GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Honorable Christopher 

Shays, House of Representatives

January 2001 TITLE III, OLDER 

AMERICANS ACT

Carryover Funds Are 

Not Creating a Serious 

Meal Service Problem 

Nationwide

 GAO-01-211

Page 1 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548 Letr

January 9, 2001

The Honorable Christopher Shays

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Shays:

The Older Americans Act (42 U.S.C. 3001-3058ee) is intended to assist 

elderly Americans (aged 60 and over) by removing barriers to independent 

living through a variety of long-term care services in communities across 

the nation. Administered by the Administration on Aging (AoA) in the 

Department of Health and Human Services, Title III of the Act authorizes 

nutrition services such as congregate (group) and in-home meals, as well as 

support services, including transportation and housekeeping. Under Title 

III, program funds are to be distributed as grants to states on the basis of 

their proportional share of the total elderly population in the United 

States.1

 In fiscal year 1999, the 50 states; the District of Columbia; and the 

U.S. territories, including American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Marianas, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands (hereafter referred to as the 56 states), received about $785 

million to operate Title III services. The bulk of these funds—$486 

million—was directed to nutrition services.

Most states generally pass on their Title III funds to more than 600 area 

agencies nationwide, such as county human services organizations, that 

oversee the nutrition and support services provided by these funds at the 

local level. In turn, most of these area agencies award subgrants or 

contracts to about 4,000 local service providers, which deliver these 

services in a variety of settings, including senior centers, schools, and 

homes. Some states award Title III funds directly to the local service 

providers.

1

We previously reported that Title III funds were not distributed to the states according to 

the statute. See Title III, Older Americans Act: Administration on Aging Funding Method 

Underfunds High-Elderly-Growth States (GAO/HEHS-00-107, June 30, 2000). The 

Department of Health and Human Services disagreed with the report’s conclusions, 

asserting that the method currently used by AoA is not inconsistent with the law and that, 

absent a definitive determination of congressional intent, a unilateral modification (of the 

method) is not appropriate. 
Page 2 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

AoA requires that states obligate Title III funds by September 30 of the 

fiscal year in which they are awarded to a state.2

 Furthermore, AoA 

requires the states to spend these obligated funds within 2 years after the 

year in which they are awarded (e.g., funds awarded in federal fiscal year 

1999—October 1, 1998, to September 30, 1999—must be spent by 

September 30, 2001).3

 AoA does not limit or monitor the amount of unspent 

funds that states and area agencies may carry over to the succeeding fiscal 

year during that time. However, AoA allows states to limit the amount of 

carryover funds used by their area agencies. States may also transfer Title 

III funds, with some limits, between their allotments for nutrition services 

(Part C) and support services (Part B), as well as between their allotments 

for congregate meal services (Part C-1) and home-delivered meal services 

(Part C-2).

You asked us to review whether states may be using Title III carryover 

funds to expand their meal service programs for the elderly beyond a level 

sustainable by their annual allotments alone. Your request stemmed from a 

recent incident in Connecticut wherein one local service provider faced a 

serious funding shortfall because the provider had relied upon a large 

amount of carryover funds to expand the number of meals served beyond a 

level supportable solely by its annual nutrition allotment. When these 

carryover funds were depleted, the provider faced the prospect of having to 

reduce the number of meals served by 16 percent, thereby putting the 

nutritional welfare of about 175 older persons at risk.4

To determine whether this incident in Connecticut was unique or a sign of a 

potentially broader problem, we reviewed the extent to which Title III-C 

carryover funds are used by state and area agencies to support nutrition 

services for the elderly. This report provides information on the (1) levels 

of Title III-C carryover funds available in fiscal year 1999, (2) extent to 

which the states and area agencies have established limits on the amount of 

funds carried over, and (3) extent to which carryover funds are used to 

expand meal services and the effects that reductions in the amount of 

carryover funds from one year to the next have had on meal services. This 

2

An obligation represents a commitment to pay out money, as distinct from an actual 

payment.

3

AoA Fiscal Guide Older Americans Act Titles III and VII (Mar. 2000).

