The six selected federal programs have varying purposes and are designed to target different segments of the low-income population, according to information confirmed by the administering agencies (see table 1). For example, EITC targets working families, whereas SSI targets the elderly, blind, and disabled. Because potential participants must generally meet a test of financial need in order to be eligible for benefits, these programs are commonly referred to as “means-tested programs.” Three of the programs—EITC, SSI, and TANF—provide direct cash assistance to recipients, while the other programs provide an in-kind benefit, meaning that the recipient receives a good or service rather than cash. The six programs serve millions of low-income people, ranging from nearly 69 million individuals a month for Medicaid to about 4 million individuals a month for TANF in fiscal year 2015, according to our analysis of agency data, as confirmed by the agencies. Medicaid is the largest program in terms of expenditures on benefits among the six selected programs, according to information provided by the administering agencies, totaling $329.73 billion in federal spending for the entire Medicaid population in fiscal year 2015 (see fig.1). Federal spending on benefits for the five other programs ranged from $4.16 billion for TANF cash assistance to $66.60 billion for SNAP in that year. In TANF and Medicaid, states and the federal government generally share in the cost of benefits, whereas benefits are entirely federally funded for EITC, SNAP, SSI, and Housing Choice Vouchers. Several federal departments and agencies or offices administer and oversee the six selected low-income programs (see table 2). The funding structure of these low-income programs differs, which to some extent may affect the number of program recipients. SNAP, EITC, SSI, and Medicaid are open-ended entitlement programs, which means that the government is legally required to make payments to individuals or families who meet the requirements established by law. As a result, all individuals or families who apply for these programs and are eligible are entitled to benefits. In contrast, the Housing Choice Voucher and TANF cash assistance programs are not entitlement programs, and the number of recipients may be limited, in part, by these programs’ funding amounts. Programs also differ in their source of funding: some programs are entirely federally-funded, while in other programs, the states and the federal government each contribute some funding for benefits, program administration, or both. Partly because the programs have different purposes and to some extent target different populations, the six low-income programs vary in the extent of their reach. Figure 2 shows the number of program recipients, according to agency data, as a percentage of the total U.S. population. As a general comparison, in 2015, Medicaid served 22 percent of the population, or more than 1 in 5 people, while TANF served 1 percent of the total U.S. population in that year. Common basic elements exist in how the six low-income programs determine program eligibility. Figure 3 provides a conceptual overview of the types of elements typically considered when determining eligibility for these low-income programs. Generally, several factors are taken into consideration to assess applicant eligibility. For determining financial eligibility, the factors commonly considered include how much income the applicant has (both earned, such as wages, and unearned, such as income from other public benefit programs), as well as, for some programs, the applicant’s assets. Further, certain nonfinancial factors may be taken into consideration to assess applicant eligibility, such as whether the applicant has a dependent child or a disability or is working. If an applicant is found to be eligible for a program, the benefit amount they are eligible for is then determined using the benefit rules for that particular program. In addition to having different program purposes, the six programs we reviewed target a range of low-income populations, including people with some earnings, people who are elderly or disabled, or families with dependent children, according to our analysis of agency documents, as confirmed by the agencies (see table 3). The programs’ nonfinancial eligibility rules establish the specific characteristics an individual or household must have, if any, in order to be eligible for the program. For example, to qualify for TANF, families generally must have a dependent child, while for SSI, the applicant must be 65 years old or older, blind, or have a disability that meets certain requirements. Federal low-income programs sometimes have overlapping target populations, and program rules for some programs allow those who qualify for one program to be automatically eligible for another—also known as categorical eligibility—which, as we have previously reported, can both ease access to these programs as well as reduce administrative costs. For example, according to SSA, in most states SSI recipients are automatically eligible for Medicaid, and we have previously reported that some TANF recipients are automatically eligible for SNAP. Specifically, TANF cash assistance recipients are categorically eligible for SNAP, and some states have opted to extend categorical eligibility to households authorized to receive certain TANF or state maintenance of effort (MOE)- funded noncash services under broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) policies. Nonfinancial eligibility rules for some of the programs we reviewed also include requirements that participants must comply with as a condition of eligibility for benefits or services, such as participation in work or work- related activities in three of the programs (see table 4). For example, federal TANF rules require states to engage a certain percentage of families receiving cash assistance in specified