GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 27, 2001

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

Nutrition, and Forestry

United States Senate

Subject: Food Stamp Program: Implementation of the Employment and

Training Program for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L.

104-193) amended the Food Stamp Act of 1977 by, among other things, tightening

work requirements for food stamp participants who are between the ages of 18 and

50, able-bodied, and do not have dependents. (These participants are referred to as

able-bodied adults without dependents, or ABAWDs). Specifically, the act prohibits

ABAWDs from receiving food stamp benefits if they had received food stamp benefits

for at least 3 months during the preceding 36-month period, unless they either meet

the work requirement or live in an area that has been waived from the requirement

because of high unemployment or an insufficient number of available jobs.1 ABAWDs

can meet the work requirement by (1) working a minimum of 80 hours per month; (2)

participating in qualifying state employment and training programs for 20 hours per

week; or (3) participating in workfare, public service work for which ABAWDs

receive food stamp benefits.

In response to concerns that some ABAWDs were willing to work but were unable to

find opportunities to meet the Food Stamp Program’s new work requirement, the

Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) authorized increased funding for food

stamp employment and training programs from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year

2002, when the Food Stamp Program is scheduled to be reauthorized. To qualify for

these additional federal funds, the states must maintain their state-funded

expenditures for employment and training at a level no lower than in fiscal year 1996;

these additional funds are referred to as maintenance-of-effort funds. To ensure that

employment and training programs are targeted at ABAWDs, the act requires that at

least 80 percent of all employment and training funds be spent on ABAWDs. The

Balanced Budget Act also gave the states the option to exempt from the work

 1

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), which oversees the Food

Stamp Program, reviews the states’ requests for waivers and approves those that meet the criteria.
2 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

requirement up to 15 percent of their ABAWD population not residing in a waived

area or otherwise exempted from the work requirement.

This letter provides information on (1) trends in ABAWD participation in the Food

Stamp Program, including recent data on ABAWDs who are living in waived areas,

exempted from work requirements, participating in qualifying employment and

training activities, or working; and (2) the extent to which the states have used

employment and training program funding.

ABAWD Participation in the Food Stamp Program Has Dropped Rapidly Since

Fiscal Year 1996

As presented in figure 1, FNS’ preliminary estimates show that the number of

ABAWDs participating in the Food Stamp Program has dropped from a monthly

average of 1,133,000 in fiscal year 1996 to a monthly average of 362,000 in fiscal year

1999—an estimated 68-percent drop. This decline has occurred even though most

states have used waivers and/or exemptions to exclude portions of their ABAWD

population from the work requirement.

Figure 1: Average Monthly ABAWD Participation in the Food Stamp Program,

Fiscal Years 1996 to 1999

Participants (in Thousands)

Fiscal Year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1996 1997 1998 1999

Source: FNS.

As of January 2001, 36 states and the District of Columbia have waivers for at least

one county, city, or Indian reservation with either high unemployment or an
3 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

insufficient number of jobs. (See table 1 in enc. I.) The states’ use of waivers is

comparable to the level we reported for June 1999.2

 FNS does not require the states

to report the number of ABAWDs living in areas covered by waivers. However, based

on our survey of food stamp officials in 42 states, we estimated that in the spring of

1998 about 40 percent of ABAWDs were living in areas covered by FNS waivers.3

The states increased their use of exemptions for ABAWDs between fiscal years 1999

and 2000. In fiscal year 2000, 36 states exempted a total monthly average of about

14,000 ABAWDs not living in areas waived from the work requirement. In fiscal year

1999, 33 states exempted a total monthly average of 9,400 ABAWDs not living in areas

covered by waivers—less than 3 percent of the total estimated number of ABAWDs

participating in the Food Stamp Program in that year. (See table 2 in enc. I.)

In fiscal year 2000, a monthly average of about 71,400 ABAWDs participated in

qualifying food stamp employment and training activities, including workfare.4

 (See

enc. II.) About 81 percent of these participants engaged in workfare, while the

remaining 19 percent participated in other employment and training activities. About

82 percent of the ABAWDs participating in employment and training activities lived in

areas not covered by waivers. In fiscal year 1999, a monthly average of about 71,100

ABAWDs participated in qualifying employment and training programs. About 85

percent of these participants engaged in workfare, while the remaining 15 percent

participated in other employment and training activities. About 78 percent of the

ABAWDs participating in employment and training activities lived in areas not

covered by waivers.

