through 12 

months. In 2012, the maximum monthly benefit for a three-person family ranged from 

$170 to $923, with a median of $427, according to HHS’s Welfare Rules Databook: State 

TANF Policies as of July 2012 (Washington, D.C.: November 2013). 
Page 56 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Figure 13: After Receipt of Benefits from Listed Programs and Others, Estimated Distribution of Individual Recipients of Eight 

Selected Federal Low-Income Programs by Income as a Percent of the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) Threshold, 2012

Note: Receipt of assistance is assigned based on TRIM3 modeling, which adjusts the Census 

Bureau’s Current Population Survey data for underreporting of program benefit receipt using program 

eligibility rules. Housing assistance could be from federal, state, or local programs. The SPM incomes 

shown in this figure are not the incomes of program recipients when eligibility for program benefits 

was determined. SPM income includes a household’s earned and unearned cash, Social Security, 

other retirement income, disability and unemployment insurance, state and local general assistance 

plus the value of benefits from low-income programs listed in the figure as well as others (e.g., the 

National School Lunch Program), minus necessary expenses (e.g., medical, taxes and work-related). 

The SPM poverty threshold is based on current expenditures on food, clothing, geographicallyadjusted housing, and utilities. SPM households include related and certain unrelated individuals who 

live together, including cohabiting partners and foster children, and may consist of a single person. 

Each estimate in this figure has a 95 percent confidence interval of within +/- 24 percent of the 

estimate itself except housing recipients with incomes below 50 percent of the SPM threshold and 

above 200 percent of the SPM threshold. For these groups, the estimates are imprecise, but the 

upper bounds of their 95 percent confidence intervals are below 2 percent of the population of 

housing recipients.
Page 57 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

The fact that a portion of program recipients have incomes above the 

SPM threshold is not evidence that assistance is being provided to those 

who are not in need. Several factors may help explain such income 

levels. These include:71

• SPM income includes the value of the program’s benefits, which 

would not have been part of the household’s income when eligibility 

was determined. Also, some benefits counted as income for the SPM 

may not be counted as income when program eligibility is determined. 

For example, SNAP benefits are not counted when eligibility for SSI is 

determined.

• The SPM is based on annual income, while eligibility for some 

programs is based on monthly income. Our analysis counts as 

recipients all individuals who participated in a program for at least one 

month during the year. For some programs (such as SNAP and SSI), 

eligibility is generally based on monthly income. Thus, a beneficiary 

who receives program benefits for only part of the year due to a 

temporary reduction in income may have a higher annual income 

once the higher-income months are included. These nuances are 

reflected in a recent USDA study that examined SNAP receipt 

between 2008 and 2012 by linking Census data (American 

Community Survey) with SNAP administrative data for New York 

State. The study found that households in its sample with higher 

annual incomes received SNAP benefits for fewer months (and at 

lower benefit amounts) than those with lower annual incomes, 

suggesting that some households experience income volatility within 

the year.72

• The SPM household unit may be bigger than the unit used by the 

program to determine eligibility. For instance, the SPM household unit 

includes cohabitors and adult children living with their parents, whose 

incomes may raise the household’s income as measured by the SPM. 

 71The TRIM3 model does not include ineligible recipients. If survey respondents reported 

receiving a program benefit, but the TRIM3 calculations showed that the respondents 

would be ineligible based on income or other factors reported on the survey, then the 

TRIM3 model would not include them as participants. Urban Institute staff told us that, 

according to some studies that have merged survey data with administrative data records, 

at least half of the individuals who report a benefit for which they appear ineligible are not 

actually recipients according to the administrative data.

72USDA, Economic Research Service, Improving the Assessment of SNAP Targeting 

Using Administrative Records, ERR-186 (Washington, D.C., May 2015.)
Page 58 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Since programs determine eligibility differently, the incomes of

cohabitors or adult children may not be included for some programs, 

although they may be included for others.73

On the other hand, the SPM subtracts necessary living expenses from a 

household’s income, including out-of-pocket medical costs, taxes, child 

care, and other work expenses. These would lower a household’s SPM 

income and could offset some of the factors above.

The types of households served by each program reflected some 

differences in program rules and purposes (see fig. 14).74 For example, 

one of the purposes of TANF is to “provide assistance to needy families 

so that children may be cared for in their own homes.” Given this 

purpose, as might be expected, over half of TANF cash assistance 

recipients were from single parent households (nearly 3.0 million). 

Additionally, over half of SSI recipients (nearly 4.5 million) were from 

households headed by a person who was elderly or had a disability, 

probably the recipient him/herself.75

 73According to Urban Institute staff, the TRIM3 model estimates eligibility, when possible, 

using the same units that programs use, including state-level variations. For example, for 

tax expenditures, it uses the tax unit, which is comprised of the people who file income 

taxes together; whereas for housing assistance, it uses the entire household. Additionally, 

the construction of filing units for TANF takes into account the state-specific rules for 

whether or not step-parents are included.

As SSA reported in our survey, the 

purpose of SSI is to provide a minimum income for aged, blind, or 

disabled individuals who have very limited income and assets.

74For the purposes of our analysis, household type is determined by the head of the 

household, not by the program recipient. For example, figure 14 does not show that 60 

percent of ACTC recipients are married. Rather, 60 percent live in a household where the 

head is married. 

75The remaining 47 percent of SSI recipients, which included children, were in other types 

of households headed by someone who was not elderly and did not have a disability. 
Page 59 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Figure 14: Estimated Distribution of Individual Recipients of Eight Selected Federal Low-Income Programs by Household 

Type, 2012

Note: Receipt of assistance is assigned based on TRIM3 modeling, which adjusts the Census 

Bureau’s Current Population Survey data for underreporting of program receipt using program 

eligibility rules. Housing assistance could be from federal, state, or local programs. This figure counts

individual program recipients, categorized according to their household type. For this analysis, 

household categories are mutually exclusive. Households headed by an elderly person with a 

disability are placed in the elderly category. Households whose head is elderly or has a disability may 

have children, but are not counted as a household with children for this analysis. SPM households 

include related and certain unrelated individuals who live together, including cohabiting partners and 

foster children, and may consist of a single person. Each estimate in this figure has a 95 percent 

confidence interval of within +/- 26 percent of the estimate itself except TANF and WIC recipients 

from households headed by an elderly person (+/- 31 percent) and TANF and WIC recipients from 

childless households. For each of these groups, the estimate is imprecise, but the upper bounds of 

the 95 percent confidence intervals is below 2 percent of the its respective programs’ recipient 

population.

As we noted earlier, our results differ from program administrative data 

due to differences in definitions and other reasons. For example, in our 

analysis, we counted the number of individuals receiving assistance. If 

program administrative data count the number of households, this can

affect the distribution. For example, for housing assistance, while we 

found nearly 14 percent of recipients to be in households headed by an 

elderly person, the percentage increased to nearly 24 percent when we 
Page 60 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

changed our analysis to count households with an elderly head.76 Also, 

we used the SPM definition of a household to categorize beneficiaries, 

which may differ from how beneficiaries are categorized in program 

administrative data. Additionally, in our analysis, we placed program 

recipients into mutually exclusive household types, while administrative 

data may use overlapping categories (e.g. recipients may be counted 

both as elderly and as having children).77 Moreover, our estimates of 

recipients of housing assistance, in particular, may not match HUD 

administrative data for other reasons. As previously mentioned, our 

estimates for recipients of housing assistance are based on households 

who reported in CPS as living in public or subsidized housing. These 

households could include recipients of housing programs administered by 

entities other than HUD, including other federal agencies or state or local 

governments.78

According to our estimates, the portion of program recipients in 

households with at least some earnings during the year ranged from 43 

percent for SSI to 100 percent for EITC and ACTC (see fig. 15). These 

numbers again reflect differences in program design and purpose, such 

as the fact that eligibility for EITC and ACTC is dependent on having 

earned income. Although not shown in the figure, we found similar trends 

in terms of the amount of income from earnings versus benefits. Among 

our eight programs, recipients of EITC and ACTC tended to have the 

largest amounts of income from earnings and the smallest from benefits 

(combined from our eight programs), while recipients of SSI tended to 

 76A household headed by an elderly person is more likely to be comprised of one or two 

people, in contrast to one headed by a married couple with children, which has at least 

three members. Each of these would count as one household, but when counting 

individuals, a smaller percentage would be from the household headed by an elderly 

person.

77According to additional TRIM3 analysis using overlapping categories provided to us by 

Urban Institute, about 30 percent of households who received housing assistance in 2012 

were headed by an elderly person or spouse. 

78For example, when HUD used mutually exclusive groups and counted individuals in a 

household, its analysis of recipients of HUD-administered housing programs showed that 

more individuals were in single parent households and households headed by an elderly 

person or a person with a disability than our estimates using TRIM3. For additional 

information on how housing assistance is captured in the CPS, see Census Bureau, 

Estimating the Value of Federal Housing Assistance for the Supplemental Poverty 

Measure, working paper no. 2010-13, (Washington, D.C.: 2010). 
Page 61 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

have the largest amount in income from benefits and the smallest in 

earnings.

Figure 15: Estimated Distribution of Individual Recipients of Eight Selected Federal Low-Income Programs by Household 

Earnings Status, 2012

Note: Receipt of assistance is assigned based on TRIM3 modeling, which adjusts the Census 

Bureau’s Current Population Survey data for underreporting of program benefit receipt using program 

eligibility rules. Housing assistance could be from federal, state, or local programs. This figure counts 

individual program recipients, categorized according to their household type. For this analysis, 

household categories are mutually exclusive. SPM households include related and certain unrelated 

individuals who live together, including cohabiting partners and foster children, and may consist of a 

single person. Households with earnings had at least one member who earned any amount of income 

from employment or self-employment during 2012. This group includes all households meeting this 

definition, including those whose heads are elderly or have a disability. Households headed by an 

elderly person with a disability are placed in the elderly category. Households whose head is elderly 

or has a disability may have children, but are not counted as a household with children for this 

analysis. Each estimate in this figure has a 95 percent confidence interval of +/- 19 percent of the 

estimate itself, with the following exceptions. The number of WIC recipients from households without 

earnings headed by a person who was elderly or had a disability was 0.2 million +/- 30 percent. 

Additionally, estimates of EITC and ACTC recipients from households with no earnings were either 

missing because the TRIM3 data contained no observations, or were not reported due to small 

sample size.
Page 62 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

The receipt of benefits from means-tested low-income programs (i.e., 

those with financial eligibility tests for individuals or families) may affect 

an individual’s willingness to seek and accept employment in two key 

ways.79 One is the decision on whether or not to work, called the labor 

force participation decision. The second, which applies to those who have 

decided to work, is on the number of hours to work. For many people, the 

decision on whether to work depends on the incomes available under 

each alternative, including income or assistance from means-tested 

benefits. The decision of how many hours to work may be influenced by 

the extent to which an increase in earnings (through more hours worked 

or a higher wage) is offset by higher taxes and reduced benefits. Whether 

moving from not working to working or from fewer to more hours worked, 

the combined effect of taxes and the reduction in means-tested benefits 

as earnings increase is called the worker’s effective marginal tax rate, 

referred to as the marginal tax rate in this report.80

The labor force participation decision partly depends on the availability of 

benefits while working, as well as actual compensation from employment.

The establishment of TANF and the expansion of the EITC during the 

past two decades have encouraged people’s entry into the labor force by 

making more benefits available for those who work, and less for those 

who don’t work, according to studies we reviewed.81

 79In this section, we reviewed literature on some of the principal means-tested programs 

for working-age adults without disabilities and their children, including SNAP, TANF cash 

assistance, EITC, and, to a limited extent, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher 

program. We did not include programs targeted to the elderly or people with disabilities. 

Also, we did not review the literature on the effect of means-tested health care programs, 

such as Medicaid, on work incentives. 

Combined with labor 

80According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the effective marginal tax rate is 

the percentage of an additional dollar of earnings that is unavailable to a worker because 

it is paid in taxes or offset by reductions in benefits from government programs. CBO also 

uses the term marginal tax rate in the place of effective tax rate.

81For example, regarding the expansion of the EITC, see H. Hoynes, “A Revolution in 

Poverty Policy: The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Well-Being of American Families,”

Pathways (Summer 2014). Regarding the establishment of TANF, see GAO, Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Caseload and Program Changes for 

Families and Program Monitoring, GAO-10-815T (Washington, D.C.: September 21, 

2010), in which we reported on states’ implementation of more work-focused welfare 

programs under TANF that helped many welfare recipients find jobs. In this report, we 

also noted that other policy changes, such as increases in the EITC, increases in the 

minimum wage, and additional federal and state funds for work supports, such as child 

care, facilitated people’s entry into the labor force, particularly single parents.

Research Suggests 

Selected Programs 

Have Generally 

Encouraged Labor 

Force Participation 

and Had Mixed 

Effects on Hours 

Worked
Page 63 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

earnings, these programs’ benefits made work more financially rewarding 

(in terms of earnings plus benefits), in comparison to the benefits 

available to those who do not work.82 The EITC, in particular, has 

increased incentives for people with children to join the labor force, based 

on our review of studies.83

For workers who are also receiving means-tested benefits, increases in 

income eventually trigger reduction and ultimately elimination of benefits. 

The incremental percentage reduction in benefits per dollar increase in 

income is the program’s contribution to the worker’s total marginal tax 

rate. For example, a hypothetical household participating in one benefit 

program—SNAP—would experience a reduction in SNAP benefits as 

household earnings rise, generally 24 cents on the dollar.84 In addition, 

when federal and state income and Federal Insurance Contributions Act 

taxes (payroll taxes) are considered, in combination with the SNAP 

benefit reduction, the household’s marginal tax rate would be more than 

50 percent.85

 82The availability of higher incomes from work and benefits will not automatically induce all 

to work as other factors are involved in people’s decision. For TANF recipients, for 

example, GAO has reported in the past that health issues, disability, substance abuse, 

criminal records, domestic violence, limited education, and responsibilities for children or 

parents with a disability can all constitute employment challenges for TANF recipients. 

See GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Action Is Needed to Better Promote 

Employment-Focused Approaches, 

In another example, where a family receives benefits from 

more than one program, a recent study calculated marginal tax rates for a 

single parent family with two children assumed to be receiving benefits 

from SNAP and TANF. If this family’s earnings grew from 100 percent of 

federal poverty guidelines to 150 percent, it could face marginal tax rates 

GAO-15-31 (Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2014).

83See, for example, T. Hungerford and R. Thiess, The Earned Income Tax Credit and The 

Child Tax Credit: History, Purpose, Goals, and Effectiveness, Issue Brief # 370 

(Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, September 25, 2013), and N. Eissa and H. 

Hoynes, “Behavioral Responses to Taxes: Lessons From The EITC and Labor Supply,” in

Tax Policy and the Economy Volume 20, NBER Books, ed. James M. Poterba (Boston: 

MIT Press, 2006), 73-110. These studies included literature reviews. 

84Many factors are taken into consideration in calculating SNAP benefits, including 

earnings, assets, household size, age, and others. However, the basic benefit reduction 

rate is 24 percent, based on a reduction in the benefit equal to 30 percent of net income, 

mitigated by a 20 percent earned income deduction.

85For this example, we assumed that the household files one tax return for a worker who 

is in an individual federal income tax bracket of 15 percent and pays a state income tax of 

5 percent, although this would vary by state. We also assumed that the worker pays 7.65 

percent for Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes.

A Hypothetical Example of How Marginal 

Tax Rates Can Reduce Benefits When 

Earnings Increase 

If a single parent with three children living in 

Wisconsin in 2000 who was earning $6.25 an 

hour received a raise to $9.25 an hour, based 

on 2,000 hours of work a year, her earnings 

would increase by $6,000. If she received 

SNAP benefits, those benefits would be 

reduced by $81 a month due to her earnings 

increase. If she received housing assistance, 

this assistance would be reduced by $177 a 

month. She would also owe an extra $38 a 

month in payroll taxes and if she worked fulltime for the year, lose $1,848 (or $154 a 

month) due to reduced EITC benefits. As a 

result, out of her $500 a month raise, she 

would keep $50--a nearly 90 percent marginal 

tax rate on the earnings gain. If her earnings 

continue to rise, her marginal tax rates will fall 

greatly, as SNAP and EITC benefits will 

phase out entirely. With no remaining benefits 

to reduce, her marginal tax rate will depend 

solely on income and payroll taxes. 

Source: J.L. Rommich, J. Simmelink, and S. D. Holt, "When 

Working Harder Does Not Pay: Low-Income Working 

Families, Tax Liabilities, and Benefit Reductions," Families In 

Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, vol. 