4

Since this incident, Connecticut has adopted a limit on the amount of funds that area 

agencies and local service providers may carry over to subsequent years. 
Page 3 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

report also provides information on the extent to which states transferred 

Title III funds among nutrition and support services and the extent to 

which states allow area agencies to transfer Title III funds.

To address these objectives, we conducted national surveys of the 56 states 

and 652 area agencies that received Title III nutrition and support services 

funds in fiscal year 1999. We received survey responses from all of the 

states and 563 of the area agencies—for a response rate of 86 percent. We 

performed our review from March through December 2000 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I 

contains a detailed description of the methodology we used to conduct this 

review.

Results in Brief Nationwide, the total amount of reported Title III-C carryover funds 

available in fiscal year 1999 was relatively small—$24.6 million—

representing about 5 percent of the total nutrition allotment that year. The 

level of carryover funds reported by the states varied considerably. Twentytwo states reported that they had no carryover funds, while 34 states 

reported carryover funds that ranged from less than 1 percent of their fiscal 

year 1999 nutrition allotment to almost 50 percent (in 1 state). Seven states 

had carryover funds that exceeded their fiscal year 1999 nutrition allotment 

by at least 15 percent. Additionally, two-thirds of the carryover funds—

$16.3 million—were concentrated in seven states.

Half (28) of the 56 states have limits on the amount of Title III-C funds that 

their area agencies and/or local service providers may carry over from one 

fiscal year to the next, and half do not. Fifteen of the 28 states that have 

limits ban the use of any carryover funds. The remaining 13 states restrict 

the amount that may be carried over, with an average reported limit of 

about 8 percent of their annual nutrition allotment. In the 28 states that do 

not impose carryover limits, some area agencies imposed restrictions on 

the amount of funds that their local service providers can carry over to 

subsequent years. 

While area agencies have used carryover funds to expand their meal 

services, state and area agencies identified relatively few instances of 

major cutbacks in meal services that occurred in fiscal year 1999 because 

of reductions in carryover funds. For example, the 17 states that had 

information on area agencies’ use of carryover funds reported that 133 of 

their 234 area agencies receiving nutrition funds for fiscal year 1999 had 

used carryover funds to expand the number of meals served that year. 
Page 4 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

However, only nine area agencies in these states had to reduce the number 

of meals served by 10 percent or more in fiscal year 1999 because their 

carryover funds were less than in prior years. 

Forty-seven states reported that they transferred funds among Title III 

nutrition and support services in fiscal year 1999. These transfers totaled 

about $76 million, the bulk of which—$71 million—were moved out of the 

allotment for congregate meals and into the allotments for home-delivered 

meals and/or support services. The amount of authority that states gave to 

area agencies and/or local service providers to transfer Title III funds 

varied. For example, 9 states reported that they do not allow their area 

agencies and/or providers to make any transfers, whereas 10 states permit 

the transfer of funds up to the maximum amount permitted by AoA without 

prior state approval. 

Although the use of carryover funds to support nutrition services for the 

elderly does not currently appear to be creating a serious meal service 

problem nationwide, we are recommending that AoA monitor the levels of 

unspent Title III-C funds that states carry over to the succeeding fiscal year 

and work with the states that build up substantial amounts of carryover 

funds to develop a strategy to spend down such funds in a manner that 

minimizes the potential disruption of meal services for the elderly. Such 

monitoring could be performed with available resources if it is done as a 

part of the agency’s routine program-monitoring activities. 

Background According to the Congressional Research Service, Title III nutrition funds 

provide almost 3 million older persons with about 240 million meals each 

year. Forty-eight percent of the meals are provided in congregate settings, 

such as senior centers, and 52 percent are provided to frail older persons in 

their home.5

In fiscal year 1999, about $785 million in Title III nutrition and support 

services funds was distributed to 56 states. A total of about $486 million 

was allotted for congregate and home-delivered meals (Title III-C). Table 1 

shows how these federal funds were distributed to the states. 

