Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

March 2004 FOOD STAMP 

PROGRAM 

Steps Have Been 

Taken to Increase 

Participation of 

Working Families, but 

Better Tracking of 

Efforts Is Needed 

GAO-04-346 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-346.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Kay Brown at 

(202) 512-3674 or brownke@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-346, a report to 

congressional requesters 

March 2004 

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM 

Steps Have Been Taken to Increase 

Participation of Working Families, but 

Better Tracking of Efforts Is Needed 

In 2001, an estimated 52 percent of eligible individuals in working families 

participated in the Food Stamp Program compared with about 70 percent of 

eligible members of nonworking families. 

Participation Rates Are Lower for Working Families than for Nonworking Families 

Participation rate among eligibles (percentage)

0

20

40

60

80

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Eligible individuals in households with earned income

Eligible individuals in households with no earnings

Source: The Food and Nutrition Service and GAO.

All eligible individuals

Participating working families are more likely to receive greater food stamp 

benefit amounts than those eligible working families that do not participate. 

Also, participating working families were more likely to participate in other 

government assistance programs and to rent rather than own their home. 

Factors that can impede an eligible working family’s participation in the 

program include whether the family is aware of the program’s existence and 

eligibility criteria and whether a family considers the program’s 

administrative process—including having to make frequent trips to a food 

stamp office during working hours and providing documentation of 

income—overly burdensome. However, there are some potentially 

significant benefits, including error and fraud prevention, to some of the 

administrative requirements. Evidence also suggests that some families 

weigh the perceived burdens of participation against the benefits of doing so 

and perceive a stigma attached to receiving food stamps. 

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and several states and localities have 

taken or suggested steps to address the impediments to participation in the 

program for working families, while also considering ways to balance easier 

participation with program integrity. These efforts include increasing food 

stamp outreach, adopting new administrative processes to ease participation 

and reduce program error, developing tools to help families estimate food 

stamp benefit amount, and re-naming the program to reduce the stigma 

associated with food stamps. Compiling a complete picture of these steps 

was not possible, however, because FNS does not systematically track these 

efforts, and the outcomes of their use are still largely unknown. 

Eligible working families are 

believed to participate in the Food 

Stamp Program at a lower rate than 

the eligible population as a whole. 

As a result, many federal, state, and 

local officials believe the program 

is not living up to its potential as a 

component of the nation’s work 

support system. This report 

examines: (1) what proportion of 

eligible working families 

participate in the program and 

what family characteristics are 

associated with a family’s 

participation; (2) what factors may 

be acting as impediments to a 

working family’s decision to 

participate in the program; and (3) 

what steps are being taken, or have 

been suggested, to help eligible 

low-income working families 

participate in the program while 

ensuring program integrity. 

 

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture direct the Food and 

Nutrition Service to: (1) encourage 

states to collect and report on the 

results of their outreach and other 

efforts to increase participation 

among eligible working families 

and (2) disseminate the lessons 

learned from those efforts to other 

states and localities. 
Page i GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Eligible Working Families Participate in the Food Stamp Program 

at a Lower Rate than Eligible Nonworking Families 11

Factors Related to a Family’s Awareness and Perception of the 

Food Stamp Program Influence Their Participation 17

FNS and Some States and Localities Have Taken, or Suggested, 

Steps to Help Working Families Participate in the Program While 

Ensuring Program Integrity 25

Conclusions 37

Recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture 38

Agency Comments 38

Appendix I Methodology for Comparing Participating Working 

Families to Likely Eligible Nonparticipating Working 

Families 41 

The Analysis Allows for Comparisons between Households with 

Participating and Nonparticipating Working Families 43

Appendix II Summary of Farm Bill Provisions 48 

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments 49 

GAO Contacts 49

Acknowledgments 49

Related GAO Products 50 

Tables 

Table 1: Characteristics That Are Associated with the Likelihood of 

Food Stamp Participation 16

Table 2: Recent FNS-Funded Outreach Activities Conducted by 

States, Local Government, or Community-Based 

Organizations 27

Table 3: Selected Results from Prescreening Tools Used by 

Community-Based Organizations 34

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Table 4: Characteristics of Eligible Households with Earnings Used 

as Factors to Predict Food Stamp Program Participation 

(Observed N=2,498; weighted N=4,911,252) 42

Table 5: Odds Ratios Indicating the Effects of Various Factors on 

Food Stamp Participation among Eligible Earning 

Households, from Bivariate and Multivariate Logistic 

Regression Models (Observed N=2,498; weighted 

N=4,911,252) 45

Figures 

Figure 1: Families Must Go through Several Steps to Receive Food 

Stamps 7

Figure 2: Food Stamp Recipiency Has Increased in the Last 2 Years, 

Following a Substantial Decline 8

Figure 3: More Food Stamp Recipients Now Live in Households 

with Earnings than Households on TANF 11

Figure 4: Participation Rates Are Lower for Working Families than 

for Nonworking Families 13

Figure 5: Estimated Food Stamp Benefits for a Single Mother with 

Two Children Based upon Varying Amounts of Monthly 

Income 15

Figure 6: Impediments to Participation Have the Potential to 

Impact Each Step of the Food Stamp Process 18
Page iii GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Abbreviations

CHIP Children’s Health Insurance Program 

CPS Current Population Survey 

EBT Electronic Benefits Transfer 

EITC Earned Income Tax Credit 

FSP Food Stamp Program 

PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

 Act of 1996 

QC quality control 

SIPP Survey of Income and Program Participation 

SSI Supplemental Security Income 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

USDA U.S. 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. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

March 5, 2004 

The Honorable Tom Harkin 

Ranking Democratic Member 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, 

 and General Legislation 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John M. Spratt, Jr. 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Budget 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Calvin M. Dooley 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Department Operations, 

 Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Committee on Agriculture 

House of Representatives 

The federal Food Stamp Program, established in 1964 and administered by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is designed to provide basic 

nutrition to low-income individuals and families in the United States by 

supplementing their income with food stamp benefits; however, many 

individuals who are likely eligible to participate in the program do not. 

According to USDA data, while an average of almost 16 million Americans 

a month received food stamp benefits in fiscal year 2001, almost 11 million 

individuals who were likely eligible to receive food stamps in September 

of that year did not participate in the program. Overall, the program paid 

almost $16 billion in benefits in fiscal year 2001. 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Working families, defined here as those who live in households with 

earned income, that are eligible to receive food stamps participate in the 

program at a lower rate than the eligible population as a whole.1

 As a 

result, many federal, state, and local officials believe that the Food Stamp 

Program is not living up to its potential as a component of the nation’s 

work support system. Work support programs assist low-income working 

families by subsidizing some of the expenses associated with work outside 

the home as well as everyday necessities. These supports have grown in 

importance following 1996’s welfare reform legislation, which placed a 

priority on work and economic self-sufficiency. Although the Food Stamp 

Program’s primary mission is to ensure that low-income Americans have 

access to a healthy diet, targeting food assistance to eligible low-income 

working families also helps adults enter and stay in the workforce by 

freeing up limited resources for other necessities. 

USDA has made it a priority to increase working families’ access to the 

nutrition assistance they need, while at the same time ensuring that only 

those who are eligible for benefits receive them. To better understand how 

the Food Stamp Program serves working families, you asked us to 

examine: (1) what proportion of eligible working families participate in the 

Food Stamp Program and what family characteristics are associated with a 

family’s participation; (2) what factors may be acting as impediments to 

whether a working family participates in the Food Stamp Program; and 

(3) what steps are being taken, or have been suggested, to help eligible 

low-income working families participate in the Food Stamp Program while 

ensuring program integrity. 

To answer these questions, we held discussions with program 

stakeholders, including officials at USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service’s 

(FNS) headquarters and regional offices,2

 state food stamp officials, 

representatives of advocacy organizations, and other program experts. 

We also conducted a search of the literature to identify recent (1996 or 

later) studies that specifically addressed participation in the Food Stamp 

Program among eligible working families. In addition, we analyzed 

simulated data prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., to produce 

 1

A food stamp household consists of individuals who live together and customarily 

purchase and prepare food in common. 

2

FNS oversees the program at the federal level, while each of the 50 states—plus 

Washington, D.C., Guam, and the Virgin Islands—administer their own programs, either at 

the state or county level. 
Page 3 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

program participation estimates for FNS. The simulated data are based on 

the most recently available public data primarily collected by USDA and 

the U.S. Census Bureau.3

 Finally, we visited four states— Florida, 

Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon—with programs identified by 

federal officials, researchers, and other program stakeholders as having 

innovative approaches to encouraging participation in the Food Stamp 

Program among working families. During each of those site visits, we met 

with the state officials responsible for oversight of the Food Stamp 

Program, visited two local offices in different parts of the state, 

interviewed advocacy groups charged with doing formal and informal food 

stamp outreach for the state, and met with community-based organizations 

that had frequent contact with food stamp recipients as well as likely 

eligible individuals who were not participating in the program. In addition, 

we reviewed documentation about the rationale for, and the 

implementation of, state- and local-level strategies to increase 

participation in the four states we visited. We performed our work from 

May to November 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. 

About half of the individuals in working families who are eligible for food 

stamps participate in the program, and certain family characteristics, such 

as whether the family also receives other government benefits, are 

associated with the likelihood of participation. The rate of participation 

among the estimated universe of likely eligible working families has 

hovered around 50 percent since 1997, and participation has consistently 

been much lower than the rate of participation among members of likely 

eligible nonworking families. For example, in 2001, an estimated 52 

percent of eligible members of working families participated in the 

program, and almost 70 percent of eligible members of nonworking 

families did so. In 2002, participating working families received an average 

of $210, per household, a month in benefits, while participating 

nonworking families received an average of $159, per household, a month 

in benefits. This difference is in part because participating working 

families are, on average, larger than participating nonworking families. 

Several family characteristics are associated with the likelihood that 

working families participate in the Food Stamp Program. Working families 

that participate in the program are more likely to be eligible to receive 

 3

See appendix I for a detailed explanation of the methodology we used to analyze public 

data. 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

greater food stamp benefit amounts than those that are eligible but do not 

participate. In addition, participating working families were more likely 

than nonparticipating families to receive other government assistance and 

were more likely to rent rather than own a home. 

Several factors can act as impediments to a family’s participation in the 

program, including whether family members are aware of the program’s 

existence, their potential eligibility, and their perception of the program 

based on our fieldwork and other studies. For example, a program official 

in Oregon suggested that many working individuals in that state assume 

that, because they have a job, their family is not eligible for the program. 

In addition, some families choose not to participate because they consider 

the administrative process—including having to make frequent trips to a 

food stamp office during working hours, completing the program 

application, and providing documentation of income—too burdensome. 

Evidence also suggests that, in deciding to participate, some families 

weigh the perceived burdens of participation against the benefits of doing 

so to determine if receiving food stamps is worth it given the size of the 

benefit and their level of need. However, some of the administrative 

requirements contribute to other priorities of the program, such as 

preventing fraud and lowering error rates and targeting benefits to need, 

and highlight the tension between the goals of increasing program access 

and reducing error rates. A working family’s perception of the stigma 

attached to receiving food stamps is another factor influencing the 

decision to participate. For example, former program recipients in Florida 

said that some working families do not participate because they do not 

want to go to the assistance office. 