work-related activities, such as job search and job readiness assistance, if there is an individual in the family who is generally required to work. EITC is unique in that its target population is working low-income people, and therefore, EITC rules require work for initial eligibility. Since EITC is administered through the tax system, it generally requires tax filers who claim the credit to have earned income—as its name suggests—unlike the other programs we reviewed. The six low-income programs we reviewed use different rules to determine the financial eligibility of program applicants, according to our analysis of agency documents, as confirmed by the agencies. These variations affect whose income is counted, what income is and is not counted, whether expenses are deducted from income, and how much income applicants may have and still be eligible. The six programs we reviewed differ not only in their definitions of who the benefit is provided to once eligibility is determined—which we refer to as the “applicant unit”—but also in how they count the income of different people when determining applicant eligibility. For some programs, such as SSI, the applicant unit is the individual, while for others, such as SNAP, the unit is the household (see table 5). Further, while programs may use similar terminology, there is no single definition of “family” or “household” used across these low-income programs—the same term may mean different things depending on the program. For purposes of counting income, for example, both TANF and the Housing Choice Voucher program count the income of individuals in a “family.” However, in the case of the Housing Choice Voucher program, for example, a single person living alone or a group of persons living together is considered a “family,” while for TANF cash assistance, states determine what constitutes a “family” and the family must generally include a dependent child. In addition, in some programs, the applicant unit differs from whose income is counted when determining financial eligibility. For example, in SSI, while the applicant is typically an individual, the income of the applicant’s parent or spouse may be considered when determining eligibility, if that person is living in the applicant’s household. The programs we reviewed also differ in how they treat an applicant’s earned income—or income earned from working—for the purposes of eligibility determination, according to our analysis of agency documentation, as confirmed by the agencies, with some programs structuring their earned income rules to incentivize work, as we have previously reported (see table 6). For example, when determining income eligibility for SNAP, federal rules disregard 20 percent of the applicant household’s earned income. In other words, if an applicant has $1,000 in monthly earned income, only $800 is considered when calculating the household’s income eligibility for SNAP. For TANF, states determine earned income rules, and according to HHS, almost all states disregard some earned income, either as a percentage of earnings, a set dollar amount, or both, although the percentage or amount differs by state. The programs we reviewed also differ greatly in how they treat an applicant’s unearned income—which may include benefits received from other federally-funded programs for low-income people—for the purposes of eligibility determination (see table 7). A low-income family is likely to be eligible for and may participate in more than one low-income program. However, not all of those eligible received a benefit. We have previously reported that families receiving TANF cash assistance generally also receive Medicaid and SNAP. However, because of differences in these programs’ eligibility rules related to unearned income, TANF benefits are counted as income when determining SNAP eligibility but not counted as income when determining Medicaid eligibility, according to our analysis of agency documents, as confirmed by the agency. In contrast, the cash benefit received from the refunded portion of EITC is not counted as income when determining eligibility for any of the other selected programs. According to a 2015 CRS analysis, of those who received a benefit from one of nine major federally funded low-income programs, an estimated 41 percent received benefits from one program and an estimated 27 percent received benefits from two programs. The remaining families received benefits from three or more programs. According to CRS, 18 percent of families received benefits from three programs, 9 percent received benefits from four programs, and less than 5 percent received benefits from five or more programs. The nine low- income programs in CRS’s analysis included five of the six we reviewed for this report. In calculating applicants’ income levels to determine eligibility, some of the low-income programs we reviewed deduct certain types of expenses from income, such as those for child care, utilities, and shelter, according to our analysis of agency documentation and information provided by agencies, as confirmed by the agencies. Programs may allow the deduction of certain types of expenses when determining applicant eligibility to ensure that the applicants’ financial circumstances and ability to meet certain basic needs are more fully captured. For example, Housing Choice Voucher and SNAP both deduct child care expenses when determining program eligibility, while EITC and Medicaid take these expenses into account in other ways (see table 8). (For additional deductions for selected other expenses, see appendix II.) A fundamental difference among the six programs we reviewed is the variation in the income limits used for determining applicants’ program eligibility, according to our analysis of agency data and documentation, as confirmed by agencies. These programs differed in the ways they measure applicants’ income, the standards and methods used to determine the maximum amount of