Food Stamp Employment and Training Program: Better Data Needed to Understand Who Is Served and What the Program Achieves
Published: 2003-03-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Since the late 1990s, many funding changes have been made to the Food Stamp E&T Program. In 1997, legislation required states to spend 80 percent of their funds on participants who lose their food stamp benefits if they do not meet work requirements within a limited time frame. The legislation also increased funds by $131 million to help states serve these participants. But spending rates for the program declined until, in 2001, states spent only about 30 percent of the federal allocation. In 2002, the Congress reduced federal funds to $110 million a year. While it is too soon to know the impact of these changes, GAO was asked to determine whom the program serves, what services are provided, and what is known about program outcomes and effectiveness.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Food Stamp Employment and Training (E&T) participants are a small proportion of the food stamp population and do not usually receive cash assistance from other programs. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not collect nationwide data on the number and characteristics of Food Stamp E&T participants, program officials in the 15 states GAO contacted described the population as generally hard to employ because they have little education and a limited work history. States may provide program participants with a range of employment and training activities that qualify them for food stamp benefits. USDA data show that, in fiscal year 2001, job search accounted for about half of all participant activities. Work experience--whereby participants receive food stamp benefits in exchange for work--accounted for about 25 percent. Food Stamp E&T services are delivered through a variety of local entities, such as welfare offices or one-stop centers--sites designed to streamline the services of many federal employment and training programs. While all but 1 of the 15 states delivered at least some of their Food Stamp E&T services at the one-stops, Food Stamp E&T participants do not usually engage in intensive services provided by other programs at the one-stops. Program officials from most of the 15 states noted that Food Stamp E&T participants generally lack basic skills that allow them to use other program services successfully. No nationwide data exist on whether the Food Stamp E&T Program helps participants get a job. While some outcome data exist at the state level, it is not clear the outcomes were the result of program participation. USDA has no plans to evaluate the effectiveness of the program nor have the Departments of Labor or Health and Human Services included Food Stamp E&T participants in their studies of the hardest-to-employ.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 1985, the Food Security Act established the Food Stamp Employment  and Training (E&T) Program, administered by the U.S. Department of  Agriculture (USDA), to assist food stamp recipients who are able-bodied  gain skills to help them obtain employment. Since that time, many changes  have been made to the program. In 1996, as part of welfare reform, the  Congress created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)  block grant to replace the previous welfare program and help welfare  recipients’ transition into employment.  Welfare reform also changed the  Food Stamp E&T Program by limiting one group of program  participants—able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs)—to   3 months of food stamp benefits within a 36-month period unless they  comply with work requirements. Legislation 1 year later required states to  spend most of their federal funding on ABAWDs and increased funds by  $131 million in fiscal year 1998 in order to help serve this group. After  these changes, however, spending rates for the program declined until, in  fiscal year 2001, states spent only about 30 percent of the federal  allocation—raising questions about whom the program was serving and  what the program was achieving. Most recently, the Congress passed the  2002 Food Security and Rural Investment Act (the Farm Bill), reducing  federal funds to $110 million a year and removing the requirement that  states spend most of their federal funds on ABAWDs. It is unclear,  however, what impact these changes will have on the program’s focus,  services, or outcomes.
While it is too soon to know the impact of recent legislative changes on  how the program operates, you asked us to provide you with information  on current program participants, services, and outcomes. Specifically, you  asked us to determine (1) the characteristics of Food Stamp E&T  participants, (2) the services states are providing to Food Stamp E&T  participants, (3) where services are delivered, and 4) what is currently  known about program outcomes and effectiveness.
To answer these questions, we analyzed the limited state and federal data  available on the characteristics of food stamp recipients and the outcomes  achieved in the Food Stamp E&T Program. To better understand how the  program operates, we conducted comprehensive site visits in 5 states and  interviewed state and local food stamp and workforce development  officials in 10 more states. In addition, we interviewed officials at USDA’s  Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and reviewed documents, including  state Food Stamp E&T Program plans for the 15 states for fiscal years  2001, 2002, and 2003. We conducted our work from March 2002 to  February 2003, in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Since the 1970s, a variety of work requirements have been tied to the  receipt of food stamp benefits, including participation in the Food Stamp  E&T Program. Funding for the program has been provided through a  combination of federal grants to states, state funds, and federal matching  funds. Under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, services for  many other federally funded employment and training programs were  coordinated through a single system—called the one-stop center system— but the Food Stamp E&T Program was not required to be part of this  system.
subsections: section_title: Food Stamp Program and Work Requirements
paragraphs: The Food Stamp Program, administered at the federal level by USDA,  helps low-income individuals and families obtain a more nutritious diet by  supplementing their income with food stamp benefits. The states and FNS  jointly administer the Food Stamp Program. The federal government pays  the cost of food stamp benefits and 50 percent of the states’ administrative  costs. 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. In fiscal year 2001, the Food Stamp Program served an  average of 17.3 million people per month and provided an average monthly  benefit of $75 per person.