To help families, including working families, participate in the program 

while ensuring program integrity, FNS and some states and localities have 

taken or suggested steps designed to inform the public about the 

program’s existence and their potential eligibility, ease the administrative 

processes, demonstrate the value of the benefit, and reduce the stigma 

associated with food stamps. Compiling a complete picture of these steps 

was not possible because FNS does not systematically track these efforts, 

but our research identified several noteworthy efforts. For instance, to 

increase awareness of the program, FNS and some states and communitybased organizations have advertised the program to working families and 

others and run hotlines to respond to questions about the program’s rules. 

To help states ease the perceived administrative burden associated with 

their programs, FNS has provided guides that share with state and local 

offices some examples of known efforts to improve program access. One 

such practice, tried in California, was to extend office hours from 7:00 a.m. 
Page 5 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

to 9:00 p.m. to allow working families to visit without missing work. 

However, FNS did not include in the guide any evidence that this effort 

was successful or any lessons learned from this or other efforts. To 

demonstrate the value of benefits to families, several states we visited 

used a Web-based tool that allowed individuals to log on from personal 

computers and, guided by questions regarding family characteristics, 

determine potential eligibility and size of benefit. Other steps are being 

taken to reduce the stigma associated with the program. For example, in 

Miami, officials from a community-based organization gave presentations 

to low-income workers at their place of work on the value of food stamps 

as a work support. FNS officials have also discussed renaming the 

program nationally, in order to reduce the stigma associated with 

participation. At the same time states and localities are adopting practices 

to help families participate in the Food Stamp Program, officials also are 

mindful about their responsibility for ensuring program integrity. For 

example, many states have adopted program eligibility simplification 

options that have the potential to reduce program errors while also easing 

the administrative burden on states and working families. Finally, while 

the steps that have been taken or suggested may help families participate 

in the Food Stamp Program, not enough information on efforts underway 

or their outcomes is available to determine whether they are effective at 

increasing program participation. 

To better target federal, state, and local outreach efforts; maximize the 

benefits of the available outreach dollars; and identify and eliminate 

impediments to food stamp participation, we recommend that the 

Secretary of Agriculture direct FNS to: (1) encourage states to collect and 

report on the results of their outreach and other efforts to increase 

participation among eligible working families and (2) disseminate the 

lessons learned from those efforts to other states and localities. In its 

comments, FNS generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations. 

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

individuals and families obtain a more nutritious diet by supplementing 

their income with benefits to purchase food. FNS pays the full cost of food 

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

usually paying 50 percent—and is responsible for promulgating program 

regulations and ensuring that state officials administer the program in 

compliance with program rules. The states administer the program by 

determining whether households meet the program’s income and asset 

requirements, calculating monthly benefits for qualified households, and 

issuing benefits to participants, usually on an Electronic Benefits Transfer 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

(EBT) card. The program is usually administered out of an assistance 

office and, oftentimes, assistance offices also offer other benefits, 

including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, 

and child care assistance.4 Figure 1 outlines the general steps a household 

must take to participate in the Food Stamp Program and how each step 

occurs. 

 4

Food stamp applications can also be taken at other locations such as health clinics and 

one-stop centers established by the Workforce Investment Act to serve job seekers 

accessing employment and training services. 
Page 7 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Figure 1: Families Must Go through Several Steps to Receive Food Stamps 

Eligibility for participation in the Food Stamp Program is based on the 

Department of Health and Human Services’ poverty guideline for 

households. In most states, a household’s gross income cannot exceed 

130 percent of the poverty guideline (or about $1,654 per month for a 

family of three living in the contiguous United States) and its net income 

cannot exceed 100 percent of the poverty guideline (or about $1,272 per 

month for a family of three living in the contiguous United States). In 

Participation

in other 

programs

Outreach 

through media

or advertising

Promotional

materials

Community

connections

1. Become aware of program

Screening at office

 Prescreening by telephone 

 or computer

2. Explore possible eligibility 3. Apply for benefits

Meeting at food stamp office

Followup trip

 Telephone interview 

 for hardships situations 

Caseworker

 Benefits placed on EBT cards

 EBT cards picked up at office

4. Receive and use benefits

Recertified at 3, 6, or 12 months

Annual face-to-face visit

5. Recertify for benefits

Source: GAO analysis.

EBT

Food Stamp Office
Page 8 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

addition, most states place a limit of $2,000 on household assets, and basic 

program rules limit the value of vehicles an applicant can own and still be 

eligible for the program. Other factors affecting benefit levels include size 

of household, income level, shelter expenses, child care costs, and child 

support payments. (Eligibility requirements are less stringent for 

households with elderly or disabled members.) Participants must also 

periodically recertify by documenting their continued eligibility for 

program benefits. 

In fiscal year 2003, the Food Stamp Program issued more than $21 billion 

in benefits. In September 2003, more than 22.7 million individuals 

participated in the program. This is an increase from the same month in 

2002, when the Food Stamp Program provided benefits to almost 

19.8 million Americans. As shown in figure 2, the increase in the average 

monthly participation of food stamp recipients in 2003 continues a recent 

upward trend in the number of people receiving benefits. 

Figure 2: Food Stamp Recipiency Has Increased in the Last 2 Years, Following a 

Substantial Decline 

The decrease in number of recipients from 1996 to 2001 can be explained, 

in part, by the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which toughened eligibility criteria 

and made certain groups ineligible to receive benefits, and had the effect 

Average monthly participation (in millions)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal year

Source: The Food and Nutrition Service.
Page 9 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

of un-tethering food stamps from cash assistance. In some cases, this 

caused participants to believe they were no longer eligible for food stamps 

when TANF benefits were ended.5

 In addition, studies have suggested that 

the economic growth in the late 1990s played a major role in the decrease 

of recipients. Since 2000, that downward trend has reversed, and 

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

changes in the program’s rules and administration, has led to an increase 

in the number of food stamp recipients. Although the total number of food 

stamp recipients is still below the 1996 level, since February 2001, the 

number of recipients has increased over 30 percent. 

Despite this increase, it remains the goal of FNS and several states to 

increase participation in the program among eligible families, while 

maintaining program integrity. FNS’s fiscal year 2000 strategic plan makes 

it a goal of the administration to improve the rate of food stamp 

participation among all eligible people to 68 percent by 2005.6

 According to 

FNS officials, eligible immigrants, elderly Americans, and members of 

working families are the major subgroups targeted to increase 

participation. 

The administration has chosen to focus on participation among working 

families, in part, because of the increased emphasis placed on the need for 

work supports such as food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit7

(EITC), and child care and transportation subsidies—since PRWORA. 

In addition, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 

Farm Bill) included provisions intended to encourage participation among 

underserved groups, including working families, and simplify program 

administration.8

 For example, the 2002 Farm Bill gave states the option to 

 5

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

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

stamps because they incorrectly assumed that if they are ineligible for TANF, they are also 

ineligible for food stamps. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: 

Various Factors Have Led to Declining Participation, GAO/RCED-99-185 (Washington 

D.C.: July 1999) for more details. 

6

The strategic plan sets a baseline of 63 percent in 1997. 

7

The EITC is a federal income tax credit for low-income workers who are eligible for and 

claim the credit. The credit reduces the amount of tax an individual owes and may be 

returned in the form of a refund. 

8

See appendix II for details on the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. 
Page 10 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

maintain food stamp benefits at a consistent level for a transition period 

for individuals who left TANF to go to work. The 2002 Farm Bill also made 

it possible for FNS to provide financial awards to states with higher or 

improved performance in program administration. In response, FNS has 

targeted improving program participation in addition to its existing focus 

on payment accuracy and lowering error rates. The food stamp error rate 

was 8.26 percent in fiscal year 2002, the lowest in the program’s history.9

In the last few years, working families have become a greater proportion 

of the overall food stamp participant population. As of fiscal year 2002, 

about 40 percent of those individuals receiving food stamps were members 

of households with earnings, up from about 33 percent in 1997. As shown 

in figure 3, this increase occurred at the same time that the proportion of 

food stamp recipients receiving TANF declined dramatically. This can be 

explained, in part, by the fact that when TANF recipients leave that 

program, they may still be eligible for food stamp benefits. Thus, if TANF 

recipients leave that program because they have found employment, they 

can continue to receive food stamps until their income increases enough 

to disqualify them from the program or until they are no longer eligible for 

other reasons. Because of the increase in the proportion of food stamp 

participants who are living in households with earned income, serving lowincome working families has taken on an increased importance for the 

Food Stamp Program in recent years. 

 9

The food stamp error rate is calculated for the entire program, as well as every state, by 

adding overpayments to those who are eligible for smaller benefits, over payments to those 

who are not eligible for any benefit, and underpayments to those who do not get as many 

benefits as they should. In fiscal year 2002, the overpayment was 6.16 percent and the 

underpayment was 2.10 percent. The program also calculates a negative action error rate, 

defined as the rate of improper denials or terminations of benefits. 
Page 11 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Figure 3: More Food Stamp Recipients Now Live in Households with Earnings than 

Households on TANF 

Note: This figure depicts complementary trends in two groups of food stamp recipients that are not 

mutually exclusive. In other words, TANF recipients can also be employed and have earned income. 

In addition, other individuals who are neither working nor receiving TANF may receive food stamps as 

well, such as Social Security and unemployment compensation recipients. 

A lower percentage of food stamp-eligible individuals in working families 

received food stamp benefits than those in eligible nonworking families, 

and certain family characteristics are associated with the likelihood of 

participation. In September 2001, the most recent data available, the 

participation rate of likely food stamp-eligible individuals in households 

with earnings was estimated to be approximately 52 percent. At the same 

time, estimated participation among members of eligible nonworking 

families was almost 70 percent. Despite their lower participation rate, the 

average participating working family received a larger benefit than the 

average nonworking family. The amount of food stamps a working family 

is eligible for appears to be one of the major factors associated with the 

participation of working families, with those families eligible for larger 

food stamp benefits more likely to participate in the program. Other 

characteristics that are associated with the likelihood of food stamp 

receipt among working families include family size, amount spent on 

Eligible Working 

Families Participate 

in the Food Stamp 

Program at a Lower 

Rate than Eligible 

Nonworking Families 

Percentage of food stamp recipients

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

Food Stamp Program participants living in households with earned income

Food Stamp Program participants living in households receiving TANF income

Source: The Food and Nutrition Service.
Page 12 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

shelter, and the marital status of the head of household. Finally, working 

families that receive unearned income through other government 

assistance programs are more likely to receive food stamps than those 

with no unearned income. 

In September 2001, an estimated 52 percent of individuals in eligible 

working families participated in the Food Stamp Program, according to an 

analysis done for FNS.10 In the same month, the participation rate among 

all eligible individuals was estimated by FNS to be 62 percent,11 and the 

rate among members of nonworking families was almost 70 percent. As 

shown in figure 4, the participation rate among working families has been 

relatively constant in recent years—hovering around 50 percent—and it 

has consistently been lower than the rate among nonworking families. 

 10K. Cunnyngham, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., for The Food and Nutrition Service, 

Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: 1999 to 2001 (Alexandria, Va.: July 

2003). This study identified an increase in the participation rate among people eligible for 

benefits in households with earnings from 47.3 percent in fiscal year 1999 to 51.8 percent in 

fiscal year 2001. 

