Food Stamp Program: Use of Alternative Methods to Apply for and Maintain Benefits Could Be Enhanced by Additional Evaluation and Information on Promising Practices
Published: 2007-05-03T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: One in 12 Americans participates in the federal Food Stamp Program, administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). States have begun offering individuals alternatives to visiting the local assistance office to apply for and maintain benefits, such as mail-in procedures, call centers, and on-line services. GAO was asked to examine: (1) what alternative methods states are using to increase program access; (2) what is known about the results of these methods, particularly on program access for target groups, decision accuracy, and administrative costs; and (3) what actions states have taken to maintain program integrity while implementing alternative methods. GAO surveyed state food stamp administrators, reviewed five states in depth, analyzed FNS data and reports, and interviewed program officials and stakeholders.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: All states use mail and about half of states use or have begun developing on-line services and call centers to provide access to the food stamp program. Almost all states allow households to submit applications, report changes, and submit recertifications through the mail, and 26 states have implemented or are developing systems for households to perform these tasks on-line. Almost half of the states are using or developing call centers and states also are allowing households to participate in telephone interviews instead of an in-office interview. States have taken a variety of actions to help households use on-line services and call centers, such as sending informational mailings, holding community meetings, and using community partners. Insufficient information is available to determine the results of using alternative methods. Few evaluations have been conducted identifying the effect of alternative methods on program access, decision accuracy, or administrative costs. Evaluating the effectiveness of alternative methods is challenging in part because limited data are available, states are using a combination of methods, and studies can be costly to conduct. Federal and state officials reported that while they believe alternative methods can help households in several ways, such as increasing flexibility and efficiency in the application process, certain types of households may have difficulty using or accessing alternative methods. In addition, technology and staffing challenges may hinder the use of alternative methods. To maintain program integrity while implementing alternative methods, the states GAO reviewed used a variety of strategies, such as using software to verify the information households submit, communicating with other states to detect fraud, or using finger imaging. Although there has been some concern that without frequent in-person interaction with caseworkers, households may not submit required documents on time and thus be denied benefits on procedural grounds ("procedural denials"), GAO's limited analysis of FNS data found no considerable fluctuations in the rate of procedural denials in the five states between fiscal years 2000 and 2005. The states GAO reviewed have instituted several approaches to prevent procedural denials.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Almost 1 in every 12 Americans participates in the federal Food Stamp  Almost 1 in every 12 Americans participates in the federal Food Stamp  Program, which helps low-income individuals and families purchase  Program, which helps low-income individuals and families purchase  nutritious food, such as meat, dairy products, fruits, and vegetables. In  nutritious food, such as meat, dairy products, fruits, and vegetables. In  fiscal year 2005, the program, jointly administered by the U.S. Department  fiscal year 2005, the program, jointly administered by the U.S. Department  of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and the states,  of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and the states,  provided about $29 billion in benefits to nearly 26 million people, about  provided about $29 billion in benefits to nearly 26 million people, about  half of whom were children.half of whom were children.
Preliminary FNS data indicate that participation continued to grow to nearly 27 million  people receiving about $30 billion in food stamp benefits in fiscal year 2006. states have begun offering alternatives in the last several years, such as  mail-in procedures, call centers, and on-line services.
While FNS has allowed states to adopt these new ways of accessing the  program, it also has a quality control system in place to monitor program  integrity. Under this system, FNS monitors decision accuracy, including  how accurately states determine food stamp eligibility and calculate  benefits. In addition to monitoring the payment error rate, FNS estimates  the rate of cases denied, suspended, or terminated incorrectly, which is  called the negative error rate. FNS and USDA’s Economic Research  Service (ERS) also fund Food Stamp Program research.
To understand what alternative approaches states are using to help  households apply for and maintain benefits and what is known about the  results of using these methods, we examined: (1) the alternative methods  to the traditional application and recertification process states are using to  increase program access; (2) what is known about the results of these  methods, particularly on program access for target groups, decision  accuracy, and administrative costs; and (3) what actions states have taken  to maintain program integrity while implementing alternative methods.
To answer these questions, we surveyed food stamp administrators in the  50 states and the District of Columbia to collect information on what  alternative methods states are using or planning to use (mail, call centers,  on-line services), how performance of these methods is measured, and  what is known about the results of using these methods. To augment  information from our state survey, we conducted four site visits (Florida,  Texas, Utah, and Washington) and one set of semi-structured telephone  interviews (Pennsylvania). We selected states that have at least one FNS- approved waiver of the face-to-face interview requirement and reflect  some variation in state participation rates. We also considered  recommendations from FNS officials, advocacy group representatives, and  researchers. For each of the five states we reviewed in depth, we  interviewed state officials administering and developing policy for the  Food Stamp Program, local officials in the assistance offices and call  centers where services are provided, and representatives from community- based organizations that provide food assistance. We analyzed data  provided by FNS and the states we reviewed in depth to provide  background for our discussions with officials about state trends for  specific measures (participation, payment accuracy, administrative costs,  and reasons for denial). We also reviewed FNS reports and related studies.  We held discussions with program stakeholders, including officials at FNS  headquarters and regional offices, and representatives of advocacy  organizations. Appendix I explains our methodology in more detail. We  performed our work from September 2006 to March 2007 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 eligible foods at authorized food  retailers, such as meat, dairy products, fruits, and vegetables, but not items  such as soap, tobacco, or alcohol. FNS pays the full cost of food stamp  benefits and shares the states’ administrative costs—with FNS usually  paying slightly less than 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 eligibility  requirements, calculating monthly benefits for qualified households, and  issuing benefits to participants through an electronic benefits transfer  system.
subsections: section_title: Program Participation
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2005, the Food Stamp Program issued almost $28.6 billion in  benefits to about 25.7 million individuals per month, and the maximum  monthly food stamp benefit for a household of four living in the  continental United States in fiscal year 2007 was $518. As shown in figure  1, program participation decreased during the late 1990s, partly due to an  improved economy, but rose again from 2000 to 2005. The number of food  stamp recipients follows the trend in the number of people living at or  below the federal poverty level.