88, no. 3 (2007). | GAO-15-516
Page 64 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

ranging from 27 percent to over 100 percent, depending on the state of 

residence. (The average marginal tax rate among states was about 50 

percent.) That is, if the parent lived in Nevada, he or she would lose 27 

cents of each dollar in increased earnings; if he or she lived in 

Connecticut, the parent would actually have fewer total resources for 

each dollar in increased earnings due to the loss of benefits. The study’s 

authors noted that marginal tax rates vary greatly among states due to, 

among other things, differences in state tax systems and state rules for 

TANF and SNAP.86

Among low-income workers, a portion of households who receive meanstested benefits do experience high marginal tax rates as their earnings 

increase, but available research suggests that this portion may be 

relatively small. In a 2012 study, CBO simulated how increasing annual 

household earnings by $100 for those who received SNAP, EITC, and the 

Child Tax Credit would affect taxpayers’ marginal tax rates.87

 86See E. Maag, C.E. Steuerle, R. Chakravarti and C. Quackenbush, “How Marginal Tax 

Rates Affect Families At Various Levels of Poverty,” National Tax Journal, vol. 65, no. 4, 

(2012). Analysis in this study involved national-level simulations using Urban Institute’s 

Net Income Change Calculator. This model allows users to enter in family characteristics 

information and calculate family income based on state-specific information on program 

rules and state taxes from 2008. Simulations were based on single parent households 

with two children, assumed to receive SNAP and TANF, ages 25-50 years.

It found that 

some households with earnings between 100 and 149 percent of federal 

poverty guidelines had relatively high marginal tax rates among the 

different income groups, with about 10 percent of households with 

marginal tax rates exceeding 60 percent (90th percentile), as shown in 

figure 16. (Information looking at incomes as a percentage of SPM was 

not available in the CBO study.) If all else were equal, in theory, people 

tend to work fewer hours when marginal tax rates are high. However, due 

to the relatively small portion of people experiencing these high rates, the 

median marginal tax rate for this income group was around 30 percent. 

Also, high marginal tax rates apply to those households facing phaseouts 

from multiple programs; however, research suggests low- to moderateincome households more commonly participate in one or two programs. 

For instance, in our TRIM3 analysis, we found that of those who received 

assistance from any of the eight programs in our analysis, two-thirds 

received assistance from one or two programs, most likely SNAP, EITC, 

87CBO, Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low- and Moderate-Income Workers, Publication 

No. 4149 (Washington, D.C.: November 2012).
Page 65 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

or ACTC.88 CBO had similar findings looking at a different set of programs 

using 2010 Census CPS data. Of households that received assistance 

from Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), SNAP, 

TANF, or housing assistance, the majority participated in one program, 

most commonly Medicaid/CHIP or SNAP, and few participated in more 

than two programs.89

Figure 16: Simulation of Marginal Tax Rates with $100 Annual Increase in Earnings, 

Based on Federal Tax Provisions in Effect in 2012 (Including Earned Income Tax 

Credit and Child Tax Credit) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

Benefit

 88Programs selected for the TRIM3 analysis included ACTC, EITC, housing assistance, 

LIHEAP, SNAP, SSI, TANF cash assistance, and WIC. SSI primarily targets low-income 

people who are elderly or have a disability; we did not review literature on work incentives 

for these populations. Prior GAO work has looked at federal efforts to encourage people 

receiving SSI to work, such as through the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Programs. 

For example, see GAO, Social Security Disability: Participation in the Ticket to Work 

Program Has Increased, but More Oversight Needed, GAO-11-828T (Washington, D.C.: 

September 23, 2011). 

89CBO, Effective Marginal Tax Rates. CBO used 2010 CPS data and looked at 

households with incomes below 250 percent of federal poverty guidelines, with earnings, 

and whose household was not headed by someone over 65 or with a disability. Sixty-two 

percent of these households did not receive assistance from CBO’s selected programs—

Medicaid or CHIP, SNAP, TANF, or housing assistance—although CPS data are known 

for underreporting of program participation. Also, CBO’s analysis did not include the EITC 

or ACTC, while our TRIM3 analysis did not include Medicaid. Thus, multiple program 

participation would likely be higher if all of these programs were included in an analysis.
Page 66 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Note: CBO’s simulations used 2006 data (the most recent public-use data at the time of CBO’s 

analysis), state tax provisions in effect in 2006, and federal tax provisions and federal poverty 

guidelines in effect in 2012 (the year the study was conducted). CBO’s restricted its sample of tax 

returns to working-age tax filers with earnings and who did not have a disability. This figure shows 

taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes below 250 percent of federal poverty guidelines; however, 

CBO’s entire sample included taxpayers with adjusted gross income below 450 percent of federal 

poverty guidelines. Median marginal tax rates for taxpayers in higher income groups that are not 

shown in this chart ranged from 31 percent (for taxpayers with earnings 250 to 300 percent of federal 

poverty guidelines) to 37 percent (for taxpayers with earnings 400 to below 450 percent of federal 

poverty guidelines). (For more information on CBO’s analysis, see CBO, Effective Marginal Tax Rates 

for Low- and Moderate-Income Workers, Publication No. 4149 (Washington, D.C.: November 2012).

While studies we reviewed showed that some benefit recipients may face 

relatively high marginal tax rates, available research suggests these rates 

do not strongly affect people’s actual behavior regarding how many hours 

they decide to work. Ideally, an analysis should consider all the programs 

in which an individual participates. A 2011 review of research found that 

the aggregate behavioral impact on people’s incentive to work from 

multiple means-tested programs was very small.90 A more recent review 

of studies in 2015 concluded that “it is very hard to find large labor supply 

reductions for any major transfer program.”91

Other research has looked at the marginal tax rates of specific programs 

on the number of hours people work and generally found effects to be 

limited, although this can vary by household circumstance and by 

program. For instance, marginal tax rates associated with the phase-out 

rate of the EITC were found to have a limited effect on reducing hours for 

primary earners, including for single mothers.92 For secondary earners, 

however, research suggests that the EITC leads to modest reductions for 

married women in employment and hours worked.93

 90Ben-Shalom, Moffitt, and Scholz, An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty 

Programs.

Marginal tax rates 

associated with the reduction in SNAP benefits due to increased earnings 

are generally thought to have small effects on labor supply, according to 

91R. Moffitt, “The U.S. Safety Net and Work Incentives: The Great Recession and 

Beyond,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 34, no. 2 (2015).

92Eissa and Hoynes, “Behavioral Responses to Taxes;” and T. Hungerford and R. Thiess, 

The Earned Income Tax Credit.

93Eissa and Hoynes, “Behavioral Responses to Taxes.” Studies have also looked at 

effects of programs, such as the EITC, on marriage, which we did not review.
Page 67 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

studies we reviewed, though for some groups the effects may be large.94

Changes in marginal tax rates associated with reduction in TANF benefits 

based on increased earnings were found to have little effect on either 

labor force participation or hours of work, according to studies we 

reviewed.95 On the other hand, receipt of housing assistance may create 

work disincentives, although available research is limited. One study 

looking at the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program found that,

based on a sample of program participants and nonparticipants in 

Chicago, the program had a negative effect on labor force participation 

and earnings (possibly due to reduction in hours worked for some 

recipients), but a positive effect on supporting incomes.96 In other words, 

people may work more without a housing benefit but their overall incomes 

are higher with the benefit. Another study of recipients in Wisconsin found 

that housing vouchers had little effect on labor force participation and a 

negative effect on earnings, which faded over time.97 Medicaid could also 

create work disincentives, since a modest pay increase could result in a 

total loss of benefits for those near the program’s income threshold.98

 94R. Moffitt, “Multiple Program Participation and the SNAP Program,” Russell Sage 

Working Paper (November 2014) maintains that few SNAP beneficiaries are affected by 

high marginal tax rates, while H. Hoynes and D. Schanzenbach in “Work incentives and 

the Food Stamp Program,” Journal of Public Economics, 96 (2012) find that previous 

estimates may be understated.

However, other programs or policies could offset potential work 

disincentives. For example, an increase in earnings in a new job may also 

be accompanied by employer-provided group health insurance, and 

95J. Matsudaira and R. Blank, The Impact of Earnings Disregards on the Behavior of Low 

Income Families, Working Paper 14038, (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic 

Research, May 2008).

96B. Jacob and J. Ludwig, “The Effects of Housing Assistance on Labor Supply: Evidence 

from a Voucher Lottery,” American Economic Review, vol. 102, no. 1 (2012). Federal 

funding for Housing Choice Vouchers, as well as other large housing programs, is 

discretionary (not mandatory, open-entitlement). Generally, more people are eligible for 

housing programs than there is available funding. For more information, see HUD, Worst 

Case Housing Needs: 2015 Report to Congress, (Washington, D.C.: April 2015).

97D. Carlson, R. Haveman, T. Kaplan, and B. Wolfe, “Long-term earnings and 

employment effects of housing voucher receipt,” Journal of Urban Economics, 71, (2012). 

98See, for example, CBO, Effective Marginal Tax Rates, which describes potential cliff 

effects associated with Medicaid.
Page 68 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

children may lose eligibility for Medicaid but gain eligibility under CHIP.99

As noted, we did not review the literature on work incentives related to 

health insurance programs. In addition, although, we did not review the 

literature on the effect of child care subsidies on work incentives for this 

report, we have looked at this in prior work. Specifically, in a 2010 report, 

we found that research has linked access to child care subsidies to 

increases in the likelihood of low-income mothers’ employment.100 In that 

report, experts we consulted suggested that when child care prices 

increase (such as when a parent loses a child care subsidy), mothers 

may change their work hours or shift to lower-cost providers, for example, 

rather than exiting the labor force altogether, although other research has 

shown that child care problems contribute to job loss and returns to 

welfare for low-wage workers.

101

While high marginal tax rates occur, people may not respond to them for 

various reasons. For instance, for a worker to change behavior, he or she 

must be aware of the marginal tax rates and the income levels at which 

they apply. However, these rates can be difficult for the lay person to 

understand and calculate, especially when multiple programs and tax 

provisions are involved. As discussed, high marginal tax rates are the 

result of interactions among programs and the tax system and vary 

greatly depending on the specific benefit or combination of benefits 

received, individual situation, and state of residence. These interactions 

are not transparent. Studies that have focused on interviews with lowincome households indicate they often do not understand marginal tax 

 99In addition, the loss of eligibility for Medicaid or CHIP may be, in part, compensated for 

by new subsidies available to certain individuals who purchase qualified health plans 

through health insurance exchanges established under the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act. Related to this, we previously reported that despite these subsidies, 

consumers’ costs for qualified health plans—including deductibles, copayments, 

coinsurance, and premiums—were almost always more when compared to CHIP plans in 

five states. See GAO, Children’s Health Insurance: Coverage of Services and Costs to 

Consumers in Selected CHIP and Private Health Plans in Five States, GAO-15-323

(Washington, D.C.: February 25, 2015).

100See GAO, Child Care: Multiple Factors Could Have Contributed to the Recent Decline 

in the Number of Children Whose Families Receive Subsidies, GAO-10-344 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 5, 2010). ). According to CRS, federal child care assistance programs do not 

provide funding for all those potentially eligible for assistance and may be less available 

for those at higher income levels, determined by the states who administer the programs.

101For example, see G. Adams, R. Koralek, and K. Martinson, Child Care Subsidies and 

Leaving Welfare: Policy Issues and Strategies, (Washington, D.C., The Urban Institute, 

2006).
Page 69 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

rates associated with increased earnings or how these may affect their 

benefits.102 This may be particularly relevant with the EITC because of a 

long time lag between a change in work and the receipt of the tax refund 

at tax time. Additionally, a worker is not necessarily able to control the 

number of hours he or she works in response to different marginal tax 

rates, given constraints in work schedules or other factors such as child 

care.103 Research indicates that low-wage workers have less discretion 

and control over their work schedules than higher-wage workers, and that 

this is particularly true for those working part-time or in temporary 

positions.104

Further, reacting to high marginal tax rates that apply over narrow income 

ranges would not necessarily make sense for a worker over the long 

term. If a worker expects to have continual pay increases over his or her 

lifetime he or she would not necessarily decide to reduce his or her work 

hours because of high marginal tax rates that would attenuate as 

earnings grew beyond the effective income range of those rates.

 102For example, see L. Tach and S. Halpern-Meekin, “Tax Code Knowledge and 

Behavioral Responses among EITC Recipients: Policy Insights From Qualitative Data,”

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 33, no.2 (2014). In this study, the 

majority of respondents with income in the EITC phase-out range did not know that their 

refund would decrease if they earned more. Also see, J. Rommich, “Difficult Calculations: 

Low-Income Workers and Marginal Tax Rates,” Social Service Review, vol. 80, no.1 

(2006).

103In Tach and Halpern-Meekin, “Tax Code Knowledge and Behavioral Responses,” many 

of the EITC recipients they interviewed said that they could not change the number of 

hours they worked to maximize their EITC benefit because of structural constraints in their 

work or because of parenting responsibilities. On the other hand, self-employed workers 

may have more control over their hours. E. Saez in “Do Taxpayers Bunch at Kink Points,”

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2 (August 2010) states that the selfemployed may misreport hours of work to maximize their EITC benefits. 

104For example, see Tach and Halpern-Meekin, “Tax Code Knowledge and Behavioral 

Responses” which included review of other studies. In recent work, GAO has looked at 

“contingent workers” (such as those who work part-time, temporary or contract work) and 

found that certain of these workers tend to have lower family incomes than those with 

standard full-time work and more unpredictable schedules. See, GAO, Contingent 

Workforce: Size, Characteristics, Earnings, and Benefits, GAO-15-168R (Washington, 

D.C.: April 20, 2015). Also, in this report, we found that the percentage of the employed 

labor force who are “involuntary part-time”—those who work part-time for economic 

reasons, such as not being able to find full-time work—is almost double what it was 

estimated to be in 2007 before the onset of the recent recession. In addition, some who 

work part-time for reasons categorized as non-economic may not do so entirely by choice 

but rather out of economic necessity due to child care or other scheduling needs; thus, 

even more workers could be considered involuntary part-time. 
Page 70 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Behavioral effects can be difficult to isolate from other factors, and not all 

effects are observable. For example, not all labor supply behavior can be 

found in data. A worker who knowingly faces a high marginal tax rate for 

additional hours may seek earnings in the underground economy.105

Research also shows that inherent policy trade-offs exist for meanstested benefit programs attempting to meet multiple objectives. Work 

incentives and disincentives in means-tested benefit programs are 

intrinsically linked. When benefits are available to those who work or 

when benefits are tied to work (such as with the EITC), working becomes 

more attractive as people’s total incomes in benefits and earnings are 

higher than they would be without work. However, benefits are reduced 

and ultimately phased out as earnings rise, creating potential work 

disincentives. To lessen the role of work disincentives and avoid abrupt 

benefit cutoffs (known as cliff effects), benefits can be phased out more 

slowly (i.e., resulting in lower marginal tax rates). Yet a slower phase-out 

of benefits means increased program costs. Program costs could be 

contained if benefits are reduced for those with the lowest income; 

however, another common policy goal is to maintain adequate assistance 

for the least fortunate. In short, research shows that to limit program 

costs, it is necessary to either reduce benefits (by reducing the number of 

people eligible or the benefit amount) or phase benefits out more rapidly. 

These trade-offs pertain to assistance provided by any level of 

government—federal, state, or local.

Additionally, program provisions are not the only factors that may affect 

labor supply. The overall state of the labor market is central, in terms of 

the availability of employment opportunities and pay.

We provided a full draft of this report for comment to the Departments of 

Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 

Development, Treasury, and the Social Security Administration. We 

provided relevant sections of the draft report to eight other federal 

agencies that administer programs included in this report as well as 

Census for technical comments. Most agencies that we sent the full draft 

or excerpts of the draft provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

 105Maag et al., “How Marginal Tax Rates Affect Families.”

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 71 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

USDA, HHS, Treasury, and SSA did not have additional comments; HUD 

provided written comments, reproduced in appendix VI. In its comments, 

HUD discussed the usefulness of the SPM in assessing economic 

conditions and people’s level of need, but stated concerns that 

information in this report may be interpreted erroneously, particularly 

because the SPM is a relatively new concept. Specifically, HUD noted 

that readers may interpret information we presented on program 

recipients’ incomes as a percentage of the SPM as evidence that 

programs are not targeting people in need, when, as we describe in the 

report, these income levels include the value of certain federal, state, and 

local assistance that a household receives, as well as account for various 

household expenses. As we explain in the report, the SPM provides 

information on a household’s resources—including assistance from 

certain government programs—to meet basic needs, and is not a 

measure used to determine program eligibility. HUD also noted 

differences in terms of recipient household types between our estimates 

of housing assistance using TRIM3 and HUD’s estimates using HUD 

program data, due to the fact that TRIM3 estimates can include recipients 

of housing assistance from other federal, state or local agencies. Based 

on HUD’s comments, we took steps to clarify the information we present 

on our estimates of program recipients’ incomes as a percentage of the 

SPM and on our estimates of recipients of housing assistance using 

TRIM3, and addressed other comments from HUD, as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and Human 

Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Treasury; the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; other federal 

agencies that administer programs included in this report, and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the 

GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
Page 72 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@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 key contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix VII.

Kay E. Brown, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 73 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

The objectives of this report were to examine: (1) what federal programs 

(including tax expenditures) are targeted to low-income individuals; (2) 

what are the number and selected household characteristics of people in 

poverty based on the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM); (3) what are 

the incomes (as a percent of the SPM) and household characteristics of 

people receiving benefits from selected programs; and (4) what is known 

about how selected low-income programs affect work incentives? To 

address the objectives of this request, we used a variety of methods. 