11The participation rates reported are based on the actual number of individuals 

participating in the Food Stamp Program and estimates of the number of individuals 

eligible for food stamps. FNS contracts with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., to 

calculate participation rate data for the program. The participation rate figure is 

determined by dividing the actual number of individuals who participate by the estimated 

number of individuals who are eligible. The actual number of participants comes from 

Food Stamp Program operations data. The estimate of eligible individuals is derived from a 

model that uses March Current Population Survey data to simulate household 

characteristics. The Mathematica participation rate calculation is the generally accepted 

standard by USDA. Because of delays in the availability of needed survey data, a lag exists 

between actual participation numbers being available and the calculation of participation 

rates. 

Just Over Half of Members 

of Eligible Working 

Families Participated in 

the Food Stamp Program 

in 2001 
Page 13 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Figure 4: Participation Rates Are Lower for Working Families than for Nonworking 

Families 

Among the families that receive food stamps, working families get larger 

benefits than nonworking families. In 2002, working families that 

participated in the Food Stamp Program received, on average, $210 a 

month in food stamps per household, according to information collected 

by FNS.12 This amount is more than the $159 average benefit received by 

households with no earned income. The fact that working families 

received more benefits, on average, than nonworking families is, in part, 

due to family size. In general, the larger the family size, the larger the 

family’s benefit. Working food stamp families have an average of 

3.2 persons per household, as opposed to nonworking families that receive 

 12U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Office of Analysis, Nutrition, 

and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Fiscal Year 2002 (Alexandria, 

Va.: December 2003). 

Participating Working 

Families Receive Higher 

Monthly Benefits than 

Nonworking Families, and 

Benefit Amounts Vary 

Based on Family 

Characteristics 

Participation rate among eligibles (percentage)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Eligible individuals in households with earned income

All eligible individuals

Eligible individuals in households with no earnings (GAO estimate)

Source: The Food and Nutrition Service and GAO.
Page 14 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

benefits, which average fewer than two persons per household. In addition 

to household size, household income level also affects benefit level, as do 

other factors such as cost of shelter, child care costs, and child support 

payments. 

While it is true that the amount of food stamp benefits that a working 

family is eligible for decreases as the family’s gross income increases, 

there is not an immediate drop-off in benefit level as income increases, nor 

is there a one dollar drop in benefits for every additional dollar in income 

earned. 

To demonstrate the effect of additional earned income on working 

families that receive food stamps, FNS provided us with an example of 

how earnings might impact a hypothetical family consisting of a single 

mother with two children. Figure 5 shows estimates of the amount of food 

stamps for which this family would be eligible given varying monthly 

income levels. 
Page 15 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Figure 5: Estimated Food Stamp Benefits for a Single Mother with Two Children 

Based upon Varying Amounts of Monthly Income 

Note: To develop this estimate, FNS assumed that the mother worked; had no unearned income, 

dependent care, or child support deduction; and had a $300 a month shelter expense. FNS used the 

fiscal year 2002 Food Stamp Program rules, specifically the value of the maximum food stamp 

allotment for a family of three and the shelter deduction cap and other assumptions as appropriate. In 

fiscal year 2001, the average earned income for households with children was $351 per month so 

FNS used multiples of that amount, ranging from one-half to four times that amount to produce its 

estimates. The maximum allotment for a household with three persons was $356. 

Our data analysis shows that there are several characteristics that are 

associated with an eligible working family’s likelihood of participating in 

the Food Stamp Program. To determine the family characteristics that 

contribute to the likelihood of program participation for eligible working 

families, we analyzed a database produced by Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc., of likely eligible working families based on the March 2001 

Current Population Survey (CPS).13 This is the most current data available. 

Table 1 shows the differences between participating working families and 

those we estimate are eligible but not participating in 2000, the last year 

for which information was available. 

 13For a detailed description of the process, used to complete this analysis, see appendix I. 

Certain Family 

Characteristics Are 

Associated with the 

Likelihood of Participation 

Source: The Food and Nutrition Service.

Monthly food stamp benefits (in dollars)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

$176 $351 $702 $1,053 $1,404

Monthly earned income

356 356

254

143

59
Page 16 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Table 1: Characteristics That Are Associated with the Likelihood of Food Stamp 

Participation 

Participating working families are more 

likely than eligible nonparticipating 

working families to: 

Eligible nonparticipating working 

families are more likely than 

participating families to: 

• Be eligible for higher monthly food stamp 

benefits. 

• Have lower shelter expenses. 

• Rent their home. 

• Not have an elderly member in the 

household. 

• Have a child under 5 in the household. 

• Have a head of household that is 

divorced, separated, or single. 

• Have citizen head of household. 

• Have unearned income. 

• Participate in other assistance programs 

(Women, Infants, and Children, 

Medicaid, energy assistance, school 

meals, or job training). 

• Be eligible for a lower amount of food 

stamp benefits. 

• Have higher shelter expenses. 

• Own their home. 

• Have an elderly individual in the 

household. 

• Not have a child under 5 in the 

household. 

• Have a married head of household. 

• Have noncitizen head of household. 

• Have no unearned income. 

• Not participate in other assistance 

programs. 

Source: GAO 

Note: The characteristics listed correspond to effects found significant at the 0.05 level in our 

statistical analysis. See appendix I for a complete discussion of this work. 

Some characteristics are associated with the increased likelihood of 

participation. For instance, food stamp participation was more likely 

among working families that were eligible for a larger amount of food 

stamp benefits; specifically, each $100 increase in monthly benefits for 

which families were eligible increased the likelihood of participating in the 

program by approximately 30 percent. Working families with young 

children—under 5 years old—in the household were also more likely to 

participate than likely eligible working families without young children. 

Other characteristics are associated with the reduced likelihood of 

participation. For example, working families with higher shelter expenses 

were less likely to participate; each $100 increase in monthly shelter 

expenses decreased the likelihood of participating by about 10 percent. In 

addition, working families that owned rather than rented their dwellings, 

were less likely to participate in food stamps than other working families, 

by about 50 percent. Families with a noncitizen head of household, and 

families with elderly or married individuals in the household, were also 

only about half as likely to participate in the program. 
Page 17 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Finally, families with any unearned income were more than 2 times as 

likely as those without any unearned income to participate in the Food 

Stamp Program. And, the likelihood of participating was almost 11 times 

higher for those families that received Medicaid benefits than for those 

who did not, over 6 times higher for those who received energy assistance 

and over 4 times higher for households in which someone received job 

training. Similarly, the likelihood of participating in the Food Stamp 

Program was about 3 times higher for working families participating in 

free or reduced school lunch program or in the Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) than for those 

eligible nonparticipating working families that did not participate in those 

programs. 

In assessing the results of our analysis, it is worth noting that some of the 

characteristics that are associated with the participation by likely eligible 

working families also are likely to be associated with the participation of 

all eligible participants. For this study, however, the analysis focuses on 

how these characteristics are associated with working families. By 

focusing on the differing characteristics of participating and 

nonparticipating working families, it is possible to develop a better 

understanding of how working families that receive food stamps are 

different from likely eligible working families that do not receive benefits. 

This analysis does not, on its own, offer any explanation for why these 

families choose to participate, but it does help identify characteristics of 

those families who do and do not participate. The analysis also provides 

additional support for how certain impediments we identified can affect a 

working family’s decision to apply for and receive food stamp benefits. 

The following section elaborates on those factors. 

Several factors may impede an eligible working family’s participation in 

the Food Stamp Program, according to our fieldwork and literature on the 

subject. Among them are whether the family is aware of the program’s 

existence and the family’s possible eligibility, the family’s willingness to 

deal with the program’s administrative process, whether the family judges 

the amount of food stamp benefits received to be worth the effort and cost 

of participating in the program, and the extent to which the family 

associates a stigma with food stamp receipt. Figure 6 shows how these 

factors interact with the steps necessary for a working family to receive 

food stamps. 

Factors Related to a 

Family’s Awareness 

and Perception of the 

Food Stamp Program 

Influence Their 

Participation 
Page 18 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Figure 6: Impediments to Participation Have the Potential to Impact Each Step of the Food Stamp Process 

To receive food stamps, a family has to apply for the benefits, a step which 

is taken, generally, by a member of the family going to a local assistance 

office and filling out an application. Participation, therefore, is dependent 

on the family being aware of the program’s existence and its possible 

eligibility. Yet, studies of participation in the program that we reviewed 

offer evidence that many eligible families lack such awareness. For 

Participating in the Food 

Stamp Program Depends 

on a Family’s Awareness of 

the Program and Eligibility 

Criteria 

1. Become aware of program 2. Explore possible eligibility 3. Apply for benefits

4. Receive and use benefits

Caseworker

5. Recertify for benefits

Source: GAO analysis.

EBT

Major impediments 

to participating

 - Administrative process

 - Amount of benefit 

 vs.costs of participating

 - Stigma with food 

 stamp office

Major impediments

to participating

- Lack of awareness of 

 program's existence

- Stigma attached to "food

 stamp recipients"

 Major impediments to

 participating

 - Stigma with using food 

 stamps at grocery store

Major impediments 

to participating

 - Lack of awareness of 

 program's eligibility rules

 - Amount of benefits vs. 

 costs of participating

Major impediments to

participating

 - Administrative process

 of recertification

Food Stamp Office

 - Stigma with food

 stamp office
Page 19 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

example, a study done by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., for FNS, 

based on interviews with likely eligible individuals that do not participate 

in the program, found that 72 percent of those surveyed were not aware of 

their probable eligibility.14

Program stakeholders, too, said that lack of information about the 

program and how it works plays a key role in nonparticipation for working 

families. For instance, according to officials in Florida, working families 

may not participate because they are uncertain about the program’s rules 

and eligibility criteria and how to participate. A worker for a communitybased organization in Florida who did outreach to working families said 

that many individuals are unfamiliar with the program’s workings, making 

food stamp receipt difficult. 

Program officials also suggested that many working individuals assume 

that their having a job makes their family ineligible for the program. As 

one official in Oregon said, she believes that some working people do not 

think of themselves as food stamp recipients, because they believe that 

food stamps are something for the very poor, and thus do not think they 

would be eligible given that they have jobs. Officials in Florida and 

Massachusetts agreed that some potentially eligible working families do 

not participate because they do not know that they are potentially eligible 

for food stamps. 

Confusion about the relationship between food stamp eligibility rules and 

TANF eligibility rules can also contribute to working families wrongly 

believing that they are ineligible for food stamps, according to program 

officials that we talked with. An official for the New York Office of 

Transitional and Disability Assistance said that some people still believe 

that when one’s TANF case closes, one’s food stamp case closes as well. 

The official said that, despite New York’s best effort to combat this false 

information, some people leave the Food Stamp Program when they leave 

TANF because they believe that they are no longer eligible for food 

stamps. 

 14Michael Ponza, et al., Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Customer Service in the Food 

Stamp Program (Princeton, NJ: July 1999). 
Page 20 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Another factor influencing whether a family participates in the Food 

Stamp Program is how the food stamp administrative process is perceived. 

In other words, according to the literature we reviewed and the program 

officials we spoke with, if the administrative process is seen as being 

burdensome, families may not participate because of the effort required to 

apply for and receive food stamps. In addition, our analysis of CPS data 

demonstrates that, in 2000, working families that participate in the Food 

Stamp Program are more likely to receive other types of government 

assistance—such as Medicaid, WIC, and energy assistance—than 

nonparticipating working families. One possible explanation for this 

difference is that those that have a comfort level with the administrative 

process of applying for and receiving assistance might be more likely to 

participate in the Food Stamp Program. 