In addition to the economic growth in the late 1990s, another factor  contributing to the decrease in number of participants from 1996 to 2001  was the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity  Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which added work requirements  and time limits to cash assistance and made certain groups ineligible to  receive food stamp benefits. In some cases, this caused participants to  believe they were no longer eligible for food stamps when TANF benefits  were ended. Since 2000, that downward trend has reversed, and experts  believe that the downturn in the U.S. economy, coupled with changes in  the Food Stamp Program’s rules and administration, has led to an increase  in the number of food stamp participants.
section_title: Determination of Eligibility and Benefits
paragraphs: Eligibility for participation in the Food Stamp Program is based primarily  on a household’s income and assets. To determine a household’s  eligibility, a caseworker must first determine the household’s gross  income, which cannot exceed 130 percent of the poverty level for that year  as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services, and net  income, which cannot exceed 100 percent of the poverty level (or about  $1,799 per month for a family of three living in the continental United  States in fiscal year 2007). Net income is determined by deducting from  gross income a portion of expenses such as dependent care costs, medical  expenses for elderly individuals, utilities costs, and housing expenses.
section_title: The Process of Applying for and Maintaining Benefits
paragraphs: The application process for the Food Stamp Program requires households  to complete and submit an application to a local assistance office,  participate in an interview, and submit documentation to verify household  circumstances (see table 1). Applicants may need to make more than one  visit to the assistance office to complete the application process. After  eligibility is established, households are certified eligible for food stamps  for periods ranging from 1 to 24 months, depending on household  circumstances and state policy. While households are receiving benefits,  they must report changes in household circumstances that may affect  eligibility or benefit amounts. States may choose to require households to  report changes within 10 days of occurrence (incident reporting) or at  specified intervals (periodic reporting). States also have the option to  adopt a simplified system, which further reduces the burden of periodic  reporting by requiring households to report changes that happen during a  certification period only when their income rises above 130 percent of the  federal poverty level. Once the certification period ends, households must  reapply for benefits, at which time eligibility and benefit levels are  redetermined. The recertification process is similar to the application  process. Households can be denied benefits or have their benefits end at  any point during the process if they are determined ineligible under  program rules or for procedural reasons, such as missing a scheduled  interview or failing to provide the required documentation.
While applying for and maintaining food stamp benefits has traditionally  involved visiting a local assistance office, states have the flexibility to give  households alternatives to visiting the office, such as using the mail, the  telephone, and on-line services to complete the certification and  recertification process. Alternative methods may be used to support other  programs, such as Medicaid or TANF, since some food stamp participants  receive benefits from multiple programs. Figure 2 illustrates a traditional  office-based system and how states can use a number of alternative  methods to determine applicants’ eligibility without requiring them to visit  an assistance office.
section_title: Program Integrity
paragraphs: FNS and the states share responsibility for implementing a quality control  system used to measure the accuracy of caseworker decisions concerning  the amount of food stamp benefits households are eligible to receive and  decisions to deny or end benefits. The food stamp payment error rate is  calculated by FNS for the entire program, as well as every state, by adding  overpayments (including payments higher than the amounts households  are eligible for or payments to those who are not eligible for any benefit),  and underpayments (payments lower than the amounts households are  eligible for). The national payment error rate has declined by about 40  percent between 1999 and 2005, from 9.86 percent to a record low of 5.84  percent. FSP payment errors are caused primarily by caseworkers, usually  when they fail to keep up with new information, and by participants when  they fail to report needed information. Another type of error measured by  FNS is the negative error rate, defined as the rate of cases denied,  suspended, or terminated incorrectly. An example of incorrectly denying a  case would be if a caseworker denied a household participation in the  program because of excess income, but there was a calculation error and  the household was actually eligible for benefits. FNS also monitors  individual fraud and retailer trafficking of food stamp benefits.
section_title: All States Use Mail and About Half of States Use or Have Begun Developing On- line Services and Call Centers to Provide Access to the Food Stamp Program
paragraphs: According to our survey, almost all states allow households to submit  applications, report changes, and submit recertifications through the mail,  and 26 states have implemented or are developing systems to allow  households to perform these tasks on-line. Almost half of the states are  using or developing call centers and states are also using flexibility  authorized by FNS to increase use of the telephone as an alternative to  visiting the local assistance office. States have taken a variety of actions to  help households use on-line services and call centers, such as sending  informational mailings, holding community meetings, and using  community partners to assist households.
subsections: section_title: Almost All States Allow Households to Apply for Food Stamp Benefits and Maintain Eligibility by Mail and about Half of the States Are Using or Developing On-line Services
paragraphs: Many states are allowing households to apply for food stamp benefits,  report changes in household circumstances, and complete recertification  through the mail and on-line.
Mail-In Procedures. Results of our survey show that households can  submit applications through the mail in all states, report changes  through the mail in all but 1 state, and submit recertifications through  the mail in 46 states. For example, Washington state officials told us  that the recertification process involves mailing a recertification  application package to households that they can mail back without  visiting a local assistance office.
On-line Services. All states we surveyed reported having a food stamp  application available for households to download from a state website,  as required by federal law, and 26 states (51 percent) have  implemented or are developing Web-based systems in which  households can submit initial applications, report changes, or submit  recertifications on line (see fig. 3). Most on-line applications were made  available statewide and implemented within the last 3 years and states  developing on-line services plan to implement these services within the  next 2 years. All of the 14 states that reported currently providing on- line services allow households to submit initial food stamp applications  on-line, but only 6 states allow households to report changes and 5  states allow households to complete recertification on- line. Of the 14  states that reported using on-line applications, 2 reported they were  only available in certain areas of the state. Only two states (Florida and  Kansas) reported in our survey that the state closed program offices or  reduced staff as a result of implementing on-line services.
On-line services available (14)
Not using on-line services (25)
section_title: Almost Half of States Are Using or Developing Call Centers and Using Telephone Interviews as an Alternative to Visiting the Local Assistance Office
paragraphs: Many states are using call centers, telephone interviews, or other  technologies to help households access food stamp benefits or  information without visiting a local assistance office.
Call Centers. Nineteen states (37 percent) have made call centers  available to households and an additional 4 states (8 percent) have  begun development of call centers that will be available to households  in 2007 (see fig. 4). Households have been able to use call centers in  seven states for more than 3 years. Of the 19 states using call centers,  10 reported that call centers were only available in certain areas of the  state. Only two states (Texas and Idaho) reported using private  contractors to operate the call centers, but Texas announced in March  2007 that it was terminating its agreement with the private contractor  (see fig. 10 for more details). FNS officials told us that the Idaho  private call center provides general food stamp program information to  callers, while inquiries about specific cases are transferred to state  caseworkers. Indiana reported in our survey that the state plans to pilot  call centers in certain areas of the state in August 2007 using a private  contractor and complete a statewide transition in March 2008. Only  two states (Florida and Arizona) reported in our survey that the state  closed offices or reduced staff as a result of implementing call centers.