income an applicant may have and still be eligible for the program, whether this amount is set nationwide or varies by state or locality, and the amount of the income limit itself. The various standards and methods used to set income limits by the selected programs include a fixed dollar amount, a percentage of the federal poverty guidelines (FPG) or Area Median Income (AMI), or Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI)(see table 9). For two of the programs— EITC and SSI—the maximum amount of income an applicant may have to be eligible is a federally-set dollar amount that applies nationwide; however, that amount differs by program. For the other four low-income programs we reviewed, the rules for determining the maximum amounts of income an applicant may have and still be eligible, the amounts themselves, and whether they are set nationwide or vary by state or locality, vary significantly, according to our analysis of agency data as confirmed by agencies. For Medicaid, TANF, and in states that have implemented SNAP BBCE policies, states or localities determine financial eligibility rules for applicants, generally within certain federal guidelines. For example, under SNAP BBCE policies, states have the flexibility to adopt policies that allow certain applicants with incomes up to 200 percent FPG to be eligible, whereas federal rules generally allow applicants with incomes up to 130 percent FPG to be eligible. In the case of TANF, states have flexibility in how they establish eligibility, including choosing both the type of measure and income level they use. For Medicaid and the Housing Choice Voucher program, there are also different income limits for different populations within the program. To illustrate the different income limits used for these programs, we analyzed maximum allowable income using a common metric—dollars per month—for programs that have nationally set income limits (see figure 4) and for programs with a range of maximum allowable income due to state variation (see figure 5). For the purposes of illustrating maximum allowable income across these programs, we use a family of three—a single mother with two children—living in their own household, because we have previously found this to be a common recipient unit in federal low-income programs, such as TANF. Although these are the maximum allowable amounts of income such families may have to be eligible for each program, these amounts are not fully comparable because the calculation of this amount differs for each program by the factors discussed earlier in this report, such as whose income is counted. Also as already discussed, for an applicant, having income below the relevant threshold is one of the multiple factors that may be assessed when determining eligibility for each program. (For a comparison of maximum monthly income for all six programs, see app. III.) In addition to having income tests, some programs set certain limits on the assets that an individual or family may hold in order to be eligible for the program, while others do not, according to our analysis of agency data and documentation, as confirmed by the agencies. Assets—referred to as “resources” by some programs—generally include financial resources—such as cash held in checking and savings accounts, individual retirement accounts, 401(k)s, and other accounts that can be readily transferred into cash—and nonfinancial resources, such as a home or car. Similar to income limits, three of the six selected programs—SSI, TANF, and SNAP under federal rules—have federally set limits on the amount or type of financial assets that an individual or family may have in order to be determined eligible for benefits. For example, to qualify for SSI, the limit for countable assets is $2,000 for an individual and $3,000 for a married couple. However, certain nonfinancial assets, such one vehicle, do not count toward this limit. For SNAP, under federal rules, there is a limit of $2,250 in countable resources or $3,250 in countable resources if at least one person is age 60 or older or is disabled, and since 2008, these limits have been adjusted annually and rounded to the nearest $250 based on changes to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). In recent years, some states have moved away from having asset limits for certain low-income programs. For example, as of August 2016, 34 states and the District of Columbia have adopted SNAP BBCE policies that removed asset limits from their financial eligibility determinations for those deemed eligible using BBCE. In TANF, asset limits are determined by the state, and as of August 2016, 8 states did not have asset limits, while 43 states had set varying limits on assets (see figure 6). Other low- income programs we reviewed—EITC, Housing Choice Vouchers, and Medicaid for non-elderly, non-disabled (MAGI) populations—have no restrictions on assets. However, financial assets that produce unearned income can be taken into account when determining applicant eligibility. For example, for EITC, applicants’ income from any investments must be $3,400 or less per year. Asset tests are further complicated because of the differences in how the equity in vehicles is treated when determining assets. Vehicle asset rules exist in certain programs, and these rules vary, not only across programs, but across states as well. In one program, a vehicle used to access work may be disregarded; in another program, a certain portion of the value of the vehicle may be disregarded. In TANF, treatment of vehicles is at the state’s discretion and most states disregard $4,650 or more of the value of one vehicle. For SNAP, certain vehicles are excluded in their entirety, or states may opt to substitute their TANF vehicle rules, according to USDA. Average benefits vary across the six selected programs due in part to differing benefit purposes and other factors, according to our analysis of agency documentation and