We identified certain administrative practices during our site visits to food 

stamp offices in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon, that could 

be considered burdensome by potential recipients who work and that 

might deter participation. Among the practices identified were multiple 

required office visits, food stamp office operating hours, food stamp 

applications, requirements for eligibility documentation and verification, 

finger imaging for program participants, and the requirement for workers 

to report changes in their income and hours worked. However, we found 

that not all of these practices that are potential impediments to 

participation were in place in every local office that we visited and that 

these practices are not in place in exactly the same fashion at each office. 

In addition, it is clear that there are potentially significant benefits—

including fraud and error prevention, targeting benefits to need, and the 

provision of more cost-effective service—to some of the administrative 

processes. 

Among the practices that can influence whether a family participates in 

the Food Stamp Program are: 

• Required office visits. In some cases, potential recipients make a trip to 

the assistance office to fill out a food stamp application and a separate trip 

for the recipient to meet with a caseworker to determine eligibility. In 

addition, potential clients may have to return to the food stamp office if 

they do not bring all the required documentation to their first visit. This 

means that a family often has to make two or more trips to the office to 

participate in the program, which can be difficult for individuals who are 

working. 

The Perception that the 

Food Stamp Program’s 

Administrative Process Is 

Burdensome Can Deter 

Participation 
Page 21 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

• Office hours. Assistance offices are often only open during regular 

working hours. For example, we visited an office that opened from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. from Monday to Friday. For working individuals, 

getting to a food stamp office during the work week can be difficult. A 

recent study by the Urban Institute supports the notion that a working 

families’ participation status is influenced by the hours they work and, 

perhaps, by the hours a food stamp office is open.15 The study found that 

those who work so-called traditional hours are less likely to participate 

than those who work a less traditional schedule. However, offering longer 

hours of service can have cost implications such as additional personnel, 

utility, computer, and security costs. 

• The food stamp application. During our site visits, program advocates 

said that applications, which often serve both food stamps and other 

assistance programs, such as Medicaid and TANF, are too complex. For 

instance, an advocate said that she believed that the food stamp 

application was too long and required a reading level that was too 

advanced for most potentially eligible individuals. State officials in 

Oregon, however, said that having a slightly longer food stamp application 

allows for better integration of assistance programs, which can benefit 

recipients, as well as a reduction of workload for caseworkers at 

assistance offices. 

• Eligibility documentation and verification. Participating in the 

program requires proof of income level, residency, and family size, among 

other information. Providing such proof usually is done by bringing 

documentation to the food stamp office at the time of enrollment. This, 

however, can be perceived as being burdensome for potential clients. For 

example, current and former food stamp clients surveyed in an Oregon 

focus group reported that various documentation forms in that state are 

intrusive and often excessive. However, under current program rules, 

these requirements are an essential component of ensuring that food 

stamp applicants are eligible to receive food stamps and that they receive 

the proper benefit amount. 

• The finger-imaging requirement. Four states in the country have 

requirements that new recipients of food stamps are finger-imaged at the 

assistance office before they receive their benefits.16 New York was the 

 15Signe-Mary McKernan, et al., The Urban Institute: Employment Factors Influencing Food 

Stamp Participation (Washington, D.C.: August 2003). 

16The four states with finger-imaging requirements are Arizona, California, New York, and 

Texas. 
Page 22 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

only state we visited that had such a requirement. Advocates in that state 

complained that being finger-imaged was a deterrent to participation, in 

that it potentially required them to make an additional trip to the food 

stamp office. However, quality control officials in that state believed that it 

was a vital way to prevent people from defrauding the Food Stamp 

Program by allowing officials to verify that the applicant did not already 

have a case open somewhere else in the state. 

• Change reporting requirement. Participating in the program often 

requires families to report income changes, meaning that some working 

families would have to be in frequent contact with their caseworker as the 

amount of hours they worked or the wages they received fluctuated. The 

requirement has the potential to add to the burden of participation, and 

program officials said that the requirement was a potential deterrent for 

working families. However, doing so also ensures that food stamp 

recipients continue to receive the correct benefit amount. These income 

changes can result in either an increase or decrease of benefit levels. 

Government officials we talked with acknowledged that the food stamp 

administrative process can be burdensome and that participating in the 

program is complex. However, officials spoke positively of many of the 

practices in their states, such as finger imaging and the requirement for 

multiple office visits. Many of the practices that might be perceived by 

potential recipients as causing burdens contribute to other priorities of the 

program, such as streamlining the eligibility process and keeping the 

program’s error rate as low as possible.17 The perceived impediments 

associated with many of the administrative processes, and the justifiable 

reasons the processes exist, highlight the tradeoffs between the various 

program goals, including increasing program access and reducing error 

rates, that are inherent with the design of the Food Stamp Program. Some 

of these practices probably contribute to some eligible working families 

not participating in the program, but they also probably help to ensure that 

only eligible families receive benefits, which is vital to maintaining public 

support for the program. 

 17For more information on program integrity and participation challenges, see U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Food Stamp Program: Program Integrity and Participation 

Challenges, GAO-01-881T (Washington D.C.: June 27, 2001). 
Page 23 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Another factor influencing whether eligible working families participate in 

the Food Stamp Program is how much they value the food stamp benefit, 

according to evidence from available public data, the literature we 

reviewed, and visits to four states. Working families may make an informal 

cost-benefit analysis of whether their need for the benefits they would 

receive outweighs the effort and cost of participation. Costs can include 

taking time off from work and the transportation costs of getting to a food 

stamp office. Our analysis of 2000 CPS data—which demonstrates that 

working families that receive other government assistance are more likely 

to participate in the Food Stamp Program—is consistent with that. Given 

that many assistance programs are administered at the same office and 

sometimes using the same application as food stamps, participating in 

other programs is likely to reduce the cost of food stamp participation, 

which makes a working family more likely to participate in food stamps. 

Our analysis of the 2000 data also demonstrates that working families that 

are eligible for larger benefits are more likely to receive food stamps than 

those that are eligible for smaller benefit amounts. Program officials also 

cite the amount of benefits as a reason that some working families do not 

participate. An official in Massachusetts said that some working families 

may qualify only for a small dollar amount a month, which our evidence 

supports, and, because of that fact, some potential recipients believe that 

the effort associated with applying is not worth the small amount. 

In addition, available research shows that whether a family is willing to 

participate in the program can also be influenced by the extent to which 

the family believes it needs the benefit. In a survey and focus groups 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., conducted for FNS, it found that many 

likely eligible working families did not participate because they believed 

that they could get by without food stamps and that others need them 

more.18 Such families seem to be placing a minimal value on their food 

stamp benefit. Moreover, research done by USDA’s Economic Research 

Service suggests that families that are food insecure19 are more likely to 

 18Sheena McConnell, Michael Ponza, and Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., The Reaching 

the Working Poor and Poor Elderly Study: What We Learned and Recommendations for 

Future Research, (Washington, D.C.: December 1999). 

19Food insecurity is defined as a family being, at some point during the previous year, 

uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet basic needs of all its 

members because they had insufficient money or other resources. 

Evidence Suggests that 

Food Stamp Participation 

Is Often Driven by 

Whether a Family 

Considers the Benefits 

Worth the Effort and Cost 

of Participating 
Page 24 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

participate than families that are food secure.20 Both of these research 

efforts suggest that a family’s level of need plays a role in whether a 

working family participates in the Food Stamp Program. Those families 

believe that they do not need food stamps are less likely to bear the costs 

of participating in terms of lost time and inconvenience, while those 

families that are in need may be more likely to participate no matter what 

the benefit level is. 

A study published by The Lewin Group reinforces the idea that need plays 

a role in the decision to participate.21 In a study using data from the Survey 

of Income and Program Participation (SIPP),22 the authors found that 

likely eligible nonparticipating working households differed from 

participating working households in their income variability. 

Nonparticipating households were more likely to have experienced a 

short-term drop of income than participants and were more likely to have 

had recent past income that exceeded 100 percent of the federal poverty 

level. From these findings, the authors suggest that many nonparticipants 

have expectations of higher future income and do not see the need for 

food stamps, which helps to explain why they do not participate. 

The stigma associated with the Food Stamp Program is one of the reasons 

some eligible families do not participate in the program, according to 

existing research and interviews with program stakeholders. Although the 

program’s primary mission is nutrition assistance, program stakeholders 

believe the stigma associated with food stamps is largely related to the 

program’s welfare connotations. Focus groups of current and former food 

stamp recipients, conducted by a community-based organization in 

Oregon, echoed that sentiment. A theme that ran through the focus group 

responses was that people were ashamed, or too proud, to receive food 

stamps. The focus group responses indicated that individuals can have 

 20Mark Nord, et al., USDA Food Assistance & Nutrition Research Program, Household Food 

Security in the United States, 2001 (Washington, D.C.: October 2002). 

21Mary Farrell, David Stapleton et al., The Lewin Group and Cornell Center for Policy 

Research The Relationship of Earnings and Income to Food Stamp Participation: A 

Longitudinal Analysis (Washington, D.C.: August 2003). 

22The SIPP is conducted by the Census Bureau. It collects source and amount of income, 

labor force information, program participation and eligibility data, and general 

demographic characteristics to measure the effectiveness of existing federal, state, and 

local programs. This study followed a panel of households from 1996 over a 4-year period. 

The Stigma Associated 

with the Food Stamp 

Program Can Cause Some 

Families Not to Participate 
Page 25 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

personal shame about receiving food stamp benefits and may be worried 

about being looked down upon for receiving them. 

For working families, the welfare stigma can be a particular deterrent 

toward food stamp participation. For example, program officials cited the 

occasional need to verify a food stamp recipient’s wages and employment 

status with the recipient’s employer as one stigma associated with food 

stamp receipt for working families. A related deterrent for working 

families is that to participate in the program, a family usually has to make 

a trip to the food stamp office, which is also the “welfare office.” Advocacy 

groups said that this was a requirement that discouraged participation 

among working families. Former Florida food stamp recipients told us that 

caseworkers ask personal questions regarding how they manage their 

finances. For example, how one pays for hair care and laundry, which they 

considered intrusive and made them less likely to participate in the 

program. However, local officials in Florida said that these questions are 

an effective method to deter program fraud and ensure that food stamp 

benefit amounts were provided accurately. 

Measuring the extent of stigma can be difficult, because stigma is often a 

personal matter. Many of the officials we spoke with said that the move 

toward EBT cards has helped alleviate the stigma of the program for 

working families and others by making food purchases by program 

recipients look more like ordinary food purchases, thus making it more 

difficult for other shoppers at grocery stores to identify food stamp 

recipients’ purchases. Still, many of the same officials said that stigma 

remains an issue. 

FNS and the states and localities we visited have taken or suggested a 

variety of steps to address identified program impediments that may 

hinder the participation of working families in the Food Stamp Program. 

These efforts include informing the public about the availability of food 

stamps, easing the administrative processes, estimating eligibility and the 

potential size of benefits, and reducing the stigma associated with food 

stamps while also adopting strategies to ensure that serving working 

families does not jeopardize program integrity. 

