The Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness (USD (P&R)) is the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense for Total Force Management as it relates to readiness, health affairs, training, personnel requirements, and quality-of-life matters. USD (P&R) is the Secretary’s senior policy advisor on recruitment, career development, and pay and benefits for military personnel and DOD civilians. The USD (P&R) oversees the Defense Health Program, Defense Commissary Agency, the Defense Education Activity, Defense Manpower Data Center, Military Community and Family Policy, and others. USD (P&R) responsibilities include, but are not limited to, developing policies, plans, and programs for compensation of military personnel and quality of life for military personnel and their families. Although included in the military compensation system as a non-cash benefit, DOD commissaries can be considered a food assistance program in that the commissaries provide servicemembers an opportunity to purchase food at reduced cost. Active-duty servicemembers receive a compensation package that includes cash compensation, non-cash compensation, and deferred compensation. Non-cash compensation includes various types of benefits such as health care, child-care centers, educational benefits, and access to subsidized commissaries (i.e., grocery stores). DOD operates a worldwide chain of commissaries that sell food and related household items to active-duty, reserve and guard members of the military services, retirees of these military services, their families, and other authorized patrons. According to the Defense Commissary Agency’s Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year 2015, DOD’s 240 commissaries sold $5.5 billion of items to approximately 5.3 million households in fiscal year 2015. Commissaries sell food and related household items to authorized patrons at cost plus a 5-percent surcharge, which DOD estimates saves patrons an average of more than 30 percent on their purchases compared to commercial prices. The Defense Commissary Agency wrote in its report that it received $1.3 billion in appropriation transfers during fiscal year 2015. The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service has responsibility for administering most of the federal domestic food and nutrition programs, including the five largest programs. As the federal government’s primary domestic food assistance agency, USDA aims to help households achieve food security—that is, to have consistent, dependable access to enough food for an active, healthy life—and monitors the extent and severity of food insecurity. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security also fund programs that provide food and nutrition assistance. In May 2015, we testified before Congress that, in fiscal year 2014, the federal government spent more than $100 billion on 18 domestic food assistance programs. Specifically, we identified that program spending ranged from approximately $5 million on the Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program to more than $74 billion on SNAP. Our testimony also stated that in fiscal year 2014, the five largest food assistance programs—SNAP, National School Lunch Program (NSLP), WIC, School Breakfast Program (SBP), and the Child and Adult Care Food Program—accounted for 96 percent of total spending on the 18 programs. SNAP, the largest program, accounted for more than 70 percent of the overall spending total. SNAP, NSLP, SBP, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program are entitlement programs, meaning that federal law requires benefits to be provided to all applicants who meet eligibility requirements. Active-duty servicemembers and their families have access to food assistance through various government and charitable programs, but their eligibility for some government food assistance programs can vary based on the programs’ income criteria and servicemembers’ location. Active-duty servicemembers and their families have access to food assistance through a variety of government and charitable sources. For example, in a testimony before Congress on May 2015, we identified 18 selected federal government programs that focus primarily on providing food and nutrition assistance, such as SNAP and WIC, to low-income individuals and households. Active-duty servicemembers and their families may apply to any of these programs, and can receive benefits if they meet the eligibility requirements. Appendix II provides a general description of these 18 programs as well as the target population. Additionally, DOD provides active-duty servicemembers with FSSA. By design, the FSSA program increases a servicemember’s income by an amount to preclude them from applying for benefits under the SNAP program. However, the NDAA for fiscal year 2016 restricted the availability of FSSA to only servicemembers stationed outside the United States and its territories starting October 1, 2016. Servicemembers stationed in the United States and its territories and in need of food assistance previously provided by FSSA are expected to apply to the SNAP program. In addition to the government food assistance programs, active-duty servicemembers and their families can seek assistance from a variety of charitable organizations. For example, each military service has a charitable organization such as the Army Emergency Relief that, depending on the type of assistance needed, is able to provide servicemembers with grants or interest-free loans that can be used to purchase food and to help meet any other immediate needs they may have in an emergency situation. During our visits to four selected military installations, we also found that additional assistance may be available to active-duty servicemembers and their families through locally-developed initiatives, such as food pantries, that are typically organized by volunteers to address food assistance needs at a particular military installation. Many of the food pantries we examined were local operations intended to meet emergency needs; however, at one of the military installations we visited there were four food pantries operating on the installation that provided food routinely once a month. Table 1 provides further details about some of the different types of food assistance available to active-duty servicemembers and their families. An applicant’s income must be below a given level in order to qualify for benefits from the government food assistance programs. To develop an understanding of how active-duty servicemembers could meet the financial criteria, we compared the base income for servicemembers in a specific paygrade with the income eligibility requirements for five government food assistance programs that are commonly used by active- duty servicemembers and their families. Specifically, these five programs include DOD’s FSSA—the only food assistance program offered through DOD—and four USDA programs, including SNAP, WIC, NSLP, and SBP. These programs’ statutory authorities define the financial criteria as a maximum income limit by household or family size. Our comparison enabled us to develop an understanding of the size of household or family a servicemember in a specific paygrade would need in order to qualify for a program. Although other factors beyond household or family size and base income affect servicemembers’ eligibility for these food assistance programs, our analysis is generally limited to these factors in order to isolate the effect of income on eligibility. Further, we recognize that to receive benefits the servicemember would also have to meet the program’s non-financial eligibility requirements, which are detailed in appendix III. Given that, we compared the basic pay and allowances of a servicemember in the E-4 paygrade with maximum income eligibility criteria for the five government food assistance programs commonly used by active-duty servicemembers and their families and determined the minimum household or family size the servicemember needed in order to qualify for each program. We selected the paygrade of E-4 in part