information, as confirmed by the agencies. For the four programs that provide monthly benefits—Housing Choice Vouchers, SNAP, SSI, and TANF—average benefit levels ranged from $258 monthly for SNAP to $626 monthly for Housing Choice Vouchers in fiscal year 2015. These average benefit amounts—for Housing Choice Vouchers, SNAP, and TANF—are per household, while the SSI average benefit is per individual. The EITC provided a one-time annual benefit of more than $2,455 on average in 2016, based on tax returns filed for 2015, which, for comparison, converts to $205 per month. (See table 10). There is no average benefit amount for Medicaid since its benefits are provided in the form of health care services to individuals. These variations in average benefit amounts are due in part to differing program and benefit purposes and other factors, according to our analysis of agency documentation and other governmental reports. For example, the SNAP benefit amount is structured to make up the difference between the cost of purchasing a nutritionally adequate low-cost diet and 30 percent of net household income, because a household is expected to spend about 30 percent of its net income on food, according to FNS. Alternatively, the SSI benefit is meant to provide a basic level of income for those who are elderly, blind, and disabled. Four of the five programs that provide benefit amounts to recipients directly or indirectly adjust benefits for inflation, while one program varies by state. Whether or not benefits are adjusted for inflation affects the value of the benefit over time. EITC, SSI, and SNAP explicitly adjust benefits for inflation, while the amount of a Housing Choice Voucher is adjusted in response to changes in area rental costs. According to CRS, TANF benefits for families are not automatically adjusted for inflation by the states and have lost considerable value in terms of their purchasing power over time. We have previously estimated that annual aggregate cash benefits under 2005 TANF rules were 17 percent lower than they were under 1995 rules. More recently, CRS has found that between 1981 and 2013, the inflation-adjusted value of the maximum TANF cash assistance benefit for needy families in the median state declined by 45 percent. Legal, administrative, and financial constraints pose challenges to streamlining or better aligning varying eligibility rules for low-income programs, according to our previous work. The issue of streamlining, and its feasibility, has been a concern for decades. As we noted in our earlier work, the complexity and variability in programs’ financial eligibility rules have had negative consequences for both program administration and family access to assistance, according to policy experts and researchers. For example, in 2002 we found that staff administering each program collected much of the same personal and financial information from applicants to determine program eligibility, leading to time-consuming and inefficient administrative processes that can contribute to overall costs. Further, people seeking aid from more than one low-income program often must visit multiple offices and provide the same information numerous times, according to our prior work. However, just as the advantages of simplifying financial eligibility rules have been acknowledged, there has also been a general recognition that achieving substantial improvements in this area is difficult. A key challenge to streamlining eligibility rules for these low-income programs is that the programs are authorized by different federal statutes, which establish many of the program rules. These different statutes were enacted—and amended—at different times in response to differing circumstances. The statutes originate with numerous congressional authorizing committees. For example, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Finance Committee are the authorizing committees for Medicaid, while the House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee are the authorizing committees for the Housing Choice Voucher program (see fig. 7). Other laws, such appropriations acts, can also have an impact on federal programs and their rules. Modifying eligibility rules to bring them more in line with each other would require changing many laws and coordination among a broad set of lawmakers, including multiple congressional committees. Another challenge to streamlining stems from the multiple government entities involved in administering and funding each program and the varied administrative relationships between the federal and state levels of government by program. To start with, a different federal agency or office administers each program we reviewed. For example, FNS administers SNAP, CMS administers Medicaid, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing within HUD administers the Housing Choice Voucher. These different federal agencies generally develop regulations separately for each program, which may affect program rules. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, state governments are also involved in administering and funding some of these programs. Specifically, for programs that allow state flexibility, state governments also establish some program rules, making it more difficult to streamline or align program rules within or across these programs at the federal level. For example, for TANF cash assistance, the development of eligibility and benefit rules is primarily delegated to state agencies administering the program, while for SNAP, state agencies have some flexibility in determining eligibility rules within federally-established parameters. Regarding program funding, while states may partially fund TANF cash assistance benefits, the federal government funds the full cost of SNAP benefits. As a result of these different roles, streamlining eligibility rules and benefits across multiple programs would entail, in part, modifying and realigning complex