Throughout the history of the Food Stamp Program, a variety of  employment and training requirements have been tied to the receipt of  food stamp benefits. The Food Stamp Program requires all recipients,  unless exempted by law, to register for work at the appropriate  employment office, participate in an employment and training program if  assigned by a state agency, and accept an offer of suitable employment.   Food stamp recipients are exempted from registering for work and  engaging in employment and training activities if they are under age 16 or  over age 59 or physically or mentally unfit for employment. In addition,  they are exempted if they are caring for a child under the age of   6, employed 30 hours a week, or subject to and complying with work  requirements for other programs, such as those required by TANF. Still  others are exempted because they are receiving unemployment insurance  compensation, participating in a drug or alcohol treatment and  rehabilitation program, or are students enrolled at least half time.
subsections: section_title: The Food Stamp Employment and Training Program
paragraphs: The Food Security Act of 1985 created the Food Stamp E&T Program to  help participants gain skills, training, or experience that will increase their  ability to obtain regular employment. The act requires each state to  operate a Food Stamp E&T Program with one or more of the following  employment and training activities: job search, job search training,  education, vocational training, or work experience. While the act  mandates that all nonexempt food stamp recipients register for work,  states have the flexibility to determine which local areas will operate a  Food Stamp E&T Program and, based on their own criteria, whether or  not it is appropriate to refer these individuals to the Food Stamp E&T  Program.
Since passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity  Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, food stamp recipients aged   18-49, who are “able-bodied” and not responsible for a dependent child— termed able-bodied adults without dependents or ABAWDs—have a time  limit for the receipt of food stamp benefits and specific work  requirements. PRWORA marked the first time that federal legislation  imposed a time limit on the receipt of benefits for any category of food  stamp recipients. Under PRWORA, ABAWDs are limited to 3 months of  food stamp benefits in a 36-month period unless they meet one of the  following ABAWD work requirements: participate in a qualifying work  activity 20 hours per week, work 20 hours per week, engage in any  combination of qualifying activities for a total of 20 hours per week, or  participate in a work experience program. Qualifying activities include  education, vocational training, or work experience.  ABAWDs may engage  in job search or job search training activities within the first month of  participation in a work experience program.  In addition, ABAWDs can  engage in job search activities as part of their work requirements as long  as job search does not account for more than half of the time they spend  engaged in qualified activities.
At the request of states, FNS may waive ABAWDs from the 3- out of   36-month requirement and the ABAWD work requirement if they live in an  area where the unemployment rate is over 10 percent or where the state  can document that there are not a sufficient number of jobs to provide  employment for these individuals. The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of   1997 allowed states to exempt an additional 15 percent of ABAWDs, also  from the time limit and ABAWD work requirements, based on criteria  developed by the state, such as participants in remote counties. However,  ABAWDs are still required to comply with Food Stamp Program  requirements, such as registering for work at an appropriate employment  office.
Food Stamp E&T participants other than ABAWDs—including 16- or   17- year-old heads of households, individuals age 50-60, and individuals  age 18-49 who are responsible for a dependant age 6-17—must comply  with any Food Stamp E&T work requirement established by the state  where they reside. Some states maintain the same work requirements for  these participants as they do for ABAWDs. Other states may impose less  rigorous requirements, such as engaging in job search activities a few  hours a week. (See table 1.)
section_title: Program Funding
paragraphs: Funding for the Food Stamp E&T Program has been provided through a  combination of federal grants to states, state funds, and federal matching  funds. USDA provides matching funds by reimbursing states 50 percent for  their program administrative costs. The agency also reimbursed states for  50 percent of support services—such as participant transportation—up to  $12.50 per participant per month. While this basic funding structure is still  in place, several changes have been made since the late 1990s. In response  to concerns over the ability of ABAWDs to meet the work requirements  imposed by PRWORA, the Balanced Budget Act authorized additional  federal grant funding each year between 1998 and 2002 for the Food Stamp  E&T Program. The additional funding ranged from $31 million in 1999 to  $131 million in 1998 and 2001. In order to access this additional funding,  the legislation required that states spend the same amount of state funds  on their Food Stamp E&T Program that they did in 1996—referred to as a  state’s maintenance-of-effort. In addition, the legislation required that  states spend at least 80 percent of their total federal grant funds on work  activities for ABAWDs.
States had the option to expend only 20 percent of their federal funds if  they chose not to focus services on ABAWDs. Between 1998 and   2001, states spent 40 percent or less of the federal allocation. In 2001, over  half of the states spent 25 percent or less of their federal grant allocation  while only eight states spent more than three-fourths of their allocation.  (See fig. 1.) These low spending rates may reflect both the rapid decline in  the number of ABAWDs participating in the Food Stamp Program, as well  as states’ decisions about how to structure their programs.