because it includes junior enlisted personnel who are compensated at the lower end of the pay scale for active-duty servicemembers. Further, DOD’s data on FSSA recipients showed that servicemembers in the paygrade of E-4 were the most frequent recipients of this allowance, thus suggesting that there may be food assistance needs more commonly experienced by personnel at this paygrade. The results of our analysis are presented in Figure 1 and show that a servicemember’s income eligibility will likely vary based on where he or she lives and the program through which one applies for food assistance. We found that each of the government food assistance programs included in our review requires that an applicant’s household or family income falls below a specified amount to qualify for benefits and that this income limit varies by program and sometimes by state. Further, including BAH benefits in a determination of an applicant’s income eligibility also plays a role in the food assistance programs used by active-duty servicemembers and their families. Specifically, we found that it might be easier for servicemembers to qualify for WIC than SNAP or FSSA because WIC allows state agencies to choose to exclude BAH from income. For example, based on our analysis a servicemember at Naval Base San Diego, California, would need a minimum household size of 3 to qualify for WIC benefits, but would require a minimum household size of 7 to qualify for SNAP benefits and a minimum household size of 9 to qualify for FSSA. We also found that servicemembers may be more likely to qualify for free or reduced- price meals from NSLP and SBP if they reside in privatized housing than if they live in the local community because the eligibility criteria for those programs do not count BAH as income for servicemembers living in privatized military housing. For example, based on our analysis a servicemember residing in privatized military housing on Camp Pendleton in California would require a minimum household size of 3 to qualify for reduced-price school meals compared to a servicemember residing in the local community who would need a minimum household size of 6 to qualify. Based on our analysis, we found that it might be easier for servicemembers to qualify for SNAP than FSSA because SNAP’s statutory authority gives the states, in certain instances, the option to increase the gross-income limit for SNAP to as much as 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines but fixes the income limit for FSSA at 130 percent of the federal poverty guidelines regardless of the state the servicemember lives in. For example, our analysis suggests that a servicemember at Camp Pendleton, California, would need a minimum household size of 6 to qualify for SNAP benefits but would require a minimum household size of 9 to qualify for FSSA, and a servicemember at Fort Hood, Texas, would need a minimum household size of 6 to qualify for SNAP benefits but would require a minimum household size of 7 to qualify for FSSA benefits. In this example, a smaller household size is required to qualify for SNAP than for FSSA primarily because California and Texas raised the gross-income test for SNAP to 200 percent and 165 percent of federal poverty guidelines, respectively. Appendix III details both the income and non-income eligibility criteria for the government food assistance programs commonly used by active-duty servicemembers and their families. DOD has some data on servicemembers’ use of food assistance programs that it administers, but DOD does not know the extent to which servicemembers use food assistance programs because (1) its officials are not fully collecting or analyzing such information within the department, and (2) DOD officials we spoke with were not aware of efforts to coordinate with USDA to access data on servicemembers’ use of the respective programs. We contacted multiple offices within DOD to obtain data on the use of food assistance programs and found that none of the offices had efforts to monitor servicemembers’ food assistance needs. Further, DOD has not assigned responsibility for monitoring servicemembers’ use of food assistance programs. We found that some data exist within and outside of DOD on the use of the food assistance programs by active-duty servicemembers and their families. However, DOD does not know the extent to which these programs are used. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should use quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives, and defines quality information as complete, accurate and current. As the administrator of FSSA, DOD has data on servicemembers who receive the FSSA benefit. Specifically, based on Defense Joint Military Pay System records, 188 active-duty servicemembers received FSSA benefits in calendar year 2015, 224 received benefits in calendar year 2014, and 285 received benefits in calendar year 2013. However, these data are of limited usefulness because DOD does not collect and analyze relevant data that are available from other sources within the department and that would facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of servicemembers’ use of food assistance programs. Further, FSSA data alone will provide fewer insights into servicemembers’ use of food assistance programs in the future because, as previously noted, the benefit will no longer be available to servicemembers who are stationed within the continental U.S. after September 30, 2016. Through the DOD Education Activity (DODEA), which operates 52 schools on military installations within the continental United States, DOD has access to data on the number of children who attend these schools and are eligible to receive free and reduced-price lunches and breakfast. For example, we obtained data from DODEA officials for the 2014-2015 school year that showed, on average, of the 19,001 children enrolled in DODEA schools in the continental United States, 26 percent (5,010) were eligible for free meals and 25 percent (4,675) were eligible for reduced-price meals. In addition, DODEA officials provided data for September 2015—the start of the 2015-2016 school year—that showed that 24 percent of the 18,228 (4,427) children enrolled in DODEA schools in the continental United States were eligible for free meals and 21 percent (3,909) were eligible for reduced-price meals. These data do not fully capture the use of food assistance by servicemembers and their families, but they may be an indicator of a need that exists for a specific population within the military services. However, a DODEA official stated that prior to our request she was not aware of any efforts by DOD to collect and analyze such data to better understand the extent to which servicemembers use food assistance. DOD also periodically conducts Status of Forces surveys that seek to understand attitudes and views on a wide range of personnel issues and the results of which are used to help DOD decision makers evaluate existing programs and policies, establish baselines before implementing new programs and policies, and monitor the progress of programs and policies and their effects on the total force. However, DOD has not utilized this survey as a tool to collect and analyze data on the use of food assistance programs by active-duty servicemembers and their families. DOD Instruction 1342.22 directs DOD’s family readiness services, which include a variety of support programs for servicemembers and their families that range from financial assistance to child care, be designed, funded, and managed using results obtained from a performance management strategy that includes assessment of needs. DOD’s Status of Forces surveys include a survey of active-duty servicemembers that, in recent years, has included questions about the use of food assistance programs. Based on the 2013 survey—the most recent results available—DOD estimated that 2 percent (about 20,000) of active-duty servicemembers or their spouses had received income or financial support from SNAP in the previous 12 months and 9 percent received income from either WIC