PRWORA amended the authorizing language in statutes governing SSI, TANF, Food Stamp, and housing assistance programs by prohibiting fugitive felons and probation and parole violators from receiving benefits under these programs. To assist law enforcement agencies in apprehending fugitive felons, PRWORA also amended the authorizing legislation for each of these programs to require program officials to disclose the information they maintain on individuals to law enforcement officers when they request it. Oversight and administration of the SSI, TANF, Food Stamp, and federal housing assistance programs are the responsibility, respectively, of four federal agencies: SSA, HHS, USDA, and HUD. Through the SSI program, SSA oversees the provision of monthly cash payments to people who are blind, disabled, or age 65 or older and have limited income and resources. HHS oversees the TANF program, which provides cash assistance and other work-related services to needy individuals. USDA oversees the Food Stamp Program, which helps low-income individuals purchase food. HUD provides housing assistance to low-income families, including the elderly and persons with disabilities. PRWORA’s fugitive felon provisions apply to eligibility for HUD’s public housing program and to most Section 8 programs. The public housing program provides housing units whose operation, maintenance, and modernization is subsidized with federal funds. Section 8 programs provide needy families with rental assistance through vouchers that can be used in privately owned housing or by occupying government-subsidized housing units. While SSA directly administers the SSI program nationwide, the Food Stamp and TANF programs are generally administered at the state or local level, albeit with federal money in the case of the Food Stamp Program, and a combination of federal and state funds in the case of TANF. Depending on the state, the same staff at local offices may determine eligibility and benefit levels for both Food Stamp and TANF programs. HUD relies on local public housing agencies to administer its public housing and Section 8 programs. Public housing agencies manage and operate local public housing units and enforce tenant compliance with the lease. Low-income individuals and families often participate in more than one of the above public programs. The federal agencies that oversee these programs work with their OIG to meet their responsibility to ensure program integrity. In addition to helping to identify fraud, waste, and abuse in these programs, the OIGs participate in federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies’ pursuit and apprehension of individuals wanted for criminal offenses, including felonies. State governments can also play a role in ensuring the integrity of federal programs, particularly TANF and Food Stamp because states or counties administer them. The governments do so through fraud units in state human services departments and state inspectors or auditors general. To illustrate the size of these programs and their potential for fraud, waste, and abuse, table 1 compares the total benefits paid, erroneous payments, and caseload size reported by federal agencies in a single year by program. Under PRWORA, the focus of the language affecting fugitive felons in each programs’ authorizing language differs somewhat. The use of federal funds by fugitive felons is specifically prohibited in the SSI, TANF, and Food Stamp programs. For the SSI and Food Stamp programs, individuals identified as fugitive felons are ineligible for benefits for any period in which they are considered to be a fugitive felon, or probation or parole violator. For the TANF program, states are prohibited from using any portion of their federal funding to assist any individual considered to be a fugitive felon. For public housing and Section 8 programs, PRWORA states that fugitive felon and probation or parole violation status “…shall be cause for immediate termination of the tenancy….” PRWORA’s provisions also require the SSI, Food Stamp, and housing assistance programs to disclose information about felons to law enforcement. Upon request from any federal, state, or local law enforcement officer, program officials must furnish the current address, Social Security number (SSN), and photograph (if applicable) of any benefit recipient. The officer must furnish the name of the recipient, and other identifying information to establish the unique identity of the recipient, and also attest that the request is made in conjunction with the officer’s official duties. For the TANF program, the law also states that no “safeguards” a state has established “...against the…disclosure of information about applicants or recipients….” are to prevent the program from furnishing this information to law enforcement officers. Appendix II provides the language by program of PRWORA’s provisions in the authorizing legislation with regard to the eligibility of fugitive felons and probation and parole violators for benefits and the release of recipient information to law enforcement officers. It is difficult to estimate the number of fugitive felons who could be receiving SSI, TANF, Food Stamp, or housing assistance benefits, or the amount of erroneous payments made to such individuals, because there is no comprehensive data on the total number of people, nationwide, for whom there are outstanding arrest warrants for felonies or probation or parole violations. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does compile arrest warrant data from a number of sources, nationwide, in its National Crime Investigation Center (NCIC) database. The NCIC is a repository for arrest warrants that federal agencies and state and local law enforcement authorities submit to it on a voluntary basis. According to an FBI official, there were about 825,000 outstanding warrants for felonies, serious misdemeanors, and parole and probation violations filed in the NCIC database as of August 2002. NCIC does not report the total number of warrants for felonies alone, nor does it know if all the warrants in the database are outstanding. There is some data available on the number of adults in the United States on probation or parole. According to the Department of Justice, there were 3,839,500 on probation in December 2000 and another 725,500 on parole. The extent to which PRWORA’s fugitive felon provisions have been implemented in SSI, TANF, Food Stamp, and housing assistance programs varies. To help ensure that fugitive felons do not receive benefits for which they are ineligible, during the application and recertification processes, most programs ask applicants about their fugitive felon status. A number of programs also match recipient files and arrest warrant data to identify and terminate benefits to fugitive felons who are already on the rolls, but the scope and frequency of such matching activity varies widely. All programs also are responding in some way to PRWORA’s requirement that they make information on recipients available to law enforcement when requested. In the Food Stamp and SSI programs, federal OIGs play a critical role in providing law enforcement agencies with this information directly assisting them at times in the apprehension of those fugitive felons on the rolls. HUD and HHS, on the other hand, have done little to ensure their programs’ disclosure of information from recipient records to law enforcement agencies. Officials in 49 state TANF and 47 state Food Stamp programs reported that they require applicants to answer questions about whether there is a warrant outstanding for their arrest, although there is little evidence available on the degree to which this practice deters fugitive felons from applying for benefits or the number of applicants identified as fugitive felons in this way. In 39 TANF and 43 Food Stamp programs, recipients are also required to respond to these questions when their continuing eligibility is assessed. Two state TANF and 4 state Food Stamp