The 2002 Farm Bill repealed some of the funding provisions enacted by the  Balanced Budget Act. The bill eliminated the additional BBA funds for  2002 and provided $90 million for each year between 2002-2007.  In  addition, the bill provided an additional $20 million in each of these years  for states that provide a work activity to every ABAWD who would  otherwise be subject to the 3- out of 36-month time limit. Fiscal year   2001 and unspent prior year funds were rescinded, unless states already  had obligated them. The Farm Bill also repealed the requirement that  states meet their maintenance-of-effort requirement. In addition, states no  longer have to spend 80 percent of federal grant funds on work activities  for ABAWDs. However, the Farm Bill did not eliminate the 3- out of   36-month time limit for benefits or alter the work requirements for  ABAWDs. States continue to receive the 50-percent matching federal funds  for program administrative costs, and the Farm Bill eliminated the cap on  reimbursements to states for support services, such as transportation,  allowing states to be reimbursed for 50 percent of all support service  expenses. (See fig. 2.)
section_title: The Workforce Investment System
paragraphs: The Workforce Investment Act, which was passed in 1998, requires states  and localities to coordinate many federally funded employment and  training services through a single system, called the one-stop center  system. Through one-stop centers, individuals can access a range of  services, including job search activities and employment-related activities.  WIA mandated that 17 categories of federal employment and training  programs across four federal agencies be coordinated through the one- stop system, including three WIA-funded programs—WIA Adult, WIA  Dislocated Worker, and WIA Youth. These programs provide three tiers,  or levels, of service for adults and dislocated workers: core, intensive, and  training. Core services include basic services such as job searches and  labor market information and are available to anyone coming into a one- stop center. These activities may be self-service or require some staff  assistance. Intensive services include such activities as comprehensive  assessment and case management—activities that require greater staff  involvement. Training services include such activities as occupational  skills or on-the-job training.
Coordination between the 17 programs generally takes one of two forms:  colocation, whereby clients access employment and training services at a  local one-stop, or through referrals and electronic linkages to off-site  programs. While other employment and training programs, such as TANF  and the Food Stamp E&T Program, are not required to be a part of the  one-stop system, some states have required localities to include these  programs in the one-stop system.
section_title: Food Stamp E&T Participants Usually Are Not Served by Other Programs and Have Characteristics That Make Obtaining Employment Difficult
paragraphs: The Food Stamp E&T Program serves a small proportion of the food  stamp population who do not usually receive assistance from other  programs and who, according to state and local program officials, have  characteristics that make them hard to employ. While USDA collects some  nationwide data on the food stamp population for quality control  purposes, it does not collect the information in a way that allows the  agency to distinguish food stamp recipients participating in the Food  Stamp E&T Program from recipients who are participating in other  employment and training programs, such as TANF or WIA. However,  because most food stamp recipients are exempt from food stamp work  requirements due to their age or health, the proportion of food stamp  recipients potentially served by the Food Stamp E&T Program is small.  While nationwide data on the number of and characteristics of Food  Stamp E&T participants are not available, state and local officials in the   15 states we reviewed described the population as generally hard to  employ because they have little education, a limited work history, and are  prone to substance abuse problems and homelessness. The officials also  noted that many of these characteristics are more prevalent among  ABAWDs and that this group is the most difficult to serve and employ.
section_title: Food Stamp E&T Participants Are a Small Proportion of the Food Stamp Population and Usually Receive Benefits Only from the Food Stamp Program
paragraphs: Food Stamp E&T participants comprise less than 9 percent of the food  stamp population because most food stamp recipients are exempted from  work requirements, such as registering for work or participating in the  Food Stamp E&T Program. In fiscal year 2001, 91 percent of food stamp  recipients were not required to meet work requirements. Over 60 percent  were exempted due to their age—most were under 18 or over 59 (see fig.  3). Another 30 percent of food stamp recipients—working age adults— were exempted, over 40 percent of whom were disabled. Other working  age adults were exempted because they were caring for a dependent child  under age 6 or because they were working at least 30 hours per week.  Working age adults may also have been exempted because they were  already complying with work requirements of other programs, such as  TANF. Food stamp recipients who participate in key federal cash  assistance programs—such as TANF, Supplemental Security Income, or  Unemployment Insurance Program—are exempt from the Food Stamp  E&T Program. As a result, those who participate in the Food Stamp E&T  Program generally do not receive any federal public cash assistance other  than food stamps.
Working age adults  exempt from work  requirements (ages 18-59)
Food stamp recipients subject to work requirements (1,556,000 recipients)
Food stamp recipients exempted from work requirements (15,713,000 recipients) complying with work requirements for another program, such as TANF, or were enrolled at least part  time in school or a training program.
Not all food stamp recipients subject to work requirements participate in  the Food Stamp E&T Program. States have the flexibility to establish their  own criteria for selecting which food stamp recipients are referred to the  program. As a result of this flexibility, in 17 of the 50 states, according to  USDA data, over 80 percent of food stamp recipients who were subject to  work requirements—including ABAWDs and other mandatory work  registrants—were required to participate in the program. However,   8 states required 20 percent or less to participate. (See fig. 4.)
section_title: No National Data Exist, but Officials Said Food Stamp E&T Participants Have Many Characteristics That Make Employment Difficult
paragraphs: While USDA collects nationwide data on the food stamp population for  quality control purposes, the agency does not collect the information in a  way that identifies the specific employment and training program in which  food stamp recipients are participating. Although data from the fiscal  year 2001 quality control survey indicate that 8 percent of food stamp  recipients are participating as mandatory participants in an employment  and training program, USDA officials said questions in this survey  regarding program participation do not specify a particular program.  Rather, questions are general and could refer to the Food Stamp E&T  Program or other employment and training programs such as TANF and  WIA-funded programs. As a result, the agency is unable to identify food  stamp recipients active in the Food Stamp E&T Program from food stamp  recipients active in other employment and training programs. This  prevents the agency from using the quality control survey to estimate the  number or provide characteristics of Food Stamp E&T participants.
