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

Letter

Background

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.

Food Stamp Program and Work Requirements

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.

The Food Stamp Employment and Training Program

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.)

Program Funding

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.)

The Workforce Investment System

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.

Food Stamp E&T Participants Usually Are Not Served by Other Programs and Have Characteristics That Make Obtaining Employment Difficult

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.

Food Stamp E&T Participants Are a Small Proportion of the Food Stamp Population and Usually Receive Benefits Only from the Food Stamp Program

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.)

No National Data Exist, but Officials Said Food Stamp E&T Participants Have Many Characteristics That Make Employment Difficult

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.

Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents Are Usually the Hardest to Serve and Employ

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.

Most States Provide Case Management Services and a Range of Employment and Training Activities

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.

Most States Provide Case Management and Some Support Services

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.

States Assign Participants to a Range of Employment and Training Activities

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.)

Legislative Changes May Affect Services Provided to Participants

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.

Services Are Delivered through a Variety of Local Entities and Are Not Necessarily Linked to Other Employment and Training Programs

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.

Little Is Known about What the Program Achieves

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Appendix I: Percent of Participants in the Food Stamp and Food Stamp E&T Program by Age in Five States, Fiscal Year 2001

Appendix II: Percent of Food Stamp E&T Activities Provided to Program Participants, Fiscal Year 2001

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.

Appendix III: Food Stamp E&T Expenditures and Allocations, by State, Fiscal Years 2001 and 2003

Fiscal year 2001

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)

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

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.

Related GAO Products

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.