programs reported doing nothing to determine fugitive felon status at the time an individual applies for benefits. In the Food Stamp and SSI programs, procedures require staff to ask individuals when they apply for benefits whether or not they are fugitive felons. Staff also must ask recipients about their fugitive felon status when their continuing eligibility for benefits is reassessed. At the completion of the application interview, applicants also are asked to sign the application form, which contains a statement certifying that the information they provide is true and that they understand that any misrepresentation of the truth may constitute a crime. In housing assistance programs, according to HUD officials, PRWORA’s provisions do not make fugitive felons who apply for assistance ineligible. PRWORA states only that fugitive felon status shall be cause for immediate termination of tenancy. To implement this provision, HUD’s regulations state that the lease must provide that the public housing authority may terminate the tenancy during the term of the lease if a tenant is a fugitive felon. Although HUD lacks requirements for systematic methods to prevent fugitive felons from successfully applying for assistance, the agency’s regulations do state that housing agencies have authority to screen out applicants they determine to be unsuitable for admission under public housing authority standards. Officials from HUD, however, indicated that they were not aware of which, if any, housing agencies engage in screening for fugitive felons. In addition to the practice of asking applicants to report their fugitive felon status when they apply for benefits, SSI and some state Food Stamp and TANF programs identify and remove fugitive felons already on the rolls by comparing entire recipient files with a law enforcement agency’s arrest warrant data. The scope and frequency of computerized matching can vary. SSI and some state Food Stamp and TANF programs use databases containing arrest warrants city or countywide, statewide, or nationwide. The FBI’s NCIC database, for example, is a repository of arrest warrant information the FBI receives on a voluntary basis from states and from local jurisdictions. In 2002, the FBI expressed its willingness to compare state Food Stamp and TANF recipient files with warrants in the NCIC database and initiated an information campaign regarding its service. Fifteen state Food Stamp and 15 state TANF programs reported that they periodically matched their recipient files with arrest warrant data. Most have done these matches on an ongoing basis—in most cases monthly, but the scope of the matches varied by state and program. (See table 2.) SSA currently matches its nationwide SSI applicant and recipient file with arrest warrant data from the FBI’s NCIC database, the U.S. Marshals Service, and 11 states, usually on a monthly basis. SSA’s current matching process, which covers all SSI applicants and recipients nationwide, has evolved from attempts by its OIG to verify the fugitive felon status of SSI recipients on an ad hoc basis in certain geographic areas. SSA officials said that systematic computer matching of the SSI file and arrest warrant data, although a complex process requiring considerable resources, is the most efficient and comprehensive way to ensure that fugitive felons do not receive SSI benefits. See appendix III for a detailed description of SSA’s monthly matching process. HUD officials said that the agency has never matched its nationwide database of housing assistance recipients with arrest warrant data from any law enforcement agency to identify program participants who are fugitive felons, even though PRWORA makes fugitive felon status grounds for termination of tenancy. The agency has left the implementation of this provision up to the individual public housing agencies, leaving it to them to identify fugitive felons. HUD regulations give public housing agencies and other landlords the option to evict those identified as fugitive felons, but do not require them to do so. However, HUD has not determined the extent to which public housing agencies have implemented the fugitive felon provisions in accordance with its regulations. In addition to its regulations, in July 2002, HUD issued revised model lease language stating that the tenancy of fugitive felons may be terminated. To help law enforcement officials apprehend fugitive felons, PRWORA calls for programs to provide information from SSI, Food Stamp, TANF, and housing assistance recipient records to law enforcement officers under certain circumstances. Law enforcement agencies can request such information directly from program staff, or indirectly from federal OIGs. In the case of state Food Stamp and TANF programs, they can request information from program officials, fraud units in state program departments, or from auditors general in state government. In the SSI and Food Stamp programs, there are written procedures that must be followed when responding to these requests. USDA has issued regulations for state Food Stamp programs that mirror the PRWORA provisions and require states to provide household addresses, SSNs, and photographs, if available, to law enforcement officials when they make a request, and 44 state Food Stamp programs reported also having their own written guidelines. In the absence of any guidance from HHS, officials from 44 state TANF programs reported that their programs had their own written guidelines for what program staff and others should do, under PRWORA, when a request for information from recipient records is received from law enforcement officers. Both SSA and its OIG have comprehensive procedural guidelines for handling law enforcement requests for information about SSI recipients. These guidelines include specific instructions on confirming the identity of the person named on an arrest warrant before information from recipient records can be released. HUD, like HHS, has not issued guidance, thus they have left it up to public housing agencies and other landlords to determine whether and under what circumstances they will respond to such requests from law enforcement officers. HUD has no information on how public housing agencies are handling such requests. Because of their own law enforcement authority, federal OIGs and state fraud units have often acted as intermediaries between outside law enforcement agencies and program staff to facilitate the exchange of recipient and arrest warrant information. Federal OIGs and state auditors have also played a major role in assisting in law enforcement’s apprehension of fugitive felons on program rolls. Both USDA’s and HHS’s OIG have conducted such efforts. In both cases, the OIG matched recipient files and arrest warrant data and provided law enforcement officials with the matches. USDA’s efforts, known as Operation Talon, began in 1997 in Kentucky, and expanded to include operations in 30 states and D.C. According to USDA’s Inspector General, Operation Talon activities slowed beginning in 2001 when OIG priorities shifted to other areas. HHS’s OIG conducted one initiative in a metropolitan area in Nebraska that ended in the apprehension of a very small number of fugitive felons. SSA’s OIG has also played a key role in the exchange of arrest warrant and SSI recipient information. SSA’s monthly matching process is not only designed to identify and terminate benefits to fugitive felons on the SSI rolls, but also to provide law enforcement agencies with information from SSI recipients’ records that will assist them in apprehending fugitive felons. SSA and its OIG worked together to negotiate agreements with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to provide them with arrest warrant information. Once SSA staff match arrest warrants with the SSI file, the OIG helps ensure that the law enforcement agencies that issued the warrants receive the information from SSI records they need to apprehend those identified as fugitive felons. Finally, the