FNS and Some States 

and Localities Have 

Taken, or Suggested, 

Steps to Help Working 

Families Participate 

in the Program While 

Ensuring Program 

Integrity 
Page 26 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Several federal, state, and local efforts are in place to make information 

about the Food Stamp Program available to potentially eligible working 

individuals. These include efforts to inform the public through outreach 

efforts, such as media campaigns, and to reach potential program 

participants in locations where they are likely to be, such as their places of 

employment. While officials we spoke with were hopeful about the ability 

of these efforts to reach the right audience, little outcome data are 

available to determine which outreach efforts are most effective. 

FNS has provided some specific grants to states and organizations to 

conduct food stamp outreach; however, FNS does not know the total 

amount of other funds states spend on outreach. In fiscal years 2001 and 

2002, FNS awarded 100 percent funded competitive outreach grants to 

state- and community-based organizations.23 Some of these grants 

specifically targeted working families while others targeted all low-income 

families. The impact of these grants are largely unknown to date, although 

FNS is conducting assessments. Because the grants are awarded to 

address local needs, FNS officials reported that they do not expect major 

findings on ways to improve service to working families, but do expect 

results to reveal potentially effective ways to do localized outreach. In 

addition, FNS also recently awarded competitive program participation 

grants made available by the 2002 Farm Bill to agencies or universities. 

The goal of these grants is to improve the food stamp application process 

and work to identify and eliminate barriers to participation. FNS will in 

addition, pay for half of any outreach effort funded by the states. Some of 

these efforts are formalized through an approved outreach plan, and the 

funds spent on them are reported separately. Other state outreach efforts, 

however, may be conducted without FNS’s knowledge and claimed as an 

allowable administrative expense but not separately identified as outreach 

in the states’ fiscal reports according to an FNS official. Table 2 provides 

more information about the known outreach efforts. 

 23In fiscal year 2004, FNS hopes to gain new partners by awarding smaller grants for food 

stamp outreach to smaller-sized, community-based and faith-based organizations, with the 

anticipation of obtaining new ideas for implementing outreach activities. One of the 

strategies promoted in the grant solicitation is the use of employers to facilitate the 

application process. 

Several Efforts Are 

Underway to Better Inform 

the Public about Food 

Stamp Availability and the 

Program’s Eligibility 

Criteria 

FNS Outreach Grants and 

Guides 
Page 27 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Table 2: Recent FNS-Funded Outreach Activities Conducted by States, Local 

Government, or Community-Based Organizations 

Type of outreach 

effort Fiscal year 

FNS percentage 

funding rate 

Number of 

states 

Total funding 

(dollars in millions) 

State outreach 

plan 2002 50 14 $8.8a

Outreach grant 2002 100 19 5.0 

Program 

participation grant 2003b

 100 5 5.0 

Source: FNS. 

a

States or community-based organizations paid $4.4 million of this amount. 

b

The 2002 Farm Bill allows USDA to award up to $5 million per year for fiscal years 2003 through 

2007 to entities to carry out projects to simplify food stamp application and eligibility determination 

and to improve access to food stamp benefits. 

FNS regional offices also conduct program access reviews of selected 

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

and procedures served to discourage individuals from applying for food 

stamps or whether local offices had adopted measures to improve 

customer service. Some of these measures are gathered into a periodic 

best practices guide published by FNS.24 The guide contains information 

about the goal of the practice being tried, the number of places where it is 

in use, and contact information for a person in these offices. For the most 

part, however, the guide does not include any evidence that these efforts 

were successful or any lessons learned from these or other efforts.25

FNS is launching a $4 million, nationwide radio food stamp promotion 

campaign to raise awareness about the benefits of the Food Stamp 

Program. The goals of the campaign are to position the program as a 

nutrition assistance and work support program and improve the public’s 

understanding of the program’s purpose and who may be eligible, 

including working families. Transit ads and radio spots have been 

developed and will be placed in key locations throughout the nation, 

promoting the national or state toll-free Food Stamp Program numbers, as 

appropriate. 

 24State Best Practices Improving Food Stamp Program Access, USDA, FNS, (June 2002). 

25Advocacy groups such as the American Public Human Services Association, the Food 

Research Action Center, and the Nutrition Consortium of New York State also make 

information available on food stamp outreach and access in best practices guides, on their 

Web sites, or through conferences. 

Efforts to Inform the Public 
Page 28 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

The ads will refer potential food stamp recipients to either FNS’s or the 

state’s telephone hotline to receive information about the Food Stamp 

Program. In 2003, the FNS bilingual (English and Spanish) hotline 

averaged about 1,900 calls per month according to FNS.26 Some states have 

also launched media campaigns. For example, in New York, as part of its 

approved outreach plan, efforts were underway to garner interest in the 

program in the form of a statewide, $300,000 media campaign and a 

$500,000 media campaign for New York City. In addition, in each of the 

four states we visited, either the state- or a community-based organization 

had established a hotline to provide broader outreach to potential clients 

and to make them aware of program eligibility requirements and the 

documentation they need to apply for benefits. For example, from 

September 2001 to June 2003, the Community Food Resource Center in 

New York City fielded over 110,000 calls from 59,000 individuals 

requesting food stamp assistance. The center reported that these calls 

resulted in 3,240 new food stamp cases. Other media outreach efforts, both 

statewide and local, included advertising on television and radio, posters, 

and shopping bags and in newspapers and direct-mail supplements. Many 

of these broad outreach efforts were not specifically targeted to working 

families, but since some working families may not believe they are eligible 

for food stamps, these efforts may help to make them aware of the 

eligibility requirements, promote the image of the Food Stamp Program as 

a nutrition assistance program, and inform families what they have to do 

to apply for benefits. 

Some efforts are made to reach working families specifically by making 

applications and informational materials available where eligible working 

families are likely to go, such as at tax preparation sites, health clinics, 

supermarkets, WIC centers, and food pantries. For example, FNS has 

partnered with H&R Block to promote food stamps to those families who 

qualify for the EITC, which can indicate eligibility for food stamps. FNS 

officials said this effort resulted in an increased number of calls to their 

hotline during the tax season. FNS plans to expand this type of partnership 

 26In fiscal year 2003, FNS also made a wide variety of free flyers, posters, and brochures 

available to state and local food stamp agencies and other interested organizations which 

can be downloaded or ordered online from the agency’s Web site. These educational 

materials, which include “Food Stamps Make America Stronger,” “Who Qualifies for Food 

Stamps?” and “A Small Reason to Find Out if You Qualify for Food Stamps,” are available in 

English and Spanish and are targeted to the working poor, immigrants, and seniors, as well 

as the general low-income population. 

Efforts to Reach Eligible 

Working Families 
Page 29 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

further to tax preparers at the Voluntary Income Tax Assistance Program.27

In Oregon, we spoke with a food stamp worker who is regularly stationed 

in a local food pantry. She noted that many working people are more 

comfortable coming to the food pantry to apply for food stamps because 

government food stamp offices can be off-putting to some people. She 

estimated in the last 2 years she has done 1,000 intakes at the food pantry. 

However, food stamp officials in all four states cited problems with tight 

state budgets resulting in staffing freezes or cuts. As a result, some offices 

have cut back on such resource-intensive practices. 

Food stamp advocates have also worked with employers whose 

employees would likely be eligible for benefits. For example, in Miami, the 

Human Services Coalition of Dade County, as part of the Greater Miami 

Prosperity Campaign, is attempting to reach out to employers of lowincome workers to promote certain available work support programs for 

their employees. The goal is to convince employers that these work 

supports are a win for employees because they augment the wages of lowincome workers; they are a win for employers, because they bring stability 

to the life of their employees who, therefore, feel more loyalty to their 

employer; and, they are a win for the community at large, because more 

federal dollars are brought into the local economy through the spending of 

those who receive work supports. Representatives of the coalition and its 

partners are working with the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and 

are making presentations to employers and their low wage employees and 

human resource manager associations around the region focusing on this 

message.28 The coalition representatives ask employers to take three 

actions to support the campaign: (1) send letters to employees about 

available work supports; (2) provide information about the EITC, 

children’s health care, and food stamps when sending out copies of 

government documents such as Internal Revenue Service W-2 earning 

 27This program, sponsored by the Internal Revenue Service, provides voluntary assistance 

with federal income tax returns. FNS has also initiated additional new efforts to promote 

food stamps to low-income individuals through the tax filing process. VITA sites have been 

encouraged to display food stamp materials and refer their clients to the food stamp tollfree number. FNS plans to include an Internal Revenue Service publication on EITC along 

with the food stamp materials mailed to callers of the toll-free number. 

28Since 2002, FNS has also presented information and provided training regarding the 

importance of food stamps as a work support at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Annual 

Workforce Development Leadership Course. The course is designed to build the capacity of 

local chambers of commerce to support employers in the area of workforce training and 

development, with a focus on employers of low-wage workers and former welfare 

recipients. 
Page 30 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

statements; and (3) allow coalition workers to pre-screen employees at the 

workplace. The prescreening allows the advocates to more fully explain 

the eligibility requirements and what steps applicants must take to qualify 

for benefits. As of August 2003, the advocates had convinced a large 

Miami-based cruise line to send out information about the work support 

programs with employees’ W-2 forms and pay stubs, and they had also 

conducted on-site pre-screening for employees at several local businesses. 

Some state and local programs we visited have also partnered with other 

assistance programs, such as the EITC, Medicaid, Head Start, school lunch 

program, and WIC, to make working and nonworking families aware of 

their potential eligibility for food stamps. Stakeholders spoke highly of 

such efforts, and as previously discussed, our analysis of simulated data 

show that the likelihood of working families participating in the Food 

Stamp Program was much higher if they participated in other assistance 

programs as well. Finally, our previous work also showed that 26 states 

are conducting food stamp eligibility interviews in at least some of their 

Workforce Investment Act one-stop centers.29

In addition to the outreach efforts that have been tried, one local official 

suggested that food stamp outreach could be greatly expanded if the state 

used taxpayer records to identify potentially eligible working families. 

Adopting such a strategy, however, could be problematic because of the 

need for state human service agencies and departments of revenue to 

coordinate with one another, as well as privacy concerns over the use of 

tax data. 

States and local offices we visited have adopted a number of different 

practices to make administrative processes less burdensome on potential 

participants. Among the efforts that resonated particularly with working 

families were those intended to save participants’ time and allow them to 

fulfill program requirements to ensure only eligible families receive 

benefits in ways that minimize their need to miss work. While officials we 

spoke with were hopeful about these efforts, little outcome data are 

available to determine their effectiveness at easing administrative burdens. 

 29U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities 

Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on 

Effective Approaches, GAO-02-696 (Washington, D.C.: July 2002). 

Several Efforts Are 

Underway to Simplify the 

Administrative Process 
Page 31 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

States and local offices we visited have adopted a number of different 

practices to facilitate the food stamp application process. Oregon and 

Florida have adopted a “no wrong door policy” that allows people to apply 

for benefits at any food stamp office, and states with Web sites have 

placed food stamp applications on the Web, which is a requirement of the 

2002 Farm Bill.30 In addition, New York, Oregon, and Massachusetts 

shortened and simplified their food stamp applications. While well 

received, shortening the application has had some drawbacks. For 

example, New York officials told us that because their shortened 

application was for food stamps only, it limited the client’s ability to apply 

for more than one assistance program at the same time. Also, local 

officials in Oregon told us that their shortened form required their already 

overburdened caseworkers to spend more time with clients gathering 

information previously captured on the longer application forms. 