Most states with call centers reported that households can use them to  report changes in household circumstances, request a food stamp  application and receive assistance filling it out, receive information about  their case, or receive referrals to other programs. Only four states reported  using their call centers to conduct telephone interviews. For example,  local officials in Washington told us that households use their call center  primarily to request information, report changes in household  circumstances, and request an interview. Telephone interviews are  conducted by caseworkers in the local assistance office.
Telephone Interviews. Many states are using the flexibility provided  by FNS to increase the use of the telephone as an alternative to  households visiting the local assistance office. For example, FNS has  approved administrative waivers for 20 states that allow states to  substitute a telephone interview for the face-to-face interview for all  households at recertification without documenting that visiting the  assistance office would be a hardship for the household. In addition to  making it easier on households, this flexibility can reduce the  administrative burden on the state to document hardship. FNS also  allows certain states implementing demonstration projects to waive the  interview requirement altogether for certain households. States we  reviewed varied in terms of the proportion of interviews conducted  over the phone. For example, Florida state and local officials estimated  that about 90 percent of the interviews conducted in the state are  completed over the telephone. Washington state officials estimated  that 10 percent of application interviews and 30 percent of  recertification interviews are conducted by phone. Table 2 describes  the types of flexibility available to states and how many are taking  advantage of each.
Other Technologies. Some states reported implementing other  technologies that support program access. Specifically, according to  our survey, 11 states (21 percent) have implemented an Integrated  Voice Response (IVR) system, a telephone system that provides  automated information, such as case status or the benefit amount, to  callers but does not direct the caller to a live person. In addition, 11  states (21 percent) are using document management/imaging systems  that allow case records to be maintained electronically rather than in  paper files.
All five of the states we reviewed have implemented in at least certain  areas of their state mail-in procedures, on-line services, call centers,  waiver of face-to-face interview at recertification, and document  management/imaging systems. Three of the five states (Florida, Texas, and  Washington) have implemented an integrated voice response system and  two (Florida and Utah) have implemented a waiver of the face-to-face  interview at initial application.
section_title: States Report Taking Several Actions to Help Households Use Alternative Methods
paragraphs: States have taken a variety of actions to help households use on-line  services and call centers, such as sending informational mailings, holding  community meetings, and employing call center staff who speak languages  other than English as shown in figures 5 and 6.
States are using community-based organizations, such as food banks, to  help households use alternative methods. All states implementing on-line  services (14) and about half of states with call centers (10 of 19) use  community partners to provide direct assistance to households. Among  the states we reviewed, four provide grants to community-based  organizations to inform households about the program and help them  complete the application process. For example, Florida closed a third of  its local assistance offices and has developed a network of community  partners across the state to help households access food stamps. Florida  state officials said that 86 percent of the community partners offer at least  telephone and on-line access for completing and submitting food stamp  applications. Community partner representatives in Washington, Texas,  and Pennsylvania said that they sometimes call the call center with the  household or on their behalf to resolve issues. Pennsylvania provides  grants to community partners to help clients use the state’s on-line  services. In addition to the assistance provided by community-based  organizations, H&R Block, a private tax preparation firm, is piloting a  project with the state of Kansas where tax preparers who see that a  household’s financial situation may entitle them to food stamp benefits  can electronically submit an application for food stamps at no extra  charge to the household.
section_title: Information on Results Is Limited, but States We Reviewed Cite Advantages and Challenges Using Alternative Access Methods
paragraphs: Insufficient information is available to determine the results of using  alternative methods to access the Food Stamp Program, but state and  federal officials report that alternative methods are helping some  households. Few evaluations have been conducted that identify the effect  of alternative methods on food stamp program access, decision accuracy,  or administrative costs. Although states monitor the implementation of  alternative methods, isolating the effects of specific methods is difficult, in  part because states typically have implemented a combination of methods  over time. Despite the limited information on the effectiveness of  alternative methods, federal and state officials believe that these methods  can help many households by making it easier for them to complete the  application or recertification process. However, technology and staffing  challenges can hinder the use of these methods.
subsections: section_title: Few Evaluations Have Been Conducted and Determining the Effectiveness of Specific Methods Can Be Difficult
paragraphs: Few federal or state evaluations have been conducted to identify how  using alternative methods, such as on-line applications or call centers,  affects access to the Food Stamp Program, the accuracy of caseworker  decisions about eligibility and benefit amounts, or administrative costs.  Few evaluations have been conducted in part because evaluating the  effectiveness of alternative methods is challenging, given that limited data  are available, states are using a combination of methods, and studies can  be costly to conduct.
subsections: section_title: Federal Evaluation and Monitoring
paragraphs: FNS and ERS have funded studies related to improving Food Stamp  Program access, but none of these previous studies provide a conclusive  assessment of the effectiveness of alternative methods and the factors that  contribute to their success (see app. I for a list of the studies we selected  and reviewed). Although these studies aimed to evaluate local office  practices, grants, and demonstration projects, the methodological  limitations of this research prevent assessments about the effectiveness of  these efforts. An evaluation of the Elderly Nutrition Demonstration  projects used a pre-post comparison group design to estimate the impact  of the projects and found that food stamp participation among the elderly  can be increased.  Two of the projects evaluated focused on making the  application process easier by providing application assistance and  simplifying the process, in part by waiving the interview requirement.  However, one of the drawbacks of this study is that its findings are based  on a small number of demonstrations, which affects the generalizability of  the findings.
Two related FNS-funded evaluations are also under way, but it is unlikely  these studies will identify the effects of using alternative methods.
An implementation study of Florida’s efforts to modernize its system  using call centers and on-line services involves a descriptive case study  to be published in late summer 2007, incorporating both qualitative and  quantitative data. The objectives of the study are to: describe changes  to food stamp policies and procedures that have been made in support  of modernization; identify how technology is used to support the range  of food stamp eligibility determination and case management  functions; and describe the experiences of food stamp participants,  eligible non-participants, state food stamp staff, vendors, and  community partners. This study will describe Florida’s Food Stamp  Program performance over time in comparison to the nation, other  states in the region, and other large states. Performance data that will  be reviewed includes program participation in general and by  subgroup, timeliness of application processing, payment error rates,  and administrative costs. However, the study will not isolate the effect  of the modernization efforts on program performance.