OIG tracks and compiles data on the apprehension and termination of benefits to SSI recipients determined to be fugitive felons. See appendix III for a detailed description of SSA’s monthly matching process. In addition, SSA’s OIG has assisted law enforcement officials in their pursuit and arrest of SSI recipients who are fugitive felons. For example, the OIG has participated in joint investigations with the New York State Division of Parole, the New York State Welfare Inspector General, and the New York City Department of Corrections to identify and apprehend SSI recipients who were parole violators. To assist law enforcement in locating criminals, HUD’s OIG indicated that it has responded to requests from law enforcement for information, usually on a case-by-case basis. As with SSA’s OIG, HUD’s and USDA’s OIGs also have assisted law enforcement agencies in the pursuit and arrest of fugitive felons. The SSI, Food Stamp, and TANF programs have identified over 110,000 beneficiaries who are fugitive felons– largely through the matching of warrant and enrollee files. When SSA and states have taken the initiative or been in a position to match recipient and warrant data, there have been a significant number of fugitive felons identified. The results from our own comparison of arrest warrant from just two states and the HUD nationwide tenant database suggest that many fugitives in housing assistance programs go unidentified. Total cost savings to date are hard to ascertain, however, in part, because not all state Food Stamp and TANF programs keep records or make such calculations. SSA’s OIG has reported 5-year cumulative savings of more than $81 million in overpayments and $133 million in projected future savings from the SSI recipients identified as fugitive felons. Since passage of PRWORA, law enforcement officials also have been making thousands of requests for program information to help them apprehend fugitive felons, either for specific case information or for file matches. At least 18,678 arrests from this effort have occurred. This may be a conservative figure because programs do not always receive feedback from law enforcement on the outcome of cases. Of the more than 110,000 beneficiaries identified as fugitive felons across all programs since 1996, 45,000 have been identified on the SSI rolls through matching. SSA’s experience strongly suggests that matching SSI and arrest warrant data produces better results than less comprehensive methods of identifying fugitive felons such as case-by-case inquiries. Also, the more comprehensive the warrant database drawn from, the higher the yield. SSA’s access to the NCIC database together with its array of agreements with states and municipalities has given the agency a large database of warrants against which to compare its own national recipient file. Although SSA efforts to identify fugitive felons on the rolls increased steadily prior to 2000, the agency’s identification process up until that time was largely confined to manual checks for specific case inquiries and one- time ‘sweeps’ initiated by law enforcement, the OIG, or state fraud units. In 2000, however, after SSA secured a memorandum of understanding with the FBI to provide it with arrest warrant data, SSA began performing monthly matches with its SSI file. This more comprehensive approach resulted in some sharp yearly increases in the numbers of fugitive felons identified. (See table 3.) Increased savings accompanied the increases in the number of fugitive felons identified. SSA estimates that since the passage of PRWORA, it has identified more than $81 million in overpayments. It has projected future savings on fugitive felons removed from the SSI rolls of about $133 million. Table 3 shows substantial annual increases in those savings beginning in 1999 with SSA’s initial computer matching efforts. State Food Stamp and TANF administrators have identified many fugitive felons on their program rolls, as well. Based on the estimates we received from state officials, in total, over 65,000 have been identified in these programs across all states since 1997. Identification strategies and results varied considerably across states, but those state programs that identified large numbers of felons usually did so by matching their automated recipient files and files of arrest warrants nationwide and/or statewide.For example, sizeable numbers of fugitive felons on TANF and Food Stamp rolls in Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee were identified using large warrant databases. (See table 4.) Very few state TANF or Food Stamp programs could provide precise estimates of cost savings, but the initiatives in Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee found that millions of dollars could be saved using matching at the state-level. Because HUD has no data on the numbers of housing assistance recipients whose tenancy could be subject to termination under PRWORA, we conducted our own match of arrest warrants in two states—Ohio and Tennessee—with HUD’s national, tenant database. Nationally, we found 927 adults who were living in public housing or Section 8 housing between January 2001 and January 2002 while there were outstanding warrants for their arrests from those two states for felonies, or parole or probation violations. These adults were wanted for a wide range of crimes, including possession of or selling dangerous drugs; larceny, such as bank robbery; and assault. (See app. V.) About 65 percent were living in public housing or Section 8 housing outside of Ohio and Tennessee. If the leases on the housing units where these fugitive felons lived or the Section 8 voucher had been terminated, we estimate HUD could have saved $4.2 million annually in program costs – or made housing available to some of the 9 million eligible families waiting for units nationwide. See appendix I for a detailed description of our matching process. Law enforcement officers have requested information about thousands of recipients since PRWROA gave them access to program information. With the exception of SSA and a few state human service agencies, however, most do not track or record requests. Collectively, human service agencies in Arizona, Indiana, and Texas reported receiving 29,408 requests from law enforcement for recipient information from fiscal years 1997 through 2001. SSA’s OIG was able to report the number of requests it has received each year from law enforcement since implementation of PRWORA. (See fig 1.) Although requests increased during the first few years after the law was passed, there was a noticeable decrease in 2000 after the agency began to implement routine file matching. According to SSA officials, the recipient information SSA now routinely provides to law enforcement agencies as part of its monthly matching process most likely reduced the need for law enforcement agencies to request this information. Since PRWORA was enacted, the information that law enforcement has received from programs about their recipients has resulted in the arrest of at least 18,678 fugitive felons through March 2002, a conservative figure in that law enforcement does not always report arrests to programs, state auditors, or OIGs. SSA, USDA, and some state TANF and Food Stamp officials were able to provide selected statistics. USDA’s Operation Talon—carried out in 30 states and D.C.