5

See Older Americans Act: Programs and Funding, Congressional Research Service (CRS 95-

917, Mar. 23, 2000).
Page 5 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

Table 1: Distribution of Title III Nutrition and Support Services Funds to States in Fiscal Year 1999

State Congregate meals Home-delivered meals Support services Total

Alabama $6,039,123 $1,809,239 $4,842,820 $12,691,182

Alaska 1,868,496 560,000 1,498,161 3,926,657

American Samoa 591,564 128,489 459,891 1,179,944

Arizona 4,775,258 1,480,743 3,868,799 10,124,800

Arkansas 4,143,271 1,213,921 3,314,230 8,671,422

California 34,748,156 10,623,109 27,928,704 73,299,969

Colorado 3,700,816 1,165,772 2,985,170 7,851,758

Connecticut 5,220,579 1,530,315 4,176,059 10,926,953

Delaware 1,868,496 560,000 1,498,161 3,926,657

District of Columbia 1,868,496 560,000 1,498,161 3,926,657

Florida 23,377,390 7,330,949 18,845,215 49,553,554

Georgia 7,403,877 2,276,311 5,954,800 15,634,988

Guam 934,248 280,000 749,081 1,963,329

Hawaii 1,931,185 560,000 1,541,101 4,032,286

Idaho 1,920,049 560,000 1,528,735 4,008,784

Illinois 17,201,474 5,023,565 13,754,216 35,979,255

Indiana 8,068,912 2,396,588 6,464,097 16,929,597

Iowa 5,058,716 1,465,547 4,041,475 10,565,738

Kansas 4,071,253 1,184,543 3,254,127 8,509,923

Kentucky 5,544,695 1,640,545 4,440,065 11,625,305

Louisiana 5,618,089 1,666,743 4,500,215 11,785,047

Maine 1,987,094 579,885 1,588,866 4,155,845

Maryland 5,865,746 1,784,972 4,712,043 12,362,761

Massachusetts 9,741,446 2,841,215 7,788,111 20,370,772

Michigan 12,869,841 3,852,626 10,319,311 27,041,778

Minnesota 6,367,865 1,881,838 5,098,552 13,348,255

Mississippi 3,872,209 1,135,700 3,097,807 8,105,716

Missouri 8,428,910 2,471,390 6,742,776 17,643,076

Montana 1,897,134 560,000 1,505,005 3,962,139

Nebraska 2,726,708 787,490 2,177,721 5,691,919

Nevada 1,962,054 600,833 1,577,444 4,140,331

New Hampshire 1,923,749 560,000 1,531,005 4,014,754

New Jersey 12,140,147 3,587,191 9,719,791 25,447,129

New Mexico 1,916,248 652,134 1,540,580 4,108,962

New York 28,843,281 8,363,478 23,044,878 60,251,637
Page 6 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

Source: Budget Office, AoA.

Fiscal year 2000 funding for the Older Americans Act increased about 3.5 

percent above the level for fiscal 1999. Funds for the home-delivered meals 

program increased by $35 million—31 percent over the level for fiscal 1999. 

The Nationwide Level 

of Title III-C Carryover 

Funds Is Low, but 

Some States Have 

Relatively High Levels

Nationwide, the funds carried over into fiscal year 1999 reported by the 

states represented a small percentage of the $486 million Title III-C 

allotment—about 5 percent, or $24.6 million. However, the level of 

carryover funds reported by the states varied considerably. Twenty-two 

states reported that they had no carryover at the beginning of fiscal year 

1999. The remaining 34 states reported a carryover that ranged, as a 

percentage of their fiscal year 1999 nutrition allotment, from less than 1 

percent in 6 states (Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Mexico, and Puerto Rico) to about 50 percent in Arizona. Seven states 