While there are no nationwide data on the characteristics of Food Stamp  E&T participants, state and local officials we spoke with in all 15 states  said their Food Stamp E&T participants have multiple characteristics that  make them hard to employ. Officials noted that Food Stamp E&T  participants generally have limited education; often they have not  completed high school. They also said that program participants  frequently have a limited work history and few work skills. They noted  that Food Stamp E&T participants often depend on seasonal employment  such as tourism-related jobs, and at least one official said that many of  their participants rarely hold a job for more than 3 months. Program  officials also told us that participants, particularly those in rural settings,  often lack transportation, making their continued employment difficult.  Finally, officials identified mental health issues, substance abuse, and  homelessness as additional characteristics making participants hard to  employ. Officials from Colorado estimated, for example, that at least   40 percent of their Food Stamp E&T participants had substance abuse  problems and 40 percent were homeless.
In addition to providing anecdotal information on Food Stamp E&T  participants, some states were able to provide quantitative data on a  limited number of participant characteristics. While not required to collect  or report these data to USDA, 8 of 15 states we contacted collected data  on the gender, age, or income of Food Stamp E&T participants. In 6 of the  8 states, Food Stamp E&T participants were predominantly women—as  were the majority of Food Stamp recipients—(see fig. 5) and data from   5 states show that most of their participants are between the ages of   18 and 40. (See app. I for a comparison of food stamp recipients and Food  Stamp E&T participants by age.) Similar to all food stamp recipients, Food  Stamp E&T participants generally have very low incomes. Three states  provided us with data on participant incomes. Officials from California  said the majority of their participants had incomes less than $800 per  month, and officials from Colorado and Illinois said most participants have  incomes less than $200 per month.
section_title: Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents Are Usually the Hardest to Serve and Employ
paragraphs: According to officials from 8 of the 15 states we contacted, ABAWDs— who comprised 4 percent of the food stamp population nationwide in  fiscal year 2001—have characteristics that make them the most difficult to  serve and employ of all Food Stamp E&T participants. While a nationwide  estimate of the number of ABAWDs participating in the Food Stamp E&T  Program is not known, 8 states were able to provide data on the  proportion of participants who were ABAWDs. The proportion varied  greatly from 1 percent in New Mexico to 100 percent in Florida and  Illinois. (See fig. 6.) Program officials said that ABAWDs—who are most  often men—are more likely to lack basic skills such as reading, writing,  and basic mathematics than other food stamp participants. In addition,  officials said mental health issues, substance abuse, and homelessness are  more prevalent among ABAWDs than other participants. A recent report  cites these three characteristics as among the most common barriers to  serving ABAWDs. The report also concludes that ABAWDs have less  income—earned and unearned—than other food stamp recipients age   18 to 49.
While the characteristics that make Food Stamp E&T participants hard to  employ are more pronounced among ABAWDs, this group also presents  unique challenges that add to the difficulties of serving them. First,  ABAWDS are usually transient and, as a result, often only participate in  the program for short durations. Moreover, officials also said ABAWDs are  often unwilling to participate and frequently fail to show up for  appointments. Some officials suggested that this unwillingness to  participate stems partly from ABAWDs’ perception that their benefit  level—an average of $118 of food stamp benefits per month—is too low to  warrant participation in the program.
Officials we spoke with and a recent report note that monitoring the  activities of ABAWDs has been difficult due to the complexities of  program requirements. For example, in order to determine whether  ABAWDs may continue to receive food stamp benefits, states track  ABAWDs to ensure that they are engaged in a qualifying work activity.  ABAWDs may only receive benefits for 3 out of 36 months if they are not  engaged in a qualifying work activity. Program officials said these  requirements, in combination with ABAWDs’ sporadic participation in the  program and reluctance to participate, discourage states from using their  Food Stamp E&T resources to serve these individuals. In 2001, 25 states  spent 20 percent or less of their federal grant allocation. Eight of the   25 states chose not to serve ABAWDs and as a result, were limited to  spending only 20 percent of their federal grant funds.  The other 17 states  also spent 20 percent or less but may have served ABAWDs as well as  other mandatory participants.  While the 2002 Farm Bill removed the  requirement that states spend 80 percent of federal grant funds on work  activities for ABAWDs, states must still track ABAWD compliance with the  3- out of 36-month time limit.