—resulted in 5,165 arrests for felonies and probation and parole violations between early 1997 and March 2002. SSA reported 5,019 fugitive felons apprehended through 2001. Among states that have screened both TANF and Food Stamp recipients, two were able to report total arrests since 1997: Texas reported 791; New York, 6,980. Finally, using matching, a state audit of Food Stamp and TANF programs in Tennessee in 1998 resulted in 403 arrests for offenses as serious as Law enforcement officials do not arrest all recipients who are identified as fugitive felons. Most fugitive felons found on the SSI rolls, for example, were not arrested. SSA, which has a follow-up reporting system in place, received reports on over 5,900 matched warrants from law enforcement agencies in 2001, indicating that over 2,000 fugitive felons had been arrested. According to SSA, there are many reasons why providing law enforcement with information from recipients identified as fugitive felons may not lead to their arrest: (1) The fugitives could not be located; (2) the recipient was not the person for whom the warrant was issued; and (3) the law enforcement agency that issued the warrant refused to extradite the recipient when he or she was living in another jurisdiction. There are a number of reasons why the law is not aggressively implemented by all programs that are required to deny benefits to fugitive felons. First, centralized arrest warrant databases are not readily available to programs. Second, programs need the assistance of law enforcement agencies to achieve their goal of removing fugitive felons from the rolls. Third, a lack of information about how to conduct computerized matching and where to find assistance hampers many state program officials. Finally, in the Food Stamp and TANF programs, the lack of criteria for what constitutes a fugitive may interfere with states’ ability to act decisively to deny benefits to those wanted for felonies or probation or parole violations. There is no single database that contains information on all wanted persons throughout the United States. Local law enforcement agencies, states, judicial agencies, and federal government agencies all maintain various warrant records. The only database that compiles federal, state, and local warrants is the FBI’s National Crime Information Center, or NCIC, established to support criminal justice agencies throughout the country. Yet, according to SSA’s OIG, in August 2000 this file contained only about 30 percent of local and state warrants issued across the nation. For this reason, SSA has found it necessary to negotiate with many states and even municipalities for access to their local warrants. Among the 75 state-administered Food Stamp and TANF programs that do not perform computer matching to identify fugitive felons, nearly half cited the lack of a statewide repository for warrants as a reason. For the Food Stamp program, alone, 16 states reported lacking a central source for statewide or interstate warrant data. Five reported that existing warrant data are outdated and unreliable. Because computer matching involves using criminal records to which only law enforcement agents are authorized access, program officials must negotiate specific terms with each relevant agency for access to that information. Nearly half of the TANF and Food Stamp programs that have not conducted computer matching noted that the burden and complexity of negotiating for access to statewide or NCIC arrest warrant records was a reason why they did not match. In addition to accessing warrant files, law enforcement’s assistance is needed to verify the accuracy of the warrant once a match it made. Officials from USDA’s FNS pointed out that such verification is critical to ensuring that Food Stamp benefits are not improperly denied to otherwise eligible individual. Consequently, they are dependent on law enforcement agencies to determine if warrants are valid. Over a third of state officials from TANF and Food Stamp programs that have not matched indicated that they did not because law enforcement agencies are unwilling to verify the results. State program officials do not necessarily have knowledge about how to design a file matching process, how to enlist the help and cooperation of law enforcement agencies, or where to find centralized sources of warrant data. Nearly two-thirds of the TANF and Food Stamp officials surveyed whose programs do not use computerized matching said that information about file matching from HHS or USDA would help them assess its feasibility. Over half of these program officials said that information about how matching is performed by other programs or guidance testing its feasibility would be a moderate to very great help. About half indicated that guidance on federal laws governing either access to arrest warrants, or due process prior to terminating benefits under computerized matching would be a moderate to very great help. Many survey respondents also indicated that information about the rules governing use of and access to the NCIC arrest warrant database would be helpful. There is also evidence that a fugitive felon is defined differently across, and perhaps within, programs. FNS, for example, has directed state Food Stamp programs to deny benefits to individuals with outstanding arrest warrants only when the program has verified that these individuals are aware of the warrants. In contrast, SSA guidelines make no mention of this as criteria for denying SSI benefits. They state that SSI benefits should be denied to applicants and recipients with outstanding arrest warrants, whether or not the law enforcement agencies that issued the warrants have acted on them. FNS headquarters officials told us that they believed the definition of a fugitive under PRWORA is open to interpretation and that, without further guidance, state Food Stamp programs may be defining it differently as well. They pointed out a number of questions that need to be addressed when deciding whether or not to deny benefits to those with arrest warrants. For example, should individuals with outstanding warrants be considered fugitive felons if they are not aware of the warrants, or if law enforcement agencies have not acted on the warrants within a certain timeframe? HHS officials also indicated that, based on the language in the law, it is not clear whether the Congress intended to deny benefits when law enforcement officials lack the resources, jail space, or court time to execute arrest warrants. They contend that the most significant challenge programs face when implementing the law is how to define a “fleeing” felon. Responses to our survey confirm that there may be different definitions of what constitutes a fugitive felon across state programs as well. For example, one state program official indicated that the existence of a warrant, alone, was not proof that a recipient was fleeing. Consequently, recipients in that state who were fugitive felons were reportedly not removed from the benefit rolls unless they were arrested. An official from another state further questioned whether those who are not aware of warrants for their arrest could be considered fleeing. There has been some progress in implementing the fugitive felon provisions of PRWORA. Where there has been leadership from program officials, OIGs or state auditors, large numbers of fugitive felons have been removed from the rolls and apprehended, mostly through the use of matching. However, the law has not been implemented aggressively in all programs. Most strikingly, HUD has done little to ensure that fugitive felons do not receive housing assistance. This could be because the law, as it applies to housing assistance programs, states that fugitive felon status is only grounds for termination of tenancy and not that fugitive felons are ineligible for housing assistance. Therefore, according to HUD officials, while public housing agencies and landlords have the authority to evict fugitive felons, they are not required to do so. Furthermore, even though HUD maintains its own national database of tenants, it has made no attempt to match it with information from centralized arrest warrant databases such as the NCIC. Such matching, even when done on a limited basis, would be an effective way to identify potentially large numbers of fugitive felons in federal housing assistance programs that landlords have the authority to evict. As demonstrated in SSI and a few state TANF and Food Stamp programs, matching recipient and arrest warrant data can be an effective tool for implementing the fugitive felon provisions. However, expanding