North Carolina 8,800,131 2,734,705 7,086,610 18,621,446

North Dakota 1,869,416 560,000 1,498,161 3,927,577

Northern Marianas 239,085 70,000 187,270 496,355

Ohio 16,322,930 4,843,020 13,074,808 34,240,758

Oklahoma 5,056,269 1,491,095 4,047,510 10,594,874

Oregon 4,281,902 1,301,397 3,439,423 9,022,722

Pennsylvania 21,196,002 6,212,560 16,954,955 44,363,517

Puerto Rico 3,573,974 1,115,073 2,879,810 7,568,857

Rhode Island 1,943,186 560,000 1,548,342 4,051,528

South Carolina 4,341,806 1,348,009 3,496,056 9,185,871

South Dakota 1,884,611 560,000 1,498,161 3,942,772

Tennessee 7,118,274 2,144,262 5,711,673 14,974,209

Texas 19,478,220 6,005,887 15,671,503 41,155,610

U.S. Virgin Islands 934,248 280,000 749,081 1,963,329

Utah 1,951,811 598,549 1,565,062 4,115,422

Vermont 1,868,496 560,000 1,498,161 3,926,657

Virginia 7,416,233 2,281,158 5,965,011 15,662,402

Washington 6,216,282 1,914,209 5,000,722 13,131,213

West Virginia 3,291,161 955,723 2,630,062 6,876,946

Wisconsin 7,550,157 2,229,222 6,044,551 15,823,930

Wyoming 1,868,496 560,000 1,498,161 3,926,657

Total $373,699,264 $111,999,998 $299,632,266 $785,331,528

(Continued From Previous Page)

State Congregate meals Home-delivered meals Support services Total
Page 7 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

(Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Missouri, New York, Oregon, and South 

Dakota) had carryover funds that exceeded their nutrition allotment for 

fiscal year 1999 by at least 15 percent. Additionally, two-thirds of the 

carryover funds—$16.3 million—were reported by seven states (Alabama, 

Arizona, California, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Texas) that had at least 

$1 million in carryover funds. Table 2 shows the distribution of these 

carryover funds and their respective percentage of the nutrition allotment 

for each of the latter seven states above at the beginning of fiscal year 1999. 

(See app. II for information on the amount of carryover funds available to 

each of the 56 states at the beginning of fiscal year 1999.)

Table 2: Distribution of Carryover Funds in States Having $1 Million or More in Fiscal Year 1999

States may have substantial amounts of carryover funds for a variety of 

reasons. For example, a state official said that the annual allotment of Title 

III funds may not be received by the beginning of a state’s fiscal year 

because of differences between federal and state fiscal year periods (41 

states begin their fiscal year 3 months earlier than the federal government) 

or delays in the federal appropriations process. States may then need to 

budget their spending on the basis of funding projections. According to the 

official, some states may develop more conservative spending estimates 

than others. As a result, some of these states may have substantial funds 

that cannot be fully spent by the end of the fiscal year. Because of this, 

funds may be carried over into the next federal fiscal year. 

The accumulation of carryover funds can occur at the state, area-agency, 

and/or local-service-provider level. In fiscal year 1999, about 25 percent of 

the nationwide carryover funds reported by the states were held at the 

state level and 75 percent were held at the area-agency and/or localState

Amount of Title III-C

carryover funds

Amount of Title

III-C allotment

Carryover as a percentage

of Title III-C allotment

Alabama $1,078,397 $7,848,362 13.74

Arizona 3,117,817 6,256,001 49.84

California 1,311,641 45,371,265 2.89

Missouri 1,679,360 10,900,300 15.41

New York 6,308,741 37,206,759 16.96

Ohio 1,686,835 21,165,950 7.97

Texas 1,124,034 25,484,107 4.41

Total $16,306,825 $154,232,744 10.57
Page 8 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

provider level. The states reported that 341, or about 52 percent, of all area 

agencies had some carryover funds available for their nutrition programs at 

the beginning of fiscal year 1999. The level of carryover at the area-agency 

level can vary dramatically. For example, of the 208 area agencies that 

responded to our survey and reported some carryover at the beginning of 

fiscal year 1999, the carryover ranged from less than 1 percent of the fiscal 

year 1999 Title III-C allotment at 20 area agencies to more than 50 percent 

at 3 area agencies. Most area agencies (132) reported a carryover of from 1 

to 10 percent of their annual allotment. 