Specifically, we:

• reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and agency guidance; 

and interviewed agency officials;

• collected information on 82 federal low-income programs by surveying 

13 federal agencies that administer these programs;106

• analyzed 2013 data from Census Bureau’s (Census) Current 

Population Survey (CPS) to describe low-income households;

• analyzed 2012 data, the most recent available, from the Transfer 

Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3) microsimulation model maintained 

by the Urban Institute to describe recipients of eight large federal lowincome programs; and

• conducted an economic literature review on work incentives and 

disincentives related to assistance from selected federal low-income 

programs.

We conducted our work between April 2014 and July 2015 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives.

 106In this report, for ease of reference we use the term “federal agency” to refer to the 

entities that administer these programs, although one program is administered by the 

Legal Services Corporation, which is not a federal agency. We also described federal 

agency efforts to evaluate participant outcomes for five selected low-income programs 

based on a review of agency documents and interviews with agency officials. See 

appendix V for more information on our methodology for this work. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 74 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

To address our first question, we identified federal programs, including 

tax expenditures, that (1) used a measure of low or limited income to 

determine eligibility, priority for assistance, or to target resources, or (2) 

have target populations that are disproportionately poor or have program 

purposes that presume that participants will be low-income. This included 

programs that targeted individuals, families, and communities. Due to 

their small size, we excluded programs less than $100 million in federal 

obligations or reduced tax revenue in fiscal year 2013. These criteria 

were developed by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which 

has maintained a list of low-income programs for many years.107 To 

identify programs in its current list, CRS officials told us that they took 

various steps, including searching the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance for relevant programs. We augmented CRS’s list by asking 

relevant agencies to suggest program additions or deletions consistent 

with the criteria, consulting with CRS and program area experts within 

GAO, and adding relevant tax expenditures.108

 107We relied on the list in Congressional Research Service, Federal Benefits and Services 

for People with Low Income: Programs, Policy, and Spending, FY2008-FY2009, R41625 

(Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2011). Since we began our work, CRS issued an update. 

See Congressional Research Service, Federal Benefits and Services for People with Low 

Income: Programs and Spending, FY2008-FY2013, R43863 (Washington, D.C.: January 

15, 2015). Small differences in program obligation amounts between this report and the 

most recent CRS report may be due to rounding.

We consulted with internal 

subject matter experts and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to 

identify relevant tax expenditures. We included tax expenditures that base 

an individual’s eligibility on a measure of low or limited income, or that 

indirectly benefit low-income individuals (for example, the Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credit, which allows developers and owners of qualified lowincome housing projects to claim a tax credit for construction or 

rehabilitation costs). We excluded tax expenditures which indirectly 

108The refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit 

(also known as the Additional Child Tax Credit, or the ACTC) were included on CRS’s lowincome list. According to Treasury officials, the allocation between the ACTC, the 

refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit, and the nonrefundable portion of the Child Tax 

Credit, may not necessarily be a meaningful distinction when thinking about support for 

low-income families because it can depend on circumstances that do not affect the total 

child credit claimed by a household. For example, itemizing lowers tax before credits 

which may change the relative amounts of CTC and ACTC claimed without changing the 

total amount. In general, however, the ACTC is claimed by taxpayers with lower tax 

liabilities and lower income than those that claim only the Child Tax Credit. As reported by 

the Statistics of Income division of Internal Revenue Service, in 2012, 88 percent of the 

ACTC went to taxpayers with adjusted gross income below $40,000, while 17 percent of 

the Child Tax Credit went to taxpayers below that income.

Federal Programs for

Low-Income Individuals
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 75 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

benefit low-income individuals based on income measures for a 

geographic area. We also excluded tax expenditures for which the 

average reduction in revenue for the past 5 years was less than $100 

million.

To collect program information, we sent a questionnaire (or survey) on 

each program to the federal agencies responsible for administering it that 

included questions on federal obligations, numbers served, the program 

purpose, type of benefit or service, eligibility requirements, and other 

topics. To ensure that questions were understandable and that we

collected the desired information, we pre-tested the survey with two 

federal agencies, and asked a third agency to review it. We revised it 

based on agencies’ feedback. We sent the survey to agencies in 

September 2014 and, ultimately, obtained a 100 percent response rate. 

We did not independently verify the legal accuracy of the information 

provided by the agencies, such as program purposes, eligibility 

requirements, or benefits or services provided.

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

minimize other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling 

errors, and to enhance data quality, we employed recognized survey 

design practices in the development of the questionnaire and in the 

collection, processing, and analysis of the survey data. For instance, as 

previously mentioned, we pretested the questionnaire with federal officials 

to minimize errors arising from differences in how questions might be 

interpreted and to improve the likelihood that variation in responses 

across agencies are attributable to substantive differences between 

programs rather than aspects of the data collection process. We further 

reviewed the survey to ensure the ordering of survey sections was 

appropriate and that the questions within each section were clearly stated 

and easy to comprehend. To reduce nonresponse, another source of 

nonsampling error, we sent out e-mail reminder messages to encourage 

officials to complete the survey. We reviewed the data for missing or 

ambiguous responses and followed up with agency officials when 

necessary to clarify their responses. In some cases, we also checked 

other sources, such as the Office of Management and Budget’s Appendix, 

Budget for the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2015, to confirm information 

was generally consistent and reliable. On the basis of our application of 

recognized survey design practices and follow-up procedures, we 

determined that the data were of sufficient quality for our purposes.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 76 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

To answer our second question, we analyzed data from the Census’

Current Population Survey (CPS) for 2013 (calendar year), the most 

recent year available.109 Specifically, we used the public use and replicate 

weight files from the March 2014 CPS Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement, which covers 2013, to obtain demographic information about 

respondents and their households and calculate standard errors of our 

estimates.110 We merged this information with the Census’ SPM 

Research Data file for 2013, which contains microdata derived from the 

CPS that allows users to calculate SPM rates.111

To determine the number of people in poverty according to the SPM, we 

first calculated each household’s income as a percent of the relevant 

SPM poverty threshold. To define a household, we followed the Census 

Because the CPS uses 

a household-based data collection, its data do not include individuals 

living outside of a household residence, such as homeless people or 

those living in institutional group quarters (e.g., correctional facilities, 

nursing homes). As many individuals in these groups may be low-income, 

estimates of the size of the low-income population in this report are likely 

to be undercounts of the low-income population in the United States.

 109The CPS is designed and administered jointly by Census and the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. It is the source of official government statistics on employment and 

unemployment in the United States. The basic monthly survey is used to collect 

information on employment, such as employment status, occupation, and industry, as well 

as demographic information, such as age, sex, race, marital status, educational 

attainment, and family structure, among other things. The survey is based on a sample of 

the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States. Using a multistage 

stratified sample design, about 60,000 households are selected on the basis of area of 

residence to represent the country as a whole and individual states. 

110The CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement provides supplemental data on 

work experience, such as weeks and hours worked, total income and income 

components, such as earnings, noncash benefits, and program participation, among other 

things. Data on employment and income refer to the preceding calendar year, although 

demographic data refer to the time of the survey. These data are used to produce the 

official annual estimate of poverty, and estimates of a number of other socioeconomic and 

demographic characteristics, including income, health insurance coverage, educational 

attainment, marital status, and family structure. 

111The SPM research files are produced by Census and enable researchers to replicate 

the estimates for the Supplemental Poverty Measure described in reports, The Research 

Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013, 2012, 2011, and 2010 (P60-251, P60-247, P60-

244 and P60-241). All of the SPM research files use Census 2010-based population 

controls. The SPM research files provide data on the resources, SPM poverty threshold, 

and identification of the SPM unit and the SPM unit head for every observation in the 

corresponding file from CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement. 

Number and Household 

Characteristics of

People in Poverty
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 77 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

definition of an “SPM Resource Unit,” which includes related individuals 

living together, plus unrelated children who are living with the family (such 

as foster children) and any cohabitors (i.e., unmarried partners) and their 

children. An SPM unit could consist of a single individual. Census defines 

a household’s SPM resources—which we call its income—to include its 

cash income plus the value of certain noncash benefits minus estimated 

expenses related to work, child support, taxes, and medical care.112

To describe the number of people with household incomes above and 

below the SPM poverty threshold, we categorized individuals into five 

income groups based on their household’s income as a percent of its 

SPM threshold:

Each 

household’s SPM threshold represents the amount of income it should 

have available to sufficiently pay for food, housing, clothing, and utilities, 

plus 20 percent more for miscellaneous necessary expenses. The Bureau 

of Labor Statistics derives SPM thresholds from actual expenditures on 

these items averaged over the previous five years. Thresholds are set at 

the amount that approximately two-thirds of households spent or 

exceeded and vary by household size, homeownership, and geographic 

location.

• household resources less than 50 percent of its SPM threshold;

• household resources from 50 percent to less than 100 percent of its 

SPM threshold;

• household resources from 100 percent to less than 150 percent of its 

SPM threshold;

• household resources from 150 percent to less than 200 percent of its 

SPM threshold; and

• household resources 200 percent of its SPM threshold or greater.

 112For the purposes of the SPM, noncash benefits include those received by any 

household members from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the National 

School Lunch Program, housing assistance (which could be from federal, state, or local 

programs), and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Workrelated expenses, including costs of transportation, child care, and other miscellaneous 

expenses are estimated for each household member who is employed. Taxes include the 

household’s estimated federal and state income taxes and payroll taxes, minus the value 

of tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Additional Child Tax 

Credit (ACTC). Medical expenses include estimated out-of-pocket medical expenses and 

Medicare Part B Premiums.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 78 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

The first two income groups are considered to be in poverty according to 

the SPM, and the latter three groups are considered to be above the 

poverty line.

We calculated each individual’s income group according to the official 

poverty measure in a similar fashion, except that we used their family 

income rather than their SPM unit income. Census’ official poverty 

statistics use the family—defined as related individuals living together—

as the unit of measurement and do not include children under the age of 

15 who are living with nonrelatives, such as foster children. We also 

followed Census procedures to define family income to include its cash 

income only, and we used official poverty thresholds, which vary by size 

of family and age of family members, but not by geographic location or 

homeownership.

For this analysis, we categorized households into six mutually-exclusive 

types, as follows:

• Headed by elderly persons: Households (with or without children) 

headed by a person who is 65 or over, regardless of whether he or 

she has a disability. The head of household may live alone, with a 

spouse, or with a cohabiting partner.

• Headed by persons with disabilities: Households (with or without 

children) headed by a person under 65 with a disability. The head of 

household may live alone, with a spouse, or with a cohabiting partner. 

We used a Census Bureau definition of disability, which includes any 

serious difficulty hearing, seeing, concentrating/remembering/making 

decisions, walking/climbing stairs, dressing/bathing, or doing errands 

alone.

• Without children: Households without children headed by a person 

under 65 without a disability. The head of household may live alone, 

with a spouse, or with a cohabiting partner.

• Married with children: Households with at least one child headed by a 

married person under 65 who does not have a disability.

• Cohabiting with children: Households with at least one child headed 

by an unmarried person under 65 who has a cohabiting partner and 

does not have a disability.

• Single parent: Households with at least one child headed by an 

unmarried person under 65 who does not have a disability or a 

cohabiting partner.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 79 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

For each of the datasets we used in this analysis (CPS, its Annual Social 

and Economic Supplement, and the SPM Research file), we conducted a 

data reliability assessment of selected variables including those used in 

our analysis. We reviewed technical documentation and related 

publications and websites with information about the data and spoke with 

Census officials knowledgeable about these datasets to review our plans 

for analyses, as well as to resolve any questions about the data and any 

known limitations. We also conducted electronic testing, as applicable, to 

check for logical consistency, missing data, and consistency with data 

reported in technical documentation. We determined that the variables 

that we used from the data we reviewed were reliable for the purposes of 

this report.

Throughout this report, when we present estimates from survey data, we 

also present the applicable margins of error (i.e., the maximum half-width 

of the 95 percent confidence interval around the estimate). In some 

cases, the confidence intervals around our estimates are asymmetrical; 

however, we present the maximum half-width for simplicity and for a 

consistent and conservative representation of the sampling error 

associated with our estimates.

To address our third question, we used data for calendar year 2012 on 

recipients of selected programs from the Transfer Income Model, version 

3—a microsimulation model known as TRIM3. TRIM3 is developed and 

maintained by staff at the Urban Institute with funding primarily from the 

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. The TRIM3 model simulates major 

governmental tax, transfer, and health programs using data from the 

CPS, which contains detailed information on the demographic 

characteristics and economic circumstances of U.S. households, 

including their benefits from many federal programs. However, CPS data 

substantially underreports the receipt of these benefits. For example, 

Urban Institute staff found that CPS data captured about 61 percent of 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits received in 

2012 and about 57 percent of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) benefits, when comparing CPS data with program administrative 

data (data collected by agencies used to administer the program). TRIM3 

corrects for this undercounting by creating new variables for each survey 

respondent indicating their program eligibility, amount of benefits 

Estimating the Number 

and Characteristics

of Selected Programs’

Recipients
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 80 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

received, and tax liability, following the same steps that a caseworker 

would use to determine eligibility, as explained below.113

We studied eight of the low-income programs that TRIM3 modeled for 

calendar year 2012, the most recent year that data were available.114 In 

addition to being included in the TRIM3 model, selected programs were 

generally large and covered a range of basic needs.115 Table 7 describes 

the programs we selected, along with the program unit that TRIM3 used 

to calculate benefits and caveats about interpreting the data.

 113According to Urban Institute staff, the TRIM3 model estimates eligibility, when possible, 

using the same units that programs use, including state-level variations. For example, for 

tax expenditures, it uses the tax unit, which is comprised of the people who file income 

taxes together; whereas for housing assistance, it uses the entire household. Additionally, 

the construction of filing units for TANF takes into account the state-specific rules for 

whether or not step-parents are included. See table 7 for descriptions of the units used by 

the TRIM3 model for each of the programs we studied. For more information on the 

TRIM3 model, see trim3.urban.org.

114We did not include the Child Care and Development Fund, which TRIM3 simulates 

without CPS survey data on who reported receiving this assistance. Urban Institute staff 

said that participation in this program is assigned based on income and family 

characteristics, as well as program rules; however, due to the relatively small number of 

participants in this program, there is a greater degree of randomness in assigning 

participation for this program than other programs in its model. While we did not study this 

program specifically, we did use TRIM3’s simulated child care expenditures and benefits 

when calculating household income relative to the SPM threshold.

115Urban Institute did not have 2012 TRIM3 microsimulation data on recipients of 

Medicaid. Urban Institute staff noted that adjusting for Medicaid underreporting would 

require detailed data on the actual caseload that was not available to them at the time that 

the simulation work for 2012 was being performed.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 81 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Table 7: Information about TRIM3 Estimates Used to Study Selected Programs

Program

Who is included in TRIM3 

program unit

TRIM3 estimates of 2012 

annual caseload (number 

of individual recipients)

TRIM3 estimates of 2012

total benefitsa

Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC)b People who file income taxes 

together

51.9 million $18.6 billion

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)b People who file income taxes 

together

62.9 million $46.7 billion

Housing assistancec Everyone living in the assisted 

household

10.8 million $36.1 billion

Low Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

Everyone living in the assisted 

household

18.3 million $2.6 billion

Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC)d

Related people and unmarried 

parents living together 

8.1 million $5.6 billion

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP)e Generally, everyone living in the 

assisted household

58.0 million $71.2 billion

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Recipient individuals; spouses 

may be included in unit if both 

are recipients

8.4 million $52.1 billion (includes state 

supplements)

Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) cash assistance

Parents or caretakers and ageeligible children; some units are 

child-only

5.8 million $8.0 billion (cash assistance 

only; includes state 

supplements)

Source: GAO analysis of TRIM3 microsimulation data. | GAO-15-516

Note: Each estimate in this figure has a 95 percent confidence interval of within +/- 7 percent of the

estimate itself.

a

Benefit spending totals in this table reflect TRIM3 estimates of benefits provided to recipients of 

selected programs in 2012 and do not include program spending that did not go directly toward 

benefits (e.g. program administrative costs).

b

For federal tax credits, TRIM 3 uses information from CPS and public-use IRS data and then applies 

the federal income tax rules in as much detail as feasible given the survey data, according to TRIM3 

documentation. For the EITC and ACTC, the model assumes that all tax units that appear eligible in 

their model claimed these tax credits. For the EITC, TRIM3 found 17 percent fewer tax units eligible 

for the EITC than actually took the credit in 2012, based on IRS data. Differences in TRIM3 estimates 

for tax credit recipients and IRS data are due to a combination of factors, according to Urban Institute. 