and/or Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF). However, the WIC and TANF data are of limited usefulness in determining the extent to which servicemembers use food assistance, in part, because it combines data on WIC—a food assistance program—with TANF data—a non-food assistance program. The survey also does not specifically address other sources of food assistance that may be used by active-duty servicemembers and their families such as NSLP, SBP, SFSP, or food pantries. Further, in July 2010, we reported that the low response rates to the Status of Forces Survey could potentially bias the survey results and recommended that the Defense Manpower Data Center develop and implement guidance to conduct a nonresponse analysis. DOD agreed with the recommendation, but it has not fully implemented our recommendation because, according to DOD officials, funding is not currently available to carry out the full intent of the recommendation. Without more complete data, DOD will not be able to identify the prevalence of need and the use of food assistance programs by active-duty servicemembers. Furthermore, DOD will be unable to effectively target its support so that it is producing maximum benefit for those in need. We also identified other agencies and organizations outside of DOD that have access to, or are in a position to collect, data on food assistance used by active-duty servicemembers and their families. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should communicate with external parties regarding quality information needed to achieve objectives. In addition, DOD Instruction 1342.22 specifies that family readiness services shall be provided through a system that maximizes the network of agencies, programs, services, and individuals in a collaborative manner to promote military family readiness. The instruction further states that family readiness services shall promote interagency collaboration and service coordination within and among federal and non-federal entities to identify and achieve common family readiness goals and improve communication among service providers and with servicemembers and their families. While DOD could benefit from more complete information on servicemembers’ use of food assistance, none of the DOD officials we met were aware of any efforts by the department to coordinate with agencies, such as the USDA, to collect and share relevant data on food assistance. Specifically, we contacted multiple offices within USD (P&R) to obtain data on the use of food assistance programs, including the offices for Military Compensation, Military Community & Family Policy, Defense Commissary Agency, Defense Manpower Data Center, and the Defense Health Agency. We found that none of these offices had efforts to monitor or collect data on servicemembers’ food assistance needs, including coordinating with USDA regarding collecting and sharing data or other relevant information. The USDA works through various state and local agencies to administer four of the five food assistance programs commonly used by active-duty servicemembers and their families, including: (1) SNAP, (2) WIC, (3) NSLP, and (4) SBP. A provision in the NDAA for fiscal year 2016 addressed DOD’s access to information on SNAP usage by servicemembers. The NDAA for fiscal year 2016 calls for the USDA to ensure that any safeguards that prevent the use or disclosure of information collected from SNAP recipients will not prevent the USDA from disclosing that information to DOD, or DOD using that information, for the purposes of determining the number of SNAP applicant households that contain one or more military servicemembers. DOD provided us an email exchange that occurred in February to March 2016 discussing how to use the new authority provided in section 605 of the 2016 NDAA to obtain SNAP data. However, officials were not aware of further attempts to collect such information. According to results from the 2013 U.S. Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey (ACS), about 23,000 active-duty servicemembers received SNAP benefits in the previous 12 months. While it is known that servicemembers use food assistance programs and that information on recipients can be obtained, specific data on servicemembers’ use of these programs are not available because there is no requirement or need that has been established for agencies such as the USDA to collect such information. For example, during visits to four selected military installations, we met with local administrators of USDA food assistance programs who told us that they are able to identify servicemembers through required documentation such as a Leave and Earnings Statement that will identify if an individual is a member of the U.S. military. However, officials said that they do not ask about or routinely document an applicant’s military status since it does not have a bearing on their eligibility for assistance. We also spoke with representatives from charitable organizations located on the installations that we visited who have information that DOD could use to gain insights into the needs of its servicemembers. For example, we spoke with representatives from Army Emergency Relief, the Navy- Marine Corps Relief Society, and the Air Force Aid Society—each of which offers various types of support, including financial support to purchase food for servicemembers in need. Army Emergency Relief and the Air Force Aid Society track the amount provided for food assistance. Specifically, an official with Army Emergency Relief told us that the organization provided $2.3 million in food assistance to active-duty servicemembers in calendar year 2015, $2.7 million in calendar year 2014, and $1.8 million in calendar year 2013. According to an official with the Air Force Aid Society, the organization provided $300,000 in food assistance in fiscal year 2015, and $600,000 in each of the previous two years. During our site visits, we also visited volunteer-run food pantries and food distribution operations of varying sizes that were started to address a locally-identified need. For example, during our site visit to Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, we visited a pantry that provides free food to anyone in need, but it does not track the number of individuals served. We also visited a food pantry on Fort Hood in Texas that Army officials told us responded to 508 separate requests for food from active-duty servicemembers, retirees, and their family members in fiscal year 2015. Of the four military installations, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in California had the largest and most organized of the food distribution operations that we visited. Specifically, during our visit to the base in December 2015, we identified four food pantries that distribute food on specific days of the month around Camp Pendleton. The manager of one pantry told us that its operation alone provides food assistance each month to an average of 400 to 500 military families on Camp Pendleton. Without coordination with USDA, and considering outreach to other organizations that have data on servicemembers’ use of food assistance, DOD will miss the opportunity to collect more complete data and information on the needs of its servicemembers. DOD has not assigned department-level responsibilities, such as a collateral duty within the Office of the USD (P&R), for monitoring the use of food assistance programs by active-duty servicemembers and their families. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should establish an organizational structure, assign responsibility, and delegate authority to achieve the entity’s objectives. We contacted multiple offices within USD (P&R) to obtain data on the use of food assistance programs, including Military Compensation, Military Community & Family Policy, Defense Commissary Agency, Defense Manpower Data Center, and Defense Health Agency. None of these offices was responsible for monitoring servicemembers’ use of food assistance programs with the exception of FSSA and the meals provided under NSLP and SBP at DODEA schools. Further, to better understand the purpose of DOD’s survey questions on food assistance and how any resulting data are used, we spoke with the Defense Manpower Data Center official involved in developing DOD’s Status of Forces Survey who told us that different offices within USD P&R are responsible for developing questions that relate to their particular mission. The official referred us to the Military Community and Family Policy office within USD (P&R) for the survey questions related to servicemembers’ use of food assistance programs. However, officials were not able to identify any official or office that had responsibility for or knowledge about why or how these questions are used, omitted, or changed from survey year to survey year. In general, DOD officials could not identify an office with responsibility for reviewing and updating the questions on food assistance asked in the Status of Forces Survey. Without collecting more data and determining whether DOD should assign department-level responsibility for monitoring servicemembers’ use of food assistance programs, DOD will not have a good understanding of the prevalence of need among servicemembers. Moreover, assigning department-level responsibility for monitoring food assistance needs could provide DOD with the ability to coordinate the military services’ collection and analysis of relevant data and determine what actions may be needed to address the needs of the servicemembers and their families. Military service officials at all four of the military installations that we visited described challenges that servicemembers may experience when seeking food assistance benefits, and stated they have been addressing the challenges by continuing to refer interested servicemembers to potential assistance from government food assistance programs and charitable organizations. Some of the challenges mentioned during our group interviews at each of the four military installations that we visited were: (1) limited awareness of some food assistance programs (2) stigma associated with receiving food assistance; and (3) misconceptions about military compensation and the ability of a servicemember to qualify for food assistance. Military service officials who assist servicemembers and their families at all four of the installations we visited generally had knowledge of some food assistance programs administered by USDA, such as SNAP and WIC. However, we found that some of the military officials at three of the four installations we visited were not aware of the FSSA food assistance program even though it is administered by DOD. Those who were aware of FSSA said that they had not referred many servicemembers to the program because it is more difficult to qualify for than SNAP. For example, at one military installation, the officials told us that no applicant has been able to qualify for FSSA. In addition, the military officials told us that they assisted servicemembers who were also not aware of some food assistance programs, such as foodbanks, SNAP, and particularly FSSA. Military service officials at three of the four selected installations we visited stated that they believe a societal stigma exists generally for those who use food assistance. Officials at one installation added that the self- sufficient culture of the military can make these stigmas even more pronounced for servicemembers who receive food assistance from, for example, SNAP, and to a lesser degree from charitable organizations and food pantries. In contrast, these officials said that there seems to be no stigma with regard to receiving WIC benefits, which suggest that WIC is seen as more of a health and nutrition benefit rather than a program for those with financial and food assistance needs. Officials added that WIC is advertised more than other food assistance programs; in some cases there have been proactive efforts to promote the program by including WIC representatives at military briefings to inform and encourage servicemembers to apply if they are expecting or have small children. Military officials at all four of the installations we visited cited misconceptions about military compensation relative to income eligibility requirements for food assistance programs as another challenge that may deter servicemembers in need from seeking such assistance. For example, some military officials at one installation who are in a position to refer servicemembers to food assistance programs sometimes do not because they mistakenly assume that a potential recipient’s income exceeds eligibility requirements for such programs. The BAH benefit also plays a role in a servicemember’s eligibility for food assistance and may contribute to misconceptions about eligibility and a servicemember’s decision to apply for such programs. For example, a program such as SNAP counts the amount a servicemember receives in BAH as part of one’s income when determining eligibility for benefits, while other programs, such as WIC, do not count BAH as income. Also, the amount of a servicemember’s BAH benefit is affected by location, meaning that the same servicemember may qualify for food assistance at one location but not be eligible at another location with a higher housing benefit. For example, a servicemember stationed at Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, would have a BAH rate of $789, that, when combined with one’s basic pay, may result in a level of income that is low enough to qualify for food assistance. However, if that same servicemember transferred to San Diego, California, which has a BAH rate of $2,178, the servicemember may no longer have income low enough to qualify for food assistance programs for which he or she was previously eligible. Military service officials we interviewed at all four of the installations we visited suggested that BAH makes it difficult to qualify when determining eligibility for SNAP in part because a servicemember’s ability to qualify for SNAP can be affected by the inclusion of BAH. Currently, U.S. code requires all income, regardless of the source, to be considered when determining eligibility for SNAP unless specifically excluded by law, and BAH is not excluded by law. Further, the U.S. Code defines regular military compensation to include BAH and DOD’s description of military pay and compensation includes BAH. On January 12, 2016, the Chief Executive Officer for MAZON, a national nonprofit organization working to end hunger, testified to the House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Nutrition, that many lower ranking servicemembers are made ineligible for SNAP because their housing allowance is counted as income. MAZON contended that since BAH is excluded as income for the purposes of calculating income taxes and eligibility for some federal programs, such as Head Start, that BAH should be excluded as income for the purposes of determining eligibility for all food assistance programs. MAZON maintains that treating the BAH benefit as income for determining eligibility for SNAP puts some military families at an unfair disadvantage and disqualifies them from receiving food assistance. Military families facing financial hardship have access to government and charitable food assistance programs. As the administrator of FSSA and through the Status of Forces Survey that it periodically conducts, DOD has some data on the use of food assistance programs by active-duty servicemembers and their families. However, the survey is of limited usefulness because it does not address all the food assistance programs that servicemembers use. In addition, based on our interviews with DOD officials, DOD has not coordinated with and leveraged the information and access that other agencies, such as the USDA, have on servicemembers’ use of food assistance. USDA’s role as one of the primary administrators of food assistance programs in the U.S. is one source of information that DOD could use to better understand the extent to which such programs are used by active-duty servicemembers and their families. Without more complete data and determining whether it needs to assign specific department-level