section_title: Most States Provide Case Management Services and a Range of Employment and Training Activities
paragraphs: States provide Food Stamp E&T participants with case management  services and offer some support services, such as transportation  assistance. While states may provide participants with a range of  employment and training activities, in 2001, states most often placed  participants in job search and work experience. Other programs that serve  low-income populations, such as TANF and the WIA Adult Program,  provide similar activities. Legislative changes in the 2002 Farm Bill,  however, may affect services that states provide to Food Stamp E&T  participants.
subsections: section_title: Most States Provide Case Management and Some Support Services
paragraphs: According to USDA officials, most states provide Food Stamp E&T  participants with case management services. Case management services  may include assessing a participant’s needs, developing an employment  plan, or helping participants’ access services provided by other programs.  For example, one state official told us that case managers work with  participants and local housing organizations to help find shelter for the  participants or get mental health services so they are ready to go to work.  Case managers also work with Food Stamp E&T participants to help them  access support services—services that provide assistance with  transportation and work or education-related expenses. USDA data show  that in fiscal year 2001 45 states provided transportation funds to Food  Stamp E&T participants.
In addition to basic transportation and other services paid for in part with  federal grant funds, program officials told us some local Food Stamp E&T  Programs provide participants with additional support services. Some  local programs use state funds or coordinate with community-based  organizations to obtain other services for participants. For example, one  local Food Stamp E&T Program provides bicycles donated by a  community-based organization to some participants who need  transportation to get to work, while another provides basic hygiene  products, such as soap and shampoo, because food stamp recipients may  not use food stamp benefits to buy these products.
section_title: States Assign Participants to a Range of Employment and Training Activities
paragraphs: While most Food Stamp E&T participants receive case management  services, they also may engage in a range of employment and training  activities to qualify for food stamp benefits. These include job search, job  search training, work experience, education, and vocational training.  Participants may also enroll in WIA or a Trade Adjustment Act-funded  program. Job search activities may include self-directed or staff-assisted  activities. Job search training activities include job skills assessment and  participation in job clubs, wherein participants meet with other job  seekers and local employers to obtain information on the jobs available in  the area and assistance in marketing their skills. Participants engaged in  work experience activities are required to work without pay in exchange  for food stamp benefits. Education activities may include literacy training,  high school equivalency programs, or postsecondary education, while  vocational training provides skill-related training.
While USDA does not require states to report individual participant  activities, it does collect data on the number of participants placed in each  activity. In fiscal year 2001, 40 of the 50 states provided data to USDA for  participant employment and training activities. The data show that case  managers most frequently assigned Food Stamp E&T participants to job  search activities, including job search and job search training. (See fig. 7.)  However, while job search accounted for about 49 percent of participant  activities, the extent to which states provided job search activities varied.  (See fig. 8.) For example, 2 states did not report offering any job search  activities to participants, while in 11 of the 40 states, job search activities  accounted for almost all of participant activities. (See app. II for a  complete listing of the percent of program activities provided to  participants.)
section_title: Legislative Changes May Affect Services Provided to Participants
paragraphs: Legislative changes enacted by the 2002 Farm Bill may affect the services  that states provide to program participants by reducing the total amount of  Food Stamp E&T federal funds available to states to $110 million—or   $274 million lower than funds they had available in fiscal year 2001. As a  result, most states will receive a smaller allocation in 2003 than they  received in 2001, although 4 states will receive a greater allocation, in part  due to changes in USDA’s funding formula. However, this funding  decrease may have a greater impact on some states than others because  not all states have been spending a large proportion of their federal grant  allocation. For example, in 2001, more than half of the states spent less  than 25 percent of their allocation, while only 8 states spent more than   75 percent. As a result of the funding decrease and states’ varied spending  rates, about one-third of the states will receive a smaller allocation in   2003 than they spent in 2001. (See app. III for a comparison of what states  spent in fiscal year 2001 and their allocations in fiscal years 2001 and  2003.) However, because the Farm Bill also eliminated the requirement  that states reserve 80 percent of federal grant funds for activities for  ABAWDs, states may choose to spend as much of their federal allocation  as they did before the requirement became effective in 1998. For example,  in 1997, 46 states spent more than 75 percent of their allocation, with  states spending 94 percent of the total federal allocation.
section_title: Services Are Delivered through a Variety of Local Entities and Are Not Necessarily Linked to Other Employment and Training Programs
paragraphs: In 13 of the 15 states we contacted, the agency that administers the TANF  block grant also oversees the Food Stamp E&T Program; in the 2 other   states, the Food Stamp E&T Program is administered by the workforce  development system. However, services are provided through a variety of  local entities, including welfare offices and one-stop centers. While all but  1 of the states we contacted delivered at least some of their Food Stamp  E&T services at the one-stops, the extent to which states use the one-stops  to deliver these services varies considerably. For example, in Virginia, only  two Food Stamp E&T Programs are colocated at the one-stops. In other  counties, services are delivered at welfare offices. In Colorado, about one- third of the counties that provide Food Stamp E&T services—primarily the  larger counties—deliver their Food Stamp E&T services through the one- stops. Other counties in Colorado deliver services through local welfare  agencies or community-based organizations, such as Goodwill Industries.  In Texas, the state’s workforce commission administers the Food Stamp  E&T Program, and all program services statewide are delivered through  the one-stop system.