the use of matching is not an easy task. In this respect, state program officials indicated that they could benefit from the experience of others. Information about how other programs and states have obtained access to and used centralized arrest warrant data, collaborated with law enforcement agencies, and conducted matching could help state TANF and Food Stamp programs plan and develop their own matching procedures. Increased use of computer matching alone will not ensure that the law is fully implemented in state TANF and Food Stamp programs. The law’s overall effectiveness could be seriously undermined if it is not applied consistently, and there appears to be some question about what constitutes a fugitive felon within TANF and Food Stamp programs. Without knowing how state programs are defining fugitive felons, there is no way for HHS or USDA to determine if the law is being applied consistently and, if not, how to ensure that it is. Finally, neither HHS nor HUD has issued instructions on the circumstances under which information about benefit recipients is to be released to law enforcement agencies when they request it. As a result, state TANF programs, and HUD public housing agencies and other landlords in this highly decentralized system, may be implementing this provision inconsistently. As a result, law enforcement agencies may not be receiving the information they request and legally have access to. The Congress should consider amending the Housing Act of 1937 to make fugitive felons ineligible for federal housing assistance. To better implement PRWORA’s fugitive felon provisions, we recommend that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development test the feasibility and effectiveness of routinely matching its nationwide tenant file with the NCIC arrest warrant database as a means of identifying tenants in housing assistance programs nationwide who are fugitive felons and subject to eviction and issue guidance on the circumstances under which federal housing programs are required to provide information about residents in federally subsidized housing to law enforcement agencies. To oversee and better implement these provisions in the TANF program, we recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services encourage states to test the feasibility and effectiveness of routinely matching TANF applicant and recipient records with arrest warrants by providing them with information on the matching activities of other state TANF programs and their results and on accessing available arrest warrant databases such as NCIC; monitor states’ computerized matching efforts to identify fugitive felons and their results; determine what criteria state TANF programs are using to remove recipients wanted for felonies or probation or parole violations from the TANF rolls, and if these criteria differ across states, provide TANF programs with clear guidance on the circumstances under which benefits to fugitive felons should be terminated; and issue guidance on the circumstances under which TANF programs are required to provide information about TANF recipients to law enforcement agencies. To oversee and ensure better implement these provisions in the Food Stamp program, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture encourage states to test the feasibility and effectiveness of routinely matching Food Stamp applicant and recipient records with arrest warrants by providing them with information on the matching activities of other state Food Stamp programs and their results and on accessing available arrest warrant databases such as NCIC; monitor states’ computerized matching efforts to identify fugitive felons and their results; and determine what criteria state Food Stamp programs are using to remove recipients wanted for felonies, or probation or parole violations from the Food Stamp rolls and, if these criteria differ across states, provide Food Stamp programs with clear guidance on the circumstances under which benefits to fugitive felons should be terminated. Officials from the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development provided comments on our report. The full text of the comments from HHS and HUD, appears in appendixes VI and VII, respectively. The Director of FNS Program Development Division and other FNS headquarters officials, provided oral comments, some of which were technical and incorporated into the report where appropriate. Officials from the Social Security Administration reviewed the report and had no comments. (See app. VIII.) In general, FNS officials agreed with our recommendations, but voiced concern that the report needed to more fully discuss the legal and procedural complexities involved in implementing the fugitive felon provisions. They said that because what constitutes a fugitive under PRWORA is open to interpretation, eligibility criteria for benefits may vary within and across programs. They indicated their intention to re-evaluate their current definition, which defines fugitives as only those who are aware that warrants have been issued for their arrest. Nevertheless, they noted that there may be room for flexibility in how state agencies respond to the individual circumstances of fugitive felons, just as states have flexibility when enforcing certain other Food Stamp program requirements. FNS officials cautioned against viewing the implementation of PRWORA’s fugitive felon provisions outside the context of a program’s administrative structure and its quality assurance procedures and standards. They noted, for example, that the Food Stamp program is administered by the states, making it more difficult to ensure uniform implementation of the law than in the SSI program, where control is centralized at the federal level. FNS officials noted that, in order to enhance compliance with the law in the Food Stamp program, they recently obtained information from SSA about its fugitive felon procedures and processes and were now working with their OIG to clarify issues related to fugitive felon ineligibility for food stamps. They have also begun to plan pilot projects in several states of procedures that would allow law enforcement time to apprehend fugitive felons before state food stamp agencies take action on their eligibility. These projects will build due process protections into these procedures. ACF acknowledged that the report provided new and useful information on this topic. However, it expressed concern that the report did not adequately portray the full significance of the challenges associated with implementation of the fugitive felon provisions. In particular, ACF highlighted the challenges associated with defining a fleeing felon. Furthermore, ACF did not concur with our recommendations for a variety of reasons. It believed that implementing our recommendations would infringe on the authority and flexibility PRWORA gives states to establish their own TANF eligibility rules and procedures and calls for federal action not authorized under PRWORA. We believe that issuing guidance is permissible under PRWORA and can be done in a manner that allows for state flexibility. Guidance simply provides states with a means to make more reasoned judgments about the actions they choose to take. ACF further argued that neither the Office of management and Budget’s (OMB) single state compliance audits, nor feedback it has received from state agencies have identified problems with the implementation of the fugitive felon provisions. The absence of evidence of problems in either case, however, does not mean that problems do not exist, nor that the monitoring and guidance we recommend would not be useful. ACF also appears to have interpreted our recommendations for monitoring and encouraging computer matching more narrowly than intended. We do not prescribe how ACF should accomplish these tasks. Our recommendations would not require the creation of new data collection procedures or systems. The mechanisms that ACF and HHS’s Office of Family