responsibility within DOD for monitoring food assistance use, DOD will continue to have a limited understanding of servicemembers’ food assistance needs and whether further actions are needed to help ensure that the basic needs of servicemembers and their families are met and that any existing gaps are not related to their service in the military. To more fully understand the food assistance needs that exist for active- duty servicemembers and their families, and to help ensure that DOD effectively targets its support to those in need of assistance, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to take the following two actions: Revise, as appropriate, any existing data-collection mechanisms, such as periodic surveys, to collect and analyze more complete data on the use of food assistance programs by servicemembers and their families and use the data to determine if any further actions are needed, such as assigning responsibilities at the department-level for monitoring the use of food assistance programs by active-duty servicemembers; and, Coordinate with USDA to leverage its access to data on active- duty servicemembers and their families who use its programs and services and consider outreaching to other organizations that have data on servicemembers’ use of food assistance. We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In its written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, DOD concurred with our first recommendation and partially concurred with our second recommendation. Specifically, DOD concurred with our first recommendation to revise, as appropriate, any existing data-collection mechanisms, such as periodic surveys, to collect and analyze more complete data on the use of food assistance programs by servicemembers and their families, and use the data to determine if any further actions are needed, such as assigning responsibilities at the department-level for monitoring the use of food assistance programs by active-duty servicemembers. DOD partially concurred with our second recommendation, to coordinate with USDA to leverage its access to data on active-duty servicemembers and their families who use its programs and services and consider outreaching to other organizations that have data on servicemembers’ use of food assistance. DOD noted in its comments that it concurred with most of the findings regarding visibility on servicemembers receiving food assistance programs but non-concurred with our statement that DOD has not coordinated with USDA to access its data on servicemember use of programs it administers. DOD stated that it has tried, for several years, to obtain SNAP data from USDA and that although the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 clarified that existing safeguards on SNAP recipient data do not prevent the disclosure of such information to DOD, it also did not mandate that USDA provide the data. Further, DOD stated that the Defense Manpower Data Center has been in contact with USDA to set up data exchange agreements, but that it has been unable to identify one source within USDA from which to obtain these data. We are encouraged by DOD’s recent efforts to work with USDA to obtain data that would provide the department with greater insight into the needs of its servicemembers. However, during the course of this review we spoke with DOD officials—on multiple occasions—in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness’ Military Compensation office, and at the Defense Manpower Data Center, among others, to discuss the department’s efforts to monitor servicemembers’ food assistance needs. We consistently found officials to be unaware of any previous such efforts by DOD until after passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 when we were provided, as noted in our report, an email exchange that occurred in February to March 2016 discussing how to use the new authority to obtain SNAP data. Importantly, no DOD official with whom we met believed that their office was responsible for such coordination with USDA. Furthermore, following the receipt of DOD’s comments on our draft report, we contacted the Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense, Manpower and Reserve Affairs to further inquire about the efforts it noted had previously been taken to obtain data from USDA. Specifically, we spoke with an official in that office who stated that three or four years earlier DOD tried to obtain data from USDA on servicemembers’ use of SNAP, but were unsuccessful. We requested, but DOD did not provide us with, any additional documentation to confirm this or other efforts to coordinate with USDA to access its data. We also recognize the inherent complexity of interagency coordination and believe DOD should continue its dialogue with USDA about ways in which it can leverage their access to data that would provide valuable insights into servicemembers’ needs. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@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 members who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. Our review focused on the food assistance programs available to active- duty servicemembers from the four military services—Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force—and their families. To assess the extent to which active-duty servicemembers and their families have access to government and charitable food assistance programs, we reviewed various reports and documents to identify federal government programs that focus primarily on providing food and nutrition assistance to low- income individuals and households. The reports and documents included: our related report, Domestic Food Assistance: Complex System Benefits Millions, but Additional Efforts Could Address Potential Inefficiency and Overlap among Smaller Programs; our related testimony, Domestic Food Assistance: Multiple Programs Benefit Millions of Americans, but Additional Action Is Needed to Address Potential Overlap and Inefficiencies, and a Congressional Research Service report on domestic food assistance programs, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs. For the purpose of this engagement, we focused on government and charitable food assistance programs available to active- duty servicemembers and their families who are assigned to installations within the continental United States. We interviewed officials from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Defense (DOD) to identify food assistance programs available to active-duty servicemembers and their families. Further, we interviewed officials who administer these programs at the federal, state, and local levels to obtain additional background information and confirm the availability and completeness of the food assistance programs we identified. To find charitable organizations that provide food assistance to active-duty servicemembers and their families, we interviewed officials from each of the military services who identified the following charities that support servicemembers and families: Army Emergency Relief, Air Force Aid Society, and Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society. Further, we conducted internet searches to identify charitable food pantries operating on military installations, and when one was located, we contacted local military service officials to confirm its existence. To assess the extent to which there was any variation in eligibility requirements for government food assistance programs, we reviewed the laws that established selected food assistance programs and analyzed eligibility criteria for these programs and used those eligibility criteria to develop scenarios to illustrate situations in which a servicemember would or would not qualify for these food assistance programs. Specifically, we conducted an analysis to show what a servicemember in the paygrade of E-4 needs to meet the income eligibility requirements for Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and School Breakfast Program (SBP) at the four military installations we visited. We selected the paygrade of E-4 because these servicemembers