Food Stamp E&T participants may receive job search services through the  one-stop centers, but according to many local program officials, few  participants receive other services from employment and training  programs available at the centers, such as the WIA Adult Program. In  Pennsylvania, Food Stamp E&T participants are referred to the one-stops  for job search activities, and in Vermont, almost all participants receive  WIA-funded core services through the one-stop system. These services  may include job search activities but may also include a preliminary  assessment of skills and needs. Most state officials told us that they did  not collect data on how many Food Stamp E&T participants were referred  to or received services from other employment and training programs at  the one-stops. However, local officials in 10 of the 15 states told us that  few, if any Food Stamp E&T participants actually receive services from  other employment and training programs at the one-stops, and a few  provided estimates. For example, a local official in New Mexico estimated  that his office referred about one-fourth of its Food Stamp E&T  participants to the WIA Adult Program in any given year, but less than half  of these are actually enrolled in the program. Local officials in Idaho, by  comparison, said that while about one-third of their Food Stamp E&T  participants are referred in any given year, only about 2 percent are  enrolled in WIA-funded intensive or training services. A Food Stamp E&T  administrator in Michigan told us that, even though the Food Stamp E&T  Program is colocated at a one-stop center in his county, the center served  only three or four clients a year.
Program officials cited several reasons that Food Stamp E&T participants  may not receive services from other employment and training programs.  Officials from eight of the states we spoke with suggested that local WIA  staff might be reluctant to provide WIA-funded intensive and training  services to a population less likely to get and keep a job—such as those in  the Food Stamp E&T Program—out of concern that they would adversely  affect their performance as measured under WIA. While job seekers who  receive core services that are self-service in nature are not included in  these performance measures, participants enrolled in WIA-funded  intensive or training programs are tracked in areas such as job placement,  retention, and earnings change. WIA established these performance  measures, and states are held accountable by the U.S. Department of  Labor for their performance in these areas. If states fail to meet their  expected performance levels, they may suffer financial sanctions; if states  meet or exceed their levels, they may be eligible to receive additional  funds.
While employment and training programs at the one-stops offer some of  the activities that Food Stamp E&T participants need, officials from 12 of  the 15 states we contacted told us that most participants are not ready for  these activities, in part, because they lack basic skills (such as reading and  computer literacy) that would allow them to successfully participate.  Officials from 5 states also noted that mental health problems often  prevent Food Stamp E&T participants from participating in other more  intensive employment and training programs at the one-stops. Program  officials told us participants often need specialized case management  services that might not be available from other program staff.
Despite concerns about performance measures and the skill level of Food  Stamp E&T participants, program officials from all 15 states we contacted  cited advantages to colocating the Food Stamp E&T Program at the one- stops. The most frequently cited advantage was that Food Stamp E&T  participants would benefit from having access to a broader array of  employment and training services. In addition, officials from 9 of the states  noted that colocation would provide a better use of program resources  and staff, and program officials from 8 states said that the one-stops offer  a more positive environment—one focused more on work and training  than might be found in local welfare offices. Finally, officials from 7 states  said that for those who may lack transportation, colocation of services  would be advantageous.
section_title: Little Is Known about What the Program Achieves
paragraphs: Little information is available about whether the Food Stamp E&T  Program is effective in helping participants get and keep a job. Although  USDA does not require the reporting of outcome data, 7 of the 15 states we  contacted collected data in fiscal year 2001 on job placements, and 2 of  these states also collected data on wages. Their job placement rates  ranged from 15 percent in one state to 62 percent in another, and the  average starting wages reported by the 2 states was about $7.00 per hour  or about $1.91 above the federal minimum wage.
In the late 1980s, USDA developed outcome measures for the Food Stamp  E&T Program, but these measures were not implemented because of  concerns among state and federal officials regarding the feasibility of  collecting outcome data. In 1988, the Hunger Prevention Act directed the  Secretary of Agriculture to work with states and other federal agencies to  develop outcome-based performance standards for the program. The  proposed measures included a targeted job placement rate (25 percent of  those completing Food Stamp E&T activities) and a targeted average  starting wage of $4.45—about the same as the minimum wage in the early  1990s. FNS published the proposed performance standards in   1991. According to USDA officials, reaction to implementing the proposed  standards was overwhelmingly negative, with a consensus among state  and federal officials that data collection would impose an unreasonable  burden on state agencies and that the costs associated with collecting the  data would be disproportionate relative to the program’s funding. The  mandate to collect outcome data was subsequently removed from the  legislation in 1996.
Outcome measures became a much greater factor in how agencies assess  the effectiveness of their programs with the passage of the 1993  Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). GPRA shifted the  focus of accountability for federal programs from inputs, such as staffing  and activity levels, to outcomes. GPRA requires that each federal agency  develop a multiyear strategic plan identifying the agency’s mission and  long-term goals and connecting these goals to program activities. In  addition, the President’s 2004 Budget contains increased emphasis on  performance and management assessments, including a focus on short- term and long-term performance goals and the need to track performance  data in order to assess a program’s achievements. For example, the Office  of Management and Budget expects agencies to submit performance-based  budgets in 2005 and is requiring that many adult employment and training  programs (25) collect performance data in four areas-job placements, job  retention, earnings gained, and program cost per job placement. This focus  may lend new urgency for programs to collect outcome data.