Assistance have in place for communicating and interacting with state and local agencies could be used to effectively implement these recommendations within the limits PRWORA places on federal authority. ACF disagreed with the recommendation for national guidance describing the circumstances, under PRWORA, in which TANF programs should provide information to law enforcement agencies, noting that 44 state TANF agencies had already developed their own guidance. Our point remains that all state agencies should have established guidance. Furthermore, our review of selected states’ guidance showed that it may not always be consistent with PRWORA’s fugitive felon provisions. Consequently, we continue to believe that national guidance is justified. In its comments, HUD did not concur with our recommendation to test the feasibility and effectiveness of routinely matching its nationwide tenant file with NCIC arrest warrant data. HUD said that PRWORA does not require, nor does it give, the department the authority to conduct computer matching to screen for fugitive felons, and parole or probation violators. We disagree with HUD’s assertion that it lacks the authority to conduct computer matching. In our view, HUD does not need any specific statutory authority to conduct computer matching, but any matching it does conduct must comply with the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988. We also note that, even though HUD contended that it lacked the authority to computer match, it did agree to examine computer matching as a possible option for implementing the fugitive felon provisions. HUD did concur with our recommendation to issue guidance on the circumstances under which federal housing programs are required to provide information about residents to law enforcement agencies. HUD said that its Office of General Counsel was working with its Office of Public Housing and Multifamily Housing to determine the appropriate method (by notice or regulation) to implement PRWORA’s requirement that public housing agencies provide law enforcement with information about tenants who are fugitive felons, or parole or probation violators. HUD also described other actions it was taking to better implement PRWORA’s fugitive felon provisions. Finally, HUD expressed concern about our estimate of the savings that could result from matching its national tenant file with warrants from Ohio and Tennessee. HUD indicated that the assumptions upon which this estimate is based, are not likely to hold true in every case. We agree and had already recognized this qualification in the draft report. We continue to believe that our analysis produced a reasonable estimate that has been appropriately qualified. As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees and other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9889. Other contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix IX. In order to determine the extent to which actions have been taken to ensure that fugitive felons do not receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Food Stamp, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), or housing assistance benefits, we interviewed federal officials in the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and reviewed regulations and other documents that provide policy on handling fugitive felons as applicants or beneficiaries. We also gathered data from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for SSA, USDA, HUD, and HHS on the number of program participants identified as fugitive felons through their initiatives. We conducted telephone and e-mail surveys with state officials who administer TANF and Food Stamp programs in each of the states and the District of Columbia. In our telephone survey, we collected data on the actions these programs had taken to implement the fugitive felon provisions in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. We also collected information on the extent to which law enforcement agencies have asked for or used beneficiary information from these programs to locate and apprehend fugitive felons and asked states for any estimates they had of the number of fugitive felons identified on the rolls and the amount of overpayments to these recipients. In our e-mail survey, we asked state programs that were not conducting matching what prevented them from doing so and what federal agencies could do to assist them in using matching to implement the PRWORA’s fugitive felon provisions. We obtained information about SSA’s process for identifying fugitive felons through interviews with and documents provided by its OIG, systems, and program staff involved with the fugitive felon program. Appendix III contains a detailed description of SSA’s fugitive felon matching process. We visited state officials in Delaware to gather information about their initiatives in the Food Stamp and TANF programs and issues surrounding their efforts to establishing a data matching process. To determine the extent to which fugitive felons may be receiving federal housing benefits, we conducted a one-time computer match using HUD’s national data on housing tenants and arrest warrant data from Ohio and Tennessee. We chose these two states because their warrant files were readily available from SSA and because of their prior experience in matching warrant records with SSI, Food Stamps, and TANF recipient files. In addition, both states agreed to participate in our pilot. For computer matching, HUD provided us with national information from its database containing persons in public housing, persons receiving Section 8 tenant based assistance, and persons in the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program for the period January 2001 through January 2002.The Ohio and Tennessee warrant records were all current as of January 2002. SSA screened the warrant records for us through its automated Enumeration Verification System to verify the Social Security number (SSN) and other pertinent data provided by the law enforcement agency on the warrant matched with data from SSA’s records. Using SSA guidelines, we screened the approximate 7.3 million tenant records and deleted records with invalid SSNs, that is numbers that SSA never issued. Also, if we found multiple persons using the same SSN, we removed their records. After the screening process, we computer-matched the SSNs of 7.1 million tenant records nationally with the numbers of 31,493 persons with fugitive felon warrants issued by Ohio and Tennessee. Our SSN comparisons identified 927 individual fugitive felons with one or more arrest warrants issued by Ohio or Tennessee who resided in public housing or Section 8 housing. As a final check, we compared the matched individual’s name and date of birth from the warrant and tenant records and found minor inconsistencies which, in our opinion, would not change the results. To estimate cost savings, we analyzed agency data collected for a 1998 HUD report. The report showed data by state on the average annual per unit cost for each housing type. Using these data, we multiplied the number of resident fugitive felons by their applicable average annual per unit cost. If the leases on the housing units in which these 927 individuals lived had been terminated, we estimate that about $4.2 million annually in federal funds could have been made available to others who are eligible for, but could not find, public housing or Section 8 housing. In general. – A State to which a grant is made under section 403 of the Social Security Act shall not use any part of the grant to provide assistance to any individual who is (i) fleeing to avoid prosecution , or custody or confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place from which the individual flees, for a crime, or an attempt to commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the individual flees, or which, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of such State; or (ii) violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law. The preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to conduct of an individual, for any month beginning after the President of the United States grants a pardon with respect to the conduct. (k) Disqualification of Fleeing Felons — No member of a household who is otherwise eligible to participate in the food stamp program shall be eligible to participate in the program as a member of that or any other household during any period during which the individual is (1) fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction, under the law of the place from which the individual is fleeing, for a crime, or attempt to commit a crime, that is a felony under the law of the place from which the individual is fleeing or that, in the case of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the law of New Jersey; or (2) violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under a Federal or State law. It shall be cause for immediate termination of the tenancy of a tenant if such tenant (A) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place from which the individual flees, for a crime, or attempt to commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the individual flees, or which, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of such State; or (2) violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under a Federal or State law. SSI Provision of program recipient information to law enforcement officers Section 1611 of the Social Security Act Notwithstanding any other provision of law (other than section 6103 of the Internal revenue Code of 1986), the Commissioner shall furnish any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, upon the written request of the officer, with the current address, Social Security number, and photograph (if applicable) of any recipient of benefits under this title, if the officer furnishes the Commissioner with the name of the recipient, and other identifying information as reasonably required by the Commissioner to establish the unique identity of the recipient, and notifies the Commissioner that (ii) the recipient has information that is necessary for the officer to conduct the officer’s official duties; and (B) the location or apprehension of the recipient is within the officer’s official duties. Section 408 of the Social Security Act If a State to which a grant is made under section 403 establishes safeguards against the use or disclosure of information about applicants or recipients of assistance under the State program funded under this part, the safeguards shall not prevent the State agency administering the program from furnishing a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, upon the request of the officer, with the current address of any recipient if the officer furnishes the agency with the name of the recipient and notifies the agency that (i) the recipient has information that is necessary for the officer to conduct the official duties of the officer; and (ii) the location or apprehension of the recipient is within such official duties. Section 11 of the Food Stamp Act Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the address, social security number, and, if available, photograph of any member of a household shall be made available, on request, to any Federal, State. or local law enforcement officer if the officer furnishes the State agency with the name of the member and notifies the agency that (i) the member (I) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction, for a crime (or attempt to commit a crime) that, under the law of the place the member is fleeing, is a felony (or, in the case of New Jersey, a high misdemeanor), or is violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law; or (II) has information that is necessary for the officer to conduct an official duty. (ii)Locating or apprehending the member is an official duty; and (iii) the request is being made in the proper exercise of an official duty; and (E) the safeguards shall not prevent compliance with paragraph (16) Section 27 of the Housing Act of 1937 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each public housing agency that enters into a contract for assistance under section 6 or 8 of this Act with Secretary shall furnish any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, upon the request of the officer, with the current address, Social Security number, and photograph (if applicable) of any recipient of assistance under this Act, if the officer (1) furnishes the public housing agency with the name of the recipient; and (2) notifies the agency that (A) such recipient (i) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place from which the individual flees, for a crime, or attempt to commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the individual flees, or which, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of such State; or (ii) is violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law; or (iii) has information that is necessary for the officer to conduct the officer’s official duties; (B) the location or apprehension of the recipient is within such officer’s official duties; and (C) the request is made in the proper exercise of the officer’s official duties. PRWORA’s fugitive felon provisions have two objectives: (1) to ensure that fugitive felons do not receive SSI benefits and (2) to ensure that law enforcement agencies receive the information they need about SSI applicants and recipients to apprehend fugitive felons. To implement the law, SSA has designed a single process that can accomplish both objectives. By matching arrest warrant information it receives from federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies with its national SSI file, SSA is not only preventing fugitive felons from receiving SSI benefits, but also providing information about those in the SSI file it identifies as fugitive felons to law enforcement agencies so those individuals can be apprehended. SSA’s matching process requires the active involvement of its OIG as well as the involvement and cooperation from federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. In developing this process, SSA and its regional offices as well as its OIG have had to locate sources of arrest warrant information, assess the adequacy of arrest warrant information from each source, and negotiate agreements with the law enforcement authorities that maintain this information to release it to SSA. SSA began to explore the potential for conducting such computer matching when it approached the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with proposals to match its SSI file with their arrest warrant information. The FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database is the nation’s most extensive computerized criminal justice information system. NCIC consists of millions of records in several files, including files on wanted persons. As such, law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and local levels may voluntarily submit their law enforcement information, including arrest warrants, to the FBI for inclusion in the NCIC database. SSA and its OIG secured memorandum of understanding with the FBI in March 2000 to provide SSA with monthly warrant information on fugitive felons from its NCIC Wanted Person File. Submission of information to the NCIC Wanted Person File is voluntary; however, so the file does not include complete arrest warrant data on fugitive felons, nationwide. According to SSA, as of June 2002, 17 states and the District of Columbia submit warrant data on all felonies and parole and probation violators to the FBI. Another 6 states report felonies but not parole and probation violators. However, because the other 27 states told SSA that the majority of their warrant information is not entered into the NCIC database, SSA has pursued negotiating agreement with these 27 states to obtain their warrant information. As of June 2002, 20 of the 27 states had agreed to provide