administrative relationships among a range of federal and state government entities. Finally, financial or program cost implications pose a major challenge to streamlining financial eligibility and benefit rules for low-income programs, according to our previous work. Modifying financial eligibility rules for purposes of simplifying them or making them more consistent across programs will likely result in changes to the number of people who are eligible for assistance, and may also affect the benefit amounts they receive, as well as overall program costs. Depending on the modification, and the current rules of each program affected, changes made to streamline rules will affect each program’s recipients and costs differently. On the one hand, if such rule changes have the effect of raising a program’s income eligibility limits, more people will be eligible for assistance and that program’s costs may increase, particularly for entitlement programs. For example, according to our earlier work, SNAP program participation more than doubled and costs quadrupled over a 10- year period, largely due to the 2008 recession; however, a factor that contributed to both increases was that some states aligned their SNAP income eligibility limits with the higher limits used in other low-income programs under the BBCE policy option. On the other hand, if such rule changes have the effect of lowering a program’s income eligibility level, some people will no longer be eligible for assistance from that program, thereby potentially lowering program costs. Despite these challenges, Congress, federal agencies, and states have taken some steps to streamline eligibility rules, according to our prior work. These include establishing automatic or categorical eligibility among programs, making greater use of technology and data-sharing among low-income programs, and aligning application and eligibility determination processes for multiple programs. Automatic or categorical eligibility: These policies—where allowed under federal law—can simplify the eligibility determination process for both applicants and caseworkers by increasing consistency in income and resource limits across programs. For example, in addition to SNAP BBCE policies already discussed (which make households that receive noncash services funded by TANF categorically eligible for SNAP in some states), SSI recipients in most states are automatically eligible for Medicaid health insurance, and if they live alone or in households in which all members receive SSI benefits, they are automatically eligible for SNAP. In another example, recipients of Medicaid, TANF, or SNAP are automatically deemed income-eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)—a WIC policy known as adjunctive eligibility that is similar to categorical eligibility. Finally, under the federal school meals programs’ direct certification policy, students who receive SNAP benefits are automatically certified as eligible for free school meals. According to our prior work, this policy not only eased access for eligible students but also improved program integrity, because of SNAP’s more detailed certification process compared to the school meals programs. Overall, we found in our prior work that such policies can ease the administrative burden for participants as well as save resources, improve productivity, and allow staff to focus more time on performing essential program activities. Technology and data sharing: Computer systems can be used as a tool to carry out joint eligibility determination processes that streamline program administration for staff. Data-sharing arrangements, where permitted by federal law, allow programs to share client information that they otherwise would each collect and verify separately, thus reducing duplicative effort, saving money, and improving integrity, according to our earlier work. More specifically, with data sharing, staff may use existing data sources to prepopulate forms, thereby reducing the need for clients to provide the same information and documentation to multiple agencies. Staff may also use existing reliable data sources to automate the verification of information instead of conducting manual checks. For example, state agencies administering SNAP were able to determine SSI recipients’ eligibility for SNAP benefits by receiving verified electronic data from SSA, without having to separately collect and verify applicant information, an arrangement that officials said saved administrative dollars and reduces duplicative effort across programs, according to our prior work. In contrast, we recently found that states are experiencing barriers to using data matches for certain other low-income programs. For example, in a 2016 report we found that state staff who administer both SNAP and Medicaid were not allowed to use benefits or earnings information from a federal data services hub created for Medicaid to determine SNAP eligibility; as a result, staff would need to conduct duplicative data matches to verify some of the same information for the same household. Flexibility to align application and eligibility determination processes: In addition to helping streamline the application process by making greater use of call centers and online applications in some programs, some states have also taken other steps to align application and eligibility determination processes, according to our prior work. Exercising such flexibilities, when available to states, can help ease access and streamline the process for both recipients and administrators. For example, some states reported that they integrated aspects of the SNAP eligibility process with those of other programs, such as through combined applications, common eligibility workers, or integrated or linked eligibility systems, according to our 2017 report. Overall, according to our state survey in this report, we found that SNAP eligibility processes were most commonly integrated