Half of the States Do 

Not Restrict Title III-C 

Carryover Funds, and 

Those That Do Use a 

Variety of Limits

Half of the 56 states reported that they do not restrict the amount of Title 

III-C funds that their area agencies and/or local service providers may carry 

over from one year to another. Of the remaining 28 states, 15 reported that 

neither area agencies nor local service providers are allowed to carry over 

any funds, and 13 reported having limits on the amount that their area 

agencies and/or local service providers may carry over into the succeeding 

fiscal year. 

Eleven of the 13 states with carryover limits reported that their limits were 

based on a percentage of the area agencies’ and/or local service providers’ 

annual grant allotment. The percentage of annual grant limit varied from 2 

to 10 percent. The average reported percentage limit was about 8 percent. 

The remaining two states did not specify how they limited the amount of 

area-agency and/or local-service-provider carryover. Information on each 

state’s policy regarding carryover by area agencies or directly funded local 

service providers is shown in appendix II.

We also examined the types of limits, if any, that area agencies located in 

the 28 states with no carryover limits placed on their local providers. Of the 

563 area agencies responding to our survey, 178 were located in states that 

did not have carryover limits and did provide elderly meal services 

primarily through local service providers. The carryover limits that the 

agencies placed on their providers varied; most (97) did not allow their 

providers to carry over any funds. Information on the number and 

percentage of these 178 area agencies is presented in table 3 by type of area 

agency carryover restriction, if any, placed on local providers.
Page 9 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

Table 3: Number and Percentage of Area Agencies Located in States That Did Not 

Have Carryover Limits and Provided Elderly Meal Services Primarily Through Local 

Service Providers, by Type of Carryover Restriction Placed on Local Providers by 

Area Agencies

Carryover Funds Are 

Used to Expand Meal 

Services, but Few 

Major Impacts From 

Declines in Carryover 

Funds Were Identified

While some area agencies have used carryover funds to expand their meal 

services, state and area agencies identified relatively few instances of 

major cutbacks in meal services that occurred in fiscal year 1999 because 

carryover funds were less than they were in prior years. Additionally, from 

our analysis of the state and area-agency survey data, we estimate that, 

nationwide, a very small percentage of area agencies and local providers 

would have to make major cutbacks in meal services in fiscal years 2000 or 

2001 because of reductions in carryover funds.

Our state survey information indicated that 37 states allowed their area 

agencies to carry over unspent Title III-C funds into fiscal year 1999. 

Seventeen of these states reported that 133 of their 234 area agencies had 

used carryover funds to expand the number of meals served that year.6

Only 9, or about 7 percent, of these agencies had to reduce the number of 

meals served by 10 percent or more in fiscal year 1999. We estimated from 

Area agencies

Type of carryover restriction Number Percent

Carryover not allowed 97 54

Carryover is limited as a specific 

percentage of local providers’ grant 

ranging from 1 to 10 percent 

11 6

Carryover is limited to a maximum 

dollar amount ($1,000 and $24,001) 

2 1

No limits placed on carryover 59 33

Did not report 9 5

Total 178 100

6

Of the remaining 20 states, 5 reported that none of their 60 area agencies used carryover 

funds to expand meals served, and 15 reported that they did not have similar data for their 

219 area agencies.
Page 10 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

the states’ survey data that 23, or about 4 percent, of all area agencies 

nationwide may have to reduce their meal services by 10 percent or more in 

fiscal years 2000 or 2001.7

Of the 5 states that directly funded local service providers, 2 reported that 2 

of their 8 providers used carryover funds to expand the number of meals 

served (neither of these providers had to reduce meals served by 10 

percent or more), 2 reported that none of their 54 providers used funds to 

expand the meals served, and 1 state with 37 providers reported that 

comparable data on its providers were not available. We did not estimate 

how many directly funded local providers may have to reduce meal 

services by 10 percent or more in fiscal years 2000 or 2001.