States are also facilitating the food stamp application process by adopting 

certain available administrative options that can simplify the application 

process. For example, when considering the value of a vehicle as an asset, 

states may choose to substitute the more generous asset rules from other 

assistance programs in place of Food Stamp Program rules thereby 

reducing the amount of documentation collected from individuals applying 

for more than one program. All four states we visited have adopted similar 

vehicle policy options. All four states have also adopted an option that 

allows certain families with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty level 

to be automatically eligible for the Food Stamp Program.31

Several states have experimented with alternative practices to requiring 

applicants to come to the food stamp office during traditional office hours. 

Three local offices we visited experimented with offering extended office 

hours during the week or on Saturdays. State and local officials reported 

mixed success with these options. For example, officials at one local 

office in Oregon said that adopting client friendly policies such as these 

has led to an increase in the caseload while local officials in New York and 

Massachusetts dropped these efforts after few potential clients took 

 30Community-based organizations in Massachusetts and New York City have such efforts 

under development that would allow applications to be sent electronically to local food 

stamp offices, but the technology is not yet in place. 

31This option, called expanded categorical eligibility, helps simplify eligibility determination 

by eliminating the requirement to determine the value of assets and verifying family income 

up to 200 percent of poverty. 

Steps to Facilitate the 

Application Process 
Page 32 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

advantage of the extended hours. In addition, in an effort to help working 

families avoid missing work and overcome transportation impediments, 

Massachusetts adopted liberal rules allowing local offices to interview 

clients and take food stamp applications over the telephone or via the mail 

if coming to the office would be a hardship for them. Using this practice, 

clients still must submit the necessary documentation to ensure program 

integrity. In the period from November 2002 to June 2003, over 5,000 food 

stamp applications were received through the mail. 

Some states have taken advantage of options to simplify on-going 

reporting requirements. Typically, working families were expected to 

report earned income changes. FNS was concerned that the increase in 

employment among food stamp households would result in larger and 

more frequent income fluctuations, which would increase the risk of 

payment errors and be burdensome for the working poor. As a result of 

these concerns, FNS established regulations in November 2000 that gave 

states the option to require working families to report changes in income 

between 6 month certification periods only when a change in their income 

made them ineligible for food stamps. All of the four states we visited 

chose this option.32 In addition, FNS continued to support efforts to further 

expand states’ flexibility to streamline complex rules, simplify program 

administration, and help ease the transition from welfare to work through 

their support of the 2002 Farm Bill amendments. For example, the 

2002 Farm Bill simplifies on-going reporting requirements by allowing 

states to disregard changes in certain amounts deducted for child care 

expenses, child support payments made, and medical expenses.33 One of 

our four states, New York, has chosen this option. Finally, Oregon has 

simplified on-going participation by allowing clients to recertify their 

program eligibility via the mail rather than by requiring face-to-face 

interviews. 

For families who are leaving cash assistance, the 2002 Farm Bill also 

allows states the option of facilitating continued program participation by 

providing 5 months of automatic transitional food stamp benefits when a 

family leaves the TANF program without requiring the family to reapply or 

 32All four states have also expanded the use of semiannual reporting to all households that 

can be asked to report periodically, a change allowed under the 2002 Farm Bill. 

33This provision is known as simplified determination of deductions in the 2002 Farm Bill. 

Steps to Facilitate Continuing 

Program Participation 
Page 33 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

submit any additional paperwork. Of our four states, Massachusetts, 

New York, and Oregon have adopted this option.34

Finally, because application and continuing program participation 

impediments can vary from state to state and from locality to locality, 

some states and localities have established working groups of program 

stakeholders to identify program impediments and to generate ideas on 

how to remove them. For example, the Oregon Hunger Relief Task Force 

established a committee of officials from the state Department of Human 

Services and other state agencies, community advocates, food bank 

representatives, local office workers, and former recipients to assess 

program access and participation issues. These efforts have opened the 

lines of communication and have been deemed successful by both the 

state officials and advocates we interviewed. 

Some program advocates and officials have taken steps to develop ways to 

reach people who may have the wrong impression about their eligibility 

and the size and value of food stamp benefits. While the usage of these 

tools shows promise where they have been put into place, the final 

outcomes of their use are still largely unknown. 

FNS’s Web site has a pre-screening tool that allows individuals to log on 

from personal computers and, guided by questions regarding family 

characteristics, determine their potential food stamp eligibility and the size 

of their benefit. FNS, however, has not yet started to track how often this 

tool is used. Some experts we spoke with suggested that such Web-based 

tools are most effective when a third party, such as a program advocate, is 

available to help potential clients use them. 

We visited three community-based organizations that had prescreening 

tools available to help individuals determine their eligibility and estimate 

their benefits. Project Bread, located in Massachusetts, uses a Web-based 

tool similar to FNS, while Florida Impact and the Community Food 

Resource Center in New York City send staff members with laptops to 

sites where likely eligible people are found—including emergency food 

programs or pantries, WIC centers, health clinics, hospital lobbies, 

 34For more information on the states’ use of options and waivers see U.S. General 

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

Program Administration and Promote Access, GAO-02-409 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 22, 

2002). 

Efforts Are Underway to 

Estimate Eligibility and the 

Size of the Potential Food 

Stamp Benefit 

Steps to Show People the 

Amount of Their Estimated 

Benefit 
Page 34 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

unemployment offices, supermarkets, and senior centers—to prescreen 

potentially eligible clients. The Community Food Resource Center’s 

prescreening tool collects client information, estimates their potential 

food stamp benefits, and prints out a document guide listing the 

documents necessary to apply. This estimated benefit information allows 

the client to decide whether the potential benefit would outweigh the 

perceived burden of following through with the application process. Table 

3 has selected results from these efforts. Officials from these organizations 

have not studied why potentially eligible people chose not to apply for 

food stamps. 

Table 3: Selected Results from Prescreening Tools Used by Community-Based Organizations 

Program Time period 

Number 

screened

Number potentially 

eligible 

Number applied 

for food stamps 

Number approved 

for food stamps 

Florida Impact 9/3/02—9/8/03 1,277 1,025a 306 284 average 

benefit—$176 

Mass. Project Bread 1/15/02—8/11/03 46,505b39,994 170c 120d

New York City’s Community 

Food Resource Center 

2002 12,107 9,504e estimated 

benefit—$166 

f f 

Source: Community-based organizations visited. 

a

Number of potentially eligible individuals with earned income is not available. 

b

Fifty-five percent of those screened reported earned income. 

c

Project Bread officials did not know why so few potentially eligible individuals were counted as 

applying for food stamps but speculated that local offices may not have input the code on the 

application form that would identify Project Bread as the source of the application. 

d

For the period January 2002-June 2003. 

e

Thirty-two percent of the potentially eligible had earned income; the average was $1,022 per month. 

f

Information not available. 

Because some working families believe that their food stamps benefits are 

likely to be too low to make participation worthwhile, some local offices 

have taken steps to promote the related benefits of food stamp 

participation, such as reduced utility bills in some states and categorical 

eligibility for school meals. While such efforts may convince potential 

participants of the value of food stamps, many of the stakeholders we 

interviewed believe that more people would participate in the program if 

the minimum food stamp benefit was raised from $10 to at least 

$25. Doing this, however, would increase program costs according to FNS. 

Steps to Demonstrate the Value 

of Food Stamp Participation 
Page 35 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Program stakeholders are taking steps to address the stigma associated 

with receiving food stamp benefits, trips to the “welfare office,” and being 

a “food stamp recipient.” Program officials and stakeholders noted 

changes that have already been made in the program to limit the stigma 

and suggested additional changes. While officials we spoke with were 

hopeful about these efforts, little outcome data are available to determine 

their effectiveness at easing administrative burdens. 

PRWORA mandated that states replace food stamp coupons with the EBT 

card, a change that introduced a greater element of privacy during food 

purchases. Many of the stakeholders we spoke with believe the EBT card 

has helped to reduce the stigma associated with the use of food stamps. 

Use of the EBT card has also had the effect of reducing food stamp fraud. 

As of September 2003, 95 percent of all food stamp benefit issuance is 

provided via the EBT card. Some states and local outreach organizations 

have taken the additional step of re-branding, or renaming, their EBT 

cards. Oregon promotes its card as the Oregon Trail Card, and the 

Community Food Resource Center in New York City promotes the EBT 

card as “the Food Card.” 

Beyond renaming the card, many officials suggested that stigma could be 

reduced if the program’s name was more suggestive of a nutrition program 

rather than a welfare program. Four states across the nation have already 

renamed their programs.35 For example, Michigan has changed the name of 

its Food Stamp Program to the “food assistance program.” FNS is 

currently considering renaming the program and is consulting with its 

state partners on what the name should be. 

To corroborate the Food Stamp Program as a nutrition program and to 

eliminate trips to “the welfare office,” some officials suggested moving the 

Food Stamp Program out of the state welfare office and placing it under 

the Health Department. However, because states decide where their 

various nutrition programs reside, this program change would be difficult 

to implement nationally. 

New York State is testing a model that allows potential applicants to avoid 

the welfare office. The state has developed Transitional Opportunity 

Program centers for former TANF recipients who are working and who 

are still eligible for work supports, such as food stamps. The idea behind 

 35The four states are Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington. 

Program Officials Have 

Taken Steps to Reduce the 

Stigma Associated with 

Food Stamps 

Steps to Re-Brand the Program 

Steps to Disassociate Food 

Stamps from Welfare 
Page 36 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

these centers is to provide benefits and case management for low-income 

workers in a friendlier, more positive environment where the focus is on 

helping low-income workers achieve self-sufficiency. To do so, 

caseworkers provide active case management, bank officials provide 

seminars on how to open and manage a bank account, tax preparers 

discuss the EITC, former welfare recipients discuss paths to success, 

childcare providers highlight strategies for childcare, and nutritionists 

discuss healthy eating habits. The case managers are also available to help 

if a rent or utility emergency arises. 

Finally, some food stamp researchers have suggested a fundamental 

reshaping of the way the Food Stamp Program is administered and 

overseen.36 They suggested delivering program benefits to those who work 

regularly through the tax code, much like the EITC program. Such a 

change would eliminate the need for working individuals to go to the food 

stamp office. However, such a fundamental reshaping of the program from 

food assistance to cash assistance has significant implications for program 

mission and integrity, targeting intended beneficiaries, and administration 

and would require significant study and review. 

State officials believe that food stamp cases with earned income are more 

complex and error prone than cases with no income. Food stamp quality 

control data show that in fiscal year 2001 cases with only earned income 

accounted for about twice the percentage of dollars attributed to errors as 

cases with no income. These cases are more complex because low-income 

working families’ incomes tend to fluctuate as the numbers of hours they 

work rise and fall. Therefore, tracking eligibility status, proper benefit 

level, and accurate income level is more difficult. This is important to note 

because officials in three of the four states we visited were supportive of 

the goal of increasing the participation of working families but were also 

concerned about the impact these more complex cases could have on their 

program error rates. Data indicate, however, that the increase in the 

 36Michael E. Fishman and Harold Beebout, Supports for Working Poor Families: A New 

Approach (Washington, D.C.: December 2001). Robert I. Lerman and Michael Wiseman, 

Restructuring Food Stamps for Working Families (Washington, D.C.: August 2002). These 

reports offered potential policy options for the Food Stamp Program, with an interest in 

spurring discussions about improving the delivery of benefits to and well being of lowincome working families. We did not conduct a detailed review of the reports or make an 

assessment of the applicability or validity of any of the policy options offered by the 

authors. We selected this example to highlight some advantages and disadvantages of one 

alternative scenario for delivering food stamps. 