For instance, the model assumes full compliance with all rules, while some tax filers may not comply 

fully with the tax law. Also, there may be differences in how respondents describe their circumstances 

in survey data versus for tax purposes, which may be due in part to when the survey is conducted 

versus when taxes are filed.

c

Recipients of housing assistance in TRIM3 are those who reported receiving public or subsidized 

housing in the CPS, excluding apparently ineligible households. These households could include 

recipients of housing programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), other federal agencies, or state or local governments. These could also include households 

who responded in error as living in public or subsidized housing. TRIM3’s calculation of eligibility and 

benefit amounts most closely approximates the operation of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher 

Program, in which the amount of housing assistance is based on the household’s income, size of 

housing unit, and location, according to HUD guidance.

d

TRIM3’s estimate of the number of children receiving WIC is within 1 percentage point of the actual 

caseload, but the estimate of the number of women recipients is only 45 percent of its target. CPS 

does not ask if women are pregnant, so TRIM3 can only identify pregnant women when childless 

women report receiving WIC benefits.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 82 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

e

TRIM3 generally assumes that everyone in a SNAP recipient household files together as a single 

unit, but it may split a household into multiple filing units under certain circumstances, such as if 

someone in the household receives TANF or CPS data indicate that some, but not all, household 

members receive SNAP.

The TRIM3 model corrects for underreporting through multiple steps. 

First, TRIM3 identifies whether each survey respondent appears eligible 

for the program, generally using the same units that each program uses 

(individual, family, household, etc.). In addition to CPS data on each 

respondent’s income and demographic characteristics, the model uses 

the Urban Institute’s extensive catalog of program rules, including state 

variations in income eligibility and asset tests, income disregards, benefit 

computation, and differences in state income taxes.116

Next, when TRIM3 finds more respondents to be eligible than the number 

who actually participate, according to program administrative data, the 

model chooses some of the eligible respondents to participate in the 

program. Those that report receiving the benefit in CPS are assumed to 

have reported correctly, although TRIM3 uses for its calculation the value 

of the benefit they receive rather than the amount they reported on the 

CPS. Additionally, the model selects a portion of survey respondents who 

did not report receiving benefits, but appear eligible, and assigns them as 

recipients. It makes this selection in such a way that the size and key 

characteristics of the simulated caseload come close to those of the 

actual caseload, as indicated by administrative data from the programs.

The model also 

determines how much each respondent would be eligible to receive in 

benefits.

117

 116 We did not independently verify the legal accuracy of this information. TRIM3 makes 

additional adjustments to CPS data that are necessary to determine program eligibility, 

such as simulating immigrant status and correcting some data for underreporting, such as 

certain child support payments sent and received.

117TRIM3 does not adjust its data to meet administrative targets for housing assistance 

and assumes that 100 percent of those eligible for tax credits claim the credit. For the 

other five programs we studied, it adjusts the number of recipients to meet targets, derived 

from program administrative data, for the number of recipients and sometimes for the 

amount of benefits provided. All TRIM3 estimates were within 2 percentage points of the 

target except SNAP benefits (95 percent of the target), WIC benefits (79 percent of 

target), and number of women receiving WIC (45 percent of target). WIC benefits and 

recipients are low because CPS does not contain information on pregnancy, so TRIM3 

can only capture benefits to childless women who report receiving WIC. (TRIM3 assumes 

they must be receiving benefits based on pregnancy, since they have no other children 

who could be the recipients.) TRIM3 estimates were within 1 percent of the target for the 

number of children receiving WIC. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 83 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

It assigns recipients the full amount of benefits for which they are eligible.

For programs that determine eligibility on a monthly basis, TRIM3 also 

models participation on a month-by-month basis, capturing the fact that a 

family with part-year work might be eligible for different benefits during 

months of employment than during months of unemployment. TRIM3 also 

accounts for program interactions in its modeling so that estimates are 

internally consistent. For example, if a family is simulated to receive 

TANF, the SNAP simulation accounts for the simulated TANF benefits 

when computing SNAP eligibility and benefits.

The TRIM3 model does not allow ineligible recipients. If survey 

respondents reported receiving a program benefit, but the TRIM3 

calculations showed that the respondents would be ineligible based on 

income or other factors reported on the survey, then the TRIM3 model 

would not include them as participants. Urban Institute staff told us that, 

according to some studies that have merged survey data with 

administrative data records, at least half of the individuals who report a 

benefit for which they appear ineligible are not actually recipients 

according to the administrative data.

In order to study the individual recipients of each of the eight programs 

we selected, we assigned each individual program recipient a benefit 

amount. SNAP, TANF, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) 

benefits were already assigned to each individual person by TRIM3. For 

other programs, TRIM3 calculated benefits for the program unit, and we 

divided the program unit’s benefits evenly among its members. 

Specifically, we divided Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Additional 

Child Tax Credit (ACTC) benefits evenly among all members of the tax 

unit (people who file income taxes together) identified by TRIM3, and we 

divided Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and 

housing assistance benefits evenly among everyone living in the same 

household.118

We used TRIM3 data to study program recipients’ benefit amounts, 

incomes as a percentage of the SPM poverty threshold, and household 

types, following the typology that we developed for our second question. 

 118We made these allocations for EITC, ACTC, and housing assistance, but TRIM3 made 

the allocation for LIHEAP benefits. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 84 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

We contracted with the Urban Institute to provide us with data on the 

incomes of each household relative to their SPM threshold using TRIM3 

simulated data for benefit receipt and amounts. TRIM3 SPM estimates 

use the same thresholds developed by Census (with the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics).119

To determine the effects of program’s benefits on recipient incomes 

relative to the SPM threshold, we subtracted the value of each program’s 

benefit from its recipients and recalculated their household incomes 

relative to their SPM thresholds. In doing so, we held all else the same 

and assumed no other changes occurred, such as changes to other 

benefit levels or in people’s behavior.

TRIM3 also defines SPM in the same way as Census, but 

uses TRIM3’s simulated values for a number of variables that affect 

income and resources, including assistance from programs mentioned 

above, taxes (including federal and state income taxes, payroll taxes, and 

capital gains taxes), child care expenses, and child support paid.

To assess the reliability of the TRIM3 data we used, we reviewed 

extensive documentation on the TRIM3 model and data sources, 

interviewed staff from the Urban Institute who were responsible for the 

work provided under our contract, and reviewed the Urban Institute’s 

internal quality control procedures. Following guidance from the Urban 

Institute, we merged the TRIM3 baseline data for 2012 with Census’

replicate weight file for the CPS March 2013 Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement (for 2012 data). We used adjusted replicate weights in our 

analysis based on the underrepresentation of unauthorized aliens and 

high-income families in the CPS data.120

 119 TRIM3 thresholds differ slightly for a small number of households in which a teen living 

with a parent is identified as the household reference person (and therefore not a “child”) 

in the CPS data, but is treated as a child for the purpose of the TRIM3 simulations and 

poverty definition.

Although the microsimulation 

process introduces analytical decisions into the production of estimated 

120The TRIM3 2012 baseline file contains 240,145 observations, and the CPS March 2013 

Annual Social and Economic Supplement contains 202,634 observations. The TRIM3 file 

contains additional observations because it includes “clones”–additional observations that 

are simulated by the TRIM3 model to help it meet its targets for immigrant status and highincome households. All the clones for any one CPS person have an identical set of 

replicate weights. For each clone, we constructed the ratio of the TRIM3 person weight to 

the original CPS weight; this ratio is a number between 0 and 1. For each clone, we then 

multiplied each of that clone’s 160 replicate weight variables [REPWT1 – REPWT160] by 

the ratio, to construct 160 adjusted replicate weights. The result is that the unweighted 

number of the cloned people is expanded, but not the weighted number.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 85 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

variables, we treated the program estimates its models produced as if 

they were numbers tabulated directly from the survey data, following 

guidance provided by the Urban Institute. We determined that none of the 

data limitations or modeling assumptions affected or compromised the 

analysis for this report and the data are considered to be sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes.

To address our fourth question, we conducted an economic literature 

review on whether receipt of assistance from selected programs, 

including EITC, SNAP, TANF, and the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher 

program, affects recipients’ incentive to work. We conducted a literature 

search of various databases for peer-reviewed journal articles, and other 

publications to identify relevant studies that were published in recent 

years (2009 through 2014) and also reviewed some studies that were 

published earlier. We also inquired with agency officials for relevant 

studies and reviewed policy and research organization websites. 

Additionally, we reviewed citations of other relevant work discussed in 

studies. In describing findings from the literature, we included studies that 

were determined to be methodologically sound. Based on our review of 

studies, we identified reasonable conclusions about likely work incentives 

related to selected low-income programs. We did not do an exhaustive 

review of the literature on this topic.

Economic Literature 

Review
Appendix II: Information Provided by Agencies 

on Program Purpose and Type of Benefit or 

Service for Low-Income Programs

Page 86 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program Program purpose Benefit or service provided

Cash aid

Additional Child Tax Credit To assist eligible parents with dependent children whose 

tax liability is not sufficient to receive the full benefit of 

the regular nonrefundable Child Tax Credit.

Refundable tax credit.

Earned Income Tax Credit To offset the burden of taxes, including Social Security 

taxes; provide an incentive to work; and provide income 

support to low-income families.

Tax credit to reduce the amount of income 

taxes owed; an eligible worker may receive 

the credit regardless of whether taxes are 

owed (i.e., the credit is refundable).

Exclusion of Cash Public 

Assistance Benefits

To allow exclusion of public assistance benefits from 

taxable income.

Reduces tax liability for recipients of public 

assistance

Veterans Pension and 

Survivors Pension

To provide assistance to needy veterans, their surviving 

spouses, and surviving children

Cash assistance.

Supplemental Security 

Income

To provide a minimum income for aged, blind or disabled 

individuals who have very limited income and assets.

Cash assistance. The basic federal SSI 

benefit is the same for all beneficiaries 

nationwide (reduced by any countable 

income). States may supplement the federal 

benefit.

Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families

(This program provides 

funding for cash assistance, 

employment and training, 

and social services.)

To accomplish one or more of the following: (1) provide 

assistance to needy families so that children may be 

cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; 

(2) end the dependence of needy parents on government 

benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and 

marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-ofwedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical 

goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these 

pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and 

maintenance of two-parent families.

Noncash services, including child care, work 

activities, child welfare services, and various 

social services directed toward the statutory 

goals of family formation and reduced 

nonmarital pregnancies. Cash assistance 

benefit levels are defined by the individual 

states.

Food Assistance

Child and Adult Care Food 

Program (lower-income 

components)

To enable nonresidential day care institutions to integrate 

a nutritious food service with organized care services for 

enrolled children and adults.

Breakfasts, lunches, suppers and snacks 

that meet minimum federal nutrition 

standards.

Commodity Supplemental 

Food Program

To improve the health of low-income elderly persons at 

least 60 years of age by supplementing their diets with 

nutritious Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foods, 

which are distributed through public and nonprofit private 

local agencies such as food banks and community action 

organizations.

Food packages and nutrition education.

Food Distribution Program 

on Indian Reservations

To provide USDA foods to low-income households living 

on or near Indian reservations.

Income eligible households receive a 

supplemental monthly food package and 

nutrition education. 

Fresh Fruits and 

Vegetables Program

To provide free fresh fruits and vegetables to elementary 

school children. The goal is to create healthier school 

environments by providing healthier food choices.

Selected schools receive reimbursement for 

the cost of making free fresh fruits and 

vegetables available to students during the 

school day.

Appendix II: Information Provided by 

Agencies on Program Purpose and Type of 

Benefit or Service for Low-Income Programs
Appendix II: Information Provided by Agencies 

on Program Purpose and Type of Benefit or 

Service for Low-Income Programs

Page 87 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program Program purpose Benefit or service provided

National School Lunch 

Program (free and reducedprice components)

To safeguard the health and well-being of the nation’s 

children and to encourage the domestic consumption of 

nutritious agricultural commodities and other food.

Lunches that meet minimum federal nutrition 

standards and are served free or at reduced 

price by participating public and private 

elementary and secondary schools and 

residential child care institutions.

Nutrition Assistance 

Program for Puerto Rico

To improve diets of needy persons living in Puerto Rico. Nutrition assistance benefits. Benefits are 

provided through electronic benefit 

transfers, and at least 75% must be used for 

food purchases.

Nutrition Service for the 

Elderly

To reduce hunger and food insecurity, promote 

socialization, and promote the health and well-being of 

older individuals and delay adverse health conditions 

through access to nutrition and other disease prevention 

and health promotion services.

Meals served in congregate settings, homedelivered meals, and related nutrition 

services (nutrition screening, education and 

assessment and counseling).

School Breakfast Program 

(free and reduced-price 

components)

To promote learning readiness and healthy eating 

behaviors through provision of nutritious breakfasts.

Breakfasts that meet minimum federal 

nutrition standards and are served free or at 

reduced price by participating public and 

private elementary and secondary schools 

and residential child care institutions.

Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants and 

Children (WIC)

To provide supplemental food and nutrition education to 

eligible women and children to serve as an adjunct to 

good health care during critical times of development, to 

prevent the occurrence of health problems, including 

drug abuse, and improve the health status of 

beneficiaries.

Food assistance (provided through cash 

value vouchers or electronic benefit transfer 

card for the purchase of specifically 

prescribed food packages), nutrition risk 

screening, and related services (e.g., 

nutrition education and breastfeeding 

support, medical care referral).

Summer Food Service 

Program

To help children in low-income areas get necessary 

nutrition during the summer months when they are out of 

school.

Meals and snacks.

Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program 

To alleviate hunger and malnutrition and permit lowincome households to obtain a more nutritious diet by 

increasing their food purchasing power.

Benefits are provided through an electronic 

benefit transfer card to purchase food from 

authorized retailers. Allotments are 

determined on the basis of a low-cost model 

diet plan.

The Emergency Food 

Assistance Program

To supplement the diets of low-income Americans, 

including elderly people, by providing them with 

emergency food and nutrition assistance at no cost.

Food commodities that are distributed to 

local feeding programs and the 

administrative costs necessary to store and 

transport the commodities.

Health care

National Breast and 

Cervical Cancer Early 

Detection Program

To provide low-income, uninsured, and underserved 

women access to timely breast and cervical cancer 

screening and diagnostic services.

Clinical breast examinations, mammograms, 

Pap tests, pelvic examinations, diagnostic 

testing, and referrals to treatment. No fees 

for services may be charged for women with 

incomes below 100% of federal poverty 

guidelines.
Appendix II: Information Provided by Agencies 

on Program Purpose and Type of Benefit or 

Service for Low-Income Programs

Page 88 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program Program purpose Benefit or service provided

Consolidated Health 

Centers

To provide comprehensive, culturally competent, quality 

primary health care services to medically underserved 

communities and vulnerable populations.

Primary and additional health care services 

defined in statute, delivered by community 

health centers, migrant health centers, 

health centers for the homeless, and health 

centers for residents of public housing.

Family Planning To assist individuals to determine freely the number and 

spacing of their children through the provision of 

education, counseling, and medical services.

A broad range of family planning methods 

and services. Family planning services 

include clinical family planning and related 

preventive health services; information, 

education and counseling related to family 

planning; and referral services. 

Indian Health Service To elevate the health status of the Indian population to a 

level at parity with the general U.S. population.

Hospital, medical, and dental care, 

behavioral health, environmental health and 

sanitation services as well as outpatient 

services and the services of mobile clinics 

and public health nurses, and preventive 

care, including immunizations and health 

examinations of special groups, such as 

school children.

Maternal and Child Health 

Block Grant

To improve the health of all mothers and children 

consistent with applicable health status goals and 

national health objectives established by the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services (HHS).

Preventive and primary health care services 

(excluding inpatient services with some 

exceptions) for women, infants, and 

children, including children with special 

health care needs.

Medicaid To provide medical assistance to qualifying individuals, 

and to provide rehabilitation and other services to help 

such families and individuals achieve independence and 

self-care.

Federal law provides two primary medical 

benefit packages for state Medicaid 

programs: traditional benefits and alternative 

benefit plans (ABPs). 

Medical Care for LowIncome Veterans Without 

Service-Connected 

Disability 

To provide necessary hospital care and medical services 

to eligible veterans.

Standardized medical benefits package 

including preventive services; primary care, 

specialty care, prescription drugs, 

comprehensive rehabilitative services, 

mental health services; and emergency care 

in VA facilities and in non-VA facilities by 

contract or as authorized by 38 U.S.C. §§

1728 or 1725.

Ryan White HIV/AIDS 

Program 

To address the unmet care and treatment needs of 

persons living with HIV/AIDS who are uninsured or 

underinsured, and therefore are unable to pay for 

HIV/AIDS health care and vital health-related supportive 

services.

Benefits include a wide range of medical 

and supportive services to help persons 

living with HIV/AIDS who are uninsured or 

underinsured.

State Children’s Health 

Insurance Program 

To provide health coverage to uninsured, low-income 

children in an effective and efficient manner that is 

coordinated with other sources of health benefits 

coverage for children.

Benefits vary by state, but all benefits 

provide health coverage to uninsured, lowincome children.
Appendix II: Information Provided by Agencies 

on Program Purpose and Type of Benefit or 

Service for Low-Income Programs

Page 89 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program Program purpose Benefit or service provided

Transitional Cash and 

Medical Services to 

Refugees

To provide for the effective resettlement of refugees and 

to assist them to achieve economic self-sufficiency as 

quickly as possible.