While outcome measures are an important component of program  management in that they assess whether a participant is achieving an  intended outcome—such as obtaining employment—they cannot measure  whether the outcome is a direct result of program participation. Other  influences, such as the state of the local economy, may affect an  individual’s ability to find a job as much or more than participation in an  employment and training program. Many researchers consider impact  evaluations to be the best method for determining the effectiveness of a  program—that is, whether the program itself rather than other factors  leads to participant outcomes.
In 1988, USDA commissioned an impact study to determine the  effectiveness of the Food Stamp E&T Program and found that those  required to enroll in the program did not fare any better, in terms of  employment or wages, than those excluded from participating. While the  study found that those required to enroll in the program increased their  employment and earnings during the 12 months after certification for food  stamp benefits, it found no difference between that group and those not  required to participate. The study notes, however, that only 43 percent of  those required to participate actually received employment and training  activities in 1988 and that the services received by the program  participants consisted primarily of referrals to job search activities.
According to USDA officials, the agency has no plans to conduct another  effectiveness evaluation of the Food Stamp E&T Program. They noted that  the program is not a research priority for the agency’s food and nutrition  area, and no mention of the program is noted in FNS’s strategic plan. They  also noted that the cost of an evaluation might not be warranted, given the  limited funding for the program. Federal funding for the program  (including reimbursements for administrative costs) is small compared  with other programs—averaging about $172 million per year between   1994 and 2001—compared to about $3.8 billion for WIA programs in fiscal  year 2001. However, the federal government and the states have spent over  $2 billion since 1994 on the Food Stamp E&T Program without any  nationwide data documenting whether the program is helping its  participants.
While impact evaluations may be expensive and complex to administer,  they are being used to assess the effectiveness of some federal programs.  For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is  conducting evaluation studies on early childhood programs, and the  Department of Labor recently evaluated the impact of the Job Corps  program on student employment outcomes. In addition, both of these  agencies are conducting research over the next 5 years that focuses on  strategies to assist the hardest-to-serve, but they do not include the Food  Stamp E&T population. HHS is commissioning an evaluation of programs  that serve the hard-to-employ low-income parents, in part, to determine  the effects of such programs on employment and earnings. And, Labor has  plans to examine the most effective strategies for addressing employment  barriers such as substance abuse and homelessness.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Food Stamp E&T Program was established to help some food stamp  recipients get a job and reduce their dependence on food stamps. For  many Food Stamp E&T participants—who often lack the skills to be  successful in other employment and training programs and who usually  are not eligible for most other federal assistance programs—this program  is the only one focused on helping them enter the workforce. But little is  known at any level—federal, state, or local—about whether the program is  achieving this goal. Little nationwide data exist to tell us who is  participating or if they are getting a job. Even less is known about whether  the services provided by the program make a difference in program  outcomes. With limited knowledge of whom the program is serving, what  outcomes the program is achieving, or whether program services are  making a difference, it is difficult to make informed decisions about where  to place limited employment and training resources. Given recent  legislative changes that reduce most states’ funds, while allowing more  discretion as to whom they serve, it may be even more essential to  understand what works and what does not. While the Food Stamp E&T  Program is small relative to other federal employment and training  programs, wise investment of these resources could help reduce long-term  spending on food stamp benefits.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help USDA better understand who the Food Stamp E&T Program is  serving, what the program is achieving, and whether the program is  effective, we recommend that USDA do the following:     Use its quality control survey to collect nationwide estimates on the  number of food stamp recipients participating in the Food Stamp E&T  Program and their characteristics, such as age and gender. To do so,  USDA should clarify its instructions for reporting the data so that  states clearly identify which food stamp recipients are in the Food  Stamp E&T Program.
Establish uniform outcome measures for the Food Stamp E&T  Program and require states to collect and report them.
Work with the Department of Labor and/or the Department of Health  and Human Services on a research agenda that will allow for an  evaluation of the effectiveness of the Food Stamp E&T Program.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to USDA for comment.  While FNS did  not provide written comments, FNS officials provided us with oral  comments on the draft, including technical changes, which we  incorporated where appropriate.
FNS generally agreed with the benefit of collecting more data on the Food  Stamp E&T Program; however, the agency had concerns that the potential  benefits of more data may not be worth the effort or cost.  Regarding our  recommendation for more data on whom the program is serving, FNS said  that because the Food Stamp Quality Control survey collects information  from only a sample of food stamp households—and that individuals  participating in the Food Stamp E&T Program would comprise a small  percentage of those included in the sample—the data collected would be  of limited use at the state level. While we agree that characteristic data  gathered from the survey may not be useful at the state level, the survey  could provide a cost-effective means to obtain nationwide data that are  currently not available and would allow FNS to better understand the  population that the program is serving.