The results from our area-agency survey were similar. Of the 152 area 

agencies reporting that they allow local service providers to carry over 

funds, about one-third (47) did not provide information about their local 

service providers’ use of carryover funds to expand meal services. The 105 

area agencies that reported such information identified a total of 287 local 

service providers that had used carryover funds to expand meal services in 

fiscal year 1999. These area agencies identified only 20 local providers that 

had reduced the number of meals served by 10 percent or more in fiscal 

year 1999 because of declines in carryover funds. Again, from our analysis 

of the area agencies’ survey data, we estimated that about 3 percent of the 

approximately 4,000 local service providers nationwide may need to reduce 

meals by that amount in fiscal years 2000 or 2001 because of declines in 

carryover funds.8

7

For the 15 states where data were unavailable, we estimated the future impact by using the 

rate of impact on area agencies reported by other states.

8

Eighty-four area agencies that responded to our survey did not provide information on the 

future impact of the use of carryover funds to expand meal services to the elderly, and 89 

area agencies did not respond to our survey. For these agencies, we estimated the future 

impact by using the rate of impact on local service providers reported by other area 

agencies.
Page 11 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

Most States Have 

Transferred Title III 

Funds and Allow Area 

Agencies Similar 

Flexibility 

Forty-seven of the states reported that they transferred a total of about $76 

million in Title III nutrition and support services funds during fiscal year 

1999. Although funds were transferred among the two nutrition allotments 

and the support services allotment, the bulk of the funds came out of the 

congregate meal allotment. The flexibility that area agencies and local 

providers have to transfer these funds varied.

Most Transfers of Title III 

Funds Are Made Out of 

Congregate Meal Allotments

As shown in table 4, the bulk of the Title III funds transferred—$71 

million—came from congregate meal allotments and were reallocated to 

either the home-delivered meal or support services allotments. These 

transfers resulted in a decrease of about 19 percent from the level of 

funding originally allotted to the states for congregate meal services.

Table 4: Transfer of Funds Between Title III Nutrition and Support Services 

Allotments Reported by States, Fiscal Year 1999

According to the Congressional Research Service, states have increasingly 

transferred funds from the congregate meal allotment to the homedelivered meal allotment because of various factors.9

 For example, the 

growth in the number of persons in the oldest age categories has created a 

greater demand for the delivery of home care services, including homedelivered meals. According to federal population projections, the number 

of persons who are 60 years and older will increase by 21 million, or 46 

Dollars in millions

Allotment 

categories

Initial

allotment

Amount of

transfers out

Amount of

transfers in

Allotment

after transfers

Congregate meals 

(Part C-1)

$370 $71 $1 $300

Home-delivered 

meals

(Part C-2)

112 3 44 153

Support services

(Part B)

298 2 30 326

9

See Congressional Research Service memorandum to Representative Christopher Shays 

(Feb. 7, 2000). 
Page 12 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

percent, over the next 16 years, while the number who are 85 years and 

older will increase by 2.2 million, or 51 percent, during the same time 

frame.10 In addition, many states, including Connecticut, have devoted 

resources to the creation of a home- and community-based long-term care 

system for older persons. Home-delivered meals represent a key 

component in these systems.

As with carryover funds, states reported widely varying amounts of funds 

transferred. For example, in 43 states that reported transferring funds from 

their initial congregate meal allotment to their home-delivered meal 

allotment, the percentage of funds transferred ranged from about 1 percent 

(Wisconsin) to about 34 percent (West Virginia)—the average transfer 

being 12 percent.11 Twelve states reported no transfers from their 

congregate meal allotment to their home-delivered meal allotment, and one 

state did not provide transfer information.

Area Agencies’ Flexibility to 

Transfer Funds Varies

Nine states reported that they do not allow the transfer of Title III funds by 

their area agencies and/or local service providers. Other states have 

adopted policies that limit the transfer of funds by area agencies and/or 

local service providers. Table 5 shows the number of states that reported a 

limit on the transfer of Title III funds.

10Data provided by the Population Projections Program, Population Division, U.S. Census 

Bureau.

11Generally, states are permitted to transfer up to 30 percent of the funds received for homedelivered nutrition services or congregate nutrition services between those two programs. 