Serving Working Families 

Need Not Jeopardize 

Program Integrity 
Page 37 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

proportion of working recipients from fiscal years 1997 to 2001 did not 

unduly affect the program error rate. Food Stamp Program quality control 

data show that over this same period the percentage of dollar payments 

made in error to households with only earned income remained about the 

same while the overall program error rate declined. These data suggest 

that program integrity can be maintained as states strive to better serve 

working families. 

The program simplification options that many states have adopted also 

have the potential to reduce program error while easing the administrative 

burden on states and on working families. Some of the options ease the 

administrative burdens on families by reducing the number of times they 

have to report changes in their cases, in turn reducing the number of 

potential errors that can occur responding to those changes. Other options 

ease program participation by simplifying the eligibility determination 

process. By adopting these options, states are hoping to reduce program 

errors while better serving working families.37

Passage of the 1996 welfare reform law changed the safety net landscape 

for families by placing greater emphasis on work and self-sufficiency. In 

this new environment, the Food Stamp Program can play an important 

role in supporting low-income working families, either in their attempt to 

avoid receiving cash assistance or as they leave cash assistance and strive 

for self-sufficiency. Current efforts focus attention and resources on 

increasing participation among all eligible families, particularly working 

families. Yet, almost half of those working families that are likely eligible 

to receive benefits do not participate in the program. Many of the federal, 

state, and local officials we spoke with believe the program could do more 

to serve eligible working families, and FNS’s goal is to make it easier for 

low-income and working families to access the benefits to which they are 

entitled. 

We observed a number of initiatives that show promise in addressing one 

or more of the reasons why working families do not participate in the 

 37States also have antifraud measures in place to ensure program integrity. The states we 

visited use automated data matches to search for unreported household income and assets. 

They match their food stamp caseloads against their wage reporting systems, new-hire 

data, Internal Revenue Service Form 1099 data, Social Security and Supplemental Security 

Income data, unemployment insurance data, etc. New York State also uses finger imaging 

to protect against clients maintaining duplicate food stamp cases. 

Conclusions 
Page 38 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

program. Most of the initiatives we observed have only been tried on a 

small scale at various scattered locations. While we know many efforts are 

being undertaken, a complete picture is unavailable because FNS does not 

systematically track state activities, nor does it require that states collect 

and evaluate outcome data on their own efforts. Although FNS is 

beginning to assess the outcomes of some of the outreach grant efforts, 

not enough is currently known about all the practices being tried and 

whether they have achieved their goals. In addition, in those cases where 

initiatives have achieved positive outcomes, there is no systematic vehicle 

for disseminating lessons-learned to other programs or community-based 

organizations interested in taking similar steps. Efforts to systematically 

collect and report simple outcome data on such initiatives could be a 

significant resource for other states that want to increase the food stamp 

participation among their eligible working families. 

However, despite FNS’s and states’ best efforts, some eligible working 

families may continue to choose not to participate in the Food Stamp 

Program and may have good reasons for making that choice. Other eligible 

families could benefit significantly if they did participate. Some of the 

factors that influence a family’s decision about whether to apply for food 

stamps are unrelated to the program’s design. Some families may make a 

personal decision that the effort and cost to them of applying for and 

receiving benefits, including complying with the measures in place to 

promote program integrity, is not worth the ultimate gain. This seems to 

be especially true for families with higher earnings. Each family must 

make its own personal calculation based on its unique circumstances, and 

some families will likely continue to opt out of receiving benefits. 

To better target federal, state, and local outreach efforts; maximize the 

benefits of the available outreach dollars; and identify and eliminate 

impediments to food stamp participation, we recommend that the 

Secretary of Agriculture direct FNS to 

• encourage states to collect and report on the results of their outreach 

and other efforts to increase participation among eligible working 

families and 

• disseminate the lessons learned from those efforts to other states and 

localities. 

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

for review and comment. On February 9, 2004, we met with FNS officials, 

Recommendations to 

the Secretary of 

Agriculture 

Agency Comments 
Page 39 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

including the acting deputy administrator for the Food Stamp Program, to 

get their comments. The officials said that they generally agreed with our 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations. FNS also provided us with 

technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. 

The FNS officials reiterated their commitment to increase working 

families’ participation in the Food Stamp Program and suggested that we 

provide a fuller recognition of their efforts to increase this participation. 

The officials said they believe their ongoing efforts to better inform the 

public about food stamp availability and the program’s eligibility criteria 

are contributing significantly to the overall goal of increasing program 

participation. In addition, the officials highlighted their efforts to work 

with state and local food stamp agencies and other partners—such as 

nonprofit organizations, retailers, and employers—to assist in developing 

and implementing outreach strategies. The officials also cited their efforts 

to encourage the states to simplify the administrative process and adopt 

user friendly options. In addition, we were asked to highlight additional 

examples of FNS’s efforts, and we did, where appropriate. 

Agency officials agreed that our recommendation that FNS track outreach 

activities and collect outcome data could provide valuable information. 

However, the officials expressed concern that imposing additional data 

collection, reporting, and evaluation requirements could be seen as 

burdensome by states or local agencies and may discourage some from 

undertaking desirable, but optional, activities like outreach. We agree that 

requiring rigorous research and evaluation of all outreach efforts would be 

costly and difficult. However, we believe encouraging states to report 

simple and uniform outcome data on the results of USDA-funded efforts 

could be a cost-effective means of collecting information of value to others 

attempting to increase working families’ participation in the program. For 

efforts that are funded locally, USDA could provide a suggested template 

of data to collect so that similar data elements would be gathered across 

various locations. For example, the sites we visited did not systematically 

collect similar information on the number of working families reached by 

different activities and the disposition of their cases. USDA could also use 

cost-effective means of sharing lessons-learned with states and localities 

by posting this information on its Web site. 

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

appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. We 

will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 
Page 40 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

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

http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your 

staffs have any questions about this report. Other major contributors to 

this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sigurd R. Nilsen 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Methodology for Comparing 

Participating Working Families to Likely 

Eligible Nonparticipating Working Families 

Page 41 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Our analysis relied on simulated data produced by Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc., based on the March 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS). 

The simulated data were used to establish a universe of all working 

families that are likely eligible to receive food stamps for the purpose of 

comparing the characteristics of participating working families to likely 

eligible nonparticipating working families. Mathematica created this 

simulated data, in part, because comparisons between the CPS estimates 

of Food Stamp Program participation and administrative data from the 

program suggest that program participation is underreported in the CPS, 

and eligibility for program benefits cannot be directly observed or 

reported in existing survey data. To complete the simulation, Mathematica 

assigned individuals in each CPS household to one or more “food stamp 

units.” For each food stamp unit, Mathematica used CPS data and 

information from other sources to assign simulated values for variables 

such as monthly shelter expenses and monthly earned income. 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., then tested each food stamp unit to 

assign the unit as eligible or ineligible to receive food stamps. 

The cumulative characteristics of all households with eligible food stamp 

units, as determined by Mathematica’s simulated data, are shown in table 

4, and include income-related and demographic factors associated with 

the households and variables that reflect whether anyone in the household 

was participating in other government assistance programs. 

Appendix I: Methodology for Comparing 

Participating Working Families to Likely 

Eligible Nonparticipating Working Families 
Appendix I: Methodology for Comparing 

Participating Working Families to Likely 

Eligible Nonparticipating Working Families 

Page 42 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Table 4: Characteristics of Eligible Households with Earnings Used as Factors to 

Predict Food Stamp Program Participation (Observed N=2,498; weighted 

N=4,911,252) 

Factor Mean/percent (weighted estimates) 

Monthly food stamp benefits* $153 

Monthly shelter expenses* $508 

Monthly earned income * $956 

Any nonearned income* 37% 

Number of people 3.6 

Elderly 10% 

Under age 5 37% 

Married 42% 

All white – Non-Hispanic 42% 

All black (including black Hispanics) 24% 

All white Hispanic 26% 

Other/mixed race 8% 

Noncitizen 8% 

Own home 34% 

Multifamily 23% 

Job training 2% 

Free lunch 38% 

Energy assistance 8% 

Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC) 19% 

Medicaid 43% 

Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) 6% 

Supplemental Security Income*(SSI) 9% 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Asterisks denote variables with simulated values that were developed by Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. All estimated means in the table have sampling errors that, with 95 percent 

confidence, do not exceed 4 percent of the value of the estimated means. All estimated percentages 

in the table have sampling errors that do not exceed 3 percentage points, with 95 percent confidence. 

According to table 4, on average, the households with earnings—working 

families—that were deemed eligible to participate in the Food Stamp 

Program were eligible to receive $153 in food stamps per month. The 

monthly shelter expenses of these families averaged $508, and the monthly 

income for these families averaged $956. Slightly more than one-third 

(37 percent) of the families reported some nonearned income, and a 

similar percentage (34 percent) of the families involved had homes or 
Appendix I: Methodology for Comparing 

Participating Working Families to Likely 

Eligible Nonparticipating Working Families 

Page 43 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

dwellings that were owned rather than rented. The rest of the results can 

be discerned similarly. 

In addition to assigning a determination of whether a unit within a 

household is eligible to receive food stamps, Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc., made an assignment, based on its known participation 

patterns, as to whether eligible food stamp units were receiving food 

stamp benefits as of a fixed reference month. However, we could not use 

Mathematica’s simulated variable that identifies units receiving food stamp 

benefits to conduct the substance of our analysis, which was primarily 

focused on the difference among participating and likely eligible 

nonparticipating food stamp units. This is because Mathematica’s 

procedures were not amenable to multivariate procedures that would 

allow an estimate of the “net” effects of different factors on Food Stamp 

Program participation – for example, the effect that food stamp benefit 

amounts have on the likelihood of participating after the associations of 

benefit amounts and participation likelihoods with other potentially 

confounding factors are taken into account. Instead, to conduct this 

analysis, we relied on CPS estimates of participating working households 

and compared those households with those that were eligible, but not 

participating, based on Mathematica’s work. Given that, it should be 

recognized that the results below are affected by our having chosen to use 

CPS’s variable to identify participants and Mathematica’s variable to 

identify eligibility. Among households with working families an estimated 

26 percent of the households with an eligible unit (as defined by 

Mathematica) were identified as participating by CPS’s variable. By 

contrast, an estimated 31 percent were identified as participating by 

Mathematica’s simulated variable. This difference masks somewhat the 

extent of the discord between the two variables; an estimated 38 percent 

of all households that Mathematica’s simulation indicates as participating 

were not coded as participating by CPS, and an estimated 2 percent of the 

households that Mathematica’s simulation indicates as nonparticipating 

were coded as participating in CPS. Additionally, an estimated 30 percent 

of the households that CPS recorded as participating were deemed 

ineligible to participate by Mathematica’s simulation process. Still, the 

work that went in to Mathematica’s simulation gives us confidence that 

the results presented in table 5 are a reasonable approximation of the 

different characteristics between participating and nonparticipating 

eligible working families. It is worth noting that variations from the 

procedures produced by Mathematica for estimating eligibility could yield 

results that differ from our analysis since our work relies on 

Mathematica’s simulation of eligibility. 