While FNS agreed with the need to assess what the Food Stamp E&T  Program is achieving, agency officials expressed concerns regarding the  cost of implementing our recommendation related to outcome data.   Specifically, the officials are concerned that states will find it overly  burdensome to collect outcome data given the limited funding for this  program and that costs associated with collecting these data might reduce  funding available for program participants. The officials noted that other  employment and training programs that collect outcome data, such as  WIA-funded programs, are funded at much higher levels than the Food  Stamp E&T Program and that costs associated with collecting data for  these programs might not be as onerous as for the Food Stamp E&T  Program.
We considered the costs associated with collecting outcome data and  while we agree that collecting data will entail additional administrative  costs for the states, we believe that the benefits of collecting uniform  outcome measures outweigh the costs to states.  Having some measures of  what the program is achieving is necessary for FNS and state  administrators as they strive to improve program services—about half of  the states we contacted already collect some data on program  performance. In addition, outcome data provide the Congress with key  information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of federal employment  and training programs. Many federal employment and training programs,  including ones that have funding levels similar to the Food Stamp E&T  Program, have integrated outcome measures into the administration of  their programs. The emphasis on performance evaluation is reflected in  the President’s 2004 Budget and the Office of Management and Budget’s  requirement that agencies submit performance-based budgets and that  employment and training programs collect uniform performance data.
Finally, FNS reiterated that given its limited research funds and other high-  priority research areas, evaluation of the Food Stamp E&T Program is not  a research priority for the agency at this time.  However, regarding our  recommendation concerning the feasibility of an effectiveness evaluation,  FNS acknowledged the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of working with  other agencies that are evaluating employment and training services for  hard-to-serve populations.
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  staff have any questions about this report. Other major contributors to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Percent of Participants in the Food Stamp and Food Stamp E&T Program by Age in Five States, Fiscal Year 2001
section_title: Appendix II: Percent of Food Stamp E&T Activities Provided to Program Participants, Fiscal Year 2001
paragraphs: Appendix II: Percent of Food Stamp E&T  Activities Provided to Program Participants,  Fiscal Year 2001  11.4%  0.6%  9.6% 14.4%  8.7%  49.6% 4.0% 5.4% 0.7% 3.2% 4.3% 27.0% experience  Workfare  4.9%   91.4%    0.7%   18.5% 7.0% 2.2% 5.0%  2.1%   5.9%  17.4%    11.5%   Data not provided by state to USDA.
section_title: Appendix III: Food Stamp E&T Expenditures and Allocations, by State, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2003
subsections: section_title: Fiscal year 2001
paragraphs: Difference  between FY01  allocation and  FY03 allocation  ($7,657,966)
Federal grant  allocation  $2,376,356  $376,570   $2,500,167   $2,866,326   $7,113,981   ($202,741)  $1,065,870   $430,834  $4,714,894  $2,304,569   $431,163   $359,623  $527,708   $613,691   $3,143,729   ($24,278,056)  ($1,039,510)  ($5,942,618)  ($244,226)  ($9,375,829)  ($11,209,832)  ($1,851,862)  ($264,241)  ($8,083,577)  ($6,636,074)  ($2,405,236)  ($464,819)  $1,792,731   $680,346  $6,830,663  $1,247,911   $1,523,416  $1,803,099   $313,204   $506,145  $444,404   $217,301  $2,014,694  ($3,713,045)  ($4,302,658)  ($4,118,661)  ($1,580,538)  ($32,836,861)  ($3,850,159)  ($4,979,671)  ($11,591,348)  ($412,803)  ($770,517)  ($590,538)  ($14,403)  ($15,340,008)  ($3,705,241)  ($21,292,003)  ($13,137,176)  ($778,911)  ($3,104,861)  ($2,494,247)  ($6,229,728)
Difference  between FY01  allocation and  FY03 allocation  ($27,958,590) $5,177,268   $327,237   $1,389,975   $3,019,575   $9,512,763  $611,950  $228,246   $1,948,464   $2,375,751  $2,274,490  ($1,368,533)  $64,935  ($5,054,671)  ($5,586,941)  ($500,333)  ($1,354,908)  ($9,870,690)  ($440,661)  ($2,455,796)  ($3,295,588)  ($273,431)
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Elspeth Grindstaff and Angela Miles made significant contributions to this  report. In addition, Jessica Botsford provided legal support, Marc Molino  provided graphic design assistance, and Susan Bernstein provided writing  assistance.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and  Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to  Other Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp  Program: Work Provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work  Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and Food Stamp Provisions of  the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. GAO-02-874R. Washington, D.C.: July 17,  2002.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate  Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective  Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance  Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of Wiz’s Effectiveness.  GAO-02-275. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns  Over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.
Food Stamp Program: Implementation of the Employment and Training  Program for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents. GAO-01-391R.  Washington, D.C.: February 27,  2001.
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Food Stamp  Program—Food Stamp Provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.  GAO/OGC-99-66. Washington, D.C.: September 17, 1999.
Food Stamp Program: Information on Employment and Training  Activities. GAO/RCED-99-40. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 1998.