with state TANF cash assistance programs (44 states), as well as with state Medicaid programs, although to a somewhat lesser degree. In another example, known as the Express Lane Eligibility option, states can choose to evaluate children’s eligibility for Medicaid or CHIP by using findings—such as determinations regarding a family’s income—made by other agencies, such as those administering SNAP or TANF. Further, while states administer the Medicaid program, SSI recipients’ eligibility for Medicaid is sometimes determined by the Social Security Administration (SSA). We previously reported that as of May 2016, 33 states and the District of Columbia had agreements with SSA to determine SSI recipients’ eligibility for Medicaid, according to SSA. In these states, the SSI application is also the Medicaid application. We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Treasury; and the Social Security Administration (SSA). With the exception of HUD, which provided no comments, the agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture, HHS, HUD, and the Treasury; the Acting Commissioner of the SSA; and other interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. One measure of a program’s reach is the program participation rate, or the percentage of those eligible who receive benefits from a program. According to a December 2015 Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of the latest data available for subsidized housing, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the estimated proportion of those eligible who received benefits in 2012 varied substantially, and not all of those eligible actually received benefits. (See fig. 8.) For the entitlement programs—those legally required to provide benefits to all those who apply and qualify (SNAP, EITC, and SSI)—the estimated proportion of eligible people who were enrolled ranged from 66.6 percent to 80 percent. In contrast, for the non- entitlement programs, the estimated proportion of eligible people who were enrolled was 18.2 percent for subsidized housing and 28.4 percent for TANF. The gap between those eligible for these programs and those receiving benefits may be explained by several factors, including program funding structure, the type of benefits provided, ease of access to the programs, and applicants’ lack of awareness and misperceptions about the programs, among other things. The program’s funding structure may contribute to a gap between the number of eligible people and the number of recipients. For example, for non-entitlement programs, such as TANF and Housing Choice Vouchers, funding amounts may limit the number of people served. Because of this, states and localities sometimes ration aid, using mechanisms such as waiting lists for housing. The type and amount of benefits can also affect program participation. In our earlier work, we reported that participation rates tended to be higher among subgroups of people eligible for larger benefits and among programs that provide cash benefits rather than direct services. Specifically, in our previous work, one of the reasons we found for the decline in TANF participation was a decline in the annual aggregate cash benefit amounts, which were 17 percent lower under 2005 program rules than they were under 1995 program rules. Factors that influence the ease with which potential participants can access a program—including office location and hours as well as the ease with which program participants can use their benefits—can also affect the participation rate. For example, a 2012 Congressional Budget Office report found that the increase in the rate at which eligible people received SNAP benefits between 2007 and 2011 was likely due in part to changes in the program’s administration that made it easier for people to apply for and continue receiving benefits—such as greater use of online applications, mail-in renewals, and phone interviews—as well as to the poor economy, which reduced people’s income and caused longer periods of need, prompting more people who were already eligible for the program to apply. In contrast, we found in our 2005 report that it was difficult for some participants to use Housing Choice Vouchers and Medicaid, as some service providers, such as landlords or health care providers, would not exchange their services for program benefits. Lack of awareness about program benefits on the part of the eligible population or misconceptions about eligibility can affect the overall number and characteristics of people who participate. In our 2005 work, we reported that several EITC, Medicaid, Food Stamp, and SSI studies indicated that one of the primary barriers to participation was that individuals did not know that they were eligible for these benefits. We further reported that for some individuals—like the elderly and non-English speakers—this unfamiliarity with program benefits was even more widespread, creating a larger barrier to participation and an under-representation of these individuals in the caseload. Finally, eligible families also choose whether to participate in a program in response to their personal feelings about government assistance programs and their individual circumstances. For example, according to our previous work, changes made to allow households to apply for SNAP online or by phone lowered the stigma associated with going to a public assistance office and may have contributed to an increase in SNAP participation. Also as we previously reported, the sharp declines in eligible families’ participation in TANF cash assistance from 1995 to 2005 resulted from, among other things, the dynamics of family decision-making in response to TANF policies, such as mandatory participation in work activities. Specifically, we found that families eligible for TANF cash assistance often had characteristics that make employment difficult, such as poor health, low educational attainment, or limited English proficiency, which may