are junior enlisted personnel and as such are at the lower end of the pay scale for active-duty servicemembers. Also, FSSA program data for calendar year 2014 showed that the E-4 paygrade was the most frequent paygrade to receive this allowance, suggesting that personnel at this paygrade have a need for assistance. In calculating the servicemember’s income, we included only three types of military pay: Basic Pay, Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS), and Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) with dependent rate. We included these elements of military pay because active-duty servicemembers who are entitled to basic pay are also entitled to BAS and BAH. We did not include other military pay and allowances because active-duty servicemembers are not necessarily eligible for the other pay and allowances. Further, our analysis is based on the assumption that the only source of income for the household is the servicemembers’ military pay. Next, we reviewed relevant federal statutes to determine the income criteria for each of the programs and what types of military pay and allowances are included in active-duty servicemembers’ income when applying to one of these food assistance programs. Since federal law provides states some discretion in setting the income criteria for some of the food assistance programs and deciding what portion of military pay is included in income, we interviewed state officials to determine how they calculated the income of active-duty servicemembers and what specific income criteria they employ. The state’s income criteria are on a graduated scale that as the household size increases, the income level to qualify for benefits also increases. We compared the income of a servicemember in the paygrade of E-4 to the income criteria used by the state and determined how large a household the servicemember needed in order to qualify given his/her income. To determine the household size required to qualify for SNAP benefits, we made additional calculations with several assumptions. Applicants for SNAP must pass a two-income test, a gross-income test and a net- income test. Most households must meet gross- and net-income tests, but a household with an elderly person or a person who is receiving certain types of disability payments has to meet only the net-income test. We based our analysis on the assumption that the servicemembers had to pass both the gross- and net-income tests. To calculate net income, SNAP allows taking a number of deductions from the household income. In conducting our analysis, we assumed that the household does not include any elderly or disabled persons, there were no dependent care, medical expenses, or child-support deductions, the monthly rent or mortgage payment equaled the servicemember’s BAH, and the standard utility allowance was appropriate to use in the calculations. We had state or local officials responsible for the SNAP program in their area review our calculations to ensure they were correct. To assess the extent to which DOD has identified that active-duty servicemembers and their families use food assistance programs, we interviewed officials from multiple offices within Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD (P&R)) to determine which office(s) had department-level responsibilities related to active-duty servicemembers’ use of food assistance programs and to obtain any relevant data on servicemembers’ use of these programs. We reviewed DOD documents on the organization and assigned responsibilities of USD (P&R). We obtained and reviewed the results of recent surveys completed by active-duty servicemembers that include questions about the use of food assistance programs. Specifically, we obtained and reviewed DOD’s Status of Forces Survey of Active Duty Members for calendar year 2010, 2012, and 2013, the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey, FSSA data from the Defense Joint Military Pay System, and data on the number of students in DOD Education Activity (DODEA) schools who were eligible to receive free and/or reduced-price meals. We assessed the reliability of this information by interviewing responsible officials and, in the case of the Status of Forces Survey, reviewing documentation of the survey’s methodology. We found this information to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of reporting DOD’s awareness of military participants receiving these benefits. Also, we compared the data collection and communications processes for DOD with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, which state that management should obtain quality information to achieve its objectives and that it should communicate with external parties regarding the information that is needed to achieve its objectives. To obtain information on other food assistance programs available to servicemembers and their families for which data were not available, we visited four military installations in the United States and interviewed officials who administer these programs, officials who assist servicemembers in need, and visited food pantries, if any, on the installation. We selected sites to represent each of the military services. We then refined our site selections to include: locations with a large population of servicemembers and dependents, a range of cost-of-living areas (using the BAH rates), and the presence of a food pantry and/or a WIC program office on the military installation. Specifically, we visited Fort Hood, Texas; Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma; Naval Base San Diego, California; and Camp Pendleton, California. In addition, we visited and interviewed state and local officials who oversee non-military food assistance programs at these four geographic locations. Finally, we interviewed officials from the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society, Army Emergency Relief, and the Air Force Aid Society to learn what food assistance they provide to active-duty servicemembers and their families. To identify any challenges that active-duty servicemembers encounter when seeking food assistance, we interviewed military service officials who assist servicemembers in need of financial assistance, including food assistance, to gain their perspectives on any challenges that may be faced by servicemembers attempting to obtain such assistance. Specifically, we interviewed military Chaplains, First Sergeants and Command Master Chiefs, financial specialists, and officials from charitable military organizations, including the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society, the Air Force Aid Society, and Army Emergency Relief. We also interviewed private and local government officials who assist servicemembers with food assistance, such as SNAP, WIC, summer- meals programs, and food pantries. Further, we interviewed representatives from advocacy groups who support active-duty families or try to reduce hunger in America. Table 2 contains a list of organizations, offices, and military installations we visited or contacted during our review. We conducted this performance audit from July 2015 to July 2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. In our April 2010 report, we identified 18 programs that focus primarily on providing food and nutrition assistance to low-income individuals and households (see table 3). Federal food assistance programs provide different types of food benefits to address a variety of needs through a decentralized service delivery structure of federal, state, and local agencies and nonprofit organizations. In May 2015, we testified before Congress that in fiscal year 2014 the four largest food assistance programs—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the National School Lunch Program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, and the School Breakfast Program—accounted for 93 percent of total spending on the 18 programs. We further testified that SNAP, the largest program, accounted for more than 70 percent of the overall spending total. Fifteen of the programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one