A national study of state efforts to enhance food stamp certification  and modernize the food stamp program involves a state survey and  case studies of 14 states and will result in a site visit report in late  summer 2007, a comprehensive report in March 2009, and a public-use  database systematically describing modernization efforts across all the  states in May 2009. The national study will focus on four types of  modernization efforts: policy changes to modernize FSP application,  case management, and recertification procedures; reengineering of  administrative functions; increased or enhanced use of technology; and  partnering arrangements with businesses and nonprofit organizations.  The goals of the study include documenting outcomes associated with  food stamp modernization and examining the effect of these  modernization efforts on four types of outcomes: program access,  administrative cost, program integrity, and customer services. This  study will compare performance data from the case study states with  data from similar states and the nation as a whole, however, this  analysis will not determine whether certain modernization efforts  caused changes in performance.
USDA has also awarded $5 million in fiscal year 2006 to 5 grantees in  Virginia, California, Georgia and Alabama to help increase access to the  program, but there is currently no plan to publish an evaluation of the  outcomes of these projects. The participation grants focus on efforts to  simplify the application process and eligibility systems and each grantee  plans to implement strategies to improve customer service by allowing  Web-based applications and developing application sites outside the  traditional social services office. Grantees are required to submit quarterly  progress reports and final reports including a description of project  activities and implementation issues.
Although few evaluations have been conducted, FNS monitors state and  local offices and tracks state implementation of alternative methods to  improve program access. FNS also collects and monitors data from states,  such as the number of participants, amount of benefits issued,  participation rates overall and by subgroup, timeliness of application  processing, payment errors, negative errors, and administrative costs. FNS  regional offices conduct program access reviews of selected local offices  in all states to determine whether state and/or local policies and  procedures served to discourage households from applying for food  stamps or whether local offices had adopted practices to improve  customer service. FNS also monitors major changes to food stamp  systems using a process where FNS officials review and approve plans  submitted by states related to system development and implementation,  including major upgrades. States like Texas, Florida, and Indiana that have  implemented major changes to their food stamp system, such as moving  from a local assistance office service delivery model to call centers and on- line services, have worked with FNS through this process. Figure 7  describes FNS’s monitoring of Indiana’s plan to implement alternative  access methods.
FNS has also encouraged states to share information about their efforts to  increase access among states, but states reported needing additional  opportunities to share information. FNS has funded national and regional  conferences, travel by state officials to visit other states to learn about  their practices, as well as provided states a guide to promising practices  for improving program access. The guide contains information about the  goal of each practice, the number of places where the practice is in use,  and contact information for a person in these offices. However, this guide  has not been updated since 2002 and, for the most part, does not include  any evidence that these efforts were successful or any lessons that were  learned from these or other efforts. In 2004, in response to  recommendations from our prior report, FNS compiled and posted 19  practices aimed to improve access from 11 states.  FNS also has a form  available on its website where states can submit promising practices to  improve access, but to date, practices from this effort have not been  published. In our survey, 13 states (about 25 percent) reported needing  additional conferences or meetings with other states to share information.
section_title: State Evaluation and Monitoring
paragraphs: States also report monitoring use of alternative methods in the Food  Stamp Program, but have not conducted evaluations of their effectiveness.  In our survey, states reported monitoring several aspects of the  performance of on-line services. As shown in figure 8, states most  commonly used the number of applications submitted, the number of  applications terminated before completion, and customer satisfaction to  monitor the performance of on-line services. For example, Pennsylvania  state officials monitor performance of their on-line system and meet  regularly with community partners that help households submit  applications for benefits to obtain feedback on how they can improve the  system. Florida state officials told us they use responses to on-line  feedback surveys submitted at the end of the on-line application to assess  customer satisfaction with the state’s on-line services.
States also reported in our survey monitoring several aspects of the  performance of their call centers. As shown in figure 9, most states with  call centers reported monitoring the volume of transactions and calls to  the center, customer satisfaction, the rate of abandoned calls, and the  length of time callers are on hold before speaking with a caseworker. For  example, Utah officials monitor several measures and added additional  staff to the call center after observing increased hold times when they  were implementing the call center to serve the Salt Lake City area. In  addition, Washington state officials told us that they monitor call centers  on an hourly basis, allowing call center managers to quickly increase the  number of staff answering phones as call volumes increase.
Despite these monitoring efforts, no states reported conducting an  evaluation of the effectiveness of on-line services in our survey and only  one state reported conducting such an evaluation of its call centers. The  report Illinois provided on its call center described customer and worker  feedback on the performance of the call center, but did not provide a  conclusive assessment of its effectiveness. Seven states implementing  Combined Application Projects (CAP) have submitted reports to FNS  including data on the number of participants in the CAP project compared  with when the project began, but do not use methods to isolate the effect  of the project or determine whether participation by SSI recipients would  have increased in the absence of the project. Two of the five states we  reviewed said they planned to conduct reviews of their system. For  example, Washington is conducting an internal quality improvement  review of its call centers. It will compare call center operations with  industry best practices and promising new technologies, and will identify  the costs, services offered, and best practices used by the call centers.
section_title: Evaluation Challenges
paragraphs: Few evaluations have been conducted, in part because evaluating the  effectiveness of alternative methods is challenging. For example, states  are limited in their ability to determine whether certain groups of  households are able to use alternative methods because few states collect  demographic information on households that use their on-line services and  call centers. Only six states reported in our survey that they collect  demographic information on the households that use on-line services and  four states reported collecting demographic information on the  households that use call centers. In addition, although FNS is requiring  states with waivers to the face-to-face interview to track the payment  accuracy of cases covered by these waivers, FNS has not yet assessed the  effects of these methods on decision accuracy because it has not collected  enough years of data to conduct reliable analyses of trends. Further,  evaluations that isolate the effect of specific methods can be challenging  because states implement methods at different times and are using a  combination of methods. For example, Washington state implemented call  centers in 2000, an on-line application and CAP in 2001, and document  imaging and a waiver of the face-to-face interview at recertification in  2003. Sophisticated methodologies often are required to isolate the effects  of certain practices or technologies. These studies can be costly to  conduct because the data collection and analysis can take years to  complete. For example, the two studies that we reviewed that aimed to  isolate the effects of specific projects each cost over $1 million and were  conducted over more than 3 years. Although evaluating the effects of  alternative methods is challenging, FNS is collecting data from states  through the waiver process that could be analyzed and previous ERS- funded studies have used methodologies that enable researchers to  identify the effect of certain projects or practices on program access.