The Analysis Allows 

for Comparisons 

between Households 

with Participating and 

Nonparticipating 

Working Families 
Appendix I: Methodology for Comparing 

Participating Working Families to Likely 

Eligible Nonparticipating Working Families 

Page 44 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

To estimate the net effect of different factors affecting the likelihood of 

participating, we used logistic regression models that produce odds ratios 

to indicate how the odds on participating differed across different types of 

households, or across various levels of continuous variables (like income 

or the value of food stamp benefits that households were eligible for) that 

are associated with each unit. Overall, the odds on participating were 

0.35; that is, 35 eligible households participated for every 100 that did not.1

These odds differed markedly across different households, however, and 

the odds ratios from bivariate models shown in table 5 indicate the 

bivariate effects of various factors on the odds on eligible food stamp 

working families participating in the Food Stamp Program, when each 

factor is considered in isolation, or independently, from every other factor. 

Model 1 and model 2 test for the effect of any characteristic using 

multivariate models, in order to control for other factors in measuring 

whether any single factor effects likelihood of participation. 

 1

The odds on participating are somewhat different from, but related to, the percentage 

participating. The odds equal the percentage participating divided by the percentage not 

participating. In this sample of eligible households with earnings, as noted above, 

26 percent of the households were participating in the Food Stamp Program. The overall 

odds of participating were 0.35, which equals 26/74, and implies that 0.35 households were 

participating for every one that was not, or that 35 were participating for every 100 that 

were not. While odds are somewhat less familiar than percentages, the use of odds and 

odds ratios to describe the effects of certain factors on the likelihood of participation 

involve certain desirable properties, not the least of which are that they are, unlike 

percentages and percentage differences, unaffected by whether we choose to look at the 

likelihood of participating rather than not participating, and by how likely or unlikely 

participating is across the subgroups we are comparing. 
Appendix I: Methodology for Comparing 

Participating Working Families to Likely 

Eligible Nonparticipating Working Families 

Page 45 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Table 5: Odds Ratios Indicating the Effects of Various Factors on Food Stamp 

Participation among Eligible Earning Households, from Bivariate and Multivariate 

Logistic Regression Models (Observed N=2,498; weighted N=4,911,252) 

 Odds ratios 

 Multivariate models 

Factor 

Bivariate 

model Model 1 Model 2 

Monthly food stamp benefits (in $100s) 1.310* 1.367* 1.316* 

Monthly shelter expenses (in $100s) 0.908* 0.923* 0.934* 

Monthly earned income (in $1000s) 0.869 1.128 1.113 

Any nonearned income 2.564* 2.964* 1.705* 

Number of people 1.101* 1.027 0.877* 

Elderly 0.479* 0.595* 0.780 

Under age 5 1.875* 1.533* 0.989 

Married 0.566* 0.563* 0.678* 

All black (including black Hispanic) 1.775* 1.311 1.327 

All white Hispanic 0.839 1.226 0.962 

Other/mixed race 0.861 0.995 0.818 

Noncitizen 0.489* 0.516* 0.624* 

Own home 0.446* 0.575* 0.704* 

Multifamily 0.978 0.763 0.795 

Job training 4.268* 2.868* 

Free lunch 2.930* 2.346* 

Energy assistance 6.374* 3.190* 

WIC 3.260* 2.330* 

Medicaid 10.794* 7.182* 

CHIP 0.993 0.332* 

SSI 2.129* 1.260 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Asterisks denote estimated odds ratios which, with 95 percent confidence, are significantly 

different from 1. The logistic regression analyses used CPS weights and included information that 

provided approximate adjustments for the complex sample design of CPS. 

These bivariate results demonstrate that, based on our estimates, food 

stamp participation was more likely in eligible households in which the 

benefits of participation were greater; that is, each $100 increase in 

monthly benefits for which household members were eligible increased 

the odds on participating by a factor of 1.31, or by 31 percent. Likely 

eligible households with higher shelter expenses were, at the same time, 

less likely to participate; each $100 increase in monthly shelter expenses 
Appendix I: Methodology for Comparing 

Participating Working Families to Likely 

Eligible Nonparticipating Working Families 

Page 46 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

decreased the odds on participating by a factor of 0.91. While households 

with higher incomes were not significantly different from households with 

lower incomes to participate, households with any nonearned income 

were 2.6 times as likely as those without any nonearned income to 

participate. Larger households were also more likely to participate than 

smaller ones (i.e., every additional person in the eligible household 

increases the odds on participating by a factor of 1.1). While the presence 

of elderly or married individuals in a household reduces the odds on 

participation by roughly half, the presence of young children (under age 5) 

in the household nearly doubles the odds of participating. Households 

consisting of all black members (including black Hispanics) were nearly 

twice as likely as families with all white (non-Hispanic) members to 

participate, though there were no significant differences between 

households consisting of other races and households that were all white. 

Households with any noncitizen unit head, and households involving 

owned rather than rented dwellings, were also less likely to be 

participating in food stamps than other households. 

Participation in the Food Stamp Program was also greatly affected by 

whether the persons in the eligible household participate in other 

programs. That is, the odds of participating were over 10 times higher for 

those working households that received Medicaid benefits (than for those 

who do not), over six times higher for those who received energy 

assistance, and over four times higher for households in which someone 

was receiving job training. Similarly, the odds of participating in the Food 

Stamp Program were about three times higher for those working 

households participating in free lunch programs or in WIC than for those 

not participating in those programs, and they were roughly twice as great 

for those who received any SSI benefits. 

The first multivariate model (Model 1) provides estimates of the effects of 

the various socioeconomic and demographic factors when they are 

estimated simultaneously, using a multivariate logistic regression model. 

While odds ratios estimating the different effect sizes change modestly in 

some cases, most of the factors that appeared significant when they were 

estimated from bivariate models remain significant when they are 

estimated in a multivariate context and the effects of other factors are 

controlled. 

Model 2 of the multivariate analysis shows the estimates of the effects of 

participating in other programs, net of each other, and net of the effects of 

the socioeconomic and demographic factors. Here too, most of these 

effects remain consistent with what was found in the bivariate analyses, 
Appendix I: Methodology for Comparing 

Participating Working Families to Likely 

Eligible Nonparticipating Working Families 

Page 47 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

except that receiving SSI does not appear to affect Food Stamp Program 

participation net of the other factors and, when other factors are 

controlled, households involved in the Children’s Health Insurance 

Program appear to be only a third as likely as households that do not 

receive food stamps. While our estimates of the effects of participating in 

other programs on food stamp participation are somewhat attenuated or 

diminished when they are estimated simultaneously, rather than 

independent of one another, it remains the case that households, including 

someone who receives Medicaid, energy assistance, or job training are the 

most likely to receive food stamps. We believe that, these multivariate 

estimates of the effects of program participation are, by virtue of being 

estimated simultaneously and while controlling for the socioeconomic and 

demographic characteristics of the eligible households, somewhat better 

estimates than those obtained in our bivariate analyses. 
Appendix II: Summary of Farm Bill Provisions 

Page 48 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Option/ provision Description 

Encouragement of payment of child 

support (option) 

Treats legally obligated child support payments to a nonhousehold member as an income 

exclusion rather than a deduction. 

Simplified definition of income (option) Excludes types of income that are not used to determine eligibility for TANF or Medicaid, 

with some exceptions 

Simplified definition of resources (option) Excludes certain types of resources that the state does not count for TANF or Medicaid. 

Simplified determination of housing costs 

(option) 

Allows states to use a standard deduction from income of $143 per month for homeless 

households with some shelter expenses 

Simplified determination of deductions 

(option) 

Disregard reported changes in deductions during certification periods except for changes 

associated with a new residence or earned income until the next recertification. 

State option to reduce reporting 

requirements (option) 

Expand simplified/semiannual reporting systems to most households, not just 

those with earned income. 

Transitional food stamps for families 

moving from welfare (option) 

Continue food stamp benefits to households for up to 5 months after they lose 

TANF cash assistance. 

Simplified utility allowance (option) Simplifies the Standard Utility Allowance to promote its use. 

Alternative procedures for residents of 

certain group faculties 

Pilot project to assess feasibility of issuing standardized rather than individual benefits to 

certain residents of group homes. 

Availability of food stamp program 

applications on the Internet 

Require state agencies that have a Web site to post applications on these sites. 

Grants for simple application and eligibility 

determination systems and improved 

access to benefits 

Authorizes up to $5 million annually to pay for projects to improve access for food stampeligible households or to develop and implement simplified application and eligibility 

systems. 

Reform of quality control (QC) system This provision makes substantial changes to the QC system that measures states’ 

payment accuracy in issuing food stamp benefits. Only those states with 

persistently high error rates would face liabilities. 

Bonuses for states that demonstrate high 

or most improved performance 

Creates a performance system that will award $48 million in bonuses each year to states 

with high or improved performance for actions taken to correct errors, reduce the rates of 

error, and improve eligibility determinations. 

Partial restoration of benefits to legal 

immigrants 

This provision restores food stamp eligibility on certain dates to qualified aliens who are 

otherwise eligible and meet criteria laid out in the legislation. 

Source: Section-By-Section Summary of Provisions Affecting Food Stamp Provisions. Compiled by USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service. 

Note: Bolded provisions are those we identified as having the potential to have particularly positive 

impact on participation among working families. 

Appendix II: Summary of Farm Bill 

Provisions 
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

Page 49 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Kay Brown, (202) 512-3674, brownke@gao.gov

Kevin Kumanga, (202) 512-4962, kumangak@gao.gov 

Bob Kolasky and Thaddeus Hackworth also made significant contributions 

to this report. In addition, Paula Bonin, Robert DeRoy, Kevin Jackson, 

Beverly Ross, Sidney Schwartz, and Douglas Sloane produced our 

estimates of participation among working families, and Corinna Nicolaou 

assisted in the message and report development. 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 50 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Welfare Reform: Information on Changing Labor Market and State 

Fiscal Conditions. GAO-03-977. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003. 

Food Stamp Employment and Training Program: Better Data Needed to 

Understand Who Is Served and What the Program Achieves. GAO-03-388. 

Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate 

Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective 

Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002. 

Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Services to Many LowIncome Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance. GAO-02-564. 

Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002. 

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

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

D.C.: February 22, 2002. 

Human Services Integration: Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference 

on Modernizing Information Systems. GAO-02-121. Washington, D.C.: 

January 31, 2002. 

Earned Income Tax Credit Eligibility and Participation. GAO-02-290R. 

Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2001. 

Means-Tested Programs: Determining Financial Eligibility Is 

Cumbersome and Can Be Simplified. GAO-02-58. Washington, D.C.: 

November 2, 2001. 

Food Assistance: Options for Improving Nutrition for Older Americans. 

GAO/RCED-00-238. Washington, D.C.: August 17, 2000. 

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

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

Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2000. 

Food Stamp Program: Various Factors Have Led to Declining 

Participation. GAO/RCED-99-185. Washington, D.C.: July, 1999. 

Related GAO Products 
Related GAO Products 

Page 51 GAO-04-346 Food Stamps and Working Families 

Food Stamp Program: Storeowners Seldom Pay Financial Penalties 

Owed for Program Violations. GAO/RCED-99-91. Washington, D.C.: May 

11, 1999 

(130229) 
The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs