Food Stamp Program: Farm Bill Options Ease Administrative Burden, but Opportunities Exist to Streamline Participant Reporting Rules among Programs
Published: 2004-09-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Many individuals familiar with the Food Stamp Program view its rules as unnecessarily complex, creating an administrative burden for participants and caseworkers. In addition many participants receive benefits from other programs that have different program rules, adding to the complexity of accurately determining program benefits and eligibility. The 2002 Farm Bill introduced new options to help simplify the program. This report examines (1) which options states have chosen to implement and why, and (2) what changes local officials reported as a result of using these options. Selected results from GAO's web-based survey of food stamp administrators are provided in an e-supplement to this report, GAO-04-1058SP . Another e-supplement, GAO-04-1059SP , contains results from the local food stamp office surveys.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As of January 2004, states chose four of the eight Farm Bill options with greater frequency than the others. These options provided states with more flexibility in requiring participants to report changes and in determining eligibility. The most common reasons state officials gave for choosing the eight options were to simplify program rules for participants and caseworkers. Local food stamp officials reported mixed results from implementing the Farm Bill options. Although they reported some improvements for both caseworkers and participants from some options, no option received consistent positive reports in all the areas where state officials expected improvements. In fact, in many cases, officials were as likely to report that an option resulted in no change as they were to report improvements. Moreover, many local officials reported that three options introduced complications in program rules. One option that offered the most promise because it was selected by most states and affects a large number of participants resulted in food stamp participant reporting rules that differed from Medicaid and TANF. These differences resulted in confusion for food stamp participants and caseworkers, and some changes were made that undermined the intended advantages of the option. These problems reflect the challenge of trying to simplify rules for one program without making the rules of other related programs the same. Concerns about whether there are costs associated with aligning reporting rules may hinder a state's decision to pursue alignment; yet the extent to which program costs might increase as a result of making reporting rules the same is unclear.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2003, the federal Food Stamp Program, administered by the  U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service  (FNS), provided about $21.4 billion in food stamp benefits. In that same  year, the program helped a monthly average of 21 million low-income  individuals, many of whom were children. However, the program faces a  number of challenges. Many individuals familiar with the Food Stamp  Program view its rules as unnecessarily complex, creating an  administrative burden for both program participants and affected  government offices. In addition, many food stamp participants receive  benefits from other low-income assistance programs, such as Medicaid  and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).  These programs,  administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)  have different rules than those allowed under the Food Stamp Program.  Differences among these program rules add to the complexity of  accurately determining eligibility and program benefits. In 2003, errors in  overpayments and underpayments totaled $1.4 billion.  These errors  occurred in part because of the complexity of program rules. Further, FNS  estimated that in September 2001, only 62 percent of individuals who were  eligible to receive food stamps participated in the program.  In the  previous year, FNS established a goal to improve the rate of food stamp  participation among all eligible people to 68 percent by 2005.
For many years, states and advocacy groups have called for changes in the  program to help overcome these challenges. Some changes were made to  the program beginning in the late 1990s, and the Farm Security and Rural  Investment Act of 2002 (referred to in this report as the Farm Bill)  introduced new options, from which states could choose, to help simplify  the program, encourage greater participation among eligible households,  ease the administrative burden for participants and program  administrators, and help support low-income working families. For  example, one option reduces participant reporting requirements, while  another helps to ensure that families leaving TANF cash assistance  continue to receive their food stamp benefits without requiring the family  to reapply or submit additional paperwork. In addition, some of these  options permit states to more closely align food stamp eligibility rules with  the eligibility rules of other programs, an improvement that could  streamline administrative procedures for food stamp workers, improve  service for clients who participate in more than one assistance program,  and help reduce state payment error rates. In order to understand whether  the Farm Bill options have helped states streamline their programs, you  asked us to determine (1) which options states have chosen to implement  and why, and (2) what changes local officials reported as a result of  implementing these options.
To answer these questions, we surveyed food stamp administrators in the  50 states and the District of Columbia to collect information on which  Farm Bill options states have chosen and the reasons states chose certain  options. We also sent over 1,300 surveys to food stamp supervisors in  randomly selected local food stamp offices, where the options are actually  implemented during daily contacts with participants. These survey results  are generalizable to local offices in states that implemented the options.  We asked them how Farm Bill options had affected several aspects of the  Food Stamp Program, such as administrative burden on participants and  food stamp caseworkers. We focused our surveys on eight of the nine  Farm Bill options, excluding one option that allows states on a pilot basis  to test issuing standardized benefits to residents of certain group facilities.  To view selected results from GAO’s Web-based survey of food stamp  administrators, go to www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1058SP. To view  the results from the local food stamp office surveys, go to  www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1059SP.
To augment information from our state and local surveys, we conducted  three comprehensive site visits (Arizona, Maryland, and Michigan) and two  structured telephone interviews (Colorado and South Carolina). We chose  states for our site visits and telephone interviews to capture the variation  in the following criteria: (1) number of and type of selected options,   (2) numbers of food stamp participants and program participation rate,   (3) program error rates, and (4) entity (state or county) administering the  Food Stamp Program. During each visit we met with state officials  administering and developing policy for the Food Stamp Program, local  officials in the office where services are provided, and officials responsible  for other key assistance programs, such as TANF and Medicaid. We also  reviewed Farm Bill legislation and related committee reports, and we  reviewed FNS reports and other program analysis. We held discussions  with program stakeholders, including officials at FNS headquarters and  regional offices, officials at HHS, representatives of advocacy  organizations, and other program experts. We performed our work from  August 2003 to June 2004 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 better diet by supplementing their income  with benefits to purchase food. FNS pays the full cost of food stamp  benefits and shares the states’ administrative cost—with FNS paying about  50 percent of the administrative cost. FNS 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 on an electronic benefits  transfer card.
subsections: section_title: Determination of Eligibility and Benefits
paragraphs: 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 federal poverty level (or about $1,654 per month for a  family of three in 2003), and net income cannot exceed 100 percent of the  poverty guideline (or about $1,272 per month for a family of three in   2003). Net income is determined by deducting from gross income  expenses such as dependent care costs, medical expenses, utilities costs,  and shelter expenses. 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. If the household  owns a vehicle worth more than $4,650, the excess value is included in  calculating the household’s assets.
Recipients of TANF cash assistance are automatically eligible for food  stamps—a provision referred to as “categorical eligibility”—and do not  have to go through a separate food stamp eligibility determination process,  although the level of their benefits must still be determined. Many needy  families who are no longer receiving TANF cash assistance may receive  other TANF-funded services or benefits, such as child care benefits. In  1999, to help ensure that these families are also eligible for food stamp  benefits, FNS offered states the option to extend categorical eligibility to  families receiving TANF-funded benefits or services. Families who are  automatically eligible for food stamps do not have to meet the food stamp  asset test in order to receive benefits but would have to meet the state’s  TANF asset test.
States also have two ways in which they can allow households to own a  vehicle that is worth more than the amount allowed in current regulations  and still remain eligible for food stamp benefits. In October 2000, in part to  help support low-income working families, the Congress enacted  legislation that grants states the option to replace the federal food stamp  vehicle asset rule with the vehicle asset rule from their TANF assistance  program, which is set by the state and can vary from state to state. States  can also opt to use the categorical eligibility option as a way to exclude all  vehicles, as well as other assets the family may have. This option affects  the food stamp eligibility only of food stamp families authorized to receive  a TANF-funded service or benefit. As of October 2003, the majority of  states had either replaced their federal food stamp vehicle asset rule with  the vehicle asset rule from their TANF assistance program or conferred  categorical eligibility as a way to exclude vehicles.
section_title: Certification and Reporting Requirements
paragraphs: After eligibility is established, households are certified eligible for food  stamps for periods ranging from 1 to 24 months. The length of the  certification period depends on household circumstances, but only  households in which all members are elderly or disabled can be certified  for more than 12 months. Once the certification period ends, households  must reapply for benefits, at which time eligibility and benefit levels are  redetermined.
Between certification periods, households must report changes in their  circumstances—such as household composition, income, and expenses— that may affect their eligibility or benefit amounts. States have the option  of requiring food stamp participants to report on their financial  circumstances at various intervals and in various ways. States can institute  a type of periodic reporting system or they can rely on households to  report changes in their household circumstances within 10 days of  occurrence. Under periodic reporting, participants may report monthly,  quarterly, or under a simplified system. The simplified reporting system,  available since early 2001, provides for an alternative reporting option that  requires households with earned income to report changes only when  their income rises above 130 percent of the poverty level.
section_title: FNS’s Quality Control System
paragraphs: FNS monitors how accurately states determine food stamp eligibility and  calculate benefits. Under FNS’s quality control system, the states calculate  their payment errors by drawing a statistical sample to determine whether  participating households received the correct benefit amount. Improper  payments, which include overpayments of food stamp benefits to  participants, underpayments to participants, and payments to those who  are not eligible, may occur for a variety of reasons. Overpayments can be  caused by inadvertent or intentional errors made by recipients and  caseworkers. For example, caseworkers may misapply complex food  stamp rules when calculating benefits or participants may inadvertently or  deliberately provide inaccurate information to food stamp offices. In the  1990s, the states’ error rate hovered around 10 percent, but it fell to   6.6 percent in fiscal year 2003, the lowest level in the program’s history.  The 2003 combined error rate comprised $1 billion in overpayments to  food stamp participants and underpayments of more than $300 million.  According to USDA, about half of all payment errors are due to an  incorrect determination of household income.
The Farm Bill changed the Food Stamp Program’s quality control system  by making only those states with persistently high error rates face  liabilities. The Farm Bill also provides for $48 million in bonuses each  year to be awarded to states with high or most improved performance,  including actions taken to correct errors, reduce error rates, improve  eligibility determinations, and other indicators of effective administration  as approved by the Secretary of Agriculture.
section_title: Food Stamp Participants Receive Benefits from Other Assistance Programs
paragraphs: Many food stamp participants receive benefits from other federally funded  low-income assistance programs, including Medicaid and TANF. For  example, in 2002, about 85 percent of children who received food stamp  benefits were also on Medicaid, and about 20 percent of food stamp  households received assistance from TANF. Many food stamp participants  also receive child care assistance and Supplemental Security Income. In  most states, the Food Stamp Program is administered out of a local  assistance office that offers benefits from these other assistance programs  as well. Food stamp participants may provide necessary information to  only one caseworker who determines eligibility and benefits for all of  these programs, or they may work with several caseworkers that  administer benefits for different programs.
Despite the overlap in the populations served by these various assistance  programs, program rules and requirements across these programs vary  significantly. Substantial variation exists not only in program financial  eligibility rules. The primary sources of these variations are generally at  the federal level, although for several programs, such as TANF and  Medicaid, states and localities have some flexibility in setting financial  eligibility rules. They also have flexibility in the rules that govern how  often participants are required to report changes in their household  circumstances. While the Food Stamp Program allows states to choose  either periodic or change reporting, Medicaid provides states with even  broader flexibility to establish rules for when Medicaid participants must  report changes in their circumstances. Under Medicaid regulations, states  must have procedures designed to ensure that participants make timely  and accurate reports of any change in circumstances that may affect their  eligibility and that states act promptly to redetermine eligibility based on  the reported change in circumstances. However, the terms “timely” and  “promptly” are not defined and can be interpreted in various ways by the  states. TANF does not mandate a particular set of participant reporting  rules and generally allows states to develop their own rules.
section_title: Options Made Available by the Farm Bill
paragraphs: The Farm Bill makes available to states various new options that are  intended to simplify food stamp program rules, streamline food stamp  eligibility and benefit rules, and help ensure that food stamp participants  experience as smooth a transition from welfare to work as possible. (See  fig. 1.)
section_title: States Chose Some Farm Bill Options More Frequently than Others to Simplify Program Rules and Ease the Administrative Burden for Participants and Caseworkers
paragraphs: States chose four of the Farm Bill options with greater frequency than the  others. State officials gave reasons for choosing, or not choosing, the  options that focused primarily on how they thought the options would  affect food stamp participants and caseworkers. Other reasons were also  important in the choice of some options. For example, the anticipated  effect on the state’s payment error rate was a key factor in the selection of  most options. During the period when states were implementing the food  stamp options, a number of them posed challenges for the states, such as  difficulties related to caseworkers’ adjustment to program changes and  programming computer systems.
subsections: section_title: States Were Most Likely to Choose Four of the Options
paragraphs: According to our survey of state food stamp administrators, 23 or more  states had implemented four of the options as of January 2004, while less  than one-quarter of the states had implemented the other four options.  (See fig. 2. Also see app. II for the options that individual states have  chosen and implemented.)
section_title: The Reasons States Gave for Choosing Options Were Largely Based on the Anticipated Effects on Participants and Caseworkers
paragraphs: The most common reasons state officials gave for choosing the eight  options were to simplify program rules for participants and caseworkers,  according to our survey. For example, state officials we interviewed told  us they thought program rules would be less confusing for participants if  the types of income considered in eligibility determinations were more  uniform across assistance programs, as is allowed by the Simplified  Definition of Income option. In addition, officials in one state commented  that they thought the Simplified Standard Utility Allowance option would  make the rules less complicated for caseworkers because it would allow  them to apply the standard utility allowance—a fixed amount that can be  used in place of actual utility costs—to households sharing a residence,  instead of having to prorate the actual utility costs of the household. (See  fig. 3 and app. III for more detail on reasons states chose options.)
In addition, two important reasons state officials gave for choosing  options were to decrease the burden on participants and decrease the  workload for caseworkers, as shown in figure 3. For example, several state  officials told us they thought options such as Simplified Homeless Shelter  Costs and Simplified Standard Utility Allowance that allow states to use a  standard allowance rather than actual costs in determining eligibility  would provide relief for participants and caseworkers. When standard  allowances are used, participants do not have to furnish proof of all actual  costs and, correspondingly, caseworkers have less information to verify.  In addition, some state officials told us that they thought an option, such  as Transitional Benefits, that decreases the frequency with which  participants must report changes would reduce workload. Under the  Transitional Benefits option, households leaving TANF are automatically  allowed up to 5 months of food stamp benefits and are not required to  report changes in household circumstances during the transitional period.
Other reasons were also important in the choice of some options.  Lowering their state’s payment error rate was an important reason state  officials gave for choosing seven of the options, including the Expanded  Simplified Reporting option. States choosing this option are held  responsible only for errors that result from miscalculating benefits at  certification, or if income exceeds 130 percent of poverty and the change  is not reported during the reporting period. A state’s error rate is also not  affected if the household experienced a change in its circumstances that it  did not report. In addition, officials in one state told us they thought the  Transitional Benefits option would lower the state’s payment error rate  because it allows for certain periods in which states are to be held  harmless for unreported changes. Otherwise, these unreported changes  could be included in calculating the error rate. Further, officials told us  that the income option would make the Food Stamp Program less error  prone because it allows states to use some of the same income definitions  that are used when determining eligibility for TANF cash assistance or  Medicaid. This alignment of income definitions may result in fewer errors  because following one set of program rules is easier for participants and  caseworkers than trying to adhere to many different sets of rules.
Increasing participation in the Food Stamp Program, including  participation of working families, was also an important reason for  choosing three of the options. For example, officials in one state told us  that they believed the Expanded Simplified Reporting option would  contribute to higher participation rates because cases would not be closed  as often under this option. In addition, state officials reported that they  thought the Child Support Expense Income Exclusion option would help  more households to receive food stamps by making it easier for them to  meet eligibility requirements. This option allows states to exclude legally  obligated child support payments from the gross income of the  noncustodial parent who is paying the child support when determining  food stamp eligibility. Without the option, these child support payments  are deducted from the noncustodial parent’s income after eligibility for  food stamps is already determined.
State officials we surveyed gave additional reasons for choosing some  options, including the desire to align food stamps with other assistance  programs, increase benefit amounts for participants, and encourage  payment of child support. Aligning the Food Stamp Program’s definition of  income and resource rules with those used by TANF or Medicaid—that is,  conforming the definitions of income and resources states use in the Food  Stamp Program to the definitions they use in their TANF or Medicaid  program—was an important reason for choosing the income and  resources options. Increasing benefit amounts for participants was an  important reason for choosing some options, including Transitional  Benefits. Officials in one state told us they thought this option would  result in greater benefit amounts for households leaving TANF because the  new income that rendered them ineligible for TANF is not included in the  calculation of their benefit amount for the transitional period. If this  additional income were taken into account, it would most likely result in a  lower benefit amount. Finally, among other reasons, state officials chose  the Child Support Expense Income Exclusion option because they thought  it would encourage payment of child support.
section_title: The Reasons States Gave for Not Choosing Options Were Primarily Related to Anticipated Effects on Participants and Caseworkers and Other Aspects of the Program
paragraphs: State officials gave a number of reasons for not choosing options. Among  the most common was their belief that the option would complicate rules  for participants and complicate rules for caseworkers in their state.  Because of the variability among states in the design of Food Stamp  Programs and other assistance programs, an option that simplified  processes in one state may have a different effect in other states. For  example, officials in two states commented that they thought the  Simplified Determination of Deductions option might confuse participants  and caseworkers because it would create additional, and sometimes  conflicting, participant reporting rules in their state. As one state official  noted, this option, which allows states to disregard reported changes in  certain deductions during the certification period, could be confusing for  caseworkers because of its inconsistency with her state’s policy to act on  all reported changes. (See fig. 4. Also see app. III for more detail on  reasons states did not choose options.)
State officials gave additional reasons for not choosing some of the  options. An important reason for not choosing two of the options was that  officials believed the options would result in little or no increase in the  amount of food stamp benefits for participants in their state. For example,  officials in several states noted that according to their calculations,  implementing the child support option would not increase food stamp  benefit amounts for participants in their state who pay child support. In  addition, some state officials commented that they did not choose the  deductions option, which allows states to disregard reported changes in  certain deductions during the certification period, because they believed  the option could prevent participants from receiving additional benefits if  their expenses increased during this period.
State officials also reported an important reason they did not choose three  of the options was because of their belief that the options would affect  very few participants in their state. For example, some state officials  reported that the number of households that would be helped by the  Transitional Benefits option in their state would be relatively small  because their state had implemented simplified reporting systems that  provided similar advantages, such as allowing households to forgo  reporting most changes between scheduled reporting periods. Similarly,  officials in one state commented that they thought the child support  option would not increase the number of eligible households in their state  because many of the affected households would already be categorically  eligible for food stamps.
In addition, an important reason state officials gave for not choosing five  of the options was that they thought the options would have little or no  advantage over current policy in their state. For example, officials in some  states commented that the income and resources options would not allow  them much additional flexibility in their Food Stamp Program definitions  because FNS placed restrictions on the types of incomes and resources  that could be excluded under these options, while one other state official  noted that before these options became available, they had already largely  aligned TANF and Medicaid definitions of resources with those used by  the Food Stamp Program. In addition, other state officials told us the  deductions option would be duplicative in their state because they had  already implemented simplified reporting options that exempt  participating households from reporting changes in the deductions  covered by this option during the certification period.
Other reasons were important for not choosing some options, including a  possible increase in the state’s payment error rate or the difficulty in  programming the state’s computer system to implement the change.  Officials in some states said they thought the Expanded Simplified  Reporting option might increase the payment error rate in their state.  Simplified reporting systems reduce the frequency with which households  must report changes, which may make the reporting rules of food stamps  different from those of other assistance programs in the state that require  households to report changes on a more regular basis. These differences  in reporting rules could lead to errors by participants and caseworkers,  who often determine eligibility for more than one assistance program. In  addition, some state officials reported that they did not choose the  Transitional Benefits option because the required changes would be too  difficult to program into their state’s computer systems. Food stamp  computer systems in many states are integrated with other assistance  programs, such as TANF and Medicaid.
section_title: Implementation Challenges for States Choosing Certain Options
paragraphs: In states that did choose specific options, a number of these options posed  challenges for the states during initial implementation. Reported  challenges included difficulties related to caseworkers’ adjustment to  program changes, lack of alignment with other assistance programs, and  programming state computer systems. For example, officials in one state  told us caseworkers had trouble adjusting to the new reporting system  under Simplified Determination of Deductions because many were  accustomed to the former system in which participants reported, and  caseworkers acted on, changes in some household deductions within   10 days of the change. In addition, state officials told us some options,  such as Expanded Simplified Reporting, lessened the degree to which  Food Stamp Program rules aligned with those of other assistance  programs, which also presented challenges. Food stamp officials in one  state told us they selected the Expanded Simplified Reporting option even  though they knew it was going to result in food stamp reporting rules that  were different from those of another assistance program because they  thought the option would have many benefits for participants. Finally,  difficulties with programming computers were commonly mentioned  challenges to implementation. We heard from officials in two states that  had implemented the Transitional Benefits option that this integration  posed difficulties for them. These officials reported that they had to delink  the connection with other programs so that the food stamp benefit  remained frozen during the 5-month transitional period, regardless of the  information recorded in the computer system for the other assistance  programs. Officials from seven states provided cost estimates for  implementing the options. The cost estimates ranged from $14,880 to   $3.7 million, almost all of which, in six of the states, represented the costs  of changing the state’s computer system. These estimates included costs  for such expenses as programming and testing the computer systems.  Other states did not provide estimates for the costs of implementing the  options.
section_title: Local Food Stamp Officials Reported Mixed Results for Farm Bill Options; These Results Ranged from Improvements to Complications
paragraphs: Local food stamp officials, who often have day-to-day contact with  frontline caseworkers and food stamp participants, reported mixed results  from implementing the Farm Bill options; the results ranged from  improvements to complications. They reported that most of the options  achieved at least some of the improvements anticipated by state officials.  However, in a number of cases, local officials reported that the options did  not result in expected improvements, or their opinions differed on  whether the option achieved the anticipated result. Finally, local officials  reported that three options introduced complications in program rules for  both caseworkers and participants.
subsections: section_title: Local Food Stamp Officials Reported the Options Achieved Some, but Not All, Anticipated Improvements
paragraphs: Local food stamp officials reported on our survey that the options resulted  in some, but not all, of the improvements anticipated by state officials. The  officials’ views were mixed on whether the administrative burden was  reduced for program participants and caseworkers. For example, many  local officials reported that the options reduced paperwork for  participants. However, officials were less likely to report that the options  reduced the actual time participants spent applying for food stamps or  reporting changes in household circumstances. In addition, some local  officials reported that participation increased as a result of implementing  options intended to increase participation, while others told us that those  options had no effect on participation. Similarly, for the two options  expected to increase alignment of program definitions with TANF and  Medicaid, most officials agreed that these options made the definitions of  income and resources the same as in TANF, but officials’ opinions differed  on whether the options helped increase alignment with Medicaid.
subsections: section_title: Administrative Burden on Participants
paragraphs: Local food stamp supervisors reported mixed results on whether the  options eased the administrative burden on participants—a primary  reason that states chose most of these options—as measured by both the  amount of paperwork required and the time spent applying for food  stamps and reporting changes. These local officials reported on our  survey that the Expanded Simplified Reporting option eased the  administrative burden on participants, particularly those who do not  receive benefits from other assistance programs, by decreasing the time  needed to prepare paperwork and report changes in their household  circumstances. (See fig. 5.) For five other options, local officials differed  in their views; some reported that the administrative burden on  participants decreased while others reported no change. These five  options are Simplified Standard Utility Allowance, Simplified Definition of  Income, Simplified Definition of Resources, Transitional Benefits, and  Simplified Determination of Deductions. For example, about the same  number of local officials reported that the Transitional Benefits option  decreased the administrative burden on participants as reported that it  remained the same. Further, most local officials from states that adopted  the deductions option reported that the administrative burden under this  option remained the same for participants. This may be because three of  the four states that implemented this option also implemented Expanded  Simplified Reporting, which already decreased the administrative burden  for participants in a similar way.
Although five of the Farm Bill options—Expanded Simplified Reporting,  Simplified Standard Utility Allowance, Simplified Definition of Income,  Simplified Definition of Resources, and Simplified Determination of  Deductions—were chosen by state officials to ease the administrative  burden on caseworkers, local officials reported that most of these options  had little effect on reducing the administrative burden on the caseworkers.  (See fig. 5.) Overall, local officials reported no effect on the number of  contacts with participants and time spent with participants during those  contacts. However, local officials reported some reduction in the time  spent on paperwork. For example, local officials told us that the utility  option reduced the amount of time caseworkers spent on paperwork  because they no longer had to conduct an additional complicated  procedure to determine the correct benefit amount for certain  participants. (See app. IV for additional details from our surveys regarding  how Farm Bill options affected participants and caseworkers.)
section_title: Payment Error Rate, Program Participation, Benefit Amount, and Program Alignment
paragraphs: Similarly, for options implemented in part to achieve other goals—to  decrease payment error rate, increase program participation, and increase  benefit amount—some local officials reported improvements, while others  told us that the options had no effect. (See fig. 6.) Although about one- quarter of local officials reported that they did not know how most Farm  Bill options affected their payment error rates, some others attributed  improvements in error rates to two options. About half of the local  officials that responded said that Expanded Simplified Reporting and the  utility option decreased the error rate, and the other half reported that the  error rate remained the same. For options that state officials thought  would increase program participation, local food stamp officials reported  that the options had little effect on participation. For example, although  state officials thought that the Child Support Expense Income Exclusion  option would increase participation, local officials reported that it did not.  There was no consensus on whether the other two options chosen to  increase participation—Expanded Simplified Reporting and Transitional  Benefits—resulted in increased participation. For options that state  officials thought would increase food stamp benefit amounts, some locals  reported improvements, while others reported no change. Specifically,  local officials reported that the utility option increased benefit amounts  for participants, while about half reported that the income option  increased benefits and about half reported it did not.
Most local officials reported increased alignment of the definitions of  income and resources between food stamps and TANF from the income  and resources options. States selected these two options in part to  increase alignment by making these definitions the same in their Food  Stamp Program and TANF. For example, local food stamp officials from  one state we visited told us that aligning the definition of income under the  income option eliminated a food stamp form that was not required for  TANF or Medicaid. This form was used to verify loans from educational  institutions, such as community colleges, regarding the amount and  duration of the loan. They told us that obtaining this information from  educational institutions could take a month and possibly require several  follow-up contacts with the institution. This decrease in paperwork for  both participants and some caseworkers demonstrates one benefit from  increased alignment. However, on our survey, officials’ opinions differed  on whether the income and resources options helped increase alignment  of definitions between food stamps and Medicaid.
Local officials may have reported little or no change from certain options  because they affected relatively few food stamp participants or they did  not affect caseworkers’ responsibilities. For example, most local officials  reported that four options—income, resources, transitional benefits, and  child support—affected less than 20 percent of their caseload. In addition,  most options made only slight changes to caseworkers’ administrative  processes, and others may not have affected their processes at all because  some changes were automatically incorporated into state computer  systems. For example, local officials reported that the child support  option was automatically incorporated into state computer systems, so  caseworkers’ responsibilities were not affected by this change.
Several of the Farm Bill options made only slight changes to existing food  stamp policy, such as the utility, child support, and Simplified Homeless  Shelter Costs options. For example, the utility option expanded the  existing standard utility allowance policy to cover two additional types of  households that were previously excluded: households sharing a living  space and public housing residents who were charged for only excess  utility costs. Also, of the local officials we surveyed on the homeless  option, the majority indicated that they implemented a similar policy prior  to its availability under the Farm Bill.
section_title: Many Local Food Stamp Officials Reported That Certain Options Introduced Complications in Program Rules for Participants and Caseworkers
paragraphs: Many local officials reported on our surveys that three options—Expanded  Simplified Reporting, Transitional Benefits, and Simplified Determination  of Deductions—introduced complications in program rules for  participants and caseworkers. Of these options, the Expanded Simplified  Reporting option—an option that local officials told us affected most of  their caseloads—introduced the most serious complications because of  how it interacts with participant reporting rules for other assistance  programs. Officials told us that adopting the Expanded Simplified  Reporting option resulted in Food Stamp Program reporting rules that  differed in important ways from the reporting rules of other assistance  programs, such as Medicaid and TANF, depending on how their states  have structured these programs. About one-third of local officials we  surveyed reported that this option decreased alignment between Food  Stamp Program reporting rules and those of Medicaid; about one-half  reported a decrease in alignment with TANF.
Local officials told us that these differences in reporting rules often  resulted in confusion on the part of food stamp participants, particularly  because most participate in other assistance programs. They explained  that although the caseworkers provided information to help participants  determine which changes they were required to report (i.e., changes that  increased their income to over 130 percent of the federal poverty level),  some participants still reported changes that were not required. According  to a recent case study, some participants may believe they need to report  these changes to maintain their food benefits. On the other hand, local  officials told us that some participants think that the new reduced  reporting requirements apply to other assistance programs in addition to  the Food Stamp Program. Consequently, some participants do not report  changes they are required to report for these other assistance programs,  and in some cases, participants might face interruptions in benefits or  penalties for not reporting changes for other programs.
In addition to reporting complications for participants, local food stamp  officials on our site visits and in telephone interviews told us that different  participant reporting rules for assistance programs are confusing for  caseworkers because they are uncertain whether to act on a change for  the Food Stamp Program when reported for another assistance program.  Moreover, trying to determine whether to act on a change for the Food  Stamp Program can cause them to perform additional work. When a  participant reports a change that is required for Medicaid or TANF, but  not for food stamps, caseworkers must decide whether to act on that  change for the Food Stamp Program. Caseworkers, who often determine  benefits for more than one assistance program, first must decide if a  change will increase the participant’s food stamp benefit. To make this  decision, caseworkers typically enter the information into the computer  system as if they were going to act on the change in order to determine if  the change will result in an increase in the participant’s food stamp  benefit. If the caseworker determines that the change reported by the  participant will increase the participant’s benefit, caseworkers are  required to act on the change. On the other hand, if the caseworker  determines that the change reported by the participant will decrease the  benefit, the caseworker must then determine whether or not to act on this  change. (See fig. 7 for one example of how this process would work.) FNS  regulations mandate that states not act on changes that would result in a  decrease in benefits for participants unless one of three exceptions is met:  (1) the household voluntarily requests that the case be closed, (2) the  participant’s TANF (or, in some areas, General Assistance) grant is  changed, or (3) the information about the change is considered “verified  upon receipt.” A reported change is considered verified upon receipt  when the information is not questionable and the provider is its primary  source, such as information about earnings provided by the participant’s  employer. Many local officials suggested that aligning food stamp  reporting rules with Medicaid and TANF, by making them the same across  these programs, would help to simplify this process.
State officials generally believed that the Expanded Simplified Reporting  option would help states reduce their food stamp payment error rates.  However, local officials told us that caseworkers’ confusion about the  reporting rules for different assistance programs could result in improper  food stamp and other assistance program benefits. A recent case study  found that caseworkers were concerned that they might make errors in  benefits because of the complexity of the decision-making process  involved in determining when to act or not to act on a change. Moreover,  supervisors told us that payment error rates of other assistance programs  might increase if participants do not report required changes to these  assistance programs because they believe the Expanded Simplified  Reporting rules apply to these other programs.
In an attempt to address these issues, many states have modified this  option in a way that may undermine some of its benefits. Officials in 17 of  the 33 states that implemented this option told us that rather than having  caseworkers decide whether or not to act on a change, they have a waiver  from FNS that requires caseworkers to act on all changes reported by  participants, including those that would decrease benefits. Some states  choosing this waiver did so because acting on some but not all changes  would require significant reprogramming of their computer systems and  may be difficult for their caseworkers to understand. However, acting on  all changes counteracts the potential reduction in workload for  caseworkers. Further, when the participant reports a change during the  reporting period, having the waiver does not reduce exposure to errors in  the way that the option does for states without the waiver. In short, the  more changes caseworkers make, the more opportunity there is for a  change to be processed incorrectly. In addition, in certain circumstances,  a change might result in lower benefits for participants in states with this  waiver as opposed to states without this waiver.
In April 2004, USDA proposed some revisions to simplified reporting  regulations in order to help alleviate some of these complications with this  waiver. USDA proposed that state agencies that have this waiver not be  required to act on changes a household reports for another public  assistance program when the change does not trigger action in that other  program. For example, if a household receiving food stamps and Medicaid  reports an increase in income to its Medicaid caseworker that is not  required to be reported for food stamp purposes, the state agency would  not have to reduce the household’s food stamp benefit if the income  change does not affect its Medicaid eligibility or benefits. This proposed  change would simplify the procedure for caseworkers and, in some cases,  eliminate the possibility that benefits would be reduced in states with this  waiver. However, while this proposal addresses issues for caseworkers  and participants in states with this waiver, we found that local officials in  states without the waiver were more likely to report that this option  introduced complications for caseworkers than local officials in states  with the waiver.
States have flexibility to align the reporting rules for Medicaid and TANF  with their food stamp reporting rules available under the Expanded  Simplified Reporting option, but many have not done so. Although one of  the three states we visited achieved some alignment of reporting rules  between TANF and food stamps, none of the three states, despite  preliminary discussions between Medicaid and food stamp officials, had  been successful in aligning Medicaid and food stamp reporting rules.  Food stamp officials in these states told us the discussions had not  resulted in alignment of reporting rules largely because Medicaid officials  believed that Medicaid benefit costs could increase. For example, if a  participant experienced a household change that would not affect the  participant’s food stamp benefit but would affect Medicaid eligibility, the  participant might receive Medicaid benefits for longer periods than he or  she would have under a state’s current reporting rules. Thus Medicaid  benefit costs could increase. A recent study of four states found that states  are often reluctant to make changes in policies that may increase TANF or  Medicaid benefit costs or caseloads, particularly when states experience  budget shortfalls. For example, because states contribute a nationwide  average of 43 percent to Medicaid benefit costs (while food stamp benefits  are 100 percent federally funded), increases in Medicaid caseloads or costs  would place demands on state budgets that increases in food stamp  caseloads would not. In addition, another report noted that changes to  rules and procedures typically require that a state reprogram its computer  to apply the new policies, and these changes may result in increased cost  to the state. However, the extent to which program costs might increase  as a result of alignment is unclear, and in two of the three states we  visited, state officials had little or no information on possible costs  associated with implementing such changes.
A case study also noted that in some states, staff responsible for these  various benefit programs work in different agencies with varied priorities,  and there is no incentive to coordinate policy across these programs.  Finally, an official from HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services  (CMS) noted that there are numerous groups of eligible Medicaid  participants, and many groups, depending on state eligibility rules, may  receive continuous eligibility for 12 months. For these participants,  reporting on a 6-month schedule for Medicaid would not be appropriate.
Two additional options introduced complications in program rules, though  to a lesser extent. Some local officials reported that the Transitional  Benefits option introduced complications for the caseworkers, again  because of interactions between this option and other assistance  programs. For example, transitional benefits from Medicaid are for  persons transitioning to work and are provided for up to 1 year. On the  other hand, transitional food stamp benefits are for persons leaving TANF  and are granted for a maximum of 5 months. In addition, program experts  told us that reporting rules for the two types of transitional benefits are  not aligned, and this creates an additional administrative burden for  caseworkers. Medicaid requires persons receiving transitional benefits to  report household financial circumstances at the 4th, 7th, and 10th month  of transitional benefits, whereas persons receiving food stamp transitional  benefits must reapply at the end of the 5th month. About a third of local  officials reported that they would like transitional food stamp benefits to  be available for 6 months or to be aligned with transitional benefits from  Medicaid.
Finally, some local officials reported that the Simplified Determination of  Deductions option introduced complications for the participants and the  caseworkers. For example, local officials told us that this option  complicates decisions about whether to act on changes reported by  participants. Local officials told us that when participants report a change  that is not required under the deductions option, caseworkers must first  determine if the household is subject to reporting rules under Expanded  Simplified Reporting or not. If the household falls under Expanded  Simplified Reporting, the caseworkers must follow the decision-making  process for Expanded Simplified Reporting depicted in figure 7 above. If  the household does not fall under Expanded Simplified Reporting and the  change is to a deduction from household income, the caseworkers must  not act on the change.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Since the late 1990s, and most recently in the Farm Bill, the Congress and  FNS have offered states a number of options to simplify and streamline the  administration of the Food Stamp Program. These options presented  states with additional opportunities to tailor their Food Stamp Programs  to the social and economic needs of their own states. Moreover, these  changes coincided with actions taken by the Congress to grant states  considerable flexibility in the design and administration of other key  assistance programs, such as TANF and Medicaid, and the growing  realization that the Food Stamp Program provides crucial support to low- income working families.
Local officials, who have day-to-day contact with frontline caseworkers  and food stamp participants, reported mixed results from implementing  the options. Although they reported some improvements for both  caseworkers and participants from some options, no option received  consistently positive reports in all the areas where state officials expected  improvements when they selected the option. In fact, in many cases,  officials were as likely to report that an option resulted in no change as  they were to report improvements. This may be due in part to the fact that  the Farm Bill options made only slight changes to policy and, as reported,  affected relatively few program participants.
Of all the options, the Expanded Simplified Reporting option offered the  most promise because it was selected by the most states, affects a large  number of participants, and has the potential to significantly streamline  the participant reporting process. The fact that local officials reported that  adopting this option actually complicated program rules in many states  reflects the challenge of trying to simplify requirements for one program  without efforts by states to adjust the rules of other related assistance  programs. This is particularly relevant because most food stamp recipients  also participate in other assistance programs. The reported complications  resulted in problems, such as confusion for the caseworker and a possible  increase in payment errors. In response, many states adopted a waiver that  negated many of the potential benefits of Expanded Simplified Reporting  for caseworkers and participants. Although USDA proposed a change to  this waiver, the change will not address the complications reported by  local officials in states without the waiver. Moreover, neither the waiver to  act on all changes nor USDA’s proposed change to the waiver will address  overall alignment issues related to reporting rules among various  assistance programs.
Although federal law and program rules allow states to align participant  reporting rules among assistance programs, state officials in most states  have not made the broad changes that would result in greater consistency  among programs. Concerns regarding whether there are costs associated  with aligning participant reporting requirements may hinder a state’s  decision to make program changes that increase alignment. These  concerns may include the cost of programming changes into state  computers and the concern that benefit costs may increase in those  programs that require a higher proportion of state funds, such as the  Medicaid program. On the other hand, savings could result from reducing  the administrative burden on caseworkers. Yet it is unclear whether costs  would rise or savings would be realized. In addition, aligning Medicaid  reporting rules with food stamp rules may work for some groups of  Medicaid participants, but not others. Although alignment of state program  rules may not be advantageous in every circumstance, many government  officials told us that they were interested in improved alignment. In  general, increased alignment remains important to simplification and ease  of service delivery.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order to take advantage of existing opportunities available to states for  streamlining participant reporting rules, we recommend that the Secretary  of Agriculture direct FNS to collaborate with HHS to take the following  two actions:  1.  Encourage state officials to explore the advantages and  disadvantages—in terms of both administrative and benefit costs and  savings—of better aligning participant reporting rules in their states,  particularly for Medicaid and TANF, and  2.  Disseminate information and guidance to states on the opportunities  available for better aligning participant reporting requirements among  food stamps, Medicaid, and TANF.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture  for review and comment and on August 20, 2004, we met with FNS  officials to get their comments. The officials said they agreed with our  findings, conclusions, and recommendations. They stated that they are  interested in helping states better align their participant reporting  requirements and that they plan to contact HHS to initiate discussions on  ways to help states align these reporting requirements. They also said they  plan to provide best practices information to states regarding the  administration of the Food Stamp Program and that they would explore  disseminating information on any progress states have made in  streamlining their participant reporting rules. FNS 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. Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your  staffs have any questions about this report. Major contributors to this  report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To accomplish our research objectives, we surveyed state food stamp  administrators and local food stamp supervisors on the implementation of  the Farm Bill food stamp options. To augment information from our state  and local surveys, we conducted three comprehensive site visits (Arizona,  Maryland, and Michigan) and two semi-structured telephone interviews  (Colorado and South Carolina). We chose states for our site visits and  telephone interviews to capture variation in the following criteria: (a)  number of and type of selected options, (b) number of food stamp  participants and program participation rate, (c) program error rate, and  (d) entity (state or county) administering the Food Stamp Program. During  each visit we met with state officials administering and developing policy  for the Food Stamp Program, local officials in the office where services  are provided, and officials responsible for other key assistance programs,  such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid.  We also reviewed Farm Bill legislation and related committee reports, and  we reviewed Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) reports and other program  analysis. We held discussions with program stakeholders, including  officials at FNS headquarters and regional offices, representatives of  advocacy organizations, and other program experts. We performed our  work from August 2003 to June 2004 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 the food stamp options made available  under the Farm Bill, we conducted a Web-based survey of food stamp  administrators in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. For each of  the eight Farm Bill options, we asked state officials to provide information  on whether or not their state had chosen and implemented the option,  reasons for choosing (or not choosing) the option, program challenges in  implementing the option, changes because of the options, and potential  improvements to the option. In addition, we asked for other information,  including cost estimates for implementing the options, estimates of time  and cost savings as a result of implementing the options, efforts to align  the Food Stamp Program with TANF and Medicaid, and other food stamp  options states had implemented prior to the Farm Bill. We administered  the survey between December 9, 2003, and January 30, 2004. We also  contacted some respondents via phone or e-mail to clarify their responses  after the Web survey was completed. Food stamp administrators in all   50 states and the District of Columbia participated in the survey, for a  response rate of 100 percent. To view selected results of GAO’s Web-based  survey of food stamp adminstrators, go to   www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1058SP.
We believe the state survey data are sufficiently reliable to be used for the  applicable questions of our work. We pretested the survey with several  state Food Stamp administrators and modified the survey to take their  comments into account. We also compared our survey responses on which  of the states had implemented the options with information published by  FNS and found our data had a reasonable level of consistency with the  agency’s data, with the exception of data for the Simplified Homeless  Shelter Costs option. Our analysis indicated fewer states had implemented  this option than are listed in the FNS report. The cause of the discrepancy  is that many states were already using a homeless shelter allowance of  $143 prior to the Farm Bill, and many of these states are included in the  information published by FNS as having implemented the Farm Bill  option. However, for the purposes of our study, we decided to limit our  analysis to only those states that implemented the homeless shelter  allowance of $143 after the Farm Bill became effective.
section_title: Survey of Local Food Stamp Supervisors
paragraphs: To learn about local-level use of the Farm Bill options, we administered  1,328 mailed surveys to supervisors in local food stamp offices in the  states that had implemented the options. These survey results are  generalizable to local offices in states that implemented the options. We  conducted a separate survey for each of the eight options and used a  separate sample for each of the surveys. On all eight surveys, we asked  supervisors in local offices for their opinions about the extent to which the  Farm Bill option had affected change in several areas of the Food Stamp  Program, including administrative burden on participants and  caseworkers, the error rate, program participation, and alignment with  other assistance programs. In addition, we asked the supervisors for their  opinions about the proportion of the local office’s food stamp caseload  that was affected by the option and changes the local office officials would  like to see to the option. To view the results from the local food stamp  office surveys, go to www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1059SP.
We chose to survey food stamp supervisors because we believed they  would be aware of the changes for participants and caseworkers resulting  from the Farm Bill options. We collected the opinion of these supervisors  because we did not find existing data on the information we needed to  complete the objectives of this study, including the number of food stamp  recipients affected by each option and the time costs or savings for food  stamp participants and caseworkers because of the implementation of the  options. We conducted the surveys between December 2003 and April  2004. We also contacted some respondents via phone or e-mail to clarify  their responses after the mailed survey was completed.
subsections: section_title: Local Survey Sample Design
paragraphs: For each Farm Bill option, the population of interest was the set of all  local food stamp offices located in states that adopted the option. Because  we could not survey the entire population of local offices, we selected a  sample of local offices to be representative of this population of interest.  In each sample, the sampling unit is the local food stamp office. To  determine the eight samples, we contacted state and county food stamp  officials to compile a complete mailing list of food stamp offices in the   50 states and the District of Columbia. We compiled our own list because  we were unaware of any other such comprehensive list. From these lists of  local offices, we selected a simple random sample of local offices located  in states that, according to information provided by FNS, had already  implemented the option. For example, if the FNS report indicated   12 states had implemented an option, we drew the sample for that option  from the combined list of the local offices in those 12 states.
Since many states had chosen multiple options, we capped the number of  surveys a local office could receive at three in order to minimize response  burden. Only one local office was randomly selected to receive more than  three surveys. To make sure this office did not receive more than three  surveys, we randomly selected two of the five options for which we had  drawn this office. We then randomly selected two replacement offices to  receive the surveys. To select the replacement offices, we used the  remaining offices on the list.
section_title: Sampling and Nonsampling Errors
paragraphs: Because we surveyed a random sample of local food stamp offices, our  results are estimates of the responses we would have received had we  surveyed the entire population of interest, and are thus subject to  sampling errors. We are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence  intervals in the local survey results will contain the true values of the  population of interest. All percentage estimates from the local survey have  sampling errors of plus or minus 10 percentage points. We calculated  confidence intervals for our local survey results using methods that are  appropriate for probability samples of this type.
In addition to sampling errors, the practical difficulties in conducting  surveys of this type may introduce other types of errors, commonly  referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, questions may be  misinterpreted, the respondents’ answers may differ from those in local  offices that did not respond, or errors could be made in keying completed  questionnaires or in the preparation of data files for analysis. We took  steps in the development, collection, and analysis of the local surveys to  minimize these errors. For example, we pretested each of the eight local  surveys with at least one local food stamp official prior to mailing the  surveys.
section_title: Response Rates
paragraphs: The response rates for the eight surveys ranged from 74.0 percent to   86.1 percent (see table 1 below). Some respondents returned the survey to  us but indicated that their local office had not implemented the option we  asked them about or that they implemented the option prior to the date  the Farm Bill became effective. We refer to these surveys as “out of  scope.” There are several reasons surveys could be out of scope, including  the time lag between the FNS report we used to determine our sample and  the launch of our survey and possible delays in state-level policy decisions  being implemented on the local level. Given how quickly the status of the  Farm Bill options can change in states, the number of out of scopes is not  surprising. In this report we did not use out-of-scope surveys in the  estimates derived from local survey data.
We did not use the data we collected from the local survey on the  Simplified Homeless Shelter Costs option because we had used the FNS  list of states that had implemented the option to draw our sample, but later  we learned of the discrepancy between our definition of the option and the  data provided by FNS that had implemented this option. We concluded our  sample for this option was flawed and the results should not be used in the  local survey analysis.  (Total number of responses – Number of out of scopes) (Total sample size – Number of out of scopes)
section_title: Appendix II: Farm Bill Options That States Have Implemented as of January 2004
paragraphs: Appendix II: Farm Bill Options That States  Have Implemented as of January 2004 Simplified Homeless Shelter Costs option only includes states that indicated they did not have a  Standard Homeless Shelter Allowance of $143 prior to the Farm Bill.
section_title: Appendix III: Selected Responses to State Survey
paragraphs: Appendix III: Selected Responses to State  Survey Simplified Homeless Shelter Costs option only includes states that indicated they did not have a  Standard Homeless Shelter Allowance of $143 prior to the Farm Bill.
We only asked child support item for Child Support Expense Income Exclusion option. (N = 9) (N = 12) income (N = 7) (N = 12) benefits (N = 27) (N = 35) (N = 44)
We only asked child support item for Child Support Expense Income Exclusion option.
section_title: Appendix IV: Selected Responses to Local Surveys
paragraphs: Appendix IV: Selected Responses to Local  Surveys (20-39%) (40-59%) (60-79%) (80-99%) (100%) 20% (20-39%) (40-59%) (60-79%) (80-99%) (100%) 1% (20-39%) (40-59%) (60-79%) (80-99%) (100%) 2% (20-39%) (40-59%) (60-79%) (80-99%) (100%) 1% (20-39%) (40-59%) (60-79%) (80-99%) (100%) 7% (20-39%) (40-59%) (60-79%) (80-99%) (100%) 0% (20-39%) (40-59%) (60-79%) (80-99%)
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Katharine Leavitt and Anne Welch also made significant contributions to  this report. In addition, Carl Barden, Kevin Jackson, MacDonald Phillips,  and Jay Smale were responsible for sampling, survey design, and data  analysis,and Corinna Nicolaou assisted in the report development.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
Food Stamp Program: States Seek to Reduce Payment Errors and  Program Complexity. GAO-01-272. Washington, D.C.: January 19, 2001.
Means-Tested Programs: Determining Financial Eligibility Is  Cumbersome and Can Be Simplified. GAO-02-58. Washington, D.C.:  November 2, 2001.
Food Stamp Program: Various Factors Have Led to Declining  Participation: GAO/RCED-99-185. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 1999.