Cash payments to eligible individuals that 

are at least equal to the payment rate to a 

family of the same size under the state’s 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF) program; and medical benefits, 

through payments to doctors, hospitals and 

pharmacists. Those eligible for 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) may 

receive refugee cash assistance while their 

SSI applications are pending.

Voluntary Medicare 

Prescription Drug BenefitLow-Income Subsidy

To provide low-income seniors and people with 

disabilities with comprehensive prescription drug 

benefits.

Prescription drug coverage with reduced 

premiums, copayments and other out ofpocket expenses.

Housing and development

Choice Neighborhoods 

Implementation Grants

To transform neighborhoods of poverty into viable mixedincome neighborhoods with access to economic activities 

by revitalizing severely distressed public and assisted 

housing and investing and leveraging investments in 

well-functioning services, effective schools, and 

education programs, public assets, public transportation, 

and improved access to jobs.

Funds to rehabilitate or replace distressed 

public and assisted housing; provide 

supportive services for residents, such as 

those focused on self-sufficiency, health, 

safety, and education; and support 

community improvements, such as 

environmental, retail, or transit 

improvements. 

Community Development 

Block Grants

To develop viable urban communities by providing 

decent housing and a suitable living environment and 

expanding economic opportunities, principally for 

persons of low to moderate income.

Assistance with the acquisition of real 

property, relocation and demolition, 

rehabilitation of residential and 

nonresidential structures, construction of 

public facilities and improvements, public 

services within certain limits, activities 

related to energy conservation and 

renewable energy resources, and 

assistance to nonprofit entities and to profitmotivated businesses to carry out economic 

development and job creation/retention 

activities. 

HOME Investment 

Partnerships Program 

To increase the number of families served with decent, 

safe, sanitary and affordable housing and expand the 

long-term supply of affordable housing; and to strengthen 

the ability of states and local governments to provide for 

housing needs.

Assistance with the real estate development 

and construction activities to increase the 

supply of affordable housing.

Homeless Assistance 

Grants

Promote the goal of ending homelessness; provide 

funding for nonprofits, states, and local governments to 

quickly re-house the homeless; promote use of 

mainstream programs and optimize self-sufficiency 

among those experiencing homelessness.

Transitional housing for homeless 

individuals and families, permanent housing 

for disabled homeless individuals, and 

supportive services. Renovation, 

rehabilitation, or conversion of buildings into 

homeless shelters, services such as 

employment counseling, health care and 

education, assistance with rent or utility 

payments to prevent homelessness.
Appendix II: Information Provided by Agencies 

on Program Purpose and Type of Benefit or 

Service for Low-Income Programs

Page 90 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program Program purpose Benefit or service provided

Housing Opportunities for 

Persons with AIDS 

To devise long-term comprehensive strategies for 

meeting the housing needs of persons with AIDS.

Housing assistance and related supportive 

services; real estate and construction 

assistance; project- or tenant-based rental 

assistance; short-term rent, mortgage, and 

utility payments to prevent homelessness; 

supportive services such as health services, 

drug and alcohol abuse treatment, day care, 

nutritional services, and aid in gaining 

access to other public benefits.

Indian Housing Block 

Grant

(1) To promote quality, affordable housing on Indian 

reservations and areas; (2) to ensure access to private 

mortgage markets for Indian tribes; (3) to coordinate 

activities to provide housing for Indian tribes; (4) to plan 

for and integrate infrastructure resources with housing 

development for tribes; and (5) to promote the 

development of private capital markets in Indian country.

Housing development, assistance to 

housing developed under the former Indian 

Housing Program, housing services to 

eligible individuals and families, crime 

prevention and safety, and model activities 

that provide creative approaches to solving 

affordable housing problems.

Low-Income Housing Tax 

Credit

To allow developers and owners of qualified low-income 

housing projects to claim a tax credit for construction or 

rehabilitation costs. 

Tax credit to reduce amount of taxes owed.

Public Housing To provide cost-effective, decent, safe and affordable 

rental housing for eligible low-income families, the 

elderly, and persons with disabilities.

Subsidized publicly-owned rental housing 

units. In general, assisted households pay 

30 percent of their income for rent.

Rental Housing Bonds 

Interest Exclusion

To allow holders of rental housing bonds to exclude 

interest from taxable income.

Tax exclusion to reduce amount of taxes 

owed.

Rural Rental Assistance 

Payments

To reduce the rent paid by low-income households in 

eligible units financed under certain Rural Housing 

Service programs.

Rental subsidies for low-income tenants 

provided through payments to eligible

property owners; payments make up the 

difference between the tenant’s rental 

payment to the owner and the approved rent 

for the unit.

Section 8 Housing Choice 

Vouchers

To provide very low-income families with decent, safe 

and affordable housing in the private market.

Tenant-based vouchers that can be used to 

help recipients afford privately-owned rental 

housing. In general, recipients pay 30 

percent of their “adjusted” income for rent, 

with the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) providing a subsidy for 

the difference up to a maximum limit based 

on local Fair Market Rents.

Section 8 Project-Based 

Rental Assistance

To provide very low-income families with decent, safe 

and affordable housing in the private market.

Rent subsidies tied to units in privatelyowned multifamily housing properties. In 

general, tenants pay 30 percent of their 

adjusted income for rent, with HUD 

providing a subsidy for the remaining 

amount up to the contract rent level. 

Supportive Housing for 

Persons with Disabilities

To allow persons with disabilities to live as independently 

as possible in the community by increasing the supply of 

rental housing with the availability of supportive services.

Financial assistance for development of 

supportive housing for persons with 

disabilities, and rent subsidies for eligible 

tenants.
Appendix II: Information Provided by Agencies 

on Program Purpose and Type of Benefit or 

Service for Low-Income Programs

Page 91 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program Program purpose Benefit or service provided

Supportive Housing for the 

Elderly

To help expand the supply of affordable housing with 

supportive services for the elderly.

Financial assistance for development of

supportive housing for the elderly, and rent 

subsidies for eligible tenants.

Water and Waste Disposal 

Systems for Rural 

Communities

To provide basic human amenities, alleviate health 

hazards, and promote the orderly growth of the nation’s 

rural areas by meeting the need for new and improved 

rural water and waste disposal facilities.

Long-term low-interest loans and grants to 

support the construction, repair, 

improvement or expansion of rural water 

facilities.

Energy assistance

Low-Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program

To assist low-income households, particularly those with 

the lowest incomes, that pay a high proportion of their 

income for home energy, primarily in meeting their 

immediate home energy needs.

Assistance to households in paying their 

heating and cooling costs, crisis 

intervention, home weatherization, and 

services (such as counseling) to help reduce 

energy costs.

Weatherization Assistance To increase the energy efficiency of homes owned or 

occupied by low-income persons to reduce their total 

residential energy costs, and improve their health and 

safety.

Computerized energy audits and diagnostic 

equipment to determine the most energyefficient measures for each individual home; 

labor and materials necessary to install such 

energy-efficient measures. 

Social services

Adoption Assistance To facilitate the timely placement of children whose 

special needs (which may include age, membership in a 

large sibling group or a racial/ethnic minority group, 

physical or mental disabilities or other circumstances as 

determined by the state) would otherwise make it difficult 

to place them with adoptive families.

One-time nonrecurring payments to assist 

with the costs of adopting a special needs 

child (e.g., adoption fees, court costs, 

attorney fees) and ongoing monthly 

payments to adoptive families; 

administrative and child placement services 

intended to promote child safety, 

permanency and well-being.

Affordable Care Act 

Maternal, Infant, and Early 

Childhood Home Visiting 

Program

To strengthen and improve the programs and activities 

carried out under Title V; to improve coordination of 

services for at-risk communities; to identify and provide 

comprehensive services for families who reside in at-risk 

communities.

Home visiting services during pregnancy 

and to parents with young children up to age 

five. 

Chafee Foster Care 

Independence Program

To help current and former foster youth achieve selfsufficiency.Educational assistance, vocational training, 

employment services, life skills training, 

mentoring, preventive health activities, 

counseling, and (subject to certain 

limitations) room and board.

Child Care and 

Development Fund

To develop child care programs that best suit the needs 

of children and parents in each state, to empower 

working parents to make their own decisions on the child 

care that best suits their family’s needs, to provide 

consumer education to help parents make informed 

decisions, to provide child care to parents trying to 

achieve independence from public assistance, and to 

help states implement their child care regulatory 

standards.

Subsidized child care services that may 

include center-based care, group home 

care, family care, and care provided in the 

child’s own home. States also use a portion 

of funds for quality improvement activities, 

such as professional development and 

training, and quality rating and improvement 

systems.
Appendix II: Information Provided by Agencies 

on Program Purpose and Type of Benefit or 

Service for Low-Income Programs

Page 92 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program Program purpose Benefit or service provided

Child Support 

Enforcement

To enforce the support obligations owed by noncustodial 

parents to their children and the spouse (and former 

spouse) with whom such children are living through 

locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, 

obtaining child and spousal support, and assuring that 

assistance in obtaining support will be available to all 

children who request such assistance.

Noncustodial parent location, paternity 

establishment, establishment of child 

support orders, review and modification of 

child support orders, collection of child 

support payments, distribution of child 

support payments, and establishment and 

enforcement of medical support.

Community Services 

Block Grant

To reduce poverty, revitalize low-income communities, 

and empower low-income individuals and families in rural 

and urban areas to become fully self-sufficient.

A wide range of activities may be supported 

to help low-income individuals and families 

become self-sufficient; address the needs of 

youth in low-income communities; and 

effectively use and coordinate with related 

programs.

Emergency Food and 

Shelter Program

To provide shelter, food, and supportive services for 

homeless individuals nationwide.

Mass shelter, mass feeding, food 

distribution through food pantries and food 

banks, one-month utility payments to 

prevent service cutoff, one-month 

rent/mortgage payments to prevent evictions 

or help people leaving shelters to establish 

stable living conditions.

Foster Care To provide temporary out-of-home care for children who 

cannot safely remain in their own homes, until the 

children may be safely returned home; placed 

permanently with adoptive families, in a legal 

guardianship, or with a fit and willing relative; or placed in 

another planned permanent living arrangement.

Payments to foster care providers to cover 

the costs of children’s maintenance (e.g., 

room and board, clothing and supplies, 

liability insurance, certain travel expenses); 

and support for administrative and child 

placement services intended to promote 

safety and permanency for children and 

well-being for children and their families.

Head Start To promote school readiness by enhancing the social 

and cognitive development of children through the 

provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and 

other services to children and their families; and (for 

Early Head Start) to promote healthy prenatal outcomes, 

enhance the development of infants and toddlers, and 

promote healthy family functioning.

Comprehensive child development services, 

including educational, dental, medical, 

nutritional, and social services to children 

and their families. Services may be center 

based, home-based, or a combination, and 

may be full- or part-day or full- or part-year.

Indian Human Services 

(Division of Human 

Services)

To provide financial assistance for needy American 

Indians who live on or near reservations; to support tribal 

programs to reduce substance abuse and alcoholism; to 

promote stability and security of American Indian tribes 

and families; and to improve Indian housing for lowincome Indians.

Assistance in processing welfare 

applications, foster care assistance 

services, operation of emergency shelters 

and similar services; cash payments to meet 

basic needs; counseling and family 

assistance services, protective day care, 

after-school care; and renovations, repairs, 

or additions to existing homes.

Legal Services 

Corporation 

To provide equal access to the justice system for 

individuals who seek redress of grievances and to 

provide high quality legal assistance to those would be 

otherwise unable to afford legal counsel.

Legal services in civil cases.
Appendix II: Information Provided by Agencies 

on Program Purpose and Type of Benefit or 

Service for Low-Income Programs

Page 93 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program Program purpose Benefit or service provided

Older Americans Act: 

National Family Caregiver 

Support Program

To provide multifaceted systems of support services for 

family caregivers and grandparents or older individuals 

who are relative caregivers.

Assistance to caregivers in gaining access 

to services; individual counseling, support 

groups, and caregiver training in the areas 

of health, nutrition, and financial literacy; 

and supplemental services, on a limited 

basis, to complement the care provided by 

caregivers.

Older Americans Act 

Grants for Supportive 

Services and Senior 

Centers

To secure and maintain maximum independence and 

dignity in a home environment for older individuals 

capable of self-care with appropriate supportive services, 

to remove individual and social barriers to economic and 

personal independence for older individuals, and to

provide a continuum of care for older individuals.

A large variety of services including health, 

mental health, education, transportation, 

housing, legal, abuse prevention, 

employment, and counseling for older 

individuals.

Social Services Block Grants To promote economic self-sufficiency; prevent abuse or 

neglect of children; refer individuals into institutional care 

only when appropriate. 

Variety of social services for children, 

families, the aged, the mentally retarded, the 

blind, the emotionally disturbed, the 

physically disabled, and alcoholics and drug 

addicts.

Employment and training

Community Service 

Employment for Older 

Americans 

To enable eligible low-income individuals over age 55 to 

become self-sufficient through placement in community 

service positions and job training.

Part-time temporary community service jobs 

that pay at least minimum wage, job-related 

training, and supportive services that are 

necessary to enable an individual to 

participate in the program.

Foster Grandparent Program To provide opportunities for older low-income people to 

have a positive impact on the lives of children in need.

Volunteer service (between 15 and 40 hours 

weekly), with hourly stipend, providing 

services to children with special or 

exceptional needs or with conditions or 

circumstances that limit their academic, 

social or economic development.

Job Corps To assist eligible youth who need and can benefit from 

an intensive program, operated in a group setting in 

residential and nonresidential centers, to become more 

responsible, employable, and productive citizens.

Education and vocational training, including 

advanced career training; work experience; 

recreational activities; physical rehabilitation 

and development; job placement and 

counseling; and child care.

Social Services and 

Targeted Assistance for 

Refugees

To provide for the effective resettlement of refugees and 

to assist them to achieve economic self-sufficiency as 

quickly as possible.

Employability and other services that 

address participants’ barriers to employment 

such as social adjustment services, 

interpretation and translation services, day 

care for children, citizenship and 

naturalization services. Services are 

designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs 

within 1 year of becoming enrolled.

Workforce Investment Act 

Adult Activitiesa To assist eligible individuals in finding and qualifying for meaningful employment, and to help employers find the 

skilled workers they need to compete and succeed in 

business.

Services range from career counseling, job 

training, and supportive services such as 

transportation and child care.
Appendix II: Information Provided by Agencies 

on Program Purpose and Type of Benefit or 

Service for Low-Income Programs

Page 94 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program Program purpose Benefit or service provided

Workforce Investment Act 

Youth Activitiesb To improve educational and skill competencies of youth and develop connections to employers, mentoring 

opportunities with adults, training opportunities, 

supportive services, incentives for recognition and 

achievement, and leadership opportunities.

Strategies to complete secondary school, 

alternative secondary school services, 

summer employment, work experience, 

occupational skill training, leadership 

development opportunities, supportive 

services, adult mentoring, follow-up 

services, and comprehensive guidance and 

counseling.

Work Opportunity 

Tax Credit

To increase job opportunities for specified groups of 

disadvantaged individuals.

Reduces the net cost to employers of hiring 

individuals who belong to specified groups.

Education

21st Century Community 

Learning Centers 

To create community learning centers that provide 

academic enrichment opportunities during non-school 

hours (i.e., before school, after school, or during summer 

sessions) to help students meet academic achievement 

standards, particularly for children who attend highpoverty and low-performing schools. Also offers families 

of participating students opportunities for literacy and 

related educational development.

.

Academic enrichment programs including 

math, science, arts, music, recreational, 

technology, and entrepreneurial education 

programs; activities for limited-Englishproficient students; promoting parental 

involvement and family literacy; drug and 

violence prevention programs; counseling 

and character education programs.

Adult Education Grants to 

States (Adult Education and 

Family Literacy Act)

To assist adults to become literate and obtain the 

knowledge and skills necessary for employment and 

economic self-sufficiency; to assist adults who are 

parents to obtain the education and skills necessary to 

become full partners in the educational development of 

their children, and that lead to sustainable improvements 

in their family’s economic opportunities; to assist adults 

in completing a secondary school education and in 

making the transition to postsecondary education and 

training; and to assist immigrants and other English 

language learners in improving their English reading, 

writing, speaking, and comprehension skills and 

mathematics skills, and in acquiring an understanding of 

the American system of government, individual freedom, 

and the responsibilities of citizenship.

Adult education and literacy activities, 

including adult education, literacy, 

workplace adult education and literacy 

activities, family literacy activities, English 

language acquisition activities, integrated 

English literacy and civics education, 

workforce preparation activities, and 

integrated education and training.

Education for the 

Disadvantaged- Grants to 

Local Educational Agencies 

(Title I, Part A)

To ensure that all children have a fair, equal and 

significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education 

and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging 

state academic achievement standards and state 

academic assessments.