SSA with their fugitive felon files. In exchange, once SSA has matched information from warrants with its SSI file, it provides the addresses of those in the file it finds with arrest warrants to the law enforcement agencies that have issued those warrants, so they can be apprehended. This matching and exchange process includes a number of SSA offices, such as its Office of Telecommunications and Systems Operations, its regional and field offices, and its OIG. To successfully implement this process requires cooperation and commitment from the FBI’s NCIC staff and its Information Technology Center (ITC), as well as law enforcement agencies at the state and local level. Figure 2 illustrates the steps in the process and those involved. Usually every month, SSA receives automated arrest warrant information from a variety of sources (step 1 in fig. 2). SSA had found that the information on arrest warrants is not always accurate. Fugitive felons frequently use aliases or provide law enforcement agencies with inaccurate Social Security numbers or dates of birth. In addition, SSA noted that law enforcement agencies tend to rely on fingerprints for identification because the Social Security numbers individuals report are often unreliable. As a result, law enforcement agencies do not always enter a Social Security number on a warrant. With the exception of the FBI, law enforcement agencies have agreed to provide SSA with arrest warrants that exclude misdemeanors, except in cases of probation or parole violations. To ensure that the misdemeanors are screened out, SSA’s OIG checks the warrant files the first time SSA receives them to verify that the misdemeanors have been removed. However, the FBI did not agree to screen out misdemeanors from its NCIC Wanted Person File, so an initial step in SSA’s process is to screen out warrants for misdemeanors in this file. Using its automated systems, SSA confirms the identity of the individual named on each warrant by comparing information on each warrant (including the individual’s name, Social Security number, date of birth, and gender) with information on the automated records SSA maintains on individuals. If there is no SSA record for a name on a warrant, or if there is no Social Security number in SSA’s records for the name on the warrant, the warrant is eliminated from the file (step 2). When the Social Security number on a warrant is incorrect, according to SSA’s records, or is missing from the warrant, SSA uses its automated systems to attempt to locate the correct or missing Social Security number. Finally, SSA uses its automated systems to eliminate misdemeanors from the warrants it obtains from FBI’s NCIC database, except in cases where the warrant is for a probation or parole violation (step 3). These steps help to ensure that SSI recipients are not mistakenly identified as fugitive felons. Next (step 4), SSA matches the remaining arrests warrant records with its computerized SSI file to identify SSI applicants and recipients named on warrants for felonies, or probation or parole violations. The results of this match are then forwarded to the SSA’s OIG (Office of Investigations) (step 5), which establishes its own investigative case file for each individual named on a warrant (step 6). Then, to provide information to law enforcement authorities for the apprehension of fugitive felons, the OIG forwards information from SSI records about those named on warrants to the FBI’s ITC (step 7). ITC screens out duplicate files and verifies the address and status of each individual named in the NCIC match warrant records to determine whether the warrant is active (step 8) and forwards these to the law enforcement agency that issued the warrant (step 9) so that it can locate and apprehend the individual (step 10). If warrants cannot be found in the NCIC database, ITC forwards them to the applicable law enforcement agency for verification and (step 9) so they can locate and apprehend the individual (step 10). After the appropriate law enforcement agency receives the addresses of individuals named on warrants, it has up to 60 days to notify ITC of the actions taken, if any, on the disposition of each individual’s case (step 11). Next, ITC updates the case file on each individual named on the active warrant to reflect the actions taken by law enforcement (step 12). Then, ITC forwards the information on the actions taken, if any, by law enforcement on each case to the OIG (step 13). Once SSA’s OIG has been notified or the 60 days have expired, whichever comes first, OIG reports those cases that require termination or recovery of SSI benefits to the appropriate SSA field office (step 14). The field office than takes whatever administrative actions, including due process safeguards, are required (step 15) and reports this back to SSA’s OIG (step 16). The OIG uses the information provided by the SSA field office on the administrative actions taken to update the individual’s case file (step 17). Although the matching process is complex and requires considerable cooperation and assistance from law enforcement authorities, that is, the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, state, county, and local law enforcement authorities as well as SSA’s OIG, SSA believes that it is the most efficient and effective method for implementing both requirements of PRWORA’s fugitive felon provisions. The following people also made significant contributions to this report: William Hutchinson, Laura Luo, Susan Pachikara, Susan Bernstein, Jonathan Barker, Jay Smale, Vanessa Taylor, and Elsie Picyk.

Summary: In response to concerns that individuals wanted in connection with a felony or violating terms of their parole or probation could receive benefits from programs for the needy, Congress added provisions to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 that prohibit these individuals from receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Food Stamp benefits, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and make fugitive felon status ground for the termination of tenancy in federal housing assistance programs. In addition, the act directs these programs to provide law enforcement officers with information about program recipients for whom there are outstanding warrants to assist in their apprehension. Actions taken to implement the act's fugitive felon provisions have varied substantially by program. In implementing provisions to prohibit benefits to fugitive felons, all but housing assistance programs include, at a minimum, a question about fugitive felon status in their applications. SSI and some state Food Stamp and TANF programs also seek independent verification of fugitive felon status by using computer matching to compare arrest warrant and program recipient files. To date, 110,000 beneficiaries have been identified as fugitive felons and dropped from the SSI, Food Stamp, and TANF rolls, and many have been apprehended. Computerized file matching has been responsible for the identification of most of these fugitive felons. Aggressive implementation of the act's fugitive felon provisions poses a number of challenges for programs. First, centralized and complete national and statewide arrest warrant data for computer matching are not readily available. Second, because direct access to arrest warrants and criminal records is limited to law enforcement personnel, computer matching requires what many state TANF and Food Stamp officials view as a burdensome and complex negotiation process to obtain these records. Third, the absence of information and guidance about how to conduct file matching and overcome its logistical challenges has also hindered aggressive implementation of the law. Finally, there is evidence that individuals with outstanding warrants for felonies, or probation or parole violations, may continue to collect benefits because there may be differences in the interpretation of what constitutes a fugitive felon within the Food Stamp and TANF programs.