Food Stamp Program: Steps Have Been Taken to Increase Participation of Working Families, but Better Tracking of Efforts Is Needed
Published: 2004-03-05T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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, 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  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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  (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. Figure 1 outlines the general steps a household  must take to participate in the Food Stamp Program and how each step  occurs.
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  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.
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  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. 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. 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 Credit  (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. For example, the 2002 Farm Bill gave states the option to  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.
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 low- income working families has taken on an increased importance for the  Food Stamp Program in recent years.
section_title: Eligible Working Families Participate in the Food Stamp Program at a Lower Rate than Eligible Nonworking Families
paragraphs: 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Just Over Half of Members of Eligible Working Families Participated in the Food Stamp Program in 2001
paragraphs: 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. In the same month, the participation rate among  all eligible individuals was estimated by FNS to be 62 percent, 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.
section_title: Participating Working Families Receive Higher Monthly Benefits than Nonworking Families, and Benefit Amounts Vary Based on Family Characteristics
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
section_title: Certain Family Characteristics Are Associated with the Likelihood of Participation
paragraphs: 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). 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Factors Related to a Family’s Awareness and Perception of the Food Stamp Program Influence Their Participation
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Participating in the Food Stamp Program Depends on a Family’s Awareness of the Program and Eligibility Criteria
paragraphs: 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  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.
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 community- based 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.
section_title: The Perception that the Food Stamp Program’s Administrative Process Is Burdensome Can Deter Participation
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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. New York was the  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. 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.
section_title: Evidence Suggests that Food Stamp Participation Is Often Driven by Whether a Family Considers the Benefits Worth the Effort and Cost of Participating
paragraphs: 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. 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 insecure are more likely to  participate than families that are food secure. 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. In a study using data from the Survey  of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 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.
section_title: The Stigma Associated with the Food Stamp Program Can Cause Some Families Not to Participate
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: FNS and Some States and Localities Have Taken, or Suggested, Steps to Help Working Families Participate in the Program While Ensuring Program Integrity
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Several Efforts Are Underway to Better Inform the Public about Food Stamp Availability and the Program’s Eligibility Criteria
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: FNS Outreach Grants and Guides
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. 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.
section_title: Efforts to Inform the Public
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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.
section_title: Efforts to Reach Eligible Working Families
paragraphs: 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  further to tax preparers at the Voluntary Income Tax Assistance Program.  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 low- income 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 low- income 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. 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  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.
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.
section_title: Several Efforts Are Underway to Simplify the Administrative Process
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Steps to Facilitate the Application Process
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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  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.
section_title: Steps to Facilitate Continuing Program Participation
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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  submit any additional paperwork. Of our four states, Massachusetts,   New York, and Oregon have adopted this option.
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.
section_title: Efforts Are Underway to Estimate Eligibility and the Size of the Potential Food Stamp Benefit
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Steps to Show People the Amount of Their Estimated Benefit
paragraphs: 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,  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.
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.
section_title: Program Officials Have Taken Steps to Reduce the Stigma Associated with Food Stamps
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Steps to Re-Brand the Program
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Steps to Disassociate Food Stamps from Welfare
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.
section_title: Serving Working Families Need Not Jeopardize Program Integrity
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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,  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   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.
section_title: Appendix I: Methodology for Comparing Participating Working Families to Likely Eligible Nonparticipating Working Families
paragraphs: 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.
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  dwellings that were owned rather than rented. The rest of the results can  be discerned similarly.
subsections: section_title: The Analysis Allows for Comparisons between Households with Participating and Nonparticipating Working Families
paragraphs: 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.
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.  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.
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  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,  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Summary of Farm Bill Provisions
paragraphs: Appendix II: Summary of Farm Bill Provisions  Treats legally obligated child support payments to a nonhousehold member as an income  exclusion rather than a deduction.
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  Disregard reported changes in deductions during certification periods except for changes  associated with a new residence or earned income until the next recertification.
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.
Simplifies the Standard Utility Allowance to promote its use.
Pilot project to assess feasibility of issuing standardized rather than individual benefits to  certain residents of group homes.
Require state agencies that have a Web site to post applications on these sites.
Authorizes up to $5 million annually to pay for projects to improve access for food stamp- eligible 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.
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.
This provision restores food stamp eligibility on certain dates to qualified aliens who are  otherwise eligible and meet criteria laid out in the legislation.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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 Low- Income 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.