Additional academic support and learning 

opportunities for students in prekindergarten 

through grade 12 that attend schools with 

high numbers or high percentages of 

children from low-income families to help 

low-achieving children master challenging 

curricula and meet state standards in core 

academic subjects.

Federal Pell Grants To promote access to postsecondary education for lowincome students.Need-based grants (size of grant is capped 

by law) to eligible students at participating 

institutions of higher education. 

Federal Supplemental 

Educational Opportunity 

Grants 

To promote access to postsecondary education for lowincome undergraduate students.Grants to help students with the costs of 

postsecondary education.
Appendix II: Information Provided by Agencies 

on Program Purpose and Type of Benefit or 

Service for Low-Income Programs

Page 95 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program Program purpose Benefit or service provided

Federal TRIO Programs To motivate and assist students from disadvantaged 

backgrounds through outreach and support programs 

designed to help them move through the academic 

pipeline from middle school to post baccalaureate 

programs.

Academic instruction; personal, academic 

and career counseling; tutoring; exposure to 

cultural events and academic programs; 

stipends; and grant aid.

Federal Work-Study To assist students in financing the costs of 

postsecondary education.

Federally subsidized part-time employment 

for students.

Gaining Early Awareness 

and Readiness for 

Undergraduate Programs 

To assist low-income students attain a secondary school 

diploma or equivalent and prepare for and succeed in 

postsecondary education.

Special teacher training and early 

intervention services; e.g., counseling, 

mentoring, academic support, outreach, and 

supportive services designed to better 

promote high school graduation. Also 

college scholarships and other financial 

assistance needed for students served to be 

able to attend an institution of higher 

education.

Higher Education: Aid for

Institutional Development 

programs and Developing 

Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions programs

To assist institutions of higher education that serve high 

percentages of low-income and minority students in 

improving their management, fiscal operations, and 

educational quality, to ensure access and equal 

educational opportunity for low-income and minority 

students.

Possible activities are broad and depend on 

the specific program. They may include, but 

are not limited to, assistance in planning; 

administrative management; development of 

academic programs; equipment and 

facilities assistance; staff development and 

tutoring.

Improving Teacher Quality 

State Grants

To increase student achievement through improving 

teacher and principal quality and increasing the number 

of highly qualified teachers, principals and assistant 

principals in classrooms and schools.

State and local activities include 

professional development, support for 

educator evaluation systems, provision of 

recruitment and retention bonuses to highly 

qualified teachers, and other means of 

improving teacher quality. At the school 

district level, also hiring highly qualified 

teachers to reduce class size.

Indian Education – Bureau of 

Indian Education

To provide comprehensive education programs and 

services for American Indians and Alaska Natives; to 

provide quality education opportunities from early 

childhood through life in accordance with the tribes’

needs for educational, cultural and economic wellbeing in 

keeping with the wide diversity of Indian tribes and 

Alaska Native villages as distinct cultural and 

governmental entities.

Preschool, elementary, secondary, 

postsecondary and adult education at BIEfunded institutions, public schools, and 

postsecondary institutions; financial 

assistance for postsecondary education at 

accredited institutions.

Indian Education—Formula 

Grants to Local Educational 

Agencies

To support local educational agencies in their efforts to 

reform elementary school and secondary school 

programs that serve Indian students in order to ensure 

that such programs: (1) are based on challenging state 

academic content and student academic achievement 

standards that are used for all students; and (2) are 

designed to assist Indian students in meeting those 

standards.

Grant funds supplement the regular school 

program, and support comprehensive 

programs to meet the culturally related 

academic needs of Indian children. Funds 

support such activities as after-school 

programs, early childhood education, 

tutoring, and dropout prevention.
Appendix II: Information Provided by Agencies 

on Program Purpose and Type of Benefit or 

Service for Low-Income Programs

Page 96 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program Program purpose Benefit or service provided

Mathematics and Science 

Partnerships 

To improve the content knowledge of teachers and the 

performance of students in the areas of mathematics and 

science.

Enhanced professional development of 

math and science teachers, promotion of 

strong teaching skills, and summer 

workshops or institutes.

Rural Education 

Achievement Program 

To address the unique needs of rural school districts that 

frequently lack the personnel and resources needed to 

compete effectively for federal competitive grants, and 

receive formula grant allocations in amounts too small to 

be effective in meeting their intended purposes.

A wide range of services to improve rural 

education through enhanced services for 

children, teacher training, and academic 

programs, including for limited English 

proficient children. 

Title I Migrant Education 

Program

To help ensure that migratory children are afforded the 

same educational quality, opportunities, and assistance 

as other students.

Supplemental education and support 

services, tutoring, summer and extendedday instructional services, language 

development services, career education 

services and counseling; and other services.

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses. | GAO-15-516

Note: GAO did not independently verify the legal accuracy of this information. For more information 

on our methodology, see appendix I.

a

This program became Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Adult Activities on July 1, 2015

b

This program became Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Youth Activities on July 1, 2015
Appendix III: Information Provided

by Agencies on Federal Obligations

(Fiscal Year 2013) and Number Served for LowIncome Programs (Time Periods Vary)

Page 97 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program

(type of assistance) 

Fiscal year 2013 

obligations

(in millions) Number served 

Time Period for number served 

(vary based on information 

provided by agencies)

Medicaid (health care) $287,454a Average of 57.4 million individuals 

(including 27.9 million children) per

month; total of 72.8 million individuals 

were enrolled during the year (including 

35 million children). 

Average monthly based on fiscal 

year 2013; cumulative total for 

fiscal year 2013

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (food assistance) 

$80,110b Average of 47.6 million individuals (or 

23.1 million households) per month 

Average monthly based on fiscal 

year 2013 

Earned Income Tax Credit (cash 

aid) 

$57,513c 27.9 million tax returns claimed the 

EITC (of these, 24.3 million had a credit 

that exceeded their tax liability) 

Cumulative total for calendar year 

2012

Supplemental Security Income

(cash aid) 

$56,486d 9.1 million individuals who received at 

least 1 payment during the year, not 

including those who only receive a state 

supplementary payment.

Calendar year 2013 

Federal Pell Grants (education) $31,887 8.6 million students Cumulative total for 2012-2013 

school year 

Voluntary Medicare Prescription 

Drug Benefit-Low-Income Subsidy 

(health care) 

$22,400e 11.5 million beneficiaries Calendar year 2013 

Additional Child Tax Creditf

(cash aid) 

$21,608 19.8 million tax returns Cumulative total for calendar year 

2012 

Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 

(housing and development) 

$17,897 2.2 million households with 5.36 million 

persons

Single point-in-time (August 2014)

Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (cash aid, employment and 

training, and social services) 

$17,334 (of this 

amount, cash 

amount totaled 

$6,200)g 

Average of 3.5 million individuals 

receiving cash assistance per month 

(caseload average without state 

supplemental funds)

Average monthly for fiscal year 

2014 

Medical Care for Low- Income 

Veterans Without Service 

Connected Disability (health care) 

$13,764h 1.4 million veterans Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Education for the Disadvantaged –

Grants to Local Educational

Agencies (Title I, Part A)(education) 

$13,757 23.8 million students Cumulative total for 2012-2013 

school year 

National School Lunch Program, 

free and reduced-price components 

(food assistance) 

$10,549i 5,083 million lunches, and 222 million

snacks 

Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

State Children’s Health Insurance 

Program (health care) 

$9,357 8.1 million children and 219,473 adults 

ever enrolled during the year 

Cumulative total fiscal year 2013 

Section 8 Project based Rental 

Assistance (housing and 

development) 

$8,820 1.2 million households with 2.1 million 

persons 

Single point in time (March 2013)

Head Start (social services) $7,573 903,679 children Single point in time for fiscal year

2013 

Appendix III: Information Provided

by Agencies on Federal Obligations

(Fiscal Year 2013) and Number Served for 

Low-Income Programs (Time Periods Vary)
Appendix III: Information Provided

by Agencies on Federal Obligations

(Fiscal Year 2013) and Number Served for LowIncome Programs (Time Periods Vary)

Page 98 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program

(type of assistance) 

Fiscal year 2013 

obligations

(in millions) Number served 

Time Period for number served 

(vary based on information 

provided by agencies)

Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (food assistance) 

$6,946 8.7 million individuals Average monthly participation for 

fiscal year 2013 

Public Housing (housing and 

development)

$5,834j 1.1 million households with 2.34 million 

persons 

Average number of individuals 

served at any time during this time 

period-July 2013 to October 2014. 

Indian Health Service (health care) $5,661 2.2 million American Indians and 

Alaskan natives 

Calendar year 2013 

Veterans Pension and Survivors 

Pension (cash aid) 

$5,186 515,947 total; 308,995 veterans; 

206,952 survivors

Average monthly caseload for 

fiscal year 2013 

Child Care and Development Fund 

(social services) 

$5,123k 1.5 million individuals Average monthly for fiscal year 

2013a (preliminary data) 

Child Support Enforcement (social 

services) 

$4,244 39.3 million children and parents Single point in time for fiscal year 

2013 

Foster Care (social services) $4,132 Average of 158,800 children per month Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

School Breakfast Program, free and 

reduced-price components (food 

assistance) 

$3,514 2.2 billion breakfasts served Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Low-Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program (energy 

assistance) 

$3,255 Approximately 6.4 million households Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 (preliminary data) 

Child and Adult Care Food 

Program, lower-income components 

(food assistance) 

$2,799 2 billion meals served Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Community Development Block 

Grants (housing and development) 

$2,971l 13.1 million individuals Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Consolidated Health Centers 

(health care) 

$2,945m 21.7 million individuals Cumulative total for calendar 

year2013 

Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants (education) 

$2,334 Agency does not track number served n/a 

Adoption Assistance (social 

services) 

$2,278 Average of 436,400 children per month Average monthly number for fiscal 

year 2013 

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program 

(health care) 

$2,249 524,674 individuals Cumulative total for calendar year 

2013 

Homeless Assistance Grants 

(housing and development) 

$2,086 760,000 individuals Cumulative total for calendar 

year2013 

Nutrition Assistance Program for 

Puerto Rico (food assistance) 

$2,001n 1.4 million households per month; 

666,624 households on average per 

month 

Average monthly number for fiscal 

year 2013 

Job Corps (employment and 

training) 

$1,718o 55,000 students Cumulative total for program year 

2013 
Appendix III: Information Provided

by Agencies on Federal Obligations

(Fiscal Year 2013) and Number Served for LowIncome Programs (Time Periods Vary)

Page 99 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program

(type of assistance) 

Fiscal year 2013 

obligations

(in millions) Number served 

Time Period for number served 

(vary based on information 

provided by agencies)

Social Services Block Grant (social 

services) 

$1,613 29.6 million individuals Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2012 

21st Century Community Learning 

Centers (education) 

$1,092 1.7 million students Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Federal Work Study (education) $934 690,428 students Cumulative total for 2012- 2013 

school year 

Home Investment Partnerships 

Program (housing and 

development) 

$919 5,100 multifamily rental units developed 

or rehabbed per year, with 463,000 total 

from the program inception (1992).

Affordability terms are generally for 20 

years.

Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013

Workforce Investment Act Youth 

Activitiesp (employment and 

training) 

$856p 218,050 individuals Cumulative total for program year 

2012 

Rural Rental Assistance Payments

(housing and development)

$837 285,000 housing units Single point in time for fiscal year 

2014-Sept. 2014 

Federal TRIO Programs (education) $796 759,101 students Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Higher Education: Aid for 

Institutional Development Programs 

and Developing Hispanic-serving 

Institutions Programs (education) 

$779 Agency does not track annual number 

servedq n/a

Nutrition Service for the Elderly 

(food assistance) 

$765

(not all for lowincome) 

2.5 million individuals Unduplicated count of people 

served during federal fiscal year 

2012 

Indian Education – Bureau of Indian 

Education (education) 

$754 365,000 students Cumulative total for 2013 school 

year

Workforce Investment Act Adult 

Activitiesr(employment and training) 

$731r 6.8 million individuals Cumulative total for program year 

2012 (July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013) 

Federal Supplemental Educational 

Opportunity Grants (education) 

$698 1.6 million students Cumulative total for 2013 school 

year

Community Services Block Grant 

(social services) 

$635 15.7 million individuals Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Indian Housing Block Grant 

(housing and development) 

$627 360 grantees Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Maternal and Child Health Block 

Grant (health care) 

$605 42.0 million individuals Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Adult Education Grants to States 

(Adult Education and Family 

Literacy Act) (education) 

$564 1.7 million individuals Single point in time: 2013 school 

year
Appendix III: Information Provided

by Agencies on Federal Obligations

(Fiscal Year 2013) and Number Served for LowIncome Programs (Time Periods Vary)

Page 100 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program

(type of assistance) 

Fiscal year 2013 

obligations

(in millions) Number served 

Time Period for number served 

(vary based on information 

provided by agencies)

Water and Waste Disposal Systems 

for Rural Communities (housing and 

development) 

$524 1.8 million individuals Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Summer Food Service Program 

(food assistance) 

$437 150.7 million meals served Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Community Service Employment for 

Older Americans (employment and 

training) 

$429s 67,814 individuals Cumulative total for program year

(July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014) 

Transitional Cash and Medical 

Services to Refugees (health care)

$401 79,596 individuals Fiscal year 2013

Supportive Housing for the Elderly 

(housing and development)

$389 116,700 housing units Single point in time fiscal year 

2013 (March 2013) 

Affordable Care Act Maternal, 

Infant, and Early Childhood Home 

Visiting Program (social services) 

$378 77,023 individuals New enrollees in fiscal year 2013 

plus those who enrolled in 

previous years and received 

services at any point in fiscal year 

2013. 

Title I Migrant Education Program 

(education)

$374 246,182 children and youth Cumulative total for 2012 school 

year

Older Americans Act Grants for 

Supportive Services and Senior 

Centers (social services)

$348

(not all for lowincome)

11.7 million individuals Fiscal year 2012 

Legal Services Corp. (social 

services)

$343 1.8 million individuals Cumulative total for calendar year 

2013 

Housing Opportunities for Persons 

with AIDS (housing and 

development)

$315 52,249 households Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

The Emergency Food Assistance 

Program (food assistance)

$311t Agency does not track annual number 

served 

n/a

Gaining Early Awareness and 

Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs (education)

$286 617,437 students Number served at any point during 

fiscal year 2013 

Family Planning (health care) $278 4.8 million individuals Cumulative total for calendar year 

2012 

Social Services and Targeted 

Assistance for Refugees 

(employment and training)

$197 318,514 individuals Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

National Breast and Cervical 

Cancer Early Detection Program 

(health care)

$197 533,406 individuals Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Commodity Supplemental Food 

Program (food assistance)

$186 Average of 579,759 persons served per 

month 

Monthly average served in fiscal 

year 2013 

Rural Education Achievement 

Program (education) 

$170 5.1 million students Single point in time- 2014 school 

year 
Appendix III: Information Provided

by Agencies on Federal Obligations

(Fiscal Year 2013) and Number Served for LowIncome Programs (Time Periods Vary)

Page 101 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program

(type of assistance) 

Fiscal year 2013 

obligations

(in millions) Number served 

Time Period for number served 

(vary based on information 

provided by agencies)

Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 

Program (food assistance)

$165 Agency does not track annual number 

served 

n/a

Older American’s Act: National 

Family Caregiver Support Program 

(social services)

$146

(not all for lowincome)

822,551 individuals Fiscal year 2012 

Mathematics and Science 

Partnerships (education)

$141 1.8 million students Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Chafee Foster Care Independence 

Program (social services)

$140 641,000 individuals Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Weatherization Assistance (energy 

assistance)

$135u 126,240 individuals/48,757 housing 

units 

Cumulative total for 2013 Grantee 

Program year 

Choice Neighborhoods 

Implementation Grants (housing 

and development)

$117 4 grantees Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Emergency Food and Shelter 

Program (social services)

$114 9,371 local service organizations Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Foster Grandparent Program 

(employment and training)

$105 22,700 Volunteer Service Years Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Supportive Housing for Persons 

with Disabilities (housing and 

development)

$102 32,238 housing units Cumulative total for calendar year 

2014 

Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations (food assistance)

$100 Average of 75,608 persons per month Monthly average for fiscal year 

2013 

Indian Education- Formula Grants 

to Local Educational Agencies 

(education)

$100 475,000 American Indian students Single point in time 2013 school 

year

Indian Human Services (Division of 

Human Services) (social services)

$100 56,319 individuals Cumulative total for fiscal year 

2013 

Exclusion of Cash Public 

Assistance Benefits (cash aid)

v Agency does not track annual number 

served 

n/a

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 

(housing and development)

v Agency does not track annual number 

servedw n/a

Rental Housing Bonds Interest 

Exclusion (housing and 

development)

v $5,616 million in new money, long-term 

issues in 2012 for qualified residential 

rental facility bonds

Cumulative total for calendar year 

2012 

Work Opportunity Tax Credit 

(employment and training)

x 1.2 million individuals Average number of approved 

certifications for fiscal year 2012 

and fiscal year 2013.y

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses. | GAO-15-516

Notes: Fiscal year 2013 obligation amounts are rounded to the nearest million. Amounts include total 

federal program costs, including program administration, research, and other related costs.

a

The federal total for Medicaid includes grants to states ($286,920 million) as well as State Grants 

and Demonstrations ($534 million).
Appendix III: Information Provided

by Agencies on Federal Obligations

(Fiscal Year 2013) and Number Served for LowIncome Programs (Time Periods Vary)

Page 102 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

b

Includes employment and training, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act) supplement, and the Nutrition Block Grant for American Samoa.

c

Includes the refundable portion only.

d

Includes federal obligations and does not include state supplementary payments.

e

This total is aggregate reimbursements under the Low-Income Subsidy program in calendar year 

2013 (from 2014 Medicare trustees’ report).

f

The Additional Child Tax Credit is the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit.

g

Includes TANF Family Assistance Grants to States, Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood 

Grants, Tribal Work Programs, and the TANF Contingency Fund. No information on the number of 

recipients of noncash services.

h

This amount is a subset of the amount for veterans in Priority 1-6 listed in the U.S. Budget Appendix, 

Fiscal Year 2015.

i

Includes costs for after school snacks.

j

Includes operating and capital funds. It does not include the Choice Neighborhoods program amount.

k

Includes obligations from Child Care Entitlement and the Child Care Development Block Grant.

l

Includes obligations for disaster relief.

mIncludes amount under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Federal Tort Claims Act.

n

Includes Recovery Act supplement.

o

The amount listed is from the U.S. Budget Appendix. The agency provided the program year amount 

(July 1 through June 30 of the following calendar year),which is based on its authorization and 

appropriation and is used to allocate funds and measure performance. That amount was $1,479 

million.

p

This program became the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Youth Activities on July 1, 

2015. The amount listed is from the U.S. Budget Appendix. The agency provided the program year 

amount (July 1 through June 30 of the following calendar year), which is based on its authorization 

and appropriation and is used to allocate funds and measure performance. That amount was $781 

million.

q

These programs are not intended to provide services directly to individuals.

r

This program became the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Adult Activities on July 1, 2015. 