Data are not currently available on the number of ABAWDs participating in the Food

Stamp Program who work. FNS does not require the states to collect and report

these data. However, preliminary data from an FNS study of the ABAWD population

indicates that a substantial portion of ABAWDs who receive food stamp benefits are

working, according to an FNS official.

The States Have Not Used a Substantial Portion of the Funds Made Available

for Food Stamp Employment and Training Programs

In fiscal year 2000, the states spent $98 million, or only 30 percent, of the $330 million

available for employment and training programs. (See table 3 in enc. III.) As shown

in figure 2, funds available for food stamp employment and training programs have

 2

For example, only four states changed their waiver status: Arkansas, California, and Utah used

waivers for certain areas in June 1999, but did not use waivers in January 2001; Oregon did not use

waivers in June 1999, but used waivers for certain areas in January 2001. See Food Stamp Program:

How States Are Using Federal Waivers of the Work Requirement (GAO/RCED-00-5, Oct. 20, 1999).

3

Food Stamp Program: Information on Employment and Training Activities (GAO/RCED-99-40,

Dec. 14, 1998).

4

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act excluded job search and job

search training as allowable employment and training program components.
4 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

grown rapidly since fiscal year 1997, while spending has remained fairly constant.

Funds available for employment and training programs have grown, in part, because

they can be carried over to subsequent fiscal years. In fiscal year 2001, $426 million

are available for employment and training programs through fiscal year 2001

appropriations and the carryover of prior-year funds.

Figure 2: Funds Available and Spent for Food Stamp Employment and

Training Programs, Fiscal Years 1997 to 2000

Dollars (in Millions)

Funds Available

Funds Spent

Fiscal Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1997 1998 1999 2000

Source: FNS.

In fiscal year 2000, 30 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands

spent less than half of their employment and training allocations. (See table 4 in enc.

III.) This low level of spending reflects both the rapid decline in the number of

ABAWDs receiving food stamp benefits as well as states’ decisions about how to

structure their programs. For example, eight states and the Virgin Islands have

elected not to provide any qualifying employment and training activities for ABAWDs

and had to limit their spending to at most 20 percent of their allocation.5

 According

to the Economic Research Service’s October 2000 report, these states said that they

 5

The Balanced Budget Act requires that the states spend at least 80 percent of their employment and

training funds to serve ABAWDs. Even though these states do not spend any funds on ABAWDs, they

are still eligible to spend up to 20 percent of their allocated funds to serve non-ABAWDs.
5 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

did not have enough participating ABAWDs to justify the cost of expanding services.6

These states generally disagreed with the Balanced Budget Act’s requirement that 80

percent of the food stamp employment and training funds be spent on ABAWDs.7

In addition, 20 states and the District of Columbia were ineligible to receive

maintenance-of-effort funding in at least 1 year from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal

year 2000 because their use of state funds was less than their fiscal year 1996

expenditures. (See table 5 in enc. III.) For example, New York spent more than $19

million of state funds per year in fiscal years 1998 to 2000 but was not eligible for

maintenance-of-effort funding in any of these years because it had spent $22.9 million

on employment and training in fiscal year 1996. Conversely, 15 states and the Virgin

Islands were automatically eligible for maintenance-of-effort funding because they

did not spend any state funds on employment and training in fiscal year 1996 and,

therefore, did not have a maintenance-of-effort requirement. For example, North

Dakota qualified for $145,000 in maintenance-of-effort funding in fiscal year 2000,

even though it did not spend any of its own funds on employment and training

activities in that year.

Agency Comments

We provided the U.S. Department of Agriculture with a draft of this report for review

and comment. Officials from the Department’s Food and Nutrition Service agreed

with the factual accuracy of the information presented.

Scope and Methodology

To accomplish our objectives, we interviewed FNS officials and obtained FNS data

for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 on ABAWD participation in the Food Stamp Program,

the states’ use of work requirement waivers and exemptions for ABAWDs, and the

states’ use of employment and training funds. This report updates information in our

October 1999 report on ABAWD participation in the Food Stamp Program and states’

waivers of ABAWDs from work requirements. This report also updates information

in our December 1998 report and the Economic Research Service’s October 2000

report on the extent to which the states have used employment and training program

funds. We conducted our review in January 2001 in accordance with generally

accepted government auditing standards.

- - - -

 6

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Report to Congress on State Use of

Funds to Increase Work Slots for Food Stamp Recipients (Oct. 2000).