affect their decisions to apply for TANF. There is no single maximum income amount an applicant may have to be eligible for the six federal low-income programs we reviewed, and the amount of allowable income varies significantly among the programs, according to data confirmed by the administering agencies. Figure 9 shows this variation by presenting the maximum income limits for EITC, SSI, and SNAP under federal rules, as well as the median amount (50th percentile) of the range of maximum income limits for the 48 contiguous states and Washington D.C. for the programs with varying income limits— Housing Choice Vouchers, Medicaid, SNAP under state BBCE policies, and TANF. EITC has the highest maximum income allowed, and TANF, at well under the federal poverty guideline, has the lowest median maximum income allowed. In addition to the contact named above, Rachel Frisk (Assistant Director), Deborah A. Signer (Analyst-in-Charge), Kay E. Brown, Gale C. Harris, Kelly Snow, and Srinidhi Vijaykumar made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, Sarah Cornetto, Kirsten Lauber, David Lin, Theresa Lo, Sheila McCoy, Jessica Orr, Jason Palmer, Gloria Proa, David Reed, Almeta Spencer, Rebecca Kuhlmann Taylor, and Max Sawicky.

Summary: Various federal programs provide cash assistance, food, housing, and health care to millions of individuals, families, and households whose income falls below defined levels and who meet other eligibility requirements. As GAO previously reported, the numerous financial and nonfinancial rules for determining eligibility for such low-income programs can confuse applicants and increase program administration challenges. GAO was asked to examine eligibility rules for low-income programs. This report examines (1) the ways in which eligibility rules and benefits for selected federal low-income programs vary across the programs; and (2) what is known about challenges associated with efforts to streamline these rules. GAO reviewed relevant agency guidance and other information provided by agencies and analyzed financial eligibility rules and benefits across six low-income programs. GAO confirmed all information on program rules with the respective administering agencies. GAO selected these programs because they are among the largest of the federally funded programs addressing low-income people's basic needs and they illustrate variations in eligibility rules among low-income programs. GAO also reviewed previous GAO reports and selected reports from the Congressional Research Service and other knowledgeable research and policy organizations. Six key federally funded programs for low-income people vary significantly with regard to who is eligible, how income is counted and the maximum income applicants may have to be eligible, and the benefits provided. In fiscal year 2015, the most current data available, the federal government spent nearly $540 billion on benefits for these six programs—the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Medicaid, the Housing Choice Voucher program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The target population for each of these programs differs, for example, people who are elderly or disabled or who have dependent children. Further, some programs have conditions for continued eligibility, such as participation in work activities under TANF. The six programs also vary in what income is and is not counted when determining an applicant's eligibility. For example, certain programs, such as SNAP, disregard a portion of earned income, while others do not. The maximum amount of income an applicant may have and still be eligible for benefits, which is determined for some programs at the federal level and for others at the state or local level, also differs significantly. As of December 2016, this amount ranged from $5,359 per month for one state's Medicaid program to $0 per month in one state for TANF cash assistance, for a single parent with two children. Benefit levels also differed across the six selected programs, with average monthly benefits for these programs ranging in fiscal year 2015 from $258 for SNAP to $626 for Housing Choice Vouchers, and four of the six programs adjust benefits annually. Legal, administrative, and financial constraints pose challenges to efforts to streamline varying eligibility rules for federal low-income programs, according to GAO's current and previous work. A key challenge is that the programs are authorized by different federal statutes enacted at different times in response to differing circumstances. Other laws, such as appropriations laws, can also have an impact on federal programs and their rules. As a result, streamlining eligibility rules would require changing many laws and coordination among a broad set of lawmakers and congressional committees. A further challenge is that a different federal agency or office administers each program GAO reviewed. For some of these programs, such as TANF, state governments also establish some program rules, making it more difficult to streamline rules at the federal level within or across these programs. Finally, financial constraints may also affect efforts to streamline program rules. For example, if rule changes raise the income eligibility limit in a program, more people may become eligible and that program's costs may increase. Despite these challenges, Congress, federal agencies, and states have taken some steps to streamline program administration and rules, such as by making greater use of data-sharing where permitted by federal law and aligning programs' applications and eligibility determination processes. For example, SSI recipients in most states are automatically eligible for Medicaid, and GAO previously reported that some states have integrated the SNAP eligibility process with other low-income programs, such as through combined applications and common eligibility workers. GAO is not making recommendations in this report.