section_title: Federal and State Officials Report Alternative Methods Help Some Households Access Food Stamp Benefits, but Technology and Staffing Can Present Challenges
paragraphs: Despite the limited information on the effects of alternative methods,  federal and state officials report that alternative methods, such as the  availability of telephone interviews, can help many types of households by  making it easier for them to complete the food stamp application or  recertification process. Some state and local officials and community  partners noted, however, that certain types of households may have  difficulty using some methods. Moreover, some officials also described  how technology and staffing challenges can hinder the use of these  methods.
subsections: section_title: Advantages of Alternative Methods
paragraphs: According to federal and state officials we interviewed, alternative  methods can help households in several ways, such as increasing  flexibility, making it easier to receive case information or report changes  to household circumstances, or increasing efficiency of application  processing. In addition, community partner representatives from some  states we reviewed said that the availability of telephone interviews helps  reduce the stigma of applying for food stamp benefits caused by visiting an  assistance office.
Increased flexibility. Federal officials from the seven FNS regional  offices said that alternative methods help households by reducing the  number of visits a household makes to an assistance office or by  providing additional ways to comply with program requirements.  Moreover, all of the states in our survey that currently have on-line  services and more than half of the states that currently operate call  centers, reported that reducing the number of visits an individual must  make to an office as a reason for implementing the alternative  methods. For example, in Florida a household may submit an  application or recertification through any one of the following access  points -- on-line, mail, fax, community partner site, or in-person at the  local assistance office. Additionally, in certain areas of Texas, it is  possible for households to apply for food stamps without ever visiting a  local assistance office because the state has made available phone  interviews and on-line services. Reducing the number of required visits  can be helpful for all households, according to state officials or  community partner representatives in two of the states we reviewed.
Easier access to case information and ability to report changes.
According to officials in the five states we reviewed, alternative  methods, such as call centers, automated voice response systems, or  electronic case records, make it easier for households to access  information about their benefits and report changes to household  circumstances. For example, in Washington, a household may call the  automated voice response system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to  immediately access case information, such as appointment times or  whether their application has been received or is being processed. If  the household has additional questions, they can call the call center  where a call center agent can view their electronic case record and  provide information on the status of their application, make decisions  based on changes in household circumstances reported to them, inform  them of what verification documents are needed or have been received,  or perform other services.
Increased efficiency. State or local officials from four of the states  we reviewed said that implementation of document  management/imaging systems improves application processing times,  while local officials in two of the states said that call centers help  caseworkers complete tasks more quickly. Furthermore, about half of  the states in our survey that have call centers reported that increasing  timeliness of application processing and reducing administrative costs  were reasons for implementing them. State officials in Florida said that  the document management/imaging system allows a caseworker to  retrieve an electronic case record in seconds compared to retrieving  paper case files that previously took up to 24 hours, allowing  caseworkers to make eligibility decisions more quickly on a case.  Additionally, a call center agent can process a change in household  circumstances instantly while on the phone. Caseworkers in  Pennsylvania said that implementation of a change reporting call  center has reduced the number of calls to caseworkers at the local  assistance office, which allows them to focus on interviewing  households and processing applications more quickly. Officials from  four states we reviewed also said that use of a document  management/imaging system has resulted in fewer lost documents,  which can reduce the burden on households of having to resubmit  information.
According to some of the state officials and community partners we  interviewed, the availability of alternative methods can be especially  beneficial for working families or the elderly because it reduces barriers  from transportation, child care or work responsibilities. For example,  state officials in Florida explained that a working individual can complete  a phone interview during their lunch break without taking time off of work  to wait in line at the assistance office. In addition, state officials from three  of the states we reviewed that have implemented CAP projects told us that  they had experienced an increase in participation among SSI recipients  and FNS and officials from two states said that households benefited from  the simplified application process. In addition, state officials in Florida  said that on-line services help elderly households that have designated  representatives to complete the application on their behalf. For example,  an elderly individual’s adult child who is the appointed designated  representative but lives out-of-state can apply and recertify for food stamp  benefits for their parent without traveling to Florida.
However, some state and local officials and community partners we  interviewed said certain types of households may have difficulty using  certain alternative methods. For example, community partner  representatives in two states that we reviewed said that those with limited  English proficiency, elderly, immigrants, or those with mental disabilities  may have difficulty using on-line applications. Local officials from  Philadelphia said that the elderly and households with very low incomes  may have trouble accessing computers to use on-line services and may not  have someone helping them. A community partner in Florida told us that  sometimes the elderly, illiterate, or those with limited English proficiency  need a staff person to help them complete the on-line application. In  addition, those with limited English proficiency, elderly, or those with  mental disabilities may have difficulty navigating the call center phone  system, according to officials from two states and community partners  from another state that we reviewed. A community partner representative  in Texas said that sometimes he calls the call center on behalf of the  applicant because a household may have experienced difficulty or  frustration in navigating the phone system.
section_title: Challenges to Using Alternative Methods
paragraphs: Although officials told us that alternative methods are helpful to many  households, challenges from inadequate technology or staffing may limit  the advantages of alternative methods. For example, state officials from  Texas explained that on-line applications without electronic signature  capability have limited benefit because households are still required to  submit an actual signature through mail, fax, or in person after completing  the on-line application. Texas state officials and community partner  representatives told us that the lack of this capability limited its use and  benefit to households. By contrast, Florida’s application has electronic  signature capability and Florida officials reported that, as of December  2006, about 93 percent of their applications are submitted on-line.
Call centers that do not have access to electronic records may not be as  effective at answering callers’ questions. Officials from Washington state  and federal officials from an FNS regional office view the use of a  document management/imaging system as a vital part of the call center  system. Florida advocates said that households have received wrong  information from call center agents and attribute the complaints in part to  call center agents not having access to real-time electronic case records.
Florida recently expanded its document imaging system statewide, which  they believe will help address these concerns.
Further, while four of the five states we reviewed implemented alternative  methods in part to better manage increasing numbers of participants with  reduced numbers of staff, the staffing challenges certain states  experienced also limited the advantages of alternative methods. For  example, inadequate numbers of staff or unskilled call center staff may  reduce the level of service provided and limit the advantages to  households of having a call center available to them. Texas and Florida  have experienced significant staff reductions at a time of increased  participation, which has affected implementation of alternative methods  (see figs. 10 and 11).
While some states face challenges implementing alternative methods, Utah  state officials said that they have successful call centers because they have  implemented technology incrementally over time and because they use  state caseworkers experienced in program rules. Utah state officials also  reported having relatively low caseloads (180 per worker) compared with  Texas (815 per worker, in 2005).
section_title: States Report Taking Actions to Maintain Food Stamp Program Integrity While Using Alternative Methods
paragraphs: To maintain program integrity while implementing alternative methods for  applying and recertifying for food stamps, officials from the states we  reviewed reported using a variety of strategies, some of which were in  place long before implementation of the alternative access methods. Some  states used finger imaging, electronic signatures, and special verification  techniques to validate the identity of households using call centers or on- line services. In addition, states use databases to verify information  provided by households and to follow up on discrepancies between  information reported by the household and information obtained from  other sources. Officials in the five states we reviewed did not believe that  the use of alternative methods had increased fraud in the program.  Further, despite concern that a lack of face-to-face interaction with  caseworkers would lead to more households being denied benefits for  procedural reasons, such as missing a scheduled interview, our limited  analysis indicated no considerable fluctuations in the rate of procedural  denials and officials from the states we reviewed reported taking actions  to prevent them.
subsections: section_title: State Actions to Prevent Improper Food Stamp Payments and Fraud
paragraphs: Some states have taken several actions to prevent improper food stamp  payments and fraud while implementing alternative methods. Nationally,  states have systems in place to protect program integrity and the states we  reviewed described how they prevent improper payments and fraud as  they implement alternative access methods.
Finger imaging. Nationwide, four states currently use finger imaging  of food stamp applicants to prevent households from applying more  than once for benefits. FNS officials commented that the agency has  not concluded that finger imaging enhances program integrity and that  it may have a negative effect on program access by deterring certain  households from applying.
Electronic signatures. FNS reported in October 2006 that nine states  use electronic signatures to validate the identity of on-line users of  their systems. For example, Florida’s on-line application asks  applicants to click a button signifying that they are signing the  application. Of the states we reviewed, Pennsylvania, Florida, and  Washington have on-line services with electronic signatures.
In-depth interview for high-risk cases. In Florida, a case that is  considered to have a greater potential for error or fraud is flagged as a  “red track” case, and it receives an in-depth interview to more fully  explore eligibility factors. FNS officials commented that Florida uses  an abbreviated interview with most households and that their in-depth  interview for red track cases may be equivalent to the standard  interview process used in other states.
Special training for call center agents. Call center agents in the five  states we reviewed are trained to verify callers’ identities by asking for  specific personal information available in the file or in the states’  records. Pennsylvania has developed specialized interview training,  including a video, for eligibility workers on conducting telephone  interviews of households applying or recertifying for the Food Stamp  Program. One element of the training is how to detect misinformation  being provided by a household. For example, if records indicate that a  household member is currently incarcerated and benefits are being  claimed for that person, call center agents are trained to probe for  additional information. Similarly, Utah trains telephone interviewers to  request more information if needed to clarify discrepancies in the case,  such as a household reporting rent payments too high to be covered by  the household’s reported income.
Data matching. States have used data matching systems for many  years and all five states we reviewed used software either developed by  the state or obtained through a third-party vendor to help with  verification of household circumstances. For example, data matching  software can match state food stamp caseloads against wage reporting  systems and other databases to identify unreported household income  and assets. Utah and Washington have developed software that  automatically compares information provided by applicants and  recipients with information contained in state databases, such as  income and employment information. State officials told us that using  this software greatly reduces the burden on caseworkers, who would  otherwise have to search multiple databases one at a time. In addition  to requiring case workers to access state and federal data sources to  verify information, Texas contracts with a private data vendor to obtain  financial and other background information on food stamp applicants  and recipients. After a household has started receiving benefits, states  conduct additional data matching, and their systems generate a notice  to the caseworker if there is a conflict between what the household  reported and information obtained from another source. The  information in these notices is investigated to ensure that recipients  receive the proper level of benefits. Finally, about half of all states  participate in the voluntary quarterly matching of their food stamp rolls  with those of other states to detect individuals receiving food stamp  benefits in more than one state at a time.
Food stamp officials in four of the states we reviewed said that they did  not believe the use of alternative methods has increased the frequency of  fraud and abuse in the program and officials in one state were unsure and  collecting data to help determine whether the frequency of fraud had  increased. Texas caseworkers, for example, told us they did not think  telephone interviews increased fraud because they believed the  verification conducted by caseworkers and the states’ data matching  system was sufficient. However, we have previously reported on the risk  of improper payments and fraud in the food stamp program and since  there is always risk of fraud and improper payments, particularly given the  high volume of cases and the complexity of the program, it is important  that states include additional controls when changing their processes and  that states continually assess the adequacy of those controls for  preventing fraud.
section_title: State Actions to Limit Procedural Denials
paragraphs: Some program experts have expressed concern that households would be  denied for procedural reasons more frequently if they had less face-to-face  interaction with caseworkers, although data have not borne out these  concerns and states are taking actions to limit procedural denials. During  our site visits, some officials reported examples of procedural denials  resulting from alternative methods. For example, community group  representatives in Florida said that some households were denied benefits  because they could not get through to a call center agent to provide  required verification in time. However, they also acknowledged that  procedural denials due to not providing verification were frequent prior to  the state implementing these methods. In addition, Texas officials said that  some households were denied benefits for missing scheduled interviews  when the private contractor was late in mailing notices of the interview  appointments.