7

The states also have expressed concern about the amount of available funding for each ABAWD

employment and training slot. In response, FNS has designated 13 states as alternative reimbursement

states, which are not limited to the reimbursement rate of $175 for each filled slot, provided they agree

to offer a qualifying employment and training slot to all ABAWDs who do not live in waived areas.
6 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we

plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days after the date of this letter. At

that time, we will send copies of the report to the House Committee on Agriculture;

the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies of the

Senate and House Committees on Appropriations; and other appropriate

congressional committees; the Honorable Ann M. Veneman, the Secretary of

Agriculture; and the Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, Office of

Management and Budget. In addition, we will make copies available to others on

request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions about this

report. Major contributors to this report were Richard Cheston and Debra Prescott.

Sincerely yours,

Robert E. Robertson

Director, Education, Workforce, and

Income Security Issues
Enclosure I Enclosure I

7 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

WAIVERS AND EXEMPTIONS OF THE WORK REQUIREMENT FOR

ABLE-BODIED ADULTS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS

Table 1: Approved Waivers of the ABAWD Work Requirement, by State, as of January 2001

State

Waiver

state

Unemployment

greater than 10

percent

Insufficient

jobs

Areas included in waiver

Alabama Yes X X 36 counties

Alaska Yes X X 21 census areas

Arizona Yes X X 9 counties, 1 partial county, 5 Indian reservations

Arkansas No

California No

Colorado Yes X 5 counties, 2 Indian reservations

Connecticut Yes X 4 cities and towns

Delaware No

District of Columbia Yes X Entire District

Florida Yes X X 21 counties, 1 partial county, 1 city

Georgia Yes X 50 counties, 5 cities

Guam No

Hawaii Yes X X 3 islands

Idaho Yes X X 5 Indian reservations

Illinois Yes X 52 counties, 18 cities, 180 municipalities

Indiana Yes X 3 counties, 2 cities

Iowa No

Kansas No

Kentucky Yes X 57 counties, 1 partial county

Louisiana Yes X 48 parishes, 2 cities

Maine Yes X 6 counties, 5 local metropolitan areas, 4 cities and

towns, 1 Indian reservation

Maryland Yes X X 7 counties, 2 cities

Massachusetts No

Michigan No

Minnesota Yes X X 15 counties, 8 Indian reservations

Mississippi No

Missouri Yes X 26 counties, 1 city

Montana Yes X X 17 counties, portions of 5 Indian reservations

Nebraska Yes X 3 Indian reservations

Nevada Yes X X 5 counties, 1 city, 16 Indian reservations/colonies

New Hampshire No

New Jersey Yes X X 2 counties, 29 municipalities

New Mexico Yes X X 15 counties, 3 partial counties, 1 city, 5 Indian

reservations

New York Yes X X 23 counties, 13 cities

North Carolina No

North Dakota Yes X 3 counties

Ohio No

Oklahoma No

Oregon Yes X 26 counties, 1 city

Pennsylvania Yes X 33 counties, 8 cities
Enclosure I Enclosure I

8 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

State

Waiver

state

Unemployment

greater than

10 percent

Insufficient

jobs

Areas included in waiver

Rhode Island Yes X 5 towns

South Carolina Yes X X 17 counties

South Dakota Yes X X 9 counties, portions of 11 counties with Indian

reservations

Tennessee Yes X X 39 counties

Texas Yes X X 20 counties

Utah No

Vermont Yes X 2 counties

Virgin Islands No

Virginia Yes X 13 counties, 3 cities

Washington Yes X X 26 counties,17 Indian reservations

West Virginia Yes X X 12 counties, 28 low service areas

Wisconsin No

Wyoming Yes X 1 Indian reservation

Total Yes: 37

No: 16

20 36

Note: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 authorizes the states to apply for and FNS

to grant a waiver of the work requirement for ABAWDs living in an area with either an unemployment rate above

10 percent or an insufficient number of available jobs.

Source: FNS.