program is administered by the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency, and two programs are administered by the Health and Human Services’ Administration on Aging. We obtained copies of eligibility requirements for government food assistance programs that applicants—whether military or civilian—must meet to receive benefits, and this appendix summarizes requirements for the five programs commonly used by servicemembers and families. In this report, we describe income requirements and how income affects active-duty servicemembers’ eligibility for government food assistance programs. In addition to the income requirements, each of these programs has other requirements that must be met before one may receive benefits or, in some cases, provisions for specific groups to receive benefits without regard to the other eligibility requirements. The requirements for the five programs we found that servicemembers and families use are described below. Title 37, section 402a of the U.S. Code and DOD Instruction 1341.11 require members of the military services serving on active duty to meet the following requirements to receive FSSA: income, Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS), pay status, dependents, and application. a. Income: The income of the servicemember, together with the income of the rest of the household (if any) of that servicemember, must be within 130 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. b. BAS: Servicemembers must be receiving full or partial BAS. c. Pay status: Servicemembers must be in a pay status. When a servicemember is in a non-pay status for any reason, the servicemember is not eligible for FSSA during that non-pay period. d. Dependent: At least one person in the household of a servicemember must be a military dependent for that servicemember. e. Application: Servicemembers must apply and be certified to receive the FSSA payment. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 limited FSSA eligibility to only those servicemembers serving outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or Guam starting October 1, 2016. Eligibility requirements for SNAP benefits, as laid out in 7 U.S.C. §§ 2014 and 2015 and 7 C.F.R. Part 273, include criteria for financial resources, income, and employment. a. Resources: To be eligible for SNAP, households cannot have more than $2,250 in countable resources, such as a bank account, or $3,250 in countable resources if at least one person in the household is age 60 or older, or is disabled. However, certain resources are not counted, such as a home and lot, the resources of household members who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the resources of household members who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and most retirement (pension) plans. States may determine whether to include the value of a vehicle in countable resources, if the state vehicle allowance standards would result in a household incurring a lower attribution of resources. b. Income: Most households must meet gross- and net-income tests, but a household with an elderly person or a person who is receiving certain types of disability payments has to meet only the net-income test. A household’s gross income cannot exceed 130 percent of the federal poverty guidelines to receive SNAP benefits. Gross income means a household’s total, non-excluded income, before any deductions have been made. A household’s net income cannot exceed 100 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. According to the USDA, net income is gross income minus allowable deductions. Deductions allowed are: 20 percent of earned income; a standard deduction of $155 for household sizes of 1 to 3 people, and $168 for a household size of 4 (higher for some larger households); dependent-care expenses when needed for work, training, or medical expenses for elderly or disabled members that are more than $35 for the month if they are not paid by insurance or someone else; legally owed child-support payments, if a state agency chooses not to exclude child-support payments from income; and excess shelter costs that are more than half of the household’s income after the other deductions. Allowable shelter costs include the cost of fuel to heat and cook with, cooling, electricity, water, service fees for one telephone, rent or mortgage payments and property taxes. The amount of the shelter deduction cannot be more than $504 unless one person in the household is elderly or disabled. The limit is higher in Alaska, Hawaii and Guam. Some states allow homeless households to deduct a set amount ($143) for shelter costs. c. Employment requirement: In general, people must meet work requirements to be eligible for SNAP. An applicant is ineligible for SNAP if the individual refuses to register for work, accept an offer of employment, or participate in an employment and training program required by a state agency, or the individual voluntarily, and without good cause, quits a job or reduces hours. In addition, able-bodied adults without dependents are required to work or participate in a work program for at least 20 hours per week to receive SNAP benefits for more than 3 months in a 36-month period. Some special groups—including children, seniors, pregnant women, and people who are exempt for physical or mental health reasons—may not be subject to these requirements. The federal law regarding SNAP provides an additional pathway for financial eligibility to SNAP. This federal law makes households in which all members are either eligible for or receive cash benefits from TANF, SSI, or state-financed General Assistance (GA) programs automatically eligible for SNAP. These households, which have already gone through eligibility determination for those programs, bypass the income and resource tests described above and are deemed financially eligible. Further, under expanded eligibility rules, called “broad-based categorical eligibility,” states can allow households receiving noncash services funded by TANF to be automatically eligible for SNAP. States that adopt a broad-based categorical eligibility policy may increase limits on household gross income up to 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines. However, categorically eligible households have their SNAP benefits determined under the same rules as other households, and while the household may be categorically eligible, its income may be too high to actually receive a SNAP benefit. For WIC eligibility, as laid out in title 42, Section 1786 of the U.S. Code and 7 C.F.R. § 246.7, applicants must meet categorical, residential, income, and nutrition-risk requirements. a. Categorical requirement: The WIC program is designed to serve certain categories of individuals. Therefore, only the following categories of individuals are eligible for WIC: o Pregnant (women determined to have one or more fetuses in utero) o Postpartum (up to six months after the termination of pregnancy) o Breastfeeding (up to the infant’s first birthday) Infants (up to the infant’s first birthday) Children (between ages 1 and 5) b. Residential requirement: Applicants must live in the state in which they apply. At state agency option, applicants may be required to live in a local service area and apply at a WIC clinic that serves that area. Applicants are not required to live in the state or local service area for a certain amount of time in order to meet the WIC residency requirement. c. Income requirement: To be eligible for WIC, applicants must have income at or below an income level or standard set by the state agency or be determined automatically income-eligible based on participation in certain programs. Income standard: The state agency’s income standard must be between 100 percent and 185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials, all states have elected to raise the income standard to 185 percent of federal poverty guidelines. Automatic Income eligible: Some applicants can be determined income eligible for WIC based on their participation in certain programs. These include: individuals