Our limited analysis of FNS data for the five states we reviewed found no  considerable fluctuations in the rate of procedural denials between fiscal  years 2000 and 2005. However, a household’s failure to provide verification  documents was the most common procedural reason for denial,  suspension, or termination of benefits in the five states we reviewed.  States we visited described their efforts to help households use alternative  methods and prevent procedural denials for households that are not seen  in person by case workers. Examples of actions the states we reviewed  took to prevent procedural denials include: reviewing actions taken for  cases that are denied, training caseworkers on preventing improper  denials, routinely correcting addresses from returned mail, and developing  automated system changes to prevent caseworkers from prematurely  denying a case. For example, Utah trains its caseworkers to inform  households of all deadlines, and their application tracking software  automatically generates a list of households that have not scheduled an  interview. This list is used by caseworkers to send notices to the  households. Washington uses its document imaging center staff to process  case actions associated with returned mail, including quickly correcting  addresses.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Over the last several years and for a variety of reasons, many states have  changed their food stamp certification and recertification processes to  enable households to make fewer visits to the local assistance office.  Given our findings, it is important for states to consider the needs of all  types of households when developing alternative ways of accessing food  stamp benefits. Despite making major changes in their systems, FNS and  the states have little information on the effects of the alternative methods  on the Food Stamp Program, including what factors contribute to  successful implementation, whether these methods are improving access  to benefits for target groups, and how best to ensure program integrity.  Without up-to-date information about what methods states are using and  the factors that contribute to successful implementation of alternative  methods, states and the federal government most likely will continue to  invest in large-scale changes to their certification and recertification  processes without knowing what works and in what contexts. Although  FNS is beginning to study state efforts in this regard, these studies are not  designed to systematically evaluate whether specific methods contributed  to achieving positive outcomes. In addition, FNS has not thoroughly  analyzed the data received from states implementing waivers of the face- to-face interview to determine, for example, whether it should allow states  to use telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face interviews for all types  of households without a waiver. Further, while FNS is using its Website to  disseminate information about promising practices, the information  available is not up-to-date, making it difficult to easily locate current  information about specific practices. Enhancing the research, collection  and dissemination of promising practices could be an important resource  for states that want to provide households effective alternatives to visiting  local assistance offices to receive food stamp benefits.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve USDA’s ability to assess the effectiveness of its funded efforts,  we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture take the following  actions:    direct FNS and the Economic Research Service to work together to  enhance their research agendas to include projects that would  complement ongoing research efforts and determine the effect of  alternative methods on program access, decision accuracy, and  administrative costs. Such projects would reliably identify the  alternative methods that are effective and the factors that contribute to  their success; and    direct FNS to conduct analyses of data received from states  implementing waivers or demonstration projects waiving the face-to- face interview and require states implementing waivers or  demonstration projects to collect and report data that would facilitate  such analyses. Such analyses would identify the effect of the waivers  on outcomes such as payment accuracy and could help determine  whether the use of the waiver should be further expanded or inform  whether regulations should be changed to allow telephone interviews  for all households without documenting hardship.
In addition, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture help states  implement alternative methods to provide access to the Food Stamp  Program by directing FNS to disseminate and regularly update information  on practices states are using to implement alternative access methods to  the traditional application and recertification process. The information  would not be merely a listing of practices attempted, but would include  details on what factors or contexts seemed to make a particular practice  successful and what factors may have reduced its effectiveness.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture  for review and comment. We met with FNS and ERS officials on April 16,  2007, to obtain their comments. In general, the officials agreed with our  findings, conclusions, and recommendations.  They discussed the  complexity and variability of state modernization efforts and the related  challenges of researching the effects of these efforts.  For example, policy  changes, organizational restructuring, and the engagement of community  organizations in the application process may occur simultaneously with  implementation of alternative methods and play a significant role in state  and client experiences. Having multiple interrelated factors creates  challenges for researching the effects of modernization efforts.  Nonetheless, the officials highlighted steps the agency is taking to monitor  and evaluate state implementation of alternative access methods.  First,  the officials commented that as modernization evolves, FNS is using its  administrative reporting system to consistently and routinely track  changes in state program performance in the areas of application  timeliness, food stamp participation by subgroups, payment accuracy, and  administrative costs.  Second, they stated that the two related FNS-funded  studies currently underway will be comparing performance data from the  case study states with data from similar states; however, this analysis will  not determine whether certain modernization efforts caused changes in  performance. Third, they stated that FNS plans to analyze data they are  collecting from states as part of the administrative waiver process to  determine the effect of telephone interviews on payment accuracy.   Finally, ERS officials noted that Food Stamp Program access is an area in  which the agency continues to solicit research from the private sector as  well as other government agencies and that ERS makes data available to  support these research efforts.  FNS and ERS also provided us with  technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.
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.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To understand what alternatives states are using to improve program  access and what is known about the results of using these methods, we  examined: (1) what alternative methods to the traditional application and  recertification process are states using to increase program access; (2)  what is known about the results of these methods, particularly on program  access for target groups, decision accuracy, and administrative costs; and  (3) what actions have states taken to maintain program integrity while  implementing alternative methods.
To address these issues, we surveyed food stamp administrators in the 50  states and the District of Columbia, conducted four state site visits  (Florida, Texas, Utah, and Washington) and one set of semi-structured  telephone interviews (Pennsylvania), analyzed data provided by the Food  and Nutrition Service (FNS) and the selected states, reviewed relevant  studies, and held discussions with program stakeholders, including  officials at FNS headquarters and regional offices, and representatives of  advocacy organizations. We performed our work from September 2006 to  March 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
subsections: section_title: Survey of State Food Stamp Administrators
paragraphs: To learn about state-level use of alternative methods to help households  access the Food Stamp Program, we conducted a Web-based survey of  food stamp administrators in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.  The survey was conducted between December 2006 and February 2007  with 100 percent of state food stamp administrators responding. The  survey included questions about the use of alternative methods to provide  access to the program, including mail-in procedures, call centers, on-line  services, and other technologies that support program access. In addition,  we asked about the reasons for implementing these methods, whether  states had conducted evaluations of the methods, what measures states  used to evaluate the performance of the methods, and additional  assistance needed from FNS.
Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors.  However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce  nonsampling errors, such as variations in how respondents interpret  questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses. We took steps  to minimize nonsampling errors, including pre-testing draft instruments  and using a Web-based administration system. Specifically, during survey  development, we pre-tested draft instruments with officials in Washington,  Arizona, Utah, and Wisconsin in October and November 2006. In the pre- tests, we were generally interested in the clarity of the questions and the  flow and layout of the survey. For example, we wanted to ensure  definitions used in the surveys were clear and known to the respondents,  categories provided in closed-ended questions were complete and  exclusive, and the ordering of survey sections and the questions within  each section was appropriate. We also used in-depth interviewing  techniques to evaluate the answers of pretest participants, and  interviewers judged that all the respondents’ answers to the questions  were based on reliable information.