AoA is authorized to grant waivers to states for transfers of up to an additional 10 percent of 

such funds.
Page 13 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

Table 5: Number of States Reporting a Limit on the Transfer of Title III Funds

Conclusion At the present time, the buildup and use of Title III-C carryover funds to 

support elderly nutrition services does not appear to be a widespread 

problem. However, AoA does not monitor the states’ buildup of carryover 

funds. As a result, the agency has little assurance that it could identify meal 

service problems that could emerge in the future.

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Although the use of carryover funds to support nutrition services for the 

elderly does not currently appear to be creating a serious meal service 

problem nationwide, we recommend that the Secretary, Department of 

Health and Human Services, direct the Assistant Secretary for Aging, 

Administration on Aging, to monitor the levels of unspent Title III-C funds 

that states carry over to the succeeding fiscal year and work with the states 

that build up substantial amounts of carryover funds to develop a strategy 

to spend down such funds in a manner that minimizes the potential 

disruption of meal services for the elderly. Such monitoring could be 

performed with available resources if it is done as a part of the 

administration’s routine program-monitoring activities.

Type of limit 

Number of

states

Grantees must receive prior approval from the state to transfer funds—

grantees are not permitted to transfer more than the maximum amounts 

prescribed by AoA for the state

22

Grantees are permitted to transfer funds up to a maximum amount 

prescribed by AoA for the state without prior state approval

10

Grantees must receive prior approval from the state to transfer funds—

grantees may be permitted to transfer more than the maximum amount 

prescribed by AoA for the state

8

Grantees are permitted to transfer funds up to a maximum amount set 

by the state without prior state approval—the maximum amount set by 

the state is below the maximum amount prescribed by AoA for the state

4

Other type of limit 3

Transfers not allowed 9

Total 56
Page 14 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

Agency Comments We provided the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services with a 

draft of this report for review and comment. Department officials agreed 

with our recommendation. More specifically, the Assistant Secretary for 

Aging, stated that AoA will monitor those states having a history of 

difficulty in controlling carryover and provide enhanced technical 

assistance to ensure that these practices do not jeopardize the program’s 

goals. In addition, the Assistant Secretary noted that the Department will 

consider the promulgation of regulations to reinforce the grantees’ 

understanding of their responsibility in controlling and monitoring such 

funds. The Department made no other comments on the information 

contained in the draft report.

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

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate 

congressional committees; interested Members of Congress; the Honorable 

Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Honorable 

Jeanette C. Takamura, Assistant Secretary for Aging, Department of Health 

and Human Services; the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of 

Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also make 

copies available upon request.

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

E. Slomba, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-5138. Key contributors to this 

report were Carolyn M. Boyce, Senior Social Science Analyst; and Peter M. 

Bramble, Jr., Senior Food Assistance Analyst.

Sincerely yours,

Robert E. Robertson

Director, Education, Workforce, and

 Income Security 
Page 15 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans
Page 16 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To address the objectives of our review, we developed separate written 

mail-out surveys for state and area agencies that received Title III nutrition 

and support funds, respectively, in fiscal year 1999. We pretested the draft 

state survey at three states that manage senior services (Colorado, 

Louisiana, and Pennsylvania), and the draft area- agency survey at four area 

agencies in four states (Colorado, Louisiana, Virginia, and West Virginia). 

We visited these states and area agencies to conduct each pretest. During 

these visits, we attempted to simulate the actual survey experience by 

asking the state or area agency official to fill out the survey. We 

subsequently interviewed the officials to ensure that the (1) questions were 

readable and clear, (2) terms were precise, (3) survey did not place an 

undue burden on the survey recipients, and (4) survey appeared to be 

independent and unbiased. Administration on Aging (AoA) officials also 

reviewed and provided comments on each draft survey.

In order to maximize the response to our surveys, we mailed a 

prenotification letter to all of the 56 states1

 and 652 area agencies about 1 

week before we mailed the surveys. We also sent a reminder letter to 

nonrespondents about 4 weeks after the initial survey mailing and a 

replacement survey for those who had not responded after about 8 weeks. 