Table 2: Average Monthly Number of ABAWDs Exempted From the Work Requirement, Fiscal

Years 1999 and 2000

State FY 1999 FY 2000

Alabama 0 111

Alaska 17 24

Arizona 74 379

Arkansas 276 329

California 392 325

Colorado 42 50

Connecticuta 83 203

Delaware 0 0

District of Columbia 0 0

Florida 407 926

Georgia 105 72

Guam 0 0

Hawaii 29 31

Idaho 11 25

Illinois 1,992 3,365

Indiana 10 124

Iowa 0 239

Kansas 304 387

Kentucky 566 656

Louisiana 1,180 1,003

Maine 20 230
Enclosure I Enclosure I

9 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

State FY 1999 FY 2000

Maryland 280 165

Massachusetts 527 276

Michigan 0 0

Minnesotab 518 249

Mississippi 568 742

Missouri 18 61

Montana 0 0

Nebraska 120 108

Nevada 33 1

New Hampshire 19 58

New Jersey 0 152

New Mexicob 0 0

New York 67 376

North Carolina 968 1,084

North Dakota 0 0

Ohio 0 0

Oklahoma 0 0

Oregon 91 1,202

Pennsylvania 0 203

Rhode Island 0 0

South Carolina 84 350

South Dakota 0 0

Tennessee 22 0

Texas 0 0

Utah 96 12

Vermont 14 16

Virgin Islands 0 0

Virginia 0 0

Washington 396 423

West Virginia 22 14

Wisconsin 0 0

Wyoming 0 0

Total 9,352 13,970

Note: The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 authorized the states to exempt from the work requirement up to 15

percent of their ABAWD population not residing in a waived area or otherwise exempted from the work

requirement.

a

Third and fourth quarter data were not available.

b

Fourth quarter data were not available.

Source: FNS.
Enclosure III Enclosure II

10 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF ABAWDS PARTICIPATING IN A QUALIFYING

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACTIVITY, FISCAL YEAR 2000

Unwaived areas Waived areas Total

State Workfare

Employment

and training Workfare

Employment

and training Workfare

Employment

and training Total

Alabama 259 0 0 0 259 0 259

Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arizona 10 2 11 1 22 3 24

Arkansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

California 22,669 1,834 0.4 1 22,669 1,835 24,504

Colorado 671 167 0 0 671 167 837

Connecticuta 6 11 0 6 6 18 24

Delaware 2 0 0 0 2 0 2

District of Columbia 0 0 7 3 7 3 10

Florida 114 60 594 365 708 424 1,132

Georgia 257 62 0 0 257 62 319

Guam 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.3

Hawaii 0 6 0 2 0 8 8

Idaho 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Illinois 0 0 3,702 144 3,702 144 3,846

Indiana 61 116 9 156 71 272 342

Iowa 63 0 0 0 63 0 63

Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kentucky 206 0.2 0 0 206 0.2 206

Louisiana 40 9 123 23 163 32 195

Maine 7 2 1 0.3 8 2 10

Maryland 0 18 0 7 0 25 25

Massachusetts 94 0 0 0 94 0 94

Michigan 177 0.4 0 0 177 0.4 177

Minnesotab 15 137 5 41 20 178 198

Mississippi 494 31 0 0 494 31 525

Missouri 0 33 0 0 0 33 33

Montana 0 310 0 61 0 371 371

Nebraska 23 0 0 0 23 0 23

Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

New Hampshire 147 4 0 0 147 4 151

New Jersey 637 4,261 176 1,506 813 5,768 6,581

New Mexicob 0 3 0 1 0 44

New York 20,275 883 3,258 200 23,533 1,083 24,617

North Carolina 37 21 0 0 37 21 58

North Dakota 0 2 0 0 0 2 2

Ohio 1,326 146 0 0 1,326 146 1,473

Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oregon 163 38 82 6 246 44 290

Pennsylvania 2 89 11 588 12 676 689

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 129 551 125 777 254 1,328 1,582
Enclosure III Enclosure II

11 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

Unwaived areas Waived areas Total

State Workfare

Employment

and training Workfare

Employment

and training Workfare

Employment

and training Total

South Dakota 24 2 0 0 24 2 26

Tennessee 278 61 29 6 306 68 374

Texas 415 18 373 12 788 29 817

Utah 44 99 4 0.1 47 99 146

Vermont 9 2 0 0 9 2 11

Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia 26 20 20 13 46 32 78

Washington 403 1 0 0 403 1 404

West Virginia 0 142 0 242 0 385 385

Wisconsin 269 90 91 0 360 90 450

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 49,349 9,231 8,623 4,161 57,972 13,392 71,364

Note: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 allows ABAWDs to meet the

work requirement by (1) working a minimum of 80 hours per month; (2) participating in qualifying state

employment and training programs for 20 hours per week; or (3) participating in workfare, public service work for

which ABAWDs receive food stamp benefits. The act excluded job search and job search training as allowable

employment and training program components. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Third and fourth quarter data were not available.

b

Fourth quarter data were not available.