On the basis of the pre-tests, the Web instrument underwent some slight  revisions. A second step we took to minimize nonsampling errors was  using a Web-based survey. By allowing respondents to enter their  responses directly into an electronic instrument, this method  automatically created a record for each respondent in a data file and  eliminated the need for and the errors (and costs) associated with a  manual data entry process. To further minimize errors, programs used to  analyze the survey data were independently verified to ensure the  accuracy of this work.
After the survey was closed, we made comparisons between select items  from our survey data and other national-level data. We found our survey  data were reasonably consistent with the other data set. On the basis of  our comparisons, we believe our survey data are sufficient for the  purposes of our work.
section_title: State Site Visits and Structured Interviews
paragraphs: We conducted four site visits (Florida, Texas, Utah, and Washington) and  one set of semi-structured telephone interviews (Pennsylvania). We  selected states that have at least one FNS-approved waiver of the face-to- face interview requirement and reflect some variation in state  participation rates. We also considered recommendations from FNS  officials, advocacy group representatives, or researchers. We made in- depth reviews for each state we selected. We interviewed state officials  administering and developing policy for the Food Stamp Program, local  officials in the assistance offices and call centers where services are  provided, and representatives from community-based organizations that  provide food assistance.
section_title: Reviews of FNS Data and Relevant Studies
paragraphs: To supplement the information gathered through our site visits and in- depth reviews, we analyzed data provided by FNS for the states we  reviewed. These analyses allowed us to include state trends for specific  measures (Program Access Index, monthly participation, payment  accuracy, administrative costs, and reasons for benefit denials) in our  interviews with officials. To review the reasons for benefit denials, we  used FNS’s quality control (QC) system data of negative cases used in  error rate calculations. Specifically, we looked at the number and  percentage of cases denied, terminated, or suspended by the recorded  reason for the action in the five states we reviewed for fiscal years 2000  through 2005. Though our data allowed us to examine patterns in these  areas before and after a method was implemented, we did not intend to  make any statements about the effectiveness of methods implemented in  the states we visited and reviewed. Instead, we were interested in gaining  some insight through our interviews on how alternative methods may have  affected state trends. Based on discussions with and documentation  obtained from FNS officials, and interviews with FNS staff during site  visits, we determined that these data are sufficiently reliable for our  limited review of state trends.
In addition, we selected and reviewed several studies and reports that  relate to the use of alternative methods to increase food stamp program  access. These studies included food stamp participation outcome  evaluations that were funded by FNS and the Economic Research Service  (ERS) and focused on practices aimed to improve access to the Food  Stamp Program. To identify the selected studies, we conducted library and  Internet searches for research published on food stamp program access  since 1990, interviewed agency officials to identify completed and ongoing  studies on program access, and reviewed bibliographies that focused on  program access concerns. For each selected study, we determined  whether the study’s findings were generally reliable. Two GAO social  science analysts evaluated the methodological soundness of the studies,  and the validity of the results and conclusions that were drawn.
The studies we selected and reviewed include:    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food  Stamp Program Access Study: Final Report, by Bartlett, S., N.  Burstein, and W. Hamilton, Abt Associates Inc. (Washington, D.C.:  November 2004).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,  Evaluation of the USDA Elderly Nutrition Demonstrations, by Cody,  S. and J. Ohls, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (Washington, D.C.:  May 2005).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, Office of  Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Evaluation of Food Stamp  Research Grants to Improve Access Through New Technology and  Partnerships, by Sheila Zedlewski, David Wittenburg, Carolyn O’Brien,  Robin Koralek, Sandra Nelson, and Gretchen Rowe. (Alexandria, Va.:  September 2005).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service,  Evaluation of SSI/FSP Joint Processing Alternatives Demonstration,  by Carol Boussy, Russell H. Jackson, and Nancy Wemmerus.  (Alexandria, Va: January 2000.
Combined Application Project Evaluations submitted to FNS by seven  states: Florida, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, South  Carolina, Texas, and Washington.
section_title: Appendix II: State-by-State Use of Alternative Methods and Waivers of the Face-to-Face Interview
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Heather McCallum Hahn, Assistant Director, Cathy Roark, Analyst-in- Charge, Kevin Jackson, Alison Martin, Daniel Schwimer, Gretchen Snoey,  Rachael Valliere and Jill Yost made significant contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Food Stamp Program: FNS Could Improve Guidance and Monitoring to  Help Ensure Appropriate Use of Noncash Categorical Eligibility.   GAO-07-465. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2007.
Food Stamp Program: Payment Errors and Trafficking Have Declined  despite Increased Program Participation. GAO-07-422T. January 31, 2007.
Food Stamp Trafficking: FNS Could Enhance Program Integrity by  Better Targeting Stores Likely to Traffic and Increasing Penalties.   GAO-07-53. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2006.
Improper Payments: Federal and State Coordination Needed to Report  National Improper Payment Estimates on Federal Programs.   GAO-06-347. Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2006.
Food Stamp Program: States Have Made Progress Reducing Payment  Errors, and Further Challenges Remain. GAO-05-245. Washington, D.C.:  May 5, 2005.
Food Stamp Program: Farm Bill Options Ease Administrative Burden,  but Opportunities Exist to Streamline Participant Reporting Rules  among Programs. GAO-04-916. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2004.
Food Stamp Program: Steps Have Been Taken to Increase Participation  of Working Families, but Better Tracking of Efforts Is Needed.   GAO-04-346. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2004.
Financial Management: Coordinated Approach Needed to Address the  Government’s Improper Payments Problems. GAO-02-749. Washington,  D.C.: August 9, 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.
Executive Guide: Strategies to Manage Improper Payments: Learning  from Public and Private Sector Organizations. GAO-02-69G. Washington,  D.C.: October 2001.
Food Stamp Program: States Seek to Reduce Payment Errors and  Program Complexity. GAO-01-272. Washington D.C.: January 19, 2001.
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 Assistance: Reducing the Trafficking of Food Stamp Benefits.  GAO/T-RCED-00-250. Washington D.C.: July 19, 2000.
Food Stamp Program: Information on Trafficking Food Stamp Benefits.  GAO/RCED-98-77. Washington D.C.: March 26, 1998.