After reviewing all of the survey responses, we contacted several states by 

telephone and E-mail to clarify their responses to various survey questions. 

Our survey data represent the responses from all of the 56 states and 563 of 

the 652 area agencies (an 86-percent response rate). We also collected Title 

III administrative and program information from AoA.

We performed our work from March through December 2000 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

1

To simply this discussion, we refer to all of the 50 states; the District of Columbia; and the 

U.S. territories, including American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, 

Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as the 56 states.
Page 17 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

Appendix II

Nationwide Title III-C Carryover Funds 

Available to the States at the Beginning of 

Fiscal Year 1999 ApendxiI

State

Amount of Title III-C

carryover funds

Carryover as a percentage of

Title III-C allotment

State carryover policy for area 

agencies or directly funded local 

service providers

Alabama $1,078,397 13.74 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Alaska 0 0 Carryover not allowed

Arizona 3,117,817 49.84 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Arkansas 60,032 1.12 Carryover allowed without restrictions

California 1,311,641 2.89 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Colorado 29,698 0.61 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Connecticut 0 0 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Delaware 678,595 27.94 Carryover not allowed

District of Columbia 266,301 10.97 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Florida 382,053 1.24 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Georgia 0 0 Carryover not allowed

Hawaii 491,137 19.74 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Idaho 0 0 Carryover allowed with restrictions

Illinois 673,425 3.03 Carryover allowed with restrictions

Indiana 192,314 1.84 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Iowa 0 0 Carryover allowed with restrictions

Kansas 339,064 6.45 Carryover allowed with restrictions

Kentucky 45,723 0.64 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Louisiana 0 0 Carryover not allowed

Maine 0 0 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Maryland 30,391 0.42 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Massachusetts 26,965 0.21 Carryover allowed with restrictions

Michigan 934,983 5.59 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Minnesota 0 0 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Mississippi 0 0 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Missouri 1,679,360 15.41 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Montana 225,000 9.16 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Nebraska 214,655 6.11 Carryover allowed with restrictions

Nevada 0 0 Carryover allowed without restrictions

New Hampshire 0 0 Carryover not allowed

New Jersey 989,231 6.29 Carryover allowed with restrictions

New Mexico 1,400 0.05 Carryover allowed without restrictions

New York 6,308,741 16.96 Carryover allowed with restrictions

North Carolina 0 0 Carryover not allowed
Appendix II

Nationwide Title III-C Carryover Funds 

Available to the States at the Beginning of 

Fiscal Year 1999

Page 18 GAO-01-211 Meal Service for Older Americans

North Dakota 0 0 Carryover not allowed

Ohio 1,686,835 7.97 Carryover allowed with restrictions

Oklahoma 78,447 1.20 Carryover allowed with restrictions

Oregon 847,974 15.19 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Pennsylvania 0 0 Carryover not allowed

Rhode Island 68,650 2.74 Carryover allowed without restrictions

South Carolina 0 0 Carryover not allowed

South Dakota 501,163 20.50 Carryover not allowed

Tennessee 0 0 Carryover allowed with restrictions

Texas 1,124,034 4.41 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Utah 71,374 2.80 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Vermont 150,752 6.21 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Virginia 400,330 4.13 Carryover allowed with restrictions

Washington 509,670 6.27 Carryover allowed with restrictions

West Virginia 0 0 Carryover not allowed

Wisconsin 0 0 Carryover allowed without restrictions

Wyoming 105,362 4.34 Carryover allowed without restrictions

American Samoa 0 0 Carryover not allowed

Guam 0 0 Carryover not allowed

Northern Marianas 0 0 Carryover not allowed

Puerto Rico 10,132 0.22 Carryover allowed without restrictions

U.S. Virgin Islands 0 0 Carryover allowed with restrictions

Total $24,631,646

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

Amount of Title III-C

carryover funds

Carryover as a percentage of

Title III-C allotment

State carryover policy for area 

agencies or directly funded local 

service providers

(150178) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00