Source: FNS.
Enclosure III Enclosure III

12 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

FUNDING FOR FOOD STAMP EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

Table 3: Appropriations and Expenditures for Employment and Training Programs, Fiscal

Years1997-2000

(Dollars in thousands)

Fiscal year

Base program

appropriation

Maintenance-of-effort

appropriationa

Carryover of

prior year funds Total available Total spent

1997 $79,000 b c $79,000 $73,917

1998 $81,000 $131,000 c $212,000 $84,487

1999 $84,000 $31,000d $127,513 $242,513 $84,151

2000 $86,000 $86,000d $158,362 $330,362 $98,099

2001 $88,000 $106,000d $232,263 $426,263 e

a

To qualify for maintenance-of-effort funds in a given year, the states are required to maintain their state-funded

expenditures for employment and training at a level no less than they did in fiscal year 1996.

b

Beginning in fiscal year 1998, additional federal funding was made available for states that met the

maintenance-of-effort requirement in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

c

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to carry over any unspent base

program funding and maintenance-of-effort funding, effective in fiscal year 1998.

d

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 originally established maintenance-of-effort funding at $131 million per year

for fiscal years 1998-2001. Subsequently, the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of

1998 (P.L. 105-185) reduced the funding to $31 million in fiscal year 1999 and $86 million in fiscal year 2000.

Funding for fiscal year 2001 was reduced by $25 million in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 (P.L. 106-387).

e

Total spending data for fiscal year 2001 are not yet available.

Source: FNS.

Table 4: FNS’ Allocation and the States’ Expenditures of Funds for

Employment and Training Programs, Fiscal Year 2000

(Dollars in thousands)

State

Base

allocation

Maintenance-of -effort

allocationa

Total FY 2000

allocation

Total

expendituresb

Percent of allocation

expended

Alabama $1,452 $1,453 $2,905 $994 34

Alaskac 182 182 364 73 20

Arizona 1,141 1,141 2,282 718 31

Arkansasc 798 798 1,596 151 9

California 10,774 10,780 21,554 27,307 127

Colorado 479 479 958 2,274 237

Connecticut 1,293 1,294 2,587 1,364 53

Delaware 150 150 300 150 50

District of Columbia 846 847 1,693 372 22

Florida 3,852 3,854 7,706 4,585 59
Enclosure III Enclosure III

13 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

State

Base

allocation

Maintenance of effort

allocationa

Total FY 2000

allocation

Total

expendituresb

Percent of allocation

expended

Georgia 2,372 2,373 4,745 2,089 44

Guamd 50 0 50 11 22

Hawaii 718 719 1,437 718 50

Idahoc 234 235 469 94 20

Illinois 5,200 5,203 10,403 9,843 95

Indiana 1,386 1,386 2,772 1,116 40

Iowa 462 462 924 229 25

Kansasc403 403 806 161 20

Kentucky 1,091 1,092 2,183 286 13

Louisiana 1,230 1,231 2,461 1,075 44

Maine 555 555 1,110 144 13

Maryland 570 571 1,141 100 9

Massachusetts 998 998 1,996 553 28

Michigan 6,123 6,127 12,250 4,706 38

Minnesota 944 944 1,888 944 50

Mississippi 1,517 1,517 3,034 1,894 62

Missouri 1,385 1,386 2,771 981 35

Montana 204 204 408 533 131

Nebraska 290 290 580 620 107

Nevadac476 477 953 191 20

New Hampshire 90 90 180 56 31

New Jersey 1,369 1,369 2,738 2,738 100

New Mexico 579 579 1,158 579 50

New York 6,502 6,505 13,007 6,502 50

North Carolina 2,009 2,010 4,019 384 10

North Dakota 145 145 290 113 39

Ohio 3,328 3,330 6,658 3,328 50

Oklahomac 1,381 1,382 2,763 95 3

Oregon 1,620 1,621 3,241 1,446 45

Pennsylvania 5,606 5,609 11,215 5,039 45

Rhode Islandc 253 253 506 58 11

South Carolina 1,077 1,077 2,154 2,345 109

South Dakota 123 123 246 294 120

Tennessee 3,054 3,056 6,110 2,468 40

Texas 6,517 6,521 13,038 4,157 32

Utah 267 267 534 451 84

Vermont 306 306 612 149 24

Virgin Islandsc 26 26 52 9 17

Virginia 1,938 1,939 3,877 981 25

Washington 739 739 1,478 1,509 102

West Virginia 1,092 1,093 2,185 126 6

Wisconsin 654 654 1,308 957 73

Wyomingc 154 154 308 43 14

Total $86,000 $86,000 $172,000 $98,099 57

a

FNS allocates maintenance-of-effort funds among all states. However, the states can spend this allocation only if

their state-funded expenditures for employment and training are at least at a level spent in fiscal year 1996.

b

FNS subsequently reallocated its base and maintenance-of-effort allocations for fiscal year 2000 and prior years in

response to states’ requests for additional funding, as allowed by the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (as amended).