The amount listed is from the U.S. Budget Appendix. The agency provided the program year amount 

(July 1 through June 30 of the following calendar year), which is based on its authorization and 

appropriation and is used to allocate funds and measure performance. That amount was 

$731,000,000.

s

The amount listed is from the U.S. Budget Appendix. The agency provided the program year amount 

(July 1 through June 30 of the following calendar year), which is based on its authorization and 

appropriation that is used to allocate funds and measure performance. That amount was $425 million.

t

Excludes bonus foods distributed through the Emergency Food assistance Program.

u

Approximate since some activities have not been closed out for grant period.

v

No federal spending in obligations.

w

Agency noted that under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, state housing agencies 

were required to collect and submit demographic and economic information on tenants to the agency 

by September 31, 2010. The agency is still in the process of processing the data and these have not 

been made available.

x

No federal spending in obligations for the tax credit. However, in fiscal year 2013, the Department of 

Labor provided about $18 million in grants to states to process certification requests for the Work 

Opportunity Tax Credit, according to the agency.

y

According to the agency, this number represents the number of individuals who applied for a job and 

were certified by a state workforce agency as being a member of a targeted group for the Work 

Opportunity Tax Credit. They did not necessarily work long enough for the employer to receive the 

credit and an individual could be certified more than once in a fiscal year.
Appendix IV: List of Programs Based on Types 

of Income Eligibility or Targeting

Page 103 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Based on our analysis of agency responses to our survey, 49 of the 82 

federal low-income programs we identified include income or financial 

eligibility requirements for potential recipients at the individual, household, 

or related level (see table 8). Thirty-three programs do not assess income 

eligibility at the individual (or related) level. Instead these programs 

allocate resources based on a measure of financial need, but offer 

services more broadly; give priority to those who are low-income; or serve

a group that is presumed low-income or which tends to be 

disproportionately low-income. The table is not meant to be a 

comprehensive list of program eligibility criteria. For example, for certain 

programs, agencies reported that states have some flexibility to set 

specific financial eligibility criteria. Any such state-determined criteria are 

not shown in this table. The table also does not show any information 

provided on automatic or categorical eligibility. Additionally, agencies 

reported that some programs use other criteria, such as age, to determine 

eligibility in addition to income or financial requirements, which are not 

included in this table. If an agency reported that a program used more 

than one type of income eligibility criteria, we counted it only in one 

category.

Appendix IV: List of Programs Based on 

Types of Income Eligibility or Targeting
Appendix IV: List of Programs Based on Types 

of Income Eligibility or Targeting

Page 104 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Table 8: List of Federal Low-Income Programs Based on Types of Income Eligibility or Targeting 

Programs That Have Some Type of Income Eligibility Criteria at the Individual, Household or Related Level

Type of income eligibility criteria or lowincome targeting and description

(number of programs using this type)

Federal poverty guidelines: These are based on 

the official poverty thresholds and determined 

by HHS on an annual basis.a The federal 

poverty guideline in 2013 for a household of one 

was $11,490 (for most states and Washington, 

D.C.).

Programs may use eligibility criteria based on 

certain percentages of the federal poverty 

guidelines.

For example, eligible households for the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (if 

not automatically eligible) generally must have 

gross monthly income no higher than 130% of 

federal poverty guidelines, a net monthly 

income no higher than 100% of the federal 

poverty guidelines and limited liquid assets.

(20 programs)

Food assistance:

• Child and Adult Care Food Programb

• Commodity Supplemental Food Program*

• Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

• National School Lunch Program (free and reduced-price)

• School Breakfast Program (free and reduced-price)

• Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Health care:

• Medicaid*

• State Children’s Health Insurance Program*

• Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Low Income Subsidy

Energy assistance:

• Low-Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP)c*

• Weatherization Assistance

Social services:

• Community Services Block Grant*

• Head Start

• Legal Services Corporation

Employment and training:

• Community Service Employment for Older Americans

• Foster Grandparents Program

• Job Corps

• Workforce Investment Act Youth Activitiesd

Education

• Federal TRIO Programs
Appendix IV: List of Programs Based on Types 

of Income Eligibility or Targeting

Page 105 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Programs That Have Some Type of Income Eligibility Criteria at the Individual, Household or Related Level (continued)

Type of income eligibility criteria or lowincome targeting and description

(number of programs using this type) Program names

Area Median Income and related measures:

Various percentages of area median income are 

used to determine eligibility and/or target 

program benefits. For example, in the Section 8

Housing Choice Vouchers program, eligible 

families must be “very low-income” (with 

incomes no higher than 50% of area median 

income), but 75% of vouchers that become 

available each year must go to families that are 

“extremely low-income” (incomes no higher than 

30% of area median income).

(9 programs)

Housing and development:

• HOME Investment Partnerships Program

• Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS

• Public Housing

• Rural Rental Assistance Payments

• Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers

• Section 8 Project Based Rental Assistance

• Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities

• Supportive Housing for the Elderly

Social services:

• Child Care and Development Fund*

Specified income threshold: Thresholds can 

vary by household size and/or other criteria and 

may be updated annually. For example, in 

general, the income limit in 2013 for an 

individual receiving SSI was $1,505 for 

someone whose countable income was only 

from wages and $730 for someone whose 

countable income was not from wages. For a

couple, it was $2,217 and $1086, respectively.

(7 programs)

Cash aid:

• Additional Child Tax Credit

• Earned Income Tax Credit

• Veterans Pension and Survivors Pension

• Supplemental Security Income

Health care:

• Medical Care for Low-Income Veterans without Service-Connected Disabilitye

Social services:

• Adoption Assistancef

• Foster Caref

Needs analysis: Certain education programs 

use a needs analysis to determine the amount 

of aid a student is eligible to receive, based on 

family income and assets.

(3 programs)

Education:

• Federal Pell Grants

• Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants

• Federal Work Study
Appendix IV: List of Programs Based on Types 

of Income Eligibility or Targeting

Page 106 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Programs That Have Some Type of Income Eligibility Criteria at the Individual, Household or Related Level (continued)

Type of income eligibility criteria or lowincome targeting and description

(number of programs using this type) Program names

Defined at the state or local level: Financial 

eligibility criteria is set or defined by states, 

localities, or other entities administering the 

benefits.

For example, under TANF, states determine the 

income and asset criteria for eligible families 

with children.

(7 programs)

Cash aid, social services, and employment and training:

• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Food assistance:

• The Emergency Food Assistance Program

• Nutrition Assistance Program for Puerto Ricog

Health care:

• Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program

Social services:

• Affordable Care Act Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting 

Program

• Emergency Food and Shelter

• Social Services Block Granth

Other: These programs have other types of 

income eligibility requirements at the individual, 

household, or related level, not captured above.

(3 programs)

Cash aid:

• Exclusion of Cash Public Assistance Benefits

Health care:

• Transitional Cash and Medical Services to Refugees

Employment and training

• Work Opportunity Tax Credit
Appendix IV: List of Programs Based on Types 

of Income Eligibility or Targeting

Page 107 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Programs Targeted to Low-Income Populations with No Individual Income Eligibility Criteria

Description of type of low-income targeting

(number of programs using this type)

Name of programs

Target area, entity, or group using a measure of 

financial need: Resources for these programs 

are generally allocated based on a measure of 

financial need, such as the number of lowincome children (based on federal poverty 

guidelines) in a certain area; however, benefits 

or services may serve a broader group. For 

example, funds for the Education for the 

Disadvantaged-Grants to Local Educational

Agencies (Title I, Part A) program are allocated 

to school attendance areas and schools based 

on the number of children from low-income 

families. Depending on the percentage of lowincome students in a school, schools funded by 

this program may serve all students, or must 

focus services on low-achieving students in the 

school.

(15 programs)

Food assistance:

• Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Program

• Summer Food Service Program

Health care:

• Consolidated Health Centers

Housing and development:

• Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants

• Community Development Block Grants

• Indian Housing Block Grants

• Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities

Social Services:

• Indian Human Services (Division of Human Services)

Education:

• 21st Century Community Learning Centers

• Education for the Disadvantaged-Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Title I, 

Part A)

• Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs

• Higher Education: Aid for Institutional Development programs and Developing 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions programs

• Improving Teacher Quality State Grants

• Mathematics and Science Partnerships

• Rural Education Achievement Program 
Appendix IV: List of Programs Based on Types 

of Income Eligibility or Targeting

Page 108 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Programs Targeted to Low-Income Populations with No Individual Income Eligibility Criteria (continued)

Description of type of low-income targeting

(number of programs using this type)

Name of programs

Priority for low income: These programs give 

priority to those who are low-income, but serve 

a broader group. For example, the Nutrition 

Service for the Elderly generally serves 

individuals who are 60 and older, but preference 

is given to individuals with the greatest 

economic and social needs, with particular 

attention to low-income older individuals.

(10 programs)

Food assistance:

• Nutrition Service for the Elderly

Health care:

• Family Planning

• Maternal and Child Health Block Grant*

• National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program

Housing and development:

• Low Income Housing Tax Credit

• Rental Housing Bonds Interest Exclusion

Social services:

• Child Support Enforcement

• Older Americans Act: National Family Caregiver Support Program

• Older Americans Act Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers

Employment and Training:

• Workforce Investment Act Adult Activitiesi

Program target population is presumed to be 

low-income or tends to be low-income: These 

programs generally do not use a specific 

measure of need, but are included in the 

inventory because they target groups presumed 

to be low-income or which tend to be 

disproportionately low-income.

(8 programs)

Health care:

• Indian Health Service

Housing and development:

• Homeless Assistance Grants

Social services:

• Chafee Foster Care Independence Program

Employment and training:

• Social Services and Targeted Assistance for Refugees

Education:

• Adult Education Grants to States (Adult Education and Family Literacy Act)

• Indian Education – Bureau of Indian Educationj

• Indian Education – Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies

• Title I Migrant Education Program

Source: GAO analysis of agency survey responses. GAO did not independently verify the legal accuracy of the information provided. | GAO-15-516

Notes: This table is not a comprehensive list of the program eligibility criteria identified by the 

agencies. For example, this table does not include any state-determined income or financial eligibility 
Appendix IV: List of Programs Based on Types 

of Income Eligibility or Targeting

Page 109 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

criteria, any automatic or categorical eligibility criteria, or any nonfinancial criteria used to determine 

eligibility in addition to income or financial requirements.

*For these programs, the agency reported that states may establish their own eligibility criteria within 

federal parameters, for some or all portions of the program.

a

The federal poverty guidelines issued by HHS are a simplified version of the official poverty 

thresholds issued by Census. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 requires HHS to 

update the poverty guidelines at least annually, adjusting them on the basis of the Consumer Price 

Index for All Urban Consumers. 42 U.S.C. § 9902(2). There are some differences between the federal 

poverty guidelines and the official poverty thresholds. For instance, the guidelines vary by family size, 

while the poverty thresholds vary by family size, number of children, and, for households with one or 

two people, whether these members are elderly. In addition, due to differences in the timing of when 

each measure is updated, the poverty guidelines are approximately equivalent to the poverty 

thresholds for the prior year.

b

For free or reduced price meals served to individuals in centers. All meals served in homes are free; 

providers receive higher reimbursement if they are low-income or in a low-income area.

c

Financial eligibility is based on the state’s choice between up to 150 percent of federal poverty 

guidelines or 60 percent of area median income, whichever is higher, but no lower than 110 percent 

of federal poverty guidelines.

d

Financial eligibility could also be based on Department of Labor’s Lower Living Standard criteria.

This program became Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Youth Activities on July 1, 2015.

e

Financial eligibility is based on meeting both a specified income threshold and an area median 

income threshold.

f

Financial eligibility is based on income eligibility criteria as of 1996 under a former program, Aid for 

Families with Dependent Children. Under the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing 

Adoptions Act of 2008, income related eligibility criteria are phased out for children entering the 

Adoption Assistance program beginning in fiscal year 2010 and no income eligibility criteria will 

remain by fiscal year 2018.

g

Defined by annual agreement between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Puerto Rico.

h

However, any funds transferred into the Social Services Block Grant from the Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families program must be used to serve children and their families whose incomes are no 

greater than 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines.

i

This program became Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Adult Activities on July 1, 2015.

j

Although there are no financial eligibility requirements for elementary and secondary students, 

otherwise eligible students accepted or enrolled at an accredited institution of higher education must 

be determined to have financial need by the institution’s financial aid offices.
Appendix V: Federal Agencies’ Evaluation 

Efforts for Five Selected Programs

Page 110 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

We collected descriptive information on the recent efforts of federal 

agencies to evaluate five selected programs: the Earned Income Tax 

Credit (EITC), Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8 Vouchers), 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental 

Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF). We selected these programs because they are financially large 

programs, meet basic needs through different types of assistance, and 

vary in how benefits are administered. We focused on impact 

evaluations121 conducted or sponsored by the respective agencies, 

published in 2010 or later, that were related to participant outcomes 

(excluding, for example, those related to program processes, operations, 

or integrity).122 In addition to evaluations, we looked at other recent 

research conducted or sponsored by the respective agencies that 

provided information on program participants. For each program, we also 

looked at performance measures, focusing on those related to participant 

outcomes. In addition, we reviewed agency information available online 

(e.g., evaluations, research, and annual performance reports) and 

conducted semi-structured interviews with knowledgeable agency 

officials. Federal administering agencies are: the Department of the 

Treasury (Treasury) for EITC, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) for Section 8 Vouchers, the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) for SNAP, Social Security Administration (SSA) for 

SSI, and Department of Health of Human Services (HHS) for TANF.

Four of the five agencies conducted or sponsored recent evaluations 

related to participant outcomes for their respective selected programs. 

Evaluations focused on a range of subjects, including employment 

practices and self-sufficiency (TANF, SSI, Section 8 Vouchers), food 

 121Impact evaluation is a form of outcome evaluation that assesses the net effect of a 

program by comparing program outcomes with an estimate of what would have happened 

in the absence of the program. This type of study is conducted when external factors are 

known to influence the program outcomes, in order to isolate the program’s contribution to 

the achievement of its objectives.

122For the purposes of this report, we focused on evaluations and performance measures 

related to program outcomes and did not include agencies’ efforts for the five programs 

related to measuring and improving program efficiencies or accountability measures or 

studies. For all of the programs, agencies had efforts in place to measure or study ways to 

improve program administration, such as those related to eligibility determination 

processes, client services, or identification and reduction of improper payments. We did 

not identify all of these efforts or assess them.

Appendix V: Federal Agencies’ Evaluation 

Efforts for Five Selected Programs

Evaluations
Appendix V: Federal Agencies’ Evaluation 

Efforts for Five Selected Programs

Page 111 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

security and healthy food consumption (SNAP), and family outcomes 

(Section 8 Vouchers), among others (see table 9; see table 10 at the end 

of this section for full names of evaluations). Unlike the four spending 

programs we examined, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) does 

not conduct program evaluations related to program outcomes on the 

EITC or any other tax expenditure. In our prior work, we have 

recommended that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) set up a 

performance evaluation framework for tax expenditures, which represent 

a substantial federal commitment.123 However, Treasury staff are aware 

of and contribute to the academic research on participant outcomes 

related to the EITC, such as on work, poverty, and household income.124

Agencies administering Section 8 Vouchers, SNAP, SSI and TANF 

generally did not evaluate their respective programs as a whole, with the 

exception of USDA’s evaluation of SNAP’s effect on food security and 

food spending. Instead, these agencies typically evaluated different 

practices within the program, often experimenting with new and 

innovative practices. For example, the SNAP Healthy Incentives Pilot 

Evaluation was aimed at testing new types of financial incentives 

designed to make fruits and vegetables more affordable for SNAP 

participants. Another example is TANF’s Pathways to Advance Career 

Education evaluation, which is currently testing promising strategies for 

increasing employment and self-sufficiency among low-income families. 