who are eligible to receive SNAP benefits, Medicaid, or TANF, individuals who have certain family members eligible to receive Medicaid or TANF, o At state agency option, individuals who are eligible to participate in certain other state-administered programs. d. Nutrition-Risk Requirement: To be certified as eligible for WIC, applicants must be determined to be at nutritional risk. A competent professional authority, such as a physician, registered nurse, or nutritionist, makes that determination through a medical and/or nutritional assessment. Examples of medical-based conditions include anemia (low blood levels), underweight, or history of poor-pregnancy outcome. A dietary-based condition includes, for example, a poor diet. Sections 1758 and 1773 of Title 42 in the U.S. Code require that applicants must meet income requirements to receive free or reduced- price lunches or breakfasts at schools or be a member of a certain group. The NSLP and the SBP are two different programs but they have the same eligibility requirements. a. Household income requirement: Children are eligible to receive a free meal if their household income is at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty guidelines or a reduced-price meal if their household income is between 130 and at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. b. Categorical (or automatic) eligibility requirement: Children are eligible to receive a free meal based on household participation in certain other need-tested programs or children’s specified vulnerabilities (e.g., foster children). A child shall be considered automatically eligible for a free lunch and breakfast without further application or eligibility determination if the child is: in a household receiving benefits through SNAP or Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations benefits or TANF cash assistance. Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations is a program that operates in lieu of or concurrently with SNAP on some Indian reservations; enrolled in Head Start; a runaway, or homeless. c. Community Eligibility Provision: A child can receive free meals if he or she attends a school that has decided to provide free meals to all its students under the Community Eligibility Provision. Community Eligibility Provision is an option in NSLP and SBP law that allows eligible schools and school districts to offer free meals to all enrolled students based on the percentage of their students who are identified as automatically eligible from non-household application sources, primarily direct certification through other programs. For a school (or school district, or group of schools within a district) to provide free meals to all children, the following must occur: the school(s) must be eligible for Community Eligibility Provision, based on the share (40 percent or greater) of its enrolled children that can be identified as categorically (or automatically) eligible for free meals, and the school must opt in to Community Eligibility Provision. In addition to the contact named above, Kay Brown, Rachel Frisk, Dawn Godfrey, Kevin Keith, Amie Lesser, Felicia Lopez, Tamiya Lunsford, Grant Mallie, Kimberly Mayo (Assistant Director), Shahrzad Nikoo, Sara Pelton, Richard Powelson, Monica Savoy, and John Van Schaik made key contributions to this report.

Summary: According to the Defense Commissary Agency, servicemembers on active duty spent over $21 million in SNAP benefits at commissaries from September 2014 through August 2015. This suggests that people serving our country may be having difficulty making ends meet. House Report 114-102 includes a provision that GAO review food assistance programs available to servicemembers. This report assesses, among other things, the extent to which (1) active-duty servicemembers and their families have access to food assistance programs and any variations in eligibility for these programs, and (2) DOD has identified the servicemembers' use of these programs. GAO reviewed information on government and charitable food assistance programs and policies. GAO also interviewed DOD and service officials at four installations that were selected based on size, cost of living, and presence of food assistance programs. Active-duty servicemembers and their families have access to food assistance through various government and charitable programs, but use of these programs varies, in part, on their ability to meet specific eligibility criteria. In an April 2010 report, GAO identified 18 government programs that provide food assistance to low-income households. Servicemembers may apply for and, if they qualify, receive benefits from any of these programs. However, servicemembers' eligibility for these programs can vary by program and location. For example, GAO found that it might be easier for servicemembers to qualify for Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) than Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) because WIC allows state agencies to exclude portions of a servicemember's pay when determining eligibility and SNAP does not. Also, charitable organizations, such as food pantries, are available to servicemembers in need of food assistance. The Department of Defense (DOD) has some data on servicemembers' use of food assistance programs it administers, but it does not know the extent that servicemembers use such programs because (1) it is not fully collecting or analyzing such information within the department, and (2) it has not coordinated with organizations such as U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to access their data on servicemembers' use of their programs. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management should use quality information to achieve its objectives. DOD has data on the number of servicemembers' children receiving free and reduced-price school meals at DOD Education Activity (DODEA) schools in the United States. For example, DODEA data for September 2015 showed that 24 percent of children in DODEA schools in the continental U.S. were eligible for free meals and 21 percent were eligible for reduced-price meals. A DOD survey also provides some information on servicemembers' use of food assistance programs such as SNAP. However, this survey is of limited usefulness in part because it does not inquire about other food assistance programs used by servicemembers such as National School Lunch Program; also no office within DOD is monitoring food assistance needs such as through survey data. Without more complete survey data, DOD will not understand the prevalence of need among servicemembers to effectively target its support and determine if it should assign department-level responsibility for monitoring food assistance needs. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government also state that management should communicate with external parties to obtain needed information. USDA has access to data on servicemembers' use of food assistance programs, but none of the DOD officials with whom GAO spoke were aware of efforts by the department to coordinate with USDA to access these data. For example, USDA administers SNAP benefits that, according to a 2013 U.S. Census Bureau survey, were used by about 23,000 active-duty servicemembers in the previous 12 months. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 included a provision to address the sharing of SNAP data between USDA and DOD; however, DOD does not have a coordination effort underway to access such data. Without such coordination, DOD will miss the opportunity to collect data on the needs of its servicemembers. GAO recommends that DOD (1) revise surveys of servicemembers to collect and analyze more complete data and, if warranted, implement actions such as assigning department-level responsibilities for monitoring food assistance; and (2) coordinate with USDA to access its usage information. DOD concurred with the first recommendation and partially concurred with the second, stating that it has tried to coordinate with USDA. GAO continues to believe the recommendation is valid, as discussed in this report.