Expenditures data are preliminary as of February 2001.
Enclosure III Enclosure III

14 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

c

Eight states and the Virgin Islands were eligible to spend no more than 20 percent of their allocation for fiscal year

2000 because they elected not to serve ABAWDs.

d

Data were available for only the first three quarters of fiscal year 2000.

Source: FNS.

Table 5: States’ Eligibility for Federal Maintenance-of-Effort Funding for Employment and Training

Activities, Fiscal Years 1998 to 2000

(Dollars in thousands)

Spending toward maintenance-ofeffort requirementStates eligible for maintenance-of-effort

fundingt

State

Maintenanceof-effort

requirement FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000

Number of

years

eligible

Alabama $26 $26 $0 $26 X X 2

Alaska 172 147 93 136 0

Arizona 0 475 0 0 X X X 3

Arkansas 116 152 19 39 X 1

California 3,948 2,268 13,060 17,236 X X 2

Colorado 1,150 1,295 1,247 1,387 X X X 3

Connecticut 81 81 139 81 X X X 3

Delaware 264 209 287 73 X 1

District of Columbia 128 22 112 13 0

Florida 1,069 1,011 1,106 1,069 X X 2

Georgia 509 519 144 122 X 1

Guam 33 11 17 59 X a

Hawaii 489 336 471 329 0

Idaho 180 228 372 515 X X X 3

Illinois 3,412 6,617 3,552 3,531 X X X 3

Indiana 3,443 3,807 3,848 4,884 X X X 3

Iowa 28 28 149 131 X X X 3

Kansas 0 274 408 74 X X X 3

Kentucky 381 0 0 0 0

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 X X X 3

Maine 164 279 255 376 X X X 3

Maryland 0 6 13 5 X X X 3

Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 X X X 3

Michigan 0 0 0 0 X X X 3

Minnesota 1,735 1,153 961 965 0

Mississippi 347 370 218 132 X 1

Missouri 0 0 0 0 X X X 3

Montana 222 348 20 258 X X 2

Nebraska 185 222 185 96 X X 2

Nevada 0 0 0 0 X X X 2

New Hampshire 143 143 143 131 X X 2

New Jersey 0 1,602 3,372 4,113 X X X 3

New Mexico 210 80 2,182 957 X X 2

New York 22,995 20,079 20,833 19,114 0

North Carolina 41 1,011 3,206 3,227 X X X 3

North Dakota 0 0 0 0 X X X 3

Ohio 6,875 2,273 1,887 3,008 0
Enclosure III Enclosure III

15 GAO-01-391R Food Stamp Employment and Training

Spending toward maintenance-ofeffort requirementStates eligible for maintenance-of-effort

funds

State

Maintenanceof-effort

requirement FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000

Number of

years

eligible

Oklahoma 37 59 88 0 X X 2

Oregon 0 688 0 525 X X X 3

Pennsylvania 5,130 9,017 9,393 8,869 X X X 3

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 X X X 3

South Carolina 280 280 280 280 X X X 3

South Dakota 143 254 143 160 X X X 3

Tennessee 0 0 0 0 X X X 3

Texas 3,404 3,657 4,035 4,484 X X X 3

Utah 580 694 688 1,487 X X X 3

Vermont 1,519 2,135 2,224 2,332 X X X 3

Virgin Islands 0 12 13 17 X X X 3

Virginia 392 577 1,055 694 X X X 3

Washington 0 0 0 0 X X X 3

West Virginia 92 46 85 92 X 1

Wisconsin 17,089 2,706 3,741 3,837 0

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 X X X 3

Note: To qualify for maintenance-of-effort funds in a given fiscal year, the states are required to maintain

their state-funded expenditures for employment and training at a level no lower than in fiscal year 1996.

a

Guam did not have enough ABAWDs in fiscal years 1998 to 2000 to receive a maintenance-of-effort allocation,

regardless of spending toward the maintenance-of-effort requirement, according to an FNS official.

Source: FNS.

(130020)