Many evaluations across the four programs were also conducted to study 

the effects of the program on particular sub-populations of participants. 

For example, SSA’s Youth Transition Demonstration tested strategies 

designed to help youth with disabilities who were receiving SSI to 

transition to economic self-sufficiency as adults, while USDA had 

evaluations looking at food security among the elderly and working poor 

populations.

 123Because these expenditures are not evaluated, GAO concluded it is difficult to 

determine their performance; including costs, benefits, and whether they achieve program 

goals. See: GAO, Tax Expenditures Represent a Substantial Federal Commitment and 

Need to Be Reexamined, GAO-05-690 (Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2005); Tax 

Expenditures: Background and Evaluation Criteria and Questions, GAO-13-167SP

(Washington, D.C.: November 29, 2012).

124For example, a recent literature review looking at participant effects of the EITC on 

work, household income, poverty, and other issues, includes research conducted by 

Treasury staff. See, A. Nichols and J. Rothstein, The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC),

Working Paper 21211, (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, May

2015). 
Appendix V: Federal Agencies’ Evaluation 

Efforts for Five Selected Programs

Page 112 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Table 9: Federal Agencies’ Recent Efforts to Evaluate Program Effects on Participant Outcomes for Five Selected Programs, 

2010 or Later

Program

(federal administering 

agency) Program purpose

Areas of recent evaluation related to participant outcomes

(see the list of evaluations at the end of this appendix for the 

full citations and web links)

Earned Income Tax 

Credit

(Treasury)

To offset the burden of taxes, 

including Social Security taxes, 

and provide an incentive to work.

Tax expenditures are not evaluated for performancea

Section 8 Housing 

Choice Vouchers

(HUD)

To help very low-income families 

afford decent, safe, and sanitary 

housing in the private market.

Family outcomes

• Effects of moving very low-income families, including voucher 

recipients, to lower-poverty neighborhoods on a range of family 

outcomes.

• Effects of the Family Self-Sufficiency program on employment 

and earnings, including for voucher recipients.

• Impact of various housing and services interventions on 

homeless families.

• Impact of alternatives to current rent structure.

Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program 

(SNAP)

(USDA)

To alleviate hunger and 

malnutrition and permit low-income 

households to obtain a more 

nutritious diet by increasing their 

food purchasing power.

Food security and SNAP accessibility

• SNAP effect on food security for all types of households.

• Effects of strategies to facilitate SNAP access for underserved 

elderly and working poor populations.

Food choices and education

• Effects of financial incentives on SNAP recipients’ consumption 

of healthier food.

• Effects of nutrition education on SNAP recipients’ consumption 

of healthier food.

Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI)

(SSA)

To provide a minimum income for 

aged, blind, or disabled individuals 

who have very limited income and

assets

Job readiness and economic self-sufficiency

• Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency program effects on 

employment for disability beneficiaries, including SSI recipients.

• Effects of strategies to help youth receiving SSI become 

economically self-sufficient as they transition to adulthood.

Special populations

• Effects of services to promote education and employment 

outcomes for SSI youth recipients.

• Accessibility of SSI benefits for homeless persons with 

disabilities.

• Effects of pilot strategies examining the overlap between SSI 

and TANF programs and populations; strategies look at a 

variety of outcomes, including employment and provision and 

coordination of services
Appendix V: Federal Agencies’ Evaluation 

Efforts for Five Selected Programs

Page 113 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Program

(federal administering 

agency) Program purpose

Areas of recent evaluation related to participant outcomes

(see the list of evaluations at the end of this appendix for the 

full citations and web links)

Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families 

(TANF)

(HHS)

To increase state flexibility in 

operating programs designed to:

• Provide assistance (help 

children cared for in their 

homes/relative homes);

• End dependency on 

government benefits by 

promoting job preparation, 

work, and marriage;

• Prevent/reduce out-of-wedlock 

pregnancies; and

• Encourage two-parent 

families.

Employment and self-sufficiency

• Effects of strategies and programs (e.g. job search assistance) 

to promote employment and self-sufficiency among low-income 

families and TANF recipients (multiple evaluations).

• Effects of strategies promoting employment opportunities in 

health professions, including for TANF recipients.

• Effects of strategies enhancing employment services for the 

hard-to-employ, including for TANF recipients.

• Effects of strategies promoting employment retention and 

advancement strategies, including for TANF recipients.

• (Also see above on overlap of TANF and SSI programs and 

populations)

Source: Program purpose from agency responses to GAO survey; evaluation and research efforts based on review of agency documents and interviews with agency officials. | GAO-15-516

Notes: This includes evaluations conducted or sponsored by the agency that were started or 

published in 2010 or later. It excludes evaluations that are conducted on program processes, 

operations, or program integrity.

Federal agency abbreviations are as follows: HHS = Department of Health and Human Services; 

HUD = Department of Housing and Urban Development; SSA = Social Security Administration; 

Treasury = Department of the Treasury; USDA = Department of Agriculture.

a

Tax expenditures, including the EITC are not evaluated for performance. (In prior GAO work, we 

have recommended that the Office of Management Budget set up an performance evaluation 

framework for tax expenditures. ) However, Treasury staff are aware of and contribute to academic 

research on participant outcomes related to the EITC.

For each of the four programs, the agencies conducted evaluations for a 

variety of reasons. Some of the programs’ evaluations were required by 

law. For example, HUD was required by law to conduct the Moving to 

Opportunity for Fair Housing demonstration program evaluation, which 

presented the long-term impacts of moving people, including Section 8 

Voucher recipients, from high-poverty neighborhoods in large inner cities 

to lower-poverty neighborhoods.125

 125The Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing demonstration program was authorized by 

section 152 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The authorizing 

legislation charged HUD with describing “the long-term housing, employment, and 

educational achievements of the families assisted under the demonstration program.”

Other evaluations we reviewed were 

determined by the agencies, often in line with a larger evaluation plan or 

strategy aimed at supporting certain agency goals, according to officials 

from the HHS, USDA, and HUD. For example, USDA’s evaluations on 

education programs to promote healthier eating for low-income children, 

women, and seniors was based on USDA’s goals, according to officials.
Appendix V: Federal Agencies’ Evaluation 

Efforts for Five Selected Programs

Page 114 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Officials told us findings from evaluations have helped inform program 

design and administration at the federal and state level. For example, 

based on findings from the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency 

Evaluations, SSA officials said the agency changed the program’s design 

to incentivize service providers to serve disability beneficiaries who are 

more difficult to employ. Agency officials told us they frequently share 

findings and best practices with state agencies administering the 

programs to inform their program or policy decisions. For example, USDA 

officials stated that the SNAP Education and Evaluation studies have 

helped several states develop their own SNAP education programs. 

Agencies disseminated findings to administrators and other interested 

parties through various channels, including research clearinghouses, 

journals, conferences, and agency websites. Officials from these four 

agencies told us that evaluation findings also helped them determine 

financial decisions, such as resource allocation, or to provide support for 

budget requests to Congress.

Agencies faced a number of challenges with regards to their evaluation 

efforts, including financial, methodological, and administrative limitations. 

Agency officials informed us that large-scale, multi-year evaluations are 

resource intensive, and limited or short-term funding can make it difficult 

to perform these evaluations, particularly for program wide research. 

Officials from USDA informed us that it is helpful when money is 

designated by law for specific evaluations, as was the case with the 

Healthy Incentives Pilot, which was designated funding in the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). According to 

officials, methodological challenges can also limit their evaluation efforts. 

For example, SNAP and SSI benefits generally must be provided to 

eligible applicants, which makes it difficult to establish a control group.126

 126To address this problem, USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) surveyed people 

who had just come on the program. FNS asked them about their food insecurity the month 

prior to starting SNAP. They then resurveyed them 6 months later—after they had been 

on SNAP—and compared the results.

Under TANF, states generally design and administer their own programs, 

making it difficult to assess the program more broadly. Furthermore, HHS 

officials informed us that state and local TANF administrators are not 

required to participate in evaluations. Therefore, it can be difficult to 

persuade them to participate because of the burden of additional work 

and costs that evaluations may create for them. We recently found that 

the structure of TANF can present challenges for HHS to conduct 
Appendix V: Federal Agencies’ Evaluation 

Efforts for Five Selected Programs

Page 115 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

evaluations and how this may leave TANF recipients without access to 

promising approaches for employment.127

Agencies administering SNAP, SSI, TANF, and Section 8 Vouchers also 

sponsored other recent research—that were not impact evaluation 

studies—that informed their understanding of program participants, 

including when participants receive benefits from other similar programs. 

Some research we reviewed provides information on participants, such as 

their demographic characteristics and economic circumstances. For 

example, USDA conducted research on the characteristics and 

circumstances of SNAP participants with zero income by using Census’

Survey and Income Program Participation (SIPP) data to conduct crosssectional and longitudinal analysis that would not have been possible with 

USDA administrative data alone. Other studies provided information on 

participants’ or potential participants’ experiences with the programs, 

such as need for assistance or reasons for participating, leaving, or 

returning to the program (Section 8 Vouchers, SNAP, SSI, TANF). 

Agency research also identified experiences and challenges that 

participants faced outside of the program, such as crime (Section 8 

Vouchers), education (Section 8 Vouchers, SSI), and health issues (SSI). 

Agencies also conducted cross-program research, which included 

examining the extent to which program participants received other 

benefits, such as HHS’s annual Indicators of Welfare Dependence 

reports, which analyze statistics indicating and predicting welfare 

dependence among TANF, SNAP, and SSI recipients.

128 Agencies also 

work across programs to conduct research regarding large cross-cutting 

goals, such as interagency research related to ending or preventing 

homelessness.

 127 GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Action Is Needed to Better Promote 

Employment-Focused Approaches, GAO-15-31 (Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2014). 

In this report we recommended HHS should issue guidance to clarify how the career 

pathways approach can be used by TANF agencies and identify potential changes to 

address the lack of incentives in the TANF program. 

128 Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistance Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation, Indicators of Welfare Dependence, Annual Report to Congress, 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators-rtc/index.cfm

Other Related Research
Appendix V: Federal Agencies’ Evaluation 

Efforts for Five Selected Programs

Page 116 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

The four selected direct spending programs also track program 

performance measures, including those related to participant outcomes 

as well as performance measures related to administrative performance. 

Examples of outcome focused performance measures include those 

related to employment (TANF, SSI, Section 8 Vouchers), food security 

(SNAP), and the level of poor housing situations (Section 8 Vouchers). 

Measures focused on administrative performance include those related to 

payment accuracy (SSI, SNAP), participation rates (TANF), and utilization 

rates (Section 8 Vouchers).

Performance Measures
Appendix V: Federal Agencies’ Evaluation 

Efforts for Five Selected Programs

Page 117 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Selected GAO Reports on Program Evaluation

Program Evaluation: Some Agencies Reported that Networking, Hiring, and 

Involving Program Staff Help Build Capacity, GAO-15-25 (Washington, D.C.: 

November 13, 2014).

Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies' Use of Evaluation in Program 

Management and Policy Making, GAO-13-570 (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013).

Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships (Supersedes 

GAO-05-739SP), GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2011).

Program Evaluation: Experienced Agencies Follow a Similar Model for Prioritizing 

Research, GAO-11-176 (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2011).

Program Evaluation: A Variety of Rigorous Methods Can Help Identify Effective 

Interventions, GAO-10-30 (Washington, D.C.: November 23, 2009).

Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative Partnerships Help Build 

Agency Capacity, GAO-03-454 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2003).

Selected GAO Reports Related to Selected Programs

TANF: Action Is Needed to Better Promote Employment-Focused Approaches,

GAO-15-31 (Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2014). 

Rental Housing Assistance: HUD Data on Self-Sufficiency Programs Should Be 

Improved, GAO-13-581 (Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2013).

Moving to Work Demonstration: Improved Information and Monitoring Could Enhance 

Program Assessment, GAO-13-724T (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013).

TANF Potential Options to Improve Performance and Oversight, GAO-13-431

(Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2013).

Tax Expenditures: Background and Evaluation Criteria and Questions GAO-13-167SP

(Washington, D.C.: November 29, 2012).

Social Security Disability: Participation in the Ticket to Work Program Has Increased, 

but More Oversight Needed, GAO-11-828T (Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2011).

Domestic Food Assistance: Complex System Benefits Millions, but Additional Efforts 

Could Address Potential Inefficiency and Overlap among Smaller Programs,

GAO-10-346 (Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2010).

Government Performance and Accountability: Tax Expenditures Represent a 

Substantial Federal Commitment and Need to Be Reexamined, GAO-05-690

(Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2005).

Source: GAO | GAO-15-516
Appendix V: Federal Agencies’ Evaluation 

Efforts for Five Selected Programs

Page 118 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Table 10: Titles of Impact Evaluations That Focus on Participant Outcomes by Program, Started or Completed 2010 or Later

Time Period 

of 

Evaluation(s) Name and Website of Evaluations

Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers

2005-2011 Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program: Prospective Study

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/FamilySelfSufficiency.pdf

2010-2016* Family Options Study http://www.huduser.org/portal/family_options_study.html

1994-2011 Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program - Final Impacts Evaluation

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/pubasst/MTOFHD.html

2012-N/A* Rent Reform Demonstration http://www.mdrc.org/project/rent-reform-demonstration#overview

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

2010-2014 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Pilot Projects in Increasing SNAP Participation among Medicare’s Extra Help 

Population 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/evaluation-effectiveness-pilot-projects-increasing-supplemental-nutrition-assistanace-program

-snap

2011-2014 Healthy Incentives Pilot Evaluation http://www.fns.usda.gov/healthy-incentives-pilot-final-evaluation-report

2011-2014 Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Food Security 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/measuring-effect-snap-participation-food-security-0

2009-2014 Reaching Underserved Elderly and Working Poor SNAP Evaluation 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/reaching-underserved-elderly-and-working-poor-snap-evaluation-findings-fiscal-year-2009-pilo

ts

2010-2013 SNAP Education and Evaluation Study 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap-education-and-evaluation-study-wave-i-final-report

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

2009-2014 Improving Access to Benefits for Persons with Disabilities Who Were Experiencing Homelessness: An Evaluation of 

the Benefits Entitlement Services Team Demonstration Project 

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v74n4/v74n4p45.html

2014-2022* Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI (PROMISE)- Evaluation Design Report 

http://www.ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/promise.htm

2008-2013 TANF/SSI Disability Transition Project, 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/project/tanf/ssi-disability-transition-project

2002-2013 Ticket to Work Evaluations http://www.ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/twe_reports.htm 

2006-2014 Youth Transition Demonstration Evaluation http://www.ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/youth.htm

2010-2013 Youth Transitioning Out of Foster Care: An Evaluation of a Supplemental Security Income Policy Change 

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v73n3/v73n3p53.html

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

1998-2011 Employment Retention and Advancement Project http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v73n3/v73n3p53.html.

2001-2012 The Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ (HtE) Demonstration and Evaluation Project 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/project/enhanced-services-for-the-hard-to-employ-demonstration-andevaluation

2011-2015* Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) Impact Study 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/project/evaluation-portfolio-for-the-health-profession-opportunity-grants

-hpog
Appendix V: Federal Agencies’ Evaluation 

Efforts for Five Selected Programs

Page 119 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Time Period 

of 

Evaluation(s) Name and Website of Evaluations

2013-2018* Job Search Assistance (JSA) Strategies 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/project/job-search-assistance-evaluation

2007-2017* Pathways to Advance Career Education (PACE)

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/project/innovative-strategies-for-increasing-self-sufficiency

2010-2017* Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED)

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/project/job-search-assistance-evaluation

2008-2013 TANF/SSI Disability Transition Project (listed above under SSI) 

Source: Evaluations were collected by reviewing agency websites and interviewing agency officials. | GAO-15-516

Note: Evaluations with an asterisk are still in progress at the time of this report. In some instances, 

agencies released issue reports prior to the final evaluation publication.
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development

Page 120 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development

Page 121 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 122 GAO-15-516 Federal Low-Income Programs

Kay E. Brown, (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Gale Harris (Assistant Director), 

Theresa Lo (Analyst-in-Charge), Matthew Hunter, Brittni Milam, Rhiannon 

Patterson, Max Sawicky, Rosemary Torres Lerma made significant 

contributions to this report. Also contributing significantly to this report 

were Chuck Bausell, James Bennett, Ted Burik, David Chrisinger, Sarah 

Cornetto, and Kirsten Lauber.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100023)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.